JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION

[Guest]

JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION.

The Township Committee contracted with Clark Caton Hintz (CCH) to assist us with the Township’s ongoing obligation. A COAH subcommittee had been appointed and has also been working for a number of years on the Township’s 3rd Round of affordable housing plan which must be submitted to COAH by December 31, 2008. The COAH Subcommittee is not a public committee as it’s charge is to make recommendations about the affordable housing plan and COAH matters to the governing body. The Township Committee can then evaluate this and decide what information should be provided to the public.

Regarding actual numbers at this point, these are being worked on by the consultant and there many numbers that have been discussed based on varying formulas. If you would like to view COAH’s web site, the actual numbers from the adopted rules are listed for each town. Next to this are COAH’s proposed rules, which feature some amendments that affect numbers in Cranbury.
http://www.state.nj.us/dca/coah/june08rules.shtml#adoption will bring you to the website where the adopted rules and amendments are listed. There are sections in the “Rule Text” and the Appendixes that provide housing obligation numbers for each town. There are multiple numbers for each town so you may want to look these over. Also check out the Amendments which modify the warehousing numbers in Appendix D. Please keep in mind that the numbers are in flux.

CCH will be producing an analysis of the Cranbury warehousing job/housing unit generation to bring to COAH for review. Completion of this analysis is one of the important priorities for Cranbury at this time since COAH revised formulas for warehousing still suggest large numbers of affordable housing units (i.e. 500) would be required of CranburyTownship.

The other priority is for the Township’s official lobbyist-- the League of Municipalities, Township officials and citizens to interact with the legislators-- the Assembly and the Senate as various bills relating to COAH come before them. The most problematic bill at this point, A500 has been introduced by the Speaker of the Assembly, Joseph Roberts. This bill proposes to eliminate Regional Contribution Agreements know as “RCAs”. RCAs have been a key component of Cranbury Township’s compliance with the 1st and 2nd round of affordable housing. Through RCAs the Township has been able to provide almost half of Cranbury’s required affordable housing by sending a payment to urban centers, such as Carteret and Perth Amboy. Cranbury has planned to continue to use RCAs, in the current 3rd round of affordable housing, to help Cranbury meet whatever obligation is finally determined for Cranbury by COAH.

The other problem with the Speaker’s bill is that it is eliminating the “non residential growth share payment in lieu” (of building affordable housing). This payment is something that developers usually prefer to pay in lieu of building affordable housing. (Cranbury is a town that only allows 100% affordable to be built. Many other towns allow a developer to get a bonus of market housing if they build affordable housing.) This payment in lieu, can bring in much needed funding to finance the affordable housing obligations. The speaker is proposing a 2.5% fee from developers. This would greatly reduce the funding available to municipalities and Cranbury Township in particular.

In May, Committeewoman Stave and ten residents attended the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee, that was considering Speaker Roberts’ Bill A500. The feedback from the Cranbury contingent, the League of Municipalities, as well as comments received from other was successful in convincing this Assembly Committee to amend A-500 to an extent. The bill was then sent on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for review and comment on the sections regarding funding.

On June 5, several residents and the Township Administrator attended the Assembly Appropriations Committee meeting. Many lobbyists from fair housing advocates and ministries were present voicing support for A500 as amended by the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee. After 6 hours of waiting, those opposed to A-500 were called to testify. Three Cranbury residents and the Township Administrator spoke against the bill. They cited the good faith of the Township illustrated by the fact that Cranbury has been building affordable housing since the 1960’s through Cranbury Housing Associates. They emphasized the need for the RCAs, to enable Cranbury Township to continue to comply with COAH. They spoke about the need for funding with the payment in lieu. Some of the Assembly Appropriations Committee members, Addiego, Conaway, and Merkt, agreed that the comments had merit and perhaps, RCAs should be continued to an extent. Chairwoman Pou called for a vote noting that Cranbury’s problem was a COAH formula problem and not an A500 problem and the majority of the Assembly members voted for the bill. Assemblyman Doherty and Merkt voted against t it and Assemblywoman Addiego and one other member abstained.

Citizens who wish to track the progress of A500, can go to the League of Municipalities web site. NJLSOM.org. If you send emails or letters to legislators, please copy Township Clerk, and she will distribute them to Cranbury Township Committee.

http://cranburytownship.org/COAH-UPdate-060908.pdf

[Guest]

I really don't understand this A500:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A0500/500_S1.PDF

" No payments-in-lieu may be charged by a
municipality in connection with non-residential construction, and no
housing units may be required to be built as a result of any nonresidential
construction or redevelopment. Those municipalities that
have COAH’s authorization to collect residential development fees
will be permitted to retain the non-residential development fees.
Developers of non-residential properties in a municipality that does
not have either COAH's or the court’s authorization to charge
development fees will be required to send the non-residential
development fees to the State Treasurer, to be used for affordable
housing purposes under the "Fair Housing Act" and a program created under the bill to assist urban aid municipalities in creating units of
affordable housing, in light of the bill's elimination of the regional
contribution agreement from the Fair Housing Act."

Does this mean that those municipalities are not required to build any affordable units for no-residential developments as long as they collect 2.5% fee and hand it to Trenton?

[Guest]

Urgent Legislative Alert: Affordable Housing/A-500—S-1783

http://www.njslom.org/ml061008b.html

[Cranbury Conservative]

The State Assembly is scheduled to vote on A-500, Monday, June 16. The State Senate will then vote on A-500 & S-1783 by June 30, 2008 (When the summer recess starts).


All of here in Cranbury need to contact our district Legislatures and let them know our opposition to A-500 and & S-1783.


As background both of these pieces of legislation are aimed at overhauling COAH regulation in the state of New Jersey. The language in this legislation will be detrimental to the small and rural communities in New Jersey.

Below is the contact information for Cranbury's State Senator Bill Baroni and our State Assembly representatives Wayne DeAngelo and Linda Greenstein.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Senate:

Bill Baroni (R, Hamilton Township)

DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS: 3691A Nottingham Way Hamilton Square, NJ 08690

PHONE NUMBER: (609) 631-9988

e-mail available on his Legislative Web Page: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=298
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Assembly:

Wayne DeAngelo (D, Hamilton Township)

DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS: 2239 Whitehorse-Mercerville Rd.Suite E Hamilton, NJ 08619

PHONE NUMBER: (609) 631-7501
e-mail available on his Legislative Web Page: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=279
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Assembly:

Linda R. Greenstein (D, Plainsboro Township)

DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS: 7 Centre Dr.Suite 2 Monroe, NJ 08831-1565

PHONE NUMBER: (609) 395-9911

FAX NUMBER: (609) 395-9032

e-mail available on her Legislative Web Page:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=190

[Guest]

As a registered Democrat who has voted for these representatives, I think it is time to be blunt with them in our communication.

It frustrates me that Representative Greenstein comes to our meetings and parades and always talks the talk about caring about Cranbury and our issues, and has never once that I have seen really straight on admitted voting against our interests, yet her voting record shows she votes the party machine line when push comes to shove. This particular issue is so black and white for Cranbury, that I don't see how she can reconcile with a straight face that she fairly represented us, or any of her other township constituencies, if she votes in favor of it. For that matter, why has she not attempted to put forward amendments favorable to us since approval seems inevitable?

Representative DeAngelo is even worse. Since election he has never even attempted to attend a Cranbury event or even sent a representative in his place and he alone doesn’t even bother sending form letters back when we write or email him. He seems to be sending the blatant message that he doesn’t care about Cranbury at all and if he votes in favor of this he truly is demonstrating he believes he works for the Roberts machine and not the people of his district.

I plan to therefore in my letter make it clear, and follow-though, that I will not vote for either candidate ever again if they support this bill without further amendment specifically and substantially favorable to Cranbury. Further, I will make it a point in the future to call them publicly to task for their support. I will ask them questions at future meetings and their support of this bill. I will literally boo them at our parade or if they appear at Cranbury Day, etc. This is not a time for silly pleasantries. This is their put up for shut up moment. Either they truly represent us or they don’t. There is no sort-of here.

[cranbury liberal]

I said I would be blunt and I was. Below is what I sent to Assemblywoman Greenstein and with small vairations to Assemblyman DeAngelo. I softened it for Senator Baroni, who has consistently demonstrated opposition to these and similar bills and has earned more trust I believe.

I will leave it to others to apply the more friendly, respectful emails and letters. They have their place too. But from my POV my head is already on the chopping block and the axe is in the air, so this is not the time to be gently asking for a negotiation or kind consideration. This is the time to kick, scream and flail. The throw sand. To do whatever it takes...

*************

To the Honorable State Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein:

As a resident, taxpayer and voter of Cranbury Township, I am writing you to express the urgency of voting your fervent opposition to State Assembly Bill A-500. Given that the vote is scheduled for as soon as this coming Monday and that the very existence of our Township is at stake, I apologize for but will not waver from being harsh and blunt. Support of this bill is absolutely incompatible with representation of our Township or those of most if not all of our neighboring municipalities in your district.

While most issues are complex and there are usually good and bad sides affecting many people differently, this is not one of them. This bill is reckless, cynical and absolutely destructive toward any semblance of good government. It does not represent the interests of any citizens of New Jersey, only special interests. It will turn a win-win system of RCA’s that both the receiving and contributing municipalities willingly enter into and turn it into a lose-lose where neither community is positively served. Townships like Cranbury will face an absurd requirement to literally double (or worse) the number of homes in our small community while communities like Perth Amboy will lose a critical source of affordable housing contributions. It will obliterate decades of careful “smart growth” and a nationally recognized program of farmland preservation and replace it with more needless suburban sprawl that only benefits developers. And it will take a model community like Cranbury, which receives virtually no State-support but contributes substantial taxes to the State, which has an entirely locally financed blue ribbon school, which is already a textbook case for consolidating a vast majority of its local services with neighboring townships and is a poster child for land preservation, and force it into bankruptcy or merging with less successful townships in all of those areas.

How is that serving anyone, except private developers who will swoop in to convert those fields into high density tract housing? How is that accomplishing the State’s goal of property tax reduction to take a Township that already contributes more per-household in property taxes than any other Township in Middlesex County yet has the most effective property tax rate in the County and wiping it from the face of the Earth? Why? To serve the citizens of New Jersey? Hardly. Even those in need of affordable housing are not aided by this. They need houses where their jobs are, not here. You know full well that the formula on which the current affordable housing requirements are based is a joke completely divorced of reality. The State has the tax records at its disposal to know how many jobs are actually in our business district. Let’s not insult our intelligence. No, only private developers, frustrated by the sheer audacity of Townships to preserve land and limit sprawl, or those who are part of a “political machine” dependent on their patronage, are served by this bill in anything resembling its current form. You know it and I know it. So do virtually all the citizens of our Township.

I therefore repeat that supporting this bill in its current form is fundamentally incompatible with public representation of our Township in the State Assembly. Not only do I urge you to fervently oppose it in its current form, but I further suggest that it is your duty to your constituency that if it appears inevitable that it will pass to do everything within your power to try and secure amendments favorable to your district, amendments that would fundamentally alter the impact for Townships like Cranbury that have a noble history of fairly supporting affordable housing but obviously should not get slammed with a massive, retroactive additional requirement based entirely on fabricated facts. You should be able to state to us, emphatically, that you either voted no, and spoke on the floor in your opposition, or that you helped support a fundamental amendment in our favor. There is no room to say you voted for it “reluctantly” because it was the “least evil” alternative or “imperfect but necessary” etc. To be most blunt, if there was ever a time you needed to stand up and be clearly counted for one side or the other, with one side being what was right and what was in the interests of your constituency, and the other being that you were a part of Speaker Roberts “machine,” this is it. I say this as a registered Democrat who voted for you, repeatedly. Although I pledge this in full candor and with absolute intention to follow-through: I will never vote Democrat in a State election again if my two local Democratic Assembly representatives support this Bill. That would be like voting for the person who burned down my house. What I will do, though, is come to every event in Cranbury where people who voted in support of this bill appear to publicly call them out on their support of it and remind every voter present of the issue… I apologize for the implied threat, but this is not a time for subtlety. And frankly I have been disappointed in the past with the contrast between what I have heard in local meetings and what the voting record shows. If my alarm is mis-founded, if you have every intention of fervently opposing this bill, I apologize.

With all due respect,

[Guest]

Liberal, the letter is great. I am wondering if other towns such as WWP have the same concerns.

[Jersey Dad]

I agree. It is time for the Dems to step up. They are either powerful party insiders manuevering behind the scenes to ensure a positive outcome for us, or not. We will know soon.

On a related note, some of what I have read (Tuesday Star-Ledger and NJ Leg Web Site) indicates that amendments have been added to the bill giving COAH authority to reduce a municipality's obligation based on economic impact and/or land preservation. If this is accurate, these amendments could help Cranbury argue for a reduced and more reasonable obligation. That said, I would prefer a stronger amendment in our favor so we don't have to depend on this strategy.

[Guest]

I have relatives in Hamilton and in prior years they got everything they wanted or needed from the state because of a Democrat led Mayor and TC. Cranbury is a 4-1 Dem to Rep TC. I don't understand why this is not registering with the Dems in the state assembly and legislature. Certainly, it would seem to me that these individuals would want to court our town given the liberal leanings, just as Hamilton received favor. Perhaps Mayor Stout should arrange a one on one meeting with these individuals and explain what they have to lose if these bills pass. I am sure as a Mayor Mr. Stout has the clout to have these people honor a request for a meeting.

[Cranbury Conservative]

Hamilton Township is a Township in Mercer County, New Jersey, United States. As of the United States 2000 Census, the township had a total population of 87,109.

Cranbury Township is a Township in Middlesex County, New Jersey, United States. As of the United States 2000 Census, the township population was 3,227

The amount of voters may have something to do with it.

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

CC,

The WSJ ran an article about NJ politicians and state funding. I am looking for the article now, but over 80% of the state funding to municipal governments went to Democratic governments in the state. Party politics. That is a huge amount and out of balance.

I used Hamilton as an example because I know that town first hand. However, the fact remains that whether through our not wanting to play the party card or the Dems not valuing our voting, we are not part of consideration with the Dems in the state. I see no reason why our TC should not play the party card with the Dems in the state. We had 2 Republican candidates walking in our parade. Perhaps highlight that to the Dems in the state and say hey your losing this town. On the state level a town like Cranbury is still a key voting and donor block.

[??]

[Guest]

If we look at the main propents in the state legislature they include representatives from Paterson- Pou, Camden-Roberts, Elizabeth-Lesniak. Funny how these individuals are viewing their cities over the quaint towns like Cranbury. They have an isolated view of the state and also many parts of their districts are built out which means their obligations and issues will not face the same drastic impact as Cranbury.

[Cranbury Conservative]

Below is a copy of the e-mail I Just sent to the TC and Township Administrator calling on them to get the word out to our fellow citizens via the Township web site and e-mail regarding the pending A-500 & S-1783 vote by the State Assembly.

I also sent a similar e-mail asking Kelly L to spread the word also via her COAH mailing list.

Bottom line lets try to get the word out and let our representatives in Trenton know we want action to be taken on our behalf!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

I was encouraged to see the Cranbury Township institute on its web site a COAH update as well as the associated e-mail which was sent out announcing this information as I had suggested at the Township Committee meeting this past Monday Night.

We now have an opportunity to further utilize these same tools to alert Cranbury Township Residents to what appears to be action which will be taken by the State Assembly as early as this Monday June 16, 2008 on A-500 & S-1783.

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we get as many Cranbury residents to contact Bill Baroni, Wayne DeAngelo, and Linda Greestein and let each of them know our concern with this legislation.

Hopefully you will utilize the information I have provided below in some form to get the word out to our residents, and let them know we need to make our voices hear now before it is too late.

Thank You,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State Assembly is scheduled to vote on A-500, Monday, June 16. The State Senate will then vote on A-500 & S-1783 by June 30, 2008 (When the summer recess starts).

All of us here in Cranbury need to contact our district Legislatures and let them know our opposition to A-500 and & S-1783.

As background both of these pieces of legislation are aimed at overhauling COAH regulation in the state of New Jersey. The language in this legislation will be detrimental to the small and rural communities in New Jersey. One of the key points of A-500 is the elimination of RCAs.



We need to let our representatives know how detrimental the loss of RCAs will be to small towns like Cranbury.

Below is the contact information for Cranbury's State Senator Bill Baroni and our State Assembly representatives Wayne DeAngelo and Linda Greenstein.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Senate:

Bill Baroni (R, Hamilton Township)

DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS: 3691A Nottingham Way Hamilton Square, NJ 08690

PHONE NUMBER: (609) 631-9988

e-mail available on his Legislative Web Page: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=298
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Assembly:

Wayne DeAngelo (D, Hamilton Township)

DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS: 2239 Whitehorse-Mercerville Rd.Suite E Hamilton, NJ 08619

PHONE NUMBER: (609) 631-7501
e-mail available on his Legislative Web Page: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=279
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Assembly:

Linda R. Greenstein (D, Plainsboro Township)

DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS: 7 Centre Dr.Suite 2 Monroe, NJ 08831-1565

PHONE NUMBER: (609) 395-9911

FAX NUMBER: (609) 395-9032

e-mail available on her Legislative Web Page:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=190