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
[quote="guestzone"][quote="Process"][quote="Boss Hogg"]If you think it's bad now just wait until the new warehouses on Brickyard open up. An additional 300 trucks per day, good job t.c. once again you failed us.[/quote] How us this the TC's fault? The PB adopted a master plan years ago that zoned this as warehouse area. To date no one developed it. The developer has a legal right to build there. Further developers don't come to the TC for approval they go to the planning board. If you want to complain then at least understand the process.[/quote] Technically the former TC at the time needed to approve the specific ordinances that enacted Planning Board's revised master plan making the Planning Board more of the recommending body and not the final say. Just saying, since you note the process needs to be understood. That said, all of this was done mostly by people not even serving Cranbury anymore. The entire TC now has been in office less than 3 years, far less than the time since this decision. There are a few people left on Planning and Zoning from those days but not the majority. And as others have noted, it's not like the Planning or Zoning Boards or TC can just outright prevent development. Landowners have a legal right to use or develop their properties or sell to others who will. Short of spending a lot more taxpayer money to acquire all these properties and convert them to protected farmland, which would have cost taxpayers a fortune, you had to make a choice. Did you want thousands of homes or a commercial district? That commercial district pays almost half our taxes and used to pay a majority. But it hasn’t added any burden on our school, which would have required us to board new schools and probably would have made our ongoing relationship with Princeton impossible. It would be nice if a Township could just declare that most of the privately owned land in its boundaries couldn’t be developed but it doesn’t work that way. Besides, even if Cranbury had spent hundreds-of-millions preserving the land or allowed thousands of homes, it wouldn’t have prevented Monroe, South Brunswick and East Windsor from allowing commercial development which would have still resulted in thousands of trucks using Route 130, which is not in the Township’s control. So we would have still faced most of the burden with little tax benefit to show for it. Due to the proximity to Exit 8A, commercial use was the inevitable and best use for the land. Now perhaps you can criticize these previous Boards and Committee’s for not trying to do more to extract money from the developers that could have been used to fund traffic improvements, but it’s unclear what would have been viable. I’m certainly not inclined to second guess these volunteers.[/quote]
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
Guest64-8694
Posted: Sun, Oct 14 2012, 1:35 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
If those who bought houses next to the highway, knowing Rt. 130 was there, want a wall, they can pay for it. It might be possible to do this through assessments. There is no reason why our taxes should go up to build a wall. The same would hold true for any SHadow Oaks resident who wanted to hook up to sewer (if it ever became available); they would have to pay approximately $15,000 per household hopefully through assessments. They would not charge the expense to taxes.
As to fixing the spillway, it is not to benefit those on the lake but rather those who wish to get in and out of town. If it is not fixed, the road could collapse.
anon-8101
Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2012, 1:22 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
What is the process for having a wall built. Any help is appreciated.
Consider-it
Posted: Fri, Jan 6 2012, 8:00 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
guestsquared wrote:
perspective wrote:
About 25% of Cranbury residences are within 3 or 4 houses of the highway. From these houses, the highway is loud and clear. The value of these residences would increase if the highway were noise were to be minimized.
If a wall costs $1 million per mile, Cranbury would need to pony up about $2.5 million to build a wall, assuming no help from the county or state, other than permission to build in the right of way. That amount to about $1,000per household, or less than $100 per year for 20 years. Seems like an idea worth considering.
I don't live anywhere near Route 130. When I picked my house I didn't want to be near a highway which limited my options and forced me to live where I miss the benefits of walking to Main Street or having my kids able to walk to school. I also don't get the benefit of gas service, water service, sewer service or sidewalks, all of which would be nice. If you would like me to contribute to your wall to block out the highway that's been there for decades, I would like you and the rest of the Township to get those sidewalks and utility services to my street. I'll take responsibility for getting them from the street into my house. Fair? Otherwise why should I pay for your wall?
Undoubtedly, you enjoy some benefits that I pay for and vice versa. We also both pay for things that neither of us benefit from and we pay less for the services we do use than we would otherwise pay if we paid for them ourselves. Thus is the nature of taxes.
For example, I don't derive much benefit from the lake, yet I am not protesting spending millions of dollars to replace the dam. I consider it part of the common good.
The same is true of the library. Whether you agree with them or not, I believe there are enough interested people that it is a worthwhile topic. If the town votes to pay for it, then I will pay my share.
I think the wall is worthy of consideration because it will directly benefit a substantial number of Cranbury residents and have indirect benefits for the town at large.
Some of your ideas may also meet these same criteria. For example, the idea of having safe pedestrian paths throughout Cranbury is probably worthwhile of consideration, even though it may directly benefit a minority of residents.
Perhaps your pedestrian path idea and the wall idea will become part of a compromise plan to improve the residential infrastructure of Cranbury?
Flawd Logic
Posted: Fri, Jan 6 2012, 7:46 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
Problem wrote:
The problem with that logic though is that cost is in isolation. That argument is the same as the library.
So we build a wall and then the library crowd comes in and says it is only 2.5 mill or 100 per year for 20 yrs. Then you are at 200 a year excluding maintenance.
Then those by the turnpike come in and say it is only 100 per year. And now we're at 300 to make all the improvements. The list goes on and on so finally we're in major debt by making "small" purchases.
Your logic would be correct if all projects that were considered and proposed were automatically approved. However, that is not the case. Ultimately, if there is not enough support for a project it does not get approved.
Problem
Posted: Fri, Jan 6 2012, 4:59 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
The problem with that logic though is that cost is in isolation. That argument is the same as the library.
So we build a wall and then the library crowd comes in and says it is only 2.5 mill or 100 per year for 20 yrs. Then you are at 200 a year excluding maintenance.
Then those by the turnpike come in and say it is only 100 per year. And now we're at 300 to make all the improvements. The list goes on and on so finally we're in major debt by making "small" purchases.
a great great wall
Posted: Fri, Jan 6 2012, 4:56 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
So let's organize - a great great wall for Cranbury...
I think some of our TC members have the highway as a neighbor
guestsquared
Posted: Fri, Jan 6 2012, 4:04 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
perspective wrote:
About 25% of Cranbury residences are within 3 or 4 houses of the highway. From these houses, the highway is loud and clear. The value of these residences would increase if the highway were noise were to be minimized.
If a wall costs $1 million per mile, Cranbury would need to pony up about $2.5 million to build a wall, assuming no help from the county or state, other than permission to build in the right of way. That amount to about $1,000per household, or less than $100 per year for 20 years. Seems like an idea worth considering.
I don't live anywhere near Route 130. When I picked my house I didn't want to be near a highway which limited my options and forced me to live where I miss the benefits of walking to Main Street or having my kids able to walk to school. I also don't get the benefit of gas service, water service, sewer service or sidewalks, all of which would be nice. If you would like me to contribute to your wall to block out the highway that's been there for decades, I would like you and the rest of the Township to get those sidewalks and utility services to my street. I'll take responsibility for getting them from the street into my house. Fair? Otherwise why should I pay for your wall?
perspective
Posted: Fri, Jan 6 2012, 3:57 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
About 25% of Cranbury residences are within 3 or 4 houses of the highway. From these houses, the highway is loud and clear. The value of these residences would increase if the highway were noise were to be minimized.
If a wall costs $1 million per mile, Cranbury would need to pony up about $2.5 million to build a wall, assuming no help from the county or state, other than permission to build in the right of way. That amount to about $1,000per household, or less than $100 per year for 20 years. Seems like an idea worth considering.
Lesser of two evils
Posted: Fri, Jan 6 2012, 3:43 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
UGLY wrote:
This will never get approved. If it did, can you imagine how horrible a huge wall will look on 130 and in people's backyards. UGLY
You're right. I'm sure people prefer the sight of trucks whizzing by and the highway sounds a lot like the ocean if you use your imagination!
visiting
Posted: Fri, Jan 6 2012, 3:40 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
I think we should just build a bio-dome over Cranbury so we can shut out the rest of the world and live the way that the Town Founders did.
UGLY
Posted: Fri, Jan 6 2012, 1:06 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
This will never get approved. If it did, can you imagine how horrible a huge wall will look on 130 and in people's backyards. UGLY
guestguest
Posted: Thu, Jan 5 2012, 8:47 am EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
Why Wait? wrote:
Good luck wrote:
The town gets minimal support and aid now from the county and state. The turnpike widening is going into people's back yards and we can't get a wall for them. So there is no way the state or county will pay for a wall and the town has too many expenses as is with the town losing money from tax appeals. This is not a good time.
True. But a project like this would take many years to come to fruition. If this is something we want, we should start working on it now.
Why not follow the library's example if it means so much to you? They realized that they did not have the support of the super majority of the TC or enough residents to get it funded by Cranbury and so are trying to raise the money from private donations. Put together an interest group of residents who live near enough to 130 to be bothered by the noise who support your wall idea. If it really is a majority of residents in town, you'll be able to drive the Township to act. If it is a minority, collectively fund it yourselves, just as residents in other parts of town have to fund their own projects like bringing sewer lines into their neighborhoods, etc. If you don't have the support of the majority of the Township voters, it shouldn't be paid for by public tax funds unless you want to start paying for all the sewers and sidewalks and other projects that would benefit a minority of Township taxpayers as well.
Why Wait?
Posted: Wed, Jan 4 2012, 9:48 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
Good luck wrote:
The town gets minimal support and aid now from the county and state. The turnpike widening is going into people's back yards and we can't get a wall for them. So there is no way the state or county will pay for a wall and the town has too many expenses as is with the town losing money from tax appeals. This is not a good time.
True. But a project like this would take many years to come to fruition. If this is something we want, we should start working on it now.
Point
Posted: Wed, Jan 4 2012, 7:34 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
Library wrote:
Nike wrote:
Bridge wrote:
I think we need the liberty way bridge to help with the increase in warehouse traffic before we build a wall or library
I think we need to do something to address the increasing noise, light and air pollution caused by traffic along Rt. 130. For many residents, I suspects this issue is one of Cranbury's leading quality of life concerns.
A $5 million wall is less than a $12 million bridge and would have a greater positive impact on noise light and air pollution. However, either would help.
A library would be far less than the $5 million for a wall or $12 million for a bridge.
And if we stopped funding the library we could easily afford a wall or a bridge... But that is not the point.
Good luck
Posted: Wed, Jan 4 2012, 3:26 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
The town gets minimal support and aid now from the county and state. The turnpike widening is going into people's back yards and we can't get a wall for them. So there is no way the state or county will pay for a wall and the town has too many expenses as is with the town losing money from tax appeals. This is not a good time.
build a great wall
Posted: Wed, Jan 4 2012, 2:41 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Patch.com - Route 130 South in Cranbury to be Resurfaced
Then how do we get whoever owns the right of way (state/county) to begin looking into building a wall. Forget about a bridge - we already keep traffic out of our town through traffic restrictions.
When much of the housing was built along 130, there was not even an exit at 8A. 15 years ago the traffic was minimal - as was the noise. Traffic and traffic patterns and types have changed. 130 is no longer a minor road