Â Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing Â

Post a reply

Username

Subject

Message body

Emoticons

Font colour: Font size:

Close Tags

[quote="Guest"]I am not that poster, but here is what I took from Hank's editorial. Hank is what I call a lazy editorial writer.  It is not that he does not work hard it is that he does not show research in his pieces.  He simply spouts a personal view unsubstantiated by facts.  When he is called into question as usually happens he says no that is not what I meant.  How often do we see the I did not mean Cranbury specifically comments?  Oh, I did not mean Cranbury needs to consolidate, it was those other towns.  Oh, I don't mean Cranbury needs more than 20% affordable homes.  On and on and the Press continues to lose money because readers get tired of having a local paper advocate for their town's extinction.

So let's look at his comments in this editorial.

The issue was not that the state needed more affordable units in cities like Trenton and New Brunswick, but that the poor should not be [u]forced out of towns like Montgomery, Cranbury, South Brunswick, Millstone, the Hopewells and other relatively affluent suburban communities.[/u]

[b]Comment- Hank again cites wealthy towns as being against the poor, but gives no credit to towns like Cranbury who had CHA prior to Mt. Laurel.  He lumps as a as spoiled rich town.  Yet, we have a strong history of working to provide affordable homes.  In town and helping people.   He simply assumes we're all wealthy and therefore not doing anything.[/b]

Municipalities refused to comply, forcing the court eight years later to order the state Legislature to enact a fair housing law that required each town to demonstrate how it would provide the necessary housing and proscribing specific court remedies if they did not.

[b]Comment- Cranbury's obligation under that ruling was I believe 800 homes.  The legislature acted because the ruling was flawed.  It was not that the towns refused to comply because they did not want the homes. They did try to comply, but it was impractical.  WW just put in a 1,200 home Toll development because they agreed to that obligation rather than fight.  Again, Hank's lack of research allows a personal opinion to be stated as fact.[/b]

COAH has not lived up to its promise, partly because of opposition from suburban communities who viewed the Fair Housing Act as the state usurping municipal authority, but also because of COAH’s own flaws and inexplicable mistakes.

[b]Comment- "communities who viewed the Fair Housing Act as the state usurping municipal authority" opinion stated as fact.

"also because of COAH’s own flaws and inexplicable mistakes."  Again, what then are these flaws and mistakes?[/b]

The need for reform of the housing rules has been obvious for years — regional contribution agreements, for instance, were inserted in the original law as a loophole to allow suburban communities to meet their fair share without having to make room in their towns for too many low- or moderate-income people.

[b]Comment- Again opinion stated as fact.  RCA's were inserted so towns could still have land preservation efforts, so the tax base could still be self sustaining, so the cities that needed revenue to revitalize had an opportunity to do so, etc...

"without having to make room in their towns for too many low- or moderate-income people." This is simply a biased opinion presented as fact.[/b]

And COAH has not done a very good job of respecting community concerns about traffic or land preservation.

But abolition is not reform, and freezing COAH while a panel appointed by a hostile governor and led by an apparently hostile chairwoman considers its future leaves the state’s lower-income workers in the lurch.

[b]Comment- Again personal opinion wrapped in fact.  I love the phrase "leaves the state's lower-income workers in the lurch."  How are these people left in the lurch?  What if 300 homes are built and you are 301 on the list?[/b]

The status quo — a state that is economically, racially and ethnically segregated — should not be allowed to stand.

[b]comment This is perhaps the worst statement of personal opinion and I honestly can't respond to this without making this post even longer.[/b][/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