Queen of Scottsdale
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Oct 2 2016, 9:14 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

Where in the minutes or resolution does it mention plants, shrubs or sidewalk? The purpose of the citation was to shown this is not being done. You keep saying that, but the minutes show otherwise.

Plus past meeting minutes show the town would be doing a lot here. If you want further proof the TC had been considering a lot in downtown look at the meeting minutes about them acquiring the water tower property. They wanted to pay 100K and then build a parking lot. Seems this is a cheaper alternative to me and it's conditional unlike the water tower.

At what point ever did a business entering down town be forced to provide their own parking? If the TC has been looking to add parking for businesses to increase and retain business, then why not kill two birds with one stone and build the lot by the library on already owned land adjacent to an already existing lot.

Further, the resolution itself states that the library is responsible for all operations going forward form the resolution:

"The Township Committee understands that operation of any new library building is the obligation of the Library Board of Trustees, and that while the municipality must provide the annual municipal
appropriation required by law (N.J.S. 40:54-8 and N.J.A.C. 5:21-12), all other funds required for the operation of the Library are the obligation of the Board."

So right there you're proven wrong.

It is clear you're opposed and therefore looking to try and create issues. But, the facts of the resolution and meeting notes contradict your posts. So perhaps you should go to a TC meeting and raise your points because the facts show you're wrong.
Back to top
JJcool-0341
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, Oct 3 2016, 10:28 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

These self serving people keep hiding behind "the children." How selfish can you be tomuse our kids as pawns for your ill fated project. Then you hear that Cranbury will be really desirable and we will be able to sell our homes at a premium if they build a Taj Mahal library. Like Cranbury is not desireable now? Cranbury was just one of six schools in the state to receive a blue ribbon designation. It's not like we are going to achieve more with another taxpayer drain. Congratulations Cranbury school on a great accomplishment. It just proves you can do more on less. Now maybe these jokers with the library "for the children" can take a hint and be less self serving and open their eyes to see the bigger picture.
Back to top
anon-2q10
Guest





PostPosted: Tue, Oct 4 2016, 12:15 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Tax dollars aren't paying for hardly any of it. It's privately funded.

These posts are literally comical... "use your kids as pawns". You clearly have mental issues.

Please enlighten us as to what the "bigger picture". Is the bigger picture not having a library?

Keep something in mind folks. It's a done deal. It is happening. No debate about it. If you don't like, tough sh1t, you lose.

JJcool-0341 wrote:
These self serving people keep hiding behind "the children." How selfish can you be tomuse our kids as pawns for your ill fated project. Then you hear that Cranbury will be really desirable and we will be able to sell our homes at a premium if they build a Taj Mahal library. Like Cranbury is not desireable now? Cranbury was just one of six schools in the state to receive a blue ribbon designation. It's not like we are going to achieve more with another taxpayer drain. Congratulations Cranbury school on a great accomplishment. It just proves you can do more on less. Now maybe these jokers with the library "for the children" can take a hint and be less self serving and open their eyes to see the bigger picture.
Back to top
Hmmm-sp60
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Oct 5 2016, 10:41 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

Anon-pq10 is making me rethink my position. Perhaps a new library is indeed needed. That poster would benefit from an expanded section dedicated to books on civility. The same poster, in an earlier tirade, spilled the means with a comment about it being reasonable to have a future 'small tax' to cover costs if (when) private fund raising falls short.
Back to top
anon-6696
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Oct 5 2016, 10:48 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

Fascinating the direct lies on this forum. Very Trump-like to lie then claim the other people are lying and don't know what they are talking about.

It is a matter of fact that the $475K does include site prep and grading for the library building and all of the hardscaping, landscaping and the underground retaining basin. If you don't see it in the minute then the the minutes are incomplete. They are not a transcript of the entire meetings but a very brief summary done by a Township official. If you attended the last PB meeting you would have heard this discussed in detail. It absolutely does include all those library-specific items. Period. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying. No need to sugarcoat it.

It was also discussed, in detail, that the Township would be assuming the responsibility for maintaining all of those items in perpetuity outside of the library budget, and that the underground retaining basin in particular would be a larger, still unknown expense to maintain and that it would likely require them hiring outside experts to do so.

It was also suggested by the Library personnel, but left unresolved, that the Township should pick up the cost of the new design and engineering work to adjust the location of the library (i.e. municipal) parking lot, hard and landscaping and retaining basin as raised by the community members in the recent meeting.
Back to top
anon-989o
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Oct 5 2016, 1:12 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

Thw resolution is what binds the twp. This is what is votes on and the resolution is adopted. Legally it must be showm in full.

So the resolution was highlighted by the poster.

You keep claiming lies, etc... Show us your proof. Right now you have someone with no name making a claim without any facts provided.
Back to top
anon-6696
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Oct 5 2016, 5:13 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

anon-989o wrote:
Thw resolution is what binds the twp. This is what is votes on and the resolution is adopted. Legally it must be showm in full.

So the resolution was highlighted by the poster.

You keep claiming lies, etc... Show us your proof. Right now you have someone with no name making a claim without any facts provided.


The Township resolution doesn't contradict that at all. It is careful to refer to the "operation of the Library BUILDING." They did that specifically to carve out the operation of the physical structure from the new Township responsibility for the hardscaping, landscaping, parking and underground retaining basin.

Inclusive of the PB members, Board consultants and the public in attendance there were 60 people at the last PB meeting. Any one of them could attest to what was discussed on the public record which very clearly went into detail on what the $475K was covering and that it would be the Township's ongoing maintenance responsibility. It's a bit baffling that you would pretend otherwise. Between all those people, they probably directly communicate with the majority of families in town. What purpose is served in making up false claims when so many of them will be able to attest firsthand what was said by Glenn Johnson and others? It just makes your support seem more sketchy. Why not admit the truth then make the case for why it's appropriate? That seems more credible than feeling the need to hide the facts.
Back to top
anon-88r5
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Oct 5 2016, 7:41 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

anon-6696 wrote:
anon-989o wrote:
Thw resolution is what binds the twp. This is what is votes on and the resolution is adopted. Legally it must be showm in full.

So the resolution was highlighted by the poster.

You keep claiming lies, etc... Show us your proof. Right now you have someone with no name making a claim without any facts provided.


The Township resolution doesn't contradict that at all. It is careful to refer to the "operation of the Library BUILDING." They did that specifically to carve out the operation of the physical structure from the new Township responsibility for the hardscaping, landscaping, parking and underground retaining basin.

Inclusive of the PB members, Board consultants and the public in attendance there were 60 people at the last PB meeting. Any one of them could attest to what was discussed on the public record which very clearly went into detail on what the $475K was covering and that it would be the Township's ongoing maintenance responsibility. It's a bit baffling that you would pretend otherwise. Between all those people, they probably directly communicate with the majority of families in town. What purpose is served in making up false claims when so many of them will be able to attest firsthand what was said by Glenn Johnson and others? It just makes your support seem more sketchy. Why not admit the truth then make the case for why it's appropriate? That seems more credible than feeling the need to hide the facts.


Glenn speaking at a PB meeting is one of 5 people. He could state on the record at a PB meeting that Walt Disney wants to come in and build a new park in down town main street. That means nothing. That is why actions to spend money require a vote because one person cannot agree to something alone.

The PB cannot bind township to spend money. The actions or discussion at the PB cannot force the township to spend money. What is stated at a PB is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the resolution voted on by the township that stated UP TO $475K for parking.

Show us where there is in writing an agreement, not a comment, similar to the resolution approved by the TC that the township will maintain all exterior items and I'll gladly change my view and agree with you that they are doing more than a parking lot.

Even the resolution passed states that it has to be renewed each year. So even if you were right the TC still needs to re-approve the resolution each year the library was not built.

So get your friends together and when they go to approve this resolution again show up with people and oppose it.

Right now, all you have are comments you're saying and perhaps comments made at a PB meeting where not all TC members were present and certainly where the TC could take no action legally. With no evidence being provided to validate your accusations.

In fact, re-reading the TC notes it appears that only one person showed up to oppose the resolution voted on. Despite it being on the agenda. And the TC clearly praised that person for showing up.
Back to top
anon-24s9
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Oct 5 2016, 11:05 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

Yes. It would, in my opinion, be reasonable for each property's tax rate to be increased by a few hundred dollars per year for 2-3 years if it was needed. Apparently, it's not being considered as an option, but increasing each property tax bill by, say, $250 per year for 3 years to help pay for new library does not seem unreasonable to me.

quote="Hmmm-sp60"]Anon-pq10 is making me rethink my position. Perhaps a new library is indeed needed. That poster would benefit from an expanded section dedicated to books on civility. The same poster, in an earlier tirade, spilled the means with a comment about it being reasonable to have a future 'small tax' to cover costs if (when) private fund raising falls short.[/quote]
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, Oct 6 2016, 7:05 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

The problem is you can't increase each bill equally. Some would be charged 50.00 others 800.00. Further you have a lot of state required expenses with affordable housing (millions), lake dredging(millions), and road repairs (millions). So the library is going to be a very last priority and why the TC is likely against this idea.

A library is a nice to have while the others are essential must do items over the next 10 years. Also why rateables are key for the town.
Back to top
anon-po3q
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, Oct 6 2016, 9:56 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

I would say that the lake dredging is not a must have ....
Back to top
anon-4r7n
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, Oct 6 2016, 10:01 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

Have you seen the lake? In a few years you'll have nothing but a swamp and it is a key part of the town.
Back to top
anon-0o99
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, Oct 6 2016, 5:49 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

I think the lake looks good. It is not a must have right now....the dredging can be put on a list of things to be done as can be afforded.
Perhaps with more ratables coming online it can be sooner rather than later. Think the library has been on the list as well, and I don't think it is right that the lake project gets to jump right over the library project as if it is an emergency.
Back to top
anon-sp0n
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, Oct 6 2016, 6:19 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

anon-88r5 wrote:
anon-6696 wrote:
anon-989o wrote:
Thw resolution is what binds the twp. This is what is votes on and the resolution is adopted. Legally it must be showm in full.

So the resolution was highlighted by the poster.

You keep claiming lies, etc... Show us your proof. Right now you have someone with no name making a claim without any facts provided.


The Township resolution doesn't contradict that at all. It is careful to refer to the "operation of the Library BUILDING." They did that specifically to carve out the operation of the physical structure from the new Township responsibility for the hardscaping, landscaping, parking and underground retaining basin.

Inclusive of the PB members, Board consultants and the public in attendance there were 60 people at the last PB meeting. Any one of them could attest to what was discussed on the public record which very clearly went into detail on what the $475K was covering and that it would be the Township's ongoing maintenance responsibility. It's a bit baffling that you would pretend otherwise. Between all those people, they probably directly communicate with the majority of families in town. What purpose is served in making up false claims when so many of them will be able to attest firsthand what was said by Glenn Johnson and others? It just makes your support seem more sketchy. Why not admit the truth then make the case for why it's appropriate? That seems more credible than feeling the need to hide the facts.


Glenn speaking at a PB meeting is one of 5 people. He could state on the record at a PB meeting that Walt Disney wants to come in and build a new park in down town main street. That means nothing. That is why actions to spend money require a vote because one person cannot agree to something alone.

The PB cannot bind township to spend money. The actions or discussion at the PB cannot force the township to spend money. What is stated at a PB is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the resolution voted on by the township that stated UP TO $475K for parking.

Show us where there is in writing an agreement, not a comment, similar to the resolution approved by the TC that the township will maintain all exterior items and I'll gladly change my view and agree with you that they are doing more than a parking lot.

Even the resolution passed states that it has to be renewed each year. So even if you were right the TC still needs to re-approve the resolution each year the library was not built.

So get your friends together and when they go to approve this resolution again show up with people and oppose it.

Right now, all you have are comments you're saying and perhaps comments made at a PB meeting where not all TC members were present and certainly where the TC could take no action legally. With no evidence being provided to validate your accusations.

In fact, re-reading the TC notes it appears that only one person showed up to oppose the resolution voted on. Despite it being on the agenda. And the TC clearly praised that person for showing up.


Seriously? You are really going to try and deny this? In the PB meeting, Glenn made reference to the existence (present tense, not future) of a written contract between the Township Committee and the Library Foundation to provide up to $475,000 in funds toward the cost of site prep, grading, parking, retaining basin, hardscaping and landscaping. A second member of the TC was there sitting right next to him and didn't contradict that. Neither did the numerous members of the Library Foundation in attendance. This has nothing to do with the PB other than the fact that Glenn was answering the question of a PB member. It was not the PB that advised, recommend or passed anything regarding this $475,000 commitment, it was the Township Committee at an earlier time. I can understand your confusion, if it's sincere, since the meeting where they did this the agenda item was about a municipal parking lot, not the fact that they were also pledging money for all these other library-specific expenses. According to Glenn's comments in the PB meeting, the contract withholds payment until the TC is satisfied the Library has enough funds to complete construction of their building.

For your theory to be correct, Glenn is lying while acting in his official capacity during a public meeting and a conspiracy of at least one of TC member and numerous other Library officials are supporting that lie. I have no reason to believe that's true. It's apparently easy for people to lie here, but it's far different for an elected official to do so on the record during a public meeting. Nothing in the resolution contradicts anything Glenn said and the minutes are useless as a basis since they record perhaps 1% of what is actually said. Often a 15 minute discussion gets reduced to 1-2 sentences.
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, Oct 6 2016, 7:48 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

It's not a theory of someone can point to a resolution approved by the TC at a TC mtg.

People have asked you

- show a TC document on this.

- show why if it is such an issue why only one person showed up the night of the resolution being voted on when the TC even praised the opponent.

No matter how much you state there is no TC vote or minute shown by you. Just show your proof and all this goes away.
Back to top
anon-sp0n
Guest





PostPosted: Fri, Oct 7 2016, 10:38 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Queen of Scottsdale Reply with quote

anon-s6p5 wrote:
It's not a theory of someone can point to a resolution approved by the TC at a TC mtg.

People have asked you

- show a TC document on this.

- show why if it is such an issue why only one person showed up the night of the resolution being voted on when the TC even praised the opponent.

No matter how much you state there is no TC vote or minute shown by you. Just show your proof and all this goes away.


1) If the TC has not publicly released the contract and edited the minutes not to include the full details of the contract, how exactly do you suggest showing a document? There were 60 people the PB meeting who heard Glenn on the record. Because the PB meeting usually takes months to release its minutes, it will be a while whether we see how much detail they contain. But if you are really going to take the insincere position that if it's not int he minutes it didn't happen, do you then agree in advance that if it is later proven it did happen you agree it was wrong that it was previously withheld from a public document and you resent your previous statements? You keep going to this defense that it doesn't exist, so I just want to be clear when you are proven wrong that you don't try and backpedal.

2) Show me where there was a public announcement by the TC in advance of the meeting that said they would be discussing and voting on public funding of library-related construction and maintenance? If you can't, there's the answer to your question about why the attendance was so low. You can't have it both ways -- if the Township is going to intentionally under sell what they are talking about, you can't use low turn out as an excuse for justifying whatever they do. When they were talking about affordable housing they held a special meeting, sent out special emails, etc. In this case they didn't even make the full subject of discussion clear in their agenda. The library has appeared many times for informal updates too, and usually say there will be time for formal decisions later.

Just look at the PB meeting. There was an "informal discussion" on the Library on a previous agenda where in the end they formally recommended the location which at the subsequent meeting they said it was too late to change -- hardly "informal." (http://www.cranburytownship.org/pb_agendas/2016/PB_agenda040716.pdf) Almost no one came. They didn't notice any of the neighbors. Then they formally noticed the closest neighbors for the most recent meeting and 60 people showed up. And that was from just the small subset that were noticed. Think of what the turnout would have been if they have notified everyone in town. And over-and-over these neighbors commented on not being notified before only to have the Library and TC member suggest it was too late for them to be making any comments. Fortunately the PB adjourned without taking action, but only over the protests of one of the Library supporters and a TC member.

Again, it's all about transparency, or lack there of. You can't have informal discussions and an agenda item about municipal parking that actually results in an agreement to fund parts of the library project then say everyone had the chance to speak up. Either make the real, honorable effort to notify people and give them to chance to speak up or accept that it is being railroaded intentionally with as little opportunity for public comment as they can get away with. It's a choice. But doing one then claiming the other is unethical and slimy.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5