How much more proof do we need that the Cranbury Press is anti-Cranbury?

[Guest]

Come on folks, can anyone still defend the bias of the Cranbury Press against the universal interests of Cranbury Township?

In case you haven't seen today's issue, their editorial this week is about what a great bill A-500 (and the Senate equivalent) is. They think ending RCA's is a great bit of progress and even go so far as to characterize Cranbury is a "rich" town that has previously bought its way out of doing the right thing.

It is utterly outrageous. This paper is not supposed to be a forum for the personal views of Hank Kalet or his crew. This is a paper that is supposed to represent and serve the specific interests of Cranbury Township, New Jersey. But Hank seems to feel otherwise. His blog makes his political views very clear and he seems to be shameless in extending that agenda to our paper, even if it is utterly at odds with the interests of our town.

Here we are sending around urgent emails and posts here to get people to do all they can to oppose this bill and yet our politicians will be able to point to our own paper's praise for it, completely undermining our united front on this. I have yet to meet a single person in Cranbury, Democrat or Republican, young or old, long time resident or newbie, who supports this bill. Yet our home town paper eagerly heralds this cynical piece of "special interest" pandering, politically-machine-backed garbage as progress.

Nice job Hank!

[Guest]

I canceled my subscription already:

Circulation Department
Phone: 609-924-3244 x 152
FAX: 609-921-0395
circulation@pacpub.com

The Princeton Packet, Inc.
www.packetonline.com
300 Witherspoon Street
Princeton, NJ 08542
609-924-3244

[Guest]

I think you're right about needing to cancel. I realize this is difficult for most people because it is our only source of local news and has nice little featured and pictures each week on the activities our kids did, etc. But they are acting absolutely shameless in their political agenda right now and what incentive do they have to stop but for a meaningful change in subscriber base?

How many of the subscribers agree that this bill is a good idea? More importantly, how many subscribers think it was appropriate for the paper to take an official position endorsing it? I would bet the answer to the former is virtually nil. But I would agrue that the answer to the latter is also few and that we should voice our opinion the only way we can, with our wallets.

More importantly, perhaps we should do what other groups do to combat such injustice -- contact local advertisers and let them know about this and indicate we can't support businesses that would patron such a paper, until they formall remove the person responsible and apologize to the community.

[Guest]

Editorial from Cranbury Press
"Eliminate regional contribution agreements, which allow rich towns to buy their way out of providing housing by paying poorer communities to build a portion of their state-mandated obligation. Both Cranbury and Monroe have used RCAs in the past."

I am outraged at the inference that Cranbury and Monroe are rich people shrugging off their obligations. COAH is voluntary and we fight to keep a proper residential ratio. However, COAH is suggesting that by 2018 we should have a make up of 60% or higher of COAH homes in Cranbury alone.
COAH regulations are flawed and the RCA's allowed the state to get their 115,000 by paying another town to accept some of the obligations - that is voluntary too. It has helped urban areas improve their town.

Shame on the editor and Cranbury Press by pushing a political agenda on our towns when you don't even live here.

[Guest]

I just called and canceled my subscription and told them why (3 strikes and youre out Hank) I'm talking to all my neigbors about it in school next monday also.

[??]

Everyone in town is trying their best to fend off the A500 (and S1783), and this Hank guy is praising this bill on the town's paper.

Is this guy an idiot or what? What are his motivations??

[Guest]

In order to get the Cranbury Press to be a newsworthy newspaper instead of an enquirer - canceling the subscription only loses our town paper. There needs to be a new editor to this newspaper without a political agenda. The Princeton Packet needs to know about our dissatisfaction.


Packetonline.com is the new media division of The PRINCETON PACKET, INC., a group of 12 community newspapers based in Princeton, N.J., serving central New Jersey and Wayne County, Pa.
Packetonline.com was founded in 1995 and was launched on March 12, 1996. Packet newspapers serve more than 40 municipalities in six New Jersey counties - Mercer, Middlesex, Somerset, Hunterdon, Monmouth and Burlington - and one Pennsylvania county- Wayne.



www.packetonline.com

THE PRINCETON PACKET, INC.
300 Witherspoon Street, P.O. Box 350
Princeton, New Jersey 08542
Phone: 609-924-3244
Fax: 609-924-3842
feedback@pacpub.com

[Jeff M.]

I tried to be impartial and see things the way of the Cranbury Press, but this really does do it. The last time Mr. Kalet came over here and complained about our posts and this site. He stated the Press was not anti-Cranbury and we should address letters to the press or send him emails. Clearly, he gave no thought to the comments here or sent to him. This editorial is clearly anti-Cranbury or simply pro- Roberts Dems. I'm not sure which it is, but either way it is poor for Cranbury. There is no other way around it this time. Last time you could argue PNC from all sides.

It is also dangerous for a proposed local paper to make these comments. The reason being that it contradicts what is really in the town's interests and gives ammunition to the parties who want COAH to come through and destroy towns like Cranbury. Why vote against a bill of the town's paper is for it?

Notice there is no mention of the flawed formulas that the 2.5% goes to a state fund (good luck Cranbury recouping), that the 2.5% is not even a close payment to cover the homes, that the number of houses required will make Cranbury disappear, or what the preserved land amendment states.

Mr. Kalet and the paper have an objective to destroy Cranbury, I am not sure why it is though.

I too have just cancelled my subscription and told them until there is a change in the editorial department I will not renew.

[Guest]

He should limit his opinions to his blog channelsurffing and stop writing editorials that represent his views that is clearly opposite of the Cranbury's own views and ideas.

Perhaps he is just one of those people who is envious of our Quality of Life. Either way, he need to be more impartial and keep his views to his own blog.

[question]

"Jobs and housing are regional concerns and should be addressed on a regional level, though that will require a change in the way we raise and spend money — altering the tax structure (moving away from property taxes to an income tax) and/or instituting significant revenue sharing so that towns that build warehousing share some of the taxes they generate with towns that provide housing."

I am not clear what

"altering the tax structure (moving away from property taxes to an income tax) and/or instituting significant revenue sharing so that towns that build warehousing share some of the taxes they generate with towns that provide housing"

means in the article?

[Guest]

Talk about pushing an agenda - Hank Kalet not only writes the editorials in the Cranbury Press newspaper but has it posted online http://www.packetonline.com/cranbury_press/front/ with a huge window advertising his "Channel Surfing blog". How can the Princeton Packet allow this? He does not live in or represent Cranbury. This will lead someone to think we agree with his agenda, since he is heavily politically motivated.

[Guest]

Basically, this is what Corzine wants to provide more funding to Trenton, Camden and other cities and give back to the Democratic base.

They say it's not right for rich towns to benefit so they want the taxes generated from Warehouses and commercial development in wealthy towns to fund the inner cities. Want Hank Kalet doesn't comprehend is that this is exactly like the Abbott districts and why school funding is cut in most towns. It is a socialist view where you take from the haves and give to the have nots. The problem is that the haves are penalized for working hard and trying to better themselves. Yes, we should have affordable housing in all towns. However, that does not mean that towns that plan right or have higher housing, better schools, etc...should be penalized which is what regional programs like tax sharing or schooling end up doing.

[Guest]

[edk]

Hank is just picking on our small lil town because he has the pulpit, I'd like to challenge him to REALLY make this affordable housing fair in NJ, and make all NJ towns and muni implement at least a 20% ratio (just like Cranbury is about to complete) Come on Hank if you really believed in affordable housing you would tackle the root cause of it, not promote the current misguided and flawed implementation that we have COAH promoting.


Say goodbye to OpenSpace as A500 encourages forced sprawl
Say goodbye to Preservation as this mandates a build out
Say goodbye to 50yrs of smart growth and good planning as this changes all prior planning
Say goodbye to low Cranbury taxes, as we will be forced to build new schools, police, fire, and other infrastructure for the growth
Say goodbye to NJ business if this is our NJ direction higher taxes and more layoffs in Cranbury will be even more common (i.e.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/church_dwight_to_close_north_b.html
and Say goodbye to our memory of Historic Cranbury

hell no Hank, we wont let that happen here!!!!!!

"Affordable Housing and Preservation are both achievable in balance - Cranbury is the poster child for smart growth and protecting history"

I canceled my Cran Press subscription today also, Hank is out of balance and doesnt represent.

[edk]

one last word, I belive this Forum is the true voice of Cranbury and not the Press. That's what I'm sharing with all my neighbors to do the same as me and cancel their CP subscription ASAP. And let them know why.

[Guest]

I agree on the need to cancel now but I hope it can be short term. I would like to see the Cranbury Press survive. We need to send letters to Hank bosses, the heads of the Princeton Packet, and make them aware of why we are all do this. Who knows if they have any idea what's going on and there's no reason to believe that Mr. Kalet is sharing this with them.