Township Committe meeting time change for September 26, 2011

[Guest]

Township Committe meeting time change for September 26, 2011.

http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC-Documents/2011/mtg_time_change_092611.pdf

[Guest]

The September 26, 2011 Township Committee meeting agenda has been posted.

http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC-Documents/2011/TC_Agenda092611.pdf

[Guest]

Why is the TC discussing 1 N main?

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

I went last night. There was actually less discussion than on the tree though this will cost more. No one from the public even questioned the work including myself. The TC at first talked arond the cost. Then when one and i forget who stated the cost would be between 9k and 20k to fix the sidewalk. They then went into closed session and when they came out voted 4-1, Mssrs. Cody, Cook, Johnson and Mulligan voted yes. Mr. Taylor voted no.

IMO, Mr. Taylor was the only one seriously questioning the cost and issues on why the town should do this. Mr. Mulligan said he had a cost saving idea and proposed the closed session. Mr. Cody and Mr. Cook from the start appeared to want this done by the town.

[Guest]

[Guest]

I was there too. The issue I had is that the TC rushed to do the whole project instead of just replacing the stones on the sidewalk. What I mean is that they are doing the driveway apron, bringing in fill to fill the hole and doing major work. That was all based on the assumption that the homeowner may choose not to have a driveway. One member even questioned why we were going through this expense when it was clear the homeowners needed to do the filling of the hole to fix their driveway and then the town could come in and lay the stone.

When spending 9k why not try to share the cost with the homeowner if the town really wants to do more than just putting the stones back?

Plus the fact that they are doing the driveway apron is a concern for me.

[Guest]

I'm with Mr. Taylor on this one. The law says the homeowner is responsible for the repair and upkeep of the sidewalks except when the damage is caused by an act of god or something beyond their control. Even then, if the Township had wanted to argue the point they could have asserted that the damage was caused due to improper upkeep of the underlying support for the sidewalk which is in the homeowners control. That ground has eroded substantially over years and should have long ago had a retaining wall installed at the homeowners expense. The flood isn’t the root cause of the collapse, only the tipping point. But under no circumstances does the law require the Township to repair the driveway beyond the portion that crosses the public sidewalk.

As I understand it this homeowner also refused to purchase flood insurance despite being in an obvious flood zone. And she has been hostile in expecting the Township to do everything for her from day one. Read her comments after the flood in the Cranbury Press. The Township should have played chicken with her and even considered suing her to do whatever fill and work was necessary for them to do their required work on the sidewalk. And they should go to pains to not repair the driveway beyond the point of the sidewalk. We could have lived with the status quo, perhaps cleaned up a bit, for a long time.

I can’t see how anyone except the homeowner wins the way it went down. Almost no one will appreciate the TC’s vote, not even the hostile homeowner who will still blame them for taking this long. Taxpayers lose. And we’re setting up a terrible precedent for future damage. And inevitably some future TC will decide not to do the same or realize that they can’t sustain this precedent and take contrary action in the future setting the Township up for another lawsuit.

I appreciate the TC members are often in no-win situations so I don’t fault them for having to make decisions with which some people, including myself, won’t agree.

[Guest]

[Guest]

I spoke with mr. Taylor after the meeting. The issue is the town is responsible for the sidewalk. However, his issue is that the driveway has to be done and we're bringing in fill to support the sidewalk. The same fill and construction would have to be done to repair the driveway. He felt that the homeowner should make all those repairs and that we could have then had public works install the bluestone for the homeowner and still met the legal obligation without costing the town any money.

However, my comment now from the meeting last night it seemed the TC wanted the project done fast and to do that they have to do more work. they said at the meeting they will need to fill in most of the hole to do the sidewalk the way it is proposed.

[Guest]

When I speak to my neighbors about township issues, I am often amazed at the level of knowledge and understanding these folks present.

When I read this message board I am also amazed, at the low level of understanding of the most basic issues, of the inability to grasp simple facts, and the ability to disseminate misinformation at the speed of light.

A previous poster insultingly encouraged other posters to attend township meetings to get there facts straight. It must please him no end that after attending township meetings, these posters manage to scramble the facts when reporting them on the board.

Let us review. Ding-a-ling 1 reports on the township meeting giving his opinion of the proceding without any acknowledgement of the legal opinion.

A second poster points out the legal opinion.

Ding-a-ling 2 chimes in that he was also in attendance, and proceeds to get most of the facts wrong and then issues his opinion.

Quickly now we hear from Ding-a-ling three, who it appears was not at the meeting, takes the scrambled facts and incorrect assumptions of 1 and 2 and spews forth an opinion piece.

Finally 2 posters come into the discussion and try to correct the misinformation fest.

I honestly don't know what is going on here. Are some posters to this board unable to understand basic issues or are their conclusions so set in stone they simply don't hear the facts that are in opposition to there beliefs.

What I do know is there are many extremely intelligent and knowledgeable people in this town. It appears that very few of them post here.

[Guest]

Let's be clear. I think a large part of the issue is that the TC rushed through a solution. The town has a legal obligation to repair the sidewalk a physical structure. However, they went beyond by also bringing in the fill to repair under the sidewalk which is needed to repair the driveway.

So the TC is doing more than obligated, which is causing the confusion. In posts above.

[Guest]

[Guest]

Ding 1 left out the legal opinion either because he wasn't paying attention or did not like the conclusion.

Ding 2 was unhappy because the township was repairing the driveway apron. This is just plain wrong. The township is NOT repairing the driveway apron.

Ding 3 presents no facts merely has a longwinded opinion about the homeowner.

I actually don't give a hoot in hell who repairs this sidewalk. My complaint is postes who either don't know the facts or conveniently forget facts in order to push an agenda.

I would point out after the three ding-a-lings, two responsible people posted correcting the record. I thank them for that. Interestingly, they did not offer opinions on the issue.