Special Township Committee Meeting will be held on Monday, July 7, 2008, at 6:30

[Guest]

I heard the number $168 Million being thrown around as the cost to build the COAH houses. At 1,100 current housholds, that works out to over $152,700 per household. Even if you spread that out over 20 years, that's still $7600/year/household (and that doesn't include interest on the loans the township would need to do this)

[Guest]

so half of us are going to have to live elsewhere because not everyone is going to be able to afford the tax increase... plus you take the tax increase - the cost of gas and the rise in food and materials going up... cranbury is going to be impossible to live in for most people on a "middle class" income.... Such ashame - especially when a lot of us grew up here....

[wcody]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

I think you may have double counted. The front page has a link to Cranbury home sales. There are 9 on North Main St and 1 on S. Main. However, the one on S. Main is out by 130.

Still that is a lot for Main St. when one considers the homes were prized real estate. I think a home on S. Main away from the businesses would move fairly quickly. Just not as fast as in the old days.

[Ed K]

Maybe they were smart and moved to PA or DE, that's where all the NJ businesses are moving also. COAH is bad for us citizens and its bad for our local businessmen too. I hope to see some of the warehouse managers at this monday meeting as well to voice how this is hurting the local NJ economy. And Cranbury Farmers.

Will there be any Cranbury farmers going, one of the smartest things that Clinton Township is using is the hardship on farming families in NJ and also watershed protection issues. I'm sure we need to add this to the list and strategy for Cranbury.

[Guest]

How did the meeting go?

[Jersey Dad]

The point of the meeting was to authorize the town to join the "appeal" (lawsuit) being filed by Clinton Twp. This is just one step in the process.

Cranbury will appeal on several fronts including; actual warehouse jobs, financial impact, farmland preservation, residential ratio, retro-activity, sewer capacity, etc. Some appeals will be legal actions, others will be negotiations between Cranbury Twp officials, District 14 Reps and COAH officials. We will need our senior elected officials to stand up for us in these meetings. I suggest we take the opportunity to reach out to each of our representatives to demonstrate our support and eagerness for a positive outcome. The process is going to take time, however, I am not sure how the timeline is impacted by the end-of-year deadline for submitting a revised plan to COAH.

[Jersey Dad]

By my calculations, building more than 100 units will inevitably result in building a High School. If we have to build a high school, we'll probably choose builder's remedy over bankruptcy or consolidation. Therefore, by my estimation, "winning" means building less than 100 units in the third round.

[Guest]

[Cranbury Conservative]

The litigation which was initiated last night is to fight the COAH third round rules.

We still have the A-500 / S-1783 bill which Governor Corzine has yet to sign. This is the legislation which does away with RCA’s.

[James]

Overall, I thought the meeting and result was very positive. Apparently, instead of a suit this is a challenge. The difference being a challenge to the rules allows Cranbury to opt into several challenges, clinton, league of municipalities, etc... So overall it was a good decision.

In terms of the negatives.

1) I was deeply concerned by the lack of turn out. It seemed incredible to me that we had more people show up about the PNC purchase then we did about COAH. The PNC purchase is minor item when compared to COAH. I wonder if people really understand the impact or if they just don't worry believing things will take care of themselves.

2) I did not agree with the closed door session prior to the public comment. I strongly dislike closed door sessions, but can understand the need in certain circumstances (employee negotiations, lawsuits against the town, etc....) To me those are sessions that confidentiality is key. I would prefer public comment first to allow for an expression of opinion before entering into a closed door session. Then in a case like this we should as residents have a right to sit there during the discussion.

3) I also found it to be a concern that there was a COAH sub-committee allowed to participate in the discussion and that these individuals were non-elected individuals. If the committee is comprised of TC and school board members then I am fine as it is our elected representatives making the decisions behind closed doors. Otherwise, the meeting should remain open. The COAH sub-committee can be appointed as the only ones who can speak at that time, and I am fine with that, but to not allow the public to sit in and offer comment only after a decision is in my opinion improper.

Thankfully, the decision that was reached was in 100% agreement from what I could see.

[Guest]

[Cranbury Conservative]

It was noted several times last night that a larger town meeting will be schedule for July 28th to discuss COAH / Affordable Housing.

[Guest]

many were still on holiday, but I did see some folks walking the streets on my way to the meeting. Not sure if they read this forum but lots showed up at the prior COAH meeting so I think it was just about the holiday for most.