University-town relations strained after meeting

In the aftermath of the plan’s collapse, the University and local officials are blaming each other for the proposal’s failure.

University administrators said that abandoning the project was the only way to end the years of uncertainty that arose from conflict between the University and the community over the specifics of the planned development, especially the relocation of the Dinky.

“I think it was a sense that we needed to move this project forward one way or another, that we have been discussing it with the community for over four years now,” Tilghman said. “We couldn’t continue the impasse that we’ve been in for quite some time.”

Members of the Borough Council and Township Committee, as well as members of civic organizations, however, said the proposal failed because the University insisted on moving the Dinky further away from town.

“We really do not understand why President Tilghman came and gave the community an ultimatum,” said Sheldon Sturgis, co-founder of the civic group Princeton Future, noting that the University refused to compromise on its plan to shorten the historic train’s route.

The University maintained that the Arts and Transit Neighborhood would have modified intersections near Forbes College to decrease congestion and would have provided new facilities for the Lewis Center for the Arts. Although most of the plan enjoyed broad support in the community, many residents opposed moving the Dinky 460 feet south to allow traffic to enter the Lot 7 parking garage from Alexander Street, a design which, Tilghman said, cost “in the millions of dollars” to create.

Reflecting the disagreements over the Dinky, conflicting accounts have emerged about which side was responsible for the proposal’s failure.

“I don’t think that the University left any room to negotiate,” Borough Council member Jo Butler said.

While Tilghman and vice president Bob Durkee ’69 both said disagreements had mired the project in a state of “limbo” for years, Borough Council president Kevin Wilkes ’83 disagreed.

“There were significant negotiations that took place over the past two years, and I was confident that these negotiations could make progress,” he said. “While progress was painful and slow, it’s not fair to characterize this as being in limbo.”

Wilkes, however, said that moving the Dinky was not a serious option because the proposal the University offered — which included $150 million in infrastructure modifications, enhanced shuttle service and access to the new arts facilities — was inherently unfair.

“I’m sure there’s some cost [for moving the Dinky] that’s appropriate; I’ve never considered what that is,” he said, calling the proposal the University offered “a positive enhancement of the University at the expense of community interests.”

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

Durkee, however, said that while the University did consider leaving the train untouched, the idea was rejected as impractical from engineering and financial perspectives.

“We’ve spent a lot of time over the last six months meeting with folks in the community who had come up with various ways that they thought the plan could be redesigned so that it could achieve its objectives and still keep the Dinky terminus where it was,” he said.

The University and the town community also disagreed about the purpose of Monday night’s meeting, at which Tilghman and Durkee again presented details of the University’s proposal.

Though the Township and Borough officially called the meeting for discussion purposes only, Tilghman called the meeting a “go or no-go” moment and Durkee asked for a definitive indication that the town was willing to move forward, a request which Council members said they were not anticipating.

“We went into the meeting last night understanding that the purpose of the meeting was to get feedback from the two municipalities as to whether they would put zoning in place,” Durkee said of the University’s request for action.

However, Butler said she was surprised that Durkee and Tilghman asked the Council and Committee to vote to begin the zoning process.

“I had no idea that President Tilghman was going to be present, and I was taken aback by the tone, frankly, of the way the meeting was started,” she said. “It was just to be a presentation, that’s all. We were not going to be called upon to vote. I had no indication that had changed until [Tilghman and Durkee] started to speak.”

However, there may be an unexpected downside to halting the planned Arts and Transit Neighborhood for the Township and the Borough. The University currently supports the community with voluntary payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOTs. Administrators said that the cancellation of the Arts and Transit Neighborhood would likely have an impact on the payments.

The University’s current agreement with the Borough is set to expire this year and was expected to be renewed.

“I think that is completely up in the air at the moment,” Tilghman said of the renewal. “There is no question that what happened last night is going to factor into our thinking about this going forward.”

The negative outcome of Monday’s meeting may have even further-reaching consequences, as Durkee said the community’s failure to move the Arts and Transit Neighborhood project forward would put a damper on the future of the University’s relationship with the town.

“It doesn’t augur well for future relationships when the response to the University’s request for support ... is the response we got last night,” he said.

While the University is still committed to building new arts facilities to house the Lewis Center, the proposed improvements to traffic near Forbes College will not go forward, Tilghman said, adding that the eventual location of programs that were moved to New South in anticipation of the Arts and Transit Neighborhood has yet to be determined.

“I’ve called a meeting for later this week for us to begin planning for the future, and that’s one of the questions that will be on the table,” she said.

While Tilghman was unsure what the future holds for the Lewis Center, Butler said she’s still uncertain about what caused the plan to be so abruptly dropped.

“I need to know more about what happened last night, whether there was a breakdown in communication, that the various parties misunderstood what was going to happen,” she said.

The Dinky’s proponents could also face more challenges despite Monday’s apparent victory, as Tilghman suggested that the risk of New Jersey Transit abandoning the train increased as a result of the proposal’s failure.

“I think the likelihood that it will happen just went up last night,” she said of the Dinky’s removal, citing Governor Chris Christie’s support of the University’s plan.

Though the failure of the Arts and Transit Neighborhood was largely due to the community’s opposition to the Dinky changes, Durkee said that he would still like to see the station moved.

“There are significant benefits to creating the driveway we’re proposing into the [Lot 7] garage,” he said. “I continue to believe that the walk to the location we’ve proposed would still be perceived as walking distance from town.”