To the Editor:
Residents following the proposed redevelopment of the Franklin Avenue and Princeton Theological Seminary properties may reasonably wonder whether the town has applied the same care, timing, and judgment to both.
For the Franklin Avenue redevelopment, the town conducted an initial investigation and then — more than four years later — returned with a revised analysis explaining what facts had changed. This subsequent investigation documented vacancies, deteriorated buildings, issues with accessibility, and other signs of property decline. Whatever one thinks of the Franklin Avenue redevelopment, the town recognized that designating a property as an Area in Need of Redevelopment (ANR) under New Jersey’s Local Redevelopment and Housing Law should rest on current, well-documented conditions.
The Seminary properties followed a different course.
In 2018, the town conducted an investigation covering 10 Seminary properties, culminating in an ANR designation for all 10. Over seven years later, only five of those properties — the Tennent-Roberts-Whiteley (TRW) campus and 92 Stockton — are proposed for redevelopment. There have been no proposed redevelopment plans for the other five properties included in the designation. Requests to remove the ANR designation from those properties were declined, without reference to any current, site-specific conditions that would justify their continued inclusion.
Timing further underscores the concern. The Seminary redevelopment study was completed in 2018, when the TRW campus was still active: people lived and worked there, and the gymnasium was in regular use. While the buildings were allegedly neglected, they were occupied and functioning at the time they were studied. Years later, the buildings were vacated and then demolished by the Seminary, presumably to clear the site for redevelopment — yet the redevelopment ordinance itself was not adopted for more than two years, in late 2024, long after the original conditions cited in support of the ANR designation no longer existed.
The town has said that ANR designations do not expire and that rescinding a designation is uncommon. But redevelopment is not meant to be a permanent label. It is intended to address specific, existing conditions — not to sit unchanged for years while circumstances, plans, and even the physical site itself are fundamentally changed so to impact the criteria relied on by the town for the ANR designation. When over seven years have passed since an ANR designation for five of the Seminary properties — without even a draft redevelopment plan proposed — it is reasonable and responsible to ask whether such designations remain appropriate.
This is not a debate about whether Princeton should grow or whether housing is needed. It is about consistency, transparency, and trust in the planning process. If redevelopment designations are treated as untouchable regardless of time, scope, or changed circumstances, public confidence inevitably suffers.
Princeton can support thoughtful development while still insisting on rigor and fairness. Taking a fresh look at whether the Seminary properties still warrant an area in need of redevelopment designation would demonstrate that process matters — and that redevelopment tools are used carefully, not by inertia.