View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 7:33 am EDT Post subject: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
"...
Reports and Communications
--Mayor
Mayor Stout reported Cranbury Township Police Officer, Giuseppe DeChiara, had received the “Police Medal of Valor Award” from the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police. On March 13, 2007, Officer DeChiara was driving to work on Rt. 130 in East Windsor Township, when he came across a serious motor vehicle crash involving two vehicles. Officer DeChiara rescued one driver and then proceeded to assist the driver of the second vehicle. He then rescued a man and an infant from the second vehicle as it burst into flames.
Mayor Stout reported last Monday, July 14, 2008, the Township Committee voted to endorse the application for farmland preservation made by Sallie Toscano, 156 Plainsboro Road, to the Middlesex County Agriculture Development Board. He thanked Christine Smeltzer, Township Administrator for quickly sending a letter to Middlesex County so the application can proceed.
Mayor Stout reported he had received an email from Mel Lehr at The Four Seasons at Cranbury Development thanking the Township for its efforts with KHov and indicated that the work that was needed is coming to a close.
...
Cranbury Township Resolution # R 07-08-144
...
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING HONOR PREVIOUS REGIONAL CONTRIBUTION COMMITMENTS AND PROJECTS FOR PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH FUNDS TOTALING $20,235,000.00
Regional Contribution Agreements (“RCA”) funds from various municipalities by way of authorizing resolutions; and
WHEREAS, City of Perth Amboy has entered into formal Regional Contribution Agreements with the following municipalities: Cranbury Township, Delaware Township, Monroe Township, Woodbridge Township, Union Township, Warren Township, Reading Township, Plainsboro Township and Montgomery Township; and
WHEREAS, the total of these commitments amount to $20,235,000.00, which was anticipated to assist Perth Amboy with affordable housing projects that are planned or underway projects; and
WHEREAS, these projects include: Sheridan Street apartments – of $1,020,000.00; King Plaza - $4,000,000.00; Senior Housing, New Brunswick Avenue Project - $2,500,000,00; Volunteers of America-Buckingham Avenue Project - $765,800.00; Hobart Street Plaza –
Cranbury Township Resolution # R 07-08-144
(Continued)
$1,820,000.000; DeKalb Avenue Project - $360,000.00; scattered site housing rehabilitation for low-income property owners; and associated administrative cost; and
WHEREAS, the City of Perth Amboy has incurred substantial costs in the planning and preparation process associated with these affordable housing projects; and
WHEREAS, there continues to be a great demand for said assistance that will affect the City’s effort in providing affordable housing to low income families; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2008 the Governor signed new legislation that discontinues and voids Regional Contribution Agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANBURY:
1. That the Township Committee determines that it is in the best interest of the Township of Cranbury to pursue enforcement and funding of the Perth Amboy
projects to which Cranbury Township has an agreement to contribute $2,835,000 for COAH Round 3, Regional Contribution Agreement.
2. That the governing body of the Township of Cranbury hereby requests that the Governor and Legislature of the State of New Jersey make amendments to reinstate the foregoing Regional Contribution Agreements and release the $20,235,000.00 in associated funding to the City of Perth Amboy.
3. That the appropriate Cranbury Township officials be hereby authorized to take all necessary steps to advance and implement this Resolution in furtherance of these projects, subject to all applicable project plan review procedures and terms of the respective agreements between Perth Amboy and the Cranbury Township.
4. That the Clerk is hereby authorized to forward a copy of this resolution to the Mayor and City Council of Perth Amboy, the League of Municipalities and proper State officials requesting that all previous commitments be honored.
5. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the above-cited municipalities.
Work Session
Discussion of COAH
a). The Township Committee informed and updated residents on Township efforts to address requirements of the Council on Affordable Housing for the 3rd Round. Mayor Stout led the discussion by first thanking everyone for attending this evening’s meeting. He stated “a lot has happened since everyone gathered in the School Cafeteria last March. At that time the Township agreed that an aggressive strategy was needed to do what it takes to protect Cranbury and outlined a three-pronged approach to that end, involving comments and lobbying, legal challenges, and options for continued COAH compliance.
1. Collectively, the Township Committee and residents submitted numerous comments on the amended Third Round Rules and their potential dire impact to Cranbury. We also met with our State representatives and a number of residents made repeated trips to Trenton to offer personal testimony. Thanks you all for these efforts.
Work Session
Discussion of COAH(Continued)
Mayor Stout’s remarks(cont’d)
2. The Township has joined two lawsuits. One filed by the NJLM, which Ed Schmierer, Counsel to the League, will speak about later, and a second suit led by Clinton Township.
3. Our COAH subcommittee has met on a weekly basis to move along with the challenges to the rules, enter lawsuits, and develop options for a waiver and Third Round Plan (which is due on December 31st, but like many things, that may change).
Work continues in all areas. Tonight we want to update you and offer an opportunity for public comment.
Our Township Attorney, Trishka Waterbury, will review items of interest and concern to Cranbury.
Mark Berkowsky, President of CHA, will follow Trishka and give an overview of Affordable Housing in Cranbury. It goes without saying that we owe Mark a debt of gratitude for all his years of dedicated service, professionalism, and efforts with 1st and 2nd round compliance.
After Mark, Ed Schmierer and Trishka Waterbury will discuss the ever-changing Third Round Rules, ongoing amendments (based on A500) and the legal challenges we have joined.
Trishka will also layout a timeline for Cranbury’s Third Round Plan. Then I will re-appear to talk about Citizen Action and open the floor for Public Comment.
In short, COAH remains a political morass at the State level and the certainty appears to be that it will continue to change through amendments and legal challenge”.
Ms. Trishka Waterbury, Esquire, Township Attorney, outlined and reviewed items of interest and concern to Cranbury Township.
Mayor Stout then introduced Mark Berkowsky, of Cranbury Housing Associates, who gave a power-point presentation. Mr. Berkowsky stated in 1963 Cranbury Housing Associates was established to improve and provide for the housing needs of the disadvantaged and low-income residents in the area. In 1982-84, the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down the Mt. Laurel I and II decisions and ordered a change in Cranbury’s zoning to accommodate 816 homes. The Township fought this decision. In 1985 the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (“COAH”) was created (Fair Housing Act) and the First Round COAH regulations were established. At this time the Township started developing the units themselves using Cranbury Housing Associates (“CHA”). CHA has continually scattered the affordable housing units throughout various neighborhoods in the Township and has made sure the units are within walking distance of the Village Area. In addition, CHA’s design of the units have been compatible with the neighborhood homes. Under Round One, the Township was required to provide 187 units and re-do its zoning. Of that figure, the number was ultimately reduced to 153 units. The Township was granted its sub-certification for its Affordable Housing Plan on April 24, 1989 and thus was protected against any law suites; 76 Regional Contribution Agreements (RCAs) had been transferred to the City of Perth Amboy for a price of $25,000 each. The Township also had received a bonus credit of 10 for having some of the affordable units as rentals. In addition, 9 homes were “rehabs” and 19 senior units. 39 new families moved into the Township.
Work Session
Discussion of COAH(cont’d)
Mr. Mark Berkowsky, CHA (cont’d)
Mr. Berkowsky explained that for the COAH Second Round, the Township was required to provide 51 new units. Of this amount, 34 were transferred to the town of Carteret at a
price of $20,000 per unit. In December, 1996 the Township received its sub-certification for its Affordable Housing Plan under COAH’s Second Round.
Mr. Edwin Schmierer, Esquire, the Attorney representing numerous towns who have joined together in a lawsuit under the State League of Municipalities, stated Cranbury Township has “stepped up” and done its requirement under COAH. To date, Cranbury Township has provided 232 affordable units above the 223 which were required, leaving a surplus of nine (9). The Township’s current obligation is 269 units. Mr. Schmierer indicated he was not concerned with the “sky falling” on Cranbury Township and commended Mark Berkowsky and CHA on a job well done. Mr. Schmierer explained he was attending the meeting on invitation and as a representative of the League of Municipalities. He reported Governor Corzine has promised there will be 115,000 new affordable housing units in the next ten (10) years in addition to the 60,000 which took 25 years to build. Mr. Schmierer indicated he did not see how that number can be possible in such a short time. He added the present COAH rules and regulations need to be looked at very seriously to be able to show the warehouse equation figures are not accurate. Under the legislation recently signed by the Governor (A500) the Regional Contribution Agreements remain abolished. There is a rumor that in the Fall amendments to the law may be introduced to allow RCAs again. Mr. Schmierer reported under the present law, only 25% of a municipality’s affordable housing may be set aside for seniors. COAH had received over 4,500 comments from residents throughout the State opposing its Third Round Proposed Rules. By reducing the yield from warehouses to 1.0 per 1,000 sq. feet, it eliminates the ability to collect payments-in-lieu from non-residential taxpayers.
Ms. Waterbury, Township Attorney, reported the deadline to submit comments to COAH on the revised new rules is now August 15, 2008. The Township Committee will be reviewing and amending the Township’s comments at their August 11, 2008 Township Committee meeting and on October 13, 2008 the Township will have an informal Township Committee workshop meeting.
Public Comment
The Mayor opened the meeting to public questions and comments:
Mr. Greg D’Angelis, 22 Ryan Road, asked if the various salaries at the warehouses had an impact in the count that COAH came up with.
Mr. Wyn Cody, 8 Adams Drive, stated all challenges seem to be going after the calculations made by COAH and asked if anyone is challenging the fact that the State sees a need for 115,000 new affordable homes within the next ten (10) years. Mr. Schmierer responded the issue is one of the points mentioned in the suit that has been prepared by the League of Municipalities.
David Mauger, 26 Griggs Road, raised the issue of a lack of public transportation in the area for potential affordable housing residents. Mr. Schmierer responded there is a long-range plan for the State to address transportation needs for its residents.
Public Comment (Continued)
Ms. Kelly Lehman, 60 Cranbury Road, thanked Senator Bill Baroni and Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein for all their support to Cranbury Township during the long process in Trenton.
Mr. Brian Schilling, Holmes Road, stated the loss of the RCAs violate State Plans (in such areas as The Pinelands, Highlands and other protected areas). Mr. Schilling also stated he is concerned with the fiscal implications of the Township having to build a lot more affordable units, i.e. new or expanded schools, infrastructure and the Township’s agreement with Princeton High School. Mr. Schilling stated he is in support of the Township joining in the two (2) lawsuits.
Mr. John Ritter, Plainsboro Road, recommended if there should be an amendment to allow RCAs in the Fall, it be worded in such a way that it would not be challenged by the fair share housing advocates. He also recommended having an amendment so the builders or State supplement the 2.5% or ask the State to come up with the offset and also recommended the municipalities be allowed to charge in-lieu of payments. Mr. Ritter stated all municipalities need to join together to educate their residents to get the same amendments enacted by the Legislature.
Mr. Ed Kietlinski, 83 South Main Street, asked what the Township is doing to convey any COAH information and updates to its residents and recommended public relations be part of its strategy.
Mr. Andre Moutenot, 3 Wynnewood Drive, asked out of the 250 municipalities that are part of COAH what percentage have fulfilled their obligation compared to Cranbury. Mr. Schmierer responded Cranbury Township is better than half of the municipalities that are part of COAH. Mr. Moutenot suggested that point be stressed to COAH and State Officials.
Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein recommended Cranbury Township show its power-point presentation to the individuals at COAH and in the leadership of both Houses in Trenton.
Ms. Nancy Kietlinski, 83 South Main Street, asked about the residential ratio and if there will be a cap.
Ms. Betty Wagner, 158 North Main Street, asked what is happening with the farmland preservation and if COAH could mandate those parcels be used for the Township’s affordable housing. Ms. Waterbury, Township Attorney, explained those parcels are “Deed Restricted” and only a Court could undo the preservation.
Mr. Dan Mulligan, 32 Old Cranbury Road, asked if the part-time employees at the warehouses are part of the count that COAH did for the warehouse ratio, etc. and requested the Township invite Commissioner Doria, Speaker Roberts, Lucy Vandeveer and the press to look at the power-point presentation prepared by Mr. Berkowsky of Cranbury Housing Associates.
Mr. Stannard spoke concerning Assemblywoman Greenstein abstaining from voting on A500 recently and explained Speaker Roberts has been quoted in the newspapers as stating any vote other than a yes vote for his Bill was unacceptable as far as he was concerned. Mr. Stannard applauded Assemblywoman Greenstein for abstaining in support of Cranbury Township.
Public Comment (Continued)
Mr. David Mauger, 26 Griggs Road, stated he has read that some regions are permitted to continue working together to satisfy affordable housing obligations, primarily for land preservation reasons. He asked if regions such as The Highlands, Meadowlands and Pinelands can work together, perhaps the Township can get consideration for the region, some people call, the “central farmlands” (which he understands includes Southern Middlesex, Western Monmouth and Northern Burlington counties). He stated many residents are struggling to stay in the Township due to the poor economic times.
There being no further comments, the Mayor closed the public part of the meeting.
Ordinance
Second Reading
Cranbury Township Ordinance 07-08-17
A motion to enter an Ordinance entitled, “Cranbury Township Ordinance 07-08-17, A BOND ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR VARIOUS REPAIRS TO THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING IN AND
BY THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANBURY, IN THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, NEW JERSEY, APPROPRIATING $25,000 THEREFOR AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $23,750 BONDS OR NOTES OF THE TOWNSHIP TO FINANCE PART OF THE COST THEREOF”, was
presented for second reading and final adoption. The Ordinance was published in the Cranbury Press, posted on the Township Bulletin Board and copies were available to the public. The Mayor opened the public hearing on the Ordinance. No one present wished to speak, so the hearing was declared closed. On motion by Ms. Stave, seconded by Mr. Wittman, the Ordinance was adopted by a vote:
...
"
http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes072808.pdf |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 9:07 am EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
I am very ticked this morning by these notes. I don't care what residents want to do or say. However, officials need to understand their actions and that there is a big picture.
In terms of Stannard's comments about Roberts, all I can say is what is he thinking? All her actions showed is that Linda is less concerned about the town and our residents than she is about her political future and role. And it appears so is Stannard. We should not have officials scared of party politics. We should have officials in Trenton that represent the electorate.
For some reason, we fall all over our politicans and act as though they are celebrities. IMO, Stannard's open thanking of Linda was unprofessional and is a MAJOR disservice to our town. Why? Because it showed Linda she could ignore our interests and not be held accountable. The only reason I see is that he's in her party. Mr. Panconi changed parties because of his ethics and here we have Stannard falling over himself to in TC notes Applaud Linda's efforts.
Basically, Stannard's comments equate to the following.
Linda you chose politics and your protection over our interests. Good job!! Why thank you M'am we appreciate your taking the easy way out and chosing not to defend us. We realize our town is endangered, but so long as your in good standing with Roberts that's all we care about. After all then you can make yourself more powerful. After all, Robert's powerful and wants to destroy Cranbury. He's done nothing, but undermine our town. So yes, it's good that you stay on his side. In essence Linda, save yourself and thank you from Cranbury. Throw us under the bus and we'll gladly lie down for you."
And before you go calling me out for these comments, the TC notes that Stannard applauded Linda for her efforts. The notes were adopted so clearly Stannard had no issue with the notes officially applauding Linda.
Roberts is not going to change RCA's and he's not going to amend his bill that PASSED. Our only hope is that some others ban together and amend the bill. Clearly, if Linda felt a no vote was going against Roberts, what do you think amending his bill after it passed will do? Do we have people that honestly believe Linda will amend a bill sponsored by Roberts that passed? He would go nuts. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 9:50 am EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
Totally agree. I posted something similar after the unofficial summary here a while back. I think the claim that she is really helping us with that vote is total BS. She has always come to our meetings and always said she supports our interests but has repeatedly voted the party line even when they diametrically oppose the positions she says she supports in our meetings. The excuse is ALWAYS that she has to be a loyal party member to be "effective" for us and we are ALWAYS assured she will really help us behind the scenes. I challenged anyone to post a single example where she actually has followed-up with meaningful (i.e. more than letters or speeches) change in our favor and no one could come up with a single example. They could only defend the notion that we may as well trust her because we have no better option. Not good enough in my opinion...
And for our TC member to go out of his way to support her is absolutely disgusting. Ms. Lehman did as well. It's one thing to not expressly call her to task for her vote but to actually praise her is utterly inconsistent with the interests of the Township. I so wish we had a elected officer recall process here as I would personally begin a signature drive. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 10:50 am EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
Guest wrote: |
Mr. Edwin Schmierer, Esquire, the Attorney representing numerous towns who have joined together in a lawsuit under the State League of Municipalities, stated Cranbury Township has “stepped up” and done its requirement under COAH. To date, Cranbury Township has provided 232 affordable units above the 223 which were required, leaving a surplus of nine (9). The Township’s current obligation is 269 units. Mr. Schmierer indicated he was not concerned with the “sky falling” on Cranbury Township and commended Mark Berkowsky and CHA on a job well done. |
So, let me get this straight - we currently have 1160 single family homes. COAH want us to build another 269 units on top of the 96 current COAH homes already with Cranbury. This will bring our TOTAL COAH:standard residential ratio to 3:1. This is outrageous. Mr. Schmierer - yes the "sky is falling" for Cranbury and many towns in NJ facing the same problems.
Even if we get hit by builders remedy the ratio would be 3:1. Trenton is trying to make us a to a low income town subsided by property owners. Where is our representatives? Why are they not fighting for us? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 10:55 am EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
It's all politics, folks.
I am not fooled by Mr. Stannard's spin. I believe Cranbury residents are not that gullible, either. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cranbury Conservative
Joined: Tue, Apr 29 2008, 9:26 am EDT Posts: 287 Location: Old Cranbury Road
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 11:03 am EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
Right before Mr Stannard made his comments I spoke and said I was disappointed in Assembly Women Greenstein's lack of voting against the bill. Unfortunately that was left out of the meeting minutes. It appears only the positive Greenstein comments actually make it into the official minutes for the meetings. Additionally lets not forget Mr Ritter who is running for a TC seat this fall has openly thanked Assembly Women Greenstein at TC meetings. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 11:23 am EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
Cranbury Conservative wrote: | Right before Mr Stannard made his comments I spoke and said I was disappointed in Assembly Women Greenstein's lack of voting against the bill. Unfortunately that was left out of the meeting minutes. It appears only the positive Greenstein comments actually make it into the official minutes for the meetings. ... |
Wow! This is so unethical for the TC to do that. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
yankee
Joined: Fri, May 23 2008, 12:26 pm EDT Posts: 18
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 11:27 am EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
To ANONYMOUSLY rip Kelly Lehman for thanking Greenstein after all she has done is reprehensible. I doubt half the people in this town would even know what COAH is without her efforts. She is not elected to anything and has done all this for Cranbury on her own time. Keep your eye on the ball "guest". |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 11:46 am EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
yankee wrote: | To ANONYMOUSLY rip Kelly Lehman for thanking Greenstein after all she has done is reprehensible. I doubt half the people in this town would even know what COAH is without her efforts. She is not elected to anything and has done all this for Cranbury on her own time. Keep your eye on the ball "guest". |
Yankee, Glad you are protective of our residents - However, GUEST has the right to an opinion too. GUEST disagreed with the praises Linda Greenstein received at the meeting by BOTH the TC and Kelly Lehman. Just because Kelly Lehman is not an elected official, doesn't mean that people cannot disagree with her. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 12:14 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
I personally have little patience for partisanship on most issues, most particularly on issues at the local level. That said, I'd urge us all to direct our efforts toward the common goal of informing COAH of the ill-conceived nature of Round 3 rules (and the Legislature of the ill-conceived nature of A-500 and its Senate equivalent). Disagreeing on who should be praised or chastised can wait...
We have an opportunity to influence COAH regs and related laws. COAH's failure to exempt agricultural structures from the 2.5% fee, for example, reflects how hastily these rules were promulgated. Ag structures were previously exempt (a good thing in my view if we seek to advance agricultural preservation in this state). From what I understand, COAH was actually surprised this exemption was not in its current rules!
Whether one agrees with me on this particular issue or not is not my concern. What it shows is that the rules were passed too quickly, and flawed in several respects (or indefensible in others, such as is the case with the warehouse job assumptions). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 12:38 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
I too am upset with our representation in Trenton – I think it is unfortunate that we are putting all our eggs into one basket – Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein. We have put such expectations on her when we know she cannot go it alone and is currently out numbered.
She is only half of the equation – Where is our Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo?
They both represent District 14 which includes Cranbury, Hamilton, Jamesburg, Monroe, Plainsboro, South Brunswick, West Windsor. These are all “Smart Growth” towns that Trenton wants to build out to become URBAN communities. Gone are the RCA’s to help rehab homes in URBAN communities, GONE is the farmland preservation, GONE is our overall “quality of life”, GONE is our “GARDEN STATE”.
Currently, If Trenton forces us to build 269 more COAH homes – that will bring us up to 365 COAH homes within Cranbury to date. That is a 3:1 residential ratio. What will they want in the next 10 years – a 1:1 ratio. Our home values will fall even further – we will be a residential area will be devalued due to the overwhelming existence of subsidized housing surrounded by warehousing – We will be considered a workforce neighborhood.
OK now about Assemblywoman Greenstein’s voting - On this instance, a “NO” vote or abstention would not have made a difference – the law still would have passed. So, I can understand her vote of abstention to send a clear message to Richards that she is not going to be a good girl and play his game. Also, I have to give her credit, she knew Cranburians were upset with her vote and personally faced the music by showing up at the last township meeting.
With that said - I expect our TC to put heavy pressure on BOTH our representatives to help save Cranbury. However, why hasn’t our TC not utilized Wayne DeAngelo – has anyone even met with him? I don’t care what he believes in or what his pet projects are; he represents communities of “Smart Growth” towns that are under attack by Trenton and needs to take action.
If we could just get both of our representatives on the same page – we might have a decent chance. It is now up to our lawmakers to do that right thing instead of playing politics. Can you hear us? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 12:43 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
Guest wrote: | We have an opportunity to influence COAH regs and related laws. COAH's failure to exempt agricultural structures from the 2.5% fee, for example, reflects how hastily these rules were promulgated. Ag structures were previously exempt (a good thing in my view if we seek to advance agricultural preservation in this state). From what I understand, COAH was actually surprised this exemption was not in its current rules! |
According to the Cranbury Press - "The Garden State Preservation Trust, which finances preservation of open space and historic sites, will have no money left by the end of the year once appropriations are made for current projects and officials don’t expect any new funding for next year. " |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 12:51 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
This is true and there is a lot of effort to re-establish a stable statewide funding source for open space and farm preservation. Two relevant points to add: (1) At least for farmland preservation, the state has on average funded about 60-65% of easement or acquisition costs, with the local (municipal and/or county) governments covering the balance. These local funds are often from dedicated portions of the property tax or, in some cases, local bonding. So the point is that there is still significant interest/need for land preservation and local funds in the coffers. I am optimistic that state funding will be re-established.
(2) With over 1700 farms (and 170,000 acres of farmland) preserved so far, it is counterintuitive that we should allow policies to pass that reduce their economic viability. This jeopardizes a huge public investment in farmland preservation. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 5:41 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
yankee wrote: | To ANONYMOUSLY rip Kelly Lehman for thanking Greenstein after all she has done is reprehensible. I doubt half the people in this town would even know what COAH is without her efforts. She is not elected to anything and has done all this for Cranbury on her own time. Keep your eye on the ball "guest". |
I didn't see anyone who "ripped" Kelly Lehman. They "ripped" the TC member and simply said "Ms. Lehman thanked her too" or something like that. Hardly a rip. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
James
Joined: Mon, Apr 21 2008, 4:10 pm EDT Posts: 129 Location: South Main Street
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 6:07 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
My view is that a resident should have and does have the right to thank, not thank, to express or not express any feelings toward elected officials in an open forum. While I strongly disagree with the thanks, I can't say Kelly is wrong for doing so as that is her personal opinion. It was expressed as such and therefore it canbe neither wrong or right. I don't think it is right or proper for any of us to bring her or any other resident into the mix.
Mr. Ritter as a candidate running for office is different. His thanks shows a stance and a view that he would take while in office. To me, his expressing thanks to Linda, if he did express thanks, is a sign of where his priorities lie as a candidate. It also concerns me as an inability to see beyond party lines. However, I was not at the meeting and I did not see a personal thank you in the notes. Therefore, I can't conclude anything.
In terms of Mr. Stannard, I find his actions at a minimal level to be unprofessional pandering and at the largest level bordering on the improper given his position and situation. He used his position sitting as an active TC member during an active TC meeting to express thanks for a fellow party member who failed to uphold the interests of the voters. He did so when that individual, Linda Greenstein, acted against Cranbury's interests and in her own self interest. Mr. Stannard set a precedent of condoning such actions and setting it as though it was the TC and town also agreeing to such actions. If he wanted to personally thank Linda outside of the meeting he is more than welcome. Mr. Stannard has set a dangerous tone or perhaps highlighted the current tone of our TC where party politics play a key role. In so doing he has essentially absolved Linda from accountability.
I also find it interesting that the TC has yet to offer thanks to Bill Baroni who actually did support us. But, I would never assume party politics has anything to do with this.
In terms of whether we should ignore it as another poster stated, I would disagree. Ignoring such actions only serves to support them at a time when we need Trenton to understand Cranbury is serious and that our residents are truly looking for help.
If the notes were edited toward the positive, then it is unethical behavior and we voters should remember this at the next two elections. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Aug 13 2008, 6:28 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The 7/28/08 Township Committee minutes have been posted. |
|
|
I agree with James (and am the one who allegedly "ripped" Ms. Lehman). I simply mentioned the minutes also listed that she thanked Ms. Greenstein. But I only took issue with a TC member doing so on the record. It's fine to say nothing but to publically credit her for the official record is wrong, as was leaving the previously speaker's criticism of her out of the record and not thanking Mr. Baroni who has done far more for Cranbury than Greenstein and actually did vote No. This just demonstrates that the Stout Three are actually members of Roberts machine and more interested in their political status in the NJ Democratic machine than the interests of Cranbury (I say this as a registered Democrat BTW). That is what I take issue with. Ms. Lehman should say whatever she wants as a private citizen, though the TC should not selectly edit to note her thanks for the record and leave out another private citizen's criticisms.
Unfortunately the only Democrat I can be proud of on the TC right now just resigned his Democratic status in disgust of what is going on. I am actually considering doing the same, following his excellent leadership. I still plan to vote for the Democrat nationally but my days of voting Democrat for State positions is passed. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|