To the Editor:

I suggest that, because of fundamental issues, Princeton residents urge our Planning Board to postpone approval of its draft Master Plan at its November 30 meeting.

The stated vision includes the goal of providing housing “affordable to all income levels,” but the only plan for housing calls for teardowns and new condos (euphemistically called “gentle infill”), presumably to increase affordable options for middle income buyers who, it is thought, will be able to afford smaller homes. At the same time, the draft preserves exclusionary zoning in much of the town outside the center, which already benefits from large swaths of preserved green space and keeps out small lot housing.

By now, everyone has seen the astronomical rents being charged for the new apartment complexes that have been built or are being built. I don’t understand how anyone can believe infill housing will be cheaper.

To be more realistic, the draft should state outright that Princeton will continue to prevent the working class from living here, but we do want more housing for well-off people.

But if the town does want to address its failure to provide more than a token number of affordable homes, we should plan for far more price-controlled housing. It’s the only way and yet the draft makes no mention of it. Despite the ability to charge extremely high rents compared to neighboring towns, even for the smallest units, Princeton’s ordinances still only demand a miniscule number of affordable housing units in new multifamily buildings. Of the 20 percent affordable units currently required, only half of those are for low income and only 10 percent are for minimum wage earners (low-low income according to the legal definition). We can and should require more from multifamily developers. We should also spend money for land — as we do for open space — and work with nonprofit developers to build price-controlled housing.

I find the proposal’s emphasis on building a city could have been written by real estate speculators. According to the survey, no one answered that they want more high priced housing. Most respondents thought we needed more single-family housing. Nothing like the plan for more unaffordable multifamily housing we got. If planners want to overrule the residents for other goals, we should have that discussion but not pretend we would get more affordable housing.

On the other hand — if the plan is implemented, those of us whose neighborhoods would be rezoned will see our real estate wealth instantly rise as our properties will now be developable. We will get tempting mailings from developers who will buy our houses no matter what condition they are in. Baby boomers looking to downsize will likely get a bonus, while future buyers will pay the price. I don’t think that’s the intent of the Planning Board, but at least there’s that.

Jenny Crumiller
Library Place