Why I'm Running for Princeton Borough Council in 2005
1. The Downtown Development
The municipal portion of real estate taxes in Princeton Borough have risen by 30% in the past 3 years. One big reason is the downtown development.
The old park and shop lots on Spring and Tulane Street used to produce about $650,000 a year for the borough budget. The downtown development turned this $650,000 surplus into a $710,958 deficit last year, with an estimated $153,466 deficit next year and $452,400 deficit in 2006.
In other words, the downtown development is costing the taxpayers about $300,000 a year, so it's no surprise borough taxes rose by 30%. Every $100,000 that the borough spends translates into 1¢ on your tax rate. The borough tax rate has risen from 68¢ in 2002, before the downtown development, to 89¢ in 2005. Three of that 21¢ increase is due to the downtown development. But seeing as the governing body claimed that the downtown development would benefit the taxpayers by producing a surplus, the question remains, "Why did the council get it so wrong?"
Using public powers for private purposes
The reason the downtown development is costing taxpayers money is because the project was implemented in an unethical way. The borough designated the downtown as "an area in need of redevelopment." This designation enabled the borough to borrow money without the consent of the voters and let it exempt the private, luxury, Witherspoon House from taxes for 10 years. Apartments in Witherspoon House rent for up to $3,500 a month. According to an article in US 1, "Tenants...include corporate people, couples who have recently downsized from houses and don't know what to do next, and part-time residents for whom Princeton is a second - or third - home."
Instead, the borough negotiated a $100,000 payment in lieu of taxes, known as a PILOT. Normally, Witherspoon House would pay $148,830 in taxes: $36,490 to the Borough; $69,290 to the schools; and $40,280 to the county. In other words, the borough council is lining its own pocket and subsidizing luxury housing with school and county taxes. Should you be subsidizing other people's third homes with your school taxes?
The law permitting designating "an area in need of redevelopment" was designed to encourage private investment in depressed or abandoned inner-city areas; it was not intended to be used to enable local governments to become dictators over some of the most valuable real estate in New Jersey. Over 800 people signed a petition against the downtown development when it turned out that the council had misrepresented the effects of the "area in need of redevelopment" designation.
Three years ago, there were two independent candidates who ran for council against the downtown development. The Democratic candidates, David Goldfarb and Mildred Trotman, refused to debate or appear at a joint forum with the independent candidates. Then, after the election in which the Democrats ducked debates, Councilman Goldfarb declared that the election result was a mandate for the downtown development.
So, is it any surprise that the project is leaking from the top and the bottom and hemorrhaging dollars from the borough budget. The roof of Witherspoon House leaks. The basement of the garage leaks and needs at least $400,000 worth of remedial repairs. Now, the borough council wants to deal with the Princeton Hospital site. Why should people who have botched the downtown development so badly be entrusted with another redevelopment project? Real estate development is not a government function in the first place.
Permit Parking at the High School
While the Borough Council is busy reaching into your pocket to subsidize private luxury housing downtown, it is simultaneously denying you use of government property for which you already pay. No wonder taxes are up 30% over three years.
Some long-time Democratic party campaign contributors suddenly decided they don't want high school students parking in front of their houses. They bought their houses close to the high school, but now they want the amenities of a private community. The council was happy to oblige.
The council instituted a "Permit parking" system. You paid for the signs. You're paying for the permits, too. In order to satisfy these generous, public spirited neighbors, $1,400 of school funds is paid to the Borough every year for parking permits for students. You pay for the street. Now, you're paying for permits for people to park on the street. So, no wonder you're taxes rose 30% in the past three years. Taxes are used to subsidize private, luxury housing; while public assets are "privatized." So, you're paying more and more taxes for less and less.
Education is the economic base of Princeton. What kind of public official supports a system where parents get parking tickets for attending back-to-school night and student get parking tickets for driving to school because of bureaucratic delays in issuing the parking permits?
The Snowden Lane Sidewalk
At the same time that the Borough Council is charging you for parking on the streets that you already pay for, it is obstructing the construction of sidewalks. Just like the high school neighbors who don't want kids parking in front of their houses, the Snowden Lane residents don't want kids walking to school in front of their houses.
What's the alternative? A school bus costing $700 per student per year would be required. Did the borough council care that a $25,000 sidewalk, only half of which was public funds, would save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in school bus costs over the next 30 years? No. All they cared about was that 12 borough voters on Snowden Lane didn't want a sidewalk in front of their house and, seeing as the front of their house was in Princeton Township, the council refused to help. No wonder taxes rose 30% over the past three years.
Return to Joshua Leinsdorf for Princeton Borough Council Homepage