| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue, Jul 14 2009, 7:33 pm EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
 |
|
If you recall in the Cranbury Press Pari was basically screaming about the decision not to pursue it. So as Mayor she has control over the agenda and a library board with whom she is close. Do not think for one minute that there is not a personal agenda for Richard, David and Pari with the library to acquire a stand alone building.
From posts here and what I hear last night the discussion was lead to the degree of what if it is given to us. How can Tom say no when it's just a phone call to discuss if it can be donated. Very hard to say no. Win did and we should all be thankful. The library board simply will not drop this and frankly it gets tiring seeing adults being told no only to come back again and again re-asking the same question. It's like asking mom to stay over night at a friends house and her saying no so you ask dad and then he says no so you ask mom about eating there knowing once you're there the invite to stay will be harder to say no to, it's just a different way of getting what you want and not taking no for an answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Unhappy Cranburian
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jul 14 2009, 7:41 pm EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | That's been the case at each one of these meetings since the PNC issue started -- they have always rallied supporters. Yet every time someone suggests putting it to a real township-wide referendum they always come up with excuses not to. Because they know their support in the room is not representative of the Township-wide support. Their excuse used to be not enough time and yet the issue is over a year old and we've had several elections where they had the time to add this vote to an existing election and yet here we are still. it's very slimy. |
I absolutely agree - this issue should be brought to a vote by the taxpayers of Cranbury in the form of a referendum. Especially since we are talking about spending millions of dollars. Remember, any money the library has is taxpayer money too.
So what is the rush? There is plenty of time and opportunities for the TC to send it to a vote to our township taxpayers. Can't be the cost of sending it to a referendum especially since the Mayor approved township employee raises this year, the ballfield money pit, COAH on the horizon... We must have money to burn.
Since we cannot trust the TC or the Mayor's word . . . I'd be happy to sign a petition to force the TC to send this to a referendum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jul 14 2009, 7:44 pm EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
| Quote: | | ... So what is the rush? There is plenty of time and opportunities for the TC to send it to a vote to our township taxpayers. ... |
Maybe next year there will be three Republican TC members who will say no. They need to get it done before the TC election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jul 14 2009, 7:49 pm EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | From posts here and what I hear last night the discussion was lead to the degree of what if it is given to us. How can Tom say no when it's just a phone call to discuss if it can be donated. Very hard to say no.. |
It is not hard to say "No - we cannot pursue this matter further due to a vote casted last year concerning this matter."
If they can ask for donations of money; why couldn't the Library Board contact the PNC bank to see if they would donate the property? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HistoricallyFiscal
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 15 2009, 12:33 am EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
It is shameful how our Mayor Pari and the other TC members in her party continually backdoor projects and have the rest of us taxpayers paying the bill. We never got to voted for a Cranbury ball field because the TC never gave the taxpayer a chance to and now we will be stuck with extra costs and the salary for someone to maintain it. And last year when the TC did give us the opportunity to voice our feedback about the PNC and was turned down, it wasnt good enough for the pro-PNC minority. So here we go again.
Why do we even go to these TC meetings if the Mayor can just retake a vote on the same topic to get her way?
It sickens me how the current TC has change the governance of Cranbury, it no longer represents the general welfare of the taxpayer but caters to special interests like the pro-PNC library group. I see no need to rush with any new building for the library in these worsening economic times. This is fiscally irresponsible of the TC to be pursuing at all.
Thank goodness that Mayor Pari will be out of office after this term because I dont think she cares about how high our taxes will get.
Its also shortsighted and I believe unethical to only be exploring the PNC as an option for the library. The PNC is NOT a "Once in a lifetime Opportunity" There are many possible building on North and South main street that are for sale now that would make better options for the free standing library, what is the RUSH with pursuing the PNC??
There's two houses for sale next to each other in South Main 106 and 108 S Main street that would makeup a 4acre lot for a free standing library that would less expensive then PNC at only $600K for both. And a 3acre lot on south main street with a very large green building that is for sale by the owner. And in North main st there are two lovely homes with large barns that would make for a very quaint looking free standing library, how come these options are not investigated?
82 North Main is for sale at $780K, has a big house and barn would make a better option then PNC and less costly to renovate then PNC
http://www.trulia.com/property/1082352972-82-N-Main-St-Cranbury-NJ-08512
50 North Main ifor $750K is also for sale has a bigger building but no barn
106 South Main $299K with 2acre lot
http://www.trulia.com/property/1041275902-106-S-Main-St-Cranbury-NJ-08512
108 South Main $294K with 2acre lot next to the above lot
http://www.trulia.com/property/1041239389-108-S-Main-St-Cranbury-NJ-08512
===================================
If purchased 106+108 together would make for 4 acre Library lot
I think you are right (prior poster), they will end up shoving this down our taxpayer throat and will never let it go to a vote. We as taxpayers must do something about this.
Who wants to sign a petition to stop this PNC insanity and do this Free standing library the right way with some good planning?
We need to investigate all our possible options for the library not just focus on PNC as the only one. if the TC backdoors this PNC buyout the same way that the ballfield was done, we will only have ourselves to blame as taxpayers who sat on the sideline and allowed the minority to spend our money.
| never hurts to ask?? wrote: | Those in our Village wanting the PNC building to be used as a library were well organized, well orchestrated and well rehearsed. Our Mayor, I suspect, may have even written the cue cards. If not, she certainly read from the script.
The question presented seemed quite simple "why not just ask PNC what they want for the building, or if they want to donate it to the Town". How could you not answer "yes" to that question? So, with Mr. Cody the only dissenting vote, the answer was "yes".
But, in large part, that question was answered long ago when the bank listed the property for a particular asking price. That is apparently the amount of money that PNC wants for the building. PNC has not reduced their asking price, so that is apparently still the number they want for the building.
So, the true and real question that the library folks want the Mayor to ask PNC is "what will PNC take for the building". To answer that question, one must be willing to talk about price, to discuss the market, to address proposed uses, to talk about how long the property has been on the market etc. That kind of talk is called "negotiating". And, here its called "negotiating about price". And, therein lies the "rest of the story". In authorizing the Mayor to discuss price with PNC, the TC really authorized our Mayor to negotiate price with PNC, all carefully veiled under the guise of "can't we just ask them what they want for the property". From there, the slippery slope begins. We are all along for the ride, but not all of us have the script.
Ultimately, in a quiet and very clever manner, our Mayor and the PNC library folks subverted the voices of the Villagers who over a year ago in the School cafeteria declared a resounding "NO" when asked if the Town should buy the PNC bank building. "NO" apparently does not mean "NO". It means, ask again later.
Kudos for their cleverness-will it be any surprise when the Town buys this site? One need not be a soothsayer to say how this story ends.
An interesting aside was that our Mayor remarked after the vote was taken that she had been texting with Mr. Stout (during the meeting) to have him available to cast any tie breaker vote that was needed. I am not sure how he could have voted without attending, but I did not have a copy of the script. In any event, I do wonder if our Mayor's texts must now be discosed as public records.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 15 2009, 6:49 am EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
I love the idea of this forum..community info sharing, but in truth it is an opinion, misinformation and rumor spreading forum.
Last year the TC voted not to pursue looking into the purchase of the PNC property, despite the majority in attendance at the meeting raising their hands in favor of more information. I was there.
Monday night, when presented with more information, the TC voted to get one bit of information that might demonstrate that the PNC situation has changed: the price or possible donation. In short, we need more information to see if the TC should reconsider looking into this.
More information can only help both sides of this question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 15 2009, 7:00 am EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | I love the idea of this forum..community info sharing, but in truth it is an opinion, misinformation and rumor spreading forum.
Last year the TC voted not to pursue looking into the purchase of the PNC property, despite the majority in attendance at the meeting raising their hands in favor of more information. I was there.
Monday night, when presented with more information, the TC voted to get one bit of information that might demonstrate that the PNC situation has changed: the price or possible donation. In short, we need more information to see if the TC should reconsider looking into this.
More information can only help both sides of this question. |
I agree on the first part and disagree on the second. There was no concrete additional or new information presented. There were no facts or figures, just comments that they can cover the renovation costs and maintenance if there is no change in property values or the current library funding formula. They never presented numbers to back up their comments and they did not say anything new other than perhaps PNC will donate the building if we ask.
The message was mostly of the value to having a library which no one disagrees with and is why we have a library. Those arguements about the value of a library to a town providing resources and other services is only valid if there is no library today and the discussion is opening a library or not. Do not be confused in their arguement which is misdirection. The issue is very cut and dry stand alone or remain and if it is stand alone show a plan.
I lived in CT and our town library was in an old home similiar to the book worm and it worked very well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 15 2009, 10:59 am EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | I love the idea of this forum..community info sharing, but in truth it is an opinion, misinformation and rumor spreading forum.
Last year the TC voted not to pursue looking into the purchase of the PNC property, despite the majority in attendance at the meeting raising their hands in favor of more information. I was there.
Monday night, when presented with more information, the TC voted to get one bit of information that might demonstrate that the PNC situation has changed: the price or possible donation. In short, we need more information to see if the TC should reconsider looking into this.
More information can only help both sides of this question. |
I am the same poster who yesterday also corrected the record that a majority voted yes not no at the meeting last year, so I don’t agree this forum is all about misinformation. Most of us deal in facts. That said, you are not accurately conveying the full context of the meeting (I was there too).
First, the two people on the TC who voted no did so because their POV was that it didn’t make financial sense for the TC to pursue any deal (short of donation which would still come with conversion and operation costs and no one seriously believed donation was possible anyway). They also correctly felt it was poor timing to put any energy into another elective project when we were knee deep in a fight over COAH that could have bankrupted the Township in the worse case. I applaud their decision.
More importantly, the majority on the Township were not being sincere or fair dealing in their proposal. First, they modified their original plan which was to seek approval to directly negotiate with the PNC site for an actual purchase to the idea of just “looking into it further” only after the level of public attention and resistance to the idea was apparent. Second and more critically, they consistently refused to acknowledge that if they were approved to “look into the matter further” that they would commit to even another public hearing, let alone a referendum, before proceeding to take action on the purchase. In other words, even when directly asked they refused to agree simply not to proceed with the purchase after their “investigation” without any further public discussion or review. That is akin to a backdoor approval to proceed with the entire project. All they had to do for me to vote yes in the meeting (in the non-binding hand vote) was commit to give us citizens another chance to comment, after the facts were available, before committing our money. The fact that they very consciously declined to offer or commit to that showed they had a clear intent to proceed. The further fact that the same group of three had visited the bank already as a group, declining to invite the other two TC members, and had already had discussions with PNC, only further reinforced their clear preference in the result, as opposed to simply an unbiased interest in “studying” the matter. Its worth noting that those three have always voted as a block.
Further, their “study” proposal was illogically defined because they couldn’t even articulate how they were going to do it. How do you do a cost study if you don’t know what you will need to retrofit the building to do or what you are going to operate? Yet because of the resistance to the stand-alone library idea, which they originally proposed, they had tried to say they had NO set purpose in mind for the building. So they were going to “study” the cost to buy a building then retrofit it for no particular purpose and operate it as nothing in particular. Yeah, right. Either that wasn’t sincere, or it would have been a waste of time and money.
I come back to the same point every time, that has been proposed consistently since this project first came up – let the public decide. Its our money and our Township. That decision can’t be determined by a straw vote of planted supporters in a room. It needs to be a real Township vote. If they really believe a majority of the Township’s voters would support this, they should not be afraid of such a vote. Yet they have repeatedly come up with excuses not to do it, even as we have had numerous existing elections where this matter could have been added. The original excuse was there was no time because the PNC site would be sold to someone else by now. That looks like a pretty dumb prediction now. Yet every time they bring this up again, they again come up with reason it can’t wait for the next election. They should start the process NOW to get this on the November ballot. No more excuses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 15 2009, 1:06 pm EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
| Quote: | | The further fact that the same group of three had visited the bank already as a group, declining to invite the other two TC members |
I think you make some very valid points, but my point is that a large percentage of what is posted on this blog is represented like it is vetted fact, when in reality, it is our opinion. For instance, what is your source for the above information? By stating this as fact, one can insinuate many things, when in reality perhaps the other TC members were not able to visit the bank at that time.
As much as I enjoy our community, I think this blog can be divisive and does more to disseminate misinformation than any thing else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
misinformation?
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 15 2009, 1:24 pm EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
The "misinformation" you claim on this board is no worse then the misinformation which was presented by the library board at the meeting Monday night.
The whole event was staged and stacked for pro library only. I wonder how long the library board and mayor Stave worked on their little play which they presented Monday night? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 15 2009, 1:32 pm EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
An interesting aside was that our Mayor remarked after the vote was taken that she had been texting with Mr. Stout (during the meeting) to have him available to cast any tie breaker vote that was needed. I am not sure how he could have voted without attending, but I did not have a copy of the script. In any event, I do wonder if our Mayor's texts must now be discosed as public records
I find this to be very disturbing... texting during a meeting. Its almost like she wasn't listening, or knew what was being said ahead of time... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 15 2009, 1:46 pm EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
Two issues- Legally, yes those texts because they were conducted as part of the business at hand are legally available just as technically any conversation between council members even a whisper can be disclosed in meeting notes, whether there is intent or not. I speak from experience having dealt with a similar issue for a school board NOT in Cranbury where emails were sent regarding business at hand between one member and another. A member in the audience asked for a reading, the board member declined and the attorney present stated that it was not considered priveleged or personal information because of the circumstances and because the member admitted to it having been pertaining to business being addressed at that time it was therefore required to be disclosed. If someone wanted to make a stink and ask for them they would have had to been disclosed. I do not know if one can go back now and ask for them. I wonder if we'll see that in the meeting notes.
Second, David legally could not have voted and I was apalled that our attorney sat their blindly not offering comment. She knows where her bread is buttered and will not offer any opinion at all in a meeting unless it is absolutely required. Even then it is always tentative and always I need to research ($$$) and come back she has cost our town more money with her research and not stating opinions or even knowing the law on the questions. On referendums it was the town clerk who knew the date, not our attorney. When Bill was here we never heard that and there were times when he said stop what your doing is impermissable thus keeping our TC members out of unintended trouble.
Third, it is clear Pari, David and Richard along with Glen Johnson and David Cook are all in the same camp. Do you think Pari would have emailed David if she was not 100% certain he was for the library. Our TC is so far away from the days of Alan, Charlie Schnell, Tom Weidner and others who worked on behalf of the town and not for their own interests or to be "All Powerful". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 15 2009, 3:00 pm EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Last year the TC voted not to pursue looking into the purchase of the PNC property, despite the majority in attendance at the meeting raising their hands in favor of more information. I was there. |
Um . . .I was there too and the majority did not raise theri hands in favor of more information. I was standing in the back and had a wonderful view. That was the meeting that was to discuss solely the PNC Bank "Once in a Lifetime Opportunity". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 15 2009, 4:19 pm EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Last year the TC voted not to pursue looking into the purchase of the PNC property, despite the majority in attendance at the meeting raising their hands in favor of more information. I was there. |
Um . . .I was there too and the majority did not raise their hands in favor of more information. I was standing in the back and had a wonderful view. That was the meeting that was to discuss solely the PNC Bank "Once in a Lifetime Opportunity". |
I saw the same thing from the side bench and the majority DID NOT raise hands in favor of it, also most of the comments were also against the purchase. And I also recall that the opposition had better discussion points in the public comment about not pursuing the PNC purchase. Poor Economy, Higher taxes and COAH were the primary reasons given.
I think its appropriate to also note that most I talked to in attendance were pro-library sometime in the future, but vehemently against the PNC purchase and any new free standing building in the immediate short term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 15 2009, 4:30 pm EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Quote: | | The further fact that the same group of three had visited the bank already as a group, declining to invite the other two TC members |
I think you make some very valid points, but my point is that a large percentage of what is posted on this blog is represented like it is vetted fact, when in reality, it is our opinion. For instance, what is your source for the above information? By stating this as fact, one can insinuate many things, when in reality perhaps the other TC members were not able to visit the bank at that time.
As much as I enjoy our community, I think this blog can be divisive and does more to disseminate misinformation than any thing else. |
It was told to me personally by one of the TC members who was not invited by the other three to visit the site. I heard the same, independently, from a second source who is friends with the other TC member. So are they in a conspiracy to lie?
I have heard the charge of divisiveness about this site before but I don’t buy it. For one, it’s disingenuous since the real divisiveness in this Township is caused by the three Democrats on the TC (and a few others on various boards) who have made everything political. And I say this as a life-long Democrat, BTW. It is appalling in a Township this size that they have made it so political. I couldn’t believe it when I first heard that Mayor Stout factored political party affiliation into assignments to boards and committees. Our Township is way to small for such behavior. Then I observed how when our Democrat representatives to the State Assembly sold us out during the COAH process last year, because their allegiance was to Speaker Roberts political machine first and their constituents second, that our TC majority praised one of our Assembly representatives on the record, despite her not voting in a way that unequivocally favored the interests of Cranbury or the rest of her constituents. Meanwhile the only State representative we have who did unequivocally support Cranbury’s interests, our Republican State Senator, was not praised. They argued it was useful to maintain her support anyway yet a year later she has done nothing substantive (oh yeah, a letter, that’s impressive) to help our position. Is their loyalty to a political party or our Township? I remain a Democrat but I have no tolerance for officials putting politics ahead of the interests of their constituents, at any level of government, but particularly at the local level.
Second, this same group has repeatedly taken steps to try and advance this project, as they did with the ballfield before, without understanding if a majority of the Township supports it. That is divisive. If you are really interested in ending divisiveness, join us in encouraging them to put this matter to a public vote instead of repeatedly (three times so far) holding meeting that they then actively work to stack with supporters then cite their support as evidence of the overall Township support for this initiative.
Third, if this site has tended to skew to one side of the debate and political spectrum (I agree it does, though a few of us continue to represent Democratic ideals and common sense on the national debate to keep it honest), it is not by design. No one is being censored. No posts are being removed because they are contrary to the majority’s POV. So if you want to see this forum become balanced, people representing the alternative viewpoints need to spend more time here and engage in the debate and correct information, on a factual basis. I participate in a wide variety of online communities on various topics and it is an almost universal rule that people can sniff out common sense posts from people with a biased agenda.
Personally I would love to see more diversity of viewpoints on this site. I absolutely share this goal. The way to accomplish it is not to condemn the site or infer its current posters are spreading misinformation ro being intentional divisive. That just isn’t true and is hypocritical from someone claiming they support “factual” information (where are your facts or evidence of this claim). The solution is for more people to post. Bring the debate and discourse here. I look forward to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 15 2009, 4:37 pm EDT Post subject: Re: AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 13, 2009 6:00 P.M. |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Last year the TC voted not to pursue looking into the purchase of the PNC property, despite the majority in attendance at the meeting raising their hands in favor of more information. I was there. |
Um . . .I was there too and the majority did not raise their hands in favor of more information. I was standing in the back and had a wonderful view. That was the meeting that was to discuss solely the PNC Bank "Once in a Lifetime Opportunity". |
I saw the same thing from the side bench and the majority DID NOT raise hands in favor of it, also most of the comments were also against the purchase. And I also recall that the opposition had better discussion points in the public comment about not pursuing the PNC purchase. Poor Economy, Higher taxes and COAH were the primary reasons given.
I think its appropriate to also note that most I talked to in attendance were pro-library sometime in the future, but vehemently against the PNC purchase and any new free standing building in the immediate short term. |
This is simply not true (referring to last year’s meeting, not this year’s). It may be that a majority didn't raise their hand and all, I can't say. But they specifically had raised hands for yes (approve proceeding to look into it) and no (don't proceed). Slightly more hands were raised for yes than no. I also was sitting next to the reporter from the Cranbury Press who kept a tally of the speakers and I did as well. There was one more speaker in favor than against, although someone not paying attention would have thought there was even more in favor because right after refusing to allow one of the speakers who spoke against it to speak again Mayor Stout did allow someone who spoke in support to speak a second time, then he closed the floor to further speakers from the audience (nice lack of bias there).
Again, I spoke against it so I have no benefit in saying this other it is what happened I think we have a strong case without changing the facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
