Public Advocate Today. False Outrage Tomorrow?

The attached letter from Somerset’s attorney should shock us all. It asks the Township Committee to amend its ordinance so the Public Advocate cannot participate in certain applications involving permitted uses or fully conforming plans.

Follow my logic.

The Township could reject the request (which it did at the October13, 2026 meeting). The advocate could oppose the data center application at Bell Works, and the Planning Board could deny it. Somerset could then challenge the denial, invoking the Redevelopment Plan’s permitted-use provisions and the Committee’s November 2025 Test Fit consistency finding, as described by its attorney.

If a court found the application legally entitled to approval, it could overturn the denial.

The mayor and Township Committee could then claim they “fought for residents,” by creating this Public Advocate, blame the courts, and avoid answering for their own earlier decisions.

Why did the Committee confirm the Test Fit? Why did the ban come months later? What due diligence protected residents before the application arrived? Creating an advocate does not answer those questions.

A public advocate must not become an escape route from accountability, followed by another performance of false outrage as we witnessed earlier with the JCP&L poles, once the outcome is beyond the Township’s control. Holmdel deserves leaders who do the right thing before residents must fight the consequences.

Are we being protected—or played?

Prakash Santhana

Former Holmdel Deputy Mayor