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="Jay T."]The TC chooses the Mayor. We don't vote on the Mayor here in Cranbury.[/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
Guest
Posted: Fri, May 8 2009, 4:48 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
What are the advantages of making this field a Babe Ruth field?
Absolutely none unless your kids are in a Babe Ruth league or want to be...
A lot if you don't want anyone to use the field.
field
Posted: Mon, Jan 5 2009, 4:58 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
But...Only then if the team some how becomes majorly Cranbury. Otherwise, the games will still be played in Princeton as the coaches won't move the games to Cranbury to accomodate the 1-2 Cranbury kids that play a year. Zero kids today so no use of the field will occur.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Jan 5 2009, 3:54 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
Guest wrote:
What are the advantages of making this field a Babe Ruth field?
Absolutely none unless your kids are in a Babe Ruth league or want to be...
Guest
Posted: Mon, Jan 5 2009, 1:32 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
Quote:
The other issue is that the Rec commisson has asked it not be the referred to as the Babe Ruth field. I would concur with this and go a step further that it be simply a town recreational field at this point that can be used by all residents whether for a pick up game, school use, little league use or any other such use whereby it's not restricted to only certain individuals or groups. I do not want to restrict use to a league where we have very few players and little chance of any regular use if it is so designated.
It makes me wonder why members of the TC want this field a Babe Ruth field?!
What are the advantages of making this field a Babe Ruth field?
Jay T.
Posted: Mon, Jan 5 2009, 7:44 am EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
The points raised above are valid and should be answered. As my economics professor said before exam time when you're up to your neck in alligators it's not the time to ask who should have drained the swamp.
We're at the point now where the field has been constructed and is usable as a baseball field. I think now the discussion should be do we need to continue with the other phases if it means we have to spend more of our tax money given our present state and the economy. In other words do we violate the county gransts we recieved and are there penalties involved.
If we do continue, I'd argue that we should at least explore covering the cost through fund raising. We could sell signage along the fence to businesses and use that to offset the cost. I see many parks where the field has a home depot, banks and other businesses advertised.
The other issue is that the Rec commisson has asked it not be the referred to as the Babe Ruth field. I would concur with this and go a step further that it be simply a town recreational field at this point that can be used by all residents whether for a pick up game, school use, little league use or any other such use whereby it's not restricted to only certain individuals or groups. I do not want to restrict use to a league where we have very few players and little chance of any regular use if it is so designated.
Guest
Posted: Sun, Jan 4 2009, 10:15 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
It seems to me there are only two ways to interpret the decision of the people who pushed for and voted in favor of the Babe Ruth field. One is to assume they were smart and competent enough to understand that while their "intent" may have been to get it totally covered by County money that overuns in construction are not just possible but probable and that there was always a good chance Cranbury would have to help foot the bill. Therefore it is immaterial that the overuns weren't part of their plan and they still have to accept responsibility for committing the township to a project that they knew might cost taxpayers as well as deeding public land to a private organization to support something that best case would only benefit a tiny fraction of township citizens and at worse none of them. In all their defense of the decision I have never seen any concrete imperical evidence that they had good data to suggest that this field would get used by a meaningful number of Cranbury citizens or that their was a need for another Babe Ruth field in our area.
The other interpretation is that they didn't understand all that, in which case they are incompetent to be in a position of authority within our Township. I hope the former is more correct. But either way it is silly to defend the result as unexpected or out of their control.
Also, either way, it is dumb and unethical to say "its all County money so we don't have to worry about it." County money is us too -- it is still ultimately our tax dollars. So the fundamental question still stands -- what is the justification for this expense, regardless of the source of funds? I would like to see their supporters stop debating the nit picky issues of where the money comes from and who supported what and instead come up with some real facts to support why it was a good use of public funds, period. Is spending over $1 million of this field good public policy and if so why?
Jeff M.
Posted: Sun, Jan 4 2009, 2:18 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
I am not sure what the poster believes was Pari's responsability or David's. It's true that the cost over runs for the contaminated field are not the direct result of actions of anyone on the TC.
However, in speaking with the town office there are 2 grants we have recieved. Those two cover the whole cost of the field today and their original intent was in fact to cover all items involved in the build.
Due to the cost over runs, the money designated for bleachers, dugouts, fencing, signage, etc... has already been spent on the construction to date. Therefore, due to the over runs the TC will have to ask the county for additional funds or cover the remaining cost through in house funds.
The ballfield was in fact a pet project by Pari, Richard, David, Tom and Becky. You can look at the meeting notes from 2004 and there was a unanimous vote of the TC which was all Democrat at the time. Therefore, I hold all of them responsible for the field and costs.
There is also speculation of the township doing a town wide revaluation. I am opposed to this as we have warehouses and commercial property sitting empty. So while the value of our homes has decreased, the commercial has decreased more. Another revaluation will further burden the residential tax payers.
Guest
Posted: Sun, Jan 4 2009, 12:14 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
You have no idea what you are talking about with regards to Pari and the regulation baseball field. I have seen a number of comments about Pari and Dave with regards to the baseball field. I think that you use this issue just to take unfair anonymous shots at them.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Jan 2 2009, 7:58 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
Not surprising. Stout, Stave and Stannard collectively control the vote -- they can just continue to share the job as long as they hold a majority and act as a unified party, as they have all this time. Ultimately thye just had to settle it amongst themselves and unless they were in-fighting there was no shot for anyone else and therefore no purpose to even throw their hats in the ring...
I am not hopeful. This just means more business as usual. If Win had not been elected, I'm sure by the next agenda they would be pursuing the PNC site again. At least he and Tom can still collectively assure they can't pursue any pet spending projects without some kind of check on them...
Guest
Posted: Fri, Jan 2 2009, 6:54 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
Guest wrote:
Pari Stave was selected as mayor by the TC.
Hmm... Let's see how it works out for her and Cranbury.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Jan 2 2009, 6:14 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
Pari Stave was selected as mayor by the TC.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Jan 2 2009, 6:11 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
Will someone please post here tonight when this has been determined?
Thanks.
Frugality in Cranbury
Posted: Thu, Jan 1 2009, 8:07 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
Cranbury Press wrote:
In the Township Committee form of government the mayor has few powers. The mayor is one of five votes on the committee, runs the meetings as chairman, and makes some appointments.
Even though the mayor has few extra powers; this position leads and focuses the agenda for our town. That is huge and is the most important job in our town.
That being said, I am not totally thrilled that Mayor Stout should be chosen again for a third term. He did not live up to his campaign promise of "Fiscal Responsibility". Immediately after the backing of Cranbury Residents by voting him back in, he pushed the "Once in a Lifetime Opportunity" of the PNC Bank and the 7% increase in the township budget. Now he promises it again. How can I believe him now?!
On the other hand, I would not be happy with Pari Stave due to the Little League Baseball field. Just the overall idea and the extremely poor planning added to cost over runs on the entire project. Yes - we received funding from the county - BUT where do you think the county gets their money - directly from US. It's an overall waste of money as well as being unattractive.
Not sure about Stannard since he tends to follow the party line and Cody is brand NEW. Actually, I'd be very happy with Tom Panconi. He proved that he is not a follower and stood up for what he believes even by changing his party affiliation. He stated many times that COAH can harm us and we need to tighten our belts.
To be clear - I do not care what is someone’s political party affiliation; BUT when voting party line at such a local level rather than what is best for Cranbury is unconscionable.
We are in a severe recession. Tightening our belts should be a New Year's Resolution for Cranbury Township, the Library, School, Police, Sanitation and for us all. We need to learn to do with less and help our neighbors who may be quietly hurting due to these times.
That being said; I only wish the best in 2009 for whoever becomes the Mayor of Cranbury. May Wisdom and Truth guide you.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Dec 30 2008, 5:47 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
Guest wrote:
Hope Mr. Panconi reconsiders, based on his performance this year, I would like to see him as Cranbury mayor in 2009. He made some hard public decisions this year by going independent showing that he is more interested in the welfare of Cranbury, not party politics.
Agree with the above post. I really want to see a new mayor for Cranbury. Ms. Stave seems to be too "similar" to the current mayor.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Dec 30 2008, 3:54 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
Hope Mr. Panconi reconsiders, based on his performance this year, I would like to see him as Cranbury mayor in 2009. He made some hard public decisions this year by going independent showing that he is more interested in the welfare of Cranbury, not party politics.
Jay T.
Posted: Sat, Dec 27 2008, 7:45 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
The TC chooses the Mayor. We don't vote on the Mayor here in Cranbury.