Candidates for Cranbury TC Debate Tomorrow October 14 at 8:00 PM

[Jersey Dad]

Both candidates demonstrated good qualities tonight. We are lucky to have such strong candidates.

One issue not mentioned in the summary provided by other posters is the issue of how we execute our COAH strategy; specifically the 130 D Site.

Mr. Ritter declared that he opposes opening the road, supports reducing the number of units and is open to possibility of incorporating ownership units in the plan.

Mr. Cody opposes opening the road, was unclear on the issue of reducingthe size of the development and defended the decision to build 100 percent rental units, even when they don't result in bonus credits.

As far as the debate was concerned, I felt like Mr. Ritter clearly gave stronger answers on the Rt 130 D questions. I wish I could have asked Mr. Cody for further clarification, because I was under the impression he supported reducing units at the 130 D Site and I was surprised by his comments on rental units. Perhaps he will clarify...

[Guest]

[James]

The 130 D site is an issue. I am opposed based on what I know today regarding the rental units being 100%, on open road access and want to also reduce the number. I believe Win is the same with this view. The difficulty is from my perspective that Win is very open and honest. He doesn't want to mislead people or simply say what is easy for people to hear. So I believe his answer was not as strong as Mr. Ritter's because the truth is we don't know our obligations, we don't know what we have to do or the associated costs as everything is in flux. Win to me would rather say he needs to see what CHA and the COAH rules are then to say one thing then do another at a later date if circumstances change.

On the ballfield, I was the one who asked the question, which was as follows (general, not word for word). Today, we have a ballfield that is being built for babe ruth use. The phase 1 costs were covered by grants, phase 2 is yet to be determined, but estimates based on contractor talks I've had estimate it at 500K plus. If it's turned over to babe ruth use we're responsible for the insurance and maintenance, but no longer have control over the field. Rather than give control to babe ruth would you agree to look at alternatives such as giving it to the school for school use?

I felt that if it is going to happen we should look at alternative ways to use the field that give all residents and children equal access to use it whether in league, school or pick up play. In fact I even gave the candidates an option out. I was disappointed in the response from Mr. Ritter because he used the opportunity to talk about school consolidation. I was also annoyed because he assumed that the middlesex county would automatically grant us the money to cover the costs. Which is also our money. Even if it were not, we have no kids on the team. So 1 million in cost for 0 kids is a lot. Win did say if that were the case he'd evaluate the usage.

Afterward, I was questioned and told by a resident that David was telling people my comments were wrong. Interestingly, David himself voiced no comment to me, so I don't know the extent of his disagreement, passive comment or actual annoyance nor would I want to assume. I posted on the ballfield thread initially and produced the costs and grants for phase I so I'm sure I've been upfront and honest in how I present things. I just felt that if the field is going to happen regardless then we should maximize it's return for residents.

[ballfield]

If James's comment about the ballfield is incorrect, then the mayor should clarify it publicly and put that on record.

As a resident, I wish we can reverse TC's decision to deed it over to an outside organization; just make it a Cranbury ballfield.

[Guest]

"Cranbury info. Ritter made it clear he reads the site by his attack on comments posted. He said he opposes it strongly. He was angry in his tone. Win said he supported the site and would use it to guage opinion on matters."


I disagree with this summary. I think both John and Win (rightfully) expressed reluctance in placing too much credibility in anonymous posts or entering into an online debate with an individual that has the option to remain anonymous. The sentiment was that an anonymous poster need not be accountable for his or her words and may be inclined to write things that they would not say in person. I agree with both candidates' positions on this.

I did not view John's tone - or Win's - as being angry at all.

[debate]

Yes, they both stated that they agreed on anonymous posting being a concern. Win did say that the blog had limited occurances of this and that it was pretty good. However, he was concerned about the potential and some instances of attack. John said that and raised the issue you highlighted of not putting credence into the comments. That was not a Win position. I stand by my interpretation.

[debate]

anonymous posting with negative personal attacks being a concern.

[Guest]

Regarding comments on the 130 site being 100% rentals.

There are at least 3 arguments for having 100% rentals, if my understanding is correct. First being that CHA has more control over the property if rented.

Second, currently after 30 years, a unit that is owned can be sold at market value and that person can reap a windfall profit at taxpayer's expense (there are some rules regarding this - I think it's the second seller that gets the windfall.) When this unit is sold it may trigger a requirement that a new affordable unit be built.

Third, if an owned unit goes into foreclosure, it becomes a market unit owned by the bank. It no longer counts toward our obligation.

Also, I was under the impression that rentals count more towards bonus than owned units.

On the ballfield, I think it's ridiculous that after all this time, it is still not clear what the rules are as to who can use it and when. Who can and will clarify this publicly?

I am also concerned about anonymous attacks. This should be used as a forum for discussion and information. Disagreements are fine, but attacks are not.

[James]

As I said, I want to be fair and objective. I did some research in the meeting notes and now am concerned and confused. The babe ruth league has rules stating how the field is used and access granted a least that's what I am told, I have asked them for copies of the rules. It's mainly due to ensuring the field remains in top condition and has limited play. Similar to HS football fields which are often locked down when not in use. However, I pulled this comment from the meeting notes of the TC.

Ms. XX spoke concerning the baseball field and asked if it would be used only for the Little League. Ms. Stave responded, the field will be a regulation size baseball field. Presently the Township does not have a regulation size baseball field and first and foremost the field is being built to satisfy the need of the School as presently the girls softball league plays on the field at Village Park. The boys’ team uses the present baseball field. Once the new field is built, the girls’ team will then be able to play on the baseball field at the School as well. The field will also accommodate Babe Ruth Leagues and would be community based and for pick- up teams as well. There being no further comments, the Mayor closed the public part of the meeting.

Okay, so now I'm confused. The league says one thing and the town says another. Is the town simply using babe ruth as a general term? If so, it's fine and problem solved concerning access. They don't seem to be saying that since they say the field will be used for league games. So, I think we need to get the league and TC on the same page in writing saying town residents will have access to play pick up games and the like.

My only concern is ensuring costs are controlled and making sure it's usable for all residents and that we maintain control.

[Guest]

[Jersey Dad]

[Guest]

Here's my view on rentals having seen both sides when I lived elsewhere.

On ownership, we had units that the people neglected. Lawns weren't cared for, toys dumped in the front yard, one neighbor was verbally abusive and when we asked the town were told it's their home just like anyone else's.

On rentals, the town maintains the outside so there is no issue with looks. They had restrictions on the outside much like a HOA, lawns were mowed in the front, fenced in back. Also, when there was one issue with a neighbor, not sure, but police were there he was gone within the year. I think COAH eviction may be easier due to the fact that the state wants to keep the houses in stock vs a private landlord. Just my take given the departure.

With any home you can't foresee who moves into it whether it's owned or not. The issue in monroe the guy owned his home. I'm personally for rentals because we know the house won't be neglected outside, if there are issues it's much easier to evict them then it is someone who owns the home, and it maintains the COAH home indefinitely, plus adds the credits.

[wcody]

In response to some of the comments here regarding the debate:

I do support the blog. I think it is a great place to share and receive information on Cranbury. The blogs is one of several different ways of receiving input. I do not like anonymous personal attack postings although I don’t think that is a big issue here. Most of the posts are professional and I get valuable information from reading them. One thing regarding anonymous posts, it is sometimes hard to gauge how prevalent a view is, many posts could be coming from the same person. Getting feedback from directly from someone whether it is in person, a letter, an email or at the township meeting carries more weight than an anonymous comment, although, I do understand the need to sometimes post anonymously. One person I have seen comment quite frequently is Mr. or Ms. Guest, I have been walking the entire town and I am sorry that I have not met them yet.

I do not think rental units are inherently worse than ownership units. In fact, in walking through town, I have met great people in the rental units. I like the fact that we receive bonus credit and potentially some funding for these units. I hope we find ways that we do not need to build our max commitment and would fully be able to take advantage of the bonus credits. I found the comments enlightening from the poster who lived in Monroe regarding their experience with ownership units (a good example of a productive anonymous post).

Win Cody

[Jersey Dad]

Win,
I appreciate your response, but I hope you re-consider. As the guest-poster pointed out, a properly formed home owners association would address the exterior property maintainence issues that were described (See Bergen Drive as an example of how this works effectively). The fact is, there is an overwhelming evidence to support that transient communities (of all income levels) are less desirable for a lot of reasons, including that they increase opportunities for criminals.

Also, when you consider this issue from a financial perspective, Cranbury could generate millions of dollars by selling the "20 or so" units that exceed the cap. Plus, rental units have higher operational costs and potentially higher infrastructural costs. By building the "20 or so" ownership units at the 130 D site (possibly along side some rental units), Cranbury could still qualify for federal tax credits at the other two sites identified in the plan.

In short, I understand the township's decision to build rental units to qualify for COAH credits, but it seems like a poor decision to exceed the cap for rental credits. I am advocating that the "20 or so" units that can be designated as ownership units without reducing bonus credits, be built at the 130 D Site. In my opinion, this decision would be better for my neighborhood and the town.

[Guest]

I want to clarify my previous post about my experiences. My understanding is that owned units cannot have a HOA or similar rules placed on them. That was why we saw problems. The reason being that a HOA has certain legalities which is fine if people sign off on them as a knowing buyer, but the COAH people would not be able to do so volunatrily as it would be do it or lose it. So under COAH there can't be the HOA restriction for owned property. That's what caused the issue.

However, with rentals the town was able to place rules as the property was town owned and lawns maintained by the town. There was no reduction of property owner rights.

In terms of cost, it is a higher maintence cost on rentals, but IMO is valid because we don't have to look at eye sores or potential eyesores and can get rid of people who pose a risk. Under homeownership we have to hope for the person to sell or be arrested.

[Jersey Dad]

Bergen, Danser and South Main are almost all ownership units and they have HOAs. CHA has a seat on the HOA boards. These developments are extremely well maintained.

Evicting a renter from publicly subsidized housing is nearly impossible, just ask CHA. The best we can do is minimize risks on the front end and keep churn low.

Keep in mind the increase in opportunities for criminals does not necessarily come from the residents of affordable housing, it comes from a lack of familiarity among neighbors that is inherent in transient communities of all income levels.