CHA & PB

[Guest]

It's not a plot against the south side. It's people saying let's keep the a balance. Let's try not to push development to one side or the other.

[Guest]

Whoever posted the 2/3 and 1/3 is approximately correct. The group homes are considered as part of the total COAH number distributed and looking at the CHA website you get about a 2/3- 1/3 scenario. You can modify that by counting residents in group homes, to get a larger number for the North side, but then to be fair you'd also have to count the number of people in the COAH homes on the South side of town which is near impossible to do.

The only fair balance I see is splitting any potential COAH obligation in manner so as to have a final solution of 50/50 if we're using North and South as parameters. Whether it is south east/west or north east/west is immaterial. That means there will be more building on the North side unfortunately. If people want to say it's a north or south thing, that's fine..but with a 50/50 split it's a hard argument to make.

[Guest]

The group homes are not managed by CHA. That is why they are not included in CHA's count. The split between North/South is about even (slightly skewed south) and will remain about even (slightly skewed north) with a modest develoment at 130 D.

My concern is that some people in the south seem to have drawn a line in the sand that they will not accept any more affordable housing under any circumstances because of some perceived imbalance. This position is not supported by the facts and is rather impractical given our current obligation, the limitations on available land and the impending commercial development along 130.

IMO, we should be considering options outside the village rather than fighting amongst ourselves between north and south. Our old strategy of building all units within the village has served us well in the past, but should be reconsidered for the future.

[Guest2]

The whole north/south argument is ridiculous. Affordable housing will be built in the following locations:

1. Where land can be obtained at a reasonable cost.
2. Where residents are integrated into the community so as not to be segregated into a "ghetto".

Whereever that is -- so be it -- we are ONE town not North v. South.

I don't hear this argument about all the warehouses being east of Rte. 130. I'm sure the residents there think it would be "fair" if a warehouse were built on the "south" side of town to spread the pain.

Clearly land use is not based on "fair". It is based on more clearly defined principles.

[Guest]

This is a tiny town with less than 4,000 residents. The idea that some arbitrary line defined by the lake and where Main Street divides North/South addresses would have any relevance beyond being historically interesting and a quaint little factoid is ridiculous. This isn't West Side Story. It's not like the two sides represent meaningful divisions of demographic or distinct cultures or communities. We're all simply Cranbury residents.

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest 2]

Guest2 wrote:

2. Where residents are integrated into the community so as not to be segregated into a "ghetto".

Interesting comment. In your opinion, how many COAH units constitute a "ghetto"? Is there a saturation point at which COAH units will pull the village down instead of vice versa?

I use the word "ghetto" in quotes to mean that concentrating all affordable housing in an area outside of the rest of the community would be unfair to the residents of that new community. Any affordable housing should be integrated into the community so that we don't draw sharp distinctions.

My point was -- we can't just buy cheap land in the middle of no where and build affordable housing there just to say "we did it" and cross the requirement off the list. If we build it, it should be integrated into existing neighborhoods so that we can maintain the strong community we have.

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

Why not east of 130? Thus far, we have chosen not to pursue opportunities there. But the obligation is growing, we are running out of land in the village and at some point we will reach the tipping point in the village. Doesn't the township have a responsibility to look out for the interests of current resident taxpayers?

[Guest]

[Guest]

I don't necessarily agree with that logic. Applegate, Cubberly and Petty Rd. are not near the village. Shadow Oaks for years never had sidewalks or a way into town to walk or bike. So centering developments around the village I don't think is a necessity to be inclusive.

[Guest]