To the Editor:

Incredibly, the plan for the former Princeton Hospital site proposed for development by the AvalonBay corporation that will be put before the Planning Board once again on Wednesday December 19 has no alternative energy and very limited sustainability features. The company has flatly refused to use solar energy to lessen its carbon footprint. This plan is disturbing also because of the issue of social justice in the higher cost of fuel to residents, including those in “affordable” units. This is tantamount to giving the blessing of affordable housing with one hand but placing the burden of increasingly higher energy costs on tenants, especially those less able to pay.

The building would be the largest residential development in Princeton. It is unconscionable to build a 280 unit apartment building for about 500 people and not have alternative energy, thus relying totally on fossil fuels, especially when AvalonBay has used such sustainable features in its corporate headquarters in Arlington, Va., the company’s website states:

“At AvalonBay Communities, Inc. green living is more than a philosophy, it’s our commitment …. At the core of green living is our understanding that a sustainable approach to living benefits all — our residents, our associates, and the communities where we are located.”

In spite of those nice p.r. words, it is difficult to consider AvalonBay a good corporate citizen given its current site plan. Alternative energy is an “Inherently Beneficial Use” which should not be put in the category of “cost generative,” a legal term AvalonBay throws around with abandon. Actually, in the long term, alternative energy will save money as well as improve the environment, but AvalonBay has short term interests.

Apparently Princeton is not an isolated case. An April 11, 2012 memo from the Office of the New York City Comptroller to AvalonBay’s shareholders on sustainability urges them to vote in favor of “A request that the board of directors of AvalonBay prepare and make available to shareholders by September, 2012 a sustainability report addressing greenhouse gas emissions, water conservation, waste minimization, energy efficiency, and other environmental and social impacts … in operations and maintenance as well a design.”

Almost all of the things that socially responsible developers do these days are called “cost generative” by AvalonBay because this proposed development will have some affordable housing. Are we to conclude that people living in affordable housing should be subjected to more pollution and its renters pay more for energy use because they have lower incomes? The fact that the state allows this lesser standard does not mean that AvalonBay must follow it instead of choosing to be a good corporate citizen.

If the Planning Board should vote to approve this problematic site, with many other serious issues, I hope it will consider making a condition of approval the inclusion of solar panels “to the maximum extent possible” because of its “inherently beneficial use,” which also carries some legal weight.

Grace Sinden

Ridgeview Circle