Candidates for Cranbury TC Debate Tomorrow October 14 at 8:00 PM

[Cranbury Conservative]

Candidates for Cranbury Township Committee Debate Tomorrow Tuesday October 14 at 8:00 PM

Cranbury Township Committee Candidate Debate
8:00 PM
School Cafeteria

Residents are encouraged to come to the debate and ask the candidates questions concerning Cranbury’s future.

[Guest]

October 14?

[Guest]

yes the 14th. CC mistyped. Today is the COAH meeting.

[Cranbury Conservative]

Sorry I fixed it

[Guest]

Who will be the moderator or is there one?

[Guest]

Why wouldn't they have given space to promote this in advance in the Cranbury Press? It would seem like very few people would know about it, besides those here or specifically close to one of the two candidates who hear about it first hand.

[Guest]

The Board of Health will recommend the TC to adopt a Cat Lincense ordinance.

I would like to ask the candidates whether they support such an ordinance or not.

[Guest]

If they pass the lame cat license, I think I'm going to cease getting a dog license and will def not be getting a cat license. Further proof that TC has no clue.

[Guest]

The cat licensing is a way Cranbury will get more of our money. It is a "cat tax" that is not helpful to our community or the surrounding farms.

For those of you who think "My cat stays indoors - so I just won't get a cat license. Who would know?"

By letting the proposed town ordinace to pass, it will allow the animal control agent to come around and knock at your door. If they know you have a cat. You will receive a fine for not licensing your cat.

What's next? A hamster license? Hmm . . . how about a fish lincense?

[Meow]

My cat stay in my house or my fenced yard. She won't bother others. Also, some cat owners have more than one cat. Will there be a license required for each cat?

[Guest]

Yes - every cat would need a license.

[Guest]

[Guest]

How did the debate go tonight?

[debate]

Well, just back from the debate.

Some observations.

Taxes- Both candidates want to reduce taxes and look at line item spending. Win raised the point of looking at professional services. Ritter looked at grants.

Working on TC- Win stated he wants to be independent on TC. Ritter stated the same point, but then when questioned further about where he differed was deflective.

Preservation- was raised and both candidates want to continue looking at preserving land.

Referendums- John actually changed his tune on this. To me it was blatant that he saw the importance and that he was saying it because he wanted it to be a non issue. Kind of like Stout with wants vs needs. Win said a million dollar threshold.

PNC -John rephrased his wording saying he doesn't agree on the purchase for a library. He did not say he opposed it for other uses. Win kept his stance that it wasn't appropriate.

Library- Ritter said he wanted to start now with looking at conributions and the wright south property. Win said it needs to be evaluated and may be appropriate down the line. However, costs are concern. He said we should work on a solution with members from the board, board of ed and principal sitting down to meet.

Ballfield. It was raised that there were zero kids and babe ruth would control use and the town responsible for costs. Ritter favors continued spending on the field and current use. When asked specifically about keeping it for town control perhaps making it a school field, he said he was opposed due to possible consolidation. The same point he used for upholding the West property decision. He also said he'd look at grants to further pay for costs. He admitted it is unfunded now. Win said we need to evaulate spending and if it continues we should look at keeping under town control.

David seemed annoyed at this issue being raised.

West Property- Win said he would have first worked with the school. Ritter said he believed it should all be preserved and not used for school use though the TC is apparently working on a solution.

Cranbury info. Ritter made it clear he reads the site by his attack on comments posted. He said he opposes it strongly. He was angry in his tone. Win said he supported the site and would use it to guage opinion on matters.

COAH they both said similar things that they'll work with legislators. Ritter admitted thanking Linda and supports her. Win was endorsed by Baroni and said he'd work with Baroni and Baroni has openly said he wants to work with Win.

Open meetings- Win supports reducing the number where appropriate. Ritter justified the current method of operation. Saying it only seems that way due to COAH and litigation. However, there are COAH aspects that didn't have to be closed as Win said.

Crowd- in my opinion it was heavily Democrat. The three democrats sat in a group with one woman wearing an Obama button. So it was pretty easy to see the clear Dems. On the other side were a group that I am not sure of. In the back it appeared some republicans, but small in number.

Winning Debator- They both were friendly and engaging. They did an excellent job in relating to the audience. I have to say Win only because he raised more solutions, but it was pretty fair overall.

[debate]

[Guest]

Thanks for the info.