Borough approves divisive development plan

The Princeton Borough Council adopted a multi-million dollar bond ordinance for the downtown redevelopment plan at its Dec. 17 meeting as local residents continued to wage a fierce opposition campaign.

Despite protests from many residents, the plan, which will cost $13.5 million, passed by a 5-to-1 vote.

Councilman Roger Martindell, the only council member to vote against the proposal, said he knew the project would go forward but that he could not endorse it as it stood.

Municipal leaders will put the final stamp on the plan Jan. 21, when they vote on the developer's agreement with the builder, Nassau HKT Associates.

The specified bond money includes materials, labor, designs and permits to build a parking structure, a public plaza, apartments, a small courtyard and retail space.

Many Borough residents who spoke during the meeting's nearly four-hour public hearing said the redevelopment plan is daunting and overbearing for Princeton's small town structure.

"The structure is too large and not accessible," said Jim Firestone, a resident who has led the opposition to the plan. "It will add too much traffic. People move here for the town, not for a city."

Resident and attorney Bill Potter '68, who spoke on behalf of the opposition group Concerned Citizens of Princeton, echoed Firestone's remarks, citing a survey conducted last August. Potter said 72 percent of residents surveyed had said the plan should be abandoned or revised.

Potter asked the council to sit down with the residents and find a low-risk compromise.

The Borough has held several forums for public input including one at the Frist Campus Center at the end of November.

Henry Landau, owner of the Nassau Street clothing store Landau's, said the parking garage would attract too many visitors, which would attract chain stores and eliminate small businesses.

However, many other small business owners disagreed with Landau, saying the lack of parking has caused sales revenue to decline.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

The building of the new parking structure will bring new life to the town, councilwoman Wendy Benchley said.

Concerned Citizens has blamed the University for downtown parking problems and has urged it to contribute to the redevelopment plans.

"Princeton University sells this town to students and faculty," said Bob Zagoria '63, an attorney. "Princeton needs to give more than just a symbolic drop in the bucket."

In early December, the Borough Council approved a five-year agreement with the University that will lead to a fourfold increase in the University's voluntary annual contribution to the Borough over the next four years.

Benchley defended the University, saying it works closely with the Borough, and that the University has donated a large amount of money to benefit the town.

Former University President Robert Goheen '40 related the aversion to the plan to those who fought against coeducation of the University. Though some people oppose the development, he said, it will eventually benefit the Borough.

The overall plan calls for 77 rentable apartments, 500 parking spots, more than 7,000 square feet of retail space and room for an 8,000-square-foot food mart.

The first phase of the project is scheduled to be completed in 2004.

The council has recognized the fall in sales, and at certain times has annulled the two-hour parking limits that govern most of the downtown.

Allowing shoppers to park unrestrictedly has helped the struggling merchants, but is not a permanent solution, council members said.

"Princeton should be doing so much more than it is financially doing."

He said the University greatly adds to traffic, with more than 12,000 staff members, 5,000 students and 700 outside contractors on campus daily.

"They have given over $1 million to renovate the Garden Theatre in addition to giving money to the local schools just to mention a few things," Benchley said.

Former councilman Mark Freda noted that according to an itemized summary, the total cost of the project seemed to be around $13.7 million, not $13.5 million as the plans suggest.

Councilman David Goldfarb said the numbers provided were a "worst-case scenario" and that if needed, other bonds would be implemented.