Why is Governor Christie giving away a public right-of-way to a private institution?

The letter below has been sent to Governor Christie and the New Jersey Transit Board of Directors by the Princeton Borough Mayor and Council. Normally, abandonment of rail requires a public hearing, but the University and New Jersey Transit may argue that the relatively short distance of track involved exempts the decision from airing in public. However, given the value of the historic Dinky to to the community, the value of the convenience to commuters, and the value of the real estate to the University, we believe a public hearing is called for.

To Governor Chris Christie and the New Jersey Transit Board of Directors:

As Mayor and Council of the Borough of Princeton, we value our walkable mass transit link to the Northeast Corridor, and we are committed to take whatever steps we can to maintain it. Accordingly, we respectfully request a public hearing on New Jersey Transit’s proposal to truncate rail service on the Princeton branch (the “Dinky”) and to prematurely abandon the public transportation easement for the station, rail line and parking lot that New Jersey Transit retained when it sold the underlying property to Princeton University in 1984.

This decision will have an adverse effect on pedestrian access to the Dinky. It should be made openly, in public, and on the basis of objective analyses. The easement and the transit right of way it secures constitute valuable public assets. They should not be given away to a private entity without the soundest public policy justification and any such transfer should be accompanied by adequate compensation.

As you know, the Princeton Branch rail line has been described by New Jersey Transit officials as one of its better performing lines. Retaining the service in its present location, connected to the center of town by sidewalk and adjacent to a public street, is in the public interest. The proposed move would marginalize the station and impose new impediments to both walkers and drivers – an additional street crossing and a steep slope for walkers and three additional traffic intersections for drivers. Creative solutions are available that would preserve the Dinky service in its current location while accommodating the University’s plans for its arts campus. As a fiduciary for the traveling public, we urge you to schedule a full public hearing so that such solutions can be explored in a context that gives proper weight to the public interest in sustainable and walkable mass transit.

Sincerely,
Mayor and Council

.Letter to former Mayor Mildred Trotman outlining procedure for removal of the Dinky.

The February 16th Historic Sites Council hearing ended with the Council’s decision to table a resolution giving New Jersey Transit conditional approval for its application to remove 480 feet of track and prematurely abandon the public transporation easement to the site.   Click link for draft resolution.   The draft resolution was based on the materials presented by  NJTransit in its Application.   The Council listened closely to public comments and concerns and ultimately decided to table the issue until it had a clearer understanding of the facts and the legal issues.   The next hearing is scheduled for April 19th, at 10 a.m., in the DEP hearing room, 401 East State Street, Trenton, NJ.   For press coverage leading up to the hearing, see:  Town Topics; Planet Princeton; US One; Princeton Patch.  For post hearing coverage, see:  Trenton Times;  Princeton Packet;  Daily Princetonian, Town Topics.    For an op-ed on current and past adaptive reuse issues in Princeton, see this op-ed by Anne Neumann in the March 9 Packet.

Continue reading →

Update: The Council voted to table the decision until the next meeting, after they get more information, including the status of the lawsuits.

Dinky Track Removal Application (pdf)
Supplement to application regarding removal of public easement (pdf)

This review will take place on Thursday, February 16. 2012, at 10 a.m. in the DEP Public Hearing Room, lst Floor, 401 East State Street, in Trenton. The Dinky track removal is now the FIRST ITEM on the agenda. Please note that the previously posted agenda does not have the correct order. For the revised agenda, see http://www.nj.gov/dep/hpo/2protection/hsc_agnda_2_16_12.pdf

The good news is that the state, at least, recognizes that the proposal to move the Dinky terminus will erase a significant piece of Princeton’s history by severing the station buildings from the terminus. If you value Princeton’s history and would like to see the University develop its arts complex in a way that preserves its history, this is a meeting that you should attend

Download New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places – Mercer County

See the listing on page 8:
Princeton Railroad Station (ID#1742)
University Place
SR: 3/17/1984
NR: 9/29/1984
(Thematic Nomination of Operating Passenger Railroad)

Note that the application makes no mention of community opposition and it claims that the track removal and the removal of the easement are necessary for the campus expansion.
Borough Council Resolution Against Moving the Dinky

Note also that NJ Transit has no factual basis, other than the University’s assertion, for the claim that the project will alleviate traffic congestion. The University ignored the impact of shifting Dinky-related traffic from University Place onto to Alexander Road.

NOTE: PU has revised its plans:  click here to view the new plan.
Download letter from PU to Planning Board explaining changes and providing a project update.

Eliminating current public right of way	Shortening the tracks and relocating the station
Click on the maps for more detail. Note: Right of Way is approximate. Click here for pdf of University-prepared map showing the area.

From Planet Princeton

David Goldfarb

Longtime Princeton Borough Councilman David Goldfarb used his goodbye speech last night as an opportunity to criticize Princeton University for underfunding the town and using threats to advance the school’s agenda.

It was quite the swan song, and one more reminder that Goldfarb has always  marched to his own beat and been an independent thinker on the council.

“After 21 years, I’m retiring from the Borough Council for health reasons,” Goldfarb said at the start of his speech. “I’m fine, as far as I know. It’s my fellow Democrats who got sick of me.”

“Still, one never knows what’s around the corner, and I’d like to leave with a clear conscience,” he said. “I know that I have annoyed, angered, offended, and disappointed many people in this room and many other residents, staff members, and elected officials. I apologize, and I ask for your forgiveness.”

Then Goldfarb said he wasn’t quite finished annoying, angering, offending, and disappointing.

“I’d like to devote some of the few minutes that I have left to that non-profit educational institution across the street that shares the name of our town,” Goldfarb said. “During all of my time on the Council, its leaders have been unfailingly cooperative and responsible while asking for nothing in return other than to be treated fairly. Its students have devoted many hours to a large number of good causes in the community, and only a tiny fraction of them attract the attention of our police department or bother their neighbors. I’m speaking, of course, of the Princeton Theological Seminary.”

Goldfarb said the town is fortunate to have such a fine institution in the community, adding that the rest of the community would do well to adopt the seminary’s community values.

“I wish I could honestly say the same of Princeton University, but I can’t,” Goldfarb said. “With financial resources that dwarf those of virtually all other colleges and universities in the world, Princeton University still demands that the residents of our town subsidize it. On top of that, its president threatened to reduce its inadequate contribution in lieu of taxes if the town didn’t comply with the University’s wishes.

“When President Tilghman presented us with her ultimatum last year, we should have called her bluff,” he said.  “Instead, the leaders of our town capitulated, emboldening the University to make similar threats in the future. I hope that the town and the University will work together to restore the mutually respectful relationship that we enjoyed under prior University administrations.”

Goldfarb suggested a commitment from the university to leave the Dinky in place would be a good place to start.

“Finally, I’d like to thank the residents, my present and former colleagues, and the Borough employees for their many kindnesses over the years,” Goldfarb said. “Those who have thanked me for my service should understand that I did it because I enjoyed it and that I’m now content to leave the work to others. I congratulate Mayor Trotman on her retirement from office, and I wish everyone a happy and successful new year.”

The following letter was published in the local papers and the Planet Princeton website in December:

On behalf of Save the Princeton Dinky, I would like to thank Borough Council for its thoughtful attention to the community mobility issues raised by the proposed relocation of the Dinky. When it approved the E-5 arts campus zoning at its December 6 hearing, council sent a clear message that the university’s plan to move the Dinky terminus away from the town center reflects bad public policy.

The E-5 zone approved by council permits development for the arts, but, as council has recognized, the new zoning does not require relocation of the Dinky. In fact, no member of the public who spoke on December 6 in favor of passing the zoning now, without immediate protection for the Dinky right of way, argued that moving the Dinky is a good idea.

Our community has a strong commitment to the arts but it has an equally strong commitment to sustainable development. It believes that mobility is valuable and worth preserving. The community sentiment is clear: Princeton supports the university’s arts campus. Princeton does not want the university to move the Dinky downhill and away from Nassau Street.

As the process continues, let us hope that the views of the community and of Borough Council will encourage the university to re-imagine its arts campus as one that can go forward by embracing the Dinky, not displacing it.

Anita Garoniak

Less than a week after the election, the Township Committee folded its tent and gave the University carte blanche for development plans that involve moving the Dinky out of the Borough into the campus service zone. Fortunately, Borough Council continues to seek ways to preserve the Dinky terminus and/or the right of way for an eventual extension of light rail to Nassau Street. Council will hold two critical meetings that Dinky supporters should attend.

* One is this Tuesday, November 29th, at Borough Hall beginning at 7:30 p.m. The meeting is a special meeting at which Council will consider the transit-only zone proposal and will also consider an ordinance that would impose a special improvement district (SID) on the Alexander Street/University place area. If you cannot attend, please use the email addresses below to make your views known to Council members
* The second meeting is next Tuesday, December 6th, at Borough Hall at 7:30 pm. At this meeting, Borough Council will hold its final hearing on the Arts and Transit ordinance. If the transit-only zone succeeds, we hope that the zone will be incorporated in an appropriate way in the ordinance. If not, we urge you to oppose the ordinance. We do not believe that Council should approve an ordinance that would degrade our mass transit link to the junction.

Below we give additional thoughts on the SID and transit-only ordinances slated for discussion tomorrow, on November 29th.

(l) SID We believe that Council should defer action on the SID ordinance. We propose a deferral because the public has not had a chance to discuss it. From what we understand, the SID ordinance would be the only one in New Jersey to attempt to impose a Special Improvement District on property that is almost entirely owned by a tax-exempt entity. If great rewards could come from this, it might be worth it. However, our best guess is that there would be no great rewards. SID special assessments are a pittance compared to property taxes, and all special assessment money is directed to improvements in the SID area. This is not an ordinance that would provide tax relief to Borough taxpayers. Assuming the University did not challenge the ordinance, however, we would expect the University to “count” the special assessments toward satisfaction of whatever moral obligation the University feels about the levelof its PILOT payments. However, it seems likely that there would be a legal challenge since it would be an entirely novel proposition to place tax-exempt lands in an SID under a statute that was designed to promote downtown business revitalization. The likely prospect would be that money would be spend in protracted litigation with the result that the effort would be lost or that the University would end up with more control, not less control, over the Alexander Street corridor. We do not think this is a good outcome. In terms of risks to Borough taxpayers, the SID seems much, much riskier than the transit-only zone.

(2) TRANSIT ONLY ZONE
The transit-only zone would designate the area of the existing Dinky right of way for transit-only uses. This would preserve the possibility of a relatively straight path to Nassau for light rail even if the Dinky terminus were moved southward, as the University proposes. Objections were raised at the last Council meeting that the University might challenge the zone as inverse “spot zoning” or as inverse condemnation. We do not think these objections are persuasive. The University can, obviously, challenge any zoning determination that displeases it. However, since this area has been used for transit for over 150 years and since this use is consistent with the Master Plan, we believe that this zoning treatment reflects sound public policy. As for the condemnation argument, if a court were to accept it, Council could surely turn to Henry Posner who proposed to fund an outright acquisition of the area through eminent domain. Finally, all of the arguments depend on the University’s claim that it has a right to move the Dinky and privatize the right of way under the 1984 contract. That claim is contested and is the subject of a lawsuit that Save the Dinky and individual plaintiffs have filed. Borough Council, because of these factors, should do the right thing for the public and impose a transit-only zone on the area.

We should also note that Council members Wilkes and Martindell raised certain technical concerns about the transit-only ordinance based on the objection that it could not provide a “straight shot” to Nassau street without ploughing through an existing building. These concerns were surprising, since the “straight shot” phrase has always been used not as a math phrase but instead as a metaphor for a route to Nassau that would involve an angle over to University and up University. A transit-only ordinance can be drafted to encompass the necessary angle.

Finally, we note that Council member Trelstad raised a point that was real and non-trivial. She pointed out that some of the Dinky right-of-way that will be lost with the proposed Dinky move is right-of-way in the Township. She then asked whether the University could not simply thwart the goal of a transit-only zone by building on the right-of-way in the Township. We would answer her questions as follows: If preserving the right of way is sound public policy that serves the general welfare of Borough residents, Borough Council should do this and should hope that the Township follows its lead with a similar ordinance. Even if the Township does not follow the lead of the Borough, we would hope that in a consolidated Princeton the new Princeton Council would extend the transit-only zone to cover the land in the former Township that was not subject to this zoning.

(3) Four reasons why Council should create a transit-only zone for the Dinky right of way:

First, the University can build its Arts campus without moving the Dinky.

Second, the Dinky provides a crucial mass transit link to the Junction that reasonably accessible to pedestrians living in the core population center of Princeton. The housing developments in progress at Palmer square and that are proposed for the hospital site make the preservation of pedestrian access all the more important.

Third, the proposed move of the Dinky will inconvenience pedestrians, will also add to the drive time of those who drop off passengers or park at the Dinky, and will inevitably add to traffic and lose ridership.

Fourth, the University’s two major reasons for the move may reflect its own preferences but are not in the public interest.

(A) The University wants to build a road from Alexander Street to facilitate employee-access to its Lot 7 garage. This argument places a higher value on automobile commuter convenience than on the accessibility to a mass transit link that serves Princeton residents, many of whom live here because of “walkability.” Issues of access to the garage should not be resolved by devaluing a walkable mass transit link.

(B) The University also also argues that for safety reasons it does not want a train in its new arts plaza area. This argument makes no sense at all in light of the University’s development plans. The University proposes to create a traffic circle at University and a new left-turn lane on Alexander that would provide employee access to the garage and drive-in access to the Dinky. These plans will increase the risk of accidents from vehicular and/or vehicular-pedestrian collisions and certainly involve greater risks than those posed by the Dinky in its current location. In addition, the University has failed to explain why it is more worried about train accidents from the current Dinky location than it would be from the light rail route proposed in the MOU.

We hope that you will reflect on these arguments, attend the meeting on Tuesday, or–if not–send an email to Borough Council members expressing your views. Supporters of the University’s plan to move the Dinky often claim that those who oppose it are a bunch of “squeaky wheel” uncultured soreheads who do not appreciate the benefits that will flow to us all from the arts campus plan. If you would like to see the Dinky stay where it is or if you believe that its right of way should be zoned for transit-only use to preserve an efficient future route to Nassau Street, please, please make your voices heard.

Email addresses for Borough Council members:

Jo Butler jo.butler@verizon.net
Jenny Crumiller jenny@crumiller.com
Roger Martindell martindell.law@gmail.com
Barbara Trelstad btrelstad@gmail.com>
Kevin Wilkes kwilkes@pdguild.net

Thank you,
Save the Dinky

This is a brief news flash on the results of today’s election. Both the Township and the Borough voted to consolidate. Yina Moore won the Borough Mayoral race by a margin of 100 votes. The Democratic Council candidates won with larger margins.

The Borough Mayoral candidates had clear differences of opinion on how to proceed with the Dinky issue. The Republican favored acquiescing to the University’s claim of right to move it and proceeding to implement an MOU study that would consider an alternative route to Nassau via Alexander Street. Yina Moore favors continued dialogue with the University to persuade it to rethink the plan to relocate the Dinky.

As we move forward with planning for a consolidated Princeton, we hope the University will heed the message from the electorate and reconsider its plans to relocate the Dinky terminus.

Save the Dinky does not endorse candidates. However, there are clear differences between the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate on the Dinky issue.

The Democratic candidate, Yina Moore, is a professional planner, with extensive experience in transit planning and policy. She takes the position that the proposal to move the Dinky is bad public policy because it will discourage pedestrian users and encourage more commuters to get to the Junction by automobile. In the debate sponsored by the League of Women voters, she stated that the question for the public should not be whether the University has a right to move the Dinky but whether it is the right thing to do. She would continue to work to persuade the University to change its mind. She believes the University can build the arts campus with the Dinky in its current location.

The Republican candidate, Jill Jachera, is a former employment law attorney who now counsels employers. She does not believe that anyone wants the Dinky moved. In an October 4 statement to Borough Council, she argued that the public may desire the terminus to stay where it is but said that there is a difference between desires and rights and that the public should accept that the University has a right to move it. In the LWV debate, she indicated her view that if the University does not get its requested zoning for the arts campus the University will move the station anyway. In this worst case scenario, the public would lose the current Dinky location and would lose the arts campus. She worried that continued resistance to the University’s campus plans will annoy the University and may impair negotiations for their voluntary contribution to the Borough. She would embrace the MOU and work on the study of alternative mass transit options to Nassau Street.

For a fuller statement of the two candidates views, see the verbatim transcript of answers given at the League of Women Voters debate and also see the written answers given to League question that can be found under the post “Mayoral candidates respond to League of Women Voters’ question about A&E District and the Dinky” Information can also be found on the candidates’ websites.

Borough Council Candidates:

Democratic Candidates
Barbara Trelstad (incumbent) : Voted for a resolution in June urging the University and New Jersey Transit to reconsider the plan to relocate the Dinky. Has consistently argued that moving it further away from Nassau Street is bad public policy.
While reiterating belief that the plan to relocate the Dinky is bad public policy, voted to approve the the Memorandum of Understanding with the Township and Princeton University, stating that MOU would allow much needed traffic and transportation studies to begin upon signing. Voted on the Planning Board to approve the zoning ordinances for the E-5 and AET. Ordinances will go back to the governing bodies.

Heather Howard: “We ought not to be thinking about moving the dinky further away at a time when we’re trying to maintain the vibrancy of our downtown.” (from live candidate forum sponsored by LWV). “Clearly, the Borough’s relationship with the University is not what it should be. Although there has been a rough stretch recently, we have a strong history, and a good relationship is in both our interests. The community benefits from having a vibrant University, and the University benefits from a thriving community surrounding it. It’s important to be a strong advocate for the residents when dealing with the University – to stand up to them when necessary. Respect and courtesy are critical, but sometimes we will disagree. Most importantly, good neighbors should always be talking…The community benefits from having a vibrant University, and the University benefits ffrom a thriving community surrounding it. ” (from LWV questions). May have to recuse on actual votes on issue.

Republican Candidates:

Peter Marks: Improve the existing Dinky service, i.e.: maintain its current alignment, reopen both existing stations; buy its right-of-way; create new, reasonably priced, municipal owned, structured parking adjacent to the stations; and replace NJT with a competent operator. Veto proposed bottlenecks on Alexander. Greatly reduce existing zoning on both sides of Alexander. Maintain our long tradition of tree-lined green spaces (not ten story buildings) as the “gateway” to Princeton.

Dudley Sipprelle: A “memorandum of understanding” was recently concluded with Princeton University which should prove beneficial to all parties involved. The community gets an enhanced cultural venue which will attract more visitors, business and tax revenues. The University has made several significant commitments, including an upgrade of the “Dinky” and major funding for a wide-ranging study of the transportation needs of the community. This is significant because traffic congestion is a major Princeton problem. Of immediate benefit, the University will install lighted crosswalks across the perilous black tunnel which is now downtown Nassau Street after dark.