The City Formerly Known As New Brunswick

In my previous post, A Crucial Vote for the Hub City, about the death of Richard B. Sellars, the one-time head of the New Brunswick, NJ-based Johnson & Johnson and a pivotal voice in keeping the corporation's world headquarters in the Hub City at a time of serious urban and economic decay, I looked (albeit superficially) at the effects of J&J's presence there.

I hinted that now, at a time when builders, retailers, and institutions are once again trending toward urban environs, and transit oriented development becoming a mainstream phrase, that it might be feasible to think that New Brunswick would have been just fine -- eventually -- without the unbelievable physical and cultural sacrifices the city made to accommodate these economic drivers like J&J, Robert Wood Johnson hospital, and Rutgers University. Acres upon acres of historic commercial districts were destroyed for suburban-style "campuses," a hotel, high-end residences, etc. In the picture above, is the foundation of the so-called "Gateway," a tower that will house very high end residences that will connect with the New Brunswick train station, as well as a Barnes & Noble. The Gateway comes at the expense of one of the last 19th-century-era commercial stretches in New Brunswick.

I get it. I get ratables and attracting business and deveopment to improve the economy. On the one hand, these days it's hard to argue with developing dense mixed-use, transit-oriented development. But it all comes at the cost of city history -- one that is now barely evident.

A Crucial Vote for the Hub City

Richard B. Sellars, the former head of Johnson & Johnson died this week at 94. His was a crucial voice in keeping the health care conglomerate in the Hub City, and arguably the reason New Brunswick, NJ is, in fact, known as the "Hub City." Just the second person outside the Johnson family to head J&J, Sellars recognized the company's commitment to its original host city, particularly when company's board of trustees was leaning toward moving the company out of New Brunswick during the city's economic nadir in the 80s; and at a time when businesses and housing were trending toward the suburbs.The New York Times, in its obituary, referenced a 1984 interview with Sellars where he recognized the importance of J&J investing in New Brunswick:

“It was apparent even then that we had a commitment to New Brunswick that we couldn’t run away from,” Mr. Sellars said in a 1984 interview. “The survival of our country depends on the survival of its cities, so we’d all better get involved in cleaning them up.”

Of course, anyone familiar with New Brunswick knows the value of Johnson & Johnson's presence, but also the significant sacrifices the city made at a time when there was little political pressure to preserve the city's historical layout and buildings, as indicated in the picture above. There, the signature IM Pei building in the background and the fallowed land in the foreground that is now home to the Hyatt New Brunswick, were once major commercial districts. The sprawl development that resulted was heralded as urban reinvestment, but it would have looked the same in suburbia. The J&J campus and the Hyatt are colossal wastes of urban land.

These days, there are several major economic drivers in New Brunswick that remain committed to the city, but there continues to be little regard to the city's historic character -- character that was, in part, established by the institutions that remain.

Cap 2.5 Is Propaganda, But It Should Get Towns Thinking About Consolidation -- For the Right Reasons

People who live in towns that they absolutely love are lucky. They are lucky for a number of reasons, but from a policy standpoint, they are lucky that they get to be completely sentimental, often to the point of being irrational, when it comes influencing policy. They are lucky because they have a voice and get to drive the town council nuts and have it actually produce results (unlike places like, say, New Brunswick, where driving City Hall nuts more often than not results in being stifled, harassed, shut out, etc.).

This could be wrong, but I would say that most residents of New Jersey's 566 municipalities would agree that there are several instances where it would make cultural, financial, and geographical sense for two adjacent towns to consolidate governments, police departments, fire departments, public works, and so on. I would also say that just slightly more than half of those residents would say that their town should NOT consolidate with the adjacent town. This is just my sense -- also, it's a sense based more on a pre-Great Recession and BC (Before Christie) mindset and less on new economic realities.

As governor, Jon Corzine recognized that certain towns needed to consolidate, but he never really made an aggressive case. He formed the Local Unit Alignment, Reorganization, and Consolidation Commission (yawn) that was charged to:

"Study and report on the structure and functions of county and municipal government. This effort includes the study of local taxing districts and their statutory basis. It also includes the fiscal relationship between local governments, and the appropriate allocation of service delivery responsibilities from the standpoint of efficiency"

This Byzantine mission statement is more that most of us can swallow, and resulted in kind of pushing for consolidating "the two Berlins" (not sure if that was more for symbolic purposes) and encouraged shared services between municipalities. LUARCC still exists, but while the state's Department of Community Affairs (the department that oversees LUARCC) remains in transition under the new Christie administration, it's unclear how the consolidation commission will proceed.

In the meantime, Governor Christie's tax caps, budget slashing, and overall disregard for tactful legislating will more likely than not result in towns making those tough decisions, including consolidation, that were once considered a luxury; pragmatic, but luxurious nonetheless. A quick aside: the governor's braggadocio and blind ideals do him no favors and will likely keep him from being at the helm of any real progress.

Brian Donohue from The Star-Ledger validates many of the pro-consolidation ideas documented in the late, great Alan Karcher's Multiple Municipal Madness in this NJ.com video clip. In it, you'll see some clips of Gov. Christie making some pretty good arguments in favor of municipal consolidation, using his native Mendham Township and Borough as an example of two municipalities that suffer from duplication of services, including two libraries and two school boards, not to mention two separate governments, police departments, etc.

Gov. Christie hopes Cap 2.5 will force town consolidation

When I covered the Princetons as a reporter for the local paper there, I came to understand several important things about consolidation. First, the idea that so-called doughnut towns -- both the hole and doughnut as is the case with Princeton Township (doughnut) and Princeton Borough (hole) -- share a community is kind of bogus. I mean, the Princetons share far more than other doughnut towns like Metuchen Borough and Edison Township, and Highland Park and Edison Township, and any other town swallowed by the mammoth, sprawling, Edison Township (once part of the even mammoth-er Raritan Township). But for the most part, the people living in Princeton Township and Princeton Borough are different. They do, however, share schools and a library, which, culturally speaking, is very important.

Second, as Donohue points out in his video, most arguments against consolidation are sentimental. Some very vocal groups would create specious arguments against consolidation, but those were fundamentally based on a desire to remain as two towns, just because. There are no good arguments against consolidating smaller towns like the Princetons.

Third, I will always remember something the current mayor of Princeton Borough, Mayor Mildred Trotman, said when she came into office: that consolidation would probably not be explicit, but that the towns would eventually "backdoor into consolidation." While the state does need to be more aggressive in getting towns to merge, especially towns that don't have as much in common as the Princetons do, her approach makes sense here.

Sadly, it appears that Gov. Christie's setting a 2.5 percent tax cap, while resonating well with make-believe penny-pinchers, exploits the genuine beliefs of mayors like Trotman. The tax cap is mostly propaganda, because towns have mandated expenses and contractural pay increases that exceed 2.5 percent are not addressed by the 2.5 percent cap and that those increases continue to mount, regardless who crafts the municipal budget.

Anyway, Governor Christie is speaking out against a "top-down" mandate to consolidation, but it's exactly what he's doing. That's not to say consolidation is not a fantastic, cost-cutting idea that increases efficiency and potentially improves public safety and schools, but starving towns of funds to force them to make potentially unsustainable, and life-changing decisions, is beyond reckless.