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="cranbury liberal"]My goals, in order of priority: 1) The economic burden of the final requirement and the resulting consequences (like losing the Princeton HS relationship) does not force us to merge with another Township or consolidate our schools with one. 2) We are able to maintain our single K-8 blue ribbon school without dividing students between multiple schools or dividing the education between separate K-5 and 6-8 facilities. 3) We are able to keep our tuition program with Princeton High School. 4) The total per-household additional tax burden is not more than 20% over time (even this is optimistic in the best of outcomes). This also includes not maxing out our debt so as to just defer radical tax increases for down the road. 5) A vast majority of the remaining farmland on the residential side of the 130 is preserved and not used for new housing tracts, whether affordable or at market. Now where this translates to in terms of practical housing requirements (i.e. XXX units max, etc.) I do not know. That is part of what the TC should be working on and educating the Township on, i.e. "for every 100 units we must build, a taxpayer can expect an increase of XX%" and "once we pass "XXX units, the Princeton relationship is unsustainable" etc.[/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: Sat, May 31 2008, 7:51 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
The TC negotiates directly with COAH. I believe they rely on the counsel of various Township Advisors. Inquiries and input can be channeled through Chris Smeltzer or your favorite TC member.
Guest
Posted: Fri, May 30 2008, 5:37 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
publius wrote:
Can't we band together with other districts who happen to be in the same pickle that Cranbury is in and together tell the state to go screw themselves?
Yes, there are a number of legal actions that can be taken and Cranbury is considering its options. In addition to the sort of general opposition that we can expect from the league of municipalities, there are some groups of towns seeking exemptions based on environmental reasons (highlands, meadowlands, pinelands, etc.). If they are successful, there may be an opportunity to include some sort of provision for preserved farmland and open space.
I'd like to see an exception for towns that achieve a 20 percent ratio of COAH units to total housing stock (Cranbury is only about 55 units away). This may be a pipe dream, but it would effectively cap new residential development in Cranbury.
If all else fails, we can always go to Trenton and dump all the King's tea into the river.
Cranbury Conservative
Posted: Thu, May 29 2008, 11:15 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
I too will be reaching out to Mark Berkowsky. As I am also interested in finding out more about preserved farmland and land set aside for recreation in regards to COAH.
Such as land in the Mount Laurel vs. MiPro Homes case.
Info concerning the Mount Laurel vs. MiPro Homes case:
http://www.njslom.org/press_release_12-07-06.html
More can be found on my blog
http://cranburyconservative.blogspot.com/2008/05/cranbury-eminent-domain-solution.html
publius
Posted: Thu, May 29 2008, 5:28 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
Can't we band together with other districts who happen to be in the same pickle that Cranbury is in and together tell the state to go screw themselves?
Metaphorically speaking, of course.
What could they do???
Jersey Dad
Posted: Thu, May 29 2008, 4:04 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
My understanding is Cranbury can be compelled to re-zone land for high density housing in order to satisfy our "Fair Housing" obligation. However, I believe re-zoning protected farmland is off the table. I have reached out to Mark Berkowsky to help us answer some of the outstanding questions that have arisen. As the head of CHA, a member of the "Hysterical Society" (the group that saved Cranbury from the last COAH crisis), and the leading architect for commercial development in Cranbury, his insight would be invaluable. Hopefully he will chime in.
Regarding DeAngelo, I suggest we keep contacting him and asking him why he ignores Cranbury until he responds.
Guest
Posted: Thu, May 29 2008, 1:47 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
Any available big tract of land for a builder to purchase in Cranbury?
Can a home builder sue Cranbury in order to purchase a farmland or a land zoned for commercial use?
If there is no big tract of land available to build affordable homes, is Cranbury safe to drop out of COAH?
Guest
Posted: Thu, May 29 2008, 10:10 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
Guest wrote:
On a related note, Greenstein and the Middlesex County Dems need to stand up for Cranbury, Monroe and South Brunswick.
On this note, I again ask if anyone knows what's up with DeAngelo? I have never seen him at any function for Cranbury, I have never heard him speak in favor of any issue important to Cranbury or against anything damaging to us and his office is the one local representative who did not respond to our letter's about COAH. Does anyone know him or know anyone who does? Is he just blatantly uninterested in Cranbury? Does that mean he will simply fall in line behind the Robert's Democratic machine and vote against our interests if it suits his party ambitions?
Guest
Posted: Thu, May 29 2008, 8:06 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
Cranbury Conservative wrote:
Jersey dad are you on the COAH sub Committee for Cranbury? I would also like to know if Cranbury is in formal negotiations regarding COAH? If so who is the township actually negotiating with?
I am not on the COAH subcommittee, though I am willing to serve if they are taking volunteers. I believe everything related to COAH is a high stakes negotiation and I think we need a plan based on the key determining factors. I am not an expert, but for illustration purposes, using rough numbers...
Old COAH rules: 160 estimated obligation, revised to 240 based on greater than anticipated commercial development. Satisfy 120 with RCAs, maximize COAH credits by building 80 rentals with 20 percent very low income. Estimated impact of 60 kids, 5 per grade. This would strain an already jammed Cranbury School, but sending an extra 20 kids to PHS probably wouldn't change the sending agreement. This is essentially our current plan.
Under new COAH rules, I believe the obligation is closer to 600 (including revised estimate for commercial development). Maximizing RCAs and COAH credits, we would have to build 200 units with an estimated impact of 150 kids. At this point, school expansion is a must and PHS is possibly in jeopardy. 45 million is housing and school construction will result in a 50 percent tax increase and the fights over where to put the new units will rip at the fabric of the town.
If Roberts' bill passes unchanged, we lose RCAs and we have to build 400 units adding 300 kids.At this point, we may lose PHS, but it won't matter because we won't have the money to send our kids to Trenton High after spending 100 million on COAH and school construction. This is likely to be the point at which we seriously consider dropping out of COAH and trying to work with a builder to build an 800 unit market-rate age restricted community along with 200 COAH units on the other side of Rt. 130 (and then pray its enough when we get sued).
I am optimistic that Greenstein will attach a friendly amendment to the Roberts bill that grants the continued use of RCAs to towns that have already achieved 20 percent affordable housing. In my world, this is victory. We could build 100 more units in Cranbury to reach a total of about 200 and then pay Perth Amboy, Carteret or New Brunswick for the rest of our obligation. It is fair and in the spirit of the law. Barring this, or some other major change, I don't see how Cranbury can afford to stay in COAH.
On a related note, Greenstein and the Middlesex County Dems need to stand up for Cranbury, Monroe and South Brunswick.
Cranbury Conservative
Posted: Wed, May 28 2008, 4:12 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
The conservative / liberal thing is more fun / fodder for the board. The real issue as you stated is what is best for Cranbury. It does not matter if your overall view nationally is one or the other. So now back to the main point of my last post....
Jersey dad are you on the COAH sub Committee for Cranbury?
I would also like to know if Cranbury is in formal negotiations regarding COAH? If so who is the township actually negotiating with?
James
Posted: Wed, May 28 2008, 3:30 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
CC and CL,
I agree. I'm very conservative as well. However, my opinion is that liberal or conservative views really are not as different when we talk small town government. It's only that the changes become more apparent as we move up the political ladder. My wife is a Democrate and I'm a Republican, yet we have many of the same views in terms of how Cranbury is managed.
Cranbury Conservative
Posted: Wed, May 28 2008, 10:49 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
First I agree with the Cranbury Liberal's points. Yes the liberal and conservative agree once again when it comes to the future of Cranbury.
Now with regard to this thread.....
Jersey dad are you on the COAH sub Committee for Cranbury?
I would also like to know if Cranbury is in formal negotiations regarding COAH? If so who is the township actually negotiating with?
Please let us know.
Guest
Posted: Wed, May 28 2008, 10:40 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
I also agree with cranbury liberal.
Frankly, I am pessimistic about Cranbury's future, given that the current leadership showed more interests in the discussion about a real estate transaction than about the COAH issues.
James
Posted: Wed, May 28 2008, 9:24 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
Agree with Cranbury Liberal. Those are my exact priority ranks.
cranbury liberal
Posted: Wed, May 28 2008, 8:43 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
My goals, in order of priority:
1) The economic burden of the final requirement and the resulting consequences (like losing the Princeton HS relationship) does not force us to merge with another Township or consolidate our schools with one.
2) We are able to maintain our single K-8 blue ribbon school without dividing students between multiple schools or dividing the education between separate K-5 and 6-8 facilities.
3) We are able to keep our tuition program with Princeton High School.
4) The total per-household additional tax burden is not more than 20% over time (even this is optimistic in the best of outcomes). This also includes not maxing out our debt so as to just defer radical tax increases for down the road.
5) A vast majority of the remaining farmland on the residential side of the 130 is preserved and not used for new housing tracts, whether affordable or at market.
Now where this translates to in terms of practical housing requirements (i.e. XXX units max, etc.) I do not know. That is part of what the TC should be working on and educating the Township on, i.e. "for every 100 units we must build, a taxpayer can expect an increase of XX%" and "once we pass "XXX units, the Princeton relationship is unsustainable" etc.
Jersey Dad
Posted: Tue, May 27 2008, 11:21 pm EDT
Post subject: Cranbury v. COAH: Defining Victory
As most residents are aware, COAH rule changes and Roberts' plan to eliminate RCAs have escalated Cranbury's COAH obligation from challenging to potentially disasterous.
There is a lot of talk about beating COAH and potential amendments to Roberts' bill that may spare Cranbury. I am happy to be working along side other Cranbury residents to make these things come to pass. However, I am not sure we will know when we've won. Heading into any negotiation, it helps to know what you want, and what you need (no, I am not the mayor), before you walk-away.It also helps to know what the other party is negotiating to achieve, which in this case is our COAH obligation. Since the final obligation number is unclear, this thread focuses on our goals for the negotiations; How do the citizens of Cranbury define victory vs. COAH?
Is winning an obligation of 160, for which we already have a plan? I hope not because we are already developing more than originally estimated and our obligation will be more than 160, even by the old rules; possibly double. So, how much development are we really anticipating? We should know.
Is winning the opportunity to continue sending our kids to Princeton High? If so, how many kids are they willing to take? What are our best alternative options? We should know.
Is winning avoiding a major Cranbury school expansion project? If so, what is the max capacity of our school? How much student capacity can be added without scaling shared spaces, such as cafeteria, library, administration, etc.? We should know.
Is winning keeping COAH units to 20 percent, or less, than the total housing stock of Cranbury? Is this a defensable position regarding FHA if we opt-out of COAH? We should know.
Thanks in advance for sharing your ideas. Please understand, I do not want to distract anyone from beating back the attacks from COAH, I just think we need a parallel discussion to define victory, so we will know when we've won. We should know.