It’s Disturbing That The Consolidation Issue Has Created An “Us and Them” Atmosphere

To the Editor:

I am wholeheartedly in favor of consolidating the Borough and Township of Princeton. Having lived in both municipalities, I feel as protective of the vibrant downtown as I do about the preserved open spaces in the Township. One should not need a ticket to enjoy the pleasures of either. It is disturbing that an “us and them” atmosphere has arisen over this issue.

In addition to the Commission’s report of significant cost savings after consolidaton, common sense dictates that to be the case. We currently have two municipal bodies, two administrators, two clerks, two affordable housing coordinators, two financial officers, two engineering departments, two zoning departments, two construction departments, two tax departments, two police departments, two superintendents of public works, two TV stations, two municipal courts, two law firms on retainer and a myriad of duplicated boards and/or commissions — all for fewer than 28,000 residents. And there are two municipal buildings to maintain along with a host of duplicated vehicles and equipment. This is clearly a case of too much government at too great a cost. Consolidation does not mean massive layoffs. A thoughtful plan over a period of years could take advantage of retirement and/or resignation of employees.

California, the third largest state in the country, has 481 municipalities. New Jersey, the fourth smallest state, has 566 municipalities. This is home rule run amok and we can no longer afford it. Let’s join forces and become a strong, united Princeton.

Sandra Persichetti
Princeton Township

The Public Is Getting a Biased View Of the Consequences of Consolidation

To the Editor:

Having recommended consolidation, the Consolidation Commission is now engaged in a marketing blitz. The Commission doesn’t like the word “marketing” yet they discussed the possibility of hiring a marketing expert to help them sell the recommendation. They have planned a large number of meetings to “inform the public” but the public will be ‘informed’ with a biased view of what municipal merger will mean to the residents of the Princetons. There will be little or no discussion of the disadvantages of consolidation.

The case against consolidation in fact is very strong. With consolidation, Borough residents lose guaranteed representation on the Borough Council, the School Board, the Planning Board, the Recreation Board, and all advisory boards. In addition, Borough homeowners will lose 2/3 of the property tax benefit that they would otherwise receive from the Hulfish North development and from future building on the hospital site. Borough taxpayers will pay 1/3 of the cost of new curbs and new sidewalks and maintenance of an extensive Township road network (103 miles) and let’s not forget the $1.7M plus estimated transition costs.

Moreover, the projected property tax savings is negligible — $201 for the average Borough property owner and $240 for the average Township property owner — even though property tax reform is the prime motivation behind Governor Christie’s push for municipal consolidation. With respect to the “Secondary Impacts” that depend on future State and County equalization ratios, much of those promised savings will disappear in short order as the State and County equalization ratios readjust every year.

Roz Warren
Jefferson Road

Yina Moore Supporter Reminds Democrats That Party Identity Matters at the Local Level

To the Editor:

I am writing to enthusiastically endorse Yina Moore for Mayor of Princeton Borough.

I ask my Democratic neighbors who might be considering voting for a Republican mayor to ask themselves: What makes a candidate a Republican and what makes a candidate a Democrat? Party identity reflects a deep philosophical divide. It matters, even at the local level.

For example, Republicans give more importance to individual property rights in land use matters. One of the most important roles for the mayor and Council is in shaping the future of our community through zoning policy. Similarly, Republicans are less likely to value social programs like Human Services, Corner House, and Affordable Housing, agencies with very small budgets but which provide valuable services to residents who need them. In this way our government reflects our values as a community.

Yina has excellent credentials, with an AB from Princeton University and a Masters in real estate development from MIT. She is a longtime resident of Princeton Borough and has a record of commitment to the vitality of our downtown, our merchants, and our historic neighborhoods. Her deep roots in the community and her experience in government as a Planning Board member have well prepared her to hit the ground running as mayor. 

By electing Yina we will not only affirm our identity as a progressive community that embraces Democratic values and ideals. We will also be choosing the best person for the job.

Jenny Crumiller
Library Place

JFormer Township Mayor Endorses “Recognized Leader” Jill Jachera

To the Editor:

As Mayor of Princeton Township I proposed consolidation with the Borough of Princeton on New Year’s Day 1996. As we all know, that last effort was unsuccessful. In a few short weeks, the voters will once again consider the important issue of merger.

But this letter is not about the pros and cons of municipal consolidation. This letter addresses the importance of having the best possible leadership in place to address the considerable challenges that lie ahead, no matter what the outcome is on November 8.

Having a unique perspective on what potentially lies ahead, I am endorsing Jill Jachera’s candidacy for the office of mayor of Princeton Borough. Jill is a recognized leader with a strong sense of community and purpose. Her contributions to Princeton have been numerous and significant.

I have known Jill for several years, having served with her on the YWCA Princeton Board of Directors. While Jill was president of the Board of the YWCA Princeton, in partnership with the YWCA Trenton, it launched “Stand Against Racism,” an event which has transitioned from a local event to a national event. The ongoing success of that event demonstrated Jill’s willingness to collaborate with other organizations to achieve a shared goal.

Jill’s leadership in the boardroom also led to the development of a five-year strategic plan for the YWCA, ensuring it would be a centerpiece in the community where children and families could grow and develop their fullest potential. During her 10-year tenure as a Board member, she worked alongside community organizers, business leaders, and the University, building support among various coalitions and fulfilling a vision to create a strong community. In addition to being smart, Jill has an unwavering passion and commitment to Princeton.

Jill has been an advocate and strong defender for excellence in education and very engaged in the (former) Valley Road Child Care Center for years. She also created the St. Nicholas Project more than 10 years ago, providing hundreds of families not only with gifts at Christmas, but additional resources to meet the hard challenges many parents confront day-to-day.

As mayor, Jill will be able to build on an already great foundation of partnerships — both private and public. Her thoughtful consideration and thoroughness in looking for the right solutions will ensure sound decisions are made for the good of Princeton.

It has been my policy since my stint in elective office, to stay out of Borough politics. I chose to become involved at this time because consolidation is an issue that affects me as a resident of Princeton Township, and because of my extensive experience with the issue the last time it was considered by the municipalities. Whether the outcome is a four year term, or for a single year, I believe that Jill Jachera has the intellectual, interpersonal, and visionary qualities to be a terrific mayor. I am proud to be her friend and offer my support to her campaign.

Michele Tuck-Ponder
Laurel Circle

On the Importance of Understanding Consolidation’s Liabilities, Realities

To the Editor:

Given my personal experience in consolidating service organizations, two items struck me as serious omissions while reading the Full Final Report, Princeton Consolidation and Shared Services Commission, June 22, 2011. I was involved both in consolidating a small unit of a major pharmaceutical company into a larger unit of the company, and as a small business owner, I led efforts to integrate my business into the acquiring company. Both instances required huge expenditures of labor in order to integrate procedures, rules, systems, and people. A service organization, whether it is a regulated analytical testing laboratory or a municipal government, must operate by rules, regulations, and procedures. Consolidating two organizations will require rewriting, revising, and updating of Township and Borough regulations and police department standard operating procedures. My experience shows this procedure is a huge cost of consolidation in terms of people’s time, which of course means huge monetary costs. The commission report does not even list $1 in costs for any of these activities, just capital improvement and minor legal fees. In addition, it does not state who will carry out this immense task, certainly not the people who will lose their jobs.

The second omission in the report concerns the reality of organizations. The report implies that the consolidated organization will operate with fewer people than the sum of the two. The report does not reference any history or studies of consolidating municipal governments where savings were achieved, and based on my experience, larger service organizations have more overhead, more middle management, and are less responsive to those they serve. We have to look no further than the center of Princeton Borough and ask how many vice presidents and regional managers work at Starbucks and how many work at Small World Coffee?

Arguments for consolidation such as “I just know it is the right thing to do” or “Of course it makes sense” without a full understanding of the liabilities and realities of consolidation will surely leave residents of Princeton Borough with reduced services, less representation, and a higher tax burden for the foreseeable future.

Robert Dodge
Maple Street

Three Choices for Two Communities Facing “Stark Economic Realities”

To the Editor:

I support consolidation. I think it will give us a more accountable local government, unify and strengthen our neighborhoods, and ensure a vital, thriving downtown. I think it will also provide us with substantial cost savings and lower our taxes. Most importantly, I think consolidation will allow us to maintain the quality of life and public services that we have come to expect living in Princeton.

For those who attended or watched the joint municipality meeting on consolidation at Borough Hall on September 27, the evening ended on a sobering note. The last audience member to speak, who happened to be against consolidation, said “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” Each member of the Borough Council and Township Committee then spoke directly to that question. In their individual responses, they made it clear that, after more than three years of small or no budget increases in each municipality, and after decreasing payrolls through attrition, along with taking other more aggressive cost saving measures, there are no more substantial savings to be made unless we start eliminating complete services or whole programs like Corner House and Affordable Housing. In the words of one Township Committeeperson, “The budgets have been scrubbed clean.” 

So what choices do our two communities have in terms of responsibly facing the stark economic realities of the long-term readjustment in our national and local economies? 

Choice No. 1: Remain separate municipalities and raise taxes to maintain our current level of public services and quality of life.

Choice No. 2: Remain separate municipalities at our current tax levels and watch the level of our public services and quality of life erode.

Choice No. 3: Consolidate into one unified community, lower our taxes, and increase the level of our public services and enhance our quality of life.

I feel certain none of us want to see our taxes increase or the level of our public services decrease.

Consolidation gives us the best opportunity to make sure that Princeton remains an affordable, economically vibrant, and culturally rich community for all of us for decades to come.

Jon Durbin
Mt. Lucas Rd.

A Response to the Admonition That Borough Residents Should “Man Up”

To the Editor:

In response to Joshua Leinsdorf’s letter in the October 5 Mailbox admonishing Borough residents because we are “punching above our weight” (see David and Goliath) and urging us to “grow up and man up,” I would like to say that I find this quite insulting. We’ve managed to govern and manage the Borough for the past 198 years quite successfully. Well enough for the Township to want to join us; this is the seventh such request. Shared services were mutually agreed upon and at times not necessarily to our advantage. One of the big perks for the Township would be garbage collection. One would think the Township would have afforded their resident taxpayers this service without waiting for consolidation. Township residents don’t need to “punch their weight, man up or grow up” because they and we are doing fine. If consolidation is such a good idea why are not more towns doing it?

Consolidation is not needed, wanted, or beneficial to either the Township or Borough. Neither can afford the costs or the turmoil that will result. Vote no on consolidation!

Joseph King
Linden Lane

For information on how to submit Letters to the Editor, click here.

Return to Top | Go to Obituaries