To the Editor:

“Alternative facts” and “campaign of misinformation” were phrases used in the Town Topics last week to describe the push-back the group received to their proposed permit parking plan from Princeton’s residential community, in part represented by the volunteer organization Sensible Streets. The Princeton Parking Task Force’s (PPTF) strategy of dismissing concerned residents in such a condescending manner through the use of cheap, derogatory, language to invalidate opposition is offensive. While on the attack, the PPTF are asking for town unity. These behaviors are completely contradictory.

We live in a larger community with a broader set of opinions. Council members are elected to represent the entire community, not only those who agree with the PPTF. Many residents pointed out deep flaws in the plan, yet no compromises were made to the content. This sends the message that the PPTF doesn’t value the rest of our community, surely this is not how leaders behave in a democratic society.

Let’s address the parking plan’s content:

Public streets are not private, they’re public and don’t belong exclusively to residents. This argument is often repeated by Council members. Streets are indeed public, but the argument is flawed. What would explain the existence of parking rules, meters, and parking zones? Following PPTF’s logic, there should be no parking rules whatsoever, it should be free for all. But this isn’t the case. Parking rules exist for many valid reasons. Adjusting parking rules to whatever you like, for whatever reasons, because “it’s a public street” is an empty argument.

In the proposed plan, the cost of parking for business employees will be less on residential streets than in parking garages. How would this plan discourage business employees who pay for more expensive monthly parking from parking on residential streets?

The proposed parking plan will supposedly pay for itself. If it suddenly costs residents to pay or be fined, it will most certainly affect the resale value of our home properties, especially those that have no/limited parking spaces. Values of homes located in the Western Section with park-like streets will also be impacted. Visitors and residents will lose the picturesque streets once they are packed with cars. Residents will have to deal with the pollution, litter, and noise that congestion inevitably brings. In the end, the parking plan would impact all Princeton residents because quality of life issue and property value depreciation will not be limited to half-mile radius.

Who benefits from the current proposed plan? Business owners who will need to spend less on employee parking and the town that will be collecting the permit fees and fines from residents, businesses, contractors, and all other visitors. Perhaps this is the reason there are two business owners on the PPTF and incomplete representation of residents from all Princeton neighborhoods.

Whatever the parking solution, it must be reviewed with all Princeton neighborhoods collaboratively and should not harm residents. 

Rita Rafalovsky
Library Place