TC - How much more damage can they do to our town

[How many more]

In tonight's council meeting I saw a number of things that I thought I would never see on the positive and truly realized how arrogant Stout, Stannard and Panconi are as members of our Town Council. These individuals show no concern for our past or future, only their own desires today. The lack of foresight displayed tonight was extremly disturbing and showed why we are in trouble with them leading the COAH fight.

On the positive...

First, I was very pleased at the turn out by our residents. We had our former mayor, a former committeman, former school board members, active board members and residents in attendance. From all appearances we saw 100% support for continuing the original intent of the West Property and maintaining it for school use should the need arise. Until such time it would remain open land. A compromise that allows growth and also provides open space. And we all know the state does not challenge school land, teachers or property so there was no COAH risk.

HOWEVER...

The Town Council members in attendance managed to display a short sighted view and arrogance to those individuals in attendance beyond compare. In a unanimous vote, the TC (wayne and Pari were not there, but I overheard one TC member say Pari stated her support prior- no surprise) went ahead and voted to preserve the land violating the original intent of the purchase and in essence telling the school to shove off.

In an act of total disregard for the most important governing body in our town the TC had no formal discussion with the BOE. They had no position from the BOE as they did not allow the BOE to make a formal recommendation and they had no agreement in place with the BOE should the need arise for expansion in the future.

We have no idea what COAH will bring and in causing this action we have now forced ourselves into a school consolidation should COAH happen because there is no room for us to expand.

When questioned Stout said we should build up. However, the school was built as a single story building so it requires an entire re-engineering to do so (essentially a rebuild). In one vote Panconi, Stout and Stannard put us in a position of possibly ending our 300 year history as our own blue ribbon school district. But that's okay, they'll retire out of town and leave our children and new residents with the problems they created.

As if that was not bad enough, the evening was topped off by more spending on the Ballfied. Yep, the Ballfield 3 got us again tonight. The TC accepted a change order for the ballfield increasing the cost between 20,000-30,000 for- GET THIS the moving of a fence that was already installed. There was no discussion on whether the fence was installed improperly (bad engineer design) or if this was a request by Babe Ruth for convenience. 20-30K for a fence!! I installed mine for 2,000 and it was Grade A cedar, more expensive than chain link.

If improper then the engineer or contractor should indemnify us. If for Babe Ruth's simple desire then they should be told no or asked to pay the cost.

Tonight 3 TC did what no other TC did before they created a grand canyon size gap between residents and school and TC administration. It is not resident money anymore or our town anymore it is the Ballfield-3 plus one's town. Please no more Democrats, former Democrats or wannabe Democrats on our TC. I want my family to remain here as Cranbury for another few generations.

[Guest]

Last night was just another example of the TC making their decision prior to the meeting, rendering any information given at the meeting meaningless. I cannot believe they pushed through this ordinance without any formal talks with the school. Although Pari's absence may be perfectly valid, it looked really bad not having her there, since she is the liaison for the school. (I believe Wayne is away on business- that's why he wasn't there)

I think we should rename Stout to Corzine Jr!

I agree we should know more about the fence. If someone made a mistake, they should pay for the change. This is just throwing good money after bad.

The really sad thing is that when any of these people are up for re-election, the public will forget all this happened, because we will be too busy working extra jobs to pay our increased taxes caused by this TC and their poor decisions.

[James]

Here is what it comes down to in my opinion. I like the Ballfield 3 label - good ring to it, so I'll use it. The Ball Field 3 or is it 4, since Panconi voted in favor, have been elected and re-elected so they feel they have no reason to answer to the residents. Stout barely wins and he's made Mayor.

What we as a town need to do is vote Win Cody in. John Ritter is hand picked by the Ballfield 3 so there won't be a change, in fact we will lose our only resident voice.

We residnets then need to keep showing up at TC meetings and focus on 2009's election/ We need to ensure that whoever runs whether it is Panconi and Pari or some other individuals on the Dem ticket are not elected to TC. The Ballfield 3 is controlling who runs on the Dem ticket in town. So until there is a clean house we will see outlandish decisions like the one above continue to be made.

A while ago there was talk about new comers and old timers. I just want to say, there is no difference between someone here a month or 50 years. It is those in charge who can cause the problems.

Stout and the other 2 last night are also relative new comers to town. Stout and his cronies is ignored the BOE history, the TC history and voted their own personal opinions. That is why I think some of the long term residents get annoyed.

By doing their own thing with reckless disregard for prior and future planning the Ballfield 3 and Panconi did all of those new residents a great disservice by saying new people don't care about our town. This infuriates me to no end. I say that because some of the newest residents I know (a few year or less) wanted to keep the original intent of the property. They came to Cranbury because they wanted the town, the enviornment and want to maintain it. So the Ballfield 3 all of whom were not here at the time the land was acquired managed to disregard the intent and reinforce all the (wrong-IMO) long term residents negative connotations of people being new to town causing problems. Now new comers have it that much harder on themselves.

[Cranbury Conservative]

Last nights Cranbury Township Committee meeting was an example of everything that is wrong at times with government. The elected officials from our town decided to disregard the concerns of former members of our School Board, former members of our Township Committee, current School Board members and other concerned taxpayers of our town when they decided to preserve the remaining land on the West Property last night without further research or discussion. The Township Committees decision to preserve this land may handcuff the public school in Cranbury for years to come if and when they need to expand.

To make my point clear I am for preserving land in Cranbury, we have a tradition of doing just that for many years and I feel this tradition should continue. I do however have concerns when uninformed decisions are made with complete disregard for our community. The decision to preserve the remaining land on the West Property last night was a short sighted decision which is and has been the personal agenda of select members of our Township Committee. From all appearances the champion of this decision on the Township Committee is our current Mayor.

Further our Township Committee has moved beyond even giving the illusion of not having personal agendas rule the day, since last night the only comments made during the public session were against this decision to preserve the remaining land. A member of the school board even gave an option to the Township Committee to at least save a portion of this land for the Cranbury School and the Township Committee decided to not listen. Additionally our Township Committee last night did not even have the respect of the citizens of our community to table its vote until a full committee was present to vote. They instead muscled through the vote, a vote of all 3 for the preservation with 2 members of the committee being absent.

This decision was made without consultation of the Board of Education which has stated publicly they may need the land for future development, which again adds to the personal agenda portion of my argument concerning this property.

The West Property fiasco was only the beginning of what transpired last night at the Township Committee meeting here in Cranbury.

We then found out as a community the million dollar ball field which is being built next to the school now needs its fences moved at a cost to the taxpayers of Cranbury of anywhere from $20,000 to $30,000 dollars. Not one member of the Township Committee questioned why we were using taxpayer’s money for this or did they ask who was responsible for this being needed.

Perhaps a mistake was made when then fence was put up? No one on the Township Committee asked.

Was it our town engineers fault? No one on the Township Committee asked.

Or was it the contractors who put up the fences fault? No one on the Township Committee asked.

Or was it somehow Cranbury’s fault? Again No one on the Township Committee asked any questions.

The money to be spent was rubber stamped and they moved on.

These two issues highlight what is wrong with our Township Committee and shows even more why it is so critical an independent voice free of personal agendas must be elected to the open seat on the Township Committee this year.

That independent voice is Win Cody and he needs all of our votes this November. Because the alternative is a candidate who was hand picked by those currently in charge of the Township Committee which will mean another rubber stamp vote for their personal agendas which currently are more imporant then the greater good of our community.

[Guest 2]

A little history here --

The Environmental Commission sought the preservation of the majority of the West property approx. 5-6 years ago. At that time almost all of the property was proposed to be preserved. The TC (different group than today's) listened to the school board who at the time was not willing to give up any of the West Property. They vaguely argued that the school might need to expand and that the land was needed.

PLEASE -- there are many alternatives for expanding the school that would not require us to use the West property -- the lot in the back where the kids play is open -- there are three (3) fields behind the school that could be used as well as the fact that a TWO story addition could be added that would give more than enough classroom space. Remember -- you can't go much longer -- it already takes roller skates to go from one end to the other. Remember an addition would most likely require a new cafeteria (the current one is too small and would have to be replaced if the student body was big enough to require an addition). So putting it on the black top and using the fields to play would work.

One must also look at the fact that the oldest sections of the school could probably be reworked or two - storied. But the plain fact of the matter is that the West property is not REQUIRED. There are alternatives and leaving it open to possible development is not good.

PRESERVE IT already and stop listening to the school board moan about how we MIGHT need to add on and the West property is the only place. This would be a done deal if the old TC had had the nerve to see reason and stop listening to the School Board spout out these silly reasons for needing the land.

[a Question]

if it is later needed for the school, isnt it a simple mater of rezoning by the next TC anyway? in both scenarios the land is protected right?

[Guest]

[where to begin]

[quote="Guest 2"]A little history here --

The Environmental Commission sought the preservation of the majority of the West property approx. 5-6 years ago. At that time almost all of the property was proposed to be preserved. The TC (different group than today's) listened to the school board who at the time was not willing to give up any of the West Property. They vaguely argued that the school might need to expand and that the land was needed.

PLEASE -- there are many alternatives for expanding the school that would not require us to use the West property -- the lot in the back where the kids play is open -- there are three (3) fields behind the school that could be used as well as the fact that a TWO story addition could be added that would give more than enough classroom space. Remember -- you can't go much longer -- it already takes roller skates to go from one end to the other. Remember an addition would most likely require a new cafeteria (the current one is too small and would have to be replaced if the student body was big enough to require an addition). So putting it on the black top and using the fields to play would work.

One must also look at the fact that the oldest sections of the school could probably be reworked or two - storied. But the plain fact of the matter is that the West property is not REQUIRED. There are alternatives and leaving it open to possible development is not good.

PRESERVE IT already and stop listening to the school board moan about how we MIGHT need to add on and the West property is the only place. This would be a done deal if the old TC had had the nerve to see reason and stop listening to the School Board spout out these silly reasons for needing the land.[/quote

Where to begin. The above reads exactly from the TC statement last night, so I wonder if this is a TC member posting...I won't make any assumptions though. At any rate let's begin.

1) Yes you are correct about the EC decision. In fact I am 99% sure that Mayor Stout was on the EC and told no at that time. So now he gets his way over town interests. Thanks for bringing that up I forgot that point.

2) The property would not have been up for discussion as preserved if not for the School Board originally going to the TC and asking for their help in acquiring the West property. So offending them is not really a good course of action. If not for the BOE, there would be a housing development on that property at this moment.

The only reason that this is a discussion now, is because the BOE's long term planning committee saw the need for potential expansion.

Also, the land was already mostly preserved, the TC simply took the additional step of alienating the town in order to make it 100%.

3) The school is built as a single story building. It would require an entire reengineering to build a second story. You don't just plop a second or third story onto the building. Not unless you want sructural damage.

Doing this would increase the cost of expanding the school multiple times over the cost of building a new school on the West property or expanding the school outward. Of course, spending more money is the way the TC operates they don't understand economics as a basic principile- see exhibit A the Ballfield.

4) The arguement about leaving it open for possible development is an arguement based in ignorance. You deed restrict the land to school use only. Legally permissible, prevents COAH and allows for school expansion. If the school doesn't expand it's open space and it's deed restricted.

5) If we expand out or up your arguement about roller skates doesn't mean anything. You're still adding space.

6) If the TC got off their arrogant high horse and listened to the TC members who acquired the land and the BOE today and past who lead the push, then they'd understand why the residents are concerened. However, that also requires listening.

7) Mr. Stannard outright misled the people at the meeting. He stated he spoke with the Mayor of the town at the time. The Mayor was Alan Danser, not Becky or another person.

[Guest]

[notes]

Let's look at the notes-

Here is the 11/26/2007 Meeting note where Mr. Stout originally mentions his intent to preserve the West property. He states he has not spoken with the board of ed. That was 10 months ago and yet the BOE was still not formally consulted before last night's meeting. Pari did make a presentation on 8/12, but it was not a formal dialogue and there were remaining concerns. Mr. Stout clearly showed no respect to the BOE. Out of respect that should have been given an ability to present an opinion.

In fact it is noted on the record as it states:

Mayor Stout indicated he had not [started BOE dialogue]. However, he wished to start a dialogue. Ms. Stave, as the liaison to the School, will reach out to them and get back to the Township Committee.

http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes112607.html

So, Mr. Mayor why delay for all this time and then rush the passage through? Why Mr. Panconi and Stannard the rush to give the Mayor his want? Where was Mr. Ritter when there was 100% opposition to this? Why did Mr. Ritter who was in attendance not stand up for those who he needs to vote for him?

[Guest]

[quote="where to begin"]

[Cranbury Conservative]

Does Mr. Ritter read this board? If you do what is your stance on the issue?

[Cranbury Conservative]

I heard former mayor as did many other in attendance

[Jay T.]

I was sitting next to my dad who spoke and also Mayor Danser.

Mr. Stannard stated twice that he spoke with an individual who was the Mayor at the time. Perhaps he misspoke or was told a mistruth by the person he spoke with. However, Mayor Danser and my father who was on TC confirmed that Mr. Danser was the Mayor and had no discussion with Mr. Stannard prior to the meeting. So this was a definite misstatement on Mr. Stannard's part.

[Guest]

[Cranbury Conservative]

Agreed I even made a comment when I spoke at the meeting last night that if there was a need for a new library (which I am not convinced we need) then by preserving this land we are not allowing the public library to stay where it is and have the school build a small addition for its own library.

What I did not say was this would allow the town to keep at least the shared facility model and the school could charge the library rent say $90,000 or so a year to offset the cost of building the new small addition for a school library.