The Madden Report:

1. Planning consultant John Madden concedes in his report that only 51% of the 350 acres meets any definition (criteria) of "blight" (p. 19), other than new criterion H in the LRHL which is about "smart growth" not blight. He therefore needs to invoke "smart growth" or condition H to justify the inclusion of the other 49% of the properties which can only be justified under H. It is clear in his report that he has worked hard to use A-G wherever he could, given that H, which was added by the legislature in 2004, has never been tested in the courts. Furthermore, Madden concedes that the study area meets only one aspect of the various H "principles" and that is being near to the Princeton Junction train station -- or what he refers to as being "within the influence area" of the station:
   1. What does this "influence" mean and how far can this extend? For example, what prevents the area from extending to the residential areas even while these are temporarily not included?

   2. What "influence" does the PJ train station have on people who don't use it?

   3. What has this got to do, if anything, with finding blight?

   4. Is every area near every station across NJ therefore a potential AINR? What about every "under-utilized" area since Smart Growth appears to address under-utilization as well?

2. But Madden's efforts to apply A-G also appear strained. Madden seems to concede that 35.8 acres of "Class A office buildings" are not properly deemed blighted (p. 20) but says he decided to keep them in so that the Town retains "all options" for redevelopment of the site. Why were these sites included when they don't have anything blighted about them but give the yet unknown RA developer/redevelopment authority/township government/state all the "blight fighting" tools of eminent domain, etc., that go with the designation? Is this also an application of Smart Growth? Is there anything that can not be counted as Smart Growth a.k.a. "under-utilized"?

3. Madden writes that 61.24 acres are blighted under criterion C because they are "unimproved...being without a building for a period of ten years or more." (p. 20). But these are parking lots, and as such, but how might they be "improved" other than surface treatment, or meters or other means in which to collect tolls? Does this follow then that any site without buildings on them is blighted simply because they have no buildings on them or no better buildings?

4. Madden writes that 97.92 acres are "D" blighted because they have deteriorating buildings on them, outdated, or obsolete; by this assessment therefore is every building that is 50 years of age or older a source of blight? Madden stated further at the council meeting on the RA designation resolution on 12-19-05 in regard to "D" criteria that 60% of this criteria - poorly designed buildings over 50 years old - are usually an indication that it looks like it could be a building that is need of redevelopment and inconsistent with this market location. Does this meet the test of "blight" and how exactly were these properties evaluated and inspected? Were these drive-by evaluations or did someone go inside?

5. Were photographs taken of each site?

6. Madden writes that 257.42 acres or 73.5% of the 350 acres are blighted under criteria "E" because they are not fully "utilized." In this "definition" of not utilized then does this promote that the land is prime for more intensive development " -- considering the economic potential for this prime Central Jersey location" (p. 20) mainly then designated "blighted" because it is attractive for more development, and then by this definition every site that is prime for redevelopment is blighted?

7. Does the site meet one or more of the statutory criteria A-G?

8. Mr. Herbert, legal counsel for West Windsor Township, referred at the council meeting on the RA designation resolution on 12-19-05 to the "race for transit village designation" between NJ municipalities who are seeking substantial funds from the State. What are these funding sources and how much is potentially available for what specific uses? Are the funds for planning purposes, and if so, to whom are they available and how are they to be used? How else may the funds be used?

9. We have been told that the primary importance of the AINR is to get matching Smart Growth dollars for planning, matching presumably the $175,000 that Council has allocated, "free clean-up" of the contaminated 30 acres, worth about $1 million, and "higher priority" at DOT for road improvements. Is this the sum total of benefits? What are they all worth in dollars to the citizens of West Windsor?

10. We understand that the mayor had one meeting with the property owners in the AINR. Little effort has been made to date to get them to understand what is being proposed here. Isn't it really the case that the AINR forces the property owners in the "influence area" to make some serious decisions on selling their land effectively threatening them in the final analysis with eminent domain if they don't sell? In lieu of compelling these sales through the AINR, why not try the lesser course of a zoning change first and see if this works? Has this been discussed? If so, why was it ruled out?

11. To date what assessment has taken place to determine the hazards and impacts of the sites designated as contaminated within the study area? Has there been any attempt by the township administration to find out what sources of funding are available for remediation without an RA designation? Does the site need to be in an RA to qualify for brownfield remediation grant programs, or can it qualify as it is now? Would failure to designate (RA) cut West Windsor Township off from state-funded programs for brownfield remediation? How can we compare if they RA designation is the best and most fiscally responsible way, to both the municipality and the state, of correcting environmental hazards to the public and the environment?

Planning Board Investigation and Hearing (November 2, 2005):

12. How can the Township Council, or anyone else, determine if the Planning Board adequately investigated the criteria for assessing the 350 acre area for blight without having the minutes of the planning board meeting, where the Planning Board reportedly "conducted a public hearing" on November 2, 2005?

13. What questions did the planning board ask about the Madden report? How were they advised?

14. Did the members of the planning board know that a Redevelopment Area is the same as a blighted area?

15. Did the planning board or township council review the report and decide if the Madden report sufficiently investigated whether the 350 acres is blighted?

16. Did the report show blight but with a few possible exceptions for some potentially contaminated formerly industrial properties?

17. Did the planning board or township council review the specifics of the classifications used to assess "blight" in the report considering that while municipalities may use the Redevelopment Area or "Area in need of redevelopment" in lieu of the constitutional term of "blighted area" that there is no difference in the definition provided by the LHRL.

18. Does the site proposed for the RA meet one or more of the criteria (A-G, since H has never been in court yet?) If so, it is blighted only if the site is also causing or threatens to cause "off site harm" or spread to the rest of the community? Does the blight actually exist?

Public Outreach and Educating the Public on the Implications of RA Designation:

19. Given the importance of Smart Growth in the designation, why did township officials NOT hold a public information meeting before the beginning of the designation process, as recommended by the Office of Smart Growth?

20. Was there sufficient time or opportunity for the public to grasp the information without provision of public education and outreach? The Madden report was not updated on the web; the first resolution talked about supplements that were not disclosed to the public and the second resolution was posted online on 12-19-05 the day of the vote. The maps in the Madden Report were not a sufficient scale to read, decipher and comprehend.

Defining an Area in Need of Redevelopment:

21. How were the 350 acres determined? Do we really need all 350 in the RA? Is the exclusion of residential areas a design decision or a political decision?

22. Marvin Gardner, chairman of the West Windsor Township Planning Board, said at the council meeting on the RA designation resolution on 12-19-05 that all parcels in the RA do not have to be developed, and that the area could grow beyond its current definition in the future? How can DCA approve an AINR and then have it change its definition? On what basis and with what process, can the boundaries of the AINR grow or shrink?

23. Seventy per cent of the properties are privately owned and they are not blighted. What is the justification for assigning them as in need of redevelopment?

Funding and Impacts:

24. What is the effect of the RA on our taxes? What sort of a fiscal study, if any, has been done? Have redevelopments of transit villages in the other 17 or so townships been financially beneficial for existing taxpayers or has it driven taxes up?

25. What is the effect of the RA on traffic? When will an updated analysis of impacts be commissioned? The impact of traffic of 800 new homes alone will be enormous. The vision study seeks a 10% jump in parking spots at the train station. Won't all of this mean more car trips through our neighborhoods? How will the stress and overload of both Alexander and Washington Roads be managed since it is not now planned to enlarge these interceptors? How will the Smart Growth goals to calm traffic in residential neighborhoods be accomplished? Smart Growth talks about public transit and fewer car trips. Where is this in the plan?

26. What is the effect of the RA on schools?

27. Where would the funding come from? Can the state commit to funding despite reports from Governor Codey that the DOT and "New Jersey are broke"? Who will build the Vaughn Drive and other road improvements? Is there the commitment of the necessary funding to support the BRT project? Or, will the taxpayers of West Windsor through a non-petitonable bond referendum provide the seed money with the plan being to pay them back later on?

28. When will an environmental impact study be commissioned?

Principles Resolution:

29. While it seems well-intended to address some of the concerns to have prepared the resolution on the principles for this RA designation, why were these not included within the RA resolution itself to assure the citizenry that there will be no negative impact on their taxes or their roads? Why first give the powers to implement something, when we don't know who will be implementing what?

30. Why were certain "principles" only provided on the same day as the resolution (12-19-05) for review and consideration almost as an after-thought?

31. What merit does such a resolution, or principles within it, have in being upheld or exercised in conjunction with the RA designation? Can they be ordinanced? What other form should they take in order to have the same weight as the RA designation itself?

32. Since it appears that the "principles" resolution can later be overturned by another Town Council and thrown at any time in the future by another resolution, how much value does it really have if it stands alone?

33. Can West Windsor Township officials assure the public that the second resolution will not be amended into nothing?

34. Has any other municipality ever passed a resolution such as this in conjunction with a resolution in favor of a RA designation?

35. Do township officials and legal counsel see a conflict between the second resolution and the powers given by LRHL? Is there an inherent conflict to both meet the interests of developers, the state, property owners and community residents?

36. Does anyone in the administration or on council oppose a set of principles on the goals of this project? If so, then why?

The Redevelopment Plan and Public Participation:

37. When and how will the township outline and discuss with all stakeholders the "partnership" relationship, timeline and design of the process for the "project area"?

38. Is it possible to bring all of the stakeholders together, including the Princeton Junction Neighborhoods' Coalition, to a joint design charette process so real input can be received that will actually be used in the ultimate designs or will the Township go its own way on the design and give short shrift to citizen input?

39. Citing from the Redevelopment Handbook, how will the Redevelopment Plan "indicate its relationship to definite local objectives regarding land uses, population density, traffic, public transportation, public utilities, recreational and community facilities, and other public improvements" for the Redevelopment Area in relation to the land-use planning objectives in the West Windsor Township Master Plan?

Selecting a Redeveloper:

40. At the public hearing on 12-19-05, developers, including the JAW group, were notable for their absence. Why do you think no developers spoke up?

41. What agency or structural organization provides the best means for ensuring the objectives of the redevelopment project?
    • Redevelopment Agency?
    • Governing Body?
    • Housing Authority?
    • County Improvement Authority?
    • Others?

42. While there is no statutory obligation that requires a competitive redeveloper-selection process, by what basis might the search for and selection of a redeveloper take place, i.e. RFQ (Request for Qualifications) process; RFP (Request for Proposals) process; or Direct Negotiations? Since the results of who gets selected is frequently a function of how the proposal is drafted, who would craft the RFP etc.?

43. Will the township give the developer tax breaks? Since the mayor said no on 12-19-05, why do you think he is opposed to listing this in the principles?

44. What are the "principles" that might limit the application of eminent domain as embodied in the powers granted on December 19th?

45. Many redevelopment plans are vision studies that have been tweaked. We have been told that $175,000 is about $225,000 too little to do a real community-based project. Will the township rely on the Vision Study presented to date by NJ Transit or does the township have another plan? Why to date have township officials referred to the study as a plan?

46. What happens if West Windsor does not get the Transit Village designation or related funding?

47. What do we do if the redevelopers or developer(s) go bankrupt, especially after we are hit by a bond referendum?

48. Based on comments made by the mayor, he envisions a large role for individual property owners who he has said would choose their own developer / builder who would follow the agreed design model for the village. In reality, however, it is likely that these property owners will end up selling their land to the redeveloper and/or to developers. The redeveloper will be involved in working with these developers providing lots of opportunities for individual deals. How do we assure transparency and make sure that the redeveloper and the township are not involved in unacceptable dealings and are not earning excessive profits at the expense of the taxpayer? What is a reasonable definition for "excessive" here? How do we make sure that we don't end up like Hamilton?

49. What rights do the Township Council and the taxpayers have to oversee fiscal issues, i.e. issuance of bonds and provisions of PILOTs when petitioning for public referendums and other civil liberties are no longer permitted under the LHRL?

50. How can we ensure that the design is the right one for all the residents of West Windsor Township and that residents are involved in the creation of the plan in proportion to their proximity to what is being built? Is it unreasonable for those who have the Transit Village in their backyards to have more influence on its design than those who just travel to and from the TV? How do we make sure that other forces are not dictating the plan (developers, NJ Transit)?