| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 9:12 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | | 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. |
So because I can't change NJ zoning law or affect massive change, I can't have an opinion on what a property owner should be allowed to do?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 9:44 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | 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. |
Read the plan and you will see the plan does not restrict the housing on Route 130 to 1-2 bedroom units. The Planners indicated this may have been an oversight. Even if they change it, plenty of kids in NJ live in 2 bedroom apartments. That area is not currently zoned for additional housing and it is better to keep it that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 10:07 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | 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. |
Actually it isn't their right. The property owner has the right to permitted used according to zoning ordinances. If you believe property owners can do whatever they want with their land, you would have to be willing to accept that your next door neighbors could decide to turn their house into a go-go bar, a pig farm or a chemical factory. I doubt that is what you meant by your comment.
The master plan review is about trying to find the best way to change the permitted uses for property in certain areas of town. More apartments will increase taxes for everyone else. Period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 10:09 am 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? |
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. |
No one mixed up the two uses of "affordable" housing...
I am not sure what you're suggesting. I don't know anyone who proposed telling a landlord what they could charge for rent. The issue is whether Cranbury, or any Township, has the right of zoning to dictate within a range (commercial, residential, retail, etc.) how an owner develops their property. This is an historic right and has long been supported by laws and upheld by courts all the way to the Supreme Court. You say you are for a "free market" but that is a theoretical concept that doesn't actually exist anywhere in its pure form. And do you really want it? You'd be okay, for example, if your next door neighbor in your residential neighborhood turned their house into a bar and strip club and their backyard next to yours into a parking lot? Or if all your neighbors sold to apartment developers who built 40 story towers all around your house?
One of the reasons zoning laws exist is the protect property owners from having their values diminished by the actions of their neighbors. This is no different than any right in our country. As the famous expression goes, you’re right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Our principle of law is restriction of rights and liberties for the preservation of the greater societies rights.
So with that in mind, all that has been suggested here is that the Township should do its duty to its existing citizens when contemplating variances or changing in zoning. It is irresponsible to the taxpayers of the Township to allow changes to zoning that would permit high density housing without assurance that the revenue from it met or exceeded that necessary to fund the resulting services which would potentially include physical expansion of the school and increased tuition costs to the out-of-district high school. Property owners are not being wronged here. They should have bought their properties eyes-wide-open knowing there was zoning and would be restrictions on their use. It’s simple responsibility on both sides parts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 10:15 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | 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. |
So because I can't change NJ zoning law or affect massive change, I can't have an opinion on what a property owner should be allowed to do? |
Nope, I am just saying if you believe in a truly free market you would want no zoning on route 130. Do you believe? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 4:15 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
I can see retail shops with office space above, but, not apartments.
Who the Hell wants to live above a store on route 130?
The retail on 130 probably wouldn't compete with the retail here in town. It would be a different mix of shops that would benefit from high traffic volume. Most likely, big box stores and the like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 5:26 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | I can see retail shops with office space above, but, not apartments.
Who the Hell wants to live above a store on route 130?
The retail on 130 probably wouldn't compete with the retail here in town. It would be a different mix of shops that would benefit from high traffic volume. Most likely, big box stores and the like. |
Big box stores would not be permitted nor would I want them here.
Let's remember (as someone who supports retail on 130) if we add a retail like the ShopRite center or big box then we're increasing traffic. That traffic will be pushed over onto Main St. as it will alleviate a large stretch of lights and traffic. We already see how bad 130 is today every morning and evening and how the traffic on Main St. has increased as a result. This causes issues for the kids going to school, for home owners on Main St. and for those who go into town.
So while I support small retail on 130, I am aware that there may also be ramifications for the other areas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Nov 12 2010, 6:15 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
[quote="Guest"]I can see retail shops with office space above, but, not apartments.
Who the Hell wants to live above a store on route 130?
quote]
Agreed.
| Guest wrote: |
The retail on 130 probably wouldn't compete with the retail here in town. It would be a different mix of shops that would benefit from high traffic volume. Most likely, big box stores and the like. |
As it is proposed, the plan specifically encourages small retail shops that may be more likely to compete with Main St. Hopefully they will reconsider the plan to encourage more mid-sized retailers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Nov 16 2010, 12:54 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Are they proposing to put retail at comer of Old Trenton and South Main?? I see the zoning changed in the Master Plan, what's up with that? It would be great to get rid of that green eye sore but why retail and apartments there? That will ruin the character of Cranbury village. Anyone know more about what's being planned? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Nov 16 2010, 7:53 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
[quote="Guest"] | Guest wrote: | I can see retail shops with office space above, but, not apartments.
Who the Hell wants to live above a store on route 130?
quote]
Agreed.
| Guest wrote: |
The retail on 130 probably wouldn't compete with the retail here in town. It would be a different mix of shops that would benefit from high traffic volume. Most likely, big box stores and the like. |
As it is proposed, the plan specifically encourages small retail shops that may be more likely to compete with Main St. Hopefully they will reconsider the plan to encourage more mid-sized retailers. |
Name an example of retail that is succeeding on Main that you think would be as successful on Route 130?
I think they are totally different and the kind of stuff that might work on 130 would not be successful on Main. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Nov 16 2010, 7:34 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
[quote="Guest"] | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | I can see retail shops with office space above, but, not apartments.
Who the Hell wants to live above a store on route 130?
quote]
Agreed.
| Guest wrote: |
The retail on 130 probably wouldn't compete with the retail here in town. It would be a different mix of shops that would benefit from high traffic volume. Most likely, big box stores and the like. |
As it is proposed, the plan specifically encourages small retail shops that may be more likely to compete with Main St. Hopefully they will reconsider the plan to encourage more mid-sized retailers. |
Name an example of retail that is succeeding on Main that you think would be as successful on Route 130?
I think they are totally different and the kind of stuff that might work on 130 would not be successful on Main. |
A pizza and sub shop on 130 could draw a lot of business away from Cranbury Pizza, particularly if they offer delivery. Same goes for a chinese restaurant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Nov 16 2010, 8:10 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| There are plenty of those already nearby and who deliver. Why would a another on 130 be any different? Our family already gets pizza delivered sometimes and they go to Cranbury Pizza other times. When we go to Cranbury Pizza is is largely because it is on Main Street and it is part of the experience of Main Street. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 17 2010, 7:16 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Dunkin Donuts, Wawa, 7/11 dry cleaners, clothing, jewelry, optician, etc. Any would be welcome in my opinion, even the big box stores. Who cares it is Route 130.
I think if as long as the entire stretch of highway is not developed but stores here and there it will be fine and convenient.
Leave Main Street alone and develop the highway. IMO Main Street is just a novelty anyway and the only draw is the Post Office, Gil and Berts, and the Dance Studio. Otherwise I can't see going to Main Street for anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 17 2010, 7:50 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Dunkin Donuts, Wawa, 7/11 dry cleaners, clothing, jewelry, optician, etc. Any would be welcome in my opinion, even the big box stores. Who cares it is Route 130.
I think if as long as the entire stretch of highway is not developed but stores here and there it will be fine and convenient.
Leave Main Street alone and develop the highway. IMO Main Street is just a novelty anyway and the only draw is the Post Office, Gil and Berts, and the Dance Studio. Otherwise I can't see going to Main Street for anything else. |
Right!
Why would anyone drive down Main St. at 25 MPH to bypass traffic on RT 130 racing along at 55 MPH? It just wouldn't attract the same flow intown as it would out of town. Except for the sightseers on weekends. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 17 2010, 7:54 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | There are plenty of those already nearby and who deliver. Why would a another on 130 be any different? Our family already gets pizza delivered sometimes and they go to Cranbury Pizza other times. When we go to Cranbury Pizza is is largely because it is on Main Street and it is part of the experience of Main Street. |
You may be right but you won't know if you're wrong until it is too late. Given the opportunity, why not take steps to minimize the potential downside? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
