June 24, 2015

Current Compromise on Lytle Street Is a “Half-Step” in the Right Direction

To the Editor:

The purchase of 31-33 Lytle Street by the Town of Princeton presents an extraordinary opportunity to work in partnership with private and not-for-profit entities, and with the people of the community, to develop homeownership opportunities for low and moderate-income families. At the same time, the municipal body has a duty to all it’s residents (including those that are more financially well-off) to take every opportunity to develop ratable properties that increase—rather than reduce—the amount of land that is on the tax roles. The Witherspoon-Jackson neighborhood where this property is located was most adversely impacted by the 2009 revaluation.  Removing any part of this property from the tax roles will not be helpful to anyone.  The current “compromise” being considered by the Town would allow for the construction of 1 to 2 units of affordable housing AND the expansion of the playground.  This is a half-step in the right direction.  I suggest that before “compromise” there needs to be “correction”; correction in the process, planning, and thinking about this potential development.  Doing so might produce 5-7 units of housing for sale to low and moderate-income families.

Why is the Town of Princeton even on this track eliminating ratables? Because without consultation with residents of the neighborhood, members of Council and the administrative staff began taking steps to purchase 31-33 Lytle Street with the intent of expanding the adjacent playground.  This action will allow the Town to “capture” Mercer County Open Space funds. But it will also remove the property from the tax roles. Clearly, this is an example of poor planning and process that should not be pursued further.  I have repeatedly asked the Council for its justification or rationale for using tax dollars to purchase this property with the intent of removing any part of it from the tax roles. My inquiries have received no response.

I support the Town’s purchasing of the entire property with Affordable Housing Trust Funds and the continuing of a process to develop affordable homes for sale to low and moderate-income families on all of it.  Further, I encourage the Town of Princeton to enter into an agreement with the Housing Authority of Princeton to include its former storage building—located off John Street and adjacent to the Lytle Street lots, and which in prior years was a residence—in development discussions for the entire area.  By including this property we could expand the potential marketing and sale to “low-low income” families.  There are housing developments in Witherspoon-Jackson and other neighborhoods where the building lot size approximates the dimensions of these properties.

The Town should take the opportunity to carefully and thoroughly consider housing development on this site, and in other parts of Princeton, as it anticipates its COAH fair-share obligation along with the need for more ratable property. A well thought out plan and process could achieve both good ends.

Hendricks Davis

John Street