To the Editor:

Ideas regarding the redevelopment of the Tennent-Roberts-Whiteley sites, including adaptive re-use and the designation of the site as affordable housing, have come from one side — the residents and taxpayers of Princeton. The residents’ concern is that the final project complements the scale and diversity of the area. Our request is “first do no harm.”

No proposal from the developer has been shared with residents, yet Council states [“Response from Princeton’s Mayor and Council to PCRD Proposal,” Mailbox, May 24] that the project will: include affordable units; incorporate robust stormwater mitigation systems; contain enhanced green technologies; utilize high quality design and architectural features; preserve mature trees, especially street trees; and convert a previously tax-exempt property into one that generates significant annual income, offsetting homeowners’ tax burden.

Sounds great, but on what basis are these claims made?

Under the Area in Need of Redevelopment (ANR) designation, additional benefits to the community are required in exchange for favorable zoning. It is not clear what these will be.

A 20 percent affordable set aside is required as part of the town’s legal settlement with Fair Share Housing. It is a requirement, not an ANR benefit.

All proposals made by Princeton Coalition for Responsible Development (PCRD) offer a higher density than what was there previously. But at what level will the density exceed the balancing benefits? While these sites are close to town restaurants, they are not walkable to supermarkets or schools, and the number of cars will rise proportionately with the number of residents — causing strain on infrastructure and climate.

Stormwater mitigation systems are now mandatory. Using fabricated solutions as a replacement for old-growth trees does not further a climate-friendly agenda.

The street trees are owned by Princeton and already are protected by a strong Shade Tree ordinance. If the town truly intends to prioritize the climate, the old-growth trees on the sites should be protected as well.

Enhanced green technologies sound great, but the main site is relatively small at just over 3.5 acres. To understand if these will be meaningful, we need the specifics of what will be achieved.

The change in ownership from a tax-exempt institution to a for-profit developer will only relieve the burden of current taxpayers if the developer isn’t granted a PILOT. We need every developer to pay their fair share of our school taxes if Princeton is going to maintain a premier school system.

The scant 30-year deed restriction on the affordable units means the units will revert to market rate and additional profit to the developer. The town, on the other hand, will face replacing these affordable units and producing even more units to meet our future obligations. The town’s financial due diligence should be for the long-term benefit of the town.

Once there is a proposal, we will have a better understanding of how these concerns may be addressed. A redevelopment plan for the sites enumerating the specific benefits to the town will be an important safeguard for all Princeton residents who are concerned with rising costs of living and the gentrification of the more affordable neighborhoods.

Jane Maclennan
Princeton Coalition for Responsible Development
Edgehill Street