Section 19:37-1 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes sets forth the procedure whereby a governing body can place a public question on the ballot for an upcoming election in order to gauge public opinion on a particular local issue. This is called a nonbinding referendum. The statute reads as follows:
“Referendum. When the governing body of any municipality or any county desires to ascertain the sentiment of the legal voters of the municipality or county upon any question or policy pertaining to the government or internal affairs thereof, and there is no other statute by which the sentiment can be ascertained by the submission of such question to a vote of the electors in the municipality or county at any election to be held therein, the governing body may adopt at any regular meeting an ordinance or a resolution requesting the clerk of the county to print upon the official ballots to be used at the next ensuing general election a certain proposition to be formulated and expressed in the ordinance or resolution in concise form. Such request shall be filed with the clerk of the county not later than 81 days previous to the election.”
It would obviously be absurd for every local issue to be submitted to the voters in this way. However, there are two highly important pending matters that I believe town council should place on the ballot as public questions this November to help guide council in its actions.
The first regards the future of the Grover Farm, which is leased to a local farmer until December, 2016. We have heard that the administration may be considering plans to construct athletic fields there. If true, such a use would be incompatible with leasing the repaired farmhouse, as few tenants would want the increased traffic and noise that would accompany such a use. This is especially so since the only access road to the farm goes directly past the house. Again, if true, this could also explain why the house was not maintained after Mrs. Grover moved out in early 2009 and its demolition was proposed in the spring of 2010.
It’s possible that the town as a whole would agree that athletic fields or something similar would be a better use for this property than farming. It’s also possible that they would disagree, specifically local residents who could be significantly affected. For this reason, I recommended at Monday’s Council meeting that Resolution 2013-R140 authorizing the Administration to proceed with demolishing the Grover house and several outbuildings be either tabled or voted down at the July 8 meeting, and that a resolution be prepared for placing a suitable public question on the ballot.
The Grover house has lasted for at least 170 years already, and giving it a reprieve for another few months until public sentiment has been sufficiently gauged is perfectly reasonable. If the public really wants to see it demolished, then I have personally agreed to stop opposing this from happening, which is a significant change in my position. Will council agree to preserve it, at least for time being, if the reverse should take place? This is my good-faith challenge.
Another major issue regards whether or not the municipal complex should be renovated to the tune of approximately $5 million, a figure that is already out there for discussion. Because of the large amount of taxpayer money that would be involved, I suggest that an appropriately worded public question on this matter also be placed on the ballot this November.
If council does not agree to do this, the alternative is for members of the public to go to a great deal of unnecessary trouble to get many hundreds of signatures on a petition to accomplish the same thing. Council can put these questions directly on the ballot with little if any associated cost, and this would be greatly appreciated during the upcoming busy election season.
The 81-day deadline for council to submit its own request to the county clerk for ballot placement will be reached on August 16. In the interest of citizen feedback, saving our time, and greater government transparency, let’s proceed with the direct route.
John A. Church
West Windsor
