To the Editor:

Princeton is evidence that even smart people can make big messes. We let the PCDO determine who sits on our Council – with the result that the Council is dominated by activists with little experience in the commercial world. Not surprisingly, they tend both to focus on their pet causes and to be oblivious of the harm those causes are inflicting on our lovely little town.

We are instructed to prize diversity, equality, and sustainability. Diversity, of course, does not extend to ideology. Equality seems to exclude Princeton’s residents. And sustainability is evidently limited to building materials.

Perhaps that is why we hear so few objections to Judge Jacobson’s recent decree that Princeton must create at least 500 new “affordable” housing units (i.e. units heavily subsidized by existing residents). The learned judge clearly thinks a lot of herself – and little of the people whose lives she is upending. Not surprisingly, her decision has been applauded by our affordable housing lobby and accepted by our Counsel. We will probably meet the target with set asides that shift the burden of construction costs onto developers. As a quid pro quo, those fortunate developers would be permitted to build four market rate units for every “affordable” unit – with the result that our housing stock, currently ca. 8,000 units, would increase by ca. 2,500 units (31 percent). Residents will be saddled with the property taxes occasioned by an increase in land values, the burden of infrastructure and school expansion costs necessary to support a massive increase in our town’s size, the degradation of our core down town neighborhoods, and the departure of hundreds of longtime residents whose taxes are already only borderline affordable – all so that New Jersey’s indigent population can be relocated to one of the state’s most expensive communities.

There is nothing fair about Judge Jacobson’s decree. It is an assault on property rights – and makes unaffordable dozens of existing homes for each “affordable” unit that it will create. We should ignore her ruling. The courts’ bias makes litigation futile, but we already have a precedent in “sanctuary” cities for selective enforcement of the law. The state is highly unlikely to seize control of our municipal government, and we would likely obtain the support of hundreds of similarly affected New Jersey communities. Why would we ever seek to comply?

If we ignore Judge Jacobson’s edict, there would be no good argument for the ill-conceived school expansion proposed by our School Board. We could eliminate the current over-crowding by terminating the contract that subsidizes Cranbury residents by letting them avoid the cost of building and operating their own high school. Doing so would spare us the hundred million dollar construction cost, the related increase in operating costs, and another extravagantly tasteless modification of our formerly lovely high school.

Is it too much to ask that Princetonians open their eyes, set aside their prejudices, and use their well credentialed brains to preserve the scale that makes our little town so sustainably attractive?

Peter Marks

Moore Street