Anybody patroling the streets

[anon-921r]

It has been discussed at length. Property values have declined. A penny on the tax rate is not worth as much as it used to be. If it was we'd have a reduced tax rate.

So some properties because of their value have higher drops. To make up for that lost value the tax rate goes up.

If your home has dropped a little or not at all then your specific taxes will increase as a function of the rate. If you're a commercial property who was assessed at 5 million and you're now at 4 million then your tax bill goes down.

If you ask a TC member, go to town hall or go to a meeting it is easily explained. This is what I do. I try to get my questions answered by those with the information. Cranbury is not big government.

[anon-97on]

The people trying to explain to the poster who doesn't understand why taxes can go up even if expenses go down are wasting your time. They have made up their mind and won't let facts or basic economics get in the way of their bias. I love how basic economics is a "delusional lib agenda." They may pay some taxes but they clearly don't understand what a tax rate is or how it is impacted by property values. LOL.

[anon-opp6]

No I think you both miss the point... We aren't talking about property values and the like.

We are talking about spending.. The amount of money in dollars that the township spends.. And one of the you brain child people say that has gone down "We are spending less money than say 3 years ago."

1) Why comparr specific point of 3 yrs ago - what has the trend been on spending (dollars total) of last 5-10, 15 years?

2) If spending in dollars is going up? Why is there a need to collect more money total. Ie tax rate going up? And if it does go up, by rate, did the township reduce its collectable base to tax from.

3). If I am paying more, substantially more from what the TC is saying now, predicting who is making out? I certainly see who loses of pays more

And all of this,, pay more,, but we aren't spending more,,
And you just don't understand. Sounds just like our big federal government and Obama math to me.

I understand this, and its borderline a scandal, certainly not fair or justified. You think you understand, it all makes sense to you and try to put me off, I will put money on a bet you are somehow involved or are one of the ones "making out" in this perpetual tax scandal in Cranbury, NJ.

[anon-2430]

YOU may be paying more. Others are paying less. A very large percentage of Cranbury's tax revenues come from commercial properties, mainly the warehouses east of Rt. 130. The assessed values of these properties have dropped significantly in the last few years, therefore some of the tax burden has shifted from commercial to residential. You have to look at the TOTAL TAX REVENUE that that town collects from all properties in town, not how much YOU PAY.

[anon-40n0]

I can't recall in last 20 years taxes either staing same or going down.

The property valuation you use is a smolescreen is immaterial.

Bottom line, is the town spending less or more?

Of more, was it attributable to the police they were indicating were in danger of cutting back, or was that another smoke screen.

And then let's further complcate things, by spending more, burn some cash reserves, to offset the cost not make the tax increase more apparent..

Then, let's get committed and dependent and legally locked in to contracts dependent on this increased spending..

Then let's say oh, we need more money, have to cut the police, oh no, public uproar, we can't do that. But that was never really the issue was it. We either by design, incompetence or just simple oversight, let the spending get out of control again. And then then shifted the attention to some other ridiculous issue - cut police to help reduce spending.

Give me a break. You and yours played a smoke screen shell game with us.

You are not fooling anyone, with your agenda, your nonresponsible spending. Oh and typical NIMBY... Oh your taxes went up? Haha mine didn't so I don't care.

Need to plug your ears, pinch your nose, hold your mouth tightly closed.
Then try to blow very hard.

Perhaps if you blow hard enough, your head will emerge from the blind darkness in your posterior region where it is clearly lodged.

[anon-05s2]

I'm sorry your taxes have gone up. I'm sorry gasoline prices have gone up. I'm sorry the cost of food has gone up. I'm sorry the the cost of EVERYTHING has gone up.

[anon-97on]

Are you even trying to comprehend what the others keep trying to help you understand?

You can't NOT talk about property taxes if you want to know why your taxes can go up even if SPENDING GOES DOWN. You seem to be under the misconception that if taxes go up it must be because spending went up and that any discussion to the contrary is some Jedi Mind trick or liberal double talk. It doesn’t work that way. Spending can go down and the tax rate and your individual property taxes can still go up. The “tax rate” is not linearly related to the overall spending. In fact, spending can go down and the tax rate go up as well.

Let’s deal with some simple hypothetical numbers to illustrate the point.

Year 1:

Total budget of the township and school: $10

Total assessed property values (residential and commercial): $1,000

In this scenario the tax rate can be 1.0 (or 1% of property assessments) because 1% of $1,000 will cover the $100 budget.

If you had a house assessed at $5 your property tax would be $0.50.

Year 2:

Total budget: $9 – so they cut 10% of expenses

Total assessed property values $800.

In this scenario the tax rate would need to go up to 1.125. Because the total property assessment for the entire town went down 20% while revenue only went down 10% the tax rate needed to go up. The tax rate, by definition, is the multiplier of the property tax assessment to make the total revenue equal the total expense.

Now in Year 2 the average taxpayers taxes will still go down even though the tax rate goes up. But if your individual property did not get a reduced assessment your taxes would go up.

So by definition you can’t talk about why the tax rate goes up if spending goes down without discussing property taxes because the tax rate is calculated based on those two variables.

Bottom line, the Township can spend less and your tax rate still go up.

Also, you are only focusing on the Township’s expenses when in fact a larger share of your taxes goes to the school than the township and the school budget is managed by the school board not the Township Committee, and until this year was subject to a public vote. While the Township has consistently reduced or kept flat it’s expenses for the last few years, and net gone down, the same can’t be said for the school. So perhaps you should be focusing on the school board instead of the TC. And even then the largest factor contributing to the school budget increases has been the growing cost of unfunded state mandates, so perhaps you should be focusing on the Governor and our State Senators and Assemblymen.

[anon-97on]

[anon-44n1]

A poster wrote,, the township is spending less then it did 3 yrs ago...

But the township felt the need to increase the taxes now. And pose the reduction of police officers as the only way to deal with the increase in spending (which of course, we are saying there is no increase in spending right?).

No one even mentioned the school taxes, that is not a factor for the budget that was discussed, nor the increases being discussed.

It is another matter certainly. But no one here wrote the school budget was reduced from three years ago.

This is simple math with the township's component of their spending. It has nothing to do with property valuation, school taxes, etc.

And this post is simply calling someone out on their BS.

If the town is spending less, the town, not the school. There should be no need to increase the amount of money total they need to collect. But we are, aren't we.

WHY? Atleast explain that, and don't hide behind some drame or laying people off. Just say why you felt the need to increase your spend. And don't lie and say you are spedning less.

I think some are in denial that you were duped, yes, lied to. I am not looking for you to explain why you don't understand the math.

I am looking for why those distort the truth and say it is less expensive to live here than years past, and that our township spends less - which is doesn't.

[anon-97on]

[anon-opp6]

My point is not the tax rate.
Like you pundits can't get through your head.
You guys bring that up.

One of the liberals wrote our spending has gone down. Which I believe to be untrue. And to his or her aid, you guys jump on me and distort the discussion and play a shell game with words.

When I say spending, I mean spending as in consumption of tax revenue.
As in using dollars to pay for things.

I use plain english, no deeception.
As you and yours are so used to hearing and apparently using.
Its a simple matter I think ultimately of common sense, ethics, and a better grasp on reality here that I have, that you refuse to accept.

If the town spends less or even the same amount by some miracle, it would not have a need to increase the amount of money it collects total.

You guys brought up tax rate and every other distraction to draw away from the simple fact, that what the poster wrote, that the towns spending has gone down, is simply not true.

Our town consitantly spends more and more and more.
The spending (dollars total) goes up, and once it goes up, its not coming down.

Now,
Recently spending has gone up again. And we made an issue of firing police to make up for that.
Now who really would want that?
Right. No one. So it can only be assumed, as it was the intent to draw artention away from the fact, they could not manage a budget without defecit spending, and/or they want to spend more and need to make people accept it by making an outlandish suggestion to sacrifice a critical service.

Its a typical big governement type of move. Unfortunatley there is no informed, and able system of checks and balances here.

[howdare2-60oq]

"Unfortunatley there is no informed, and able system of checks and balances here."

We ought to request - nay demand - a system of taxation with representation. In seriousness, I appreciate any perspective on what is or is not justified spending. It boils down to what each person feels is or is not important. What I keep coming back to is this - an anonymous series of posts will not be as effective as formally communicating your views to the committee. You at one point took the "how dare you..." tact when it's proposed that you make time to provide such feedback. Consider the time spent typing these posts...a simple email or two could be sent directly to town officials.

[howdareu-40n1]

Sure, email a way.

How and what I do with my time and how I choose to do it is my choice.
You don't have to read it.

I messaged back here because my opinion was attacked by group / mob liberal mentality.

Why don't your write the committee and ask them why they are raising the taxes. And in short format.

Secondly why was the police budget targeted to bridge the gap instead of something else more practical..

Thirdly, why don't you find the individual that misinforms here saying our town is spending less, when in fact we are spending more.

Spend more or spend less, I really don't care at this point, but stop lieing about it.

[?-8q9r]

[OutsideTheBox-ppqn]

I have some ideas.
* Use the purchased property as land to be developed but charge rent for the land. There are probably dozens of legalities I am sure that will argue why this can't be done.
* Develop truly affordable housing without all the red tape. And rent these homes and apartments. If a businessperson had the resources that the township has right now, we could invest in the rental homes, and surely turn a tidey profit. In fact I know some developers property managment companies that will manage and gladly give 60 percent profit to Cranbury. For doing basically nothing.
* Start rolling back benefits for newly hired replacement persons who are hired. Make the benefits offered match closer to what main stream business world offers including health care and retirement.
* Closely look at administrative positions. I hate to see anyone loose a job, but are all those positions necessary.
* Are all the township vehicles SUVs needed from the housing / inspections group. I understand much of that was paid for using the fees collected - which not sure that was necessary either.
* Open and solicit to the public regularly, for ideas to increase efficiency or reduce costs. I seldom see any solicitation since I've lived here over 20 years. ("And come to a meeting" is not conducive for this)
* Consolidate resources when it makes sense with neighboring towns.
* Invest is solar farms, allow solar farms in Cranbury. Take the money, provide power for the town.
* Deploy solar - at no cash down option on all municipal buildings (admittingly this is a little self serving for me and my business)

I could probably brainstorm a dozen more things. Other than cutting back on the police. No offense to Glenn, he is a good man. And probabably the only quick fix he could propose to balancing the budget was what he proposed. He shouldn't be criticized for what he proposed.

Where else are the good ideas?

It took just once person to suggest to toll authorities at the bridges for example, hey jusy double the toll and collect one way. Reduce costs, aggravation etc. Great ideas..

So what are your ideas?
In lieu of laying off police to reduce our costs?

[Edison-6103]

"Most people miss opportunity because it is dressed in overalls and looks like hard work." Thomas Edison

I'm sure everyone appreciates your good ideas. I think we would all be more appreciative if you took your best idea to the next level- the point of execution. Perhaps you could lead the township toward a future of solar revenues off-setting tax increases?