More difficulties with mergers and consolidation

How To Make Mergers Happen (0.00 / 0)

I live in Princeton Borough and the fact that Princeton Borough and Princeton Township have voted down consolidation several times is often quoted when the consolidation issue is discussed.  To every outsider it doesn't make sense.   But to many Borough residents it does.  The Borough is essentially a pedestrian based town and many of its services are tailored towards that.  The Township is more rural and car-based.   It is also much larger than the Borough population-wise, so Borough residents rightly fear that under consolidation, many municipal services like Town Hall, the Library, etc.  will be moved out of downtown and to only car-accessible places.  Unless there are major cost savings, which no one believes as police consolidation appears to be underway already and the schools are already consolidated, there seems little reason for the two to consolidate.

So what is a leader like Gov. Christie to do?  Use a stick and dramatically reduce municipal aid for all those small municipalities that should be consolidated.   Will I and others living in such municipalities be unhappy?  Yes, but it is what NJ as a state needs.   Let's have the goal of cutting the number of municipalities in NJ by half over the next decade.

---

by: princetonblue @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 20:53:16 PM UTC

seems unlikely based on my experience (0.00 / 0)

The Princeton Library is already a consolidated resource for both the Borough and the Township, and I doubt, after it being rebuilt just a few years ago, that it would be moved off Witherspoon and Wiggins any time soon. The Township Hall is at the old Valley Rd. school at Witherspoon and Valley, which is no further from some sections of the Borough than Borough Hall is, up on Nassau at Bayard. If a consolidated Princeton needed somewhere to put a larger Township building, Valley Rd. would still be a good site, as it has playing fields that could be built on (regrettable, but that's probably where a new Township building would go. The township already own the property).

If losing the library and Boro Hall are the fears of the Borough residents that led them to vote against consolidation, they're not grounded in reality. I suspect your theory (pedestrian vrs. car cultures) has no merit. The Township facilities have always been right on the border between the Borough and the Township, because the bulk of the Township's residents are concentrated close to the Borough, and those who live more remotely still travel into the Borough frequently.

The main reason consolidations generally have failed is that the "doughnut" townships, which generally have a lower tax rate, end up getting higher taxes when consolidated with "hole" boroughs, which generally have fewer commercial ratables compared to the residential tax base. Was this true in the Princetons?

Finally, if the schools, the library, and the police are already consolidated, what is, as you point out, the point? I suspect the Borough's voters made the decision based on the cost/benefits of further consolidation, not whether they might lose the ability to walk to Borough Hall ... did consolidation pass in the Township?

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 14:06:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excuse Me, But You're wrong (0.00 / 0)

The question of where the library was going to be located was a big decision a few years ago.  The Township wanted the Library moved out of town to a place where there would be plenty of parking.  If the two municipalities had been consolidated, it would have been a done deal that this would have happened.   The Township official were not sympathetic to leaving the library in the Borough.

I'm not going to address each of your points.  But the fact that you're going to downplay issues that have been major concerns for Borough residents is why most voters dislike consolidation.  They fear that issues important to them (like things being pedestrian friendly in the Borough) will not receive attention.  By the way,  the Township did favor consolidation.

---

by: princetonblue @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 14:23:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, I see that the Township voted for it (0.00 / 0)

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 14:29:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Call out the hypocrites (0.00 / 0)

I wonder how many of the people who evaluated the extra cost per property and decided it "wasnt' worth it" are first in line to vote Republican as they thump their chest citing high property taxes as a key issue to them?

What is the proportion of GOP votes in this last election in these very towns and boroughs, huh?

---

by: jim34 @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 00:13:33 AM UTC

Binding arbitration (0.00 / 0)

The other complaint one hears is the effect binding arbitration has on municipalities.  The more municipalites,  the more politicians.  This translates into more bosses negotiating contracts with employees.  This means every bargaining unit gets to "compete" with its neighbor and that is how arbitrators award their decisions.

As long as people want home rule, don't complain about binding arbitration.  It is just another symptom of the problem.

County based delivery of services would work with many services ( police, fire, health, public works, inspections).  Most republicans don't want to give up the authority or ego because there would no longer be a reason for them to exist.  Their "small government" would cease to exist only to become a village in the county.

"Only a fool would follow a bully"

---

by: brendanod @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 04:12:12 AM UTC

from the 1998 LoWV's review of Borough Candidates (0.00 / 0)

http://www.princetonol.com/gro...

All the candidates for Borough council cite the resident's fear that taxes would not be reduced through consolidation as the reason consolidation failed in the Borough in 1996.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 14:16:25 PM UTC

from the 1998 LoWV's reiew of Township Candidates (0.00 / 0)

http://www.princetonol.com/gro...

Pretty much the same story - where they don't outright state consolidation is just not needed, the Township candidates caution against consolidation on the grounds that it might not save the Township any money.

Hey, but thanks for the trip down memory lane! I sued to work for Roz Denard (one of the 1998 candidates).

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 14:22:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Isn't that exactly what I wrote? (0.00 / 0)

The fear was that taxes wouldn't go down and one would lose characteristics of the town (pedestrian friendly) that you loved.

I lived through it here and can only report what those in my neighborhood thought.  

---

by: princetonblue @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 14:26:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it's not what you said (0.00 / 0)

Mostly you appealed to the pedestrian friendly aspect, not the tax issues. And while among your neighbors in 1996 that might have been the big issue, taxes are usually the major problem in these efforts.
I was not aware the Township wanted the library moved to someplace more car friendly - like the old Encore bookstore? Still seems pretty convenient to all to me ...

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 14:32:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I said was ... (0.00 / 0)

given that there was probably little cost-savings to be found, there is no reason to give up other conveniences.

And yes, the Township wanted to move the Library (Encore wasn't a long-term solution as the Shopping Center didn't want it) out of the Borough.  It was a contentious issue.  

I think you're trying to be nice, but there's a condescending tone in how you dismiss non-financial issues here.  It's that type of attitude that voters fear will take precedence when consolidation happens.  

---

by: princetonblue @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 14:52:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]