Warehouses
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anon-p3o1
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Feb 6 2022, 9:54 am EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

Perhaps people think the silly historic houses are the ugliness of the town. The nerve of some that think the council has any right to just haphazardly say they want one thing or the other. Warehouses were here before some your low property taxed mansions.
Back to top
anon-p0q2
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Feb 6 2022, 11:13 am EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

The issue is past TCs tried to strike a balance. They preserved the Kurek and the Stults farms on the other side of 130. The current TC hasn’t preserved any land and 4 of them are now in years 3-5, said they would do better to mitigate the sprawl and has done even less.

They were elected based on a promise and haven’t done anything except focus on bike paths that will actually pave over more farmland.
Back to top
anon-8457
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Feb 6 2022, 11:18 am EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

Does anyone have links or documents about the proposed warehouses? Can’t see anything from the planning board or zoning about applications or approvals for a new warehouse near the hamlet. Only thing you can see is that the majority of the area around the hamlet is zoned as light industrial, and that’s nothing new. Would definitely be beneficial to see what’s being proposed and where.
Back to top
anon-p3o1
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Feb 6 2022, 1:33 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

Preserving land costs $$$$$$ and usually the county helps out as well. Buttttt the land owners must be willing to settle for a lot less then a what the property is actually worth. So, show me in this day and age what rational person would really settle for a lot less simply to help out a township and the entitled residents, that all of a sudden decide that warehouses aren’t for them. How much money do you think the town has?
Back to top
anon-opr0
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Feb 6 2022, 6:26 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

anon-n33p wrote:
There is another post today on the Hamlet. Granted the person moved there well after all the building started. But the point remains it is a wonderful remaining open space and the TC seems to be just ignoring their pledge to stop the warehouse sprawl. Only one TC member has responded to these posts with we need more signs. So the solution to the ugliness of the warehouses is to litter the area with signage?


Can you be specific on exactly what the TV is supposed to do to prevent it? They don't have the legal ability to simply deny a land owner the right to build on the property. They cannot legally change zoning selectively for certain properties (it's called spot zoning and would cost the Township millions in damages). They could start a long process to change zoning for an entire area but even then landowners could sue arguing they acquired the land on the basis of the previous zoning.

If you want a great example of what happens in NJ when a Township responds to angry voters by trying to make a show of preventing development look at the massive collective of homes all along what used to be the fields at Bear Brook in West Windsor. The township tried to block it for years and spend millions in legal fees only to lose outright. In the process they got none of the concessions they otherwise would have from the developer and ended up with even more homes, less affordable housing and all the responsibility for the massive increase in public utility and street work and are spending massively to double the size of their schools.

I'm not sure where people get the misinformed notion a township can just say no to development. Even when things go before the Planning Board the Board can't really prevent the development. Even with the variances the developers ask for if the Board denies them in most cases as the standard is all the developer has to do is demonstrate a reason they needed them. If the Board says no, the developer sues and usually wins. Witness what happened when the Board tried to prevent the development of the warehouses where Amazon is now. The developer sued and the Township has to settle and let it move forward. Same thing happened with the Toll Brothers community yet to go up at Dey and Petty. Township have almost no legal ability to prevent development. Trying to do so usually cost taxpayers millions in wasted legal fees.

Which leaves exactly one remedy. Buy the land and preserve it. Which also cost millions. Tens of millions, possibly more depending how much of the developer land you want to block.

So is that what you are suggesting? If not, be specific. Stop with the generic platitudes about stopping development. They are silly and ignorant. Even propose a legal plan or move on.
Back to top
anon-n8s0
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Feb 6 2022, 7:01 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

The points you make are fair.

That is what Glenn, Dave, Dan and Jay all said and tried to explain many times over. As Mayors Glenn first then Jay tried to buy the land in question. The developer told them no it wasn’t a good deal for them. Those on the TC today argued Jay, Glenn and Dan were the problem to the warehouses and they would be the solution. So how can you blame voters for wanting the solution promised to them, instead of just being ignored?

The TC in the past preserved many farms. But nothing in the last five years. Why is that?
Back to top
anon-ron0
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Feb 9 2022, 8:08 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

Because Glenn repeatedly said that there is only one or two parcels left.

Protinick was a deal based on keeping taxes low. Could have been preserved.

Penske truck deal was good for Art since he had his buddies on the TC and in charge of the planning board when that passed. Environmental impact could have been lessened; plenty of discussion and protest back then.
Back to top
anon-opr0
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Feb 9 2022, 8:20 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

anon-n8s0 wrote:


The TC in the past preserved many farms. But nothing in the last five years. Why is that?


They preserved farm land years ago in the part of town zoned as agricultural when land was cheaper. Buying land already owned by developers in the industrial zone would cost exponentially more. It would make all the previous expenditures in the town seem trivial.
Back to top
anon-p0q2
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Feb 9 2022, 11:27 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

There is still land in the agricultural zone not preserved. The county has a roster of land they feel is valuable in town. So yes, a warehouse developer would likely be too high. But the other farms may not. For example, the land in Cranbury Neck Rd where the fence used to be is not preserved, but could be.
Back to top
anon-p0q2
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, Feb 10 2022, 6:28 am EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

anon-ron0 wrote:
Because Glenn repeatedly said that there is only one or two parcels left.

Protinick was a deal based on keeping taxes low. Could have been preserved.

Penske truck deal was good for Art since he had his buddies on the TC and in charge of the planning board when that passed. Environmental impact could have been lessened; plenty of discussion and protest back then.


Protinick had nothing to do with taxes. It was a court ordered settlement. It was well documented that the town had an agreement and the land owner and Toll took Cranbury to court. The developer could offer more money and the owner took the higher payment.
Back to top
anon-n5qs
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, Feb 10 2022, 12:37 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

anon-p0q2 wrote:
anon-ron0 wrote:
Because Glenn repeatedly said that there is only one or two parcels left.

Protinick was a deal based on keeping taxes low. Could have been preserved.

Penske truck deal was good for Art since he had his buddies on the TC and in charge of the planning board when that passed. Environmental impact could have been lessened; plenty of discussion and protest back then.


Protinick had nothing to do with taxes. It was a court ordered settlement. It was well documented that the town had an agreement and the land owner and Toll took Cranbury to court. The developer could offer more money and the owner took the higher payment.


The town had money to offer more but they decided not to. Why? If yes, to keep taxes down and coughers filled.
Back to top
anon-p0q2
Guest





PostPosted: Thu, Feb 10 2022, 3:02 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

anon-n5qs wrote:
anon-p0q2 wrote:
anon-ron0 wrote:
Because Glenn repeatedly said that there is only one or two parcels left.

Protinick was a deal based on keeping taxes low. Could have been preserved.

Penske truck deal was good for Art since he had his buddies on the TC and in charge of the planning board when that passed. Environmental impact could have been lessened; plenty of discussion and protest back then.


Protinick had nothing to do with taxes. It was a court ordered settlement. It was well documented that the town had an agreement and the land owner and Toll took Cranbury to court. The developer could offer more money and the owner took the higher payment.


The town had money to offer more but they decided not to. Why? If yes, to keep taxes down and coughers filled.


Again all the misinformation. It was all in the Press at the time. The town couldn’t offer more. They already had done appraisals and had a contract before the family to sign. The family got more money from Toll and had to sue the town to proceed with Toll. The court ordered the town to settle.

Once you have all the appraisals done that is all the town can offer especially as the county was also contributing funds. A developer can pay whatever they want to pay.
Back to top
Real estate-s02s
Guest





PostPosted: Fri, Feb 11 2022, 7:56 am EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

By law the town can't offer more than the assessed value. A developer can offer as much as they want. The towns hands were tied.
Back to top
anon-p6q7
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Feb 13 2022, 5:42 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

With that the township will never be able to buy any land a developer is interested in.
Back to top
anon-r24s
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Feb 13 2022, 6:04 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

That is true. That is why the town has to be proactive and go after land before the developer. They tried with Protinick and almost did it. They have done it with many other farms on both sides of 130. But you can’t just sit around you have to reach out and have discussions.
Back to top
anon-roq2
Guest





PostPosted: Mon, Feb 14 2022, 7:25 am EST    Post subject: Re: Warehouses Reply with quote

anon-r24s wrote:
That is true. That is why the town has to be proactive and go after land before the developer. They tried with Protinick and almost did it. They have done it with many other farms on both sides of 130. But you can’t just sit around you have to reach out and have discussions.


Why didn't Jay make a push for land purchase his last term given he had the most experience on the TC?
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  Next
Page 2 of 3