Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing Â
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
â–ª
Cranbury School
â–ª
Cranbury Township
â–ª
Cranbury Library
â–ª
Cranbury.org
â–ª
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="wcody"][quote="Trenton Times"]Cranbury’s obligation is 486, according to Win Cody, a committeeman from Cranbury. [/quote] There was some confusion on Cranbury's obligation reported in this story. I would like to clarify. I told the reporter that our obligation for COAH Round 1 & 2 was 217 units which we had met with a combination of new housing and RCA's. Our current obligation for COAH revised Round 3 is 269 units for which we cannot use RCA's. Our total obligation for all three rounds totals 486 units. Win Cody[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="100%" class="forumline"> <tr> <th class="thCornerL" width="22%" height="26">Author</th> <th class="thCornerR">Message</th> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>wcody</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Sat, Oct 10 2009, 10:46 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: Cranbury's COAH Obligation</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Trenton Times wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">Cranbury’s obligation is 486, according to Win Cody, a committeeman from Cranbury. </td> </tr></table><span class="postbody"> <br /> <br />There was some confusion on Cranbury's obligation reported in this story. I would like to clarify. I told the reporter that our obligation for COAH Round 1 & 2 was 217 units which we had met with a combination of new housing and RCA's. Our current obligation for COAH revised Round 3 is 269 units for which we cannot use RCA's. Our total obligation for all three rounds totals 486 units. <br /> <br />Win Cody</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Homer</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Oct 9 2009, 9:44 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: Greenstein defends abstention on housing bill</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>cranbury liberal wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote"> These people are literally trying to vote Cranbury out of existence.</td> </tr></table><span class="postbody"> <br /> <br />C'mon Liberal! That's not fair. Sure, if there was a vote to put Cranbury out of existence, Wayne D'Assholo would vote for it. But Linda Greenstein would abstain.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Oct 9 2009, 8:12 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: Greenstein defends abstention on housing bill</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Well said I agree 100%. This is also why I am voting for Dan and Jay. I want a TC that will fight for Cranbury yet is humble enough to seek input from residents. Our own TC thanked Linda for abstaining last year. I don't see Dan or Jay doing rather I do see them holding her or others accountable.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>cranbury liberal</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Oct 9 2009, 4:08 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: Greenstein defends abstention on housing bill</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Nothing we haven't known for a year. DeAngelo doesn't represent anyone except his Union employer and the party bosses. His quote is a standard soundbite. He probably hasn't even read the bill and doesn't even know what the pros or cons are. All he knows is his Union, which will benefit as our state continues to overbuild despite already being the most overbuilt state in the union, says vote yes. <br /> <br />Greenstein on the other hand does care about our votes but is still afraid to ever buck her party machine. She thought abstaining was "brave" when it really was just chicken. She's serving no one but herself in the end. COAH was only one of many issues that was absolutely against the interests of Cranbury and the vast majority of her constituents and she has yet to ever vote in our interests on any of these measures when it crosses her party line. She even comes to our town halls and admits she is troubled by the bills but either votes for them or abstains. Yeah, that’s leadership. <br /> <br />I am a life-long Democrat but I will never vote for either of these two weak self-interested people again, even if it means voting for the other party. For anyone who lives in this town to do so is basically like self mutilation – it is voting 100% against the interests of the very survival of our Township. These people are literally trying to vote Cranbury out of existence.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Trenton Times</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Oct 9 2009, 2:49 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Greenstein defends abstention on housing bill</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Greenstein defends abstention on housing bill <br /> <br />By Carmen Cusido <br /> <br />October 08, 2009, 8:37PM <br /> <br />CRANBURY— Republican Assembly District 14 candidates Rob Calabro and Bill Harvey on Thursday blasted the state Council on Affordable Housing as a program that has socked state residents with higher property tax bills. <br /> <br />"All over the 14th district, municipalities have struggled to meet their unfunded state mandates (for affordable housing) while still holding the line on property taxes," Calabro, who also serves on the Hamilton planning board, told a handful of supporters at a press conference at The Cranbury Inn. <br /> <br />"COAH serves as a classic example of why New Jersey is in an affordability crisis. While COAH began with the most genuine intentions, it has spiraled out of control just like most of state government," Calabro said. <br /> <br />He and Harvey accused their Democratic opponents, incumbents Linda Greenstein, D-Plainsboro, and Wayne DeAngelo, D-Hamilton, of buckling to party pressure by abstaining or voting "yes" on a year-old bill that led to a ban on "regional contribution agreements." The RCAs enabled towns to pay each other to accept affordable housing obligations. Critics said the RCAs tended to cluster affordable housing in poorer communities. Linda Greenstein <br /> <br />Greenstein, who abstained from the vote, said the state Council on Affordable Housing "is a mess that needs to be fixed," and added that her abstention on the RCA bill showed that she did not support it. By making that stance, Greenstein said she came under fire from Democratic leadership, but added that she did not cast a "no" vote because she thought she might later have the chance to negotiate and reform COAH. <br /> <br />The debate on affordable housing intensified late last year, when COAH estimated 115,000 additional affordable units throughout the state must be available by 2018. COAH’s now requires that one affordable home per five market-rate units be built and one affordable home per 16 jobs be created. Cranbury’s obligation is 486, according to Win Cody, a committeeman from Cranbury. Hamilton’s obligation is 852 units by 2018. In all, 12 Mercer municipalities — all except Trenton — are planning for 1,732 additonal housing units over the next decade to meet their affordable housing obligations. <br /> <br />Eight Mercer County municipalities have paid Trenton to build housing using RCA deals; Lawrence this year saw a 64-unit affordable housing development completed on Brunswick Pike that also came from an RCA. <br /> <br />DeAngelo, who voted "yes," on the RCA ban last year, because "the benefits outweighed the negatives," said he and Greenstein are working on legislation that takes a regional approach to affordable housing and also reduces the number of units needed for townships with several warehouses. <br /> <br />Greenstein said the "crazy high numbers" of estimated housing units coupled with the loss of using RCAs as an option produced "a perfect storm." <br /> <br />"Towns know best what they need, what they can or can’t do. When you put impossible demands on the town, it just doesn’t work out," said Greenstein. <br /> <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2009/10/greenstein_defends_abstention.html" target="_blank">http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2009/10/greenstein_defends_abstention.html</a></span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> </table>
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in