View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 3:15 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | The variance request is why we're in the problem we are today with legal challenges and upset business owners. It is almost impossible to get a variance and the boards are concerned about setting the precedent. Once one property gets an exception it's very hard to defend the legal challenge from another property owner making an identical request.
The zoning board realizing this made the request that this be a specific part of the review to defend the town from such challenges and costs. |
It is also impossible to write a set of rules that will adequately cover every possible scenario. There will always be a need for variance requests. The key challenge is to allow retail that will generate tax revenue and won't kill Main St. I'm suggesting that setting an appropriate minimum lot size and minimum retail floor area are one way to try to accomplish these goals. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 4:05 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
How can you kill a carcass? There are only a handful of successful businesses on Main Street as it is and I can’t imagine any of them being impacted by anything done on Route 130. The successful ones all work because they are specifically compatible with the vibe of Main Street. I can’t see Charmed by Claire or the antique shop working in a strip mall on 130, or Gil & Berts or even Cranbury Pizza. Anything that would succeed on Route 130 would almost by definition NOT succeed on Main Street as many have tried and proven again and again. Totally different markets really. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 5:02 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
This new proposed change is in answer to two needs:
We as residents have asked for lower taxes, i.e. more ratables.
and secondly some landowners are finding it hard to sell their land due to zoning laws. The goal was to allow certain expanded uses for these areas without taking away from the nature of the town. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 5:13 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Isn't rather snobbish to say I don't want someone who is working to be able to afford a home in town in a private apartment? If someone is personally building an apartment and someone who is single or has a wife wants to move in why do we care what the landlord charges for rent? Do you really think a family of 4 will live in a one bedroom apartment? |
We have families of seven living in 3 bedroom affordable housing units In town now. Is that fair to the taxpayers? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 5:47 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Isn't rather snobbish to say I don't want someone who is working to be able to afford a home in town in a private apartment? If someone is personally building an apartment and someone who is single or has a wife wants to move in why do we care what the landlord charges for rent? Do you really think a family of 4 will live in a one bedroom apartment? |
We have families of seven living in 3 bedroom affordable housing units In town now. Is that fair to the taxpayers? |
First, these are not affordable housing units people are talking about they are full market rate apartments and market tax. Second, I'd like to know what 7 member families are living in 3 bedroom apartments in town. I have never heard that before. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 7:11 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Isn't rather snobbish to say I don't want someone who is working to be able to afford a home in town in a private apartment? If someone is personally building an apartment and someone who is single or has a wife wants to move in why do we care what the landlord charges for rent? Do you really think a family of 4 will live in a one bedroom apartment? |
We have families of seven living in 3 bedroom affordable housing units In town now. Is that fair to the taxpayers? |
First, these are not affordable housing units people are talking about they are full market rate apartments and market tax. Second, I'd like to know what 7 member families are living in 3 bedroom apartments in town. I have never heard that before. |
Apparently CHA is not doing their job policing of "who" lives in the affordable housing our taxes paid for. Over crowding which adds to our school costs, high priced cars, expensive large tvs. The system is being abused in cranbury at our expense. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 7:25 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Isn't rather snobbish to say I don't want someone who is working to be able to afford a home in town in a private apartment? If someone is personally building an apartment and someone who is single or has a wife wants to move in why do we care what the landlord charges for rent? Do you really think a family of 4 will live in a one bedroom apartment? |
First of all, no one said that. There are already plenty of people who live and work in town and plenty of options for others. There are apartments in town and houses on the market for as little as $200K, and that’s not even counting the official low income housing. In fact I’ve seen some of the cheapest houses in town site on the market unclaimed for years. There’s not enough for everyone who works here, of course, but why should that be a right or obligation? Most people work in a different township than they live. I don’t think someone working at a warehouse in the business district automatically identifies with Cranbury township as their home and what should matter is affordable options within a reasonable proximity. There are plenty of options in the area. East Windsor, South Brunswick and Monroe are technically closer to some of the warehouses in Cranbury than some of our own housing. A lot of people who live here, in fact, commute considerable distances to their work, spending hours a day in the process. Some of them are here because they couldn’t find what they wanted in terms of affordable housing and good schools closer to where they work. For others it is because they have to go to NYC or Philadelphia to find the appropriate work. So if you believe Cranbury has an obligation to provide affordable housing for everyone who happens to work within our Township’s borders is the opposite also true – should we not have appropriate jobs to provide for everyone who lives here? The whole notion is silly and has no precedent, anywhere.
Second, your assumption is incorrect. I know a family of 4 in fact living in a one bedroom apartment in town. The kids share the only bedroom and the parents sleep in the living room. They all share one bathroom. And there’s probably more like them. There’s nothing unique about this. And they aren’t in official low income housing. No one is subsidizing them. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 7:38 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Isn't rather snobbish to say I don't want someone who is working to be able to afford a home in town in a private apartment? If someone is personally building an apartment and someone who is single or has a wife wants to move in why do we care what the landlord charges for rent? Do you really think a family of 4 will live in a one bedroom apartment? |
We have families of seven living in 3 bedroom affordable housing units In town now. Is that fair to the taxpayers? |
First, these are not affordable housing units people are talking about they are full market rate apartments and market tax. Second, I'd like to know what 7 member families are living in 3 bedroom apartments in town. I have never heard that before. |
Apparently CHA is not doing their job policing of "who" lives in the affordable housing our taxes paid for. Over crowding which adds to our school costs, high priced cars, expensive large tvs. The system is being abused in cranbury at our expense. |
This kind of thing has always been true . When I grew up I had a paper route where the people in welfare housing had much nicer housing than I lived in. They had air conditioning, central heat, dish washers, sink disposals, enclosed garages. We had none of that. They would have Atari's and HBO boxes in their living rooms when I would come by to collect, things I only aspired to. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 7:39 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | ... these are not affordable housing units people are talking about they are full market rate apartments and market tax... |
You are correct. The proposed apartments on 130 are not "affordable housing". If they were, Cranbury would get credit toward our obligation. Instead, these apartments will increase our affordable housing obligations AND there is no restriction to 1-2 bedrooms, meaning family housing is very likely.
The term "low-rent" means the "market-rate" for an apartment over a store on Route 130 is bound to be a low rate. Let's keep the Master Plan Revision focused on growing tax revenue from Route 130 without creating conditions that are likely to seriously impact the adjacent neighborhoods or Main Street businesses. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 8:48 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
The Rent is too Damn Low |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest 2 Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 9:43 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | At some point we either need to recognize that the PB has been correct that we need to protect the down town and restrict retail or that we need to open 130 for retail and the PB has been wrong. |
Please consider that these are more than two choices. One of the property owners on Rte 130 made a great point last night. She said there's no reason the plan has to pit retail on 130 against Main St. We could find ways to develop complementary retail on 130.
For example, if we set a minimum size for retail stores on 130 of say, 4,000 square feet and kept the minimum lot size 2 acres, we would attract different types of businesses than Main Street can accommodate. We might get a pharmacy instead of another pizza parlor or a hardware store instead of a hair salon.
Unfortunately, as proposed the new "Community-Commercial" zone on 130 is designed to replicate a Main Street style business district with small retailers, pedestrian walk-ways and high density housing; except with more highway traffic, better parking, newer buildings and less restrictions. I believe the proposed "Community Commercial" zone will increase the challenges for the Main Street business district in the village. |
Almost sounds like they are trying to attract a kind of Town Center concept -- like in Plainsboro or Robbinsville where the shops are on the bottom, apartments up top and a nice walking area for an additional downtown.
I think I like it at first blush. One might argue that it will destroy our downtown district -- but I don't think it will -- our downtown district is never going to be much more than it is now -- there is just not enough traffic to attract enough customers. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Nov 11 2010, 10:19 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Guest 2 wrote: | Almost sounds like they are trying to attract a kind of Town Center concept -- like in Plainsboro or Robbinsville where the shops are on the bottom, apartments up top and a nice walking area for an additional downtown. I think I like it at first blush.. |
Both of those projects look nice. I don't believe either straddles a 4 lane US Highway. Are you familiar with the impact of these projects on local property taxes? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
guest 4 Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 8:31 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
To whom do we register our concerns/suggestions? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 8:40 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | ... these are not affordable housing units people are talking about they are full market rate apartments and market tax... |
You are correct. The proposed apartments on 130 are not "affordable housing". If they were, Cranbury would get credit toward our obligation. Instead, these apartments will increase our affordable housing obligations AND there is no restriction to 1-2 bedrooms, meaning family housing is very likely.
The term "low-rent" means the "market-rate" for an apartment over a store on Route 130 is bound to be a low rate. Let's keep the Master Plan Revision focused on growing tax revenue from Route 130 without creating conditions that are likely to seriously impact the adjacent neighborhoods or Main Street businesses. |
At the meeting it was said repeatedly that they will only be 1-2 bedroom units allowed. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 8:45 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Isn't rather snobbish to say I don't want someone who is working to be able to afford a home in town in a private apartment? If someone is personally building an apartment and someone who is single or has a wife wants to move in why do we care what the landlord charges for rent? Do you really think a family of 4 will live in a one bedroom apartment? |
First of all, no one said that. There are already plenty of people who live and work in town and plenty of options for others. There are apartments in town and houses on the market for as little as $200K, and that’s not even counting the official low income housing. In fact I’ve seen some of the cheapest houses in town site on the market unclaimed for years. There’s not enough for everyone who works here, of course, but why should that be a right or obligation? Most people work in a different township than they live. I don’t think someone working at a warehouse in the business district automatically identifies with Cranbury township as their home and what should matter is affordable options within a reasonable proximity. There are plenty of options in the area. East Windsor, South Brunswick and Monroe are technically closer to some of the warehouses in Cranbury than some of our own housing. A lot of people who live here, in fact, commute considerable distances to their work, spending hours a day in the process. Some of them are here because they couldn’t find what they wanted in terms of affordable housing and good schools closer to where they work. For others it is because they have to go to NYC or Philadelphia to find the appropriate work. So if you believe Cranbury has an obligation to provide affordable housing for everyone who happens to work within our Township’s borders is the opposite also true – should we not have appropriate jobs to provide for everyone who lives here? The whole notion is silly and has no precedent, anywhere.
|
I never said Cranbury has an obligation. I don't believe in state mandated housing or COAH. What I do believe in is free market and if someone wants to spend their money to develop a property and charge rent or sell a house then I am not going to complain that he's selling it too low or too high. It's their right.
The units in question are the same they are only "affordable" because of the size of the apartment. They may very well decide to put in 1-2 bedroom units and charge 3k a month.
The town is getting taxes from the business property and the apartment.
Don't mix up affordable in the context used here with subsidized housing. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 9:06 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
If you really believed in a free market you wouldn't stand for these market distortions like zoning. The TC, planning board and zoning board continuelly interfer with property owner rights to sell or develop their land for a profit. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|