To the Editor:
In response to the Cape May County Herald article of April 19, 2023, we want all the voters of West Cape May who signed our petition, and those who did not, to have a more complete understanding of the circumstances surrounding the outcome of the petition and the litigation initiated by the Borough.
Questioning the wisdom of the Borough Commissioners’ decision to support the establishment of two cannabis retail operations across Sunset Boulevard from each other, five petitioners spent five months going door to door, gathering signatures from 181 West Cape May voting residents. This represents 30% of the ballots cast in the previous election. It is more than the number required by law.
In response, the Borough rejected the petition, and filed a lawsuit against the five petitioners, alleging the petitioners were “misleading” the signers. As a result of being sued by the Borough, the five petitioners incurred the expense of hiring an attorney. And, to disprove the Borough’s allegation, the five petitioners went back to voters and obtained a second signature to certify that they understood the meaning and effect of the petition they signed.
The matter was eventually dismissed. It was not “successfully challenged in Superior Court” by the Borough and it was not dismissed because “…the wording was unclear, and the passage of the referendum would have resulted in a ‘silent repeal’ of the borough’s ordinance” as stated by the Herald.
Instead, the matter was dismissed because of a state statute that prohibits changing a zoning ordinance by a petition raised by voters – that power is held by the Borough Commissioners.
It was later revealed that the statute was known to the Borough Solicitor prior to the Borough rejecting the petition and filing its lawsuit against the five petitioners.
Despite this, the Borough failed to inform the petitioners of the statute when it rejected the petition. Further, it failed to include any reference to the statute in the complaint it served on the five petitioners. It was not until a court date that the Borough Solicitor came forward acknowledging the state statute.
Had the Borough informed the five petitioners of the statute when it rejected the petition, the Borough’s lawsuit against the five petitioners would have been avoided, thus saving both the Borough and the petitioners thousands of dollars in legal fees.
A simple face-to-face conversation, or a phone call in September would have prevented all the cost and effort.
As a result, this experience has tested the confidence of West Cape May’s registered voters and left us wondering if our local government is working in the best interest of the residents.
It has also left us disillusioned and wondering why our elected officials would sue their constituents for exercising their legal right to petition and question decisions, especially one that directly impacts the safety of our community.
