To the Editor:

According to the town’s records, Princeton has 7,089 residential structures on its tax rolls: 6,797 single family, 230 two family, 41 three family, and 21 four family. Those buildings together house a total of 7,464 families.

Princeton has an additional 111 structures on its tax rolls that are categorized as apartment buildings, each of which contain 5 or more dwelling units. The majority are owned by Princeton University. Interestingly, the town was not able to tell me how many dwelling units those 111 structures represent.

Our subsidized housing complexes are tax-exempt and are therefore excluded from the totals listed above. Dormitory rooms at tax-exempt institutions are also excluded.

I relate these figures because they seem to me to give a necessary context to the discussion of Princeton’s affordable housing “obligation.” The numbers presented above suggest that, including AvalonBay’s 280 soon-to-be-completed apartments, Princeton has a taxable housing stock of perhaps 8,500 units, of which approximately 6,800 are single family homes.

Estimates of Princeton’s affordable housing obligation range from 400 to 1,400 units. If created by private developers and co-mingled with market rate units using a 20 percent set aside, those estimates would require the construction of between 2,000 and 7,000 apartments. 2,000 units would be the equivalent of 7 new AvalonBays. 7,000 units would represent a staggering 82 percent of our existing taxable housing stock.

Alternatively, we could dedicate our dwindling inventory of public lands to the creation of between 400 and 1,400 subsidized housing units — the equivalent of creating between 1.4 and 5.0 new AvalonBay complexes, but with lesser materials and more spartan architecture. Here the cost of serving the new population would be borne exclusively by current residents, many of whom are already struggling with bloated tax bills.

The numbers suggest questions for which there are no good answers. Where would we find the necessary land? How high would we be required to build? How would we adapt our narrow streets to the increased traffic? What would be the effect on our existing neighborhoods? What would be the spillover costs — for new schools, new sewer lines, additional police officers, or a paid fire department? And how many current residents would be displaced?

It should be obvious that our response to the State’s imposition of a transformative affordable housing standard will determine the future character of our town. My strong preference is to resist the pressure to uproot our leafy, predominantly single family neighborhoods. I consider that our affordable housing obligation, as defined by the State, is zero – and that it becomes positive only to the extent that we permit our lovely town to be transmuted into the “regional hub” envisioned by our planners.

I suggest that it is unreasonable — grossly discriminatory even — to expect lower income taxpayers to subsidize non-residents who aspire to a Princeton lifestyle at somebody else’s expense. We need not apologize for our comfortable little town. And we need not meekly accept such destructive edicts.

Peter Marks

Moore Street