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="anon-921r"]Did your family's taxes go down because their home value dropped? I have never seen a county or school tax rate drop. Those makeup most of the tax bill. There are no additional officers being added, officers are just not being cut. The traffic duty aside from the bridge (paid 50/50 town and county) is not paid by taxes.[/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
CranburyB-6n71
Posted: Thu, Feb 13 2014, 10:19 am EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
anon-1254 wrote:
Our tax rate is the lowest in the county. Mayor stated 1.83 for Cranbury.
Plainsboro 2.4. South Brunswick 4.5.
South Brunswick 2014 equalization ratio is 45.98% so comparatively speaking they are more like 2.43
howdare?-60oq
Posted: Wed, Feb 12 2014, 8:27 am EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
Not sure that I agree with the attempt to jump to some moral high ground...It's a legitimate question. What effort was made to provide input to help town committee members understand what is/is not an important thing to keep in the budget? Costs rise. Taxes will unfortunately rise or services are cut. Yes, it is important to look for cost savings without cutting services too. Elected officials ("politicians" according to the poster) should be representing majority interests when it comes to services...but I don't know one on committee that is a mind reader. If something is or is not important to a resident it is up to them to voice that preference. Most people are busy. In the time it took you to write "how dare you", etc. on this posting board, a brief email or call could have been sent to a board member voicing your position. Again - voice an opinion or you'll be left facing a decision made without it.
anon-97on
Posted: Tue, Feb 11 2014, 8:16 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
anon-opp6 wrote:
I don't have time to attend these meetings, as the vas majority of the town does not. And how dare you turn this around to somehow blame us, the majority for not going to meetings and such.
I/we elect individuals and expect them to keep their campaign promises.
I/we expecrt them to do their job.
There are those of us who work very very hard to just get by to support their families and can't afford the irresponsible decisions made at local, county, state and federal level.
I do not have time to do our elected politicians jobs as well.
I will make time to see others get elected.
Who isn't keeping their campaign promises, precisely? I am not aware of a single current member of the TC who in their most recent campaign promised never to raise taxes. The only Republican on the TC specifically had approved tax increases during his first term so it would have been no surprise to any voter than he might vote for this again. And personally I would be skeptical of any candidate who believed they could make a blanket promise to never raise taxes when they can't possibly know all the particulars of future budgets and annual revenue at the time they are running. I would prefer someone who promised to take a careful look at all expenses and make an informed decision based on the available facts at the time. And by your own admission you have no idea whether any member of the TC didn't do exactly that since you didn't attend the meetings or review the publicly available information they were reviewing in the meetings.
You say you don't have time to participate. You realize the TC members all have jobs as well? Yet next time you plan to vote for someone who promises something that have no idea whether it will be a sound policy in future years. It's a free country but that doesn't sound like a very informed decision.
anon-921r
Posted: Tue, Feb 11 2014, 6:37 am EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
anon-opp6 wrote:
I don't have time to attend these meetings, as the vas majority of the town does not. And how dare you turn this around to somehow blame us, the majority for not going to meetings and such.
I/we elect individuals and expect them to keep their campaign promises.
I/we expecrt them to do their job.
There are those of us who work very very hard to just get by to support their families and can't afford the irresponsible decisions made at local, county, state and federal level.
I do not have time to do our elected politicians jobs as well.
I will make time to see others get elected.
Look, I don't always agree with the TC, but I can't fault them here.
You don't attend the meetings and therefore don't really know how hard the TC worked.
You don't have the time to try and help the town by offering suggestions because you work. Our TC also work full time jobs and yet do this to help the town and get attacked (ok maybe the don't like the attacks). I work as well, but have made time to attend some meetings.
You expect them to do their job, which may necessitate raising taxes, but then blame them for doing their job as fiduciary stewards of the town.
You will not make time to help the town, but you will make time to ensure other people are elected?
I don't want to pay more taxes and I am sure the TC does not either since they pay taxes too. Look at who is on our TC- one person is a grandmother, one just had twin babies, one has kids near college age, one is near retirement age and the other has two kids. I think they'd all personally benefit from not raising taxes.
You say irresponsible decisions, tell us what your ideas are. If they are valid, then tell the TC by email or someone here I am sure will let the TC know.
anon-opp6
Posted: Tue, Feb 11 2014, 12:26 am EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
I don't have time to attend these meetings, as the vas majority of the town does not. And how dare you turn this around to somehow blame us, the majority for not going to meetings and such.
I/we elect individuals and expect them to keep their campaign promises.
I/we expecrt them to do their job.
There are those of us who work very very hard to just get by to support their families and can't afford the irresponsible decisions made at local, county, state and federal level.
I do not have time to do our elected politicians jobs as well.
I will make time to see others get elected.
anon-60oq
Posted: Mon, Feb 10 2014, 11:19 am EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
anon-0qs4 wrote:
Its a shame the politicians we elected cannot get a handle on these high taxes. I did read what we did not cut in expenses.Does anyone know what the committee either cut or reduced as far as expenses?This home rule nonsense is a very costly extravagance.
Have you attended any meetings to help identify areas that can be cut? I am sure the "politicians" we elect would welcome the insight rather than read snide remarks here. What's the adage? If you're not part of the solution...
anon-0qs4
Posted: Mon, Feb 10 2014, 11:07 am EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
Its a shame the politicians we elected cannot get a handle on these high taxes. I did read what we did not cut in expenses.Does anyone know what the committee either cut or reduced as far as expenses?This home rule nonsense is a very costly extravagance.
anon-opp6
Posted: Mon, Feb 10 2014, 10:17 am EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
Hightstown tax bill went down. For family living there.
Blast all the off the cuff statistics you want.
It is getting more and more expensive to live in Cranbury and NJ period.
anon-921r
Posted: Sun, Feb 9 2014, 2:17 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
To add context if you have a home at the cranbury average 600k in these towns then you are paying over 14k in Plainsboro and over 20k in South Brunswick. This is why these towns want Cranbury's tax revenue to support services. The Plainsboro hospital will drain resources over time since it is not tax paying, South Brunswick has tremendous retail plus 130 and rt 1.
When papers cite tax bills for average properties they don't equalize home value to show it across rates. I can't imagine a 600k home with a 20k property tax bill.
Cranbury is very lucky.
anon-1254
Posted: Sun, Feb 9 2014, 1:57 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
Our tax rate is the lowest in the county. Mayor stated 1.83 for Cranbury.
Plainsboro 2.4. South Brunswick 4.5.
anon-921r
Posted: Sun, Feb 9 2014, 1:04 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
Did your family's taxes go down because their home value dropped? I have never seen a county or school tax rate drop. Those makeup most of the tax bill.
There are no additional officers being added, officers are just not being cut.
The traffic duty aside from the bridge (paid 50/50 town and county) is not paid by taxes.
anon-44n0
Posted: Sun, Feb 9 2014, 12:05 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
I support the Cranbury PD, but I do not agree that we need additional police officers.
And there are too many detectives. That investigate relatively ridiculous things, and/or do a horrible job investigating real crime.
Without opening a can of worms here with specific cases, maybe worth separate discussion here in this forum.
My two cents.
You can't just keep growing the municiplaity infrastructure disproportionately to the need and population.
Just too damn expensive.
Lower cost options exist.
Why isn't there a lower cost police auxilliary used in crabury, like I've seen in other towns. Graduated from acadamy, a fraction of the cost, and can do the relatively mundane traffic direction needed which seems to be a lot of what we are paying overall more than six figures per officer.
Use the seasoned well paid officers for patrol, and crime prevention.
I am sure there will be a ton of excuses we are special, or this just can't be done.
For once would like to see some original thinking on how we can save some money.
Interestingly enough,
Taxes for family in neighboring town went down.
Please reconsider raising taxes. Again.
anon-921r
Posted: Sun, Feb 9 2014, 11:07 am EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
If you want the math call Denise Marabello or a TC member. They all had spreadsheets showing the full cost. I trust their calculations more than trying to figure out the cost on my own as I don 'to know all the components.
anon-97on
Posted: Sun, Feb 9 2014, 10:15 am EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
anon-921r wrote:
There are also businesses that pay property taxes. The cost per warehouse is higher.
Collectively residents account for at least 50% of the tax base, so even factoring in business property taxes I agree with the above poster that the math doesn't seem to work. Not even close. I don't know the latest figure not the # of property taxed households but I would be easily over that # to round up to 2,000. If you take 2,000 x $0.62 x 12 months x 2 (to factor in a 50% contribution from non-residential property taxes, again being generous) you would get a number shy of $30K, which is far below the salary of an officer, let alone the salary, benefits and pension contributions. And using more likely figures for the # of homes you'd get more like $20K.
I wasn't at the meeting so I didn't hear what was said. I am only reacting to the math.
anon-1254
Posted: Sun, Feb 9 2014, 10:13 am EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
Good point. The businesses, including, the warehouses pay a large portion of taxes, roughly half. We are fortunate but there are downsides...their assessment values are still leveling out thus contributing to lower than anticipated tax basis. We know our residential values are recovering...so this will correct itself. Another "downside" is that these taxpayers also deserve police protection.
anon-921r
Posted: Sun, Feb 9 2014, 9:38 am EST
Post subject: Re: Cranbury Budget, No Police Force Reductions and Tax Increase....
There are also businesses that pay property taxes. The cost per warehouse is higher.