Author	Message
anon-rrnp	Posted: Mon, Feb 21 2022, 6:54 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder anon-1q6r wrote: anon-n245 wrote: anon-1q6r wrote: anon-r889 wrote: anon-1q6r wrote: Well if the police are there on a daily basis for trouble I would say that low income brings in the trash. Not everyone - but a majority over there. Just stating facts. You people love to FACT CHECK so have at it. Daily ... What's your source? Please post it here. If not maybe you just pulled it out of your a s s ? Just a fact. I guess the police are not a good source LOL Surely, with daily occurrences you can link synergy here that quotes the police chief or similar official stats online. Oh wait, we should take the troll's words that the police is there daily. Makes total sense. Did your education stop with kindergarten or did you graduate from the Facebook school of fact checking? you sound like a typical Cranbury biden supporter LOL .... Tell us more, please do. Humor is with your wealth of knowledge. Let's be entertained!
anon-1q6r	Posted: Mon, Feb 21 2022, 10:43 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder anon-n245 wrote: anon-1q6r wrote: anon-r889 wrote: anon-1q6r wrote: Well if the police are there on a daily basis for trouble I would say that low income brings in the trash. Not everyone - but a majority over there. Just stating facts. You people love to FACT CHECK so have at it. Daily ... What's your source? Please post it here. If not maybe you just pulled it out of your a s s ? Just a fact. I guess the police are not a good source LOL Surely, with daily occurrences you can link synergy here that quotes the police chief or similar official stats online. Oh wait, we should take the troll's words that the police is there daily. Makes total sense. Did your education stop with kindergarten or did you graduate from the Facebook school of fact checking? you sound like a typical Cranbury biden supporter LOL
Topside-5699	Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2022, 7:26 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder Now, Now ... Let's all be big boys and girls and learn to play nice.
anon-n245	Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2022, 3:06 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder anon-1q6r wrote: anon-r889 wrote: anon-1q6r wrote: Well if the police are there on a daily basis for trouble I would say that low income brings in the trash. Not everyone - but a majority over there. Just stating facts. You people love to FACT CHECK so have at it. Daily ... What's your source? Please post it here. If not maybe you just pulled it out of your a s s ? Just a fact. I guess the police are not a good source LOL Surely, with daily occurrences you can link synergy here that quotes the police chief or similar official stats online. Oh wait, we should take the troll's words that the police is there daily. Makes total sense. Did your education stop with kindergarten or did you graduate from the Facebook school of fact checking?
anon-n73o	Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2022, 3:02 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder anon-p3o1 wrote: Cranbury did the “somewhere else” “not in our backyard” BS for years. Using tax dollars to pay other towns to take our affordable housing. Then the state decided to get it right and mandated all towns need affordable housing. It’s funny. No one has any problem with their low cost property taxes (compared to neighboring towns) being subsidized by huge huge tax paying warehouses but god forbid a worker at the warehouse wants to live near by. This is an ignorant post. Cranbury Housing Associates was building and providing affordable housing in Cranbury for residents well before state mandates. Cranbury had a mix of affordable market rate housing as well that is until people started to buy the lower cost home and add massive additions or tear the home down all together.
anon-opr0	Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2022, 2:43 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder anon-p3o1 wrote: It’s funny. No one has any problem with their low cost property taxes (compared to neighboring towns) being subsidized by huge huge tax paying warehouses but god forbid a worker at the warehouse wants to live near by. Did you just show up on this site today for the first time? It's been filled with people upset about the warehouses, regardless of the tax benefits they bring or the problems with the alternatives.
anon-00q5	Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2022, 2:28 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder anon-p3o1 wrote: Cranbury did the “somewhere else” “not in our backyard” BS for years. Using tax dollars to pay other towns to take our affordable housing. Then the state decided to get it right and mandated all towns need affordable housing. It’s funny. No one has any problem with their low cost property taxes (compared to neighboring towns) being subsidized by huge huge tax paying warehouses but god forbid a worker at the warehouse wants to live near by. You opinion of "getting it right" and mine are obviously different. The woman in question was not working locally. If that's your argument, she should have been living in New Brunswick where she was marginally employed. She is not any kind of community contributor. She lives here because we are paying for her to live here. You think that is the right thing to do and I do not. Policies like New Jersey's subsidized housing policy are the reason many people leave New Jersey at their earliest convenience.
anon-p3o1	Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2022, 1:54 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder Cranbury did the “somewhere else” “not in our backyard” BS for years. Using tax dollars to pay other towns to take our affordable housing. Then the state decided to get it right and mandated all towns need affordable housing. It’s funny. No one has any problem with their low cost property taxes (compared to neighboring towns) being subsidized by huge huge tax paying warehouses but god forbid a worker at the warehouse wants to live near by.
anon-00q5	Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2022, 1:30 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder anon-pnsn wrote: anon-00q5 wrote: Sad story all the way around. She must be a very troubled person. It is terrible that she killed someone, allegedly intentionally. Imagine if that was someone you loved. It begs the question, why does the state insist we subsidize housing for troubled people within our family oriented community. Arguably, she would have been better off somewhere closer to the help she needed and we would all be better off not paying for a seriously troubled person to live next to a community playground. Low life comments! I guess you would want to judge and evict my next door neighbor with his mentally ill wife and his two criminal children hooked on drugs who owns a $750000 house. Most people living in affordable housing are just as law abiding as the rest of the population in Cranbury -- except theu experience a lot of hassle in their lives that better pay could solve I'm not surprised by your silly knee jerk reaction. Take a deep breadth. The facts are plain... this woman would have been better off somewhere else, and our community would have been better off if she were somewhere else. Instead, we subsidized her housing and she killed one of our neighbors. If your neighbors present a danger to the community, they would be better off somewhere else and we would be better off if they were somewhere else, regardless of their home value. Many people in Cranbury's affordable housing are trying to escape problems in other communities. Unfortunately, some of their problems follow them here.
anon-pnsn	Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2022, 11:54 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder anon-00q5 wrote: Sad story all the way around. She must be a very troubled person. It is terrible that she killed someone, allegedly intentionally. Imagine if that was someone you loved. It begs the question, why does the state insist we subsidize housing for troubled people within our family oriented community. Arguably, she would have been better off somewhere closer to the help she needed and we would all be better off not paying for a seriously troubled person to live next to a community playground. Low life comments! I guess you would want to judge and evict my next door neighbor with his mentally ill wife and his two criminal children hooked on drugs who owns a $750000 house. Most people living in affordable housing are just as law abiding as the rest of the population in Cranbury -- except theu experience a lot of hassle in their lives that better pay could solve
anon-00q5	Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2022, 11:44 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder Sad story all the way around. She must be a very troubled person. It is terrible that she killed someone, allegedly intentionally. Imagine if that was someone you loved. It begs the question, why does the state insist we subsidize housing for troubled people within our family oriented community. Arguably, she would have been better off somewhere closer to the help she needed and we would all be better off not paying for a seriously troubled person to live next to a community playground.
anon-1q6r	Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2022, 9:25 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder anon-r889 wrote: anon-1q6r wrote: Well if the police are there on a daily basis for trouble I would say that low income brings in the trash. Not everyone - but a majority over there. Just stating facts. You people love to FACT CHECK so have at it. Daily ... What's your source? Please post it here. If not maybe you just pulled it out of your a s s ? Just a fact. I guess the police are not a good source LOL
anon-r889	Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2022, 6:13 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder anon-1q6r wrote: Well if the police are there on a daily basis for trouble I would say that low income brings in the trash. Not everyone - but a majority over there. Just stating facts. You people love to FACT CHECK so have at it. Daily ... What's your source? Please post it here. If not maybe you just pulled it out of your a s s ? Just a fact.
anon-1q6r	Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2022, 12:53 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder Well if the police are there on a daily basis for trouble I would say that low income brings in the trash. Not everyone - but a majority over there. Just stating facts. You people love to FACT CHECK so have at it.
anon-p0q2	Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2022, 11:15 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder anon-opr0 wrote: anon-1q6r wrote: anon-n6o6 wrote: How horrible for all involved. Is it really a Cranbury person or a mailing address? So many times we see this and it is a mailing address and sloppy reporting to not confirm. It is the low income places on 130 in Cranbury. This is what we get when we want low income in our town. It will only get worse. Putting aside the bigoted aspersion that low income housing occupants are inherently trouble, your statement incorrectly implies that Cranbury had a choice. Like every township in NJ, Cranbury is legally obligated to provide a ratio of affordable, subsidized housing. Cranbury meets its legal obligations, nothing more. The Township has even been sued by developers on the basis of this obligation. If you want to take issue with low income housing, you need to be dealing with the State lawmakers and judges. Not only agree with the above, but we have no indication that this was someone who lived there or that they intended the outcome of the action.
anon-opr0	Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2022, 10:54 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury Murder anon-1q6r wrote: anon-n6o6 wrote: How horrible for all involved. Is it really a Cranbury person or a mailing address? So many times we see this and it is a mailing address and sloppy reporting to not confirm. It is the low income places on 130 in Cranbury. This is what we get when we want low income in our town. It will only get worse. Putting aside the bigoted aspersion that low income housing occupants are inherently trouble, your statement incorrectly implies that Cranbury had a choice. Like every township in NJ, Cranbury is legally obligated to provide a ratio of affordable, subsidized housing. Cranbury meets its legal obligations, nothing more. The Township has even been sued by developers on the basis of this obligation. If you want to take issue with low income housing, you need to be dealing with the State lawmakers and judges.