To the Editor:

The recently announced voluntary contribution agreement between Princeton University and the municipality calls for $10 million in tax relief payments for low- and middle-income Princeton homeowners [“University to Contribute 50M+ to Municipality,” January 31, page 1]. This well-intentioned but flawed Princeton plan further compounds the regressive nature of our tax system, which greatly favors homeowners at the expense of the poor. 

New Jersey made some progress towards greater equity by including renters as beneficiaries of the ANCHOR rebate program, replacing the former Homestead Rebate which benefited only homeowners. But, under ANCHOR, renters only get 30 percent of the subsidy homeowners get ($450 vs. $1,500). Also, the most vulnerable families, those in public housing, don’t qualify under ANCHOR rules because their homes are not subject to property tax.

If the intent of the Princeton contributions is truly to “aid lower- and middle-income residents” and address “the challenges of affordability, sustainability, and equity within the community we share,” why would these subsidies only be reserved to homeowners who, by definition, are the more privileged residents of the community? 

The Princeton plan also calls for an unnamed nonprofit to administer these funds. Ideally, a set of checks and balances would be implemented to monitor that the program is managed in a more systematic and effective way than having Princeton students “knocking on doors” to ask people if they have applied, as a member of Princeton Council has proposed. Part of the reason why many low-income families, mostly renters, don’t apply for ANCHOR is that they don’t have to file a tax return, and therefore may not have been notified that they qualify. Others lack access to a computer, or don’t know how to get and complete the application forms. 

If the plan were to include renters, as I would fervently hope, a robust outreach and application assistance program should be implemented to make sure the largest share of these funds is allocated to our more vulnerable neighbors, and not to upper middle class residents with incomes as high as $200,000, which would only perpetuate Princeton’s status as the community with the highest economic inequality index in New Jersey (0.563 Gini coefficient as of 2019).  

This is the kind of feedback Princeton Council has declined to hear from members of the community who were serving on the boards and commissions it recently disbanded. We need to confront this kind of tunnel vision from our local policy makers.  In response to the strong public reaction against the elimination of the long-standing advisory groups, Council members have said It’s about “feelings being hurt,” or unwillingness of the boards and commissions to cooperate. In fact, all three advisory groups attempted to do so several times, over the indifference, objections, and lack of support of municipal administrators and Council. 

This is not about bruised egos. It’s about social justice and democracy, and in the words of Prof. Matthew Desmond “refusing to live as enemies of the poor.” 

Maria Juega
Grover Avenue

The writer was a member of the now disbanded Princeton Affordable Housing Board.