Candidates Night

[Thank You-6906]

Thank you to the Cranbury Women's Club and especially Bobbi Marlowe for hosting the Candidates Night. Also, thanks to the candidates for participating. I think it was valuable to see the differences between the candidates and appreciate the opportunity to hear what they had to say.

In my opinion, the contrast seems to be between short-term and long-term thinking. The challengers propose to spend down the surplus and minimize expenses in the short term to provide short term tax relief. The incumbents propose to balance the short term needs and wants of the Township with the tradition of long term planning and operatations that has kept Cranbury special and will continue to protect Cranbury in the future from the potentially catastrophic expenses (such as the Dam, COAH and the collapse of warehouse rateables in the Great Recession).

I personally plan on living in Cranbury for the long term, and accordingly, I have a vested interest in the long term success of Cranbury. So I will be voting for the incumbents, Dave Cook and Jay Taylor.

[Republican for Dave -8694]

All I heard from the Republican candidates is use up the surplus. "Fiscal responsibilty" was kicked around a lot, but being reponsible is preparing for the long term. They did not answer the repeated question of what they would cut from the budget or how they would address an emergency with no surplus. I'd like to know if they ever attended a budget meeting, and if not, why not? It appears from their comments and responses (or lack of) that they did not attend any budget meetings even though they will have to live with the 2013 budget if elected.

I know many people vote the party line, but this year I hope they vote for Cranbury and re-elect Dave Cook and Jay Taylor.

[Decided-op0q]

The candidate's night was a little more fiesty than usual. Accounting for the fact that a non-incumbent would not know certain aspects of the budget (for example, what can or can't be cut due to state mandates), I felt the new candidates lacked considerable understanding of the town's fiscal ssues. While I commend and thank both for running, a few years of getting acquainted with town governance would be useful - serve on boards, etc. One candidate had very little specific detail to share on any issue, while the other did attempt to point out a few details but seemed to have lacked deep understanding of them. For example, did "office supply" budget really go up? Or did the line item he referred to represent the consolidation of several office budgets into one (as one of the incumbents argued). Questions from the audience were also more pointed this year - it seemed that people came to support their candidates, which is fine. A few could have shown more decorum. I saw no need for one person in the audience to say he fell asleep during one candidates answer. But, to each his own.

Good luck to all 4 candidates. My mind is made up.

[Debate-818s]

I encourage everyone to listen to the debate here.

http://eastwindsor.patch.com/articles/candidates-vie-for-cranbury-township-committee-seats

I think you will see a difference between Dave and Jay and the two challengers Tom and Cindy. After I watched the debate I felt Dave and Jay were not so much debating, but educating the people at the debate. I came away very comfortable that the TC made of both Republican and Democrats have a solid financial plan and that long term the town will not be in financial jeopardy or in jeopardy of losing our character. I feel my vote this year and next has been made assuming Dan and Glenn run next year.

With comments such as a AAA bond rating is not necessary, we can spend surplus down based on a conversation with one person or PW's is paid 23/hr to rake leaves I became worried about how many things are ruined by short term thinking.

PS- I agree with the comment about what I would say was nastiness in the audience. I thought it was good form and I applaud Jay for taking the high road and laughing off the comment when an audience member said Mr. Taylor was putting him to sleep.

[Fiesty-4090]

Perhaps I am one of those who is fiesty, but what I saw was two challengers in Tom and Cindy who are convinced they can cut the budget, but have not reviewed the publicly available budget documents; are convinced they can run the town more efficiently, but have not previously volunteered for any municipal boards or committees or even attended meetings; are convinced the triple A bond rating is not important and the surplus can be cut, but have no idea by how much, or what the consequences might be; seem willing to cast our township employees as overpaid, without knowing what they actually do; insist they will "cut your taxes", and yet both Tom and Cindy seem willing to start spending a million dollars on Petty Road next year. Tom and Cindy may be nice people, and I do appreciate their willingness to run, but their platform is poorly contrived and I'll be voting for Dave and Jay.

[Jeff M.-p294]

Here are my comments.

I don't understand why Tom stuck to his numbers and Cindy did not adjust. Dave and Jay gave a lot of information and basically gave the budget in short form.

Jay explained the raises are merit based and why. He did not state which individuals got raises so I don't know who got them and who did not. I also know with a merit system some employees will get raises and others will not. The basis of a merit system is just that. Tom seemed to want to give raises to everyone citing groups who did not (not sure if that is true or not.). That is the old way of government raises to all.

When asked what they would do to reduce taxes they cited projects that were already paid for. Including one a ball field that was done prior to Dave and Jay serving. No one offered any solution better than what Dave and Jay proposed. And in fact spoke of spending more money.

In truth other than the slogan about zero based budgeting which was then further explained, and the TC seems to be doing already with context, I would have thought Dave and Jay were the Republican candidates. They don't want to rush out and do Petty Rd. for 1 million plus sacrificing the Lake or finances. They want to be pragmatic in approaching the project, yet still said it needed to be done longer term. They were very protective of the AAA bond rating and they spoke of what they did to bring in business.

Other than a conflicting statement of reducing taxes and spending money as one resident highlighted I thought Dave and Jay represent the practices we use to run our homes.

Something I don't think prior TCs did in recent years and I am not inclined to go back.

[Rebublican for Dems-8694]

"A few could have shown more decorum. I saw no need for one person in the audience to say he fell asleep during one candidates answer. But, to each his own. " What made this comment worse is that it was made by Tom Connelly's father.

[Jeff M.-8892]

I miswrote my second to last paragraph.

It should have read rather than the challengers conflicting statements of reducing taxes and spending money Dave and Jay apply practices we use to run our home.

[Petty Issue-6906]

One issue from candidates night that begs clarification is Petty Road. Despite their stated intention to cut spending, both Tom and Cindy seemed to strongly support re-doing Petty Road immediately; ahead of other priorities and at an expense of $1 million plus.

I didn't want to put Tom and Cindy on the spot at candidates night, but I would like them to take a moment to answer the following questions:

What makes Petty Road a priority over other projects (like downtown sidewalks or sidewalks to Shadow Oaks)?

How are we going to cut more spending if we start by adding $1 million dollar project to the budget?

Thanks in advance.

[anon-08s9]

[Another question-74rs]

I'd also like to add on to the above post and ask about conflict of interest. As residents of Petty road isn't this issue something Tom and Cindy shouldn't be influencing?

I'd rather spend my tax dollars on the lake which is a focal point of town and benefits everyone.

[anon-011q]

So far, only Cook and Taylor visited my home in Shadow Oaks...

[outsider-q1sq]

The one thing that anyone who really knows Cranbury realizes is "If it isn't on Main Street, it doesn't matter". The powers that be have always put their efforts and OUR money toward "The Village" and quite frankly they really could care less about the rest of the taxpaying community!

[anon-12s0]

I disagree. Show facts.

Taylor and Cook along with the rest of the TC have worked hard and are still working hard to get grants to finish the sidewalks to Shadow Oaks. However, similar to down town the TC made it clear the work depends on grants. They won't sacrifice the budget and our tax bill. They have worked with the county to preserve farmland. They are looking to do Brickyard road.

[anon-6o5s]

[anon-12s0]

The TC had a grant opportunity for school kids safety. I understand from Mr. Mulligan that the Board of Ed also supported this grant. So if the grant is received there is no cost to the town. But, if the grant is not received the tax payers will not fund the work.

On Petty Rd. the cost would be from our tax dollars and over 1 million.

I think our TC should pursue every grant possible. I don't see a grant application as a priority statement, but rather taking advantage of an opportunity to help the town.