In a recent mailing to homeowners in Moorestown, PREIT, owner of the Moorestown Mall, urges us to “reject the rumors and learn the facts about why change is needed at the Moorestown Mall.” In the absence of the promised public meetings to address citizens’ concerns about the scheduled liquor referendum which PREIT considers the magic bullet to address concerns about the mall, we are, unfortunately, left with little else but rumors to guide us. Unless you choose to do some digging.
PREIT’s flyer states that the Moorestown Mall has a 30 percent vacancy rate “and climbing.” However, in its June 30, 2011 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), PREIT states the mall occupancy rate at 91.2 percent — very close to the 93 percent occupancy rate at its starship Cherry Hill Mall. As there are legal penalties for lying to the SEC, if not for lying to the citizens of Moorestown, which figure do you believe?
PREIT projects up to $650,000 in increased annual revenue once it installs “white tablecloth” restaurants serving alcohol on its Moorestown site. However, PREIT’s Plymouth Meeting Mall, which has had four liquor serving restaurants (presumably with tablecloths) on site for the last four years has a 82.7 percent occupancy rate and, one would assume, the decreased revenues that accompany vacant retail spaces. Is liquor the balm to retail woes? Apparently not.
PREIT’s snazzy tax relief website claims that the state ABC commission gave its blessing to question number two for the November ballot, restricting liquor sales in Moorestown to the mall only. However, in the letter from ABC director Jerry Fischer to PREIT attorney Anthony Drollas, Fischer said, “Ordinances which conflict with the state regulatory scheme or are preempted by state law are not approved.”
As N.J. Municipal Land Use Law forbids zoning by referendum, one wonders how PREIT could have interpreted Fischer’s comment to be a ringing endorsement. However, question two will remain on the ballot to lull voters into thinking limitation of sites for liquor in town is feasible.
PREIT’s attempt to overturn Moorestown’s anti-liquor history is based on greed and couched in smoke and mirrors rhetoric. In the absence of honest dialogue, with little but rumors to go on, and with facts that belie PREIT’s rhetoric, I urge the citizens of Moorestown to vote “NO” on questions one and two in November.
Patricia Forbes White
