Princeton Borough Council Candidate Profiles

With local elections approaching, Patch asked the four candidates for Princeton Borough Council candidates a series of questions to help provide readers with a better understanding of why each is running. The questions included:

• Why are you running for Borough Council?
• What are the three issues most important to you and why?
• Why should residents vote for you?
• Do you support consolidation with Princeton Township? Why or why not?

Patch has posted each candidates response to the questions in full (in alphebetical order).

There are two open positions on Borough Council.

The candidates are Democratic incumbent Barbara Trelstad, Democratic candidate Heather Howard and Republican candidates Peter Marks and Dudley Sipprelle. 

Why are you running for Borough Council?

Heather Howard: I’m running for Borough Council because I believe that Princeton is at a critical juncture. We are facing unprecedented fiscal pressures, including escalating pension and health care obligations and declining state aid. As a Riverside mom with substantial government experience, I want to make sure we’re making the right and sometimes tough decisions to ensure that Princeton remains the welcoming community it is.  We need fresh ideas and management savvy to face the economic and social challenges ahead.  

Peter Marks: Princeton Borough has been my home for nearly 60 years. I have lived through: the University’s sale of Palmer Square; the construction – over 20 years and by two separate developers – of Hullfish North; the loosening of height restrictions on Witherspoon Street; the disappearance of many of our family own businesses and retailers (including Nassau Street grocers, at least two Borough meat markets, two hardware stores, a very highly regarded fabric shop, and many highly regarded men’s clothing stores); the construction of the Spring Street parking garage and retail/apartment complex; the construction of townhomes and condominiums on many Borough streets; and now the imminent disappearances of both our downtown hospital and our downtown post office.

It is true that our downtown has many more restaurants than existed in the village I grew up in. We also have many more coffee shops and banks. One new friend observed that our downtown has been transformed into an outdoor shopping mall – one which is positioned to appeal to people in other municipalities (i.e. tourists), if they can find places to park once they arrive.

Our taxes, meanwhile, have increased with our population and density – one might say they have increased in direct proportion to the increases in population and density. Property taxes have reached such crushingly high levels that they are now forcing long time residents to move elsewhere – and influencing our discussion of critical zoning issues.

If we do not change course, the town I have long known will soon be unrecognizable. I am running because I was asked to run -- but I agreed to run because I have a point of view that does not seem to be widely understood and thought that, by running, I could perhaps redirect the conversation.

Dudley Sipprelle:  I am running because I want to restore Borough municipal finances to sanity. Local government should not be spending more than it takes in, relying on undefined and uncertain "surpluses" to balance the budget.  Any surpluses should be returned to the taxpayers through reduced taxes.  The current municipal spending path is unsustainable. We are becoming Greece on the banks of the Stony Brook. 

Barbara Trelstad: I have served on Princeton Borough Council since November 2005. It has been a privilege and an honor to do so, and, I enjoy the work. I am running again because I feel that I can continue to contribute to the citizens of the Borough as we work through several important issues that are before us.  Those issues include, but are not limited to the Arts and Transit neighborhood zoning, Consolidation and University Relations. I believe that I bring a thoughtful approach to the issues that come before Borough Council because, by nature, I am a listener.  It takes a bit of time to get up to speed with the issues that come before Council and I feel that my prior experience on Council will lend itself well to our current work.

What are three issues most important to you and why?

 
Heather Howard: The most important issue is property taxes.  The property tax burden threatens the diversity that makes our community so special.  We will need to restructure government so that we can provide tax relief and make sure Princeton can maintain its diversity.

A related issue is sustainability. It has been reported that the Borough has dipped into its capital surplus to avoid tax increases.  At this rate, we cannot keep the tax rate steady and maintain the level of services to which we are accustomed. Consolidation, which will result in real, recurring savings, is an important step we can take, but whether or not the consolidation initiative passes, the Borough Council will need to focus on making government more efficient, and finding savings to provide property tax relief.  

Finally, the Borough can and should do more with technology.  The recent response to Hurricane Irene demonstrated that we do not have an adequate emergency warning system. In addition, we are not making best use of the Borough’s website to share the work and agenda of the Council in a way that encourages community participation. I believe in responsible and responsive government, and want to promote those values as a member of the Borough Council. 

Peter Marks: The most important issue by far is the apparent desire on the part of certain “decision makers” to transform Princeton into a small city – and in the process to substitute apartment blocks, parking garages, and office towers for the single family grid that still defines much of the present Borough.

Two related issues are consolidation (see below) and the Dinky. The University’s proposed “arts” complex seems to me to be lip gloss on a brazen effort to consolidate the campus across Alexander Road. As the University’s administration is well aware, Princeton’s long standing rail link will be truncated, cut off from the downtown, and separated by 1,000 feet from the parking required to attract riders. Traffic on Alexander Road, the only remaining easy access to Route 1 and points south, will be slowed by the addition of a “round-about”, two additional traffic lights, and, if the city planners have their way, a light rail line to the present Dinky station. And Nassau Street will be reduced to a quaint curiosity, a direct result of ringing the present Borough with 10 story buildings.  Does anybody really believe that a limited right-of-way and a contribution towards a future transportation study are fair compensation for the damage about to be inflicted on our two towns by the University’s proposed expansion?

None of this is necessary. As I keep trying to explain, there is a difference between having a legal right (the University’s presumed right to move the Dinky station) and choosing to exercise that right. The University has ambitious expansion plans. Those plans place great stresses on, and require the consent of, our two municipalities.  It should not have required great wit to appreciate that our two municipalities hold a much stronger hand than does the University. Our municipal attorneys should have been charged with figuring out how to play our hand without running afoul of the law. They seem instead to have been asked whether the University has a defensible legal position. Perhaps one day we will be represented by officials who understand how to negotiate.  For the present we seem to be in the habit of folding every time our adversaries show a willingness to up the ante.

Dudley Sipprelle: My priorities are:     

• Reduce property taxes to ensure that Princeton remains affordable for all its residents through zero-based budgeting;     
• Implement measures that would reduce the vehicular gridlock that makes cross-town trips and entry into and departure from Princeton too often a time-wasting frustration;     
• Turn the dysfunctional and adversarial relationship with Princeton University into a mutually beneficial cooperative endeavor which benefits both the taxpayers and the University's educational goals. This has been accomplished in other college towns and can be achieved in Princeton with enlightened leadership. 

Barbara Trelsdad: It is very hard to limit the issues that I care about to three. Obviously, the current issues of Consolidation, Arts and Transit re-zoning together with University relations, and property taxes are at the top of the list.  I will talk more about Consolidation under that heading. With regard to property taxes, I feel it is extremely important that Borough Council do whatever it can to maintain a diverse community and that means making certain that Princeton Borough is a place that folks can afford to live. Borough Council has been able to present the tax payers with a zero percent property tax increase for the past three years in a row. This is becoming increasingly difficult. I believe that Consolidation with the Township is one of the best ways that we can achieve these tax saving goals that will help both the Borough and Township retain their diversity.

University Relations are at an all-time low in this community and I think it is incumbent upon me as a Borough Council member to encourage my colleagues to work in whatever way possible with the University, Princeton’s largest land owner and property tax payer. That is one reason why I voted for the Memorandum of Understanding and voted to move the Zoning Ordinance for the Arts and Transit neighborhood forward. I believe that Borough Council has done its due diligence in seeing if there were ways that we could prevent the University from moving the Dinky. It appears, from discussions with legal counsel, that the Borough’s chances to prevail in court would be very slight. We aren’t going to be able to prevent the move of the Dinky, but we can tweak the Zoning Ordinances to make them work better for both sides.  We must move forward.  In so doing, we will hopefully be able to begin to have conversations with the University about future planning for our town.

Why should residents vote for you?

Heather Howard: As Commissioner of Health and Senior Services for New Jersey, I managed a staff of 1,700 and a budget of $3.5 billion. I can use my government experience to help create a more efficient and effective Borough government.  I know how to manage programs looking for efficiencies and savings while protecting access for the most vulnerable. I believe I can bring a fresh perspective, and knowledge of how governments work – including Trenton and the state budget. If consolidation passes, I will work to ensure a smooth and fair transition for the Borough.

Peter Marks: I don’t know that they should. What I promise is that, if elected, I will be a reliably persistent advocate for preserving the existing character of our downtown neighborhoods, reducing our property taxes, and finding a way to live comfortably within our means.

Dudley Sipprelle: A vote for Dudley Sipprelle is a vote to put a charge into the current passive Borough style of governance. The one-party government which has dominated the Borough for too long has produced predictable results--reluctance to venture beyond the bounds of political orthodoxy, group-think, and non-transparency. It's time for real change and a Council member who thinks for himself. "Experience" and election outcomes based on "party loyalty" have produced only office holder arrogance and disregard for the taxpayer.   

Barbara Trelstad: I think that I have shown that I listen to resident’s concerns.  My phone number is available so that residents can call me, and they do, if there is an issue that they have with the Borough administration or Council that they do not believe is being resolved. I will talk to them and/or go and meet with them to see what I can do to help bring their issues to an agreeable closure.  Further, I bring the experience of having lived in Princeton Borough for 30 years—in two very different areas of town—the Western section and now right in the heart of the Borough. My husband and I raised our four children here.  I have served on the Shade Tree Commission, the Environmental Commission and the Site Plan Review Advisory Board. In addition I have served on the Boards of the Arts Council, Adult School, Princeton Singers and Friends of the Public Library.  I have seen the town and how it works from many different perspectives. This varied experience is important and I bring that to the table.

Do you support consolidation with Princeton Township? Why or why not?

Heather Howard: I support consolidation because I think we are one community, and it does not make sense to have an artificial boundary separating us and draining our resources.  I applaud the work of the Consolidation Commission, which had a very thoughtful, inclusive process. Testimony before the commission convinced me that our current system is dysfunctional and results in a ratable race – where no one wins – and that the significant legal fees between the two municipalities result in great inefficiencies. Consolidation will result in financial savings of $3.2 million, but just as important, it will result in more effective and efficient government for the people of Princeton.  Consolidation will provide a real opportunity to rethink and restructure our government to preserve services and the Princeton we know.  

Peter Marks: No, I do not support the proposed consolidation. The only certain results will be a diminution of downtown voting power and the elimination of one entire set of municipal zoning protections – protections which currently include guaranteed downtown representation on the Regional Planning Board. The likely result will be accelerated redevelopment of existing downtown neighborhoods, a trend that is already alarming and one that is sure to gain momentum if we streamline the zoning approval process.

I certainly share voters’ desire for meaningful tax relief.  I also respect the work of the Consolidation Commission. The real surprise, however, was the discovery that potential consolidation savings are so modest.

What we now know is that Consolidation simply introduces a different set of fault lines (e.g. where to provide parking for the new voting majority who will live beyond walking distance of our downtown; how best to equalize and pay for municipal trash collection that today exists only in the Borough; how best to equalize and pay for municipal leaf collection that is today far more frequent in the Borough; how best to allocate the winnowed personnel of a joint police force; how best to supervise and control municipal departments that will have doubled in size; which facilities to keep and which to discard; and, above all, how much weight to give to downtown neighborhoods when considering requests for zoning changes and substantively important variances).

The Consolidation Commission is correct in observing that the only sure way to rein in taxes is to trim municipal spending. I contend, however, that the cuts which are most necessary are those which entail modifications of public sector compensation and benefit packages.  Our respective governing bodies already have the ability to trim costs, if that is in fact their objective.  The reason they have not done so is that Princetonians, thus far, have elected to protect public employee unions and maintain or broaden the scope of municipal services.  Why should we believe that the public’s expressed preferences will change as a result of consolidation?  And if they do not change, why should we believe that the Consolidation Commission’s recommendations will be implemented?

A more likely result is an even greater opacity with respect to municipal budgeting, fewer opportunities for effective citizen or Council oversight, and surging costs.  Smaller is almost always better.

Dudley Sipprelle: The "pocket borough" form of government which will be in place under consolidation is not up to the requirements of a greatly expanded community. It is inefficient and unrepresentative.  Only 18% of New Jerseyans live in a borough and the average population of a NJ borough is 7000.  In their desire to concentrate political power in Princeton, the political elites who comprised the Consolidation Commission rejected, along with other democratic hallmarks, non-partisan elections, an expanded Council consisting of members elected at-large and by wards, and a "strong" mayor who would actually be the chief executive of Princeton and thus directly accountable.  Consolidation as proposed diminishes the voice of the individual in local government and I cannot in good conscience endorse it.

Barbara Trelstad: Yes, absolutely. I lived in Princeton for about 3 years before I knew there was a difference between the Borough and the Township.  We came here and found a home that suited our family’s needs (we had 4 kids all in school) and a home that was within our budget. It happened to be in the Borough. As I have already said, property taxes are a huge concern and with the savings in both dollars and efficiency I believe that consolidation will bring we will be able to continue tax savings for several years to come. The Consolidation Committee has, I believe, been conservative in the amount of money they project will be saved.  Further, there is efficiency in working together.  A small town of about 30,000 residents does not need two governments, two administrations, etc. Hurricane Irene taught us how important it is to have one emergency management team. Clear concise instructions emanating from one police department can clearly save lives. Consolidation is simply the right thing to do and this is the right time to do it. Princeton should lead the way in the State of New Jersey.