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="anon-51o9"]The big deal is there is a zoning ordinance and to build a berm it requires importing soil which could be contaminated. I got a great berm sorry I poisoned my neighbor's yard. The issue is that there was a process. All the resident had to do was file a variance show the soil certification. People file variances all the time. They got cited and instead went to a petition, then asked the PB chair who spent tax payer money and wanted the TC to circumvent the zoning board and process. Plus there was legal action occurring at the time. As Mr Taylor said there is a subcommittee to consider whether there should be a change to current ordinances. The PB chair sits on this. Why spend money? Why didn't the chair just take it to the subcommittee? Why is the town up to no good? Maybe the farmer saw more money and decided he'd rather have the additional money. Don't fault him personally. But land preservation takes time so the TC had gotten them funding. Now after a preservation deal is in place the farmer uses it to get money from a developer and leave the town with an increased housing obligation and 175 homes. Plus considering how the land preservation in Cranbury depends on others it may harm future preservation efforts. As a resident I don't fault the business decision, but I can be annoyed that the town was harmed and my taxes impacted. They win, I lose scenario. We had a person in town Gordie Stults donate land to preservation solely for a tax benefit and took no additional money from the town years ago.[/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
anon-pp98
Posted: Fri, Jan 27 2017, 10:08 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
We would prefer the town spend the money to be used for affordable housing instead for our new library. When our new library is built you will be able to come in and read about how cranbury was a great town before money was spent on a new library instead of affordable housing.
Tax deductible donations by check should be made payable to Cranbury Public Library Foundation and can be dropped off at the library or sent to:
Cranbury Public Library Foundation
23 N Main St
Cranbury, NJ 08512
anon-88r5
Posted: Wed, Jan 25 2017, 11:19 am EST
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
LOL. I love how the NY Times pushes for this with no consideration for the impact. The same paper like NJ.Com that then complains about property taxes.
If you force millions of expenses on a town then how in the world can you manage taxes? The state courts create this obligation, but no way to fund it. Even with saying let builders come in and build as part of market housing you end up with increased infrastructure costs, schooling costs, services, etc...all which increases taxes and sprawl.
This whole COAH issue is really a unique issue in NJ. In speaking with people in other states they can't believe we have this housing mandate.
anon-425o
Posted: Tue, Jan 24 2017, 10:38 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opinion/new-jersey-towns-efforts-to-shirk-housing-obligations.html?ref=opinion[url][/url]
anon-nrq6
Posted: Thu, Oct 27 2016, 1:04 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
anybody know why the construction has stopped
anon-488q
Posted: Wed, Oct 19 2016, 1:56 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
The construction on the moderate income project at the end of Ryan Road has come to a halt for almost a month. Is there a legal reason why it stopped?
anon-s477
Posted: Thu, Sep 15 2016, 11:31 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
It is a mess. We are already dealing with neighbors who have no consideration for others as evidenced by the way they keep there properties, park their vehicles, etc.. is sad it never used to be this way and it doesn't seem like anyone really cares
anon-0592
Posted: Thu, Sep 15 2016, 9:38 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
Wow, what a mess on Ryan rd. I really feel bad for the people who live in the cul-de-sac. What a shame.
anon-8517
Posted: Sun, Aug 28 2016, 9:10 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
anon-s6p5 wrote:
People put their name on a list and choose the area and town in which they are looking. There is a long waiting list and thus people seeking Cranbury for affordable housing are waiting for the opening. Where as low rent apartments people simply find them and rent. There is a difference in attitude with CHA rented units vs low rent apartments. CHA has a track record since the 60's of managing units.
Cranbury has been blessed with many wonderful neighbors who have come to town through affordable housing. Perhaps, as you suggest, this is because the nice town attracts good people and the waiting list discourages potentially bad apples. That said, there is very little CHA can legally do to restrict rentals to potentially bad neighbors. To suggest CHA has some magic formula or secret sauce is fooling yourself into a false sense of security. As the supply of low-rent apartments increases in Cranbury (5x in the next few years), the waiting list will come down and the odds of having the same problems as East Windsor will significantly increase. Don't be surprised.
anon-s6p5
Posted: Fri, Aug 26 2016, 9:41 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
People put their name on a list and choose the area and town in which they are looking. There is a long waiting list and thus people seeking Cranbury for affordable housing are waiting for the opening. Where as low rent apartments people simply find them and rent. There is a difference in attitude with CHA rented units vs low rent apartments. CHA has a track record since the 60's of managing units.
As was already stated there is existing precident in Cranbury for homes adjacent to affordable housing. In fact Silvers is still selling very high despite 130D. Cranbury Greene, Four Seasons and Maplewood all sell well.
Ryan Rd has 130 which is a much bigger issue and becoming even worse unfortunately. However, because of the price range these homes are still very attractive to home buyers. But for someone looking to spend north of 650k likely this will not be the development they choose.
Further, I was not comparing septic systems to affordable housing. I was saying that for buyers there will always be a difference of opinion as to the home and whether they have interest. People can look at the same home and love it or hate it.
Another example, one of the most popular homes came on the market last fall the George Washington home. I heard there were multiple offers in the first two days on the market. But I also know people who walked through and said while they would have liked to live there it needed a new kitchen and baths which they were not in the mood to do and the yard was too big
There will always be people who love a home and those who for whatever reason do not.
There was a home on Ryan Rd that went for sale and I heard sold the same day recently.
anon-238r
Posted: Fri, Aug 26 2016, 5:49 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
anon-4955 wrote:
True. For example, I will never live in a home with a septic tank. Thus, I never looked at Shadow Oaks. Yet homes there have great value and the only homes that sit are on old Trenton Rd. People will always have a view. The Estates has the benefit of being one of the nicer neighborhoods and values where people can enter Cranbury as a first home. Most homes are under 600k making it unique. You're night going to find that price point in other neighborhoods.
Being in proximity to affordable housing isn't an issue for me. I'd rather live next to that then a general apartment complex. With affordable housing there are requirements, people put themselves on a list and are looking for a town like Cranbury. With a regular apartment like in East Windsor you have people taking low rents who don't always care. Thus you have more issues. Just talk to EW police about some of the apartment complexes and then our police who rarely have any issues.
I doubt you meant offense, but for future reference comparing affordable housing to septic systems may be viewed as a little insensitive.
Septic systems are a pre-existing condition in factored into the price of a home from the first sale. Affordable housing development typically requires a zoning change and an unforeseen use of the property. As a result, nearby and adjacent property owners pay the price (or reap the rewards) of the zoning change.
Cranbury Twp (and CHA) have typically taken great care to minimize any potentially negative impact of housing developments, affordable or otherwise. However, the 130 D site was hard fought because some of the plans called for deviating from the successful formulas of the past and for a greater impact on nearby neighbors. Compromises were struck and plans are moving forward. It remains to be seen how it will play out long term. In the short term, its a tough time to sell on Ryan Rd.
Also, I'm not sure why you believe affordable housing attracts different tenants than low-rent apartments. There is no screening process, you just have to show that your income does not exceed the limits. I think you may be mistaking probability for security. East Windsor has a lot of low-rent apartments. A very small percent of the tenants cause trouble. As the number of Cranbury's low-rent apartments increases, so does the probability of getting bad tenants to occupy them. Hopefully the positive contributions of the good new neighbors outweigh the negatives of the bad.
anon-4955
Posted: Tue, Aug 23 2016, 9:38 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
True. For example, I will never live in a home with a septic tank. Thus, I never looked at Shadow Oaks. Yet homes there have great value and the only homes that sit are on old Trenton Rd. People will always have a view. The Estates has the benefit of being one of the nicer neighborhoods and values where people can enter Cranbury as a first home. Most homes are under 600k making it unique. You're night going to find that price point in other neighborhoods.
Being in proximity to affordable housing isn't an issue for me. I'd rather live next to that then a general apartment complex. With affordable housing there are requirements, people put themselves on a list and are looking for a town like Cranbury. With a regular apartment like in East Windsor you have people taking low rents who don't always care. Thus you have more issues. Just talk to EW police about some of the apartment complexes and then our police who rarely have any issues.
anon-54r5
Posted: Tue, Aug 23 2016, 8:29 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
anon-8qn8 wrote:
anon-s6p5 wrote:
A construction site is temporary. I am sure the cul de sac will rebound to being nice again.
Cranbury Green has affordable housing their homes have not gone down. Four seasons has affordable homes their value has not gone down.
The majority of affordable housing is on the south side of town and their homes have all held their value.
The bigger issue is rt 130 which was there already and the individual homes that may be for sale. If renovated nicely it will sell. If it hasn't left the 50's it will be tough.
I hope you're right about the cul-de-sac recovering. The development plans don't appear to support your theory.
Don't be naive. Some buyers don't want to buy near affordable housing. I know buyers who have walked away from houses in town because of their proximity to affordable housing, so there is no question that affordable housing can negatively impact property values.
If CHA does a nice job respecting the neighbors on Ryan Rd, the impact will be minimized. Hopefully, CHA will do the right thing.
It will never be the way it was closed off, but it will be similar to the existing access to Silvers Lane.
Yes, some buyers will be turned off, but there are plenty of buyers for Cranbury and some buyers will be turned off for any isue. We have a desirable town and we have proof with the South Side of town that affordable housing does not impact the property values. Ryan Rd is not the first development in town to have affordable housing in proximity. I bought my home with 3 other people bidding. But, I am sure there were many other people who walked through and opted not to put in an offer for one reason or another.
Rt 130 is the biggest issue for Ryan Rd just as it is for other developments.
anon-8qn8
Posted: Tue, Aug 23 2016, 7:51 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
anon-s6p5 wrote:
A construction site is temporary. I am sure the cul de sac will rebound to being nice again.
Cranbury Green has affordable housing their homes have not gone down. Four seasons has affordable homes their value has not gone down.
The majority of affordable housing is on the south side of town and their homes have all held their value.
The bigger issue is rt 130 which was there already and the individual homes that may be for sale. If renovated nicely it will sell. If it hasn't left the 50's it will be tough.
I hope you're right about the cul-de-sac recovering. The development plans don't appear to support your theory.
Don't be naive. Some buyers don't want to buy near affordable housing. I know buyers who have walked away from houses in town because of their proximity to affordable housing, so there is no question that affordable housing can negatively impact property values.
If CHA does a nice job respecting the neighbors on Ryan Rd, the impact will be minimized. Hopefully, CHA will do the right thing.
anon-s6p5
Posted: Mon, Aug 22 2016, 9:47 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
A construction site is temporary. I am sure the cul de sac will rebound to being nice again.
Cranbury Green has affordable housing their homes have not gone down. Four seasons has affordable homes their value has not gone down.
The majority of affordable housing is on the south side of town and their homes have all held their value.
The bigger issue is rt 130 which was there already and the individual homes that may be for sale. If renovated nicely it will sell. If it hasn't left the 50's it will be tough.
anon-2so2
Posted: Mon, Aug 22 2016, 5:58 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
anon-6696 wrote:
Agreed with the last post above. Zillow's tool doesn't look at specific conditions for specific houses. It just takes overall recent comps and historic seasonal data and a few other variables and makes general predictions. In a small market like Cranbury, it's not very useful. I don't live anywhere near the re-development and the same Zillow data claims my home has lost almost 10% of it's value in the last 3 months. What is useful is to look at the raw data yourself and apply local knowledge.
Does anyone really need Zillow to tell them that when you replace a green leafy cul-de-sac with a clear view of Rt 130 and an ugly construction site that is soon-to-be an affordable housing complex that property values go down?
Selling your house on Ryan Rd is getting more difficult.
anon-6696
Posted: Thu, Aug 18 2016, 9:10 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Update on Affordable Housing Obligation
Agreed with the last post above. Zillow's tool doesn't look at specific conditions for specific houses. It just takes overall recent comps and historic seasonal data and a few other variables and makes general predictions. In a small market like Cranbury, it's not very useful. I don't live anywhere near the re-development and the same Zillow data claims my home has lost almost 10% of it's value in the last 3 months. What is useful is to look at the raw data yourself and apply local knowledge.