PNC Bank on agenda - Large crowd expected for meeting

[Cranbury Press]

Friday, May 16, 2008 10:17 AM EDT
By Maria Prato-Gaines, Staff Writer



CRANBURY — The Township Committee has moved its next meeting to the Cranbury School cafeteria to accommodate the large crowd expected to comment on the possible municipal purchase of the PNC Bank property.

The approximately 8,700-square-foot building at 32 N. Main St. sits on a little more than an acre and has been on the market since early April. It’s appraised at about $1.8 million, although PNC bank has it listed for $1.395 million.

The Township Committee made an informal agreement with the bank years ago that allowed downtown visitors to use 15 to 20 spaces in the PNC parking lot.

Some supporters have said the building should be used for a freestanding library and others have recommended buying the site to retain the parking and decide the building’s purpose later.

Opponents of the purchase are concerned about the burden of increasing taxes and are opposed to taking a ratable away from the downtown business district.
Wayne Cody, chairman of Cranbury’s Republican Party, said he plans to attend the meeting and would like to see a referendum on the purchase so that voters can decide the matter.

”My fear is really that there’s not a complete understanding of the impact,” he said. “I think it’s important for the township to have a complete understanding of the total cost of purchasing, renovating, annual costs and expenses that go along with it before we proceed with a purchase.”

Township Committeeman Richard Stannard said he has a number of reasons to support the purchase but first and foremost would be to retain parking.

”I think there is a good basis of reasons for the purchase — potentially to resolve Cranbury’s ongoing parking problem,” Mr. Stannard said. “This includes the potential to sell the building so as to possibly keep it a tax-producing commodity in Cranbury.”

Mr. Stannard said this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and if, after the purchase, the township could not find an appropriate use for the site, it could always put the property back on the market.

In that scenario, he said the township has the power to stipulate that interested buyers would have to designate parking for downtown visitors.

Still another committeeman said the timing for this purchase couldn’t be more off.

Township Committeeman Wayne Wittman said Cranbury needs to tighten its belt as it waits to hear how affordable housing obligations will change and potentially affect taxpayers.

”I’m seriously concerned, we’re talking a huge sum of money,” he said. “Any major purchase is going to have to be about safety and security — and that’s it.

”Plus I don’t think we should be moving commercial property from the downtown area. I think we’re going to need our commercial properties and ratables.”

As for recommendations to convert the building into a free-standing library, Mr. Wittman said if need be, he would prefer to see one built from scratch at the appropriate time and on the Wright property, land that the township already owns.

”We should use good common sense,” he said. “It’s about timing and money. We should use good common sense. We have land right next to the school. It’s better to start from scratch and build something realistic. That’s what makes the best sense to me.”

Some of the committee members are still on the fence as to whether they will support a purchase and hope the feedback from township residents will give them some direction.

”This is a transparent public process — we want to hear from taxpayers,” Mayor David Stout said. “Monday night is a community decision.”

If the Township Committee decides to borrow money to buy the bank, it will need four out of five members to support the decision, Mayor Stout said.
The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on Monday in the Cranbury School Cafeteria, 23 N. Main St.

Cranbury residents who cannot attend the meeting are invited to e-mail their comments to Township Clerk Kathleen Cunningham at twpclerk@cranbury-nj.com.

http://www.packetonline.com/articles/2008/05/16/cranbury_press/news/doc482d9611bb8b0887995139.txt

[Guest]

The main argument for the purchase is all about retaining the 15 to 20 free parking spaces now.

It seems the free-standing library idea is not as strong now.

It's a bad location for a library, especially for a kids friendly town like Cranbury: too close to passing traffic.

[Guest]

[cranbury liberal]

Several things trouble me about the quotes in the article.

First, the suggestions of Committee member Stannard seem to make no fiscal sense at all. He proposes we purchase the site at fair market value in the middle of a major down market, with no clear plan for what we will do with it other than retain a few parking spaces, then suggests its no big deal because we could always sell it again, minus the parking. Even if we sold it with the parking included in this market, we would likely get less as the market continues to decline. Plus we would lose all the transaction costs of the sale on both ends. That’s just dumb. If he thinks that is really no risk for the tax payers, why doesn’t he buy a second home in Cranbury right now then turn around and resell it. Let’s see if he really believes that makes economic sense.

Second, Mayor Stout claims this is a community decision and a public process. But neither are really true. If it was really a community decision, the TC wouldn’t be afraid to put it to a full vote of the Township. The idea that this Monday public portion of the hearing is the equivalent is laughable. Second, it is not clear that it is a public process. If the TC acts as they have in the past, this public hearing is token. They will let everyone say their peace, then they will go into closed session and vote. That’s NOT PUBLIC. I think they should be required to do their own deliberations publicly and vote publicly. Lastly, if the public hearing were sincerely a part of their decision process, they wouldn’t be planning to do their vote immediately following it. They would need time to process and react to the potentially excellent suggestions raised by the public. This comes across more like they’ve made up their minds and are just using the hearing for show.

It takes only one responsible Democrat on the TC to defeat this vote. Do they always act as a blind herd or is there any independent autonomy at all? I hope so. If this does come down purely along party lines, I will change my party affiliation, at least as long as I live in Cranbury (which I had hoped to be a long time but we’ll have to see how completely they destroy the town with bad governance, or how long they get away with it before the voters reject them).

[Guest]

I wonder what the planning board has to say about this issue. Even though there are 2 members of the TC - they must have their own opinion. I find this interesting that the TC members are part of a planning board, but do not even follow the Master Plan for our town.

"The Planning Board is established pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-25. The areas of board responsibility include developing and adopting of a Master Plan for the physical development of the Township and administering state and local land use laws. The Planning Board also reviews and approves conditional use and planned development applications.

The Board is made up of nine regular members. The Class I member is traditionally the Mayor (but a replacement can be appointed) and the Class III member is another member of the Township Committee. Both are appointed by the Township Committee. The other members are appointed by the Mayor. The terms of the Planning Board members vary from one to four years. The Planning Board meets in the Town Hall, Meeting Room at 7:30 p.m. on the first and third Thursday of the month."

James Golubieski Chairman, Member, Class IV 12/31/10
Pari Stave Member, Class I until 12/31/08
Richard Stannard Member, Class III until 12/31/08

[Cranbury Conservative]

Unfortunately it appears as if the TC Democratic members have already made a decision to purchase the property. The Monday meeting will be purely a CYA. It's sad that this will come down to a party line vote. I just hope that everyone remembers the TC's actions at election time this year and in the following years.

[Guest]

Since the 2008 Budget was adopted on the March 24, 2008 - This purchase of the PNC property is not part of this budget.

How is it possible that the TC has the right to purchase the property by means of a loan without a vote from the taxpayers or it being part of this years APPROVED budget? This has to be unethical, if not illegal.

[Jeff M.]

The way I see this is two fold.

1) I believe the TC needs to retain the right to make purchases in excess of 1 million dollars if necessary for the town to function regardless of resident input. However, I also am of the belief that a TC should divest personal opinion and act in the interest of the town. This means at times ignoring personal desire. The case of the PNC purchase is case in point. There are more individuals opposed, so the TC should act in the interest of residents and not proceed even though they may feel that from a personal standpoint this is something they want.

2) I am a Republican, but I voted Democrate in the last congressional election. Why? Because even though I support the party I believe that any party when in power too long stands to ignore the populace and I saw that happening in congress.

In Cranbury, I believe we need a changing of the guard in 2009. I believe that the individual TC members are doing what they feel is appropriate. I have no doubt in that. However, because they have been on the board for so long that they lose the ability to see the big picture. In 2008, I am supporting Mr. Cody, because I can't fathom a 5 member TC committee where all members are of the same party.

[Guest]

"I believe the TC needs to retain the right to make purchases in excess of 1 million dollars if necessary for the town to function regardless of resident input. However, I also am of the belief that a TC should divest personal opinion and act in the interest of the town. This means at times ignoring personal desire. The case of the PNC purchase is case in point. There are more individuals opposed, so the TC should act in the interest of residents and not proceed even though they may feel that from a personal standpoint this is something they want. "

I think the operable word is "Necessary". However, the PNC bank property is not a neccessity - only a luxury. Not only that, this proposed public facility is planned to be put somewhere else according to our Cranbury Master Plan. Plus this purchase is not even in our current 2008 budget. I would think is should go to a vote by the taxpayers. If this is not the case, there should be some sort of regulations, oversight, "checks and balances".

Rules should be put in place that the community is allowed to challenge any expenditure (over a set dollar amount) and put to a vote. It doesn't have to be on every expenditure; just allow democracy back into Cranbury.

[Jeff M.]

The problem as I see it is that we enter a slippery slope if we start this process of opening expenses in the town up to a vote. The reason being that what is necessary to one is not to another as this PNC opportunity shows. I am sure those in favor feel it is a necessity.

What is important is not the ability to vote but rather the ability for the TC members now and in the future to check personal opinion and emotions at the door. If there is even a small uproar as in the case of the PNC purchase the TC should not vote in favor whether they personally want it or not. The TC members are voted in to impartial and uphold a standard that puts them above the position. Even if means going against views of friends and family. They should review the facts, determine town impact, town need, town accpetance and make a ruling. If they are judged on this standard then there will not be a need for a vote.

[Cranbury Conservative]

Unfortunately the PNC purchase appears to be driven by personal agendas. That is why this purchase should be put to a vote. This also gives credence to the earlier comments concerning oversight. Some of the ideas presented on the board today make allot of sense. Hopefully we have started a dialog concerning the actions of the TC and possible financial oversight when it comes to dollar amounts that should be placed in front of the voters and not left up to the TC.

[Jeff M.]

Cranbury has existed for many years and it has done very well for itself. I really am opposed to making any more governmental committees. Especially ones that can take power away from elected officials. The town already has rec, HPAC, Zoning, Planning, Enviornmental, Shade Tree, etc...

What I believe we need to do is encourage people to run for office so that we can have TC members who do what is in the interest of the town. The issue really is not more votes on spending because it will slow down the town and make it a cumbersome process.

The issue is that we as town members must attend the meetings, we must voice our opinions, we must encourage people to run who are independent and can hold themselves up to a higher standard. If a TC does not listen, then vote them out. Don't look at what they say when they run, but look at the actions of the TC during that person's time on the council.

[Guest]

[Jeff M.]

The reason is that we end up bogging down the system and we end up in a series of management by vote which does not always do what is best in the town's interest.

Example:

- COAH homes need to go in and cost is 3 mill. It's an obligation and therefore a necessity. Does the town vote? Do we vote on location, expense, etc...

- Farmland comes up and can be preserved. It costs 2.5 mill, but protects against future development. The town has the ability to take on the debt at the time it comes up. The interests of the town are served buying the land. It goes to a vote and loses. A developer comes in and we have a housing development.

- The town offices are found to have an issue i.e. asbestos or mold that needs to be removed. The cost is 1 mill. Do we vote to authorize this remediation?

- What about engineering fees or large fees paid to engineers, lawyers, etc... Does the town vote?

When do we schedule votes? The idea of scheduling votes each time an issue arises can also be costly and gets empathy. It is why Robbinsville got rid of the fire elections. They had 5 or 6 elections in an average year.

Even if we have votes then those that lose will still be upset.

If people feel that they need a say and I hope they would, then vote for the TC member who will meet that need, run for office or encourage someone with your ideals to run for office. Hold the TC members accountable. Show up at meetings and make your opinion known.

I really do not like the idea of multiple elections or non-elected officials having material impact. I don't like the fact that we may disagree with the current TC and therefore want to rewrite the system that has worked for many, many years. It is not the system, but rather how the system is applied.

[Jeff M.]

One more point. You are right that these are 5 people and they are like us. However, they are elected by the town. We place trust in them. We can't get into a let the town decide on every issue because a town can't function in that manner. If we could then there would not be a need for even these 5 individuals. The Council also used to be 3, but was raised to 5 to account for this situation.

[Guest]

Jeff,

Your scheme works if the TC members are people with integrity and are trying to do things with residents' best interest in mind. (I am not implying the current TC does not have that.) From time to time, we may not have such luck. That's why people are trying to look for a "checks-and-balances" scheme.

I would like to place my trust in the TC. The big question for me is how do I know a TC candidate to trust when I cast my vote?