Cranbury candidates talk open space

[Cranbury Press]

Cranbury candidates talk open space

Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:44 PM EDT
By Maria Prato-Gaines, Staff Writer

CRANBURY — Land preservation has been a long-standing tradition in Cranbury and in the midst of an election season, it seems to be a topic both local candidates are well versed in.

Republican nominee Win Cody and Democrat nominee John Ritter are both staunch supporters of land preservation, but differ in how they would plan for the future.

Both are seeking one, three-year seat on the Township Committee. Incumbent Republican Wayne Wittman is not seeking re-election.

Mr. Cody said keeping the “small town” feel of Cranbury and maintaining its layout of farmland is key to Cranbury’s identity.

Not only does it prevent congestion from housing and traffic, he said, but it is also essential to long-term financial planning.
”Preservation is also vitally important because of (the Council on Affordable Housing),” Mr. Cody said. “By preserving farmland we’re potentially reducing our future tax increases as the town will not need to provide services and affordable housing for land that is not developed.”

Mr. Cody said he would like to see as much property west of Route 130 as well as the Rejay’s farm on Plainsboro Road preserved.

”This is land where most of the residents of Cranbury live and having preserved land in that area is ideal,” he said. “Open space in New Jersey is precious and we should try to save as much as possible.”

Although Mr. Cody said he thinks the township should continue to aggressively find open space funding, it’s apparent that county and state funding has become a limited source.

The township’s next step should be to assess the areas that are critical and develop a preservation plan that would determine the location and usage of these potential properties, he said.

”Within the last few years Cranbury had a recreation plan which amended the town’s Master Plan,” he said. “I feel we should consider a complete open space review with extensive public review and discussion.”

While township officials lead this process, Mr. Cody said resident input should play a significant role as well.

”Once the plan is developed a referendum for a bond funding open space preservation should be placed on the ballot for Cranbury residents to vote upon,” Mr. Cody said.

”While I personally think open space preservation is important, since it is potentially a large amount of money, it is up to the residents to decide.”

The bulk of preserved land should be used for farming and recreation, he said, provided the public recreation aspect does not represent increased cost to taxpayers, without their support.

Mr. Ritter, on the other hand, said that although it is tempting to have a referendum, he would expect elected officials to receive community input, weigh the various options and objectively make the best choice for the community.

”It is also expensive to hold referendums, particularly when they don’t occur on a regular Election Day, and often there isn’t enough time to hold referendums on critical issues,” he said. “If the referendum is held on a day other than a major election day, it is likely that precisely the same set of people who would show up for a large meeting on an important issue will turn out to vote on an off-cycle referendum.”

Unlike other issues in town, Cranbury residents have time and again shown their support for preservation, he said.

Residents understand that through land preservation they will reap the economic and environmental benefits as well as ease the pressure on the school systems, Mr. Ritter said.

”The concern on all our minds is how we can finance the up front investment that will preserve land and our quality of life, reduce pressure on the school and high school, and avoid the future uncovered costs that new housing development brings,” he said. “COAH affordable housing costs are potentially very large and may raise property taxes to a level that many of us cannot afford; yet it makes sense economically and for so many other reasons to invest in preserving our farmland and open space. We have to find every way possible to reduce preservation costs to Cranbury through county state and private funding sources.”

Mr. Ritter said the Master Plan has set out reasonable parameters for potential open space properties, and particularly appreciates that many of the already preserved farms border one another, keeping with Cranbury’s historically rural roots.

But although Mr. Ritter praises many of Cranbury’s preservation efforts he said there are a few flaws in the system.

”The only concern I’ve heard is the pace at which this happens,” he said. “We need to actually talk to everyone who has a piece of property (now) and see who would be interested in preserving. Then if someone gets an offer (from a developer) they don’t have to try to understand the alternative.”

Cranbury’s devotion to preserving it’s high quality farm land has also made it a more desirable place to live and increased the value of local homes, Mr. Ritter said.

”The Cranbury community understands the importance of preserving farmland and open space and the value of the preserved land,” he said. “Our quality of life is apparent every time we walk down the road to the school soccer fields; and look out over the preserved farms; or walk along the stream in the Cranbury Brook Preserve.”

[Guest]

This article concerns me regarding John Ritter and certainly seems to me to indicate we have another member of David's group on our hands.

Where as Win proposed a referendum, Ritter is honestly advocating the same policies that have caused so many of the problems in town. To expressly oppose a referendum is highly concerning and appears planly out of touch with our town's concerns today.

From the Press- Mr. Ritter, on the other hand, said that although it is tempting to have a referendum, he would expect elected officials to receive community input, weigh the various options and objectively make the best choice for the community.

I agree on minor issues. I disagree when we're talking expenses like PNC and the Ballfield. The current TC has shown with regard to projects that they don't listen. While the West property is not something I'd pose for a referndum 100% opposed the decision and the TC proceeded anyway.

This is classic Mayor Stout and is the same words he issued when he made the West Property vote.

I'm also concerned because he's making a very poor assumption that we have voter apathy in our town. On the value and interest of our residents, "it is likely that precisely the same set of people who would show up for a large meeting on an important issue will turn out to vote on an off-cycle referendum"

First, many attend meetings and don't speak so how is he to know there is support or no support for an issue in that situation?

Second, many people work and can't make the meetings or have family at home and can't make meetings, but they can vote.

Third, he's ignoring the interests of our town residents by stating opposition to another form of voicing opinion.

Why is he concerned about hearing resident voices on a referendum? The cost. Well, the cost is 1,500-5,000 based on a quick google search of other similar size towns when we're talking millions in spending.

These statements are exactly in line with the current TC and the need for change.

Now, feel free to say what you want about me. However, I can't see these words as anything else but in line with the problems we have today on the TC.

[Guest]

I thought it was generally understood that Ritter is Stout's hand-picked candidate. Stout is the political boss of the township and picked Ritter much as Roberts picked DeAngelo for our district...

[CranburyKing]

[Guest]

[Guest]

John Ritter seems to be a very nice guy. However, he seems to be out of touch with the way the town is operating or is beholden to David. Either way, he's not what we need at this time. His comments show he's not going to stand up and look for change in the methods. He has ignored this blog and he hasn't visited any people I know on the south side of town yet. Sorry, but this a clear choice in my opinion.

[Guest]

[Jersey Dad]

I guess I must be special. I have had the pleasure of having both Mr. Ritter and Mr. Cody stop by my home.

I have had ample time to speak with Mr. Ritter because I have found him at every meeting I've attended. He has approached me about the issues I have raised and my comments at TC meetings. He has taken a strong interest in an issue that is very important to me, our 2008 COAH Sub-Cert Plan. I have found Mr. Ritter to be thoughtful, committed and hard-working.

I have also had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Cody on a few occasions, although not as extensively. He seems to have many vitues which are already well documented on this site. I am looking forward to learning more about both candidates as we lead up to the election.

[Guest]

Jersey Dad, where is Cranbury Estates?

[Guest]