Budget Article

[anon-139o]

How is the Starbucks thing even an issue. I see 2 people who wanted to just sit at a private place of business. Starbucks is not a public library or park where you can just sit and enjoy yourself. A private business asked them to leave if they were not going to buy anything and they refused. They refused when the police informed them that the Private business was asking that they leave. Not sure what more we all could do. If you walk into a diner and just sit in a booth, what do you expect to happen. These are businesses and the owners pay rent, pay employees, pay insurance, and utilities. How long will they stay in business if everyone could just come in and stay as long as they wanted and not patronize

[anon-4os8]

It's off topic (and therefore probably trolling for an argument) but not complicated.

A company is not entitled to selectively enforce policies on the basis of race or other forms of discrimination. Other non-black patrons at the exact same Starbucks at the same time spoke up for them and noted they had not been asked to leave despite not ordering anything. Many others either have or known people who also have been there without being asked to leave. If Starbucks in general or that Starbucks specifically wants to force people who aren't purchasing products out of their stores they would need to do so consistently. That is their right. Once they start doing so only very selectively they are setting themselves up for a bias suit.

As for the police, the men did not resist arrest -- they civilly disobeyed what they believed to be an unjust demand to leave. The entire civil rights movement was based on that. By on your logic, Rosa Parks should have just moved seats when asked to instead of getting arrested. The police department hierarchy itself later realized there had been no justification for the arrest and released them without charges.

[anon-8r65]

this is not in Cranbury. Has nothing to do with Cranbury. And we all in Cranbury do agree if the race was the sole reason these people were treated this way (none of us were there) then Starbucks should undergo training and perhaps change their policies around requiring customers to purchase goods or evict everyone not doing so. But a CRC in Cranbury is not affecring philly, is not affecting Starbucks and we don’t see Teddy’s or the Inn doing this. So as far as this issue the CRC is bringing it into Cranbury and trying to create a divide.

There CRC wants to judge people by their skin color, race and religion. They ignorantly highlight Cranbury stats for women and minorities and being in Philly because they have no real issues here and know it. But they don’t really care about Cranbury. They want to see this divide they want the tension because that is what they thrive on and live for. They want a divided community so they can then say see we’re right.

The problem is no one is taking their bait. This is three pages of civil discussion. If nothing else this thread should prove how unnecessary the CRC really is.

[anon-86oq]

This is funny. Let me guess. Those are the same witnesses that told the lie, hands up don’t shoot.

[???-rr1s]

From the http://www.cranburycrc.org/ website, under the data section:

"There is legitimate cause to be concerned about the possibility of a hate crime incident occurring in our town if we ignore the low grade incivility and simmering hostility already present."

This is an important assertion, but with no clear evidence or examples of the incivility or hostility. I would take documented claims quite seriously. (As I would, for example, uncivil remarks to a business owner or resident that supports police.) But I have not heard about specific cases HERE.

[anon-s6p5]

agree.

Their own website admits there is no such issue here. The statement you cite states the possibility of a hate crime occurring. Sadly there is also the possibility of a sever fire, kidnapping, murder, grand theft auto, etc...There will always be possibilities of something occurring. But we don’t set up a kindapping task force, murder tip hotline, etc... in anticipation. Nor do we see people trying to incite it like the CRC is doing and as we can see no one is taking the bait.

I heard the PTO was approached with false accusations of a comment made regarding calling someone a terrorsit. That comment is also on the CRC website. I was at candidates night where the alleged comment was made and never heard anything of the like uttered, but that doesn’t fit the agenda.

The CRC has no evidence of anything yet is spending money, trying to rile people up and attacking our residents with the support of a Tc member.

If you look at their website they want significant tax dollars for private speakers, for a day of booths representing different countries, paid staff, and sole control over what is said and done with the money there would be no tax payer input.

There is no commission with that level of funding or authority. This is an ego trip for a small group of people who can’t be bothered to volunteer, who won’t do what CHA, Historical society, Woman’s club and even First Aid and others have done by forming a non-profit citizen group. They want a tax payer funded group where the CRC dictates town policies.

It is possible that if Mr. Ferrante if appointed to Mr. Cook’s term could be outlets shortest tenured TC member in history if he votes for this.

[anon-nn27]

There is no discourse with this group. They have no tolerance for beliefs other than their own. Even a variation of of their own beliefs is not acceptable. They are not open to understanding anything beyond their narrow narrative, which (ironically)they “preach” in the name of “diversity, tolerance, and social justice.” That is until you disagree with them. Then they really show their lack of diversity, intolerance, and just how much they can be bullies. This is already happening. They see themselves as warriors for equality and “inclusion” but it’s not genuine. This group is dangerously divisive.

The perfect example was at the meeting Dick Kallan spoke in opposition to their proposal. He provided a specific example of when he was the actual victim of a hate crime in Cranbury 40 years ago. Something that no one in this group can claim. He wasn’t supporting their narrow agenda. His story and how he felt was dismissed. I hope people see the hypocrisy.

[anon-s6p5]

That is the problem. There is no acceptance of diversity of thought. Everything is based on how you look and therefore how you should act. In actuality I find them even more biased and prejudicial because they are telling people how to act and feel based on assumptions not on the individuals right. Women should be pro choice for example. If you are not then you are opposed to them.

They vote down a female TC candidate because she is not one of them. Then complain there are no women TC members. But that does not really mean no women, just no women that think like them.

They complain there are no minorities on TC boards, but ignore the Volunteers who serve on boards they don’t see as material and dismiss the efforts minorities have made to better our community via the PTO, BOR, First aid Squad, Fire Co, Parks, etc...

They say minorities will only volunteer if they see individuals that look like them on boards. I have news most people who live in this town are not stupid followers. Whether a minority or white, gay or straight, male or female, if you can afford to live here you are not going to be likely to volunteer just because someone who identifies outwardly as you do volunteers. Not all white males think the same, not all blacks think the same, not all women think the same, and thank god we do have do not simply lay blindly follow. If people were that way they would be unemployable because they would show they have no thought process and simply look to see what others who look like and act like them do. That means they would not be living here. People here are smart accepting individuals who volunteer based on time and effort not based on gender, race or sexuality.

They say we need the CRC to welcome individuals. This is not the 1950’s with the welcome wagon lady. We have a town website, we have google for organizations, etc... again if you are even as competent as my seven year old then you can find out what is available in town without a CRC. Maybe a tab on the town website called New Resident Information and links. See I just solved one of their platform points in 2 seconds.

[anon;oqs2-nnnp]

We might as well realize that this CRC is already starting to divide the residents . The pie in the sky theory that this will some how unite Cranbury is absurd. The Township Committee is being drawn into this mess that will cost us dearly by a few political minded characters. They are unnecessarily stirring the pot. As far as having more diversity on the boards, just look at the members. There is plenty of diversity. Anyone who wants to volunteer can easily apply for any board vacancy. Unfortunatly there are certainly vacancies as many very good qualified members of boards get discouraged and quit. One would wonder why they quit. Well I can tell you it is due to the influence of the Township Committee. The supposedly autonomous boards are always subject to the "guidance" from the Committee. No board really does anything without the blessing of the Committee. Maybe its time for these CRC folks to apply to the Committee and get on the boards and stop whining. They need to show up at meetings,take positions and do something positive for the town.
Cranbury is changing rapidly, and in five to ten years the old timers that love this town so very much will be gone. The History Center Museum will fade away, the Churches on main street as we know them will not be able to be viable financially. The supporters of the Historic events and those keeping Cranbury as a town we know will be gone and the history and caring for this lovely town will fade away.
I would suggest that this CRC will only help to aid in the demise of the Cranbury we have loved for our lifetime.

[anon-s6p5]

The CRC group now has a Facebook page. Like indivisible it is a closed invite only group. Including the newest potential TC member Mike Ferrante and current member Matt Scott.

Both are also on the indivisible member list for Facebook.

Am I the only one who finds irony that a group (CRC) who states their mission is to be open to all and inclusive has a closed group on Facebook? It seems that if they wanted true dialogue and to be open they would not need to concern themselves with closing their Facebook page.

Is anyone else concerned that we have members on our TC that support and take active roles in politically closed groups? I can't recall this ever happening before and Mr. mulligan who I do follow posts everything including his dinner. Seems we have very different views about the acceptable attitude on the TC.

[anon-s6p5]

At the risk of trolling. The CRC was quick to post the Philly incident because it involved police. Here is the reverse with someone going off on TSA. Is the CRC posting this as means for them to get involved as well?

https://nypost.com/2018/04/23/american-airlines-employee-gets-prison-for-violent-racial-slur-riddled-incident/

[anon-nn27]

Sorry but any points made in opposition to the CRC will be summarily dismissed. Unless you completely agree (and pay for)you are resistant to change and diversity. You are also racist and homophobic. As for the blue line you might as well have burnt a cross on Main Street. Clearly if u don’t agree with a taxpayer funded CRC you are nothing short of a Nazi. If you are a business owner and don’t agree to capitulate to the demands of the CRC you better watch out. You will be targeted.

[anon-8o37]

I was at last night's meeting. I have to say it was really a positive meeting and was probably the most crowded room with least comment that I ever saw. Only two people spoke in public comment despite standing room only.

The best part was truly small town front porch discussion when they discussed whether April 27th was this Friday or next.

The CRC reps spoke shortly at the and didn't really touch on anything about the CRC. Rather they spoke about Mr. mulligan posting video of last meeting. It was told that some vile comments were made below the video Mr. mulligan posted, but no one knew what was being referenced as posts here and on Facebook have been fine and respectful.

Matt Scott apologized for his comments from the last meeting that came across as accusing TC members of bias and Mr. Mulligan and Mr. taylor held him accountable with comments. But it was a kind accountabliity. Not Fire and brimstone.

Mr. Ferrante was appointed. Mr. mulligan voted no, but even that vote was benign as he later apologized for voting no and comments that it was about the process more than the individual. I didn't know how to take Mr. Taylor's remarks if he was addressing Mike or the audience. Mr. Ferrante gave a introduction on what serving means and Mr. Taylor then made a point of stressing to the audience in the middle of the vote that politics end at the door to the meeting room, that Cranbury government works because the governance is based on politics and that personal ideals need to remain that personal and failure occurs when you make decisions based on one's own personal views, not the greater good. I agree with the comments, but was not sure the intended audience.

[anon-9o03]

I want to say

[anon-9o03]

Sorry. Hit submit by accident.

I want to say the meeting went well. Here is what I thought interesting.

I never saw the spouse of a TC member crticize another TC member before. So that was interesting if not awkward.

The comments made about Mr. Mulligan's video I think we're interesting and a bit over blown, ASEAN on the video alone. Mr. mulligan was informing the public and I thought his video was of use. I heard them say it was misleading, but so have been the CRC comments made about people in town and divisive words used. So let's just agree that a lot of this is based on individual perception.

I want to say that if Ms. Johnson's child was bullied as stated that I hope the schools steps in. that is wrong and kids should not be burdened by nor praised by comments of the parent. I think we all agree that kids are off limits. And I am not sure we even need to discuss the CRC with our own kids. I asked my kids this morning if they knew what this discussion was and they said no and I asked is anyone at school is talking about it and they said no, no one cares what the town does.

Ms. Johnson alleged some very poor and inappropriate words were used against her due to the video Mr. mulligan posted. I am not an IT person, but I did not think one could download a Facebook video and post it on other sites. There were no ill comments here or on Facebook. So I am confused on where they could have been made.

I think if they were made then all residents should aware of the site and boycott whoever supports it. But if the comments were not actually made and the comments are to garner sympathy then we have a different issue. I don't know the truth so will just say I appreciate the video and condemn any nasty comments that were made. .

[anon-0421]

Friends who were LGBT had had lawn signs stolen during an election.

During the last election I had signs stolen too! I am a straight white man. So what does this have anything to do with a hate crime? Because said person were LGBT its hate? But since I am white it is not hate? This is getting out of control!!