| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed, Nov 17 2010, 9:47 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | | 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? |
Because you ultimately have to get behind a vision based on the best available data and wisdom and proceed or accomplish nothing. I am all for careful planning and no one is suggesting that “steps aren’t being taken.” Isn’t that the whole point of the current process? The issue is do you really discourage ANY retail development on 130 because you believe that it can be developed on Main successfully and you fear letting it go on 130 will choke off Main development? Or do you accept either that Main and 130 can handle different retail due to their unique characteristics, or more cynically that Main is a lost cause but for a very narrow niche of retail development.
We don't help anyone if fear of any consequence leads us to preserve a status quo where neither Main Street is thriving and 130 goes undeveloped. Eventually land owners get fed up if local Townships throw up endless arbitrary roadblocks to any reasonable development and when their backs are against the wall they go legal. The net result is often worse than if a municipality got behind a reasonable plan and found a middle ground that worked for land owners and served the purpose of the community. And the community could benefit from some retail on 130.
I don’t pretend to have access to all the facts the planning board does or to have all the answers. Personally I would think we should try to prioritize getting retail on 130 over commercial, which usually has a higher headcount calculation (note what the reality is of a modern warehouse headcount is not relevant since NJ uses hypothetical calculations that vastly over-estimate commercial space headcount) and therefore may impact our future affordable housing obligations, or high density residential which burdens our schools and municipal services disproportionately to incremental tax revenue and therefore further burdens existing taxpayers. Since courts tend to be highly developer-friendly in New Jersey, we will ultimately have to let them do something and retail is the best choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 17 2010, 7:49 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| I can see where the point may have gotten lost in the back and forth. The point was not that we shouldn't allow retail on 130. The point was, we should take the opportunity to minimize the potential for shifting businesses from Main to 130. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 17 2010, 8:26 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| I thought the point was to lower taxes by having more ratables...allowing more business friendly policies, including Main Street and Route 130. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 17 2010, 8:40 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
Businesses on 130 simply could not fit on Main St. The only way around is to tear down buildings/homes and build new ones in our historic area which will not happen. The biggest space is David Wells and the antique store is not going anywhere.
130 if it is retail would compliment the downtown area. Get a prescription filled on 130, go have lunch on Main St. PNC left Main St and from what I hear 1st Constitution got a lot of new business because people dropped their accounts so they would not have to go out to 130. I know I was one of those who stopped a long time PNC relationship.
It also gives the town an opportunity. Put a sign at both ends of 130 Historic Village Commercial District or the like and all the new people shopping on 130 will check out the down town. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 17 2010, 8:41 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury's Low Rent District? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | I thought the point was to lower taxes by having more ratables...allowing more business friendly policies, including Main Street and Route 130. |
Yes. That is supposed to be the main point of the master plan revision, but not the only point on the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
