June 13, 2012

Councilman Calls Records Request By University Lawyers “Outrageous”

A request for copies of more than six years of records by lawyers representing Princeton University in lawsuits related to the Dinky has angered at least one member of Borough Council. At the governing body’s meeting last week, Councilman Roger Martindell called Drinker Biddle & Reath’s request “outrageous,” and said that he, for one, did not intend to comply.

“This request is overly broad and burdensome, and it violates a first amendment right to communicate with constituents,” he said, to applause from some members of the audience. “Every single person, mayor and employee would have to spend hundreds of hours going through material going back to January 2006. It is totally outrageous.”

The law firm has asked for copies of all records of correspondence between the mayor, members of Council and Borough staff, consultants, and members of the citizen group Save the Dinky between January 2006 and the present. “Copies of any communications, including but not limited to meetings, discussions, conversations, telephone calls, faxes, electronic mail, instant messaging, memoranda, letters, notes, telecopies, telexes, conferences, etc.” are mentioned in the filing.

“They want all communications that were ever made in writing in any form whatsoever, between the mayor, and then-Council people and Borough employees and any representative of Save the Dinky, Inc. from January 2006 to now,” Mr. Martindell said this week. “This would take literally hundreds of hours of people going through their emails and files, to comply with that request. It is going to paralyze municipal government. And it is overly broad, because it doesn’t even identify who the representatives of Save the Dinky are. It names a few people, but for all I know Save the Dinky has hundreds of members. And who is representing them? Am I supposed to guess?”

Named in the request are “any member or representative of Save the Dinky, including but not limited to Kip Cherry, Anita Garoniak, Anne Waldron Neumann, Peter Marks, Rodney Fisk, Walter Neumann, Christopher Hedges, Zafina Hosein, Rachel Koehn, and or Dorothy Koehn.”

At the Council meeting, Councilman Kevin Wilkes agreed with Mr. Martindell that the request was too broad. “Do we have a list of their memberships?” he asked, regarding Save the Dinky. Councilwoman Jo Butler said that it would be impossible to meet the request for records within the seven days granted under the state law. Bob Bruschi, the Borough Administrator, said the Borough would need at least 30 days to provide the documents required.

There are two lawsuits currently pending related to the move of the Dinky station from its current location opposite McCarter Theatre to a site 460 feet south. One of the suits has to do with the zoning ordinance approved by Borough Council, which allows the project to move forward. The other has to do with the contract between Princeton University and NJ Transit related to the relocation.

Mr. Martindell said he will not comply with the request for records “absent a written memo saying we must.” He also suggested that Borough police not comply either. “Because until we get some specific guidance on the issues, we could spend hundreds of hours on this,” he said. “We shouldn’t be just jumping to disclose information that takes so much time to get. From my point of view, until we get guidance from our attorney, we shouldn’t be doing anything.”


April 25, 2012

Township Sends a Message: No Ordinance

In response to Borough Council’s introduction of Ordinance 2012-7 providing for the preservation of a portion of the existing Dinky right of way, Township Committee has voted to reaffirm the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) originally agreed upon by the University, Borough, and Township for the creation of an arts and transit neighborhood.

At the Committee’s Monday evening meeting, Township Attorney Edward Schmierer opened the discussion with a report on “the fiscal and legal impacts” of the ordinance, noting that it “effectively amends the official map of the Borough.” The next step for the ordinance is a Planning Board recommendation for or against it, to be delivered in 35 to 40 days.

“Clearly, a decision will have to be made, not too far in the future, whether the Borough will exercise its option to buy,” said Mr. Schmierer. “Everyone needs to be aware that the potential cost to the municipality could be quite significant,” he said. Among the costs would be reimbursing the university for new engineering plans.

Mr. Schmierer answered “no” in response to Committeeman Lance Liverman’s question about whether the Township had been notified about the introduction of the Borough’s new ordinance. “We were notified just as the public and the University were notified,” he added.

“The ordinance is bad public policy,” said Township mayor Chad Goerner, describing it as “an attempt to contravene an agreement reached by three parties over a long period of time.” Noting that it was not in the financial interests of residents of the Borough or the Township, or, eventually, the consolidated municipality, Mr. Goerner concluded that it’s “a risk not worth taking” and suggested that Township Committee “send a clear message that we have no sympathy for it.”

In reaffirming the MOU, Township Committee members agreed that any decision that has a financial impact on the Township should be discussed in joint session, “negotiated in good faith,” and passed by both municipalities.

The Borough came in for additional criticism in a discussion about the Personnel Selection Committee for the new municipality. The Borough has requested that the committee be comprised of three members from each of the existing governing bodies. Mr. Schmierer noted that since three people constitute a quorum for Township Committee, Personnel Selection Committee votes would be binding for the Township under the Open Public Meetings Act. Borough Council would then have the ability to ratify or reject the Committee’s recommendations. The inclusion of a citizen member in place of an elected official on the Committee would not be a satisfactory solution, and an added complexity is the question of what happens when two individuals vying for the same position respectively request public and private hearings.

It was agreed that a recommendation be made providing for two representatives from each municipality on the new committee, a solution that has worked well in the past.

In other actions at Monday’s meeting, Township Committee approved the adoption of a conflict of interest policy for municipal employees, and agreed to reschedule the 2012 municipal budget public hearing for Monday, May 21.


February 15, 2012

Save the Dinky Opposes NJ Transit Application to Abandon Public Rights in Historic Station

The citizens’ group, Save the Dinky, announced Tuesday that it opposes New Jersey Transit’s request to State historic preservation officials for permission to remove the track and abandon the public rights in the station. New Jersey’s Historic Sites Council will consider the application this Thursday, February 16, at 10 a.m., in the DEP Hearing Room at 401 East State Street in Trenton. Anita Garoniak, president of Save the Dinky, said that the application should be denied approval because it “will strip the Dinky station complex of its historic essence as a functioning passenger railway station.” She said there is no justification for this. “The University can build the arts complex without it, and it is self-evident that moving a train to create a road to a parking garage does not make sense.”

New Jersey’s Transit’s application to remove the track states that the project was “anticipated” and “permitted” by its agreement with the University in 1984 when it sold the station complex to the University. The transit agency kept ownership of the railroad infrastructure and reserved a public easement in the station complex and tracks. Save the Dinky contends that the contract only allowed a move of the terminus from the north end to the south end of the existing platform and that New Jersey Transit, at the University’s request, has already made this move. The group and several individual plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit last year seeking a court ruling that the University did not receive a right to make yet another move of the terminus.

The Princeton railroad station, including the buildings, track, and infrastructure to operate the train service, was placed on the state Register of Historic Places in March 1984. State preservation officials found that the project constituted an “encroachment” on the historic site and referred the proposal to the state’s Historic Preservation Council for review. The Council can approve an encroachment if the benefit to the public justifies it and if there are no feasible alternatives. Ms. Garoniak said that these factors weigh against approval because the project serves the private goals of Princeton University. “The Dinky tracks are in the way of a parking garage,” said Ms. Garoniak. “This is not a reason to abandon the historic train station. It is a reason for the University to rethink its plans.”

Save the Dinky, which originated as a Facebook group to oppose plans to replace the Dinky with a Bus Rapid Transit system, is now incorporated as a New Jersey non-profit to advocate for the preservation of the historic station. It is now actively raising funds to support its mission.

New Jersey Transit’s application, the 1984 contract, and more background information can be found at the group’s website SavetheDinky.org.