| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Quest
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 5:04 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
 |
|
| You are correct. The subject is to far from the orginal post. I would have agree with the orginal post that coning off parking spots is unexceptable when parking is a problem and very inconsiderate of others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 6:09 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
| I'll repeat myself ...according to our Planning Board there is no parking problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quest
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 6:33 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
| The couple of post 4 or 5 ago remind me of my two gradsons. When caught doing something wrong one will go not my fault Jimmy made me do it! I happen to be at a township meeting awhile ago. The topic of hiring two more police officers came up there was alot if debate about not being able to afford it the committee hired them anyway I did not hear anyone say the state was making them do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quest
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 6:46 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
| Funny how fast the cones were gone not long after I read the first post! Think maybe the person was embarassed! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 7:09 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | I'll repeat myself ...according to our Planning Board there is no parking problem. |
The committee is correct, then, because there is no parking problem. It's crazy to suggest it does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 7:11 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
| Quest wrote: | | Funny how fast the cones were gone not long after I read the first post! Think maybe the person was embarassed! |
Or maybe they were just up briefly by intent. Very few people actually read these posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 7:13 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
| Quest wrote: | | The couple of post 4 or 5 ago remind me of my two gradsons. When caught doing something wrong one will go not my fault Jimmy made me do it! I happen to be at a township meeting awhile ago. The topic of hiring two more police officers came up there was alot if debate about not being able to afford it the committee hired them anyway I did not hear anyone say the state was making them do it. |
Then blame the committee members. Some of them are even "old Cranbury." The point the poster was making is it makes no sense to automatically blame "new Cranbury" for the extra spending. There are plenty of people who moved here within the last 10 years who are against additional spending and expansion. And there are many people who have been here a long time who support people and committee members who want to spend on new initiatives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quest
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 8:09 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
Duh!
You must be a friend. Quite a few post saw them for days and so did I! If you drive you really should get your eyes checked |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quest
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 8:14 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
| We have a planning board bet the state made them do it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 8:25 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
I really wish people would do some research before posting. Here is the budget. 9% of our taxes goes to unfunded state mandates. I can't recall the last time we hired a new officer, but it certainly was not in the last 2 years.
http://cranburytownship.org/2009%20budget-6.pdf
Now, that is not to say there are areas that need to be reduced and spending monitored. However, you can't blame it on new residents. As the other poster stated, there are many old and new residents on both sides of the spending coin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quest
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 8:39 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
| How could anyone believe the budget is not higher because we have more people! More old cranbury people or more new Cranbury people not hard to figure out! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 9:08 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
You are arguements are based on whole different directions.
As people come in expenses will rise. However, the police growth which you were arguing originially is mainly due to the businesses and state requirements in terms of how things are done. For example, it is no longer allowable to have no officers on duty at night like under Logan. Or safe because of 130 and the business district to have 1 officer on duty at night. That has nothing to do with new or old residents.
Then you and others minimize state mandates so I showed you the state mandate costs.
A town will grow because no town can preserve 100% of every piece of land.
I never argued that growth does not spur increases both in revenue and expenses. Your arguement was that the new residents are solely to blame. The problem is that new residents also buy old homes and old residents also buy new homes in town. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 9:31 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | I really wish people would do some research before posting. Here is the budget. 9% of our taxes goes to unfunded state mandates. I can't recall the last time we hired a new officer, but it certainly was not in the last 2 years.
http://cranburytownship.org/2009%20budget-6.pdf
Now, that is not to say there are areas that need to be reduced and spending monitored. However, you can't blame it on new residents. As the other poster stated, there are many old and new residents on both sides of the spending coin. |
I don't believe that 9% includes state-mandated pension requirements, state-mandated requirements for raises, state-mandated minimum funding pool for a library (that now has a very large surplus of our unspent tax dollars), state-mandated requirements to fund and build low income housing, or the excess $'s that get sent for to the state for education spending that are more than what the state sends back to our district (thus or subsidizing of other districts), etc, etc. The actual percent of our spending which is non-discretionary due to state requirements is higher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 9:34 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
| Quest wrote: | | How could anyone believe the budget is not higher because we have more people! More old cranbury people or more new Cranbury people not hard to figure out! |
The absolute cost of the budget is inmaterial. What matters is the cost per person -- i.e. our tax rate. More people doesn't automatically lead to more spend/taxes per person. More people bring more taxes. Yet our taxes are going up per-person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 10:09 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
| FYI Cranbury did not pay one cent towards any of it's employees pensions for 12 years. I believe it was 1995-2007. This included police public works etc.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 29 2009, 11:01 pm EST Post subject: Re: Main Street Parking |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | FYI Cranbury did not pay one cent towards any of it's employees pensions for 12 years. I believe it was 1995-2007. This included police public works etc.. |
And the school? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
