To the Editor:
I appreciate the recent letter explaining the rationale behind the use of a PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) for the proposed Stockton Street redevelopment [Mailbox, 10-29]. However, many residents remain deeply concerned about the precedent, the fiscal implications, and the fairness of granting a tax exemption to a private developer in one of Princeton’s most historically significant and stable residential areas.
The Stockton Street corridor, including the former Seminary campus, is part of a long-established historic architectural gateway into town. Princeton’s Master Plan repeatedly emphasizes the importance of protecting the scale, rhythm, and context of this area. Changes here affect not just one block, but the identity of Princeton itself.
The question is not whether Princeton should meet its affordable housing obligations. We must — and we can. The question is whether we should do so by subsidizing market-rate development through a PILOT program originally designed to attract investment in places where development would not otherwise occur. Princeton is not such a place. Avalon Princeton — the redevelopment of the former hospital site — is clear proof that large, mixed-income housing can be built here without a PILOT. Demand to live and invest in Princeton remains strong.
In this case, the town supported the project by permitting much greater density than the underlying zoning would allow. The PILOT agreement represents a second financial accommodation for the developer. It is appropriate for residents to ask how much public support is necessary and fair — and what the community receives in return.
Under New Jersey law, school districts do not receive any revenue from PILOT agreements, even when new students live in the development. The issue is not how many children might enroll, but the principle: we all have a moral, economic, and legal obligation to support our public schools. When a developer’s fair share of school funding is shifted onto existing residents in the form of higher taxes, it functions as a subsidy for the developer, regardless of terminology. Treating that added burden as inconsequential contradicts Princeton’s stated commitments to affordability and diversity.
Supporters of the PILOT point to financial projections indicating that the project would not be feasible otherwise. I question that. But projections are estimates, not guarantees. As rents rise or market conditions improve, the developer captures the gain. Claw-back provisions exist, but enforcing them requires complex, ongoing oversight over decades, a service for which the town will have to contract.
Finally, PILOTs are appropriate only when they produce clear, measurable public benefits that would not otherwise occur. An underground garage, for example, primarily benefits the project itself, not the broader public. A one-time donation to the town when the town is forgoing millions of dollars of tax revenue is a puzzling negotiation outcome.
Princeton can and should expand housing thoughtfully. The issue is not whether to build, but whether we build fairly, transparently, and in the public interest.