Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
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="James"]Here is what it comes down to in my opinion. I like the Ballfield 3 label - good ring to it, so I'll use it. The Ball Field 3 or is it 4, since Panconi voted in favor, have been elected and re-elected so they feel they have no reason to answer to the residents. Stout barely wins and he's made Mayor. What we as a town need to do is vote Win Cody in. John Ritter is hand picked by the Ballfield 3 so there won't be a change, in fact we will lose our only resident voice. We residnets then need to keep showing up at TC meetings and focus on 2009's election/ We need to ensure that whoever runs whether it is Panconi and Pari or some other individuals on the Dem ticket are not elected to TC. The Ballfield 3 is controlling who runs on the Dem ticket in town. So until there is a clean house we will see outlandish decisions like the one above continue to be made. A while ago there was talk about new comers and old timers. I just want to say, there is no difference between someone here a month or 50 years. It is those in charge who can cause the problems. Stout and the other 2 last night are also relative new comers to town. Stout and his cronies is ignored the BOE history, the TC history and voted their own personal opinions. That is why I think some of the long term residents get annoyed. By doing their own thing with reckless disregard for prior and future planning the Ballfield 3 and Panconi did all of those new residents a great disservice by saying new people don't care about our town. This infuriates me to no end. I say that because some of the newest residents I know (a few year or less) wanted to keep the original intent of the property. They came to Cranbury because they wanted the town, the enviornment and want to maintain it. So the Ballfield 3 all of whom were not here at the time the land was acquired managed to disregard the intent and reinforce all the (wrong-IMO) long term residents negative connotations of people being new to town causing problems. Now new comers have it that much harder on themselves.[/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
Author
Message
wcody
Posted: Wed, Sep 10 2008, 12:05 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
voter wrote:
I wonder whether either candidate will respond on how they viewed the TC's action in light of the lack of support by the THE RESIDENTS?
I was disappointed regarding the outcome on preserve the West Property. I do not understand the urgent need to preserve it now. We own the land, there is no immediate danger. COAH cannot force us to build on any land, they just give mandates on the number of affordable houses to be built. While I was not a party to the original purchase, it seems reasonable that we keep the land as open space and restrict the land to be used if, and only if, there is a need for it by the school. This seems to be the original intent of the purchase as stated by the former Mayor, committee members and Board of Education members.
By preserving the land now, we are restricting alternatives that will be available in the future for Cranbury if there is a needed school expansion. This is unfair to future leaders of Cranbury. Because there was such an uproar from the residents and two of the five committee members were not in attendance, I think it would have been prudent to hold off approving this controversial resolution and work with the Board of Education on an alternative solution.
Win Cody
voter
Posted: Wed, Sep 10 2008, 7:11 am EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
Sorry, it's early and I misstated my question. It should be:
I wonder whether either candidate will respond on how they viewed the TC's action in light of the lack of support by the THE RESIDENTS? Clearly, the TC supported their actions.
voter
Posted: Wed, Sep 10 2008, 7:10 am EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
At the meeting Monday it appears that Mr. Ritter was there and did not speak and Mr. Cody was not able to attend. On this thread there is a lot of discussion, but little views from those seeking office. I wonder whether either candidate will respond on how they viewed the TC's action in light of the lack of support by the TC?
And posters, please don't get on me about any of them not responding or my being unfair in asking them to take a position or offer comment. I understand Win was not able to attend so this gives him an opportunity to address the issue and Mr. Ritter did attend and remained silent so it gives him a re-do. To me this is as a fair scenario as their is.
And yes, as issues do arise in town I will continue to ask questions here to the candidates for all to see and hear. I will not ask questions of a confidential nature or that will jeopardize anything with regard to COAH. If there is no response my stance stands as always which is a fair and open stance and stated upfront. Whether that is just my vote impacted is not my call. I hold no ability to make others vote one way or another, not even my wife
. I cannot say how others will view a lack of response.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 9:20 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
It was my recollection that while Mr. Stout was on the EC they tried to preserve the entire west property and were told no by the TC. Whether that was the first, second or third time I don't recall. I do recall that he was on it and they tried to preserve it.
Perhaps I am wrong, I am about 95% sure though. Are you 100% positive that they never tried to preserve 100% of the West property while Mr. Stout was on the EC? The notes only go to 2004.
Guest 2
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 9:12 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
For the record, Dave Stout was not on the EC when they first tried to preserve all the West property.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 7:19 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
Isn't it convenient that Mr. Stout managed to get his little Ball Field Pet Project through before he turned his focus to preserving the rest of the property. If he is all for preservation, why not have moved to preserve it all before we committed to the money to help build and later maintain the Ball Field? Oh, that's right, the Ball Field is supposed to cost us virtually nothing? I guess I was just imagining the remediation costs and that change order they just approved, etc...
Cranbury Conservative
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 6:30 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
Agreed I even made a comment when I spoke at the meeting last night that if there was a need for a new library (which I am not convinced we need) then by preserving this land we are not allowing the public library to stay where it is and have the school build a small addition for its own library.
What I did not say was this would allow the town to keep at least the shared facility model and the school could charge the library rent say $90,000 or so a year to offset the cost of building the new small addition for a school library.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 6:18 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
notes wrote:
Let's look at the notes-
Here is the 11/26/2007 Meeting note where Mr. Stout originally mentions his intent to preserve the West property. He states he has not spoken with the board of ed. That was 10 months ago and yet the BOE was still not formally consulted before last night's meeting. Pari did make a presentation on 8/12, but it was not a formal dialogue and there were remaining concerns. Mr. Stout clearly showed no respect to the BOE. Out of respect that should have been given an ability to present an opinion.
In fact it is noted on the record as it states:
Mayor Stout indicated he had not [started BOE dialogue]. However, he wished to start a dialogue. Ms. Stave, as the liaison to the School, will reach out to them and get back to the Township Committee.
http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes112607.html
So, Mr. Mayor why delay for all this time and then rush the passage through? Why Mr. Panconi and Stannard the rush to give the Mayor his want? Where was Mr. Ritter when there was 100% opposition to this? Why did Mr. Ritter who was in attendance not stand up for those who he needs to vote for him?
There is a clear motive here that maybe Mr Stannard did understand last night but the rest of the Cranbury Residents surely did. By preserving all of this land, it will force the school at the time of future expansion to ask the library to leave. Oh My .... where will they go - I guess a NEW freestanding building with a dedication plaque to our current TC members. In return, the taxpayers will have to purchase the land and pay for all the construction costs.
Ring around the rosie. Take notes people - this is how to accomplish what you want thru the back door.
Jay T.
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 6:17 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
I was sitting next to my dad who spoke and also Mayor Danser.
Mr. Stannard stated twice that he spoke with an individual who was the Mayor at the time. Perhaps he misspoke or was told a mistruth by the person he spoke with. However, Mayor Danser and my father who was on TC confirmed that Mr. Danser was the Mayor and had no discussion with Mr. Stannard prior to the meeting. So this was a definite misstatement on Mr. Stannard's part.
Cranbury Conservative
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 6:08 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
I heard former mayor as did many other in attendance
Cranbury Conservative
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 6:06 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
Does Mr. Ritter read this board? If you do what is your stance on the issue?
Guest
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 6:05 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
[quote="where to begin"]
Guest 2 wrote:
7) Mr. Stannard outright misled the people at the meeting. He stated he spoke with the Mayor of the town at the time. The Mayor was Alan Danser, not Becky or another person.
Sorry, I must correct you on this point.
Actually, Mr Stannard stated he did not speak to the Mayor but to a member that served on the the TC board during that time. He did not specify as to the name of the person.
notes
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 6:01 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
Let's look at the notes-
Here is the 11/26/2007 Meeting note where Mr. Stout originally mentions his intent to preserve the West property. He states he has not spoken with the board of ed. That was 10 months ago and yet the BOE was still not formally consulted before last night's meeting. Pari did make a presentation on 8/12, but it was not a formal dialogue and there were remaining concerns. Mr. Stout clearly showed no respect to the BOE. Out of respect that should have been given an ability to present an opinion.
In fact it is noted on the record as it states:
Mayor Stout indicated he had not [started BOE dialogue]. However, he wished to start a dialogue. Ms. Stave, as the liaison to the School, will reach out to them and get back to the Township Committee.
http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes112607.html
So, Mr. Mayor why delay for all this time and then rush the passage through? Why Mr. Panconi and Stannard the rush to give the Mayor his want? Where was Mr. Ritter when there was 100% opposition to this? Why did Mr. Ritter who was in attendance not stand up for those who he needs to vote for him?
Guest
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 5:59 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
Guest 2 wrote:
A little history here --
The Environmental Commission sought the preservation of the majority of the West property approx. 5-6 years ago. At that time almost all of the property was proposed to be preserved. The TC (different group than today's) listened to the school board who at the time was not willing to give up any of the West Property. They vaguely argued that the school might need to expand and that the land was needed.
PRESERVE IT already and stop listening to the school board moan about how we MIGHT need to add on and the West property is the only place. This would be a done deal if the old TC had had the nerve to see reason and stop listening to the School Board spout out these silly reasons for needing the land.
If Cranbury has to build 296 COAH homes, it is likely that the school will need space for an additional 300 student at the very least - NOT to mention that PRINCETON HS will most probably be out of the picture. If no other HS will take our children, the school might have to make room for a High School.
It's fine to plan for what we need right now but with a little effort we can also plan for the future without jeapordizing our current quality of life in Cranbury.
And for all those associated with our towns Planning Committee, I hope you are doing a great job revising our Master Plan. Would love to see the NEW REVISED edition posted on our township website when completed.
where to begin
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 5:09 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
[quote="Guest 2"]A little history here --
The Environmental Commission sought the preservation of the majority of the West property approx. 5-6 years ago. At that time almost all of the property was proposed to be preserved. The TC (different group than today's) listened to the school board who at the time was not willing to give up any of the West Property. They vaguely argued that the school might need to expand and that the land was needed.
PLEASE -- there are many alternatives for expanding the school that would not require us to use the West property -- the lot in the back where the kids play is open -- there are three (3) fields behind the school that could be used as well as the fact that a TWO story addition could be added that would give more than enough classroom space. Remember -- you can't go much longer -- it already takes roller skates to go from one end to the other. Remember an addition would most likely require a new cafeteria (the current one is too small and would have to be replaced if the student body was big enough to require an addition). So putting it on the black top and using the fields to play would work.
One must also look at the fact that the oldest sections of the school could probably be reworked or two - storied. But the plain fact of the matter is that the West property is not REQUIRED. There are alternatives and leaving it open to possible development is not good.
PRESERVE IT already and stop listening to the school board moan about how we MIGHT need to add on and the West property is the only place. This would be a done deal if the old TC had had the nerve to see reason and stop listening to the School Board spout out these silly reasons for needing the land.[/quote
Where to begin. The above reads exactly from the TC statement last night, so I wonder if this is a TC member posting...I won't make any assumptions though. At any rate let's begin.
1) Yes you are correct about the EC decision. In fact I am 99% sure that Mayor Stout was on the EC and told no at that time. So now he gets his way over town interests. Thanks for bringing that up I forgot that point.
2) The property would not have been up for discussion as preserved if not for the School Board originally going to the TC and asking for their help in acquiring the West property. So offending them is not really a good course of action. If not for the BOE, there would be a housing development on that property at this moment.
The only reason that this is a discussion now, is because the BOE's long term planning committee saw the need for potential expansion.
Also, the land was already mostly preserved, the TC simply took the additional step of alienating the town in order to make it 100%.
3) The school is built as a single story building. It would require an entire reengineering to build a second story. You don't just plop a second or third story onto the building. Not unless you want sructural damage.
Doing this would increase the cost of expanding the school multiple times over the cost of building a new school on the West property or expanding the school outward. Of course, spending more money is the way the TC operates they don't understand economics as a basic principile- see exhibit A the Ballfield.
4) The arguement about leaving it open for possible development is an arguement based in ignorance. You deed restrict the land to school use only. Legally permissible, prevents COAH and allows for school expansion. If the school doesn't expand it's open space and it's deed restricted.
5) If we expand out or up your arguement about roller skates doesn't mean anything. You're still adding space.
6) If the TC got off their arrogant high horse and listened to the TC members who acquired the land and the BOE today and past who lead the push, then they'd understand why the residents are concerened. However, that also requires listening.
7) Mr. Stannard outright misled the people at the meeting. He stated he spoke with the Mayor of the town at the time. The Mayor was Alan Danser, not Becky or another person.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Sep 9 2008, 5:02 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: TC - How much more damage can they do to our town
a Question wrote:
if it is later needed for the school, isnt it a simple mater of rezoning by the next TC anyway? in both scenarios the land is protected right?
No, once it is preserved that's it done deal.