View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
fyi
Joined: Thu, Aug 9 2012, 9:19 am EDT Posts: 889
|
Posted: Thu, Jun 18 2020, 1:03 pm EDT Post subject: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting
June 23 - 12 - 2 p.m. Pre-registration necessary.
https://tcnj.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJcvcuuqrzgoHtM_D9E1jLtPaYZOVkKuGLpo
CRANBURY IS INTERESTED in improving bicycle access along the roadways that connect across the town. The final product, a Bicycle Network Plan, will recommend a variety of changes to make bicycling a safer and more attractive option for residents of all ages and abilities.
Please join us in a virtual meeting to learn about the plan, view the initial design concepts, and provide your feedback! The meeting is open to all, but pre-registration is required.
https://www.cranburytownship.org/home/news/cranbury-bicycle-network-plan-virtual-meeting |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-q2r7 Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Jun 18 2020, 9:38 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
First and foremost who’s paying for this? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon;oqs8-0076 Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Jun 19 2020, 12:16 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
You can bet the "We must have everythng at any cost" TC gang have a hand in this and the ex EC chair is the ringleader that will be spending our money. If you add the Bike Network to the Rails to Trails at Cranbury Station costs, that they are considering, you can be sure its going to cost us a bundle! Add that to the Library we don't need/want and the contribution to the Cranbury Business Associations, we are heading down the proverbial drain!!! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-7666 Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Jun 19 2020, 8:25 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
Mike ran on creating a bike path system. He is keeping his promise.
For 12 years we had a TC that reduced spending and focused only on needs. That work resulted in a tax cut where during a recession people now have an average of an extra 1200 in their pocket which funny enough is what congress gave as a stimulus. Reducing debt would be a couple of dollars in your pocket. But that cut means less money to go spending on wants so the far left opposes it.
The election results show most people didn’t want spending focused on needs. They wanted to have a TC that spent Money on wants— bike paths, sidewalks, downtown village, etc.... That is just in the first six months of control of the bank. This is what we elected. We could have voted differently, but the town wanted people who spent money to add things.
Also, note how Monroe and the left is silent on trucks this year. Last year they were saying we have to be good neighbors to Monroe and we have to have housing instead of warehouses. Jay, Dan and Glenn fought it hard so they took a counter position just to be contrary. The prior TC did not want more trucks from Monroe on Cranbury roads and 130.
They beat Monroe keeping our town from incurring more truck traffic. The left hated that because it was a win and good governance.
Now the only way for the truck ban to happen is for Mayor Scott to tell the DoT he supports the ban. A simple act. He said in the Press he would not support it just as the other three did last year- good governance. Not a word of opposition from the far left who last year were clamoring for housing (killing our school) and sensitivity to Monroe. No one asks why? Only thing that changed for them is the Mayor. Aren’t they still wanting housing or to be good neighbors even if Cranbury Green, maplewood, Evans and the estates take on more noise?
Matt took the same position as the other three and the same far left attacks are not occurring. Interesting...it must be because they now have control and that was the only issue create the noise to get control. It is why the far left keep demanding Jay resign.
They need 4 votes so they can bond for the library and other large projects. With Evelyn and Jay they don’t have 4 votes required. Otherwise why would they care? Jay, Dan and Glenn have no power any more two are off and Jay is just going long until his term is up. It is all about control and being able to spend the dollars as fast as possible. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-r84o Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Jun 20 2020, 9:18 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
Too true. We get what we vote for and we voted for big spenders. Heads up... here come the tax increases!
anon-7666 wrote: | Mike ran on creating a bike path system. He is keeping his promise.
For 12 years we had a TC that reduced spending and focused only on needs. That work resulted in a tax cut where during a recession people now have an average of an extra 1200 in their pocket which funny enough is what congress gave as a stimulus. Reducing debt would be a couple of dollars in your pocket. But that cut means less money to go spending on wants so the far left opposes it.
The election results show most people didn’t want spending focused on needs. They wanted to have a TC that spent Money on wants— bike paths, sidewalks, downtown village, etc.... That is just in the first six months of control of the bank. This is what we elected. We could have voted differently, but the town wanted people who spent money to add things.
Also, note how Monroe and the left is silent on trucks this year. Last year they were saying we have to be good neighbors to Monroe and we have to have housing instead of warehouses. Jay, Dan and Glenn fought it hard so they took a counter position just to be contrary. The prior TC did not want more trucks from Monroe on Cranbury roads and 130.
They beat Monroe keeping our town from incurring more truck traffic. The left hated that because it was a win and good governance.
Now the only way for the truck ban to happen is for Mayor Scott to tell the DoT he supports the ban. A simple act. He said in the Press he would not support it just as the other three did last year- good governance. Not a word of opposition from the far left who last year were clamoring for housing (killing our school) and sensitivity to Monroe. No one asks why? Only thing that changed for them is the Mayor. Aren’t they still wanting housing or to be good neighbors even if Cranbury Green, maplewood, Evans and the estates take on more noise?
Matt took the same position as the other three and the same far left attacks are not occurring. Interesting...it must be because they now have control and that was the only issue create the noise to get control. It is why the far left keep demanding Jay resign.
They need 4 votes so they can bond for the library and other large projects. With Evelyn and Jay they don’t have 4 votes required. Otherwise why would they care? Jay, Dan and Glenn have no power any more two are off and Jay is just going long until his term is up. It is all about control and being able to spend the dollars as fast as possible. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-r377 Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Jun 20 2020, 10:57 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
anon-r84o wrote: | Too true. We get what we vote for and we voted for big spenders. Heads up... here come the tax increases!
anon-7666 wrote: | Mike ran on creating a bike path system. He is keeping his promise.
For 12 years we had a TC that reduced spending and focused only on needs. That work resulted in a tax cut where during a recession people now have an average of an extra 1200 in their pocket which funny enough is what congress gave as a stimulus. Reducing debt would be a couple of dollars in your pocket. But that cut means less money to go spending on wants so the far left opposes it.
The election results show most people didn’t want spending focused on needs. They wanted to have a TC that spent Money on wants— bike paths, sidewalks, downtown village, etc.... That is just in the first six months of control of the bank. This is what we elected. We could have voted differently, but the town wanted people who spent money to add things.
Also, note how Monroe and the left is silent on trucks this year. Last year they were saying we have to be good neighbors to Monroe and we have to have housing instead of warehouses. Jay, Dan and Glenn fought it hard so they took a counter position just to be contrary. The prior TC did not want more trucks from Monroe on Cranbury roads and 130.
They beat Monroe keeping our town from incurring more truck traffic. The left hated that because it was a win and good governance.
Now the only way for the truck ban to happen is for Mayor Scott to tell the DoT he supports the ban. A simple act. He said in the Press he would not support it just as the other three did last year- good governance. Not a word of opposition from the far left who last year were clamoring for housing (killing our school) and sensitivity to Monroe. No one asks why? Only thing that changed for them is the Mayor. Aren’t they still wanting housing or to be good neighbors even if Cranbury Green, maplewood, Evans and the estates take on more noise?
Matt took the same position as the other three and the same far left attacks are not occurring. Interesting...it must be because they now have control and that was the only issue create the noise to get control. It is why the far left keep demanding Jay resign.
They need 4 votes so they can bond for the library and other large projects. With Evelyn and Jay they don’t have 4 votes required. Otherwise why would they care? Jay, Dan and Glenn have no power any more two are off and Jay is just going long until his term is up. It is all about control and being able to spend the dollars as fast as possible. |
|
Let's scrap all taxes. No more Social Security Handouts or Medicare. Taxes don't make sense. No more stimulus checks, let's not fix the roads either. No more taxes. Forget schools and libraries. No more taxes to fund the police.
This is what I am hearing from this poster.... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-4495 Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Jun 20 2020, 12:20 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
I am not sure how you get that this is no taxes and no road repairs from sound budgeting. The township operated very well focusing on needs for many years. They focused on roads, safety, and operations. This TC is focused on all the wants. We have a million dollar ball field that no one uses from the last Tc that focused on wants. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-p6q0 Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Jun 20 2020, 12:34 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
anon-r377 wrote: | Let's scrap all taxes. No more Social Security Handouts or Medicare. Taxes don't make sense. No more stimulus checks, let's not fix the roads either. No more taxes. Forget schools and libraries. No more taxes to fund the police.
This is what I am hearing from this poster.... |
If that’s actually what you are hearing than you’re not a very good listener.
That said, I suspect your stupid comment was really just meant to troll.
Or maybe you really are one of the “brilliant” new extremists we have running around babbling BS slogans and calling everyone else names.
Sad. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-8q96 Guest
|
Posted: Mon, Jun 22 2020, 6:03 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
Put it on the ballot if you are so afraid off progress. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-qn09 Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2020, 10:55 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
anon-8q96 wrote: | Put it on the ballot if you are so afraid off progress. |
A bit of Cranbury history. I am a bit vague on the personalities so feel free to correct. Early 90s I believe, Tom Gambino first elected. Ran on creating a bike path from Shadow Oaks to town. Vast majority in favor of it. Tom over engineered the path from a utilitarian path to a really spectacular bike trail. The cost ballooned. Alan Danser, who had been against the path from the beginning, called for it to be put on the ballot. It was. It went down in flames. You may draw your own conclusions.
My conclusion; people really wanted a trail. Tom who at the time was new to government took this to mean they wanted a spectacular trail. In the end instead of getting a basic trail that most people wanted, they got nothing.
My story of the ballfield is quite different, but should be saved for another day. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-7ns6 Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2020, 2:36 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
Ah, the "Babe Ruth" ball field debacle, still sitting there growing weeds. Brought to us by Dave Stout, because his two daughters were in the Babe Ruth league. Rammed it through during his multiple consecutive terms as mayor, because tradition didn't matter to someone like him, when he controlled a 3-person coalition on the TC. This was his consolation prize after he failed to push through buying the former bank site that is now Sweetwater when the fourth member of his Democratic coalition finally had enough of his dictatorship, switched to independent and blocked the super majority needed to bond it. When the township public finally got fed up with this coalition's self-interested spending spree and total disinterest in the will of the electorate, they started getting voted out, stopped running and in quick succession all moved out of the town they had almost bled dry. And that's how we ended up with a Republican majority on the TV for a while in a Town that leads blue.
Stout was the first in a line of people who steadfastly resisted ever allowing the new library project to get put to a public referendum. Why are the supporters so terrified of letting the voters decide? The excuse back then was there wasn't enough time yet 15 years later, it's still never been put to a simple public vote.
The ball field itself was a total disaster that ultimately led to the long-time Township Engineer getting fired. The entire point was the make it according to Babe Ruth league specs so it could host league games. But they failed to meet those specs in the end, spending many times what a simple field would have cost and getting nothing to show for it. Fence in the wrong location, poorly designed irrigation and drainage, inadequate scoreboard, etc. And no one every seemed to figure out of the League even wanted to play games there and they never have.
Truly a cautionary tale for throwing money at personal pet projects. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-qn09 Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2020, 6:44 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
anon-7ns6 wrote: | Ah, the "Babe Ruth" ball field debacle, still sitting there growing weeds. Brought to us by Dave Stout, because his two daughters were in the Babe Ruth league. Rammed it through during his multiple consecutive terms as mayor, because tradition didn't matter to someone like him, when he controlled a 3-person coalition on the TC. This was his consolation prize after he failed to push through buying the former bank site that is now Sweetwater when the fourth member of his Democratic coalition finally had enough of his dictatorship, switched to independent and blocked the super majority needed to bond it. When the township public finally got fed up with this coalition's self-interested spending spree and total disinterest in the will of the electorate, they started getting voted out, stopped running and in quick succession all moved out of the town they had almost bled dry. And that's how we ended up with a Republican majority on the TV for a while in a Town that leads blue.
Stout was the first in a line of people who steadfastly resisted ever allowing the new library project to get put to a public referendum. Why are the supporters so terrified of letting the voters decide? The excuse back then was there wasn't enough time yet 15 years later, it's still never been put to a simple public vote.
The ball field itself was a total disaster that ultimately led to the long-time Township Engineer getting fired. The entire point was the make it according to Babe Ruth league specs so it could host league games. But they failed to meet those specs in the end, spending many times what a simple field would have cost and getting nothing to show for it. Fence in the wrong location, poorly designed irrigation and drainage, inadequate scoreboard, etc. And no one every seemed to figure out of the League even wanted to play games there and they never have.
Truly a cautionary tale for throwing money at personal pet projects. |
Ah I guess it is time to bring this up. Almost don't know where to start. The only thing you got correct was the drainage was horrific due to the wrong infield soil mix being used.
This predates Stout by many years. Apparently you dislike him quite a bit, but actually he had little to do with this.
Originally the school baseball field was where the public housing is at the end of Park Place. Back in the 80s when we were about to be overrun by Mt Laurel housing requirements, the town was desperate to get into compliance. The school agreed to give the land to the Township with the understanding that the Township would replace the ballfield.
Then the demographics of the town changed radically new developments (primarily Cranbury Greene). By the mid 90s the number of kids in town were off the charts. The school expanded, we had so many sports teams you could not keep track( at one point I think there was a grade level with three travel soccer teams)
Likewise baseball was exploding. A group of parents led by Mario Fiorintini proposed the new ballfield be a Babe Ruth sized field that would also be used by the school. The demand was there, the school needed a new field and at the time(early 90s) the township committee stalled. All agreed it was needed, but stalled.
By the time Stout came in the school had expanded again and needed a field. The township committee was a new group and they agreed to build the field. That took a couple of years and in the 10 years it took to get the field built the demographics changed again. The number of kids in the school was way down. Few soccer teams and fewer baseball squads. By the time that field was built Mario's kid was out of college.
You will of course draw your own conclusion. Here is mine. The original blowback against the field by those of the mindset of the previous poster, delayed and delayed this field. By the time it was politically inevitable that it be built they goldplated it.
In a very real sense, I blame those of the attitude of the poster. If they had been reasonable. The field would have been simply built within a year of Mario's parents group proposing it. Instead they dragged there feet, bitched and moaned for more than 10 years. In that period a lot of kids didn't get to play on that field. In the end the anti-field people got an over designed field that no one uses.
So, in the case of the bike trail, it did not get built because liberals didn't design a nice utilitarian trail. In the ballfield, we got an overdesigned, little used field because conservatives dragged there feet.
In the end, I think both sides got exactly what they deserved. Things only work in this town when we reach a concensus and then carry it out. We have always had rude jerks on both ends of the political spectrum who carry on like pouty children. Unfortunately, I fear the internet only breed these babies who enjoy throwing there tantrums in anonymity. If you want to express yourself, show up at a meeting(Zoom or otherwise) and publicly express yourself.
By the way didn't Stout's daughters play softball? That was and has never been played on the field. The rest of the screed is idiotic and had nothing to do with the ballfield. The sweetwater site had nothing to do with any of this. The analysis is just complete bs. Please if you don't know what you are talking about don't post. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-7666 Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2020, 8:20 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
The above is correct. If a basic field at the time the old field was taken away had been built it would be justified (and the field that housing was on was very basic) and could have been used by CPLL and school. By the time the new field was ready and the TC was going to fund it there was no need and was way over done. The TC that built the field we have still could have built a basic field, but chose not too do it. Nothing forced them to build what we have now.
When you look back the TC early 2000's to around 2009 were very heavy spenders with a high operating budget and debt. We had some years with 5 plus cent tax increases. The spending this past financial year (2019) was equal to the spend in 2009 despite the town being larger and the town surplus is now much higher and it is not partisan as the TC's all basically voted 5-0 on budgets from 2009-2019.
https://www.cranburytownship.org/sites/cranburynj/files/minutes/tc-minutes-102819.pdf |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-7ns6 Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2020, 8:31 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
anon-qn09 wrote: | anon-7ns6 wrote: | Ah, the "Babe Ruth" ball field debacle, still sitting there growing weeds. Brought to us by Dave Stout, because his two daughters were in the Babe Ruth league. Rammed it through during his multiple consecutive terms as mayor, because tradition didn't matter to someone like him, when he controlled a 3-person coalition on the TC. This was his consolation prize after he failed to push through buying the former bank site that is now Sweetwater when the fourth member of his Democratic coalition finally had enough of his dictatorship, switched to independent and blocked the super majority needed to bond it. When the township public finally got fed up with this coalition's self-interested spending spree and total disinterest in the will of the electorate, they started getting voted out, stopped running and in quick succession all moved out of the town they had almost bled dry. And that's how we ended up with a Republican majority on the TV for a while in a Town that leads blue.
Stout was the first in a line of people who steadfastly resisted ever allowing the new library project to get put to a public referendum. Why are the supporters so terrified of letting the voters decide? The excuse back then was there wasn't enough time yet 15 years later, it's still never been put to a simple public vote.
The ball field itself was a total disaster that ultimately led to the long-time Township Engineer getting fired. The entire point was the make it according to Babe Ruth league specs so it could host league games. But they failed to meet those specs in the end, spending many times what a simple field would have cost and getting nothing to show for it. Fence in the wrong location, poorly designed irrigation and drainage, inadequate scoreboard, etc. And no one every seemed to figure out of the League even wanted to play games there and they never have.
Truly a cautionary tale for throwing money at personal pet projects. |
Ah I guess it is time to bring this up. Almost don't know where to start. The only thing you got correct was the drainage was horrific due to the wrong infield soil mix being used.
This predates Stout by many years. Apparently you dislike him quite a bit, but actually he had little to do with this.
Originally the school baseball field was where the public housing is at the end of Park Place. Back in the 80s when we were about to be overrun by Mt Laurel housing requirements, the town was desperate to get into compliance. The school agreed to give the land to the Township with the understanding that the Township would replace the ballfield.
Then the demographics of the town changed radically new developments (primarily Cranbury Greene). By the mid 90s the number of kids in town were off the charts. The school expanded, we had so many sports teams you could not keep track( at one point I think there was a grade level with three travel soccer teams)
Likewise baseball was exploding. A group of parents led by Mario Fiorintini proposed the new ballfield be a Babe Ruth sized field that would also be used by the school. The demand was there, the school needed a new field and at the time(early 90s) the township committee stalled. All agreed it was needed, but stalled.
By the time Stout came in the school had expanded again and needed a field. The township committee was a new group and they agreed to build the field. That took a couple of years and in the 10 years it took to get the field built the demographics changed again. The number of kids in the school was way down. Few soccer teams and fewer baseball squads. By the time that field was built Mario's kid was out of college.
You will of course draw your own conclusion. Here is mine. The original blowback against the field by those of the mindset of the previous poster, delayed and delayed this field. By the time it was politically inevitable that it be built they goldplated it.
In a very real sense, I blame those of the attitude of the poster. If they had been reasonable. The field would have been simply built within a year of Mario's parents group proposing it. Instead they dragged there feet, bitched and moaned for more than 10 years. In that period a lot of kids didn't get to play on that field. In the end the anti-field people got an over designed field that no one uses.
So, in the case of the bike trail, it did not get built because liberals didn't design a nice utilitarian trail. In the ballfield, we got an overdesigned, little used field because conservatives dragged there feet.
In the end, I think both sides got exactly what they deserved. Things only work in this town when we reach a concensus and then carry it out. We have always had rude jerks on both ends of the political spectrum who carry on like pouty children. Unfortunately, I fear the internet only breed these babies who enjoy throwing there tantrums in anonymity. If you want to express yourself, show up at a meeting(Zoom or otherwise) and publicly express yourself.
By the way didn't Stout's daughters play softball? That was and has never been played on the field. The rest of the screed is idiotic and had nothing to do with the ballfield. The sweetwater site had nothing to do with any of this. The analysis is just complete bs. Please if you don't know what you are talking about don't post. |
Laughably wrong on so many points. The best is your conclusion though that it's the fault of those opposed to the field that those who wanted it "gold plated it." With logic skills like that I hope you didn't go to Cranbury School or it failed you. You should listen you your own advise on not posting what you don't know. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-89q9 Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2020, 11:22 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
So many know-it-all’s on this board. So exciting to read these posts. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
anon-59q6 Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Jun 25 2020, 12:14 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Bicycle Network Plan Virtual Meeting |
|
|
Enough jibber jabber, anyone have a summary? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|