| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fyi
Joined: Thu, Aug 9 2012, 9:19 am EDT
Posts: 889
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
anon-0493
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed, Apr 20 2016, 12:06 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
 |
|
Why isn't anyone interested in discussing this huge suburban development to our small historic farm town? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-8p53
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Apr 20 2016, 8:23 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
| anon-0493 wrote: |
Why isn't anyone interested in discussing this huge suburban development to our small historic farm town? |
"Small, historic farm towns" can't survive on charm alone. People who may consider moving here want and need more than that. It isn't as if anyone is shutting down Teddy's and putting in a Walmart. This is a tastefully done development on the south end of town which, in my opinion, will increase the overall perceived value of living in Cranbury. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-q3s8
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Apr 20 2016, 11:14 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
| How many buildings are for sale downtown right now? How about we work to fill them first? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-4748
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Apr 20 2016, 12:46 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
What would you have the town do? The Main St area is great now and is always busy in Summer. The town can't take someone and force them into a shop.
Claire's was successful for a long time.
The redevelopment was necessary. This area was blighted. Not to play the old timer card, but I know very few old timers who oppose this. Most like it.
Those old timers like me saw Wynnwood come in and people scream we would need our own HS, Shadow Oaks get built and ruin the town and then Cranbury Walk why do we need homes for millionaires before Cranbury Green. In almost all cases the last ones in who moved into these developments wanted to close the door.
Now most people I see at the PB and TC mtg opposing this are people who moved into these homes and developments. Had these developments not been built Cranbury would be a much smaller town with just Main St, but also lose some great people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-q3s8
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Apr 20 2016, 1:13 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
| My point is, if people aren't shopping downtown, why do we think they'll shop in this newly developed area? What happens if it's not sustainable? We'll just have more empty buildings on main st. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-sp0n
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Apr 20 2016, 3:40 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
| anon-q3s8 wrote: | | My point is, if people aren't shopping downtown, why do we think they'll shop in this newly developed area? What happens if it's not sustainable? We'll just have more empty buildings on main st. |
That is the opposite of the question you should be asking. First, this isn't a huge commercial development, it's room for up to 3 businesses fronting Old Trenton. And even if they remained empty it would arguably still be an improvement over the crumbling ruins there now. But back to your original question, the real issue is not whether these remain empty but whether they will make it harder for the Main Street businesses and landlords. This location will have it's own parking right behind it. It will still be close enough to walk to from the Village but more accessible by car and right across from a public park. There is also a lot of non-local traffic along Old Trenton during rush hours that would potentially patron the right business along their commute route. Many locational advantages over Main Street. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-0493
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Apr 20 2016, 3:57 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
| Tastefully done development? I don't agree with that at all, and it feels like the whole project has been shoved on us. If we can't fill storefronts we already have in town, why would we expect to fill new ones? Cranbury couldn't even keep the Bagel Barn in business. And now we're stuck with this development and with the new library project too. Maybe TC should insist on the library being built over there to get some practical use out of these new high rise office buildings instead of messing up our school fields and causing more traffic in the parking lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
concerns-rr1s
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Apr 20 2016, 4:00 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
| Did you express any of your concerns at a planning board meeting, or committee meeting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-5658
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Apr 20 2016, 4:03 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
| anon-0493 wrote: | | Tastefully done development? I don't agree with that at all, and it feels like the whole project has been shoved on us. If we can't fill storefronts we already have in town, why would we expect to fill new ones? Cranbury couldn't even keep the Bagel Barn in business. And now we're stuck with this development and with the new library project too. Maybe TC should insist on the library being built over there to get some practical use out of these new high rise office buildings instead of messing up our school fields and causing more traffic in the parking lot. |
Let's be honest about one thing, if a new library is built, it will NOT create a traffic problem. No one but the kids and a few seniors use the library now, and a new building won't change anything except to increase expenses and decrease services. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
0qs34"-n931
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Apr 20 2016, 8:37 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
| Absolutely INCREASE EXPENSE/Taxes and reduce Services---that said WITHOUT the Township Committee $$$ this cannot happen. Remember that next election or when the taxes increase due to "Library" expenses! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-0493
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Apr 20 2016, 8:48 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
Let's be honest about one thing, if a new library is built, it will NOT create a traffic problem. No one but the kids and a few seniors use the library now, and a new building won't change anything except to increase expenses and decrease services.[/quote]
If that is the case, then WHY DO WE NEED A NEW LIBRARY? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-s6p5
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Apr 20 2016, 9:55 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
The bagel barn was limited. The property owner would not allow a grill and to do the business they wanted the grill was a necessity.
From a historical perspective shops used to go up onto S Main. The Hutchinson house was a store, there was a boot shop and carriage shop, a movie house, and of course the still operating inn.
I wonder if people complained when these stores went out of business. That N Main business was ruining S Main business. From a historical perspective these new shops are actually following the old town history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-0493
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 26 2016, 7:55 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
| 0qs34"-n931 wrote: | | Absolutely INCREASE EXPENSE/Taxes and reduce Services---that said WITHOUT the Township Committee $$$ this cannot happen. Remember that next election or when the taxes increase due to "Library" expenses! |
I'm already struggling with taxes. School tax, especially because of PHS, is the highest category on my bill, then local municipal tax, county tax, county open space tax, municipal open space tax, library tax! and these keep increasing so inevitably I will be forced out of my home. Long time senior residents ought to get at least some relief for school tax when their kids are no longer in school, so they can stay in their homes. The town needs to vote on whether they want or need a new library and the higher taxes that will come with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-0493
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 26 2016, 7:58 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
| and P.S. Taxes will increase because of the new redevelopment too. Anyone want to make a prediction? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-88r5
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 26 2016, 12:31 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cheney/Hagerty/Kushner Redevelopment Plan - FINAL PLAN |
|
|
| anon-0493 wrote: | | 0qs34"-n931 wrote: | | Absolutely INCREASE EXPENSE/Taxes and reduce Services---that said WITHOUT the Township Committee $$$ this cannot happen. Remember that next election or when the taxes increase due to "Library" expenses! |
I'm already struggling with taxes. School tax, especially because of PHS, is the highest category on my bill, then local municipal tax, county tax, county open space tax, municipal open space tax, library tax! and these keep increasing so inevitably I will be forced out of my home. Long time senior residents ought to get at least some relief for school tax when their kids are no longer in school, so they can stay in their homes. The town needs to vote on whether they want or need a new library and the higher taxes that will come with it. |
Unless you live in 4 Seasons then you benefit when you do sell your home from the quality schools and PHS relationship. This is why the same size home in Hightstown or East Windsor will cost you half the price.
I agree the state should consider how they could make taxes work for seniors, but the argument is that most seniors have had families and benefited when they were raising their children by having others pay toward the school.
Some states have tax systems where the home value is set at the time of purchase which I tend to like.
People keep saying higher taxes with the library. The only way the taxes increase with a library is if the TC provides additional funding. They declined to do so last year, so why would they change their mind?
If one looks at Liedtke the taxes generate more income than expense in aggregate. It remains to be seen what the new development will do. There are houses, but also commercial properties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
