To the Editor:

Assembly Bill 2586 has been fast tracked through the legislative process to allow for an exemption for private colleges and universities from local land-use regulations. Proponents of the measure stress they only seek “parity” with public colleges that were granted such exemptions by a state Supreme Court decision, which recognized the “vital public mission served by those [public] institutions in educating the citizens of the State.” No such bill has been introduced, however, to give parity for the local property taxpayers.

In fact, by granting private colleges the green light to build anything they desire within the confines of a given municipality without local land use scrutiny would increase local taxes over the long haul. For instance, if a private college were to build a new dorm along main street without the need to meet local zoning restrictions, local taxpayers would be stuck with paying for the increased demand for parking, traffic improvements, police protection, and the like. This would certainly exacerbate things for property taxpayers.

Moreover, while one can make the argument that by granting land-use exemptions for public institutions, there is at least the check by state government that ultimately approves decisions for these public institutions. This is not the case for the private colleges, which see little if any, oversight from the state. Imagine if Princeton University, with its $17-plus billion endowment, decided to buy up land in the downtown community of Princeton. Arguably, they could build whatever they like without any intervention from local planning or zoning boards. No local input would be required.

The lack of public oversight would unnecessarily upset the partnerships developed between private colleges and their host communities. It would be more likely that close relationships would now be forged with commercial developers eager to build. Local taxpayers, who would now solely bear the burden of increased development without compensation, would be witness to the erosion of harmony that now exists in many town-gown communities.

Proponents however argue that there is a safeguard in the law. They argue even with the exemption, a private university’s exemption from local land-use laws is not unlimited and must be “exercised in a reasonable fashion as to not arbitrarily override legitimate local interests.” What does that mean? you may ask. It means that litigation would likely result to decide whether a given project does “override legitimate local interests,” thereby giving a boon to land-use attorneys. Local taxpayers would be left to foot the legal bill.

Finally, with New Jersey at an inexcusable ranking for high property taxes, local zoning boards and municipal regulations are the check to keep costs at a bearable burden. Without this check on public colleges, these institutions can swallow up the municipalities, and local property taxpayers will be left with crumbs at the next ground breaking. Again, it begs the question, where is the parity in all of this for local property taxpayers?

Reed Gusciora

Assemblyman 15th District.