To the Editor:

In a recent letter [“Wondering if Recent Court Ruling Means End of Tax Breaks for Developers in Town,” Mailbox, September 13], Mr. Mike Head of Hibben Road — who has no professional credentials in either city planning or the law — claims that the N.J. Supreme Court’s decision in the Malanga v. West Orange case implies that the applications of the 1992 N.J. Redevelopment and Housing Law to various properties in Princeton — the Seminary lands, the defunct Thanet Drive office park, and the visibly ailing Princeton Shopping Center — have been inappropriate and should be struck down.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Thanet Drive and the shopping center have rock solid redevelopment designations. I will not opine as to the validity of the designation of the Seminary lands, but in any event Mr. Head and friends missed the statutory deadline long ago for challenging the designation and are now playing rear guard interference. And the particulars of the Malanga case — which I would urge Mr. Head to read, before he misquotes from it — have no bearing whatsoever on any of the three properties in question.

The reality is that Mr. Head and his buddies in the Princeton Coalition for Responsible Development don’t give a hoot about Thanet Drive or the shopping center. Their agenda is focused on perpetuating institutional racism in their tony neighborhood. And their strategy is to discredit redevelopment writ large everywhere in town, in the hopes of derailing the redevelopment of the Seminary properties.

A bit of history is instructive. The Seminary intended to redevelop those properties for student housing. The neighbors couldn’t cope with that. Faced with the prospect of feuding with the neighbors, the Seminary threw up its hands and put the properties on the market. The neighbors made their own bed and now, in the interest of “responsible development,” want to shut down all development in Princeton and turn the clock back to the 1950s, when the town was segregated.

Another bit of history is also instructive. The former Borough used the redevelopment statute to redevelop the library site and the associated parking lots — some of the ugliest in the state — into a hugely successful mixed-use project that, with Hinds Plaza, constitutes the civic center of the community. That designation was challenged by an earlier version of “residents for responsible development” and was ultimately upheld by the N.J. Supreme Court in a precedential decision. The N.J. Supreme Court does not condone NIMBYs of any ilk, not even those with a Princeton address.

Nevertheless our elected officials are being harassed, and faced with a relentless campaign of misinformation.

If you believe that Princeton needs to become more inclusive, not less, and more diverse, not less, you need to show your support for our elected officials and for the judicious use of the redevelopment statute. Otherwise, we run the risk of letting a fear mongering few turn back the clock.

Carlos Rodrigues
Moore Street

The writer is a licensed professional planner in N.J. and a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners. He prepared the Preliminary Investigation for the Princeton Shopping Center and is involved in redevelopment matters statewide.