There has been a lot of change happening around Princeton in a short period of time. Witherspoon Street has been in various stages of evolution for the past few years; sewer replacement has been taking place across town; and several redevelopment projects have been erected.

As change happens, there are those that endorse it, those that do not feel impacted, and those that speak up and oppose it. There has been a bit of public debate over some of the town’s redevelopment plans. The discourse has brought about some questions, and we aim take a closer look at them in our July issue, Local Development Brings Concerns to the Forefront.

We start with our Pulse of Princeton video, where locals share their thoughts on what we’re writing about this month. We asked them, what do you think about the ways Princeton is developing? Several people opted not to share on camera, though privately offered a full range of opinions. From the widening of Witherspoon Street, to the addition of bike lanes, new apartment complexes and more, watch this month’s video to view what locals are sharing.

One concern that has been raised is whether Princeton’s one-party town and no-contest elections provide leadership that is representative of all residents. Can this change and does the town majority want it to change? We spoke to some political leaders about this, and share their insights in the article Fulfilling Desires of Residents in a One-Party Town.

There have also been questions about approvals, evaluations and more when it comes to building. From larger apartment complexes, to privately owned homes, how does local development come about? In the article From Start to Finish, the Steps One Needs for Construction, our guest writer shares the processes that one may encounter to make physical changes.

Much of the public discourse about redevelopment has come about as plans were laid out to help meet Princeton’s Third Round Affordable Housing mandate. Now, plans have moved onto the next round. In the article Fourth Round Affordable Housing – How Will it Impact Princeton? we explain what the future plans entail.

How will the town handle more cars on its roadways? Will more bicycle and pedestrian lanes make a difference? These questions have additionally been raised, so we asked Princeton Police to weigh in on how they look ahead and what they do to keep traffic moving and effective. Read more in the article Traffic Safety, Enforcement & Education in an Evolving Town.

As always, we also provide updates to stories we’ve brought to you in the past. This month, there is and a way for you to weigh in on future Princeton development and details about transportation improvements for seniors and those with disabilities! Read Perspectives Revisited to learn more.

It is hard to believe that we are already at mid-July, though the humid, hot weather outside is a constant reminder. We hope it offers you a moment to sit down and read our latest issue. Princeton Perspectives is always trying to write about what matters to Princeton and keep you informed. Please share any stories that you’d like to see us cover.

Elections in America allow people to decide who will represent them. When a candidate receives a majority of votes, it is said that person has the will of the voters and a mandate to govern.

Though New Jersey voting begins with Primary elections in June to choose the major party candidates and onto the General Election in November, Princeton municipal seats (Mayor and Council) have had no candidate pools to narrow down in recent years.

There has not been a Republican on the municipal ballot since 2018, and there has not been any contest in the Democratic primary since 2020. In the past five Primary elections in Princeton, the people that have chosen to run on the Democratic ticket have not had to beat another candidate to move on and win the General Election. All municipal leaders serving today have been elected through no-contest.

Recent controversy over municipal redevelopment has led some in the community to question whether Princeton’s leaders are making the right decisions. Some have gone so far as to question if they have the will of the voters. Do no-contest elections provide the same mandate as those that are heated or even remotely contested?

Princeton’s leaders have won the elections with a majority of votes, so others argue that gives the winners a mandate. In the 2024 General election, Mayor Mark Freda was re-elected with the vote of 10,223 people (earning 99% of votes). Councilman Leighton Newlin (also an incumbent) got 9,825 votes and Brian McDonald (who took the seat relinquished by longtime Councilwoman Eve Niedergang) received 9,885. The races included one mayoral candidate on the ballot for that position and two Council candidates running for the 2 seats. Nobody ran against them, and more than half of Princeton’s 21,364 registered voters did not vote.

“I agree this is a trend that is not good. It could be a lack of interest, or it could be the feeling that beating an incumbent elected official is too difficult,” Mayor Mark Freda shared with Princeton Perspectives. “Any political party with people in office needs to build a bench of future candidates. Elected officials move or decide not to run again; we need new people ready to run for office. We should never vote for someone just because they are in office now; we need to pay attention to what they do. How do they vote? Are they out in the community? Do they actually listen? Do they actually consider what you have to say? Those are the reasons to vote for someone.”

SPEAK OUT

To engage with Freda’s litmus test, one has to not only be paying attention but also be willing to speak out and share your thoughts with leadership. This can be done independently or as a group. One need look no further than recent large public efforts such as “No Kings Day” and “Hands Off” protests held in town, where attendees were speaking out against actions of the federal government. But things do not always need to be large-scale to be heard.

One could privately email the Mayor or Council members to share thoughts or invite them to meet you one-on-one. There are also opportunities for community members to speak up at every Council meeting, held the 2^nd and 4^th Tuesdays of the month. People attending in person and those on Zoom are offered up to three minutes to share thoughts during the meeting’s Public Comment. Once one shares a comment there is no back-and-forth, which some residents have shared leaves them frustrated and limits advancing their concerns. Locals have also said the timing and format of meetings sometimes make it difficult for people to take part. Those with an opinion that is in strong opposition to the leadership noted it may be hard or even dangerous to speak up publicly.

“Many Republicans share our thoughts with municipal leaders. We had David Cohen, a Councilman in favor of redevelopment, at one of our [committee] meetings. A number of people spoke up there. We complained about everything from zoning, density, overdevelopment. They know, but they don’t care. Princeton is an irremediable echo chamber. The Democrats so far outnumber Republicans,” Princeton Republican Committee Chair Dudley Sipprelle shares. “Furthermore, there is a Democratic machine in town that is nasty. They go after people. They threaten people. Republicans move to town and find out if they have a business and speak up, they’ll be ostracized, if not directly threatened by Democrats. It’s happened too many times to talk about.”

Yet lately, some (comprised of Democrats, Republicans and Unaffiliated) who oppose Council’s decisions, took to the streets, posting signs on their property and other nearby spaces. Several people are speaking out in the press as well. With both positive and negative reactions, it has sparked both conversation and attacks. There have been numerous Letters to the Editor recently in various local publications, sharing public sentiments of concern with regards to municipal leaders and redevelopment decisions. Responding to commentary Councilman Leighton Newlin had shared in Town Topics about the Defend Historic Princeton signs/campaign, resident Jane Maclennan wrote a letter posted on June 18^th in which she stated, “…Even if elected officials are not held to a codified standard of conduct, at the very least they owe a duty to the electorate to represent all residents, not only one interest group.”

And on June 11^th, local Richard Gulardo wrote in Town Topics “…as residents we have a right to hold our local government accountable for their decisions and it appears some of their decisions are in need of real scrutiny.”

GET INVOLVED

Many locals working to ensure the leaders are representing their residents and being held accountable for their decisions suggest that could be done through future elections, if more people run. But if and until that time, there are some ways that you could get involved now. President of Princeton Community Democratic Organization (PCDO) Jeffrey Oakman feels Council is interested in having an engaged community.

“There’s always roles on boards and commissions that are important,” Oakman states. “So, I’d say raise your hand. There are ways to be involved and make a difference without taking the full step of running yourself.”

Princeton’s Boards, Commissions and Committees (BCCs) are open to Princeton residents that are not elected but want to volunteer to have a role in government. They “play an important role in the Mayor and Council’s policy-making process by providing advice and information to the Mayor and Council [the governing body] on a wide variety of issues. This input can often be the catalyst for innovative programs and improved services delivered to the community,” the BCC Member’s Handbook details.

While Princeton’s 12,565 registered Democratic voters make up the majority, its contingent of Unaffiliated (6,756) and Republican voters (2,043) are also invited to join BCCs.

One could also get more involved in local political committees and organizations including the Princeton Democratic Municipal Committee, Princeton Republican Committee and Princeton Community Democratic Organization.

CANDIDATES & FUTURE DIRECTION

Since Princeton consolidation in 2013, only Democrats have been elected. Freda says the one-party municipal rule does not concern him too much because even amongst the Democrats there are plenty of disagreements. He also says that party politics don’t play into many municipal decisions.

Oakman similarly is not concerned, as he feels most in Princeton have shared values. “The PCDO and the Democratic party generally embody a core set of values we think are core to the way a democratic town, government and society should work. That seems to be in line with a lot of people in this town as there’s a lot of democratic voters here. That hasn’t always been the case. Right now, the Republican party is not as viable in Princeton because, in my opinion, its values don’t reflect the values of the town.”

There are, though, Democrats who are not aligned with the direction of local leadership, Republicans who disagree completely and unaffiliated voters who may not feel represented. Some want different or more choice while others just want competition to ensure the candidates that win campaign and are then chosen by voters.

“The PCDO in general as an organization likes to have as much participation as possible. We support open and transparent government, and competitive elections,” Oakman adds, urging the PCDO helps but does not decide who will run. “We have run some events in concert with Democratic Municipal Committee about how to run, helping people know what’s required, and we have resources available that can help people. But we do also have membership endorsement vote which is a way to present yourself to the membership and try to earn support of the organization.”

Past PCDO Presidents and former Princeton Councilmembers Jenny Crumiller and Jo Butler have wanted choice and simultaneously worked to offer up support and advice to encourage more people to raise their hands and run.

“We had a meeting in the spring with a diverse group of people from across town, but especially some younger residents, to talk about the necessary steps and filing deadlines to run for office. We definitely planted some seeds and connected people who could be helpful to a campaign,” Butler says. “Coincidentally, I think the proliferation of the Defend Historic Princeton signs is tangible evidence that people are interested in other points of view.”

Though Democrats have a stronghold in town, it has not always been that way. Could a Republican or Independent candidate have an opportunity to lead?

“I applaud anybody who runs, but it’s a tough grind and, in reality, the demographics make it a hill nobody wants to die on. We ran people until we ran out of people willing to run. We have a number of people that say they’re thinking about it, but the timing is not right. They’re not ready until they retire or can live on their own resources. That’s when they’re willing to get involved because they don’t want people going after them,” Sipprelle explains. “We could get a Republican to run be they couldn’t win. The Asian community in town is large and overwhelmingly Democrat. When it gets to the point they feel their interests aren’t represented, maybe one of them will run. That’s the way it’s going to happen. An independent candidate, forget it. In NJ, or Princeton, independent candidates do worse than those registered in the party.”

Having electoral competition also does not have to pit political parties against each other. It can simply be a way for voters to have choice, even if within their own party.

“Competition is a good thing to keep people focused and at the top of their game. I encourage people interested in running to talk to the municipal chair of their political party, to talk to current elected officials,” Freda adds. “Our system works best when everyone is involved and active.”

The November ballot is set for the two open Princeton Council seats this November. Councilwomen Mia Sacks and Michele Pirone Lambros ran uncontested on the Democratic ticket in June, and no Republicans ran. Independent and 3^rd Party candidates had to file by June 10^th, and none did.

Running for office could be something to keep in mind for the future. Not all residents are built for it, though, and it has been said holding office in Princeton is not an option for everyone due to the long hours and modest pay. Being involved and active by speaking up, showing up and paying attention can be difficult. At best, it could make a difference, and at the least, it could have an impact to ensure your interests are heard. This is true whether you are encouraging what is already being done or pushing for things to change.

You have likely heard the words “Fourth Round Affordable Housing” around Princeton. It comes with a lot of legalese and requires a certain amount of will to pay attention and understand. Simply put, it is Princeton’s legal requirement in a fourth agreement with the state of New Jersey to build more affordable housing. Why Princeton must build it and where and how it chooses to do so, is in the details. To clarify, read on, as we try to explain where things have landed.

The majority of Princetonians want to live in a diverse town, whether that means by race, nationality, religion, or socioeconomics. Sometimes, balancing the latter can get complicated, as towns and residents do not always agree on how to meet that need. To help, the Garden State realized many years ago that legal requirements ensure the creation of living opportunities for residents of lower financial means. Timelines and formulas for the exact amount to be constructed have since become law.

In April, Princeton Perspectives explained how these affordable housing mandates came about in New Jersey. It was a landmark 1975 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court (often referred to as The Mount Laurel Decision) that provided municipalities cannot have zoning that excludes lower income residents and mandated that every town in the state has an obligation to provide its fair share of affordable housing (you can read more history in the article Does Increased Affordable Housing Mean that Housing is Affordable for All?). After years of towns and cities not fulfilling their obligations, a newer ruling in 2015 gave lower courts more power to ensure municipalities do their part. It wasn’t until 2020 that Princeton worked out a settlement on how much housing would be required, and it has since had to play catch up, with much development going up in recent years to meet its Third Round 2015-2025 mandate. We are now halfway into 2025, and that means it is time for the Fourth Round Mandate (2025-2035), which Princeton approved just weeks ago.

The process has been going on for months, however. The Fourth Round was determined using a new framework that was signed into law by Governor Murphy in 2024. Per this new law, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA) provided an advisory number to Princeton. The municipality accepted their determination for present and prospective need fair share obligations in January 2025, and the obligation was fixed by a judge in March. On June 25^th, Princeton Planning Board held a public hearing, which included the locations and spending plan, and adopted this Fourth Round Housing Plan Element and Fair Share Plan. On June 26^th it was endorsed by Municipal Council.

EXPLAINING THE FOURTH ROUND

As a unique municipality that consolidated from the separate entities of Princeton Borough and Princeton Township, there are some previous factors that went into consideration as Princeton’s Fourth Round was finalized. DCA allotted a prospective need for Princeton’s Fourth Round to be 276. As the previous factors were weighed in, that number was balanced with credits the municipality had accrued, and it was ultimately adjusted so that Princeton will create 229 new affordable units. It has also agreed to fulfil its present need by rehabbing at least 60 Princeton Housing Authority existing units. (You can read an explanation of the totals in the fully adopted plan here).

“DCA’s advisory numbers provided to municipalities for the Fourth Round were transparent and included all the information, data sets, analyses, etc., that formed the basis for these numbers. Princeton reviewed DCA’s data sets and calculations and also arranged for its number to be independently analyzed. Ultimately, we felt confident in adopting the 276 prospective need and 60-unit rehab obligation that DCA calculated for Princeton,” shares Princeton Council President Mia Sacks, who also chairs the Affordable Housing, Planning, & Redevelopment Committee.

While the amount of affordable housing to be provided is done in agreement with the state, the municipality has some leeway in where and how it meets the obligation. At times, previous round plans have been met with concern from members of the community. As it presented its Fourth Round, there has been little protest as Princeton has decided to meet its need through both inclusionary redevelopment (a mix of market rate and affordable units within the same building) and 100% affordable housing projects. This obligation includes the following proposed inclusionary sites:

• Hillier Properties sites along on 114-120, 136-150, 184-188 and 204-206 Witherspoon Street (Total 69 units, 14 to be affordable)
• 360, 364 and 366 Nassau Street, which is currently Whole Earth Center, a restaurant site and parking lots; owners under contract to include site of Princeton Foot and Ankle at 11 N. Harrison Street, retaining ground-floor commercial uses (Total 130 units, 26 to be affordable)
• The Jewish Center southwest corner lot, 457 Nassau Street (19 units, four to be affordable)
• 245-247 Nassau St (commercial space and 90 units planned, 18 to be affordable)
• 40-42 N. Tulane Street/32 Spring Street, former Kopps cycles and neighboring lots (40 units, eight to be affordable)
• 86-88, 92-94-96 Spruce Street, next to Barbara Boggs Sigmund Park (Existing structures will remain, adding 30 new units, eight to be affordable)
• 11, 33 State Rd/60 MT Lucas Rd, 29 Thanet, currently office and bank buildings and a parking lot (80 units, 16 to be affordable)
• 29 Thanet Circle (85 units, 17 to be affordable)
• Princeton Executive Center/Niksun, 457 N. Harrison Street (191 units, 40 to be affordable)

Additionally, three 100% affordable family rental projects will be built at the municipally owned sites of:

• Chestnut Street Firehouse (16 affordable units)
• Harrison Street Firehouse & Garage (34 affordable units)
• John Street temporary public works facility (35 affordable units)

How is it decided what will be inclusionary versus what will be municipally-owned affordable housing? For starters, it would take a considerable amount of municipal taxes for Princeton to own and operate all its affordable housing. So, it shifts some of the burden to local developers. Larger Third Round developments, such as The Alice and Avalon Princeton on Harrison, were created at the expense of WinnCompanies and Avalon Communities. In doing so, they agreed to certain terms with the municipality in exchange for including affordable units. For the Fourth Round, those developing their properties such as Herring Properties and The Jewish Center, will similarly agree to take on the financial burden of land, construction and ownership under agreed-upon terms that will also include affordable units.

Municipally-sponsored projects tend to be smaller and may not be financially desirable to developers. They are being built on land currently owned by the municipality, and while there is a non-profit developer, the municipality is the underwriter. For both inclusionary and municipally-owned sites, factors such as environmental impact, balancing density and ease of transportation are also considered.

“The last few years of concentrated growth represented the fulfillment of a housing obligation which stretched back several decades. It is my hope that, with the passage of A4/S50, which now regulates the Mount Laurel process, we will see more predictable, evenly-paced fulfillment of municipal obligations across the state. The new law requires that towns plan for the entire ten years at the beginning of the round, which is essential for coordinated planning with schools and for infrastructure,” Sacks details.

CONSTRUCTION OF FOURTH ROUND

As described above, the 10-year plan for Fourth Round must be agreed to at the start of the round, but Princeton need not have it all fully constructed by 2035. It has to prove certain levels of documentation for inclusionary sites, such as demonstrating an ability to have them built. For the municipally-owned sites, construction is required to begin within two years (though sometimes there are exceptions).

When ironing out their agreements for inclusionary sites, the land and building are to be owned and maintained by a private developer. In exchange for that right the developer agrees to give up 20% of the space they own (to create affordable units). Legally, the government cannot mandate a private owner have affordable housing units in its building, so instead it comes to an agreement to do so. In the current cases, it provides the units will remain affordable for 40 years. While an owner could choose to revert them to market-rate for more revenue when the 40 years is up, that tends not to be the case. It is expected that in 40 years, Princeton Council will then approve a new resolution agreeing to terms with the owner for continued affordable units. This is a legal restriction, otherwise it would be considered that the municipality was engaging in taking (i.e., the government takes private property without a legal process or compensation).

MOVING FORWARD

Though some residents have been objecting to certain decisions, the majority of Princeton’s Third Round obligations are either now completed or underway. No one spoke publicly against the Fourth Round Plan at recent hearings.

“Even though Princeton now has a plan in place to meet our statutory affordable housing mandate 2025 – 2035, the need continues. Waiting lists for these units number in the tens of thousands,” Sacks explain. “Hopefully the coordinated state-wide effort in the Fourth Round will provide some relief. In Princeton, we will continue to work with our community partners to facilitate more housing opportunities in what is often referred to as the ‘missing middle’ range of price points and sizes. We anticipate that long overdue zoning reforms will play a key role in these efforts over the next ten years.”

158 New Jersey municipalities did not agree with the calculations received from DCA. For most, they presented their own numbers to be analyzed and certified and/or utilized mediation and provided evidence to why different allotments seemed appropriate. Most have come to an agreement both can live with. Still about 29 municipalities are challenging their requirements in court. Princeton has been through the legal cycle in the past, and for this Fourth Round, has finalized its plan to move forward.