To the Editor:
A few years after we moved to Princeton for its community, walkability, and diversity, early in the pandemic, we were unexpectedly pulled into a series of lawsuits between neighbors over Municipality-approved housing on a nearby property. Eight homeowners, including us, with no direct involvement in the contentious property, were sued over possible setback violations dating back to the 1920s. Our “violation” was our garage (that came with the house) extended a bit towards an obsolete road line. Seven of us together spent over $30,000 on legal fees and countless stressful hours. A year and half later, the case was settled. We managed that cost, but had it continued, we might have been forced to leave the community we had come to love. For a while, the possibility of being pushed out of the community because of meaningless, reactive, and spiraling lawsuits felt real.
Now there is a new legal challenge aimed at dismantling the municipality’s entire Fourth Round Affordable Housing Plan, following the multiple previous challenges for the Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS) project on Stockton Street that have been dismissed by various state courts. The site’s plan being challenged is mindful of both needs and character.
Another $50,000 in municipal defense costs has already been reviewed. At a time when budgets are being monitored more closely than ever, I wonder how much taxpayer money, across this and prior lawsuits, has been spent defending repeated legal challenges to the PTS housing plan, which has already gone through multiple legislative reviews. That figure does not even account for the significant, unbudgeted time of staff and elected officials.
I am proud that Princeton has been meeting Mount Laurel constitutional obligations in an inclusionary spirit with minimal impact on taxpayers. The current Master Plan, elected officials, and municipality staff are working towards making Princeton future-ready and economically sustainable. Accountability matters, but so does removing unnecessary obstacles that drain public resources and hinder officials from doing their jobs effectively. Continuous litigation undermines the sanctity of legislative processes being executed by democratically elected officials.
Density is a spectrum, not three rigid and contentious categories of city, suburban, rural. Smart growth means responding to the economy and community needs along that spectrum. This response can be in the form of mixed-use condominiums, courtyard, or other multi-family structures that harmonize current and future needs by addressing the affordable and middle-housing gap. I do not fear smarter density; I look forward to a more vibrant community.
I have spent some time learning about the Mount Laurel doctrine, suburban structures that perpetuate class and race divides, and the economic impact of unaffordable housing. I am concerned that, without smart change, Princeton will not remain viable for my children, who represent the future. I have joined Princeton GROWS (princetongrows.com), a coalition that educates the public about the housing crisis and advocates for solutions. I want to be a part of positive change in Princeton. Join us or simply write to us at princetongrows@gmail.com.