Clarity: What Cranbury should do with the PNC Bank Property...

[Cranbury Conservative]

First I would like to say the COAH rules which went into effect June 2nd and the new affordable housing rules which passed the New Jersey Assembly in June are both Cranbury’s number 1 priority and any effort spent on the PNC Bank topic is a waste of both time and energy.

However since some in Cranbury will not let the PNC issue go I took some time to think through what might be good options for the PNC Bank Property if indeed the agenda of a few in the town once again distracted the Township Committee from what should be its primary focus, and that focus is affordable housing rules and legislation that will destroy this town.

My thoughts on the subject are as follows:

My primary belief is that if the PNC Bank property is acquired the transaction should not be completed in any form which involves tax payer dollars for the acquisition, refurbishment or on going maintenance of the property

If I were to however agree with some form of tax payer involvement the property and building would have to be acquired without taxpayer dollars. I could however consider potentially using tax payer dollars for the demolition of the building and then turning the entire site into public parking since parking is such a major concern for many in the community. I believe this can be done tastefully and within the character of the town. This will once and for all put closure on the parking concerns of downtown Cranbury and at the same time limit the long term impact financially to the community. We will however loose a rateable property from the tax rolls. To address the rateable issue we could consider making the property half free public parking and half of the property metered parking which would recuperate some of the lost tax dollars and potentially pay for any ongoing maintenance for the property.

If it’s the historical society that has an interest in the building then let them acquire the building at their own expense without any taxpayer involvement. Perhaps they could use the PNC space for their museum? This would give them more space for their displays and better visibility within the community. Further in the sprit of doing what is right for the town they could then allow the town to use the parking area for public parking at no expense to the township. This may be the best option for Cranbury.

These are my two main ideas for the property. Again however I want to stress that I feel it is a waste of everyone’s time and energy during this critical time in our town’s history to be wasting our resources on the PNC property.

The COAH rules and Legislation still remain our number 1 priority!

http://cranburyconservative.blogspot.com/

[ed k]

Another option for downtown Cranbury parking that is far more cost effective is to reuse the land under the Water tower. The old water company I think still owns the land and tower but its not in use. If we had someone for our local government persue this avenue, it wouldnt cost us 1.4mil for downtown parking, it would be a fraction of that. And maybe the land would be donated to Cranbury since the water tower just needs to be diassebled - and voiala lots of downtown parking appears. Honestly this was not my idea, someone from the TC already was thinking about this and I think its a great idea to address the parking problem without spending $1.4mil on the PNC.

[publius]

Best thing to do with PNC bldg. is to sell it to someone who will use it as restaurant/retail/antique shop/something useful/ space.
There should be some sort of parking agreement for public use during daytime hours.
I'm all for more library space. But, it may make more sense to have it at the school, then to buy/build a stand-alone location. Perhaps a much-needed space at the school for storage could also include more library space. Could we include private donations in such a plan? Get some local corporate donors to give some funds, and give them a nice shiny plaque on the wall or something. Maybe, contact past & present residents who would like to donate and have their names inside of books or something. Anything to defray public expenditures would be helpful. But, an addition to the already-existing school footprint would make MUCH more sense at this time.

[James]

Ed,

The problem with the water tower is that it is coated in lead paint. So it's not a simple disassemble and move on job. It has to be properly handled and disposed of the cost of which could easily reach a million plus given the state laws that the town must adhere to when doing this type of work.

I believe a prior TC looked at being given the tower and realized it was a big old drain on the wallet to remedy all the problems.

[publius]

PARKING!
As far as parking goes, can we use or create more space where the town hall parking is? Anyway to create a path between bldgs. to gain access to Main St.? In the old days, folks used to walk everywhere. Are people too lazy to walk a little bit anymore? I hate the idea of knocking things down just to create more space for fat, lazy people. Get out and get some fresh air and sunshine and take a stroll along Main St. and buy something already!
Might make a good village slogan?

[Cranbury Conservative]

Here is some additional water tower information....

At the TC meeting in May when the new affordable housing was discussed on the rt. 130 site next to Cranbury Estates, the water company was in attendance as well to discuss water main work they will be completing on Plainsboro road. At that time Mark Berkowsky asked if the water company would be interested in donating the water tower to a local group which wants to preserve it. So I have a feeling the water tower is not going anywhere anytime soon.


As for the parking post by publius….

I agree with you and prefer the option to have parking on the property adjacent to the school which is part of the master plan for Cranbury. I offered the other option to tear the building down and making the entire PNC property parking as an option since a few in Cranbury just won’t let the PNC building issue go.

I feel very strongly the town should not be involved in anyway with the PNC property and I do not want to see one penny of our tax dollars spent on the site.

[Guest]

I still don't even understand the "parking problem." I don't live within walking distance to Main so I have to drive there and park all the time, for school, for church, for Cranbury Pizza, Gil & Berts, visiting friends, you name it. I probably have a reason to go there and park at least 4 times a week not counting school, minimum, usually during business hours. And I never have a problem. Not once. Sure you may not be able to park within 15 feet of your preferred destintation but so what -- I don't know any town that can expect this. I'm always amazing that even during major events like Cranbury Day or our parade I can even find parking on Main not that long before the event.

Cranbury has a parking problem like Senator Roberts has a problem dealing with his abundance of ethics. It just doesn't exist.

[Ed K]

[Stop the Whining]

Talking about libraries.

Has anyone here an insight into how Plainsboro got their library financed? I know nothing about it, but heard that there were big donors behind it.

What would I like to see? A bikepath all the way to Plainsboro through the woods, so that we can get some exercise and don't have to whine about how much it costs to fill up our cars.

[Call Me Crazy]

[Frugality In Cranbury]

[James]

Taking down a water tower is a big deal. ignoring the historical value because I have really no opinion one way or the other. The lead paint is the issue and it is not as though you can dispose of it in a dumpster. The tower has to be tented and sandblasted then the paint removed and the tower disposed of properly. The is a huge cost to do this. If the tower were simply painted with non-lead based paint it would be another story and I agree would not approach the million dollar mark.

There was an episode of This old House where a home had to be tented (MA law) and the cost was 100K according to the show. Now magnify that cost times the price a contractor will charge a town to remove the lead, disassemble the tower, etc..

As long as American Water owns it the tower is their responsability to remove or repair. If it rusts out and they choose to remove it then that is their liability. Then at that point after it's gone we can come in and buy the land.

[Guest]

[Guest]

There are other ways of taking care of the lead paint issues rather than scraping and repainting. That is the way to do it if it is peeling and we want to keep it. But, it's not.

Look, we are paying for cleanup remediation of the new ball field, so why is this so different? We would get rid of an eye sore that will definitely peel and rust out. This is a huge problem for the citizens living around the water tower AND not historically significant to the township of Cranbury.

[Ed K]

Look I'm not promoting that we take the tower down, I am a preservationist afterall myself. But in my lifetime this water tower will degrade and rust and will become structurally unsound. At that time Cranbury may actually have a parking problem that "can be seen by the naked eye" and proven.

The point I'm making is that at some future point Cranbury will have no choice but to tell Am Water Company to take it down for safety reasons and we may have an opportunity to purchase the land for parking when the need is finally realized.

In the near term lets get back to the COAH problem, and helping the TC fight the good fight becuase they can sure use Cranbury Citizen help.

[James]

If you remove the tower you have to remove the lead paint because if you don't and it starts to chip off or it starts to create dust you have an enviornmental problem and state/ federal fines. Plus, the town council can't just go out and do it themselves they need to hire someone and that company has laws they have to follow. There are legal requirements that have to be met it's not a choice or an option as to whether we follow them or not or if we take shortcuts.

The ballfield remediation is costing from what I hear 200K-300K and there are more companies and contractors in this field then there are that would remove the water tower. That is a non-essential expense (ballfield overall) and should not be used as an arguement to bring on more expenses. Otherwise those who support the PNC puchase could say we spent over one million on a ballfield, why not spend the same money on something more residents will use like a library.

So even though we're paying the ballfield, why would we want to take on more expense now? We can't take on more expenses that are unnecessary and the water tower is pure cost.

The water tower is owned by American Water and it is their responsability. Once it is towned owned, it is our responsability. Why would we want to take on more costs and liabilities. If anything the TC should advocate and ask American Water to handle the tower. That is the best approach for Cranbury residents.