Questions on COAH

This year’s election for the open seat on the Cranbury Township Committee is more important than ever to our town due to issues such as COAH / Affordable Housing.

As I have spoken with residents of our town about my candidacy for Cranbury’s Township Committee, I have been asked many questions regarding COAH and Affordable Housing and how it will impact our community, I have also been asked about my views and how I would handle these issues if I were elected to the Township Committee. Below are my replies to a few of the questions I have heard regarding Cranbury’s COAH / Affordable Housing Obligation…

Question: What should be done now for Affordable Housing in Cranbury?

Win’s Answer: The original round 3 regulations provided a means for municipalities to create housing and provided affordable housing for many families. Under the prior rules Cranbury and CHA devised a great plan to build additional housing that incorporated the use of regional contribution agreements.

The revised plans drastically increase our obligation, remove the RCA’s and retroactively change some of our prior commitments. Our goal should be to get COAH to agree to accept our original Round 3 Plan as submitted.

Question: What should be done to support the needs for Affordable Housing for Cranbury in the future?

Win’s Answer: While Cranbury cannot directly make changes to COAH regulations, we can be influential. An equitable tradeoff of development fees for commercial and non-commercial should pay for new affordable housing, as long as the fees do not hinder smart development in New Jersey. Cranbury can work with our elected state officials to help bring some rationality to COAH. Bill Baroni has been a champion for Cranbury on COAH and we should continue to work with him. It remains to be seen if Linda Greenstein will be of any help to Cranbury due to her lack of tangible support to date for our town. Wayne DeAngelo has shown he will not be of any assistance. Cranbury also needs to keep fighting the current legislation by taking a strong position against the new COAH rules, participating in appropriate legal action and not accepting what has been done to Cranbury and towns like ours. I pledge to fight for Cranbury so that we have a fair Affordable Housing obligation which will not destroy our town as we know it.

Question from Cranbury Resident: As we have seen over the past few years, the TC is not listening to our residents. Please let us know how you'll involve residents in the decision making process. How will you differ from the current people on the TC? http://www.cranbury.info/viewtopic.php?t=2856

Win's Answer: I feel it is critical for the Township Committee to take in the opinions of the residents on making decisions. The township committee is elected to represent the people of Cranbury. Decisions should be made that serve the best interest of Cranbury. The larger the magnitude of the decision, the more input is necessary before making a decision. By magnitude I mean large expense (i.e. library, ballpark, etc.) or long term potential irreversible action (land preservation).

There are several ways to get more input from residents:

• Being around, attending events and talking to people in town. I have started my walking around town and have already visited several hundred houses. This is a great way to get the pulse of what people care about.


• Listening to residents at the township committee


• Reading email and letters from residents


• Having a booth at Cranbury Day where the TC can interact with residents, I was disappointed there was no TC booth this year


• Reading the cranbury.info site. All the activity is great way to get a sense of what is going on. But, because most posts are anonymous, it is sometimes unclear to determine how widespread a view is held in town by posts on this board but it is a great indicator and a way to learn information.


• I feel there needs to be more openness from the Township Committee to improve communication. I feel there are too many closed sessions and sub-committees. Sub-committees are de-facto closed sessions. Of course closed session for certain matters such as personnel are still needed but they should be kept to a minimum.


• For major decisions (i.e, ball field, new stand alone library), I would propose we have public referendums to truly get the sense of the town. Before we embark on large non-emergency expenditures, a plan and business case should be put together outline expenses and impact, then presented that to town and placed on a ballot. The plan and business case need not be done exclusively by the TC or consultants, concerned residents can help put these plans together where appropriate. There are at least two elections (primary and general election) each year, there should be sufficient time to plan and put these on the ballot without increasing expenses.