Princeton Council members respond to letter about employee parking permits

Dear Editor:

We would like to correct some misunderstandings contained in Phyllis Teitelbaum’s letter of January 24th regarding the recommendations coming out of the Permit Parking task force to be presented at January 27th’s Council meeting.

First we want to explain the general outline of the recommendations coming from the task force, though the specifics are still being finalized. The recommendations are to initiate a pilot program in limited parts of town, specifically the Tree Streets and the Witherspoon-Jackson neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were chosen because we most often hear complaints from the residents of these neighborhoods – the current parking policy in these neighborhoods does not serve the residents well and we want to correct that.

All of the policies being proposed are intended to prioritize needs of the residents above other users of on-street parking. Resident permits are intended to be good 24 hours/day. The cost of resident permits will be based on simply covering administrative costs of the program and will not be revenue-generating.

A few employee permits will likely be issued on a street-by-street basis, but with the intention to maintain plenty of open spaces for residents and their guests. This is completely in line with the recommendations contained in the Nelson-Nygaard report of 2017. The cost of employee permits will be revenue generating for the municipality, and generally based on market rates for similar privately available parking. Policies will be designed to shift business customer parking to metered spaces, with some added meters in locations with a current shortage.

Lastly, the pilot program is intended to improve enforcement of parking regulations in these areas.

We also want to explain what is not a part of the pilot. No recommendations have been formulated for the High School area at this time. In preliminary discussions, however, we have discussed further limiting areas where students are allowed to park. We are also committed to fully researching and taking advantage of underutilized metered parking spaces and shared arrangements with private parking lots, and that process is underway.

We encourage all interested residents to attend the Council meeting on January 27, when the full details of the pilot program will be presented for Council’s consideration and public comment.

Council members Leticia Fraga and David E. Cohen


  1. Not sure what I’m missing, but almost every single house I’ve seen on the tree streets has a driveway with room to park at least 2 cars (serially). So, why do they need on-street permits? Other of us who drive into town also need to park in those areas during the daytime. People who buy these houses KNOW how much parking they are getting when they purchase. The only reason for needing MORE parking that the driveway is if they are going to pack the house chock full of adults and possibly exceed the legal occupancy limit.

    1. Happening to live next door to Ms. Teitlebaum on Hawthorne Avenue, on a corner property (with a driveway far from the house, on the outer-edge of the property) that’s across from the WCC – as well as one block away from PHS….being on top of street parking has long been a concern. For decades, the walkway from our house to the first needed space in front was often blocked by random vehicles via people running to either of these two nearby institutions – high school students, etc. before our hard-won campaign to have residential permit parking on Hawthorne (with PHS students having their own permits to park by PHS.) Prior to this, students would often “hang” and leave trash behind. People who don’t live here, in a hurry to get to an event at either institution, often thoughtlessly “drop and run” – leaving their vehicle partly blocking someones driveway – parked so as to take up more than one available space, etc. – so the renewed reason for the concern. My wife is handicapped now, and so the availability of the space in front of our house is imperative for her safety.

Comments are closed.