Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing Â
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
â–ª
Cranbury School
â–ª
Cranbury Township
â–ª
Cranbury Library
â–ª
Cranbury.org
â–ª
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="Guest"]I really don't understand this A500: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A0500/500_S1.PDF " [b]No payments-in-lieu may be charged by a municipality in connection with non-residential construction, and no housing units may be required to be built as a result of any nonresidential construction or redevelopment. [/b]Those municipalities that have COAH’s authorization to collect residential development fees will be permitted to retain the non-residential development fees. Developers of non-residential properties in a municipality that does not have either COAH's or the court’s authorization to charge development fees will be required to send the non-residential development fees to the State Treasurer, to be used for affordable housing purposes under the "Fair Housing Act" and a program created under the bill to assist urban aid municipalities in creating units of affordable housing, in light of the bill's elimination of the regional contribution agreement from the Fair Housing Act." Does this mean that those municipalities are not required to build any affordable units for no-residential developments as long as they collect 2.5% fee and hand it to Trenton?[/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
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="100%" class="forumline"> <tr> <th class="thCornerL" width="22%" height="26">Author</th> <th class="thCornerR">Message</th> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Cranbury Conservative</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Mon, Jun 16 2008, 2:35 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Here is my letter to our State Representatives. Hopefully others will share their letters here as well... <br /> <br />To State Senator Bill Baroni <br />To State Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein <br />To State Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo <br /> <br />I am contacting you because I am deeply concerned with Assembly Speaker Roberts proposed affordable housing legislation A-500 and S-1783 and the negative impact it will have on the State of New Jersey. <br /> <br />Personally I support the need to provide affordable housing in New Jersey, however I also feel it is important to have smart growth and to utilize our resources where they are needed and where they make sense <br /> <br />It is also very important that the rules for affordable housing are fair to every municipality in New Jersey. <br /> <br />One of the key points of concern is in legislation A-500 and the abolishment of “Regional Contribution Agreements”, (RCA’s). <br /> <br />Regional contribution agreements have allowed for affordable housing dollars to be used where they are needed. There are many municipalities in New Jersey which have benefited from this valuable tool. The important point to make is that RCA’s are “Agreements”. Municipalities are not forced to take money from RCA’s, they however have taken the money so they can improve the conditions for the people in need in their communities. This tool has been a win, win for New Jersey and Assembly Speakers Robert’s plan to do away with them does not make sense. <br /> <br />In fact doing away with RCA’s directly contradicts another piece of this legislation which calls for Transit Villages. Transit villages make sense. It appears that through Transit Villages Assembly Speaker Roberts is of the belief we should be re-investing in our urban centers in New Jersey, cities such as Newark, Trenton, and Camden. Where there is existing transportation infrastructure and a readily available supply of low income housing which could use refurbishment as well as low cost real estate which could be purchased and have affordable housing built for those that need it. This approach would also allow for the protection of our already limited existing open space in New Jersey. <br /> <br />By supporting this legislation New Jersey State Government will be supporting suburban sprawl and will be working against sound urban planning by ignoring the fact that the majority of the new COAH obligations to be built will leave the people who occupy these new affordable homes far away from public transportation and force them to drive to work, the grocery store and for other day to day needs. With gas at $4.00 a gallon and rising this does not make financial sense for these people of modest means who will occupy these homes.Beyond the short term financial impact are we stopping to think of the long term environmental impact of destroying additional open space as well as potentially adding thousands of more automobiles to the roads of our already congested state? <br /> <br />I implore you to find a way to help save the State of New Jersey from this dangerous and destructive legislation and to consider at the very least amendments which will help keep RCA’s in place for all municipalities in New Jersey.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>wcody</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Sun, Jun 15 2008, 10:34 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style: italic">Letter sent to our legislators. </span> <br /> <br />To the Honorable State Senator Bill Baroni <br />To the Honorable State Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein <br />To the Honorable State Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo <br /> <br />I have deep concern regarding the upcoming A-500 and S-1783 affordable housing legislation for its potential negative impact on the State. I strongly support the need to provide affordable housing for New Jersey but it is important that the rules are fair to towns and not hurt the State. I am sure you are getting a lot of feedback on this legislation, I will share some thoughts on an important element of the bill. <br /> <br />The bill provides an affordable housing fund with a 2.5% fee on commercial development along with some general state funding. There is a new housing commission to administer that funding. The bill also prohibits towns from collecting funds on commercial development for affordable housing. By reading the bill, I have not been able to determine if that prohibition eliminates requirement for towns to build affordable housing based on commercial development, or, if it only means that towns cannot charge fees to commercial developers to help build affordable housing. If towns are no longer required to build affordable housing based on commercial development, this bill would make some sense. I would hope the new commission worked fairly and efficiently allocating raised funds for affordable housing. If the bill means towns cannot assess new commercial development fees to support affordable housing, but are still required to build affordable housing based on that commercial development, it would be a disastrous for many towns in the State and could cause a cascading chain of economic problems. Towns would have major demands to build affordable housing based on commercial development that would need to be paid for either entirely by taxpayers or by massive building using the builders remedy. Neither are good solutions. This will discourage some towns from accepting commercial development because of COAH expenses. Commercial developers will be reluctant to build in New Jersey because of the resistance from the towns and fees they are required to pay. <br /> <br />This legislation will cause issues in many towns in the State. For example, my town of Cranbury has consistently met its COAH obligations. The town has about 1,200 households currently and the revised round 3 COAH regulations require about 500 new affordable houses to be built primarily based on commercial development. When the commercial area is totally built out, another 500 houses could be required to be built. It is unreasonable to expect the taxpayers to fund housing and associated services to almost double the housing in Cranbury. The builders remedy would cause a 400% increase in housing in the town, completely destroying the small town. Many other towns have similar issues. <br /> <br />A good solution is to make amendments, if necessary, to ensure the bill does not require towns to build affordable housing based on new commercial development. Towns need to provide a fair amount of affordable housing as a percentage of total housing in the town, something in the range of 15-20% would be reasonable. The new housing commission would use the funding from the commercial development fees and determine where best to invest those funds for extra affordable housing required because of jobs created by that development. I am looking for your support to help amend that bill if necessary to make it fair. If the bill is not amended thusly, I would hope you to support your constituents and vigorously oppose this bill that would be seriously detrimental to many of the towns you represent. I would appreciate an understanding of your position on this legislation on your interpretation on the requirements for affordable housing based on commercial development. We all need to pull together to help save New Jersey. Thanks for your attention. <br /> <br />Win Cody <br />Cranbury, NJ</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Jun 13 2008, 1:20 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"><a href="http://www.mycentraljersey.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/NEWS/806120392" target="_blank">http://www.mycentraljersey.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/NEWS/806120392</a> <br /> <br />BRIDGEWATER —Township officials are fighting proposed Council on Affordable Housing regulations in the courtroom and in the Legislature, saying the requirements are too steep and taxpayers will have to pick up the tab. <br /> <br /> <br /> COAH's housing requirements state that New Jersey needs 115,000 new units by 2018. This is the third round of requirements issued by COAH, which uses a formula to calculate how many affordable housing units are needed based on the amount of vacant land and the rate of growth — measured by development and new jobs — within a municipality. <br /> <br />In Bridgewater's case, it would mean an additional 900 units by 2018, Mayor Patricia Flannery said. <br /> <br />"The land available in Bridgewater wouldn't permit the numbers with its current zoning," Flannery said. "They're forcing this density on us." <br /> <br />Under current regulations, Bridgewater has about 1,200 affordable housing credits — that's 300 more than are required, Township Administrator Jim Naples said. <br /> <br />On May 19, the Township Council authorized $10,000 in legal fees to join an 18-town coalition, led by Clinton Township Mayor Nick Corcodilos, fighting the proposed COAH rules, Naples said. The township has also spent $500 to join the League of Municipalities litigation fighting the proposed regulations. <br /> <br />Flannery testified May 22 against Assembly Bill 500, a similar measure that would revise affordable housing laws, in the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee. The committee passed the bill. <br /> <br />In May, a collection of 25 officials from Hunterdon, Somerset and Morris counties met in Peapack-Gladstone to determine how best to fight the COAH rules. The political leaders also agreed that filing a group lawsuit was likely their best bet at overturning — or at least delaying — the Council on Affordable Housing guidelines.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Cranbury Conservative</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Thu, Jun 12 2008, 10:20 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Below is a copy of the e-mail I Just sent to the TC and Township Administrator calling on them to get the word out to our fellow citizens via the Township web site and e-mail regarding the pending A-500 & S-1783 vote by the State Assembly. <br /> <br />I also sent a similar e-mail asking Kelly L to spread the word also via her COAH mailing list. <br /> <br />Bottom line lets try to get the word out and let our representatives in Trenton know we want action to be taken on our behalf! <br /> <br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br /> <br />Hello, <br /> <br />I was encouraged to see the Cranbury Township institute on its web site a COAH update as well as the associated e-mail which was sent out announcing this information as I had suggested at the Township Committee meeting this past Monday Night. <br /> <br />We now have an opportunity to further utilize these same tools to alert Cranbury Township Residents to what appears to be action which will be taken by the State Assembly as early as this Monday June 16, 2008 on A-500 & S-1783. <br /> <br />I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we get as many Cranbury residents to contact Bill Baroni, Wayne DeAngelo, and Linda Greestein and let each of them know our concern with this legislation. <br /> <br />Hopefully you will utilize the information I have provided below in some form to get the word out to our residents, and let them know we need to make our voices hear now before it is too late. <br /> <br />Thank You, <br /> <br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />The State Assembly is scheduled to vote on A-500, Monday, June 16. The State Senate will then vote on A-500 & S-1783 by June 30, 2008 (When the summer recess starts). <br /> <br />All of us here in Cranbury need to contact our district Legislatures and let them know our opposition to A-500 and & S-1783. <br /> <br />As background both of these pieces of legislation are aimed at overhauling COAH regulation in the state of New Jersey. The language in this legislation will be detrimental to the small and rural communities in New Jersey. One of the key points of A-500 is the elimination of RCAs. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />We need to let our representatives know how detrimental the loss of RCAs will be to small towns like Cranbury. <br /> <br />Below is the contact information for Cranbury's State Senator Bill Baroni and our State Assembly representatives Wayne DeAngelo and Linda Greenstein. <br /> <br /> <br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <br />State Senate: <br /> <br />Bill Baroni (R, Hamilton Township) <br /> <br />DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS: 3691A Nottingham Way Hamilton Square, NJ 08690 <br /> <br />PHONE NUMBER: (609) 631-9988 <br /> <br />e-mail available on his Legislative Web Page: <a href="http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=298" target="_blank">http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=298</a> <br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <br />State Assembly: <br /> <br />Wayne DeAngelo (D, Hamilton Township) <br /> <br />DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS: 2239 Whitehorse-Mercerville Rd.Suite E Hamilton, NJ 08619 <br /> <br />PHONE NUMBER: (609) 631-7501 <br />e-mail available on his Legislative Web Page: <a href="http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=279" target="_blank">http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=279</a> <br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <br />State Assembly: <br /> <br />Linda R. Greenstein (D, Plainsboro Township) <br /> <br />DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS: 7 Centre Dr.Suite 2 Monroe, NJ 08831-1565 <br /> <br />PHONE NUMBER: (609) 395-9911 <br /> <br />FAX NUMBER: (609) 395-9032 <br /> <br />e-mail available on her Legislative Web Page: <br /><a href="http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=190" target="_blank">http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=190</a></span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Thu, Jun 12 2008, 10:11 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">If we look at the main propents in the state legislature they include representatives from Paterson- Pou, Camden-Roberts, Elizabeth-Lesniak. Funny how these individuals are viewing their cities over the quaint towns like Cranbury. They have an isolated view of the state and also many parts of their districts are built out which means their obligations and issues will not face the same drastic impact as Cranbury.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>??</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Thu, Jun 12 2008, 8:38 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Guest wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION. <br />... <br />The other priority is for the Township’s official lobbyist-- the League of Municipalities, Township officials and citizens to interact with the legislators-- the Assembly and the Senate as various bills relating to COAH come before them. The most problematic bill at this point, A500 has been introduced by the Speaker of the Assembly, Joseph Roberts. This bill proposes to eliminate Regional Contribution Agreements know as “RCAs”. RCAs have been a key component of Cranbury Township’s compliance with the 1st and 2nd round of affordable housing. Through RCAs the Township has been able to provide almost half of Cranbury’s required affordable housing by sending a payment to urban centers, such as Carteret and Perth Amboy. Cranbury has planned to continue to use RCAs, in the current 3rd round of affordable housing, to help Cranbury meet whatever obligation is finally determined for Cranbury by COAH. <br /> <br />On June 5, several residents and the Township Administrator attended the Assembly Appropriations Committee meeting. Many lobbyists from fair housing advocates and ministries were present voicing support for A500 as amended by the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee. After 6 hours of waiting, those opposed to A-500 were called to testify. Three Cranbury residents and the Township Administrator spoke against the bill. They cited the good faith of the Township illustrated by the fact that Cranbury has been building affordable housing since the 1960’s through Cranbury Housing Associates. They emphasized the need for the RCAs, to enable Cranbury Township to continue to comply with COAH. They spoke about the need for funding with the payment in lieu. Some of the Assembly Appropriations Committee members, Addiego, Conaway, and Merkt, agreed that the comments had merit and perhaps, RCAs should be continued to an extent. Chairwoman Pou called for a vote noting that Cranbury’s problem was a COAH formula problem and not an A500 problem and the majority of the Assembly members voted for the bill. Assemblyman Doherty and Merkt voted against t it and Assemblywoman Addiego and one other member abstained. <br />...</td> </tr></table><span class="postbody"> <br /> <br />My understanding of reading this update from the township is that: <br /> <br />1) RCA is crucial for Cranbury to meet her COAH obligations. <br /> <br />2) The new formula is bad for Cranbury ("Chairwoman Pou called for a vote noting that Cranbury’s problem was a COAH formula problem and not an A500 problem..."). <br /> <br />If Cranbury cannot use RCA and cannot convince COAH to revise the new formula, then it's likely that Cranbury will drop out of COAH. <br /> <br />Is my assessment correct??</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Thu, Jun 12 2008, 8:23 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">CC, <br /> <br />The WSJ ran an article about NJ politicians and state funding. I am looking for the article now, but over 80% of the state funding to municipal governments went to Democratic governments in the state. Party politics. That is a huge amount and out of balance. <br /> <br />I used Hamilton as an example because I know that town first hand. However, the fact remains that whether through our not wanting to play the party card or the Dems not valuing our voting, we are not part of consideration with the Dems in the state. I see no reason why our TC should not play the party card with the Dems in the state. We had 2 Republican candidates walking in our parade. Perhaps highlight that to the Dems in the state and say hey your losing this town. On the state level a town like Cranbury is still a key voting and donor block.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Thu, Jun 12 2008, 7:45 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Cranbury Conservative wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">Hamilton Township is a Township in Mercer County, New Jersey, United States. As of the United States 2000 Census, the township had a total population of 87,109. <br /> <br />Cranbury Township is a Township in Middlesex County, New Jersey, United States. As of the United States 2000 Census, the township population was 3,227 <br /> <br />The amount of voters may have something to do with it.</td> </tr></table><span class="postbody"> <br /> <br />But one of our Assemblypeople, Wayne DeAngelo, is based in Hamilton. He needs to use that base to serve us.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Thu, Jun 12 2008, 7:36 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Cranbury Conservative wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">Hamilton Township is a Township in Mercer County, New Jersey, United States. As of the United States 2000 Census, the township had a total population of 87,109. <br /> <br />Cranbury Township is a Township in Middlesex County, New Jersey, United States. As of the United States 2000 Census, the township population was 3,227 <br /> <br />The amount of voters may have something to do with it.</td> </tr></table><span class="postbody"> <br /> <br />I agree. <br /> <br />Cranbury can make it up by donating more money to the politicians. In this case, money talks.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Cranbury Conservative</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Jun 11 2008, 11:10 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Hamilton Township is a Township in Mercer County, New Jersey, United States. As of the United States 2000 Census, the township had a total population of 87,109. <br /> <br />Cranbury Township is a Township in Middlesex County, New Jersey, United States. As of the United States 2000 Census, the township population was 3,227 <br /> <br />The amount of voters may have something to do with it.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Jun 11 2008, 10:39 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">I have relatives in Hamilton and in prior years they got everything they wanted or needed from the state because of a Democrat led Mayor and TC. Cranbury is a 4-1 Dem to Rep TC. I don't understand why this is not registering with the Dems in the state assembly and legislature. Certainly, it would seem to me that these individuals would want to court our town given the liberal leanings, just as Hamilton received favor. Perhaps Mayor Stout should arrange a one on one meeting with these individuals and explain what they have to lose if these bills pass. I am sure as a Mayor Mr. Stout has the clout to have these people honor a request for a meeting.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Jersey Dad</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Jun 11 2008, 9:47 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">I agree. It is time for the Dems to step up. They are either powerful party insiders manuevering behind the scenes to ensure a positive outcome for us, or not. We will know soon. <br /> <br />On a related note, some of what I have read (Tuesday Star-Ledger and NJ Leg Web Site) indicates that amendments have been added to the bill giving COAH authority to reduce a municipality's obligation based on economic impact and/or land preservation. If this is accurate, these amendments could help Cranbury argue for a reduced and more reasonable obligation. That said, I would prefer a stronger amendment in our favor so we don't have to depend on this strategy.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Jun 11 2008, 5:25 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Liberal, the letter is great. I am wondering if other towns such as WWP have the same concerns.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>cranbury liberal</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Jun 11 2008, 4:28 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">I said I would be blunt and I was. Below is what I sent to Assemblywoman Greenstein and with small vairations to Assemblyman DeAngelo. I softened it for Senator Baroni, who has consistently demonstrated opposition to these and similar bills and has earned more trust I believe. <br /> <br />I will leave it to others to apply the more friendly, respectful emails and letters. They have their place too. But from my POV my head is already on the chopping block and the axe is in the air, so this is not the time to be gently asking for a negotiation or kind consideration. This is the time to kick, scream and flail. The throw sand. To do whatever it takes... <br /> <br /> ************* <br /> <br />To the Honorable State Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein: <br /> <br />As a resident, taxpayer and voter of Cranbury Township, I am writing you to express the urgency of voting your fervent opposition to State Assembly Bill A-500. Given that the vote is scheduled for as soon as this coming Monday and that the very existence of our Township is at stake, I apologize for but will not waver from being harsh and blunt. Support of this bill is absolutely incompatible with representation of our Township or those of most if not all of our neighboring municipalities in your district. <br /> <br />While most issues are complex and there are usually good and bad sides affecting many people differently, this is not one of them. This bill is reckless, cynical and absolutely destructive toward any semblance of good government. It does not represent the interests of any citizens of New Jersey, only special interests. It will turn a win-win system of RCA’s that both the receiving and contributing municipalities willingly enter into and turn it into a lose-lose where neither community is positively served. Townships like Cranbury will face an absurd requirement to literally double (or worse) the number of homes in our small community while communities like Perth Amboy will lose a critical source of affordable housing contributions. It will obliterate decades of careful “smart growth” and a nationally recognized program of farmland preservation and replace it with more needless suburban sprawl that only benefits developers. And it will take a model community like Cranbury, which receives virtually no State-support but contributes substantial taxes to the State, which has an entirely locally financed blue ribbon school, which is already a textbook case for consolidating a vast majority of its local services with neighboring townships and is a poster child for land preservation, and force it into bankruptcy or merging with less successful townships in all of those areas. <br /> <br />How is that serving anyone, except private developers who will swoop in to convert those fields into high density tract housing? How is that accomplishing the State’s goal of property tax reduction to take a Township that already contributes more per-household in property taxes than any other Township in Middlesex County yet has the most effective property tax rate in the County and wiping it from the face of the Earth? Why? To serve the citizens of New Jersey? Hardly. Even those in need of affordable housing are not aided by this. They need houses where their jobs are, not here. You know full well that the formula on which the current affordable housing requirements are based is a joke completely divorced of reality. The State has the tax records at its disposal to know how many jobs are actually in our business district. Let’s not insult our intelligence. No, only private developers, frustrated by the sheer audacity of Townships to preserve land and limit sprawl, or those who are part of a “political machine” dependent on their patronage, are served by this bill in anything resembling its current form. You know it and I know it. So do virtually all the citizens of our Township. <br /> <br />I therefore repeat that supporting this bill in its current form is fundamentally incompatible with public representation of our Township in the State Assembly. Not only do I urge you to fervently oppose it in its current form, but I further suggest that it is your duty to your constituency that if it appears inevitable that it will pass to do everything within your power to try and secure amendments favorable to your district, amendments that would fundamentally alter the impact for Townships like Cranbury that have a noble history of fairly supporting affordable housing but obviously should not get slammed with a massive, retroactive additional requirement based entirely on fabricated facts. You should be able to state to us, emphatically, that you either voted no, and spoke on the floor in your opposition, or that you helped support a fundamental amendment in our favor. There is no room to say you voted for it “reluctantly” because it was the “least evil” alternative or “imperfect but necessary” etc. To be most blunt, if there was ever a time you needed to stand up and be clearly counted for one side or the other, with one side being what was right and what was in the interests of your constituency, and the other being that you were a part of Speaker Roberts “machine,” this is it. I say this as a registered Democrat who voted for you, repeatedly. Although I pledge this in full candor and with absolute intention to follow-through: I will never vote Democrat in a State election again if my two local Democratic Assembly representatives support this Bill. That would be like voting for the person who burned down my house. What I will do, though, is come to every event in Cranbury where people who voted in support of this bill appear to publicly call them out on their support of it and remind every voter present of the issue… I apologize for the implied threat, but this is not a time for subtlety. And frankly I have been disappointed in the past with the contrast between what I have heard in local meetings and what the voting record shows. If my alarm is mis-founded, if you have every intention of fervently opposing this bill, I apologize. <br /> <br />With all due respect,</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Jun 11 2008, 3:28 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">As a registered Democrat who has voted for these representatives, I think it is time to be blunt with them in our communication. <br /> <br />It frustrates me that Representative Greenstein comes to our meetings and parades and always talks the talk about caring about Cranbury and our issues, and has never once that I have seen really straight on admitted voting against our interests, yet her voting record shows she votes the party machine line when push comes to shove. This particular issue is so black and white for Cranbury, that I don't see how she can reconcile with a straight face that she fairly represented us, or any of her other township constituencies, if she votes in favor of it. For that matter, why has she not attempted to put forward amendments favorable to us since approval seems inevitable? <br /> <br />Representative DeAngelo is even worse. Since election he has never even attempted to attend a Cranbury event or even sent a representative in his place and he alone doesn’t even bother sending form letters back when we write or email him. He seems to be sending the blatant message that he doesn’t care about Cranbury at all and if he votes in favor of this he truly is demonstrating he believes he works for the Roberts machine and not the people of his district. <br /> <br />I plan to therefore in my letter make it clear, and follow-though, that I will not vote for either candidate ever again if they support this bill without further amendment specifically and substantially favorable to Cranbury. Further, I will make it a point in the future to call them publicly to task for their support. I will ask them questions at future meetings and their support of this bill. I will literally boo them at our parade or if they appear at Cranbury Day, etc. This is not a time for silly pleasantries. This is their put up for shut up moment. Either they truly represent us or they don’t. There is no sort-of here.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Cranbury Conservative</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Wed, Jun 11 2008, 3:02 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: JUNE 9 UPDATE ON CRANBURY TOWNSHIP’S COAH OBLIGATION</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">The State Assembly is scheduled to vote on A-500, Monday, June 16. The State Senate will then vote on A-500 & S-1783 by June 30, 2008 (When the summer recess starts). <br /> <br /> <br />All of here in Cranbury need to contact our district Legislatures and let them know our opposition to A-500 and & S-1783. <br /> <br /> <br />As background both of these pieces of legislation are aimed at overhauling COAH regulation in the state of New Jersey. The language in this legislation will be detrimental to the small and rural communities in New Jersey. <br /> <br />Below is the contact information for Cranbury's State Senator Bill Baroni and our State Assembly representatives Wayne DeAngelo and Linda Greenstein. <br /> <br /> <br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <br />State Senate: <br /> <br />Bill Baroni (R, Hamilton Township) <br /> <br />DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS: 3691A Nottingham Way Hamilton Square, NJ 08690 <br /> <br />PHONE NUMBER: (609) 631-9988 <br /> <br />e-mail available on his Legislative Web Page: <a href="http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=298" target="_blank">http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=298</a> <br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <br />State Assembly: <br /> <br />Wayne DeAngelo (D, Hamilton Township) <br /> <br />DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS: 2239 Whitehorse-Mercerville Rd.Suite E Hamilton, NJ 08619 <br /> <br />PHONE NUMBER: (609) 631-7501 <br />e-mail available on his Legislative Web Page: <a href="http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=279" target="_blank">http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=279</a> <br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <br />State Assembly: <br /> <br />Linda R. Greenstein (D, Plainsboro Township) <br /> <br />DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS: 7 Centre Dr.Suite 2 Monroe, NJ 08831-1565 <br /> <br />PHONE NUMBER: (609) 395-9911 <br /> <br />FAX NUMBER: (609) 395-9032 <br /> <br />e-mail available on her Legislative Web Page: <br /><a href="http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=190" target="_blank">http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/BIO.asp?Leg=190</a></span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> </table>
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in