February 20, 2013

“Use it or lose it or give it to someone else who will use it,” says Dick Woodbridge, former mayor of Princeton Township, in reference to the oldest part of the former Valley Road School building at 369 Witherspoon Street.

Earlier proposals for the building’s future had been received by the Board of Education but in the face of estimated costs of some $10.8 million, the school district had postponed any decision until after consolidation of the Princetons.

Now that consolidation is here, it’s time to take action, especially since the building’s condition is deteriorating, says Mr. Woodbridge.

“The leak in the roof could well develop into a public safety issue,” says Mr. Woodbridge. “We would like to repair it but we have no authority to effect the repairs,” he says, noting that no money has been allocated for the building’s maintenance for many years. “This is a public property that has been grossly neglected,” he said.

The building in question sits between the new Town Hall and the newly refurbished portion of the former school that houses the administration for Princeton Public Schools on its Valley Road side. “No one is taking responsibility for it and we would like to take on that responsibility. We want to rehabilitate but we can’t do that until we have rights to it. We want it to be a community center and we estimate that it will cost some $2 million to refurbish it. Perhaps its footprint needs expanding somewhat, we are willing to be flexible,” says Mr. Woodbridge.

The buildings last two tenants, Corner House and TV30 have been offered alternative space in the former Borough Hall. Corner House has accepted the offer and plans to move late March. TV30 has not.

According to Kip Cherry, president of the non-profit formed two years ago to raise money for the building’s renovation, Valley Road School Community Center, Inc., the local public access television station is still considering its options and hopes to remain as a tenant of the municipality, which took over responsibility for the building from the Board of Education last spring.

“Under the leadership of George McCullough, TV 30 has grown in recent years,” says Ms. Cherry. “Borough Hall doesn’t have the potential of the space TV30 now occupies, where it is a tremendous and easily accessible resource for the community, but in spite of the station’s creativity and output, the uncertainty of its position has thwarted its growth,” she said.

Mr. Woodbridge serves as liaison to the municipal cable TV committee and is a longtime member of the TV 30 Foundation. He is also involved with the Valley Road Adaptive Re-Use Committee, which formed the Valley Road School Community Center, Inc. The non-profit organization recently received 501c3 tax exempt status from the IRS and has a detailed plans to turn the building into a community center with space leased to non-profit organizations.

The plan’s details are in the 208-page proposal drawn up by Ms. Cherry, the non-profits’ president, and submitted to the Board of Education in 2011. The proposal would turn the old portion of the Valley Road School into a nonprofit hub. “We have non-profits who would love to get in there and pay rent and we are trying to memorialize this with a letter of intent,” said Mr. Woodbridge.

At the same 2011 meeting, Princeton Borough and Princeton Township submitted a proposal that would demolish the school and build a new complex to house Corner House, the Princeton First Aid and Rescue Squad, and an expanded fire station. The rescue squad has since decided to expand at its current site on Harrison Street and a task force is currently studying the feasibility of expanding the fire house on the Valley Road site.

The Community Center plan includes studio space for TV30 as well as two black box theaters and a cafe that would be operated by autistic adults. “Besides the more routine rental agreements for space, we have innovative ideas that include a proposed rental charge for shared spaces, which allows nonprofit users to be charged for space only when they are using it,” said Ms. Cherry. “The plan calculates the costs of operating the building and demonstrates that the revenue, at very reasonable rental rates, would more than cover the operating costs,” she said. “What we are hoping for is a collaboration, a public-private partnership, that will allow our efforts to be endorsed by the School Board and the Princeton Council, so that we can raise the funds to cover immediately needed repairs and renovations.”

Ms. Cherry, who grew up in Princeton and attended the Valley Road School, said that the issue is not one of nostalgia. An advocate of historic preservation, Ms. Cherry said: “Princeton has a rich fabric to protect and this building played an influential role in the 1940s and 1950s in establishing Princeton as one of the best school districts in the nation.”

According to Ms. Cherry, the building was given to the people of Princeton in 1918. It was in the hands of the school district but owned by the Township until 2002 when the Township sold it to the school district for a nominal fee of $1. “Neither the Township nor the school district has taken responsibility for its maintenance and that responsibility now falls to the new consolidated Princeton,” she said, citing agreements beginning in 1979 between the School Board and Princeton Township for the older portion of Valley Road School fronting on Witherspoon Street. “This is not just the School Board’s problem but a problem for the municipality,” she said.

The website of the Princeton Public Schools has a timeline summarizing the actions and decisions by the Board of Education regarding the building beginning with a public forum on the issue held in October 2007.

In 2008, several scenarios for the building’s future were put forward by KSS Architects of Princeton. The scenarios were listed in three categories: 1) maintain all or some of the structures; 2) demolish everything and rebuild a large building or buildings; and 3) demolish everything, build a smaller building and sell part of the land. Cost ranged from $5.5 million to $24 million for a full rehabilitation.

Experts later recommended that the board stop investing in 369 Witherspoon because of the prohibitive cost of repair and upgrade as estimated.

“What is needed,” said Mr. Woodbridge, “is for the building to be looked at in the context of the other civic buildings now concentrated at the bottom of Witherspoon Street, making it a no-brainer for a community center.”

Mr. Woodbridge was also a student at the Valley Road School from third to eighth grade. And while he acknowledges a sentimental attachment to the building, his plans are all practical. “The building is built like a fortress with walls that are four bricks thick and while it has not been well maintained over the years, with no money from the school budget allocated for its maintenance, it is not without future possibility,” he argues.

One other scenario that Mr. Woodbridge suggests is for Mayor Liz Lempert to appoint a Valley Road Building Committee to look at the issue, or to consider forming a charrette.

A charrette is an intensive planning session where citizens, designers, and others collaborate on a vision for development. The process can allow all participants to be mutual authors of any plan that develops through brainstorming and design activity.

“A charrette could bring an outsider with no agenda together with stakeholders from the Foundation, the Town, Princeton Public Schools, TV 30 and the Fire House,” said Mr. Woodbridge.

“With consolidation, the Town has a lot on its hands,” said Mr. Woodbridge. “If they don’t have time to deal with this, they should appoint a committee to look into it and explore what has to be done.”

 

November 14, 2012

A week after Princeton Borough and Township residents elected Democrat Liz Lempert mayor of the newly consolidated town, Ms. Lempert and her opponent, Republican Dick Woodbridge, reflected on the race that earned Ms. Lempert 6,093 votes to Mr. Woodbridge’s 3,939. Drawing more than 10,000 voters to the polls in the wake of one of the worst storms in New Jersey’s history speaks of the importance of the race to the local population.

“It was a difficult week for pretty much everyone in town,” said Ms. Lempert. “And there were many people who had their polling places changed twice С first because of consolidation and redistricting, and then a second time because of [Superstorm] Sandy. We were worried that there would be mass confusion and frustration, but by and large things seemed to go relatively smoothly. People came out to vote even though there was a lot of storm clean-up to do. It just shows that Princeton is a community that cares and that takes its voting seriously.”

Mr. Woodbridge, a previous mayor of Princeton Township who served on Borough Council for three years, is no stranger to political campaigns. He is pleased with the way this one unfolded.

“I don’t have any regrets,” he said. “I think we ran the best campaign we could. This is the ninth time I’ve run in 36 years. I’ve won some and I’ve lost some. There are things we could have done better and things we did pretty well. What I really liked about this one was the broad-based, non-partisan nature. We showed you can run a non-partisan campaign. Clearly, there was a strong sense that this town should be non-partisan, if not in political composition at least in spirit. We saw that all across the board, and that was the biggest takeaway for me.”

Compared to some races in Princeton’s recent past, this one was “relatively clean,” Mr. Woodbridge added. “There was no real mud-slinging. We tried to stay to the arguments, and it never got personal. I have no negative personal feelings against any of the people I ran against. This is a small town and you’ve got to live with people.”

There were more supporters than Mr. Woodbridge could list in the campaign ads he ran in local newspapers. “We had a number of endorsements we couldn’t add,” he said. “It was a really nice cross-section of people representing the entire town who were supportive of my kind of campaign. What can you say? You do the best you can. And the hurricane didn’t do anybody any favors.”

Even before she takes the oath of office, Ms. Lempert is planning to meet with staff and Council members of the consolidated Princeton. “We checked with lawyers and found that it’s okay for the new Council members to start meeting before being sworn in,” she said on election night. “I would like to have a goal-setting session before the end of the year.”

Expanding on those plans this week, Ms. Lempert said she hopes this type of session will become an annual exercise. “I’ve talked about it with [Princeton administrator] Bob Bruschi, and we both think it would be a useful idea to have what is essentially a brainstorming session,” she said. “There is a lot of excitement about consolidation, and there are certainly a lot of opportunities. Eventually we have to get to every good idea, but we want to be strategic about what we try to tackle in the first year because we don’t want to pull the staff in so many different directions so that nothing gets done.”

The first order of business is likely to be ensuring that the promises of consolidation are met. “We have to do a good job tracking the savings of consolidation, and make sure that we’re looking for ways to enhance services wherever possible,” Ms. Lempert added. “One of the things that I think is going to be really important in the coming year is having excellent communications — making sure we are using all forms of media to get our message out in terms of any changes there might be. We want residents to know how to get what they need from the government in the most efficient way possible.”


October 17, 2012

Residents of Princeton had two debates to watch last Thursday evening, and timing was all. Before tuning in to see the 9 p.m. vice presidential debate, many people headed over to the Jewish Center of Princeton at 7:30 p.m. to hear candidates Liz Lempert and Dick Woodbridge talk about what each of them believes they would bring to the office of mayor of the “new,” consolidated Princeton in 2013.

The level of discourse between the two candidates remained highly civil during the hour-long debate, and the moderator’s performance could not be faulted. Barbara Trout, a League of Women Voters representative from Burlington County, was poised and congenial as she gave the candidates their instructions and read questions that had been written earlier that evening on index cards distributed to members of the audience. Princeton Community TV videotaped the debate, which has been made available on their website (www.princetontv.org).

As they have on other occasions, Mr. Woodbridge used his answers to emphasize the breadth of his experience as a former Township mayor and Borough Council president, while Ms. Lempert focused on the more recent achievements of Township Committee, where she has served for four years as a member, and deputy mayor.

The candidates differed on a number of issues, including the significance of national elections on local politics; the disposition of the Valley Road School building; and how each of them proposed to keep taxes flat.

Mr. Woobridge suggested that it would be “a mistake” to allow national politics to interfere with local issues that tend toward the more mundane business of doing things like fixing potholes. Ms. Lempert, who coordinated the local campaign for President Obama in 2008, said that national platforms on issues like affordable housing and environmental concerns do “translate at the local level.”

In discussing the Valley Road Building, Ms. Lempert emphasized the fact that since they own it, its future is up to the school district. While she allowed that being directly across from Township Hall makes it a valuable piece of real estate that might work as a community center, she concluded by suggesting that “we need to figure out the finances.”

“Use it or lose it,” said Mr. Woodbridge in his more pointed response. Describing the building as looking “like a crack house,” he faulted the school district for its failure to maintain it and for the Board’s unwillingness to accept a “free offer” that would have turned the Valley Road Building into a community center.

“I can guarantee there will be no new taxes introduced in 2013,” said Ms. Lempert in answer to the question of maintaining flat taxes. “We’ve done it for the last two years,” she said, referring to Township Committee and citing the “invaluable” work of the Township’s Citizens Advisory Group.

Mr. Woodbridge proposed that municipal finances be treated “as a real business,” and noted recent conversations he has had with Borough Administrator Robert Bruschi and Township Acting Administrator and Chief Financial Officer Kathy Monzo. He said that he would look forward to creating budgets that were not based on preceding years, and to ask for other players, like Mercer County and the school district, to seek cost reductions.

In response to Mr. Woodbridge’s frequent references to his experiences with, and desire for non-partisanship in the next Princeton government, Ms. Lempert pointed out that “almost every” current “board and commission has Republican representation.” Both candidates acknowledged the importance of tourism in Princeton, and the need to find new ways to support it. Mr. Woodbridge suggested that town-gown relations have “deteriorated” in recent years. His own recent meeting with University Vice President Bob Durkee and Director of Community and Regional Affairs Kristen Appelget, said Mr. Woodbridge, should be a precedent for regular meetings in the future. In response, Ms. Lempert cited Township Committee’s recent success in negotiating a voluntary payment from the University in lieu of taxes.

While Mr. Woodbridge spoke of his three main credentials for being mayor as “experience, experience, and experience,” Ms. Lempert noted hers: “current experience.”


September 26, 2012

Mayoral hopefuls Liz Lempert (D) and Dick Woodbridge (R) were named as a “panel” and given the chance to ask questions in response to four transit-related presentations given on Saturday morning at a Princeton Future meeting.

After the first presentation, a talk billed as a “Planned Projects Status Report of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission’s Central New Jersey Transportation Forum” by Sustainable Jersey Chair Pam Mount, Princeton Future Chair Sheldon Sturgis was quick to point out – not without humor – the virtual absence of questions from the candidates. Not surprisingly, perhaps, each referred to their own achievements and ideas on the topics at hand.

Focusing on local, present-day concerns, Ms. Lempert, who is Township Deputy Mayor, cited recent Township Committee street improvements, and spoke of the difficulties posed by the current Department of Transportation “trial” that limits left-hand turns onto Route 1 at Washington Road and Harrison Street.  Referencing  his long-time history in the area, Mr. Woodbridge, who grew up in Princeton and served as Township mayor, spoke of changes he has witnessed over the years and referred to old friendships with officials like former Borough Mayor Marvin Reed, who was at the meeting.

Looking ahead, however, Mr. Woodbridge picked up what became a recurring theme of the morning: that Princeton is a regional center with broad, metropolitan concerns.  Mr. Woodbridge noted that more than two million people a year visit Princeton.

Neither candidate responded to Ms. Mount’s assertion that she “believes in government, but on a very limited basis.”

Mr. Reed, who is currently chair of the Master Plan Subcommittee of the Regional Planning Board, gave a report on “A Mobility Plan for the New Princeton.”   People who packed the Library’s Community Room for the meeting had a good laugh when Mr. Reed pointed out that consolidation means Borough residents will no longer be able to blame Township residents for whatever is wrong, and, of course, vice-versa.

In his talk, Mr. Reed emphasized the discrepancy in the number of people traveling into Princeton (approximately 25,000) and the number of motorists leaving the area (approximately 6,500) each day.  He also noted that any future development in the area will be “redevelopment,” rather than the creation of large new corporate facilities or groupings of multiple new houses.

On a related note, Consolidation Commission Chair Anton Lahnston averred that it is simply not possible to “build out of congestion.” He also spoke of the “perception in Princeton” that public transportation is “not for us.”

Ralph R. Widner of the Princeton Traffic and Transportation Committee delivered a well-received report on “Using a Traffic Database to Fully Frame Problems and Options.”  He suggested that 80 percent of Princeton’s traffic problems “come from outside,” and that focusing on “point to point” transit systems in the community was not the way to go. He reported that statistics being compiled for a local traffic database would “provide a total map of the whole problem,” and cited a need for being proactive and creating a “foreign policy” on traffic that would be in the New Jersey economy’s best interests.

Yan Bennett and Steven Kruse of the Princeton Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee gave the fourth presentation, “An Ad Hoc Bike Plan for Princeton,” emphasizing the need to reconcile car traffic volume with the number of bicycle riders in the area.  Responding to this last talk, Ms. Lempert, who is a member of the the Joint Pedestrian and Bike Committee and the Traffic Safety Committee, discussed educating the public about bike routes in order to become a “bike-friendly” city.  Mr. Woodbridge described observations he’s made during his routine 13-1/2 mile bike ride around the area.

Princeton Future, which was created in 2009, describes itself as a “diverse, nonpartisan group of volunteers of Princeton Borough, Township and region. .. dedicated to protecting and enhancing our unique community and we share concerns about the directions future growth and development may take.” This most recent meeting gave participants an opportunity to join “break-out sessions” focusing on particular kinds of neighborhoods after the presentations.