To the Editor:

It is astonishing that taxpayers are being asked to support the shortfall (estimated at $48 million by the Princeton Coalition for Responsible Development) that will eventually result from the proposed tax break being granted to Herring Properties for a gift in lieu of taxes for the “development” of the plot that belonged to Princeton Theological Seminary. This seems egregious, especially since we are also being asked to approve a $89.1 million bond referendum in January to help Princeton’s schools. Furthermore, this comes at a time when another group of schoolchildren, perhaps as many as 100 or more (a conservative estimate of incoming children is 150) is arriving – whom we are in effect subventing.

The reasons given in support of offering this break do not carry weight, especially the claim that the gateway into town will be enhanced. How does the placement of a large development near the entrance to the borough adjacent to historic buildings and a historic district represent enhancement? Or the massive increase in traffic that will result, especially when people go to work? As it is, I can hardly cross Mercer Street to walk my dog during rush hours. I question the assumption that people will walk rather than drive to get the necessary items that they need to live when the nearest shopping center is over a mile away.

How is there a gain in the amount of open space? (My son used to play at the site and went to programs in the gym that was torn down.) As it is, Marquand Park is effectively next door.

My concerns about enhancement extend to the question of water runoff and disruption of underground streams. I have asked repeatedly about the matter, and to date, no public study has been made about the potential impact of the construction of houses and parking structures on this matter of which I am aware. When the Theology School Library was built detritus including gravel ran off and flowed down into the culvert that runs through my property across Mercer Street and caused it to flood, while neighboring houses were also flooded. As the water comes ultimately from springs located in this area and flows down to be collected again to where it may be treated for usage, this is also a health question that has not been answered.

Thomas Dacostsa Kaufmann

Mr. Kaufman is the Marquand Profession of Art and Archeology at Princeton University.

Community Contributor

Submit your photos, news, blog post, news tip, document, request for coverage or letter to the editor to editor @ planetprinceton.com. Please include your contact information. Letters should be between 200 and 750 words. Add events to our community calendar by following the "add event" link on our navigation menu. Thank you for reading and contributing to Planet Princeton.

6 Comments

Assuming Herring Properties purchased this tract from the Seminary, then came to the Town seeking a PILOT claiming it was necessary for development, what kind of negotiators do we have in Town Hall? While my views differ from former first lady Nancy Reagan (and her husband) on just about everything, her famous line “Just Say NO,” is the answer here. I’m sure that after a few years of sitting on an empty investment with no return, Herring would have agreed to terms more favorable to us Princeton taxpayers.

This writer is spot on. This is unjustafiable and another poor decision by gang Freda.

It is outrageous that we, as payers of the extremely high taxes in Princeton, will be coerced by our town government into subsidizing Herring Properties. One wonders whether someone is getting kickbacks or whether it is a more fundamental sick conviction that turning Princeton into a historical Disneyland for the rich is a public good. Perhaps the national press will be interested in investigating how these deals came about, whose bread was buttered, and how the decisions were made. Either way, the deal must be stopped. We should organize, protest, picket, and force the invalidation of this deal and prohibit any further tax gifts to the rich developers in this town and county.

Why would politicians agree to this other than that they are somehow benefitting from passing them for wealthy developers? Has anyone looked into this?

The arrival of all these developments in Princeton are a sad. But, it’s just part of a destructive process that has been going on for a decade or more. I was born in Princeton in the 1960s and grew up there. Like many others, I can no longer afford to live there. And, at this point, I no longer would want to. It’s become a sort of cold, ritzy town filled with people I can’t relate to. Out-of-control development, accompanied by sky-high taxes, sardine-like traffic, overpopulated schools…it is sad. But, it’s inevitable….the money’s in, politicians have been bought. Maybe Princeton will become so unlivable, people will start leaving…and the town can go back to being right-size again.

Let’s laugh at the discomfort intruders secretly feel. Ah, ’tis interesting.

Comments are closed.