Cranbury candidates target affordable housing

[Cranbury Press]

Cranbury candidates target affordable housing

Thursday, September 11, 2008 3:29 PM EDT
By Maria Prato-Gaines, Staff Writer

CRANBURY – Candidates for Township Committee share concerns about future development, but differ on how to handle it.

Republican Win Cody, 48, a resident of Cranbury for 11 years, and John Ritter, 60, a resident for 24 years, are vying for one, three-year seat on the Township Committee.

Both said that how to handle new affordable housing rules is the biggest issue when it comes to Cranbury’s future development.

The Council on Affordable Housing’s initial third-round rules, introduced in December, more than doubled the statewide obligation from 52,000 affordable housing units to 115,000 and increased Cranbury’s obligation from 160 units to 469.

In addition, the warehouse-to-job ratio used to determine affordable housing requirements for the third round was changed to 1.5 per every 1,000 square feet of warehouse, but following a statewide commentary period that ended in March, the council revised those numbers to 1 job per every 1,000 square feet of warehouse and one affordable housing unit for every 16 jobs.
In addition, Regional Contribution Agreements, which allowed towns to transfer some of their affordable housing obligations to other communities, are now extinct because of Bill A-500, which was passed in both houses in June and signed by Gov. Jon Corzine on July 17.

Mr. Ritter said that although the Master Plan was well thought out by previous community leaders, new affordable housing requirements that could mean an increase in the township’s responsibility mean the Master Plan may need to be reassessed. He also said that using the east side of Route 130 as a commercial zone to offset taxes for residents was initially a good strategy, but should be revisited as well.

”Planners point to Cranbury as a model,” Mr. Ritter said. “But when we did plan, there was no way to anticipate the commercial development would create affordable housing requirements.”

Besides having to designate an area where additional affordable housing units can be placed, Mr. Ritter said, he would work to get Cranbury’s affordable housing requirements decreased.

One major issue he has is with the 2.5 percent commercial development fee that developers will have to contribute to affordable housing costs, a number Mr. Ritter said, won’t cover the cost of constructing the units.

”There’s a shortfall of over $100,000 a unit we receive from developers,” he said. “COAH gives an average of $160,000 (in cost per unit). Our last units cost $180,000 (per unit). The shortfall has to be covered by Cranbury taxpayers and the ongoing costs are greater than the tax revenue generated by the warehouses.”

He also said that warehouse-to-job ratio cited by the new COAH rules, are actually lower.

”We’ve got a strong case to argue for the job numbers used in the warehouse calculations, which are grossly inaccurate,” Mr. Ritter said.

Mr. Ritter said he would also like to see a 20 percent cap guarantee by COAH, in reference to each municipality’s total housing stock, as well as certain retroactive requirements eliminated, as the town can no longer collect retroactive fees from developers who have completed their project.

It’s also important to see Cranbury’s affordable housing requirements lowered to a more reasonable number because of the implications a growth in population could have on the township’s infrastructure, he said.

”We’ve got the two issues now, to meet the requirements and the implications for our school system,” Mr. Ritter said.

Land preservation may be the answer to a boom in population, a growth that the school systems both in Cranbury and in Princeton, where township high school students attend, could have difficulty accommodating, he said.

”If we don’t preserve and land is developed it puts more pressure on the school system,” he said. “Given our infrastructure, we can’t afford much more development of any sort.”

Aside from affordable housing worries, Mr. Ritter said he also has concerns over traffic generated by the commercial district and the cost to travel on the N.J. Turnpike, projected to double between now and 2012, which could force drivers to use local roads instead.

”I don’t see that there’s a good solution short of Liberty Way, which we can’t afford,” Mr. Ritter said, referring to a bridge that will provide a more direct route from Cranbury’s warehouse district to the N.J. Turnpike. “Truck traffic on (Route) 130 is going to be a significant issue going forward. We need to work with where trucks can go and suggest alternative routes.”
Mr. Cody also said meeting affordable housing requirements is one of the biggest issues facing the township and future development.

”Right now, the big issue I know is COAH,” Mr. Cody said. “It’s going to completely change the nature of this town.”

After recent changes in the third-round rules, township professionals are still calculating Cranbury’s exact affordable housing unit requirement, he said. But before a plan is set, township officials need to ask some important questions.

”We have to get a conclusion,” he said. “We have to look at where the housing would go. Do we want to keep increasing the number of warehouses?”

He also said that challenging the affordable housing requirements is the township’s best approach to finding a middle ground.

If elected, Mr. Cody said, he would support the township’s involvement in various lawsuits challenging COAH. He also would encourage Cranbury officials and residents to keep an open dialogue with state legislators.

”I don’t want to concede that we have to do what COAH is telling us,” Mr. Cody said. “I want to fight this. I don’t just want to roll over.”

Evaluating any prospective development should be a huge priority for future planning in the township, he said.

The township needs to analyze a future developer’s tax contribution, their contribution and impact on affordable housing obligations, as well as the increased cost of services, he said.

One solution to minimizing development is open space preservation, he said.

”I think preserving farmland where appropriate is good,” he said.

But the Township Committee’s recent decisions to restrict the West Property to active and passive recreation, limiting a possible school expansion, as well as building a multimillion dollar Babe Ruth Baseball field on the Wright South property, has left Mr. Cody thinking there may be a better approach to planning, he said.

For official decisions that involve major nonemergency capital expenditures costing more than $1 million or that could have a permanent impact on the township, Mr. Cody said the residents of Cranbury should have the final say.

”I know (the committee members) are using their best judgment to do what they think is right, but they are only five people,” he said. “I’ve never seen so many controversies over these decisions. For major decisions we need to get more feedback and input from the town.”

Even though the public meetings and local blogs are a great way to get that feedback, Mr. Cody said that some issues would be best settled on a referendum.
”The Township Committee is elected by residents to represent their needs,” Mr. Cody said. “Do the residents want this new ball field? Do residents want a new library? You’re going to have to work to see what people want and be informed.”

[HistoricallyFiscal]

[REALDEAL]

Cranbury residents pay some of the lowest property taxes in the state, thanks to the warehouses. Now because of the warehouses, they want to fight the state because they don't want affordable housing in there community. It has nothing to do with costs, they just want to have some other community deal with it, just like they do with everything else.
The outcome is going to be the same. Pay now and build the housing, or Pay top dollar for lawsuits and legal BS and maybe get the number reduced slightly. Ultimately, its going to end up costing the same money.

[Guest]

[Jersey Dad]

[James]

Guest is right and I would take it further to say until COAH3 is fully vetted and all challenges are exhausted I would not change the prior planning at this time. Some see COAH3 and immediately react without waiting to see and not evaluating where things are going. I am concerned because I see our TC jumping to conclusions and acting on too many what if scenarios such as preserving the West Property.

If the Warehouse district was not implemented our taxes would be much higher and our housing stock and school would be much larger. This land would not have stayed as farmland.

If you see what is going on in Robbinsville, Somerset, WW the TC's are desperately trying to bring in more rateables and using Cranbury as the smart way to do things. The warehouse require limited services and contribute a major revenue stream to our tax base.

So, let's make the challenges and see where COAH3 goes before we start tossing away planning, modifying zoning, etc...

The one comment I will have aside from this is that concerns me is if the town changes zoning laws than we're open to lawsuits and challenges from landowners who bought land for a commercial purpose. WW changed zoning on the Toll Bros., they then faced a builders remedy and were forced to take on a 1,000 plus homes. Plus the millions lost in lawsuits.

Also, openly stating by any candidate or TC that X property is a consideration for town purchase or use is a poor action. Such a statement is irresponsible because it increases the cost of that land exponentially when the landowner sees an active interest, plus offers the potential for more buyers to come in and buy the land on spec. of the town purchasing it at a later date. It's better to say all options are on the table, then say they'll build East of 130.

[Guest]

[Jersey Dad]

Someone mentioned that the 96 we have already built count toward the 269. Is this accurate?

[Guest]

[Guest]

Think about that neighbors. 3:1 ratio is what COAH3 is forcing us to implement. Thats 3 Cranbury Homeowners for every 1 COAH Cranburytax subsidized house. Do you not think this is outrageously high already. Not even Trenton or Newark has this ratio today.

We are at about 10:1 today and that is higher then many if not most NJ municipalities already.

Retroactive Warehouse calculations must be eliminated from the COAH3 rules, that is unlawful based on the Fair Housing Act. We have a legal leg to stand on in this, and it is irresponsible for any current TC or future candidate to start implementing or planning on COA3 before this changes. These are unlawful rules and we MUST fight this and eliminate the RETROACTIVE rules period.

Then lets get back to Smart Planning here in Cranbury on all fronts.

[Guest]

[James]

[Cranbury Conservative]

Roberts, Corzine and the rest of the Party in control of Trenton are all on board with COAH and Consolidation which is an attack on the suburban taxpayers of this State.

If you look deeper at the COAH plan as well as consolidation both plans dicrectly impact towns in central NJ as well as western and north western NJ and the towns in these areas tend not not be strong holds of the Party in charge of Trenton.

Both of these plans as was stated in the previous post will help the Party in charge to strengthen there voting base in these areas.