To the Editor:
Regarding the controversy over the proposed Stockton Street development:
In his letter raising concerns about the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) that the town has granted the developer of the Stockton Street site [“Proposed High Rise Development Project at Stockton Street Needs a Substantial Rethink,” Mailbox, May 21], Steve Snyder notes that this “substantial ‘gift’” is based on our Council’s designation of the area as an ANR (or “Area in Need of Redevelopment”).
The State of New Jersey allows municipalities to designate ANRs “to arrest and reverse conditions of deterioration of housing, commercial and industrial facilities” in areas that meet various conditions, including “substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated, or obsolescent” buildings which are deemed “detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community” (Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, NJSA 40A:12A-1 et seq.).
How is this relevant? It certainly came as a surprise to me that the Princeton Theological Seminary, which then as now owns the property in question, was responsible for anything that might conceivably meet such criteria!
After a little digging, I find that in 2018 the town Council, on the recommendation of the Princeton Planning Board, decided (Resolution 18-336) that some poorly maintained buildings belonging to the seminary did so qualify; and then in 2019 subsequently found (Resolution 19-188) that additional properties from the adjoining area also met the (sub)standard. Who knew?
Next, I find that the Seminary demolished the buildings in 2022, effectively rendering obsolete what was a questionable designation in the first place. No matter, apparently. Under redevelopment plans approved last year on the basis of a now obsolete designation, the council awarded a $40 million PILOT anyway, at the direct expense of Princeton taxpayers.
What is going on here? I can see the virtue of sensible redevelopment. But I can’t see the virtue of incentivizing developers to build massive megaliths at the expense of the town. And I don’t mean only its character. I mean also our pocketbooks.
PILOTs reduce the property tax burden of and thus the cost to developers for the designated properties. According to the law, they are intended for “areas which would otherwise not attract private investment.” The Stockton Street parcel is prime real estate in the middle of historic Princeton, including a portion of the Mercer Hill Historic District. As Snyder points out, there is no reason to suppose that a responsible developer could not be found to build in the area without paying them an additional sweetener to do so.
A sweetener to the developer is in this instance a bitter pill to the rest of us. Aren’t we already being PILOTed to death? Why does a city-sized, luxury apartment complex in the heart of historic Princeton require the enormous financial incentives intended for reclaiming neglected urban slums? Or did I just answer my own question?
As a longtime Princeton resident and taxpayer, it seems to me that the Council and the Planning Board have some explaining to do.