Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
Jay T.
Posted: Mon, Jan 26 2009, 5:12 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 1/26/2009 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.
We should not be breaking ground on any development until we have a clear understanding on what the obligation will be simply from the fact we don't want to over build or under build.
However, land preservation as means to reduce future COAH obligations should be on the table and open for discussion. If a property that is large enough to trigger an obligation comes up then we should evaluate the costs of acquiring the property and then deed restricting it or leasing it for agricultural purposes.
That said, we cannot realistically acquire properties or spend money at every turn. We must evaluate them on a case by case basis and as Win stated when he was running we should look to a referendum if there is a large tax payer expense being evaluated.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Jan 26 2009, 4:31 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 1/26/2009 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.
Guest wrote:
There are bills pending approval, in fact a large number of them. However, nothing has been passed or approved that would lessen or delay Cranbury's obligation.
We should not forge ahead to build COAH homes since there are indeed bills pending. IF even one of them passes, it will definately change our requirments. Why are we in so much of a hurry? We over build in the last round in hopes that the state would appreciate it by giving us extra credit. It backfired ; we did not get any 3 round credit for building ahead of time. We spent money without any added benefit. Did COAH even accept our township plan?
Guest
Posted: Mon, Jan 26 2009, 2:31 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 1/26/2009 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.
Just a follow up to my post immediately above. As any development triggers a COAH obligation or potential obligation, I believe preserving farmland is an appropriate discussion. If we can preserve it then no building can occur. Now, in this particular instance, I am not sure if the property or easment is really developable land. However, I would have no issue exploring the cost of preserving large tracts of land, deed restricting it agriculture use and then selling or leasing it back out.
Naturally, I am all for rateables, but not under the present COAH regulations.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Jan 26 2009, 2:21 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 1/26/2009 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.
There are bills pending approval, in fact a large number of them. However, nothing has been passed or approved that would lessen or delay Cranbury's obligation.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Jan 26 2009, 1:59 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 1/26/2009 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.
Guest,
Can you clarify what you mean by "COAH is being delayed? I hadn't heard that and my understanding is Cranbury's plan calls for building more COAH housing later this year.
Guest
Posted: Sat, Jan 24 2009, 2:22 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 1/26/2009 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.
I actually agree - rather than delaying payments into the pension funds that will only increase what is due to a later date; We should be seriously thinking about pushing back our land preservation plans until 2010.
COAH is being delayed, so preservation can be delayed too. We need to be not only cutting the budget; but should be delaying projects that are not immediately needed.
Since the state will probably not have any money to give Cranbury in 2009; The TC should also be talking to the school board to help them find unique ways to stretch their current budget (rather than increasing it).
Just a Heads-up.
I'd have to tell you right now; If the school board asks for more money again (received an extra 1 million for each of the last 2 years running); I'd have to say - "No Way - Go Back and figure it out".
Guest
Posted: Sat, Jan 24 2009, 1:22 pm EST
Post subject: Re: The 1/26/2009 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.
Guest wrote:
The January 26, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.
http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_Agenda_012609.pdf
In these hard financial times we are still preserving farm land ?
I like land preserved myself but enough is enough. The cost is too great !
Guest
Posted: Sat, Jan 24 2009, 8:48 am EST
Post subject: The 1/26/2009 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.
The January 26, 2009 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.
http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_Agenda_012609.pdf