An elected official’s challenge is to listen to the concerns of the people who elected them, and make decisions that are in the best interests of those individuals.

With a vote last week, the Middlesex Township board of supervisors certainly succeeded at one of those things, but appears to have failed at the other.

Last week, Middlesex Township supervisors voted to deny the Grey Hawk planned residential development after a lengthy public comment period. Those in opposition to the plan said it would have an impact on everything from traffic to the environment.

Those concerns were heard loud and clear, and appeared to be the basis for the board’s decision. Many in attendance said they would support whatever comes next.

“Time to walk the walk now,” Supervisor Donald Marshall told those gathered after the vote.

In both the residents’ testimony and Marshall’s response, there was a strong implication that a legal battle could follow the denial. Earlier in the meeting, Marshall and other township officials responded to residents’ concerns by saying the development had met and followed ordinances and guidelines. The plan had also received approval from the township’s planning commission.

“How do I tell the (developer) no after that?,” Marshall questioned.

We’re still waiting to hear that answer.

Following the vote, which appeared to be an abrupt change from the line of thinking during the meeting, supervisors and other township officials were mum on the reason for the denial. Township solicitor Mike Hnath said an explanation would be sent to the developer, who could then appeal it to the court.

That explanation should be made public, especially if a legal battle is anticipated. It should be presented so that citizens understand that ordinances and procedures are in place for a reason.

While there may have been legitimate concerns for opposing the plan, it by all accounts followed the letter of the law. Denying the plan after the developer jumped through the appropriate hoops diminishes the PRD process as a whole, and sets a dangerous precedent for future developments.

Those voicing their frustrations with the plan should, perhaps, instead turn their attention to the process itself, as at the end of the day it is what should have been the basis for a decision.

Instead, supervisors listened to the rabble and rhetoric of those in attendance, setting up for a potentially expensive battle. While it is easy to say things in the heat of the moment — one resident boldly stated, “Let them sue us. The citizens of the township will defend it.” — they may not feel the same if taxes need to be increased to fight such battles.

Furthermore, a few dozen people were on hand to speak out against the development. They, in essence, are now helping guide decisions that will affect nearly 5,700 township residents. Perhaps, more residents should be aware of what is happening in their communities, and become engaged so they have a voice in such controversial matters.

However, supervisors should be more transparent about their decision-making process, and should consider all township residents — not just the vocal ones — when considering matters with a potentially impactful fallout.