To the Editor:
WW Financial View Challenged
As one who has lived in and paid taxes on the same house in West Windsor for more than 50 years, I have trouble sympathizing with Mr. Baxter (letter June 26), who presents yet one more exposition on the evils of “fat-laden” and “wasteful” budgets and rising municipal taxes — without giving even one example of what he means by fat or waste. I’m no fan of higher taxes either, but if his facts were more accurate and his ideas truly new, I would take his points more seriously. But his facts are questionable and his suggestions old hat, so what else is new?##M:[more]##
In the last eight years the West Windsor municipal tax rate has gone from 47 cents per hundred in 2002 to 33 cents per hundred for 2009. Although that’s a decrease in the rate, you have to take into account the reevaluation of 2005-6, which resulted, for many owners, in at least a doubling of the assessed value of their property. My assessed value increased by a factor of 2.26. The overall effect on my municipal tax for the eight years from 2002 to 2009 is an increase of just under 60 percent — nowhere near the 100 percent claimed by Mr. Baxter.
Now, 60 percent is by no means trivial, even over an eight-year period, but it’s not surprising in a community that continues to grow residentially as West Windsor has for the past several decades. That’s why I do agree with Mr. Baxter on the probable negative tax consequences of further residential development in the so-called “redevelopment” plan. If it were not for the success of the open space preservation program over the past decade, things would be even worse, with at least another 1,”500 acres of residential development by now.
As for his other points — zero-based budgeting, shared or regionalized services, exclusivity of use and inspection fees, etc. — some or most of this has already been done the way he suggests for many years, or, when tried, has been found to be either more expensive or unworkable. Even in those ancient times of the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s, we routinely used zero-based budgeting for the local school budget — believe it or not. And when, for example, we tried contracting out school bus service to a regional provider (in response to public suggestions) we found it to be more expensive than owning and operating our own buses.
Many of the factors that affect the cost of our municipal services are a byproduct of the way the state is organized, with around 600 separate municipalities and school districts in one of the smallest states in area. You can’t point your finger at the local government about a lack of shared or regionalized services if your neighbors or the state as a whole won’t see the benefits or help support the idea. Townships, boroughs, and school districts have talked about changing the status quo on this for decades, but there’s no solution in sight. Home rule wins out every time.
Richard S. Snedeker
Grovers Mill
Merit of Hospital Name Change Questioned
Editor’s note: The University Medical Center at Princeton has announced that it’s changing its name to University Medical Center of Princeton at Plainsboro. The name change prompted this discussion by Herbert W. Hobler.
1. Using the name Princeton and university will influence many people near and far to believe it is related to Princeton University, which it is not. On one hand you don’t want to lose the name Princeton. On the other, like it or not, many will assume a formal relationship with Princeton.
2. While I understand there are affiliations with one or more university medical schools in New Jersey, the hospital is not an integral part of a university medical school as is, for example the University of Pennsylvania’s Medical School and its hospital.
While these affiliations are worth promoting as special assets, the institution already has a corporate name that would solve the problem: the Princeton HealthCare System. It’s a good, meaningful name that automatically implies something beyond a hospital or even a medical center. In some confusion, the recent foundation report jumps back and forth between the name Princeton HealthCare System and University Medical Center.
To an actual or potential patient of one or more of the services under the Princeton HealthCare System umbrella, I suggest the name “HealthCare” suggests more to the layman than medical center.
It’s not too late to make it simple, accurate, not potentially misleading and just make it Princeton HealthCare System (PHS or PHCS), Princeton HealthCare Medical Center (PHMC), or Princeton HealthCare of Plainsboro, assuming they would like people to know where they are located.
Certainly the hospital can be proud of its several university medical school associations. But it should keep the name pure and simple for one and all.
Herbert W. Hobler
Montgomery
Support Local Ace Over Route 1 Stores
This is in response to the opinions expressed by Neal Phenes in the June 26 edition of the West Windsor & Plainsboro News regarding the Plainsboro Village Center. In comparing the Village Center to Route 1 stores, Mr. Phenes states that “price and a wider inventory does matter.” While this may be true for Mr. Phenes, I disagree, especially when it comes to Ace Hardware. In my opinion, it is important to support local businesses. Not only does this keep fellow Plainsboro residents employed, but by supporting Plainsboro businesses, we keep tax revenue in Plainsboro instead of neighboring towns.
In addition, Ace Hardware has given back to the local community by routinely donating to and supporting the Plainsboro Rescue Squad. It pains me to see a local resident bypass this business all in favor of saving a few cents at an out-of-town business that may not give back to nor have any interest in the Plainsboro community. I also find that the time saved by going to Ace versus any other establishment is definitely worth any extra money I might pay for an item.
Mr. Phenes mentions that duplicates of many of the Plainsboro Village businesses are “available in abundance after a short ride on Route 1.” Yet in the same paragraph he also mentions how “he could take a gas station in town.” As a Plainsboro Village resident who prefers not to have a gas station and its concurrent potential for air and groundwater pollution in my neighborhood, I’d like to remind Mr. Phenes that numerous gas stations are also “available in abundance after a short ride on Route 1.”
Sheryl Brown
Plainsboro Village
Council Candidate Values Education, Volunteerism
Thanks for including me in the article “WW Council Seeks New Member.” While I was thrilled to be included, I don’t think the article accurately portrayed my desires and passion for West Windsor.
First, you never mentioned that I’m a member of FOWWOS and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Alliance. I believe I conveyed both to you.
Second, I led with “improving education. The schools are excellent, but we can always improve.” “My son will be going through the WW school system.” You didn’t mention this at all.
Third, my quote of “Make sure we have continuous improvement in all of that” followed a conversation on improving education, improving overall quality of life and improving our budget. Simply stating “make sure we have continuous improvement in all of that” misrepresents my statement.
Fourth, “While we’re looking to continuously improve, I think we also need to have volunteers in the community.” I may have connected these two because I was driving. My intent would have been to separate these two. My point was/should have been “We need to look to continuously improve. We have an excellent brain trust in the West Windsor community and we should ask for volunteers.”
I still really appreciate being included, but hope to get a little more balanced coverage in future articles. I’m passionate about this town and want a fair shot at the honor of serving on council.
Andrew Hersh
Morgan Challenges WWP News Report
Your article in the June 26 edition “$36.5 M Budget Adopted; WW Looks for Cuts in `10” does not live up to your usual accuracy standards. I would like to correct the record.
I did not “read a memo Township Attorney Michael Herbert sent to council highlighting state laws as they pertain to the legality of a community nonprofit” as stated in the article. Mr. Herbert has not given us a memo highlighting state laws. Rather, I referenced Mr. Herbert’s previous statements that it is illegal under the Municipal Land Use Law for West Windsor to establish a community nonprofit.
I then referred to a May 15 e-mail from Mr. Herbert in which he said “that a 501(c)(3) corporation could not be used to assume normal government operations because the State Law would not permit it.” I then mentioned Mr. Herbert’s June 3 memorandum that did not say what his e-mail said it would say — rather, it says that a 501(c)(3) organization can be used in the way I have suggested. I asked Mr. Herbert during the meeting to confirm that he now agreed that we could do what I had been suggesting all along. Mr. Herbert confirmed that he now agrees with me.
You quote me as saying “that a board can even be elected to run the nonprofit, but none of those elected to serve on the foundation can be governmental officials.” That is not quite what I said. I was referring to the ways we could meet the requirement that a 501(c)(3) organization that is “closely affiliated with government” must be “controlled by state or local government” while complying with the requirement that it not be an “integral part” of government.
What I said was that the control requirement could be achieved by the election of a nonprofit board that would not comprise elected government officials. The “government control” required by the tax rules could be met by the public election of that board from among the general public. It is, however, perfectly alright for West Windsor elected officials to serve on the board and thereby meet the requirement of West Windsor control over the 501(c)(3) organization.
You assert that I “filed a complaint with the state Attorney General’s office and Mercer County prosecutor, alleging that Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh and Linda Geevers encouraged Chief Financial Officer Joanne Louth and Business Administrator Chris Marion to knowingly include errors in their analysis of his proposal.”
I have NOT made that assertion.
I have alleged that the draft Louth memo contains serious errors of fact and that I immediately objected to any release of the draft until the errors were corrected, given that an election was imminent. I also alleged that Hsueh refused to direct Louth and Marion to work with me to correct the errors and that his refusal put them in an awkward position of being insubordinate if they did work with me. Further, I alleged that Hsueh and Geevers facilitated the release of the draft containing those errors for their own selfish political reasons, thus reinforcing the insubordination problem for Louth and Marion. Finally, I alleged that Hsueh and Geevers used the errors in their campaign materials and that their actions constituted the illegal use of staff for a political campaign.
I have been denied an opportunity to sit down with Louth and review the errors in the draft because Hsueh refused to permit such a meeting and because of Louth’s apparent reluctance to act in a way that could be perceived as insubordinate.
The draft memo has not been put into final form. By denying me the opportunity to review the errors with Louth and have a corrected final memo released, Hsueh and Geevers are continuing to use those errors for their selfish political ends and compounding their violation of New Jersey law.
Hsueh’s and Geevers’ refusal to direct Louth to work with me is not good government and does not serve the best interests of the West Windsor community. The reason they continue that refusal is obvious: They don’t want to suffer the public embarrassment of seeing the errors corrected, and they don’t want to face the reality that they used those errors in their political campaign in violation of New Jersey law.
You quote me as saying that “I’m still waiting for a meeting, and answers to my draft response.” It is true that I am still waiting for a meeting. It is not true that I have given them a draft response. They cannot give me answers to a draft response that does not exist. I am waiting for a meeting to review the errors in the Louth memo, some of which you have again quoted in your article, so that all of us can see a final memo that corrects those errors.
It’s time that Hsueh and Geevers stopped playing politics to the detriment of our taxpayers. The election is over. It is time that Hsueh and Geevers came clean and stopped misrepresenting my proposal. It is time for Hsueh to direct Louth to sit down with me, listen to my concerns about the errors in her memo, and issue a corrected memo.
Charles C. Morgan
West Windsor Councilman
