RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceReader Comments
Appellate court rules against Cottage Club in tax lawsuit
Published: Saturday, June 26th, 2010
Cottage Club's nine-year battle for tax-exempt status as a historical landmark received another setback this summer when the appellate division of the New Jersey Superior Court upheld a denial by state officials of the club's request to be ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
So this means that Cottage is stuck with all the burdens of historic status, including severe restrictions on permissible renovations and construction, but none of the benefits? All because they built a pretty building many years ago? And it’s all retroactive, too?
Also, I suppose this means they’ll stop holding the tours they used to offer to satisfy the 12 public days per year requirement. Those were actually really great; there’s a ton of amazing stuff about that building you’d never know if you only show up for parties.
10 % to the left when it affects someone else, 10 % to the right when it affects himself: Gusciora, holds 3 different town prosecuter jobs while serving in the assembly. As a member of the assembly he advocates legalizing marijunana( both as a medicine and for recreational use) committing what is arguably still a federal crime, a violation of FDA law and, as he has admitted, an unproven medicine of uncertain doseages. It is even more ironic since sativex is being tested under FDA supervision. Its seems he and former fed prosecutor Christie believe "The appearance of the law must be upheld. Especially while it is being broken."
Cottage is under no restrictions whatsoever (until and unless it is designated by the Borough - which it has not yet been).
"Town officials have argued that granting tax exemption to Cottage would be contrary to the spirit of the historic provision in the tax code and would effectively amount to town residents subsidizing a private dining facility."
This is only true if you presuppose that the government is entitled to all of your money, and whatever it decides to let you keep is its generosity. This sentence should instead state that Princeton students hailing from all over the globe should effectively pay to send the town officials' children to school.
"This is only true if you presuppose that the government is entitled to all of your money, and whatever it decides to let you keep is its generosity."
Presuppose? Are you kidding, this is hardly an assumption anymore. It's more or less how it works now.
The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.
Cottage kids are rich. They'll be able to afford it. Suck it up.
knife room is right, if you are rich, the government can take any amount of money from you regardless of the law. After all, you can afford it.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?
And Cottage members have a lot of need
Tax dodgers start at a young age here at Princeton. The entitled simply don't contribute to society.