To the Editor:

After a year of effort, Princeton has a proposed new Master Plan (MP), setting forth the vision and policies for land use and addressing the manner and locations in which development, conservation, and preservation occur. The new MP becomes the basis for land use ordinances, such as zoning. Despite the year-long process, with input from a town survey, a variety of interested citizen groups, business interests, and at open meetings, the draft Master Plan was first released to the public on October 30, just 10 days ahead of its consideration by the Planning Board on November 9. Spirited and extensive public comment at that meeting delayed a vote until the next Planning Board meeting of November 30.

The cost of living in Princeton is a real concern for all of us and is a theme in the MP. Making housing affordable for the “Missing Middle” and expanding Affordable Housing are laudable goals of the MP. The new MP proposes markedly increased housing density believing it will decrease the cost of housing. I predict the opposite, that our taxes will ultimately rise, and that the housing goals will be unmet. There is a tremendous demand for housing in Princeton, and our property values are high as are our rental costs. In new developments, 80 percent of new units are market rate. Princeton is a desirable address for many reasons, including schools, history, and livability. It will take a long time for the pent-up demand to live in Princeton to be filled before market prices perhaps decrease. In the meantime, denser housing throughout town will primarily increase development of market rate housing to the benefit of developers but to no benefit of the town at large. Why would we want this at the expense of traffic, increased school costs, and a more urban environment?

The backers of the new MP believe that homeowners will benignly add housing to their property and leave existing homes in place. I think it quite likely instead that the increased flexibility in adding housing to existing properties will incentivize developers to purchase single family homes, tear them down, and convert to multifamily housing on the existing lot. Every teardown is a potential affordable property lost as more expensive development replaces it.

The MP pays too little attention to the importance of historic preservation and is too willing to trade density for the historic “character” of the town. The importance of historic preservation needs to be strengthened throughout the MP. It was painfully clear at the Planning Board meeting that the Historic Preservation Commission had been largely excluded from the process.

Members of town staff and others have repeatedly reassured us that the MP is “just” a guide and does not change existing ordinances. Commenters were labeled hysterical by one of the Planning Board members, but the MP once finalized is both the guide and becomes the justification for future policy changes including zoning. Let’s be very sure that what is approved can achieve our collective goals.

Don Denny
Nassau Street