To The Editor:

I was as gladdened by the July 22 response of Stewart and Mary Ann Solomon as I was disturbed by the quotes of Kevin Wilkes and Neal Snyder in the front page article, “Tear-downs Indicate Healthy Home Sales Market” (Town Topics, July 15). Princeton may be missing an opportunity to address both sustainability and affordability in facing the spike in tear-downs. The first principle should be to reduce such activity because the reuse of existing stock aids sustainability. A recent statement from a group of architects in Santa Monica, California stated that “Adaptive re-use is one of the most interesting approaches to sustainability and growth. Is it not preferable to see new life breathed into an older building instead of simply throwing it away? Sustainability has many facets, and as is often said, ‘the greenest building is the one not torn down.’ Updating older buildings can contribute significantly to our town’s goals of sustainability. Our codes need to be improved to insure that demolition is not the only viable option.”

Princeton’s situation is similar. (We also have lost many beautiful and sustaining trees through teardowns.)

What are Princeton’s goals of sustainability? Perhaps this exchange will illuminate what the goals are regarding housing. I acknowledge that such new construction will continue, but when it does the community should benefit. Why not increase the water hookup or other fees paid to Princeton to $50,000? Our local government could earmark that money for affordable housing. Such a strategy is in place in other communities that care about both affordable housing and retaining a mix of income groups in their towns.

I agree with the Solomons that the sentiments expressed in the article by current and former local government officials are worrisome, but I think their appearance may provide an opportunity to open a conversation about a trend toward destruction of existing stock that at least some residents deplore.

T.J. ELLIOTT

Gulick Road