| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 8:17 am EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury lirary issues |
 |
|
I would consider supporting a stand-alone library when:
1) We have clarity on the long term financial commitment required of the community for COAH.
2) We have a real plan, with review and comment periods from the public, that credibly define the scope of the project (unlike the ballfield where they seem to have changed their minds about basic specifications after already building it), the projected cost of acquisition and construction and the estimated annual ongoing operating costs and escalations. I've never seen such a plan from the Township yet on previous projects so they will have to step it up. Its funny how that works. Private business never operates without all of the above but because the Township is effectively spending other people's money and people don't get fired when they screw up, the planning is not in the same league.
AND EITHER:
3) They have reduced our existing Township debt from its current level (approximately $13 million?) to not more than $5 million.
OR
3a) They can either fund it entirely through private donations or grants.
In the meantime I have no objection against discussion or planning as long as the Township doesn't have to pay an incremental dime for it. They should do so either based on volunteer effort, donations or grants or surplus library funds. Any of these should be possible.
Doing things like pursuing the PNC site is the opposite of this approach to plan first, know the consequences, then execute... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 8:36 am EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury lirary issues |
|
|
| Funny how until the PNC building came up for sale this was never an immediate need. Now, it's a priority need for some. Nothing changed except the opportunity. The opportunity for the BOE to kick the library out and the library to find their own building. It's more of a seize the moment mentality than meet a need mentality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 8:58 am EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury lirary issues |
|
|
| Quote: | | Funny how until the PNC building came up for sale this was never an immediate need. Now, it's a priority need for some. Nothing changed except the opportunity. The opportunity for the BOE to kick the library out and the library to find their own building. It's more of a seize the moment mentality than meet a need mentality. |
Actually it has been an issue for years, but the library has just been quietly waiting its turn. Plus so many in Cranbury do not like to see change at all.....even if the current situation is not working.
Planning a free standing library dates back to early 1960s. Then the public library was able to use the current shared facility. Then sometime in the master planning process of the last several decades there has been a library mentioned in different locations. 1) Tennis courts. People were upset by that. 2). Off of Park Place West. That didn't work. and most recently 3). Across the parking lot from the present location, but not "in the foreseeable future."
Also, a point of fact: PNC was just an opportunity. (I heard that it might be sold, by the way). We buy open space when the opportunity presents itself. The library was mentioned as a possible use by Richard Stannard in the Cranbury Press. It was not
any kind of scheme.
The truth is that we have out grown our currently library. It was built when our school was 1/3 the size it is now...and our town was 1/2 the size it is now. In some ways, I am thankful and sorry that it has to get to this point for everyone to become aware of the situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 9:08 am EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury lirary issues |
|
|
| If a free standing library is needed, the timing to pursue it is not good, given the current economy problems and recent tax increase for most residents. If a resident vote is need to decide whether to build a new one, I wish to see an option of closing it down and merge with Plainsboro. That is, two options for voters: 1) a new library or 2) a merge with Plainsboro library. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 10:09 am EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury lirary issues |
|
|
To close the library down, we would definitely be required to have a public referendum. Why do we want to get in our cars and drive everywhere? We have a public library. In the current economic situation, it would be more economical to use our public library more...and not drive anywhere. The library already has a budget. I would like them to use it to have library services for all residents in the town. No extra costs. Then we plan for a free standing library in the future.
To negiociate an interlocal borrowing agreement costs money, too. Jamesburg will have to pay $125.00 per card holder for them to use Monroe's library if the referendum passes to close their library. Cranbury Public Library has over 4000 cardholders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 10:34 am EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury lirary issues |
|
|
Well, it must be cheaper for Jamesburg to close their library and use Monroe's.
Look, most residents drive to the library already. In fact, some residents are closer to the new Plainsboro library. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 10:41 am EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury library issues |
|
|
[quote="Guest"] | Quote: | Also, a point of fact: PNC was just an opportunity. (I heard that it might be sold, by the way). We buy open space when the opportunity presents itself. The library was mentioned as a possible use by Richard Stannard in the Cranbury Press. It was not
any kind of scheme.
|
[quote="Guest"] | Quote: | Also, a point of fact: PNC was just an opportunity. (I heard that it might be sold, by the way). We buy open space when the opportunity presents itself. The library was mentioned as a possible use by Richard Stannard in the Cranbury Press. It was not
any kind of scheme.
|
That isn't a point of fact at all, just a reply of Stout's spin. The Mayor and the rest of the Stout Three only downplayed the Library as the expected purpose for the PNC site after there was so much outcry against it leading up to the meeting.
What is actually a point of fact is that all three of them toured the building and had specific conversations with various people about the possibility of acquiring it and converting it to the Library and Community Center before that meeting.
You're even directly quoting the Mayor's spin word by calling it an "opportunity." That is a meaningless word in this case. The Mayor promised when campaigning that he would not pursue spending on non-essential projects then when challenged about that in the meeting tried to clarify that it was an "opportunity." That is politician double speak because EVERYTHING is an opportunity. The Township could decide to buy a field and build a theme park tomorrow for $50 million. That's an "opportunity" too. Calling something an opportunity doesn't change whether it is elective or discretionary spending. It's a cynical buzzword.
The idea that the current timing is a coincidence is laughable. Yes a stand-alone Library has been under discussion and even in the previous master plan for years. That actually reinforces the point. It has been on the table for over a decade and wasn't urgent. Then the PNC proposal comes up and suddenly there is not two months that goes by without an escalation of the political efforts to force this without a full vote of the Township. First they argue that the PNC site is a deal and won't last long enough for a vote (facts have proven that wasn't true). Then they tried a petition ot force the issue a second time, despite no change in facts or status, again hoping to push it into a political process where the Stout Three could approve it without a true read on overall community support for the expense. It exercised the same political lie as Stout pursued in the previous public meeting, claiming it only wanted further "study." But, first, it didn't define anything to study since it continued to claim there was no stated purpose for the site. So how do you study the cost and impact without a clear scope? Plus when asked Stout consistently refused to acknowledge that the public would have any chance to even respond in a meeting to the results of the "study." The simple reality was they wanted to use it as an excuse to act unilaterally. If they didn't they could have easily committed to a second public hearing on the matter after the "study." Then when that died again, within weeks suddenly the Library and School are going at it and now it is a supposed necessity. I guess it didn't hurt that the TC chose to snub the school by re-zoning their expansion land, again something that had no natural urgency, while refusing to even sit down with the school board or officials to discuss it. Seems like they wanted to provoke a response.
Don't be fooled. This is all a political game. A group of people want a stand-alone library now, regardless of the timing or circumstances, and they keep trying to manipulate the process to get to that result. Instead of raising money privately or through grants or legitimately trying to get majority support for it, they work as elitist behind the scenes trying to manipulate a political result rather than a democratic one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
new library
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 2:09 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury library issues |
|
|
A new library for Cranbury residents:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 2:52 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury library issues |
|
|
| Quote: | Well, it must be cheaper for Jamesburg to close their library and use Monroe's.
Look, most residents drive to the library already. In fact, some residents are closer to the new Plainsboro library. |
Jamesburg has 6000 residents and only 1/3 have library cards. If they pay for the 2000 to go to Monroe library, they save $30,000.00 (Cranbury Press) for this one year's budget. What happens if more residents want library cards? Couldn't it end up being more expensive than when they have their own public library?
I beg to differ re. most residents driving to Cranbury library...of course, one can always drive, but in this economy it makes sense to patronize our local establishments....and save gas, too. A large majority could walk or ride their bikes if they so choose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 3:00 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury library issues |
|
|
And Plainsboro, a township with over five times our population, accomplished it through the proceeds of their development deal with Sharbell to do the Village Center mixed use retail and residential. Even the land it sits on was part of the Sharbell tract. They spend years patiently working on that development and when it initially slowed down, so too did the library development. What they didn't do was just decide, we need it now, and cause taxpayers to bear the burden. The library was also an integrated part of the Village Center plan and arguably raises property values of the residential units in the village.
Its called a plan. Cranbury library proponents should look up the term and study Plainsboro. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 6:09 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury library issues |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Quote: | Well, it must be cheaper for Jamesburg to close their library and use Monroe's.
Look, most residents drive to the library already. In fact, some residents are closer to the new Plainsboro library. |
Jamesburg has 6000 residents and only 1/3 have library cards. If they pay for the 2000 to go to Monroe library, they save $30,000.00 (Cranbury Press) for this one year's budget. What happens if more residents want library cards? Couldn't it end up being more expensive than when they have their own public library?
I beg to differ re. most residents driving to Cranbury library...of course, one can always drive, but in this economy it makes sense to patronize our local establishments....and save gas, too. A large majority could walk or ride their bikes if they so choose. |
I think the savings are similar for Cranbury to pay the Plainsboro Library and close down the Cranbury public library. But if we cant make the school partnership work in the short term its an option.
1/3 cardholders * 2508 population * $125 = $93,750/yr (cost of merging)
.vs.
1% * $12,169,282.79 = $121,692/yr (cost of current)
========================
$27,942 saving a year if we merged with Plainsboro Library
If we build a new library, the cost benefits are far better to merge with Plainsboro library.
1% * $12,169,282.79 (mandated by state)
+ $600 * 1000 households (5yr cost of 3mil building) = $721,692
==========================
$627,942 savings a year over a new building
increases of about $627 property tax per Cranbury household if we built it new |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 6:24 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury library issues |
|
|
3mil for a new Cranbury Library, try over 11mil at least, thats what it costs Plainsboro.
| Quote: | | The committee voted on November 7 to award the contract to H&S Mechanical of Elizabeth, which submitted the lowest base bid of $11,870,000. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 7:05 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury library issues |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | 3mil for a new Cranbury Library, try over 11mil at least, thats what it costs Plainsboro.
| Quote: | | The committee voted on November 7 to award the contract to H&S Mechanical of Elizabeth, which submitted the lowest base bid of $11,870,000. |
|
Why do you assume they would build anything remotely as big for Cranbury? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 7:35 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury library issues |
|
|
| I don't see why we can't start planning for it and soliciting donations. Assume we build on land owned already, no cost. The library has a 700-800K surplus. Assume a 3 mill price tag. That.s 2.2-2.3 mill to raise through fund raising. I wouldn't even mind if the town earmarked part of any surplus over the next 5-10 years. As long as we don't take on more debt or raise taxes, then I am fine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 8:09 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury library issues |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | I don't see why we can't start planning for it and soliciting donations. Assume we build on land owned already, no cost. The library has a 700-800K surplus. Assume a 3 mill price tag. That.s 2.2-2.3 mill to raise through fund raising. I wouldn't even mind if the town earmarked part of any surplus over the next 5-10 years. As long as we don't take on more debt or raise taxes, then I am fine. |
Surplus? How about paying down our town debt - not to mention COAH obligation?
Secondly, it is probably illegal to solicit private donations for something that is not even planned. Where are the blue prints, where is land land that it will be built on, will it be a rehab of a building, how much will it cost? AND the list goes on . . . . . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 6 2008, 9:14 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Editorial: Public input necessary for solution to Cranbury library issues |
|
|
Okay, we get it you don't want a library whether it is funded or not. However, I'd rather people discuss ways to fund it without increasing my tax dollars today.
To answer your points.
1) On the surplus if the town decides a library is a need at somepoint then it is better to plan and start saving now rather than issue a bond for it later. If a library does not end up a need you can retire debt. Your kid may not go to college, but you save anyway don't you? This is how we should be handling any potential large expense.
2) On COAH. I absolutely agree COAH is priority number one, which is why you don't build a library now.
3) On donations. The town already has a spot on the master plan. The library has a 700K surplus. Don't you think that money could be used to get the process started so everyone knows how much it will cost? It is not illegal for an entity to fund raise. Princeton Hospital is doing it, Hamilton did it for their maternity wing, Princeton did it for their library.
4) Jackson Twp. has built new schools and projects without raising their taxes. How? Because they set up a long term plan and used surplus to begin saving for the eventual need.
The issue does not have to be black and white, with do it now or disband the library all together. There are sound financial ways to achieve the goal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
