| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2010, 9:27 pm EDT Post subject: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
 |
|
| Why is the Sweetwater discussion locked? because the queue is full or because someone stopped it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2010, 9:46 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| Someone in the last few posts suggested it be locked because their opinion was all the debate had become redundant. They must have gotten the attention of the moderator/owner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2010, 9:59 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| It's too bad because 163 posts to me seems like a relivent thread. Just start a new one then I guess |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Aug 11 2010, 10:02 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| It was locked by the Rooster haters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2010, 1:50 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Why is the Sweetwater discussion locked? because the queue is full or because someone stopped it? |
I don't know the real answer, but I can deduce that it was locked for 1 of 2 reasons. Either it was locked for "redundant" issues being posted if locked by the forum holder as per a poster's request -or- by pressure from someone with vested interested in the application.
Either way, the real issues are still not clearly understood by all parties. This is the value of the lawyers, so let's not bash them. They do serve a very good purpose in this case. They represent the rights of Cranbury residents to appropriate process and full consideration of zoning rights of those who purchases homes on Maplewood that are to date underrepresented. It's not just dissatisfaction or "whining" as some like to state. Whether finally realized within the realm of our township or eventually in a Supreme Court appeal, you will see a very different outcome of these site plans in the end. The objectors are not as dumb as some might believe and are not just wasting their money to prove a point- there is a logical, legal, and extensively investigated outcome expected here. Despite the traffic study performed, with its false assumptions about previous PNC traffic and that the study as done in the summer instead of the school year (which is like a mosquito study in Jan someone said J), the objectors position is rock solid. Belive me when I tell you that we wouldn’t make the investment otherwise. No one is getting sold by lawyers, just employing them as a key resource. Trust that these objectors wouldn’t make a bad investment. Stay tuned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2010, 7:02 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
“The people in Cranbury are disgusting. We should sell the property to a McDonalds and let them put in a drive-thru. That would serve them right.”
According to Nancy Witt’s lawyer, this is what she said after Sweetwater’s reception to meet the neighbors. There’s some good will for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2010, 7:08 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| who is her lawyer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2010, 7:27 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | “The people in Cranbury are disgusting. We should sell the property to a McDonalds and let them put in a drive-thru. That would serve them right.”
According to Nancy Witt’s lawyer, this is what she said after Sweetwater’s reception to meet the neighbors. There’s some good will for you. |
Let me get this straight are you saying the attorney told you this? Or somebody told you the attorney said this.
My guess is this is not even third had heresay. I think you made this up out of whole clothe. While you are trying to smear the client what you are claiming is much more damning of the attorney, who is not stupid enough to repeat this if it were said, which I don't believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2010, 8:21 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | “The people in Cranbury are disgusting. We should sell the property to a McDonalds and let them put in a drive-thru. That would serve them right.”
According to Nancy Witt’s lawyer, this is what she said after Sweetwater’s reception to meet the neighbors. There’s some good will for you. |
I call BS. Easy to make stuff up anonymously. I don't know the Witt's or the lawyer but it just doesn't sound like something a sane lawyer would do regarding a client since it could get them in serious trouble. Next time if you want to try and make something up, make it easier to believe... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2010, 8:27 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| Nancy Witt is right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 13 2010, 10:47 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| McDonald's doesn't want to buy the property any more than PNC wanted to own it anymore Why? Because, despite the BS traffic study assumptions posted today in the Cranbury Press of previous PNC traffic volume, there was no high traffic (besides school parking) at this site. If there was, PNC would still be there and the primary access would still be Main street and Maplewood would still be used as the access for parking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Aug 14 2010, 8:25 am EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | McDonald's doesn't want to buy the property any more than PNC wanted to own it anymore Why? Because, despite the BS traffic study assumptions posted today in the Cranbury Press of previous PNC traffic volume, there was no high traffic (besides school parking) at this site. If there was, PNC would still be there and the primary access would still be Main street and Maplewood would still be used as the access for parking. |
The bottom line is the PNC has never functioned at the business capacity they hoped for. If it had been successful, there would have been exponentially more traffic than what is contemplated, or realistic, for the Sweetwater office space and bike shop. Instead, everyone, from the Maplewood residents to the rest of the Township, got used to the lot's primary purpose being free parking and space for events like Cranbury Day. Now any change from that status quo, even if that was not the originally intended status quo or what was approved at the time, is upsetting people, from those that fought for us to buy it for the parking to the neighbors who don't want the traffic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Aug 14 2010, 12:27 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | McDonald's doesn't want to buy the property any more than PNC wanted to own it anymore Why? Because, despite the BS traffic study assumptions posted today in the Cranbury Press of previous PNC traffic volume, there was no high traffic (besides school parking) at this site. If there was, PNC would still be there and the primary access would still be Main street and Maplewood would still be used as the access for parking. |
The bottom line is the PNC has never functioned at the business capacity they hoped for. If it had been successful, there would have been exponentially more traffic than what is contemplated, or realistic, for the Sweetwater office space and bike shop. Instead, everyone, from the Maplewood residents to the rest of the Township, got used to the lot's primary purpose being free parking and space for events like Cranbury Day. Now any change from that status quo, even if that was not the originally intended status quo or what was approved at the time, is upsetting people, from those that fought for us to buy it for the parking to the neighbors who don't want the traffic. |
In the pre-PNC days when there were people constantly going in and out of it. Now, granted it was a while ago so people do get accustom to change for good or bad, but it was not always as quiet as it was toward the end. So you are right people got used to it or new residents moved in who never experienced it being busy.
What I don't understand is that regardless of width of the driveway, people will use whatever access and exit point is easier for them. So if they are going to the South side of town they will likely use the Main St. exit and entrance as it will prevent them from driving around the block. If they are going to the north side to 130 or the turnpike they will use Maplewood's driveway for the same reason.
The other question I have is it seems the whole basis for the challenge is that right now the wrong board is reviewing the application. So if the zoning board approves it will there then be a lawsuit against the town? Wouldn't that cost the opposing residents twice since they'd be suing themselves as tax payers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Aug 14 2010, 12:52 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| Part of the reason the maplewood residents are threatening a lawsuit is to put pressure on the board to vote down the project so that they do not have to defend a lawsuit brought against the town. The board would then have to explain spending taxpayer money. A very common legal ploy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cranbury Press article
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Aug 16 2010, 9:01 am EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
CRANBURY — Sweetwater Construction Corp.’s traffic impact study at the former PNC bank at 32 N. Main St. claims there would be a decrease in vehicular traffic during morning and evening rush hour peaks if the corporation’s proposal is approved.
It also said having the entrance to the site on North Main Street would lessen the traffic impact on Maplewood Avenue, whose residents vehemently object to the project.
The traffic impact study, which the township ordered Sweetwater to provide, was conducted by T&M Associates, of Middletown, New Jersey, and Techniquest Corp., of Monmouth Junction, on July 19 and 20.
www.centraljersey.com/articles/2010/08/16/cranbury_press/news/doc4c642e446fd59164685994.txt
Traffic is less, what is the problem? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Aug 16 2010, 10:19 am EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
| Many people disagree with the hypothetical basis of the study which was not based on actual traffic patterns during the PNC days, and was also conducted during the Summer when traffic is much lighter locally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
