I applaud the letters of Doug Rabbino and Mike Baxter in the January 21 issue of West Windsor & Plainsboro News commenting on the planned train station area redevelopment. I congratulate Mr. Baxter on his financial analysis of the likely impact of this plan on local school taxes, should it be carried out. This is the first real analysis of the potential school impact that I have seen.
I have long been in favor of redevelopment of the train station area. We need more parking, and a combination of retail outlets, restaurants, artist studios, a farmers’ market, and a plaza for outdoor gatherings would be delightful to have. However, the inclusion of 800 dwelling units will likely result in a major and ongoing problem for West Windsor. Therefore, I would respectfully like to bring the following additional points to the attention of the public, Council, Mayor, and Administration.
My purpose is not to disparage the extensive work done by Council, their legal counsel, and township professionals in negotiating an agreement with Mr. Goldin. They have perhaps done the best they could under extremely trying circumstances. Still, these points need to be made.
Economics. During my career in industrial research and development, we never proceeded with a complex project without a detailed financial analysis. Yet, despite repeated requests at Council meetings, we have had no such analysis. Mr. Goldin has surely done his own financial analysis of the project, but we have had very little except off-the-cuff statements that the project will not cost the Township “one penny,” plus an additional estimate of roadway costs alone (Gary Davies, September 22, 2010). The latter is apparently unaudited and replete with assumptions of considerable outside funding, none of which can be assured. We have already spent perhaps $1,000,000 on this project, and possibly far more than that.
To address this concern, Council and Administration should provide the public with a complete and independently audited accounting of township funds already spent on this project over the past several years, plus projected ongoing costs under several “what-if” scenarios. This analysis should be compared with the fixed Redevelopment Fee of $683,000 and the fixed Off-Tract Road Assessment of $2,678,090 in the agreement signed with Mr. Goldin, to be paid gradually over a period of many years and without allowance for inflation. These fees and assessments seem low in view of our already sunk funds and likely high ongoing costs. But we need an accounting, and we need it soon.
As examples of ongoing costs, we will be obliged to contribute to local roadway improvements and their maintenance. We will have to provide additional emergency services and refuse collection to support the nearly 10 percent increase in West Windsor’s population that this one single development could generate. A police substation should be there, along with some degree of fire protection and emergency services. The height of the new buildings could require the purchase of new fire equipment. Many other ancillary and presently unforeseen costs will undoubtedly occur. All these would be over and above the increased school costs projected by Mr. Baxter, which would be only partially offset by tax receipts from the new residences. Tax receipts from new businesses cannot be depended on, especially in view of the traffic concerns addressed below.
Public Safety. The high population density of this development will bring with it new public safety issues. In such congested areas, fire is an ever-present danger. This location is in many respects a cul-de-sac, surrounded as it is on three sides by the Northeast Corridor, the Dinky line, and wetlands with very restricted access. No second Dinky crossing has been approved by New Jersey Transit, and given their past written concerns, none may be forthcoming. Failing such approval, emergency ingress and egress would be even more compromised.
The inherent nature of this area has always argued against having housing there, let alone high-density housing. That, and proximity to the Northeast Corridor, makes it a very poor choice for such use, one that should be against thoughtful public policy.
Already this winter we have had huge snowbanks along roadways and at intersections, making driving much more hazardous than usual. One can easily visualize total snow paralysis and the consequent impossibility of getting emergency services in and out of Mr. Goldin’s district, to say nothing of everyday traffic. With 800 housing units and 1.5 cars per unit, we would already have 1,200 cars apart from business traffic.
Proximity of the Northeast Corridor presents its own issues. In recent years we have sadly had a number of pedestrian fatalities along this stretch. Such incidents may increase with high-density housing so close to the tracks. Would we want this on our collective conscience?
The impracticable concept of congested “shared space” for pedestrians, bicycles, and cars within the Promenade and at its uncontrolled intersections, which is forced by the large amount of new construction, is likely to lead to many unfortunate incidents. To their credit, several Council members have already spoken to this concern at meetings.
Traffic. Our local roads are already overloaded. Much additional congestion would obviously result from new traffic at the development, plus the required two new signalized intersections on the western side of the railroad bridge. Contributing to these difficulties, Washington Road is impossible to widen without extensive property condemnations.
The absence of any interior parking lots within the housing area would mean that business traffic would be seriously compromised. Businesses need adjacent (and hopefully free) parking to thrive, but instead there would be parking meters along the interior streets and not enough parking in any case. Public assemblies and use of the contemplated farmers’ market would, however, require extensive free parking to be available. Free weekend use of NJ Transit’s lots on that side on the tracks may not be allowed.
Environmental. There is a rectangular area of woodlands, comprising roughly 3.3 acres, within the proposed building and Vaughan Drive Extension zone shown on page 3 of the November 15, 2010, Pattern Book. The center of this area is easily seen on Google Earth near the headquarters of Rep. Rush Holt, who would have to be evicted for this project to proceed.
Removal of the above woodlands, which are adjacent to the flood plain area, would surely increase the net storm water runoff from the redevelopment zone, especially since according to the agreement signed with Mr. Goldin, up to 95 percent impervious coverage would be allowed within his property. The present degree of impervious coverage is clearly far less than this. A separate storm water detention basin has been proposed, but none is shown in the Pattern Book.
Apart from the above, high-density development of this area will obviously cause a large increase in light pollution.
Summary. Some may say that this train has already left the station, so to speak, propelled principally by Mr. Goldin with his continued lawsuits and threats of new ones. My answer is: no, this train hasn’t necessarily departed. I respectfully ask that Council not pass the two new ordinances, especially the unusual 2010-04, which would effectively bypass, in advance, a possible Superior Court order.
I ask that our Planning Board thoroughly examine Mr. Goldin’s pending application and not hesitate to reject it if they see fit. They should not fear an additional lawsuit, as I think one could be successfully defended if we simply have the resolve.
Besides these strictly local factors, Mercer County and the state may not approve the required two new signalized intersections. NJ Transit may not allow a second Dinky crossing. The state Department of Environmental Protection may not allow the destruction of more than three acres of woodland and the likely large increase in storm water flow and consequently even worse periodic flooding on Washington Road, since no detention basin is presently in the plan.
Most importantly, the taxpayers of West Windsor Township should make their collective voices heard.
John A. Church
West Windsor
