To the Editor:
The members of the Planning Board, the planning staff, and the steering committee deserve our thanks for their efforts on the Master Plan, which has many good components. However, the preservation provisions are surprisingly weak and in some places confusing and inaccurate, and they need adjusting to appropriately balance the anticipated new growth with Princeton’s unique historic character.
The weak presentation of preservation starts in Outreach Section 1.2 with the heading “Historic preservation is important and should be easier.” Easier reads pejoratively, as if there is something wrong with preservation here, and it belies findings in the Plan’s community survey wherein a total of 54 percent of respondents agreed that preservation efforts “should be expanded” or “strike the right balance between preservation and development.” Only 14.5 percent thought that preservation is a “hinder to growth and development.” An appropriate vision for Princeton’s historic resources in the Master Plan is “Historic preservation is important and should be improved.” more