Questions on COAH

[wcody]

This year’s election for the open seat on the Cranbury Township Committee is more important than ever to our town due to issues such as COAH / Affordable Housing.

As I have spoken with residents of our town about my candidacy for Cranbury’s Township Committee, I have been asked many questions regarding COAH and Affordable Housing and how it will impact our community, I have also been asked about my views and how I would handle these issues if I were elected to the Township Committee. Below are my replies to a few of the questions I have heard regarding Cranbury’s COAH / Affordable Housing Obligation…

Question: What should be done now for Affordable Housing in Cranbury?

Win’s Answer: The original round 3 regulations provided a means for municipalities to create housing and provided affordable housing for many families. Under the prior rules Cranbury and CHA devised a great plan to build additional housing that incorporated the use of regional contribution agreements.

The revised plans drastically increase our obligation, remove the RCA’s and retroactively change some of our prior commitments. Our goal should be to get COAH to agree to accept our original Round 3 Plan as submitted.

Question: What should be done to support the needs for Affordable Housing for Cranbury in the future?

Win’s Answer: While Cranbury cannot directly make changes to COAH regulations, we can be influential. An equitable tradeoff of development fees for commercial and non-commercial should pay for new affordable housing, as long as the fees do not hinder smart development in New Jersey. Cranbury can work with our elected state officials to help bring some rationality to COAH. Bill Baroni has been a champion for Cranbury on COAH and we should continue to work with him. It remains to be seen if Linda Greenstein will be of any help to Cranbury due to her lack of tangible support to date for our town. Wayne DeAngelo has shown he will not be of any assistance. Cranbury also needs to keep fighting the current legislation by taking a strong position against the new COAH rules, participating in appropriate legal action and not accepting what has been done to Cranbury and towns like ours. I pledge to fight for Cranbury so that we have a fair Affordable Housing obligation which will not destroy our town as we know it.

[Jersey Dad]

Win,
Thank you for posting your comments on COAH. I am interested in a few of your positions.

Do you agree with Cranbury's decision to switch to 100 percent non-senior rentals and increases in "very-low income" affordable housing to maximize COAH credits. Specifically, do you think the extra COAH credits are worth it?

How do you feel about building some of our affordable "family" housing east of Route 130?

Would you support a maximum density of 8 units per acre for affordable "family" housing in or adjacent to the village?

Thanks.
Dave

[James]

Just to echo JD's comment's, I'd like to see Mr. Ritter's response as well. Yes, I saw the posts about his not being here, or Win's homefield...but, perhaps someone can advise him to make an appearance.

We should perhaps all agree to ignore any negative counter message to EITHER candidate or that only registered people can respond? I think there are people here who clearly represent pro-PNC and anti-PNC views, who are for West property preservation and against, (don't think anyone in town is pro-ballfield so I'll leave that alone ) I think this is a safe enviornment.

If and I don't think this is the case at all, people feel Mr. Ritter is nervous (not sure it's the right word, but can't think of a better one ) about a negative rebuttal, then how would he handle the being on the TC and pressure it provides. Here there it is only words, there the actions have consequences for the town. Certainly, David and Pari have taken their fair share of criticism.

[Guest]

I don't think Mr. Ritter has to feel "nervous" about posting here so much as feel that it is totally unnecessary and not productive. The Democratic party, under Stout, believes they have their power base locked-up in town. They have turned Cranbury into a typical NJ part of a political machine. They are counting on the party demographics and loyalty to carry their way despite the issues and interests of the population. And the only chance Mr. Cody has is for enough people to realize the disconnect between their party affiliation and their own interests as Cranbury residents. Otherwise STout wins. As far as I can tell, Mr. Ritter was Stout and the party's hand-picked candidate, so unless you would like to express his opposition to Mr. Stout's policies of politicizing Cranbury and pursuing Pork Belly pet projects, I will think of them interchangably. I don't think this is unfair since Stout has demonstrated he runs a tight political ship and expects absolute voter loyalty from the TC members of his party. The record proves this. The one Democrat who didn't fall in line had to leave the party altogether.

[HistoricallyFiscal]

[wcody]

In reply to Jersey Dad's questions.

I support the original Round 3 proposed plan. CHA has done a great of putting together affordable housing that fits well into the community meeting the original requirements of COAH. I would not want to back off that plan now and hope we can proceed with that but unfortunately the whole game has changed with COAH.

My preference is for housing to be on the west side of Rt. 130 spread throughout the various locations supporting the approach of Mark Berkowsky and CHA. They have done a tremendous job with affordable housing in Cranbury.

But, since it is still an unknown for what we need to do with COAH, I would not be willing to take any alternatives off the table at this time.

While I support the need for affordable housing, my goal is to have our obligations more realistic in line with the original Round 3 proposal.

Win Cody

[Guest]

[Frugality in Cranbury]

I agree that Mark has done a wonderful design. But, I do know it is up to Cranbury's planning committee for where the COAH homes will be located.

I also understand the COAH homes should be incorperated into the overall design - But disagree that they should surround our downtown area. We already have 96 COAH homes existing surrounding downtown with another 269 wanted by COAH. This will raise the single family to COAH subsidized housing ratio to 3:1 and will have an immediate and longterm negative effect on any home values in and around our downtown area.

I did a little research and read the 2005 Master Plan Reexamination Report Prepared for the Cranbury Township Planning Board.

Prepared by:
Phillips Preiss Shapiro Associates, Inc.
Planning and Real Estate Consultants
434 Sixth Avenue
New York, New York 10011

PAGE 17
The Township has had much success in channeling regional, national and international market forces in attracting new large-scale warehouse/office development in Cranbury’s industrial parks, which are close to Exit 8A of the New Jersey Turnpike.
Virtually all of the vacant and developable land between Route 130 and the Turnpike has either been developed, approved for development, or is currently undergoing the initial stages of the review process. In the next 10 years, the focus will shift to lands east of the Turnpike—now mostly vacant and undeveloped. It may be prudent for Cranbury to reexamine its economic development and land use plans in determining how such land could be developed to the best advantage of the Township—both from a revenue stand-point, as well as in terms of relationship to the rest of the community.

http://cranburytownship.org/MP_reexam120105.pdf

There are already housing communities on the otherside of the turnpike, shouldn't we spread them out through cranbury as a whole. They will be close to shopping and major roads for transportation. Afterall, Cranbury is 13.5 sq. mile township. Why are we bunching them up to be all in town?

[Guest]

I like how the affordable homes are mixed in and they do not stand out too much. I worry if we cluster these homes together in one area that it will become a "bad section" of Cranbury.

There are some beautiful areas off of Brickyard Road. The only problem is there are huge power lines running through that area.

[Frugality in Cranbury]

[Jersey Dad]

I can appreciate that the people who prepared the 2005 COAH Plan did what they felt was best, given the circumstances at the time. To Win's point, the whole game has changed. We are being challenged to re-think our strategy. We should:
1. Be consistent
2. Strive for balance
3. Manage costs
4. Reduce risks
5. Consider all options

Research shows the Site D development plan was inconsistent, imbalanced, expensive and very risky compared with other CHA developments. There are better options. Since every neighborhood will feel the impact of affordable housing, we all have a stake in maintaining the small scale and high quality of the developments that have been built.

Please note, my comments are not meant to attack Win Cody. I appreciate his candor and willingness to respond to my questions. I hope to have the opportunity to speak to him in more depth when his campaign rounds bring him to the Estates.
Dave

[Guest]

[James]

In reading Win's reply, what I took is that all options are on the table right now and that's the way it should be.

My personal stance is that we can't pigeon-hole ourselves into one situation or say this is our decision on how we will develop COAH housing at this point in time or this is where the housing will go in town. There is open land on Old Cranbury Road, would it be fair to Shadow Oaks, four seasons and the residents on this road if COAH homes were all clustered there? I don't think it would be and I think it would be bad for ingraining those COAH residents into the town. The same goes for any other area near a housing development. Would it make sense for the COAH homes to be spread here, there and elsewhere, absolutely. Remember a number of Pin Oak residents felt excluded and that they were a subset of our town due to their clustering. I think CHA takes every step they can take to avoid that situation.

Using the current approach that Mark Berkowsky and CHA has developed we have little safety issue with the affordable homes and they are ingrained in our town functioning as any other resident/homeowner. I do worry if we build a development of purely COAH homes what that impact will be if they are separate from other residential development.

All that said...

I personally believe we can't make a concrete development plan, east, west, south or north until we exhaust our challenges with the state. Is it going to be 3:1 ratio, 5:1, or 10:1 when the final numbers come in? Spending money to redevelop a plan on a 3:1 ratio only costs us money if the final number is 5 or 10:1. No one can say with certaintity where the final numbers will lie. Those numbers will dictate how CHA and the town approach zoning and planning. Only at that point can the discussion about how and where occur with any real idea as to impact assessment.

Until that time I think discussions and from what I see in person some can get rather heated, I don't think we can committ to removing options from the table just because we don't know what the final obligation will be. Though I will say I am opposed to multistory COAH housing, low low income housing, and clustering that results in a traffic, valuation, or a negative impact on home values to current residents. Homes are our biggest investment so we have to ensure our residents are protected.

[Jersey Dad]

[James]

Yes, that was a promblematic plan on a lot of levels. Not sure why it was done that way as I was not involved in hearing those discussions. That type of development is counter to what I think we need to do as a town. In my opinion, such a development not only would have caused adverse home impact from a value standpoint, but the nature of the units as well would have caused problems for the residents who are in the adjoining area today.

On edit, I am confused by one thing. Given the unresolved nature of COAH3, I would hope that we're not planning on implementing any more COAH building until the issues are resolved. It is clear so far that officials gave no value to Cranbury's prior compliance and as such I don't think we should take on any more liabilities until we determine the exact extent of what they will be.