Locals sue U. over proposed Dinky move

A group of citizens has filed a lawsuit challenging the University’s proposed move of the Dinky station. The legal complaint, filed on Oct. 3 to the Superior Court of New Jersey in Trenton, challenges the University’s right to move the station. The complaint requests that the court permanently enjoin the University from moving the station and judge that the public has the permanent right to cross the University’s land to access the station.

The University purchased Princeton Station from New Jersey Transit in 1984 with the intention of moving it farther south. In 1987, the University moved the station to its current location, about 100 feet below its 1984 location.

The purchase agreement allows the University to “move the existing terminus of the rail line southward coincident with the location of the minimum reservation of platform space.” The agreement refers to the “relocation” of the platform’s bumpers and rails.

The plaintiffs claim that this passage secures the University the right to move the station only by 170 feet, the length of the original station platform, and that the University exhausted this right in its 1987 move.

“The contract says that they can move the terminus, provided they reserve 170 feet on the platform. Well, they did that in 1987. So they did the move that they are permitted to have under the contract,” Bruce Afran, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said.

The University has maintained that the contract guarantees it a right to move the Dinky station again, providing that the University provides a 170-foot platform. Representatives from NJ Transit confirmed at a Borough Council meeting in June that the department shares the University’s interpretation of the passage and supports the move.

The 1984 agreement is a contract between the University and NJ Transit, and the lawsuit challenges the interpretation that the University and NJ Transit share.

The plaintiffs make this challenge on the grounds that the public is a beneficiary of the original contract, because the contract contains an easement for public transportation purposes. NJ Transit “retains an easement over the property for public transportation purposes,” the agreement states, enumerating a right-of-way along the existing tracks, and a platform of the specific 170 feet, as well as ingress and egress for NJ Transit passengers.

“The public are the intended beneficiaries of the contract, and the public have the right to say, ‘No, the contract protects us and allows us to continue to have service at this terminus,’ ” Afran explained.

“It doesn’t say ‘an easement solely for the benefit of New Jersey Transit.’ It says ‘for the benefit of the public.’ ”

“We haven’t been concerned about what they’ve said … and we’re not concerned now,” University Vice President and Secretary Robert Durkee ’69 said.

He added that a 1996 agreement with NJ Transit stated that the move had not altered the University’s right to move the station further southward.

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

The 1996 agreement amends the original agreement to allow NJ Transit to vacate the former station building farther north and relocate its station in the southern building, the site of the current station.

“All other terms, covenants and conditions of the original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect,” the 1996 agreement concludes, referring to the rights allowed by the 1984 agreement.

The plaintiffs also request that the court judge that “an easement by prescription to enter and exit the Princeton Branch service at the existing station platform has arisen.”

This easement would state that, because the public has crossed the University’s land to access Dinky Station for many years, they officially have gained a continued right to that use.

Anne Neumann, one of four Borough residents listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said that the suit was motivated by a desire to keep the station within the reach of pedestrians in the Borough.

“I have a knee replacement and will probably have another one soon, and it’s actually very hard for me to go down a slope or down stairs, so one of the reasons that I’m a plaintiff is because I like to walk to the Dinky, and I think it’s extremely unlikely that I’ll be able to do that if they move it,” Neumann said.

The suit, filed against the University and NJ Transit, includes among its plaintiffs Borough residents Peter Marks, Rodney Fisk, Walter Neumann and the citizens’ group Save the Princeton Dinky.

The complaint begins by stating how frequently the individual plaintiffs named use the Dinky service, some of them daily and some weekly.

Afran said this information was provided to demonstrate the Dinky’s importance to the community. “It’s designed to show that there are a variety of users, some use it once a week, some use it monthly, some use it every day, and so we tried to get people who fit all parts of the class of users,” Afran explained.

The complaint also requests that the University be required to recompense all costs of the suit. Afran said the complaint would probably be amended soon to include some additional claimants.

Last spring, Afran filed a suit challenging the tax-exempt status of certain University buildings in the Borough. The suit is still pending and will be expanded in January to include other buildings in the Borough and Township, including the Princeton Energy Plant.

The suit is partially funded by the estate of Eleanor Lewis, a local resident who died of cancer in November 2010. Before her death, she set money aside to fund legal action on the community’s behalf, including funds that went to the tax-exemption lawsuit.

The University plans to move the Dinky station 464 feet south to build its proposed Arts and Transit Neighborhood in the Alexander corridor. The requested zoning changes needed for the construction have not yet been approved, but University officials have said that the University will move the Dinky south at some point, regardless of the Arts and Transit Neightborhood zoning decision.