Community Corner

Resident Files Suit Against Township, County Clerk to Block Liquor Vote

William Cox argues putting the referendums on the ballot this year violates state statute.

A township resident has filed a complaint against council and the Burlington County clerk in Superior Court to block the liquor license referendums from appearing on the November ballot.
 
In the complaint filed earlier this week, William Cox claims the referendum questions introduced by Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust (PREIT) violate state statute pertaining to the placement of referendums.

Cox cites statute 33:1-45, which states once a referendum question has been voted on, the result remains in effect for five years and the same question cannot be reintroduced until that five-year window has expired, nor can any “ordinances, resolutions or regulations inconsistent with the result of such referendum” take effect.

Cox, a commercial litigation attorney, argues in his complaint the referendums introduced by PREIT—the first to permit the sale of alcohol in Moorestown, the second to restrict sales to the mall—and by township council violate that statute because voters rejected a similar referendum in 2007.

“I believe the intent of the statute scheme is to allow a five-year cooling-off period between times when the public is asked to decide on alcohol-related questions,” said Cox.

Though the wording of the 2011 question is slightly altered from the 2007 question, he said the spirit and the intent are virtually the same.

“It encompasses everything voted down in 2007,” he said.

Acting on township attorney Thomas Coleman’s guidance, council approved resolutions in August directing the county clerk to place PREIT’s referendums on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Coleman’s position was that the referendum this year was different enough with the slight wording change, and the mall-restriction caveat, to allow its placement on the ballot.

Cox, obviously, disagreed.

“We need a judge to interpret the statute,” he said.

Reached for comment Friday, Mayor John Button said he had not seen Cox’s complaint, but repeated his defense that the referendum push originated with PREIT and council did what it was required to do under the law.

Coleman did not return a call seeking comment.

On a deeper level, Cox objects to PREIT’s plan because, like many, he believes Moorestown’s century-long status as a dry community is part of what makes it unique and special.

“On the merits, I don’t agree with it. I do see a uniqueness aspect to it,” said Cox, who first moved to Moorestown in 1965 and, after several years away, moved back in 1993. “I’m not persuaded the town should be doing things to help a big million-dollar company. I’m not persuaded (passing the referendums) is going to have a dramatic effect on the town’s tax revenues.”

Property Tax Relief for Moorestown, the citizens' arm of PREIT's campaign, released a statement late Friday afternoon through its spokesman, Chris Russell, calling Cox’s “11th hour lawsuit” a “distraction … completely without merit.”

“The five-year waiting period for the ballot question only applies if the same exact question is being asked. This year’s question is authorized by a separate statute and therefore the waiting period does not apply. Case law decisions confirm this conclusion,” the statement reads. “We look forward to putting this matter behind us and focusing on to transform Moorestown Mall.”

Cox said a conference call with Superior Court Judge Ronald Bookbinder is scheduled for 10 a.m. Monday, most likely for scheduling purposes.

Cox believes the court should have enough time to act on his complaint before the election.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here