| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dan Mulligan
Joined: Fri, Sep 19 2008, 5:41 pm EDT
Posts: 172
Location: Old Cranbury Road
|
 Posted: Fri, Jan 29 2010, 11:26 am EST Post subject: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
 |
|
A good article by our local reporter Maria from the Cranbury Press about proposed legislation which would help Cranbury...
STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs
Lesniak plans hearing on Monday, committee vote in March
Thursday, January 28, 2010 5:22 PM EST
By Maria Prato-Gaines, Staff Writer
Legislation that could bring back a tool that both Cranbury and Monroe have used to meet their affordable housing obligations without having to build their own housing is schedule for a hearing in the state Senate on Monday.
More:
http://www.centraljersey.com/articles/2010/01/29/topstory/doc4b620d9b0e597185525672.txt |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 29 2010, 4:39 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| I am not sure wider perspective is right. While I believe towns should have all levels of housing, I disagree that the housing should be built for by town tax payers. If Habitat wants to come in I fully support them doing so. To tell me that I have an obligation as a tax payer to fund housing for someone to buy so that they can live here is ridiculous, while I had to buy 3 homes, save and drive 2 10 year old plus cars while my wife cut my own hair to save to liver here. No one offered me a home to move into at a discounted price. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 29 2010, 5:01 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| to be clear we had to live in and sell 3 homes before we had money to live in Cranbury. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 29 2010, 8:56 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| I agree - that is not a wider perspective, just a different one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 29 2010, 10:31 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
It is a nice article. But there is a third perspective. We need more low and moderate income housing in new Jersey. For thirty years COAH has done a miserable job of supplying this housing. I will wager that as a state we have spent more money litigating than building.
Builders remedy is an incredibly poor and inefficient method for building low income housing. It has resulted in sprawl, overburdened services, and overcrowded schools. It has not resulted in much low income housing. After 30 years it is clear that a new method should be tried.
Do I believe a Christie administration will come up with a better system? Unfortunately, I do not. I only wish previous administrations would have acted responsibly before we got to this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 29 2010, 10:51 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | to be clear we had to live in and sell 3 homes before we had money to live in Cranbury. |
Frankly, that sounds like the American Dream at work. Good for you, really. People work hard and save and aspire to earning a better life. You did. What's wrong with that?
I commute 17 hours a week back and forth to my job in NYC to earn the money to have the life I want for my family in Cranbury. I can’t afford to have that life near my work in Manhattan. Should someone subsidize me so I can live there near where I work? Where is that right spelled out in the Constitution? Where is that a principle espoused in the any of the documents of the Founding Fathers. When did the proximity of housing to work become an inalienable right?
Cranbury is a tiny, middle class community. We are surrounded by other communities, only minutes away, some with even more affordable housing options. If someone can’t afford to live in Cranbury, why can’t they live where they can afford to? Why does Cranbury’s tiny taxpayer base need to pay for other people’s housing while commuting hours a day to earn the money to do so? While I support the idea that a State or even a large City should concern itself with affordable housing options, I an unclear why that burden falls to every community, no matter how small.
For that matter, it’s not clear that the premise for localized affordable housing is even true. The theory is we need to supply local housing for local workers. But, again, there are affordable options, in East Windsor for example, that are minutes away and in many cases just a close in practical commute as Cranbury to Cranbury’s industrial sector where a vast majority of the jobs are. Let’s be honest. The real reason people would want that housing is to be part of our school system. And I can’t blame anyone for aspiring to that. But why is our community, why are the taxpayers who have often struggled and sacrificed to move and live here and pay for a school entirely funded from local tax dollars, obligated to also pay for the housing of others who would like to be part of that school system? I have lived in many places in the US. And I have seen bitter battles over public school zoning. But that was at least all based on people who did live in those districts. I can’t think of any other place where the implication was that a community literally needed to build the housing to import people into their school districts. That just doesn’t strike me as an essential human expectation and seems very un-American. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 29 2010, 11:08 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
According to this site there are homes for sale at 200,000 to 1.3 million. It seems to me we have affordable homes in Cranbury if people want to buy. It may not be brand new and 200,000 may be out of someone's budget today. However, there is no constitutional right to home ownership. The "wider" view proposed is through the COAH advocacy group. The Press was an article on the Lesniak bill.
Editorial (propaganda) vs factual reporting. I wonder how many tax payers in Cranbury support COAH.
Can someone tell me of the 80 units under the RCA, how many are family units? Considering we have an obligation to provide for 83 family units under the March 15 approval plan, if the 80 RCA units are family units then we really only need to plan for 3 homes in Cranbury if the legislation passes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 29 2010, 11:48 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
That just doesn’t strike me as an essential human expectation and seems very un-American.[/quote]
Not to this American |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 30 2010, 12:29 am EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | That just doesn’t strike me as an essential human expectation and seems very un-American.
Not to this American |
Why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 30 2010, 8:04 am EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
Why would any american who has worked hard to afford their home feel they should have tax payer money fund homes for others to buy that are new with new appliances at severly discounted prices? I took a tour of the CHA homes when they did an open house at the last round. They are cheaper and nicer than any home I ever bought. I joked that perhaps I should take a job making less money so I could buy this home. Remember, you could buy in and then progress up the salary scale to a much higher salary, but no law forces you to leave. So you could make 150K and live in these homes.
I am not opposed to civic groups like CHA, Habitat, etc... buying land and providing homes. I am opposed to me having to do it with my tax dollars.
To me American is working hard and benefiting from the hard work. So I question how these COAH homes as this one poster says are American. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 30 2010, 5:12 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Why would any american who has worked hard to afford their home feel they should have tax payer money fund homes for others to buy that are new with new appliances at severly discounted prices? I took a tour of the CHA homes when they did an open house at the last round. They are cheaper and nicer than any home I ever bought. I joked that perhaps I should take a job making less money so I could buy this home. Remember, you could buy in and then progress up the salary scale to a much higher salary, but no law forces you to leave. So you could make 150K and live in these homes.
I am not opposed to civic groups like CHA, Habitat, etc... buying land and providing homes. I am opposed to me having to do it with my tax dollars.
To me American is working hard and benefiting from the hard work. So I question how these COAH homes as this one poster says are American. |
I am not opposed to using my tax dollars to buy land and provide homes. However, I believe COAH is not an efficient or fair way to accomplish this task. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 30 2010, 5:18 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Why would any american who has worked hard to afford their home feel they should have tax payer money fund homes for others to buy that are new with new appliances at severly discounted prices? I took a tour of the CHA homes when they did an open house at the last round. They are cheaper and nicer than any home I ever bought. I joked that perhaps I should take a job making less money so I could buy this home. Remember, you could buy in and then progress up the salary scale to a much higher salary, but no law forces you to leave. So you could make 150K and live in these homes.
I am not opposed to civic groups like CHA, Habitat, etc... buying land and providing homes. I am opposed to me having to do it with my tax dollars.
To me American is working hard and benefiting from the hard work. So I question how these COAH homes as this one poster says are American. |
I am not opposed to using my tax dollars to buy land and provide homes. However, I believe COAH is not an efficient or fair way to accomplish this task. |
Don't get me wrong Sec. 8 I am in favor of that helps those who really do need it. Adding 269 homes to towns like Cranbury for people who have other options is where I have issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 30 2010, 9:31 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Why would any american who has worked hard to afford their home feel they should have tax payer money fund homes for others to buy that are new with new appliances at severly discounted prices? I took a tour of the CHA homes when they did an open house at the last round. They are cheaper and nicer than any home I ever bought. I joked that perhaps I should take a job making less money so I could buy this home. Remember, you could buy in and then progress up the salary scale to a much higher salary, but no law forces you to leave. So you could make 150K and live in these homes.
I am not opposed to civic groups like CHA, Habitat, etc... buying land and providing homes. I am opposed to me having to do it with my tax dollars.
To me American is working hard and benefiting from the hard work. So I question how these COAH homes as this one poster says are American. |
You're soooooooo American........ And so Christiannnnnnnnn........... and so unaware of your privilege in this great country of ours -- and so right wing - AND SO DAMN SELFISH and yes I work hard to live and own a house in Cranbury and sent my children to our wonderful schools ....and I'm worried about what kind of housing there will be in the 130 COAH development and whether they'll open up Ryan Road and whether the mix of ownership and rental will be right and all the rest
Thank God for Social Security for our old folks and SSI and Medicaid for our disabled children and Food Stamps for all the people who can’t find work...And yes housing for those who have not yet made it.... And thank God for all the politicians who had the guts to pass these measures and the folks (my parents) who voted them in for passing this wonderful safety net
That’s America -- you jerks -- foretold in our great religions Don’t make government evil because you are selfish. Our government is us -- and as far as I can see, most of us don’t want and won’t vote for poor houses or charity like it existed in the 19th ceentury |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 30 2010, 9:51 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Why would any american who has worked hard to afford their home feel they should have tax payer money fund homes for others to buy that are new with new appliances at severly discounted prices? I took a tour of the CHA homes when they did an open house at the last round. They are cheaper and nicer than any home I ever bought. I joked that perhaps I should take a job making less money so I could buy this home. Remember, you could buy in and then progress up the salary scale to a much higher salary, but no law forces you to leave. So you could make 150K and live in these homes.
I am not opposed to civic groups like CHA, Habitat, etc... buying land and providing homes. I am opposed to me having to do it with my tax dollars.
To me American is working hard and benefiting from the hard work. So I question how these COAH homes as this one poster says are American. |
You're soooooooo American........ And so Christiannnnnnnnn........... and so unaware of your privilege in this great country of ours -- and so right wing - AND SO DAMN SELFISH and yes I work hard to live and own a house in Cranbury and sent my children to our wonderful schools ....and I'm worried about what kind of housing there will be in the 130 COAH development and whether they'll open up Ryan Road and whether the mix of ownership and rental will be right and all the rest
Thank God for Social Security for our old folks and SSI and Medicaid for our disabled children and Food Stamps for all the people who can’t find work...And yes housing for those who have not yet made it.... And thank God for all the politicians who had the guts to pass these measures and the folks (my parents) who voted them in for passing this wonderful safety net
That’s America -- you jerks -- foretold in our great religions Don’t make government evil because you are selfish. Our government is us -- and as far as I can see, most of us don’t want and won’t vote for poor houses or charity like it existed in the 19th ceentury |
I think you could have said what you said a little more softly. i don't think Mr American is going to get it anyway |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 30 2010, 11:04 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Why would any american who has worked hard to afford their home feel they should have tax payer money fund homes for others to buy that are new with new appliances at severly discounted prices? I took a tour of the CHA homes when they did an open house at the last round. They are cheaper and nicer than any home I ever bought. I joked that perhaps I should take a job making less money so I could buy this home. Remember, you could buy in and then progress up the salary scale to a much higher salary, but no law forces you to leave. So you could make 150K and live in these homes.
I am not opposed to civic groups like CHA, Habitat, etc... buying land and providing homes. I am opposed to me having to do it with my tax dollars.
To me American is working hard and benefiting from the hard work. So I question how these COAH homes as this one poster says are American. |
You're soooooooo American........ And so Christiannnnnnnnn........... and so unaware of your privilege in this great country of ours -- and so right wing - AND SO DAMN SELFISH and yes I work hard to live and own a house in Cranbury and sent my children to our wonderful schools ....and I'm worried about what kind of housing there will be in the 130 COAH development and whether they'll open up Ryan Road and whether the mix of ownership and rental will be right and all the rest
Thank God for Social Security for our old folks and SSI and Medicaid for our disabled children and Food Stamps for all the people who can’t find work...And yes housing for those who have not yet made it.... And thank God for all the politicians who had the guts to pass these measures and the folks (my parents) who voted them in for passing this wonderful safety net
That’s America -- you jerks -- foretold in our great religions Don’t make government evil because you are selfish. Our government is us -- and as far as I can see, most of us don’t want and won’t vote for poor houses or charity like it existed in the 19th ceentury |
Someone has anger management issues – your response is so filled with visceral hate and frustration.
Let me understand what you are saying. As far as I can tell all the previous posters said they supported providing for some kind of housing for those in need. No one said anything to the contrary. What they raised objections to is not the fact of providing housing but the methods and the extent of what was a necessary or even effective public service and expectation. These posters are almost certainly already contributing through their tax dollars, and quite possibly through church and other private donations, considerably to helping those in need.
But what you are apparently saying is if they object to a small community of just over one thousand taxpayers completely covering the cost to build one new house for every 4 taxpayers, to a tiny township mushrooming its population and obliterating three hundred years of slow growth and preservation of farmland, to building housing that is more expensive and luxurious than that which many of them live in at their own expense and that which is already available for sale on the public market in town, to serving a apparent requirement not to build low income apartments in high density areas that could serve millions near where they work but instead propagating a system that will only help thousands into larger houses scattered in lower population areas away from most of the jobs – that if they don’t blindly agree with all this they are selfish, right wing and unchristian?
I don’t follow your logic.
There are programs for low income housing all over this country. But almost function like here in New Jersey. The reality of what we have here is a cynical illusion, a program to make developers and unions rich under the false pretense of a charity for lower income families. True, it does help some families. But the test should not be is anyone helped, but how many people are and at what cost. The true backers of COAH and our current NJ affordable housing regulations aren’t interested in helping the needy, they are interested in continuing to make New Jersey the most over-developed state in the Union (a statistical fact). Some of us would rather see our money go to helping as many people as possible in the most effective ways. And, yes, some feel that providing shelter and a life line to those in need does not also mean subsidizing automatically to a certain standard of living. That doesn’t make them un-American and if you believe that is the American way, with all due respect you need to study U.S. history, sociology and political philosophy more closely. I’d be interested in seeing you citing the basis for your belief otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
