TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 7:19 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town Reply with quote

Isn't it convenient that Mr. Stout managed to get his little Ball Field Pet Project through before he turned his focus to preserving the rest of the property. If he is all for preservation, why not have moved to preserve it all before we committed to the money to help build and later maintain the Ball Field? Oh, that's right, the Ball Field is supposed to cost us virtually nothing? I guess I was just imagining the remediation costs and that change order they just approved, etc...
Back to top
Guest 2
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 9:12 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town Reply with quote

For the record, Dave Stout was not on the EC when they first tried to preserve all the West property.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 9:20 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town Reply with quote

It was my recollection that while Mr. Stout was on the EC they tried to preserve the entire west property and were told no by the TC. Whether that was the first, second or third time I don't recall. I do recall that he was on it and they tried to preserve it.

Perhaps I am wrong, I am about 95% sure though. Are you 100% positive that they never tried to preserve 100% of the West property while Mr. Stout was on the EC? The notes only go to 2004.
Back to top
voter
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Sep 10 2008, 7:10 am EDT    Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town Reply with quote

At the meeting Monday it appears that Mr. Ritter was there and did not speak and Mr. Cody was not able to attend. On this thread there is a lot of discussion, but little views from those seeking office. I wonder whether either candidate will respond on how they viewed the TC's action in light of the lack of support by the TC?

And posters, please don't get on me about any of them not responding or my being unfair in asking them to take a position or offer comment. I understand Win was not able to attend so this gives him an opportunity to address the issue and Mr. Ritter did attend and remained silent so it gives him a re-do. To me this is as a fair scenario as their is.

And yes, as issues do arise in town I will continue to ask questions here to the candidates for all to see and hear. I will not ask questions of a confidential nature or that will jeopardize anything with regard to COAH. If there is no response my stance stands as always which is a fair and open stance and stated upfront. Whether that is just my vote impacted is not my call. I hold no ability to make others vote one way or another, not even my wife Smile. I cannot say how others will view a lack of response.
Back to top
voter
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Sep 10 2008, 7:11 am EDT    Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town Reply with quote

Sorry, it's early and I misstated my question. It should be:

I wonder whether either candidate will respond on how they viewed the TC's action in light of the lack of support by the THE RESIDENTS? Clearly, the TC supported their actions.
Back to top
wcody



Joined: Tue, Mar 18 2008, 9:49 am EDT
Posts: 126
Location: Cranbury, NJ

PostPosted: Wed, Sep 10 2008, 12:05 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town Reply with quote

voter wrote:
I wonder whether either candidate will respond on how they viewed the TC's action in light of the lack of support by the THE RESIDENTS?


I was disappointed regarding the outcome on preserve the West Property. I do not understand the urgent need to preserve it now. We own the land, there is no immediate danger. COAH cannot force us to build on any land, they just give mandates on the number of affordable houses to be built. While I was not a party to the original purchase, it seems reasonable that we keep the land as open space and restrict the land to be used if, and only if, there is a need for it by the school. This seems to be the original intent of the purchase as stated by the former Mayor, committee members and Board of Education members.

By preserving the land now, we are restricting alternatives that will be available in the future for Cranbury if there is a needed school expansion. This is unfair to future leaders of Cranbury. Because there was such an uproar from the residents and two of the five committee members were not in attendance, I think it would have been prudent to hold off approving this controversial resolution and work with the Board of Education on an alternative solution.

Win Cody
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2