Councilman Newlin’s recent letter and public comments on the PCRD lawsuits raise important questions about accountability and community engagement. But his characterization of residents’ motivations is simply wrong.
The legal challenges to the proposed redevelopment of the former Princeton Theological Seminary’s Tennent Roberts Whiteley (TRW) site are grounded in well-established planning concerns: preservation of historic spaces, environmental impacts — including groundwater and air quality — traffic safety, and density. These are not abstract objections, nor are they about “power and control.” They are the kinds of issues municipalities are expected to take seriously.
This is also not opposition to affordable housing. TRW neighbors put forward an alternative concept — approximately fifty all-affordable townhouses, designed to fit the character of the neighborhood and to provide opportunities for ownership. That proposal was never formally considered by Council.
Residents did not turn to litigation lightly. Lawsuits followed repeated attempts to engage — both formally and informally — that did not result in meaningful dialogue. Litigation was not the preferred path; it was a last resort.
PCRD is not asking that the site remain unchanged. Residents have proposed alternatives and invited scrutiny. What has been missing appears to be a willingness to fully engage, exemplified by a forum in which any engagement is limited to only three-minute periods for individual public comments.
If there is to be a path forward, it must begin with accurately representing residents’ concerns — and a genuine willingness to hear them, not by disparaging the ideas or the speakers.