Mr. R. William Potter

• 
  PACKETONLINE News Classifieds Entertainment Business -... - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 9/1/2004    Last Visited: 9/21/2004  

  After passing the letter along to R. William Potter, an attorney for Concerned Citizens, Mr. Hobler said the attorney recognized Mayor O'Neill's comments as a clear statement the borough misused the state redevelopment law to avoid putting the project out for public, competitive bidding.

• 
  PACKETONLINE News Classifieds Entertainment Business -... - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 7/1/2003    Last Visited: 7/26/2003  

  R. William Potter, attorney for Concerned Citizens, also has questioned if the borough can move ahead with permanent financing with the lawsuit outstanding.

• 
  Packet Online - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 4/25/2003    Last Visited: 4/25/2003  

  Concerned Citizens attorney R. William Potter said he also reviewed the bills and recommended the group seek an audit.He said the borough has not met minimum fiscal requirements for disclosure or accountability."These invoices raise serious questions of whether anyone is minding the store at Borough Hall," Mr. Potter wrote in a memo to Concerned Citizens."One has to shudder at how the borough will manage the $13.5 million bond issue if it is ever sold."Mr. Potter said one bill, dated Feb. 20, from Nassau HKT Associates to the borough for $363,942, includes a $35,657 payment for Nassau HKT Management for project management and coordination but does not describe the scope of work or identify who did the work.
  ...
  Mr. Potter also noted the borough used the bills as basis for the argument before Mercer County Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg the municipality will suffer grievously if the garage project is not allowed to proceed.

• 
  Packet Online - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 3/28/2003    Last Visited: 3/28/2003  

  R. William Potter, lead attorney for Concerned Citizens, argued the borough had improperly applied the law and, in some cases, ignored it by failing to notify residents of two Princeton Regional Planning Board meetings about the area-in-need-of-redevelopment designation."I see this case as restoring accountability in Princeton," Mr. Potter said."I feel it's been operating in the shadows for too long."
  ...
  "I think (Mr. Potter) is trying to turn 30 years of settled law on its head," Mr. Herbert said.
  ...
  The borough's reasoning that the two surface parking lots are obsolete could lead to multi-story apartment buildings and large-scale development on any surface parking lot in the borough which would destroy the "funky college town" character, Mr. Potter said.
  ...
  When Mr. Potter said the development project, including a 500-car garage and a plaza, would cost every man, woman and child in Princeton Borough $1,000, Judge Feinberg told him "to stick to the law."
  ...
  Later, Mr. Potter raised the issue of the borough's fallback plan to repave the two lots if the garage project fails, but Judge Feinberg cut off that argument."I don't want to go there," she said."I don't make my decisions on the consequences but on what is legally correct."When Mr. Herbert maintained the Concerned Citizens' arguments were more political than legal, Judge Feinberg reiterated she makes decision based on the law.Mr. Potter also argued that the failure of the Planning Board to ask for expert credentials of the Atlantic Group should lead to the overturning of the development designation.

• 
  Packet Online - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 4/11/2003    Last Visited: 4/11/2003  

  Concerned Citizens of Princeton plans within days to file an appeal of a Mercer County Superior Court judge's recent ruling dismissing the organization's lawsuit to halt Princeton Borough's downtown parking garage development, Concerned Citizens' attorney R. William Potter said Thursday.
  ...
  Concerned Citizens hopes to file the appeal "as soon as possible," Mr. Potter said.The group is awaiting the issuance of the judge's order, which is expected shortly, the attorney said Thursday.
  ...
  Mr. Potter said Judge Feinberg's ruling was unacceptable because he said the borough never filed a motion for summary judgment on the merits of whether the site was properly designated.While a motion by the borough seeking either a dismissal or summary judgment of the case was filed, he continued, that motion challenged the timeliness of the suit filed by Concerned Citizens, not the facts of the case."Basically, our evidence has never been heard or considered," Mr. Potter reiterated.

• 
  Packet Online - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 4/1/2003    Last Visited: 4/1/2003  

  R. William Potter, lead attorney for Concerned Citizen, declined to comment on the decision until he first discussed it with his clients."I will continue my review (of the decision) and review it with my clients and then I think they will have something to say," he said.
  ...
  Mr. Potter argued the borough could only use a single, specific subsection in the law to designate the two parking lots as an area in need of redevelopment.Judge Feinberg said the law required only that one of several subsections apply, not the specific subsection cited by Mr. Potter.
  ...
  Mr. Potter also argued the borough did not have substantial evidence to make the designation.He cited the two sessions by the Princeton Regional Planning Board in February 2002 and a report compiled by the borough's development expert The Atlantic Group, as being insufficient.
  ...
  Mr. Potter also argued that the borough made the area-in-need-of-redevelopment designation without enough evidence to support a finding of "blight," as required in the state Constitution.

• 
  Packet Online - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 1/21/2003    Last Visited: 1/22/2003  

  R. William Potter, the attorney for Concerned Citizens of Princeton, said Mr. Herbert did not mention cases in which New Jersey courts extended the deadline "where there was significant public interest in contesting the issue."
  ...
  Mr. Potter argued in the lawsuit the borough improperly declared the two municipal parking lots an area in need of redevelopment without determining whether the site meets the statutory requirements of "blight."
  ...
  Mr. Potter said he submitted an amended complaint Friday with an additional count, arguing the borough did not provide the public with adequate financial information before voting on the bond ordinance Dec. 17.The borough is requesting a Feb. 7 court date but no hearing has been scheduled by Superior Court, Mr. Potter said.
  
  ©Packet Online 2003

• 
  Town Topics - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 9/14/2004    Last Visited: 9/14/2004  

  R. WILLIAM POTTERAttorney for Concerned Citizens of Princeton, Inc.
  
  Blame Legislature, Not the Governor, For New Jersey's $28 Billion Budget
  ...
  R. WILLIAM POTTERAttorney for Concerned Citizens of Princeton, Inc.

• 
  Town Topics - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 6/12/2004    Last Visited: 6/12/2004  

  R. WILLIAM POTTERAttorney for Concerned Citizens of Princeton, Inc.
  
  Whom to Choose?All Four Candidates For Council Receive Endorsements
  ...
  R. WILLIAM POTTERAttorney for Concerned Citizens of Princeton, Inc.
  
  Whom to Choose?All Four Candidates For Council Receive Endorsements

• 
  Town Topics - [Cached Version]
  Published on: 11/1/2003    Last Visited: 11/1/2003  

  R. WILLIAM POTTER Attorney for Concerned Citizens of Princeton, Inc.
  ...
  R. WILLIAM POTTER Attorney for Concerned Citizens of Princeton, Inc.

Page:  1 2