Author	Message
Guest	Posted: Fri, Jul 30 2010, 8:53 am EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 However, your tone was not any better.
Guest	Posted: Fri, Jul 30 2010, 8:52 am EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 Guest wrote: Guest wrote: My tone was in response to your tone. The facts you want to put forward are wrong or you want to make things look better. Perhaps your one of those who feel all we need is parking to make the businesses succeed. You are arguing with two seperate posters. Then I apologize. My tone was in response to the other poster.
Guest	Posted: Fri, Jul 30 2010, 8:32 am EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 Guest wrote: My tone was in response to your tone. The facts you want to put forward are wrong or you want to make things look better. Perhaps your one of those who feel all we need is parking to make the businesses succeed. You are arguing with two seperate posters.
Guest	Posted: Fri, Jul 30 2010, 7:53 am EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 BTW, I am not saying the deli was shut down by the health department. I am saying people made complaints and that owner was looked at by the health department. I know many people who would not eat there or get food there at the end.
Guest	Posted: Fri, Jul 30 2010, 7:42 am EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 My tone was in response to your tone. The facts you want to put forward are wrong or you want to make things look better. Perhaps your one of those who feel all we need is parking to make the businesses succeed.
Guest	Posted: Fri, Jul 30 2010, 12:09 am EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 Guest wrote: Hannah and Masons was not a deli. The owner of the deli who sold it so it to John so it could become Hannah and Masons was in trouble with the health department. The Pharmacy was sold because it couldn't compete and there was money on the table to sell it at a profit. I remember having many discussions in there when the decision was being wrestled with to sell. Get your own facts straight. Interestingly the Eckard at southfield was closed within two years. Your tone is idiotic. The facts are straight. I am sorry they don't fit the story you like to tell. But don't let the facts stop you please continue to make some up.
Guest	Posted: Thu, Jul 29 2010, 9:12 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 Hannah and Masons was not a deli. The owner of the deli who sold it so it to John so it could become Hannah and Masons was in trouble with the health department. The Pharmacy was sold because it couldn't compete and there was money on the table to sell it at a profit. I remember having many discussions in there when the decision was being wrestled with to sell. Get your own facts straight.
Guest	Posted: Thu, Jul 29 2010, 8:39 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 And I would also like to state the deli did not close for health reasons. When it was the Cranbury Market - it was sold to John Davison who made it Hannah and Massons who then moved it down the street and the building sat there until it became the chinese resuraunt...get your facts straight people!!!!!!
Guest	Posted: Thu, Jul 29 2010, 6:01 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 Guest wrote: Guest wrote: You could argue it, but it wouldn't make sense. The Hardware store went out after the Home Depot opened, the Pharmacy lost when all the chains started hitting the area and the Deli had numerous health issues. Parking would not have solved either and those businesses replacing them do not draw as many people. So even if parking would have saved them there should have been space opened up when they exited. Since the replacements don't draw the same crowds. A point of clarification. Our pharmacy was actually bought out by Eckard (as was the Hightstown and Jamesburg pharmacies) and closed so as to eliminate competition for their new pharmacies in Monroe and in the McCafferies strip mall. It did not lose it was bought out and closed. That was a dumb move on Eckard's part then since there are closer alternatives to the stores they were trying to promote with the closers. So they paid money to send people to the competition.
Guest	Posted: Thu, Jul 29 2010, 5:27 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 Guest wrote: You could argue it, but it wouldn't make sense. The Hardware store went out after the Home Depot opened, the Pharmacy lost when all the chains started hitting the area and the Deli had numerous health issues. Parking would not have solved either and those businesses replacing them do not draw as many people. So even if parking would have saved them there should have been space opened up when they exited. Since the replacements don't draw the same crowds. A point of clarification. Our pharmacy was actually bought out by Eckard (as was the Hightstown and Jamesburg pharmacies) and closed so as to eliminate competition for their new pharmacies in Monroe and in the McCafferies strip mall. It did not lose it was bought out and closed.
Guest	Posted: Thu, Jul 29 2010, 3:39 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 That they would send a letter to our representatives asking for them to push through S-1 or to grant us an extension. They also committed to putting a bullet point list together so residents can mail letters to our representatives asking for S-1 to be moved through and passed.
Curious Cranburian	Posted: Thu, Jul 29 2010, 12:44 pm EDT    Post subject: COAH Implementation Schedule 'b). Discussion of COAH Implementation Schedule The Township Committee will discuss the Township’s COAH implementation schedule." Does anyone know what was discussed about COAH at the last TC meeting?
Guest	Posted: Tue, Jul 27 2010, 3:08 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 You could argue it, but it wouldn't make sense. The Hardware store went out after the Home Depot opened, the Pharmacy lost when all the chains started hitting the area and the Deli had numerous health issues. Parking would not have solved either and those businesses replacing them do not draw as many people. So even if parking would have saved them there should have been space opened up when they exited. Since the replacements don't draw the same crowds.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Jul 27 2010, 2:34 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Scott is an issue due to the Blue Rooster. That is no question. However, Scott has always been bad. On Maplewood, I believe the increase is due to residents no longer parking at PNC. That increase is just a fact of life. You had a business that was okay with using their lot for years. That was a temporary thing. Now the new owners don't want to allow it and these homes have to use the street just like every other house in town. The key point as you note is that it is RESIDENTS parking on Maplewood, or people working at residential properties. Customers to Main Street businesses are not parking on Maplewood. So effectively Maplewood residents are arguing that their own parking is causing them a problem. As another poster said, I buy the increased traffic concern if they close the Main Street access but the idea that there is a parking problem on Maplewood makes no sense. So for a long time Maplewood people got to use the private PNC lot as their personal parking lot. That was nice. But it wasn't a right or obligation of the city or taxpayers to maintain that for them. Now they are back to the status quo that most residential streets have of needing to absorb their own parking. I believe the problem they are arguing is increased traffic on what has become with on street parking essentially a one lane road is a problem. The need for a parking lot has been going on in this town for 25 years. Except 25 years ago there was a Hardware store, Deli, and Pharmacy all of which attracted numerous daily visits by patrons. There was also a Travel agent and even a dry cleaner. The businesses today don't draw the same amount of customers. The easy solution on Maplewood is to do what was done on S. Main years and years ago. Only allow parking on one side of the road. However, I don't think the residents would find that an attractive solution. This is a chicken and the egg argument. There are those that argue the reason we lost those businesses was the lack of parking. That is the argument that has been going on for 25 years. and the way it looks its going to go on for another 25 more years.... is there anything else to talk about??????
Guest	Posted: Tue, Jul 27 2010, 2:02 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Scott is an issue due to the Blue Rooster. That is no question. However, Scott has always been bad. On Maplewood, I believe the increase is due to residents no longer parking at PNC. That increase is just a fact of life. You had a business that was okay with using their lot for years. That was a temporary thing. Now the new owners don't want to allow it and these homes have to use the street just like every other house in town. The key point as you note is that it is RESIDENTS parking on Maplewood, or people working at residential properties. Customers to Main Street businesses are not parking on Maplewood. So effectively Maplewood residents are arguing that their own parking is causing them a problem. As another poster said, I buy the increased traffic concern if they close the Main Street access but the idea that there is a parking problem on Maplewood makes no sense. So for a long time Maplewood people got to use the private PNC lot as their personal parking lot. That was nice. But it wasn't a right or obligation of the city or taxpayers to maintain that for them. Now they are back to the status quo that most residential streets have of needing to absorb their own parking. I believe the problem they are arguing is increased traffic on what has become with on street parking essentially a one lane road is a problem. The need for a parking lot has been going on in this town for 25 years. Except 25 years ago there was a Hardware store, Deli, and Pharmacy all of which attracted numerous daily visits by patrons. There was also a Travel agent and even a dry cleaner. The businesses today don't draw the same amount of customers. The easy solution on Maplewood is to do what was done on S. Main years and years ago. Only allow parking on one side of the road. However, I don't think the residents would find that an attractive solution. This is a chicken and the egg argument. There are those that argue the reason we lost those businesses was the lack of parking. That is the argument that has been going on for 25 years.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Jul 27 2010, 1:47 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Scott is an issue due to the Blue Rooster. That is no question. However, Scott has always been bad. On Maplewood, I believe the increase is due to residents no longer parking at PNC. That increase is just a fact of life. You had a business that was okay with using their lot for years. That was a temporary thing. Now the new owners don't want to allow it and these homes have to use the street just like every other house in town. The key point as you note is that it is RESIDENTS parking on Maplewood, or people working at residential properties. Customers to Main Street businesses are not parking on Maplewood. So effectively Maplewood residents are arguing that their own parking is causing them a problem. As another poster said, I buy the increased traffic concern if they close the Main Street access but the idea that there is a parking problem on Maplewood makes no sense. So for a long time Maplewood people got to use the private PNC lot as their personal parking lot. That was nice. But it wasn't a right or obligation of the city or taxpayers to maintain that for them. Now they are back to the status quo that most residential streets have of needing to absorb their own parking. I believe the problem they are arguing is increased traffic on what has become with on street parking essentially a one lane road is a problem. The need for a parking lot has been going on in this town for 25 years. Except 25 years ago there was a Hardware store, Deli, and Pharmacy all of which attracted numerous daily visits by patrons. There was also a Travel agent and even a dry cleaner. The businesses today don't draw the same amount of customers. The easy solution on Maplewood is to do what was done on S. Main years and years ago. Only allow parking on one side of the road. However, I don't think the residents would find that an attractive solution.