| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
auction
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 10:04 am EDT Post subject: Wheatfeild Rd |
 |
|
Now I have seen everything in this TOWN!!
I was at the auction on Plainsboro Rd yesterday - some people parked their cars on Wheatfield Rd because the police told them they could.
About 5 hours later - one of the people who lived there came running over complaining - throwing a temper tantrum about how there are cars parked along side the road. He would not stop - kept going on telling people they needed to move their cars. Then called the police back - produced a form from the township saying it was a private road - they had to stop the auction so people could move their cars to prospect st.
It was embarassing to watch - way to welcome other people in our town!!! For the life of me - I do not understand why people how to be like that!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 10:56 am EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| So whats new? Take a look at the Private Keep Out signs on Lenape Court. That is a private driveway not a dedicated steet and the township plows it! Now does that seem fair? It just depends on who you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 11:30 am EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | So whats new? Take a look at the Private Keep Out signs on Lenape Court. That is a private driveway not a dedicated steet and the township plows it! Now does that seem fair? It just depends on who you know. |
Is this really true? I thought it was against the rules for the Township to plow any private property due to liability issues. Do the homeowners have some special agreement with the Township where they pay extra for the service and release the Township of liability? Or is the sign perhaps a bluff and the court is not private property? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 1:04 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| The Twp does not plow any private roads. It is illegal and a huge liability which is why Four Seasons can't contract with the town for the plowing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 2:56 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| Lenape Court is a Private Common Driveway. No Publc Access! The ex superintendent of schools[Mr. Bartoletti Lenape court resident] pressured the township into the agreement. This was a real sweet deal for the developer that was approved by our rocket scientist planning board. The developer didn't have to meet standard road specifications by calling it a driveway, thus the narrow road width. P. S. we as taxpayers also pay for the street lighting on the posted private road. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 4:05 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| If that is the case ask one of the TC members to look into it or come to a Twp meeting. I am sure things will be taken care of if that is the case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 7:01 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| That needs to be changed asap. That is the last place where the tax payers should pay for lighting and snow plowing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 7:43 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| I find this hard to believe. What would the possible justification be for the township plowing a road that is not accessible to the public? And what is the justification for the court being private? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 11:29 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| Well you tell me if it seems fair that Nicola Court and Cubberly Court are public roads and can be used by all and we as taxpayers subsidize the pension double dipping Ex School Superintendent on his private common driveway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, May 17 2011, 12:02 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
I asked someone on one of the boards and he referred me to a state law. Here’s the link. http://www.njlawblog.com/DJB%20NJLJ%206.23.08(1).pdf
New Jersey requires towns to provide these services for private roads or to compensate the residents if they don’t. Sounds like a dumb law and that only exists in New Jersey. It wasn’t a decision of the township. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, May 17 2011, 12:40 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| To add my political two cents, this law was not designed to benefit those darn liberal double dipping civil servants who dine at the taxpayer trough. This law was designed to make it cheaper for wonderful entrepeneurial developers to be able to build substandard "private driveways" instead of proper roadways (which are a hell of a lot more expensive to build). When they flood out or need repair the township is on the hook. A great break for the developer costs the state nothing and screws municipalities. However this is one idiotic law that is not the democrats fault. This just shows both parties are able to dish out the pork to their favorite special interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, May 17 2011, 4:06 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| Sorry to disagree, but the direct responsibility was on the planning board members and engineer to"encourage/insist" the developer provide a road to their specs which would allow public access. The law that was referenced was to treat apartment complexes and condo associations fairly with regard to the use of their tax dollars. All of those uses are not [private access only] but are Public access. Can you imagine the Swim Club asking to have their parking area plowed or their light bill be paid by the township? The home owners on Lenape Court may have a right to get the services of the township under the guise of a homeowners association[highly questionable] but they do not have a right to restrict pubilc access while accepting public services. The private restricted access sign should come down or the services should be terminated. Can you imagine Four Seasons restricting public access? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, May 17 2011, 4:09 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| The link to the legislation is incorrect. It would be helpful to read the exact legislation if someone could please post the correct link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, May 17 2011, 4:18 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Sorry to disagree, but the direct responsibility was on the planning board members and engineer to"encourage/insist" the developer provide a road to their specs which would allow public access. The law that was referenced was to treat apartment complexes and condo associations fairly with regard to the use of their tax dollars. All of those uses are not [private access only] but are Public access. Can you imagine the Swim Club asking to have their parking area plowed or their light bill be paid by the township? The home owners on Lenape Court may have a right to get the services of the township under the guise of a homeowners association[highly questionable] but they do not have a right to restrict pubilc access while accepting public services. The private restricted access sign should come down or the services should be terminated. Can you imagine Four Seasons restricting public access? |
Sorry, but you are wrong on the facts and also suggesting something illegal. Look up the press on the law and the details. It was specifically created to cover "private roads" in housing developments, not parking in condos or apartments. The theory was that the homeowners already pay the same proportionate taxes as everyone else which is inclusive of the costs of providing street lighting and plowing. So to require them to also have to pay for those services through a home owners association due would be “double dipping.” So the law gives townships the choice to compensate the homeowners in private development for their costs for those services or to provide those services.
I agree it is a dumb law, one of many in the most developer-friendly state in the union, that in truth allows developers to “build” private roads to a lesser standard and cost than public roads. But it is wrong to compare it to parking lots. The law is specific to “qualified” private roads and is not intended for parking lots of condos, apartments or assisted living facilities.
You are wrong about their rights as well. I don’t agree with the law, but it most certainly does give them the right to insist on these services while still maintaining a private access road. That is precisely what the law does. And to suggest that the township can either take down the sign or terminate the services would be illegal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, May 17 2011, 4:20 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | The link to the legislation is incorrect. It would be helpful to read the exact legislation if someone could please post the correct link. |
The link was correct but this site appears to have hypertexted only part of it. If you had cut-and-pasted the full link through the .pdf into your browser it would have worked. Here's the corrected version:
http://www.njlawblog.com/DJB%20NJLJ%206.23.08(1).pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, May 17 2011, 4:21 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wheatfeild Rd |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | The link to the legislation is incorrect. It would be helpful to read the exact legislation if someone could please post the correct link. |
The link was correct but this site appears to have hypertexted only part of it. If you had cut-and-pasted the full link through the .pdf into your browser it would have worked. Here's the corrected version:
http://www.njlawblog.com/DJB%20NJLJ%206.23.08(1).pdf |
It happened to me now too. It's a bug on the cranbury.info text editor apparently. It doesn't like "(1).pdf." You will need to cut-and-paste the full link manually into your browser. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
