Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing :: Topic review - The 11/24/08 Township Committee meeting minutes

Jersey Dad

Check out new jersey by the numbers on the Star-Ledger web site. The land was sold for $525k in 2004. The 2005 COAH plan estimated the cost of acquisition at $600k (and indicated the township would take the land through eminent domain, if necessary). The property was re-assessed in 2007 for just under $650k. The township bought it in the same year as the re-assessment for over $1 million. Either the re-assessment was low by several hundred thousand dollars, or the township paid a premium instead of choosing more affordable options..

That said, the town bought the land and now we have to figure out the right thing to do with it. There is not much use revisiting the past. Any concerns about fiscal responsibility should have been raised before the purchase. Instead, they are being raised now as justification for experimenting with larger, higher-density complexes in the village. In my opinion, the right thing to do is to be consistent with the other small scale, high quality, CHA developments interspersed throughout the village.

Guest

Just out of curiosity, the town had not gone through the reassement when the land was purchased, so how does one conclude fair market based on the tax roles at the time. Fair market to me at that time would be whatever someone would pay.

Jersey Dad

Guest,
The available data suggests the purchase price was well above "fair market value". However, it sounds as though you may have some inside information on "fair market value". Care to share?

Guest

fair market value at the time what was it cost the township for the land, "eminent domain" should only be used in an emergency by the township.

Jersey Dad

Guest,
You are correct that we are "hoping" to get some undetermined amount of grant money for rental housing. However, we refused to write the flexibility into the plan that would allow us to sell some units if the grants don't materialize, or are insignificant. The fact is, we aren't even willing to consider selling some of the units, despite the potential financial positives. I think it would be fiscally responsible to at least run the numbers.

Also, where was all the concern about fiscal responsibility when we bought the 130 D Site? The Township had other more affordable options. And why did we pay 55 percent more than assesed value for the land when we could have acquired it through eminent domain? Of course that's water under the bridge at this point. However, my point is, to defend this one aspect of the plan on the grounds of fiscal responsibility is ridiculous in the greater context of the decisions that have been made.

My bigger point here is a concern about the process. Rather than give due consideration to points raised in the public comment period, our COAH Consultants seem hell bent on defending every aspect of the plan, despite the logical inconsistencies that arise (of which there are several examples). The concerted and vigorous effort to defend illogical and/or inconsistent positions is very concerning. It suggests that some planners feel the outcome has been predetermined, irregardless of public opinion, and that the opportunities for public comment are in fact a "waste of time" as has been suggested by one of our COAH planners.

I hold out hope that this is not the case.

Guest

Guest

Jersey Dad

Jersey Dad

Cranbury Conservative

I belive Greenstein and DeAngelo need to go!

If we elect others from the minority party and they do more of the same then we vote them out in two years as well.

We have had "Change" at the national level and it's now time for change in NJ at the State level as well.

Jay T.

I would hope that all parties you mentioned (PB, TC, CHA) would adopt that approach. They are all residents and tax payers so they are harmed as much as everyone else by the increase in taxes resulting from the COAH obligation. It is only prudent to plan and do the minimum needed to stay in compliance. Additional building or commencing the projects without firm grasp of where things stand can lead to major adverse.

Despite party beliefs, we do need to change the people in charge in Trenton if we are to have any hope. It is a matter of looking beyond one's party views and voting for the best representation. If we re-elect those to office then as soon as the election is done with we will be back to business as usual.

Cranbury Conservative

We need to use the rules to our advantage by doing the minimum to stay in compliance without moving forward with unfunded mandates such as the rt 130d site.

Hopefully the planning board, TC and CHA all realize this point.

Let's drag our feet, throw out the party in charge of Trenton in 09 (Greenstein, DeAngelo, and the others) and get new legislation which will help towns like ours.

Jersey Dad

Attention fiscal conservatives:
The additional tax burden of supporting the residents of the 130 D Site for an extra 2 years will be $580k- $960k (assuming $10k in services per year per unit), based on our current plan. No benefit for building early has been explained to the public.

Jersey Dad

Attention fiscal conservatives:
The additional tax burden of supporting the residents of the 130 D Site for an extra 2 years will be $580k- $960k (assuming $10k in services per year per unit), based on our current plan. No benefit for building early has been explained to the public.

Jersey Dad

Great point Jay.

At the planning Board Meeting tonight, I asked "What are the advantages to building at the 130 D Site in 2009, two years before we are required to?"

The Township Planner, Mr. Preiss, "answered" the question. He confirmed that the plan is to build at the 130 D Site in 2009. The only reason he gave was that we need to be ready for the COAH audit. Mr. Preiss also confirmed that the earliest the audit will happen is in 2011 and that it is likely to be 2012 or later.

Some answers are straight, others are circles. "Look Kids! Big Ben, Parliament!"

Jersey Dad

Great point Jay.

At the planning Board Meeting tonight, I asked "What are the advantages to building at the 130 D Site in 2009, two years before we are required to?"

The Township Planner, Mr. Preiss, "answered" the question. He confirmed that the plan is to build at the 130 D Site in 2009. The only reason he gave was that we need to be ready for the COAH audit. Mr. Preiss also confirmed that the earliest the audit will happen is in 2011 and that it is likely to be 2012 or later.

Some answers are straight, others are circles. "Look Kids! Big Ben, Parliament!"