| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 1:10 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | | 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. |
These developments are all considered failures in Cranbury's zoning and planning. You skipped the biggest failure "The Woods" which is more a part of Plainsboro than Cranbury. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 1:45 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
These developments could never have been built in the village area do to space constraints. Considered failures is really a subjective view. I am sure many people feel they are well planned in most respects.
There is no reason COAH houses can't or should not be built in outlying areas. These individuals are being given housing at severly discounted prices. It's akin to having to live on a busy street because you can't afford the home in the cul de sac. If you want it you get it, if you don't want it you don't take it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 3:49 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | 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. |
These developments are all considered failures in Cranbury's zoning and planning. You skipped the biggest failure "The Woods" which is more a part of Plainsboro than Cranbury. |
Where is the Woods??? Shady Brook Lane ??? Thats the only thing I think you might be talking about.
Why is it a failure? A group of Million dollar homes on the outskirts of Cranbury??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 3:51 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| There is tons of land off of Brickyard Road. The only problem is the power lines that run through there. Otherwise that farmland would make a great development and be out of the way so no one would see it unless they wanted to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 3:53 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | These developments could never have been built in the village area do to space constraints. Considered failures is really a subjective view. I am sure many people feel they are well planned in most respects.
There is no reason COAH houses can't or should not be built in outlying areas. These individuals are being given housing at severly discounted prices. It's akin to having to live on a busy street because you can't afford the home in the cul de sac. If you want it you get it, if you don't want it you don't take it. |
Not in the village, but contiguos to the village. This was the idea behind Cranbury Green Leidke court, and Silvers lane. In the dark ages this was the idea behind the Evans Tract and Wynnewood Drive.
A point of fact. Tom Gambino's plan, snottily referred to as Gambinoland, was to take all remaining development and put it on Wright with high density. At the time about 200 units. Most people thought this would put undo strain on services and the school. Had this not been the case the "island developmnents", Cubberly court, Applegate, and The Woods would not have been built.
The reason COAH is not being built in outlying areas is that we had the debate 30 years ago and decided it would be best for the community if we concentrated development in the village area. If you think that is a bad idea you should have moved to West Windsor, Plainsboro, Montgomery, or any of the dozens of sprawl communities in New Jersey. This is a CONCIOUS effort to avoid that. You may prefer that kind of community(it is a matter of taste, I suppose), But the vast majority of this community see sprawl as a disaster and do there utmost to avoid this.
By the way this is the ultimate bi-partisan Cranbury issue. Avoiding sprawl was the goal of the TC when it was almost entirely Republican and when almost entirely Democrat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 3:58 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | There is tons of land off of Brickyard Road. The only problem is the power lines that run through there. Otherwise that farmland would make a great development and be out of the way so no one would see it unless they wanted to. |
Why ar epower lines a show stopper? There are plenty of market rate residential neighborhoods right next to them. I rmember looking at homes for $700,000+ 8 years ago with major power lines right behind the homes in Plainsboro. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 4:11 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | There is tons of land off of Brickyard Road. The only problem is the power lines that run through there. Otherwise that farmland would make a great development and be out of the way so no one would see it unless they wanted to. |
Why ar epower lines a show stopper? There are plenty of market rate residential neighborhoods right next to them. I rmember looking at homes for $700,000+ 8 years ago with major power lines right behind the homes in Plainsboro. |
I see you didn't buy one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 4:19 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | These developments could never have been built in the village area do to space constraints. Considered failures is really a subjective view. I am sure many people feel they are well planned in most respects.
There is no reason COAH houses can't or should not be built in outlying areas. These individuals are being given housing at severly discounted prices. It's akin to having to live on a busy street because you can't afford the home in the cul de sac. If you want it you get it, if you don't want it you don't take it. |
Not in the village, but contiguos to the village. This was the idea behind Cranbury Green Leidke court, and Silvers lane. In the dark ages this was the idea behind the Evans Tract and Wynnewood Drive.
A point of fact. Tom Gambino's plan, snottily referred to as Gambinoland, was to take all remaining development and put it on Wright with high density. At the time about 200 units. Most people thought this would put undo strain on services and the school. Had this not been the case the "island developmnents", Cubberly court, Applegate, and The Woods would not have been built.
The reason COAH is not being built in outlying areas is that we had the debate 30 years ago and decided it would be best for the community if we concentrated development in the village area. If you think that is a bad idea you should have moved to West Windsor, Plainsboro, Montgomery, or any of the dozens of sprawl communities in New Jersey. This is a CONCIOUS effort to avoid that. You may prefer that kind of community(it is a matter of taste, I suppose), But the vast majority of this community see sprawl as a disaster and do there utmost to avoid this.
By the way this is the ultimate bi-partisan Cranbury issue. Avoiding sprawl was the goal of the TC when it was almost entirely Republican and when almost entirely Democrat. |
I am in my 60's and grew up here. I was and still am opposed to what Tom Gambino (rest his soul) had proposed. If you feel that this was a good idea then we're clearly on two very different plains of thought.
30 years ago COAH did not exist. 30 years ago we were not thinking Green Acres. The town was smaller development wise and no one thought of Cranbury Greene going in on S. Main St.
The furthest outlying development was Shadow Oaks approx 30 years ago which was just going in.
COAH changes things and it means that if COAH stays then condensing things around the village is no longer practical.
I agree in planning and trying to maintain as much open space as possible. However, Gambino's plan would have destroyed the down town area and the number of homes would have been more than the developments that were put in after that time.
I find it interesting that you would go to moving to saying move to WW because I disagree with your view of massively developing the downtown of our historic village. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 4:27 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | 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? |
Because some very smart residents 30 years ago conciously decided that putting low income housing on the opposite side of the major highway that runs through the township would create two Cranbury's. A wealthy one and a poor one... |
I appreciate the wisdom of the past. However, as you pointed out, "reality" is different than we planned, including a much larger obligation than anticipated. We have 96 CHA units in the village, so we are a long way from creating "two Cranburys". At this point, building some units outside the village makes sense, especially given our current and pending obligations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 4:59 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | 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? |
Because some very smart residents 30 years ago conciously decided that putting low income housing on the opposite side of the major highway that runs through the township would create two Cranbury's. A wealthy one and a poor one... |
I appreciate the wisdom of the past. However, as you pointed out, "reality" is different than we planned, including a much larger obligation than anticipated. We have 96 CHA units in the village, so we are a long way from creating "two Cranburys". At this point, building some units outside the village makes sense, especially given our current and pending obligations. |
This wisdom was developed when our COAH obligation was 816 units. Your opinion is valid. The point is what do you want Cranbury to look like in the future. Do you want it to somewhat resemble a rural village or another suburban sprawl community,I will quit picking on Plainsboro, like Millstone.
You will find that "Cranbury", the TC, Planning Board, and most residents of all political stripes are strongly against Island development whether it be market rate or COAH. As we develop the new master plan this will be apparent.
I am curious why we would advocate additional sprawl, when many sprawl communities are desperately trying to adopt a town center model. See the town center in Robbinsville and Plainsboro, the plans for transportation Centers in West Windsor and the old J&J site. It seems most communities are finally realizing the intelligence of the town center (or Cranbury) model. Why should we abandon it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cake
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 5:59 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
We want to have our cake and eat it too. A lot of people seem to want all the COAH housing built in the village, as long as it isn't their part of the village. A lot of people are in favor of preserving all of the open spaces connected to the village as long as it doesn't result in COAH homes near their house, the school or any previously built COAH units. A lot of people want the rateables of new commercial development, as long as they don't have to feel the impact of the coinciding COAH requirements. We need to face reality.
IMO, building some portion of the COAH obligation outside the village may be less than ideal, but it is a better alternative than trying to squeeze all of the current and pending future obligations into the village. [/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 6:31 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| Cake wrote: | We want to have our cake and eat it too. A lot of people seem to want all the COAH housing built in the village, as long as it isn't their part of the village. A lot of people are in favor of preserving all of the open spaces connected to the village as long as it doesn't result in COAH homes near their house, the school or any previously built COAH units. A lot of people want the rateables of new commercial development, as long as they don't have to feel the impact of the coinciding COAH requirements. We need to face reality.
IMO, building some portion of the COAH obligation outside the village may be less than ideal, but it is a better alternative than trying to squeeze all of the current and pending future obligations into the village. [/b] |
That is accurate and realistically the only option unless we have a massive development in one area which is really unfair to an existing group of residents. We need to think of equitable distribution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 8:17 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| Cake wrote: | We want to have our cake and eat it too. A lot of people seem to want all the COAH housing built in the village, as long as it isn't their part of the village. A lot of people are in favor of preserving all of the open spaces connected to the village as long as it doesn't result in COAH homes near their house, the school or any previously built COAH units. A lot of people want the rateables of new commercial development, as long as they don't have to feel the impact of the coinciding COAH requirements. We need to face reality.
IMO, building some portion of the COAH obligation outside the village may be less than ideal, but it is a better alternative than trying to squeeze all of the current and pending future obligations into the village. [/b] |
The reality is we have always been able to meet our COAH obligation with housing in or contiguous to the village. I suspect we will in the future also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 9:40 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Cake wrote: | We want to have our cake and eat it too. A lot of people seem to want all the COAH housing built in the village, as long as it isn't their part of the village. A lot of people are in favor of preserving all of the open spaces connected to the village as long as it doesn't result in COAH homes near their house, the school or any previously built COAH units. A lot of people want the rateables of new commercial development, as long as they don't have to feel the impact of the coinciding COAH requirements. We need to face reality.
IMO, building some portion of the COAH obligation outside the village may be less than ideal, but it is a better alternative than trying to squeeze all of the current and pending future obligations into the village. [/b] |
The reality is we have always been able to meet our COAH obligation with housing in or contiguous to the village. I suspect we will in the future also. |
You simply cannot due this unless you overload 130D or the COAH numbers change. The fact is that to do this in a manner that does not overload (multistory apartment buildings) an area housing will have to go up outside the village area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2010, 10:47 pm EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Cake wrote: | We want to have our cake and eat it too. A lot of people seem to want all the COAH housing built in the village, as long as it isn't their part of the village. A lot of people are in favor of preserving all of the open spaces connected to the village as long as it doesn't result in COAH homes near their house, the school or any previously built COAH units. A lot of people want the rateables of new commercial development, as long as they don't have to feel the impact of the coinciding COAH requirements. We need to face reality.
IMO, building some portion of the COAH obligation outside the village may be less than ideal, but it is a better alternative than trying to squeeze all of the current and pending future obligations into the village. [/b] |
I don't want to mention property that the township doesn't already own, but I can think of at least two properties in or contiguous to the village that are not yet developed.
The reality is we have always been able to meet our COAH obligation with housing in or contiguous to the village. I suspect we will in the future also. |
You simply cannot due this unless you overload 130D or the COAH numbers change. The fact is that to do this in a manner that does not overload (multistory apartment buildings) an area housing will have to go up outside the village area. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Feb 7 2010, 10:14 am EST Post subject: Re: CHA & PB |
|
|
| I thought I read somewhere that we voted in our new governor because he was overturning COAH and going back to Mt.Laurel, letting small towns transfer low-income housing obligations to other towns that want them, along with some fees for that. Even one of our most prominent democrats in town rallied people to vote for the republican governor just because of this. Do low income people want to live here anyway? Our town doesn't offer many conveniences within walking distance, there isn't a food store, no bus lines, and really no low-income community. will our next obligation be a strip mall for them? i wish i was so worried about by the state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
