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="ya"]If this is on a voluntary basis, then just tell the state that Cranbury is going to opt out. Are there penalties for opting out?[/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
WhosInTheSameBoat
Posted: Thu, Mar 20 2008, 8:38 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
FYI: Union, Bridgewater, Clinton, Readington, Tewsbury, Washington, Hampton, Franklin and Lebanon all banded together to respond to COAH 3rd round. It would be great to have Princeton and Cranbury join in this common cause.
ILiveNear30COAHhomesNow
Posted: Wed, Mar 19 2008, 11:52 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
Cranbury's participation in COAH is voluntary and I still support every logical effort to correct the calculation, but as a small community we need to remain strong and keep the option open to manage affordable housing ourselves. Whenever someone discusses litigation at a town meeting our planners get gun shy and cave in. I agree with the other poster that when the developers threatened us last year, we caved. The very next year we have another tax situation and an unregulated agency is threading to make us fund 66mil in subsidized housing making every other house in our town funded by us residents. The best strategy is to be strong, have other backup options then COAH, and work together with leading townships in our situation that seem to be better co-ordinate. There is strength in numbers.
If this issue is important to you, go Google Princeton and Clinton response to COAH and read about the strategy they are using. And I would suggest that if we haven’t contacted the mayors of either to co-ordinate with our own Cranbury efforts, I would suggest we do that urgently.
Princeton:
http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-4/120529476985730.xml&coll=5
Clinton leads the 7 town group on COAH 3rd round:
http://www.township.clinton.nj.us/town_council_docs/Letter%20to%20Commissioner%20Doria.pdf
publius
Posted: Wed, Mar 19 2008, 9:00 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
Builder's remedy, MY ASS!!!
What about citizen's remedy??????????????????????????????
What good is gov. is we don't us it to OUR advantage????????
We MUST combine our efforts with every other town, village and hamlet in N.J. to fight the scourge of creeping Socialism!!!!!!!!!
I consider myself to be a fairly liberal-minded sort, but how much can you give when you've given all that you can. We MUST band together with others in our district, our county and the ENTIRE state to fight the idiocy which rains down it's stupidity upon us from Trenton.
Guest
Posted: Wed, Mar 19 2008, 2:58 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
I personally have no idea why no counter point was published and am not inclined to jump to a conspiracy theory. And “enemy” is a strong, inflammatory word.
That said, I think you are too quick to dismiss the fact that he chose the Cranbury Press as his outlet to publish an opinion favoring small town consolidation precisely at a time that Cranbury was facing with a bill that eventually could lead to consolidation of our blue ribbon school. Everyone is entitled their opinions and I applaud a free press. But when you publish something it has context. If you publish an opinion in the New Republic it has a different context than the New York Times. He chose to publish an opinion favoring small town consolidation in a small town presently under attack on that very issue, without any qualification I can recall about how his opinion somehow didn’t apply to Cranbury. How is a reader in Cranbury supposed to take that? How are they supposed to assume it didn’t apply to Cranbury and, by the way, if it didn’t why publish it in the Cranbury Press in the first place? Is he saying that he doesn’t make an effort to make his editorials relevant to his readership? Frankly that isn’t much better than publishing something totally at odds with the interests of the Township because it means he is using the paper as a personal outlet for his opinions in general not as a forum for discussion of local issues. And why publish a me-to opinion very much like others already appearing in the Star Ledger and other urban sources when there was a clearly logical opportunity to have a unique piece about the very town he was writing for, if in fact he agrees Cranbury’s model works?
If he really doesn’t believe that Cranbury is a favorable candidate for consolidation, I think he should demonstrate it with a new editorial. He shouldn’t waste time defending what he wrote before. He doesn’t need to even mention it. But he should put energy into an impassioned piece on why Cranbury is a great Township with a model that works. If he can’t manage that, I remain skeptical that he wasn’t presumptively including Cranbury in his previous treaties on why small towns should consolidate.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Mar 18 2008, 10:43 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
"If we’re going to start talking about taking on the enemies of Cranbury, why not start locally? Has no one else noticed that the Managing Editor of the Cranbury Press, Hank Kalet, endorsed the proposals to force smaller townships to merge? He even wrote an editorial in the Cranbury Press in support of it. And I noticed they never published any responses to it. "
FYI...I know Hank Kalet personally and asked him about endorsing such a thing. He does endorse smaller town consolidation in certain instances...He does not endorse Cranbury consolidating with any other municipal entity. It's funny how when in times of trouble the editor who makes sure his staff is covering nearly every municipal function, that has been on the ball in reporting the new proposed third round COAH rules and informing citizens on how to proactively write into the DCA, is now the enemy? Mr. Kalet has just as many people to answer to in South Brunswick as he does in Cranbury, Jamesburg and Monroe. He's a man of integrity and if having an opinion now means you automatically have an alterior motive well then all I have to say to all the conspiracy theorists is that it's time to downgrade to decaf. If a response letter was not printed it's a) because none were sent in; or b) because any response given may not have been intelligent or informative. If Mr. Kalet's track record suggested he didn't print adverse opinions I'd say you have a point, but that just isn't the case. The media is not the enemy here...And if they are, certainly you should be pointing the finger at bigger outlets that haven't given one second or sentence of interest to Cranbury's dilemma.
And as for the amount of coverage Cranbury receives go count the number of stories or inches in the past few months and see which town has the overwhelming majority out of the three. By Boycotting the paper you'd only be biting the hand that first publicly pointed out the problem to you in the first place-much to the thanks of Mr. Kalet.
Jay
Posted: Tue, Mar 18 2008, 6:01 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
The COAH group of employees and directors always talk about the builder remedy lawsuits. However, what is the likliehood of that vs the fact that COAH's third round requires all this new housing. I don't think the lawsuit potential is as great. The reason being that it will still cost the builders money to go to court when they can make money elsewhere.
wcody
Posted: Tue, Mar 18 2008, 5:17 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
I think the approach being taken by objecting to the proposed regulations and working with the legislature is a good approach. Hopefully, COAH will revise the regulations to something more reasonable. Cranbury is not the only town in this situation.
If COAH does not adequately adjust the regulations, then I think the option of opting out of COAH should be taken more seriously. It was too easily dismissed because we were afraid of builder remedy lawsuits. It has been suggested we may initiate litigation. If we are going to enter litigation, why don't we opt out and wait for litigation to come to us. Opting out will be much more powerful if we band together with other towns in the same situation.
I am not a lawyer and do not know all the legal implications of that approach but I think it is one that should be considered among other options if COAH does not change their regulations.
Win Cody
Guest
Posted: Tue, Mar 18 2008, 4:04 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
Guest wrote:
They can't. It will expose them to builder's remedy lawsuits.
So the builders have the control of the future of Cranbury, not the residents??
Last year, Cranbury re-valuated properties because of the lawsuit threats by the commercial property owners. Now, Cranbury is afraid of lawsuits from builders. What's going on in this town?
Guest
Posted: Tue, Mar 18 2008, 3:36 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
They can't. It will expose them to builder's remedy lawsuits.
opt out?
Posted: Tue, Mar 18 2008, 3:08 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
Is Cranbury going to opt out of the third round?
Guest
Posted: Tue, Mar 18 2008, 8:03 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
OK, so I went to the meeting last night (which was terrific - I have new respect for Sen. Baroni).
It was stressed that we write to Lucy Voorhoeve (
coahmail@dca.state.nj.us
) with comments on the COAH Rule Proposal. We were to concentrate on two areas:
- The miscalculation of the number of jobs generated by warehouse space
- The retroactive nature (going back to 2004) of the rules, which do not allow Cranbury to recoup COAH costs from developers of already approved or built projects.
In the directions in the "How you can help" flyer handed out last night, it says:
Quote:
All comments should be identified by the applicable NJAC citation and submitted in the following format: (format displayed)
I don't have time to read the hundreds of pages of legalese in the proposal. Does anyone know which citation these items refer to?
Guest
Posted: Mon, Mar 17 2008, 3:19 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
Guest wrote:
The saddest part of this is that great towns are being destroyed because the builders' lobby is pushing this through. They are protecting their own interests by securing mandated building. Our best bet is to band together with other communities and form an organized "lobby" of our own.
I agree that Trenton is all about special interests including the builders lobby. But the real reason for this particular bill are the politicians like the Governor and Assembly Speaker who want to force smaller towns to merge into larger ones, plain and simple. When you say this measure will destroy Cranbury you have to realize that this is precisely the intent of the proponents of the bill -- to end small townships. Builders make out fine with or without the bill since in the current rules we pay other townships to take our quota and the builders make out anyway. The unique thing here is the way they are forcing the small towns to keep the quota in their borders, with the sole purpose of making their economics impossible unless they merge.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Mar 17 2008, 3:14 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
JJJ wrote:
Are there politicians in Trenton who oppose the proposed new COAH rules?
As I understand it, our reps, at least Baroni and Greenstein, do oppose it. They will be attending the meeting at our request.
Let's make sure our expectation is clear for the meeting today. It is a Canbury gathering to discuss the issue, so it is all singing to the choir. There are no officials of COAH or the politicians supporting the measure in attendance. The Cranbury Township Council has already gone on record as uniformly opposing the measure and planning to send an official statement on Cranbury's opposition as well as consider legal actions.
This meeting is a chance to hear more details, VENT, maybe get a little publicity and maybe, just maybe, discuss other concrete actions the citizens of the Township can do to fight this.
This meeting is NOT a chance to be face-to-face with anyone who is voting for these measures or who supports them. It is NOT a forum where you will here anyone defending them.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Mar 17 2008, 3:02 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
The saddest part of this is that great towns are being destroyed because the builders' lobby is pushing this through. They are protecting their own interests by securing mandated building. Our best bet is to band together with other communities and form an organized "lobby" of our own.
Traveler
Posted: Mon, Mar 17 2008, 2:33 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
The only penalty I see is the one the township committee will have to pay when they don't get re-elected to another term. They better pay strict attention to the people's voices that elected them in the first place.
ya
Posted: Mon, Mar 17 2008, 1:53 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Save Cranbury!
If this is on a voluntary basis, then just tell the state that Cranbury is going to opt out. Are there penalties for opting out?