To the Editor:

How will we measure the success of our new Master Plan without clear definitions and measurable goals? Is unlimited growth the goal? Unlimited infill? Unlimited teardowns? Is the plan to make housing affordable or is the goal to add true affordable housing to meet our Mt. Laurel obligation?

In response to a question about what definition of “walkable” the town is using for planning, a representative replied that “…walkable refers to the patterns of development that we have in areas of Princeton already where many folks have cars, many others don’t, some use them every day, some use them sparingly, others use different forms of transportation either exclusively or in addition to their car use.” Also, “Terms like ‘walkable’ and ‘gentle infill’ are somewhat planning terms, but also somewhat commonly defined.” more

To the Editor:

One of the often-repeated narratives of proponents of the new Master Plan is the phenomenon of the “missing middle.” I’ve done some research and discovered that Princeton is not on lists of the 0 or 15 highest income or highest property value communities in New Jersey. Nor is it on lists of the 10 or 15 lowest income or lowest property value communities. It is, however, on several lists of best small towns and best communities in New Jersey.

I am in the middle. After 26 years as a Princeton resident, I know many others who would fall, by reason of income or the value of their homes, in the middle. All of this leads to the following question. Is the middle really missing, or is it simply overlooked by our municipal authorities? more

To the Editor:

Three years ago, Princeton embarked on what the New York Times called “The A.D.U. Experiment” in an article of the same name dated December 10, 2021, which noted, “‘We really are the ‘guinea pig’ in the New York metro area,’ said Mia Sacks, a Princeton councilwoman and an advocate of the new ordinance.”

This experimental ordinance, passed by Princeton Council, allows an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be added to many properties in town. The ADU could then be rented (or even sold separately). ADUs were promoted to address the “missing middle” as a price point. It allows homeowners to carve out part of their own home to rent or sell, giving them some financial security and allowing others who need lower cost housing to live here. The experiment feels too new to be declared a success or failure, but the referenced New York Times article describes a location in Princeton where a single-family home was apparently demolished and redeveloped for two homes, one declared an ADU. Was this an unintended loophole or part of the plan? more

To the Editor:

Did we vote to become a city? By increasing the allowable density over a very broad area of town, and by reducing and eliminating restrictions to development, the proposed Master Plan (MP) would allow many of the existing buildings that create the particular feel of this place to be demolished and replaced by new structures containing more units. More often than not, these are grossly out of keeping in scale and design with the neighborhood in which they’re situated. Could this home replacement therapy, despite the good intentions of its advocates, be the cure that kills the patient?

Crucially, the plan relies on developers to fulfill its progressive ideals. But in this overheated housing market, the profit incentive only creates a drive for more units in greater densities — at ever higher prices. For whom are we providing all this projected new housing? “Affordable” seems a misnomer. For example, accessory dwelling units (ADU) are very appealing in concept, but even a tiny recent ADU on Guyot is now valued at over a million dollars. Whenever an affordable home enters the market — beat-up, perhaps, but a dandy starter home — a developer makes a cash offer, tears it down, and replaces it with a far more expensive house. More people will move here, yes, but it seems increasingly doubtful that they’ll be people of low, modest, or middle income.  more

To the Editor:

Princeton has long been a place that people love to visit and seek to call home because of its distinct neighborhoods, vibrant downtown districts, networks of parks and open spaces, top notch public schools, and all the shared benefits of a renowned University, among other assets. But, compounded by outdated zoning, our town has been struggling under the weight of its own success. As a result, streets are increasingly clogged with traffic that pollutes our air and warms our planet, schools are running out of space, and the cost of living — including the sales prices and rents of homes — is skyrocketing, leaving Princeton unaffordable for far too many.

We are at a crossroads: Do we proceed as we’ve been doing, allowing the town to be shaped by the strongest forces acting on it, or do we proactively plan to help shape the town into the place we want it to become? more