To the Editor:
On November 3, Hopewell Township voters will decide whether to establish a commission to study how our local government works — and elect the residents who would conduct that study. Two questions are central to this decision: How much power should residents have over decisions that shape our community? And who should independently evaluate whether our current government needs to change?
What if Hopewell residents could challenge a Township decision instead of simply having to live with it?
Hopewell Township still operates on a structure built in 1798. Five part-time elected Committee members serving 3-year terms govern the township and select the mayor from among themselves. Currently, elections occur every year and all five belong to the same political party.
This antiquated structure denies residents important democratic rights: the ability to propose local laws or petition for a public vote to overturn eligible ordinances adopted by the Committee.
We can speak at public meetings, write letters, and elect different Committee members. But once a decision is made by the Committee, those options offer little practical recourse.
New Jersey offers multiple newer forms of government that give residents two powerful additional democratic rights:
- The power to propose local laws. With enough petition signatures, residents can put an eligible proposed ordinance before voters, even if elected officials oppose it.
- The power to challenge local laws. Residents can petition for a public vote on certain newly adopted ordinances, giving the community an opportunity to reject them.
Consider two issues with enormous consequences for Hopewell Township.
Data centers. At the October 19 Township Committee meeting, residents presented a proposed ordinance to ban data centers, citing concerns about water, electricity, the environment, and Hopewell’s rural character. Committee members acknowledged those concerns but said further study was needed before acting. Meanwhile, the redevelopment plan for the former Bristol-Myers Squibb property — adopted by the Township Committee — expressly permits digital data storage warehouses. Under our current form of government, the Township Committee retains control over whether and how to respond with residents having no recourse to propose approaches or challenge ordinances the Committee adopts.
Developer tax agreements. Residential developments totaling roughly 2,500 homes have been approved in the last eight years accompanied by thirty-year PILOT agreements that now shape our township’s finances for decades. Payments these developers make in lieu of property taxes nearly tripled from $3.5 million to $9 million in a single year and now represent almost a quarter of municipal revenue. Yet by law, the school district receives none of it. Neither does the fire district. And neither does the open space fund. Meanwhile, these developments create demands for school capacity, fire protection, and other public services, with financial consequences for taxpayers outside the redevelopment areas. Here too, the Township Committee largely controls the negotiations over these enormously consequential agreements, often before their terms become public. Residents have little practical opportunity to influence the agreements and once approved, are left to accept the consequences.
Should the very officials whose structure is being studied get to choose who does the studying?
If voters approve a Charter Study Commission, five elected residents will examine our current government, consider alternatives, and recommend whether change is warranted.
Chart New Course began as a bipartisan, citizen-led effort to explore better ways to govern Hopewell Township. Its members include experienced community leaders and former mayors who believe our growing township deserves a serious examination of alternatives.
The four Chart New Course candidates are opposed by five candidates campaigning under the name “Open Minds.” Four of the five sitting Township Committee members participated in placing that slate on the ballot. During the ballot challenge proceeding, Committee member Courtney Peters-Manning testified under oath that she organized the slate and led its petition effort.
The officials whose government structure is being reviewed should not be the ones shaping the commission that reviews it.
This raises a legitimate question about independence of the Open Minds candidates. It does not establish that any individual candidate is unwilling to consider change, but it is relevant to voters deciding whom to elect to the commission.
The Open Minds campaign has criticized Chart New Course for previously recommending a particular form of government, suggesting its candidates have already made up their minds. But Chart New Course’s original citizen petition was required by law to identify a specific proposed form. The four candidates have since publicly committed to examining alternatives, listening to residents with different views, and reaching conclusions based on the evidence.
Having an informed opinion is not the same as having a closed mind. Nor does the name “Open Minds” itself establish independence.
Your vote on November 3
The ballot presents two separate choices: whether to establish the Charter Study Commission and which five residents should serve if it is approved.
Chart New Course urges a YES vote to establish the commission and endorses four candidates:
Stephen Klopfer — 2E
Tamera Matteo — 3E
Michael Markulec — 7E
Chad Goerner — 9E
Establishing the commission would not itself change Hopewell Township’s government. It would create an opportunity for public study, discussion, and recommendations, with any proposed change subject to the applicable legal process and an open vote.
Hopewell residents deserve more power over their government — and an independent voice in deciding its future.
For all candidates’ detailed responses to questions, visit chartnewcourse.org/meet-the-candidates.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Sandom
Former Mayor, Hopewell Township
