To the Editor:
Councilwoman Lambros writes [in her October 15 letter] that the 108 Stockton Street redevelopment will “keep Princeton alive.” No one disputes that Princeton must continue to grow, but is this project in line with what’s best for the town? True vitality comes from stewardship, not spin. It requires transparency, respect for Princeton’s neighborhoods, and responsible planning, not rushed approvals and misrepresented “facts.”
Princeton’s own September 25 court filing acknowledges that the 108 Stockton project was incorrectly listed as an “existing and completed” development in the town’s affordable housing plan. That misstatement, if not caught, would have allowed Princeton to avoid having to prove site suitability and feasibility in detail, since completed projects are assumed to have cleared those hurdles. Fair Share Housing Center’s role is to simply verify numerical compliance with the state’s housing obligations, not vet stormwater, traffic, or historic issues. And the Planning Board’s “unanimous” vote came before any full site-suitability analysis was done; it has been said that their hands were tied.
The Councilwoman calls the project “sustainable,” yet it replaces an open, tree-filled historic campus with an overly dense apartment complex covering roughly 75 percent of the site in asphalt, concrete, and roof. The partially exposed parking garage beneath the buildings isn’t included in the height calculation. The buildings will appear to be five-stories high at Stockton Street and encroach within five feet of neighbors’ properties. In a flood-prone area, no independent stormwater, traffic, or tree-canopy studies were conducted before ordinance adoption. Sustainability deserves more than a greenwashed check-off of the Green Development Checklist.
The assertion that a 100 percent affordable project was not financially possible was never tested. The municipality did not issue a request for proposals or explore partnerships with nonprofits. Other towns of similar affluence have built fully affordable developments using state and federal funding. Claiming impossibility without analysis isn’t responsible.
Nor does the project meaningfully advance affordability. Out of 238 units, only 48 (the legal minimum) will be affordable, and only for 30 years. Meanwhile, a 30-year Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) shifts an estimated $35–$40 million in taxes from the developer to existing homeowners, driving up local taxes and creating the very conditions that force our neighbors to move. That isn’t “broadening the tax base.” The town counts these 48 units twice, claiming “double credit” toward its obligation. How does counting phantom units help the people who actually need a place to live?
I must also dispute the statement that this part of town is the “wealthiest section of Princeton.” The Frog Hollow / MHHD neighborhoods have long provided Seminary- and University-subsidized housing for students, faculty, and clergy. It’s a traditional, academic Princeton neighborhood, hardly one of outlying privilege.
Princeton deserves thoughtful planning, not false choices. Supporters of Defend Historic Princeton believe 100 percent in affordable housing. Real housing for real people, not symbolic units in luxury enclaves subsidized by public giveaways. We oppose using Princeton’s most historic corridor as a proving ground for a windfall financial deal that serves private investors at the expense of the community.