With vote, battle over Dinky right-of-way initiative continues

However, disconnect abounds among those most involved in the right-of-way struggle. Council members, community members and University officials alike all have separate stakes in the matter, a fact that makes a seemingly simple issue exceedingly complicated.

“It’s become an argument that is about so much more than where does the train stop,” Borough Council mayoral candidate Kevin Wilkes ’83 said.

Although the initiative’s backers agree that the current Dinky right-of-way is better than any other option so far suggested by the University, there are nonetheless divides amongst supporters with respect to the ultimate goal of the right-of-way proposition. On the council, Jo Butler, Roger Martindell and Jenny Crumiller voted in support, while Wilkes and Barbara Trelstad opposed. Heather Howard, a Wilson School lecturer, recused herself.

Some, like Crumiller, see the issue as a fight to save the Dinky. “It’s not some radical idea,” Crumiller said. She called the proposed reservation of the current right-of-way an “obvious” course of action for those, like her, who wish to save the historic train station.

Other supporters see the issue as a much more widely symbolic struggle than one simply to save the Dinky. Joe McGeady, member of the local Occupy Princeton movement and vocal proponent of the right-of-way initiative, sees the proposal as the manifestation of a larger, community-wide stand against what he terms the University’s “browbeating” tactics when it comes to dealing with Princeton Borough.

“[The University] is expanding without any kind of justification for what it does to our community … and people are tired of this kind of power,” McGeady said, calling the 3-2 council vote “symbolic of the town taking the power back.”

Martindell, meanwhile, supported the right-of-way proposal but voiced concern about those who are looking at the issue in a much broader context. He said he fears these people are not examining the issue on its own merits, but are rather mixing this single matter with some of the other controversies plaguing the Borough-University relationship.

“The initiative should be viewed in its own terms. This has nothing to do with moving the Dinky station. This has to do with preserving the right-of-way,” Martindell said.

Martindell said that focus should be placed on the right-of-way corridor alone — a piece of land that he believes is a public trust belonging to the community. He intends to fight to preserve access to the land as a possible alternative to what he sees as vague, circuitous options currently proposed by the University for future mass transit in Princeton.

“This is a limited initiative to preserve the Dinky right-of-way in the Borough so that there’s further discourse … concerning the University’s development,” Martindell said.

University Vice President and Secretary Bob Durkee ’69, who has been vocal on the University’s position regarding the Dinky and attended the Borough Council meeting last Tuesday to discuss the issue, called the initiative passed by the Borough Council “essentially useless.”

Durkee has for years actively represented the University’s goal to move the Dinky in order to make way for the University’s proposed Arts and Transit Neighborhood. He said if the right-of-way is successfully preserved, the University would be unable to move forward with its plans for the neighborhood. Durkee further emphasized that if the Borough Council does eventually decide to preserve the right-of-way, they would have to pay millions of dollars to obtain the rights to that land from the University.

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

Furthermore, Durkee said that even if the Borough paid the necessary costs and obtained the right-of-way, there would nonetheless be no possibility for public transit to use the land in the future. There is an approximately 300-yard gap between where Borough jurisdiction ends and the proposed site of the new Dinky station.

“It doesn’t connect, so it doesn’t preserve the option of future trains service, so there’s no benefit,” Durkee said. At the meeting on Tuesday, Durkee called the corridor the “right-of-way to nowhere,” asserting that the Borough Council was essentially trying to secure public access to a piece of land that would serve no apparent purpose.

Martindell disagreed with Durkee’s assessment of the issue. He called the potential right-of-way “the beginning of a path” and saw an opportunity for the Borough “to provide leadership … that the Township folks might follow.”

Township Deputy Mayor and current Democratic candidate for Mayor Liz Lempert said the Township wasn’t currently interested in pursuing a right-of-way that would connect with the one proposed by the Borough. She said the large cost of the Borough’s proposed effort was daunting and worried that such a struggle could hurt the future consolidated Princeton.

“This is not a solution,” Lempert said. “It’s really concerning that the Borough Council would consider spending all of this money. It’s going to impact the [new] municipality, and to my knowledge they haven’t budgeted for it.”

The money needed to finance the possible purchase of the right-of-way is a significant obstacle to the Borough’s initiative. Crumiller admitted that the high cost “does throw a wrench into matters,” but also indicated that private funding could be in play to support the Borough.

One source of this private money could potentially come from Henry Posner III ’77, a successful railroad magnate and chairman of the Railroad Development Corporation. According to his former mentor and current operations research and financial engineering professor Alain Kornhauser GS ’71, Posner has repeatedly shown interest in purchasing the Dinky and providing for its continued operation at the current location.

“Henry runs railroads throughout the world and he’s been dying to run the Dinky,” Kornhauser said.

Posner submitted a plan to Borough Council last April that proposed that the Borough invoke eminent domain rights to challenge the University’s ownership of the station. His company would provide financing to purchase the station. The Council ultimately rejected Posner’s plan.

A version of Posner’s offer, however, remains on the table. Posner said in an interview that “what the Borough is doing is consistent with sound transportation policy,” and he would still be willing to enter into a public-private partnership with the Borough to finance the Council’s efforts to preserve future transportation rights to the land.

Some members of the Borough Council, however, are skeptical of such private support. Wilkes, who voted against the right-of-way initiative, said that while Posner “is welcome to step forward with his checkbook if he wants to,” there are lots of variables that would come into play if such an option were indeed utilized.

“It’s one thing to hold out the promise of a ‘deus ex machina,’ you know, God intervening from the heavens to save us all from a big argument, but I think it’s not really serious thinking,” Wilkes said.

Matters of funding aside, the right-of-way vote has created a rift between the University and Borough at a time when the two bodies have been trying to facilitate better relations for the future.

“Part of what was so troubling to us is that this is clearly designed to create an obstacle to our plan,” said Durkee, claiming that the vote was “a very bad way to proceed if one of the [Borough’s] goals was to improve our relationship.”

Members of the Borough Council insist that the right-of-way initiative is not intended to attack the University directly, but instead is simply meant to protect the public interest. Crumiller said she has “no interest in making relations worse with the University.”

Fellow councilwoman Butler shared that view. “I have never wanted to block their plans. Never,” she said.

Crumiller said she was not surprised by the University’s claim that the vote hurt town-gown relations. “Every argument that we use, we’re accused of hurting relations,” Crumiller said. “They’ve been very hostile about criticism of their plan.”

Butler added that the University “likes to portray [the situation] as ‘us versus them’ ” instead of trying to communicate effectively to reach a compromise.

With regards to communication, Durkee said the Borough Council hadn’t consulted with or notified the University about the right-of-way initiative before the agenda was posted the Thursday before the meeting.

“[The initiative] was all done without any prior consultation with us or any prior notification of us,” Durkee said.

Wilkes agreed with Durkee’s sentiments, saying that if the Borough and University are to work together, “sneak attacks” such as this proposal must be ended. Wilkes said advance notice should be given to the parties involved before public discussion.

“It’s just civil decency,” Wilkes said. “Don’t show up with a document ready to vote on before you’ve talked to [the University] — the main property owner it’s going to effect.”

Crumiller, Butler and Martindell admitted they didn’t involve the University in the process of creating the right-of-way proposal but defended their decision on the grounds that the University would have vehemently opposed the initiative anyways.

“What is the point of inviting [the University] to a dialogue on something … which they are inalterably opposed to?” Martindell said, adding that “[the University] will have many opportunities over the next month or two to have input into the process … and we’d be delighted to receive their input then.”

The process to which Martindell is referring is sure to be long and drawn-out. The 3-2 vote last Tuesday night simply moved the right-of-way proposal to the Regional Planning Board for review. The Regional Planning Board will then review the initiative before offering the Council a recommendation on the proposal, at which point the Council will vote on whether or not to reserve the right to purchase the right-of-way.

If the Borough does choose to reserve this right, it will then have a year to commit to purchasing the right-of-way or cede it to the University for good.

Martindell hopes that this right-of-way process can be undertaken in a civil and rational matter, urging all those involved to “step back … and look at the merits of the issue in a very matter-of-fact and limited way.”

But this might be difficult for those involved, since, as Wilkes said, it is no longer just about the location of a train station.

“This poor little train has been filled with the baggage of years of resentment,” Wilkes said. “This train is now carrying all of the hurts and slights … on both sides that have happened for 50 or 75 years.”