Letter: The Veblen-Einstein Plan for Institute Housing

To the Editor:

I have always been a supporter of the Institute for Advanced Study.  When I served on Princeton Township Committee I voted to appropriate $14 million in taxpayer money to preserve the Institute Woods by purchasing a conservation easement from the Institute. I still believe this is the largest amount ever spent to preserve land in Princeton history.

My family has always been a supporter of the Institute. When my family first moved to Princeton in the 1960’s, the family purchased a house from the Institute after an Institute Trustee let it be known that they wanted the cash flow rather than real estate. 

This house was originally owned by Oswald Veblen, the first Institute faculty appointment and the man who brought his friend, Albert Einstein, to the Institute.

Veblen, the nephew of noted American sociologist Thorsten Veblen, walked to the Institute from his home on Battle Road, as did Einstein from his house on Mercer. 

What I am proposing is a “Veblen-Einstein” plan for faculty housing that would have the Institute purchase homes in the Veblen-Einstein neighborhood for faculty housing rather than build new housing on the historic Battlefield. All of these homes are within walking distance of Fuld Hall, the center of the Institute. Many of them are closer to Fuld Hall than the proposed Battlefield housing would be.    

The only question becomes:  How much would purchasing neighborhood homes be compared to building a new development?  Let’s assume that it would cost $750,000 per unit to build new housing compared to $1,750,000 per home to purchase in the adjacent neighborhood.  For the 15 units the Institute wants to build, that is a net difference of $15,000,000.  How much of a sacrifice is that for the Institution?

According to the latest public tax filing made in 2009, the Institute’s endowment is roughly $550 million. With an operating budget of roughly $50 million per year this does not seem like an insurmountable sacrifice. (In practice, I believe the difference between purchasing houses in the Veblen-Einstein neighborhood and building a new development would be roughly $7,000,000.) 

When asked at a Planning Board hearing, representatives of the Institute indicated that they had no financial estimate for their proposed Battlefield housing. But one thing is for certain: to build new housing the Institute would have pay cash up front. If instead the Institute implemented the Veblen-Einstein plan they could take advantage of historically low mortgage rates and the Institute would have to spend far less cash than for building new homes.   

Purchasing neighborhood homes would be a plus for the community as well, because this would support the tax base. 

The Institute has acknowledged the historical importance of the site proposed for faculty housing: when the Institute called as a witness Professor McPherson before the Planning Board he acknowledged not only that the proposed housing site was where Washington’s critical counter-attack was formed and that if it were up to him he would not build on the site.

When the Institute proposed building over 250 housing units on land near the battlefield back in the 1990s, friends of the Institute suggested a different course and a conservation compromise was reached. 

The same needs to occur today because sometimes the best friends are those that offer the most direct advice.

Carl Mayer

Battle Road