I want to offer a few observations about the letters written by West Windsor Council member Hemant Marathe and resident John Church on the subject of the improvements contemplated for Nash Park. I will also touch on the draft resolution on this same subject, which was debated at the May 31 Council meeting.
These letters, and indeed the resolution, are framed as principled, high-minded defenses of the citizens of West Windsor, against alleged violations of the Faulkner Act, against potential violations of the federal constitutional insistence on separation of church and state, against possible introduction of invasive species, against possible building code violations, against possible zoning violations, among other things.
In my opinion, these arguments are totally transparent pretense, and they, and the letters by Messrs. Marathe and Church, reek of pure and simple ugly politics.
Several years ago then-Council President Brian Maher caused quite a stir when he strongly objected to a proposed Asian garden theme for the Princeton Junction pocket park recently dedicated as Nash Park. He insisted that: “between PJ’s Pancakes and 7-11 ‘All American’ businesses, there is no room for a park with an Asian theme.” He was rightly called out in the media for making such blatantly insensitive remarks, especially in a community that is almost 40 percent Asian.
But Mr. Maher was not about to roll over. He persisted in his obstruction.
On the West Windsor Township website you can find notes from February 21, 2014 (Budget Work Session #3): “President Maher asked for assurances that the Princeton Junction Park will not receive monies from taxpayer funds for its development or from the Annual Parks Open Space Maintenance Program.”
And from March 17, 2014, (Business Session) this: “President Maher advised that only $2,500 in donations has been received to date for the pocket park. He asked Administration to step up and create a park similar to the 9/11 Memorial.”
Got the picture? Maher’s position: we won’t fund this park with tax dollars or open space dollars, and the administration should step up and get private donations.
Fast forward two years, and Mayor Hsueh lines up a private donation of a “Beautiful Pavilion” for Nash Park, and guess what? Hemant Marathe and John Church find new arguments to defeat the prospect of an Asian-themed pocket park in Princeton Junction. They write letters larded with dire warnings of misuse of power, possible violations of building codes, zoning ordinances, and state laws, and federal constitutionality questions. They offer no support for the argument that a Chinese pavilion is a religious symbol.
They take a section of township code out of context (a section that says the Environmental Commission may accept some donations), and read it to mean that only that body, and not the mayor, may accept donations on behalf of the township. They craft a horribly confused resolution that insists on immediate and even retroactive, compliance with a policy regarding acceptance of property donations that has never been followed in the past.
The township clerk confirmed that West Windsor has never followed the procedures regarding donations that the proposed resolution demands. Not for the beam from the World Trade center at the 9/11 Memorial, not for the gazebo at the memorial, not for the bridge, the pond, the large oak tree, the bust of Ron Rogers, not for the sculptures at the veterans memorial, not for the batting cages, the light poles and score boards on playing fields, the cricket pitch, the bike racks, the irrigation systems, and not for the scores of other donations to the township.
The clerk could find no ordinance, no resolution, no vote by Council concerning any prior donations accepted by the mayor on behalf of West Windsor.
The resolution supported by Messrs. Marathe and Church is a barely disguised slap at Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh. It is an embarrassment to all citizens of West Windsor, and a particular embarrassment to all our citizens of Asian ethnicities. I urged its defeat, and the Council finally tabled the resolution. But, as Mr. Church (when he finished lecturing the lawyers in the debate on the proper interpretation of the law) pointed out, it can be un-tabled.
Andrew M. Kulley
West Windsor
