I usually don’t do this, but I wanted to point our readers’ attention to the Cranbury forum page on Cranbury.net — mostly to respond, but also to raise a question.
First, The Cranbury Press is not anti-Cranbury, nor am I. The notion that my opinions or the paper’s opinions are part of a grand conspiracy designed to fold Cranbury into one of the neighboring communities is preposterous. I have no underlying agenda. I do believe, however, that there are many towns in the state that probably should be merged out of existence, but as I said last week Cranbury is not one of them. The town may have a small population, but it has a sizable tax base that supports a level of services that some larger towns cannot.
Our decision as a paper to encourage the purchase of the bank building for use as a library — or a community center or both — is based on what we know at the moment. We understand that there will be conversion costs and operational costs, but the current library arrangement has problems that cannot be addressed without building a new library. If the community doesn’t want to do that, we are OK with it. At the moment, however, buying the bank seems to make sense.
And let’s be honest. Cranbury’s downtown functions well, but businesses are not clamoring to relocate to Main Street. This is not a knock on Cranbury. Most towns like Cranbury face the same issues. But there are no guarantees that the building will not stay vacant for a while or that the businesses that may be interested will be the kind that draw shoppers.
In any case, the decision will be the community’s and not the paper’s. We’re just offering our two cents and anyone who disagrees is free to write a letter to us and/or make their opposition know to the Township Committee.
As for the question, I’d like to know why this debate about the paper is happening on some anonymous bulletin board and not in the letters section of the paper. If there are criticisms of the paper, I will run them in the paper — as I did when we ended the zoning of the paper and folded the two Presses back into one.
Basically, if you don’t like what the paper is doing, tell me. I want to know. Please e-mail me by clicking here (just let me know if you want your e-mail published as a letter, or if it is intended as a personal note; I promise to respond).
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me clicking here.
Hank Kalet 
First Hank you are anti Cranbury, it would be nice to see the other side of the PNC issue or COAH in your paper. Second please get your facts straight, it\’s cranbury.info not cranbury.net.-Cranbury Conservative
Mr. Kalet,I disagree. As a believer in free speech, I agree anyone should be able to express an opinion even when it is contrary to the popular view or the interests of a majority of the audience. That said, context always matters. The Supreme Court has noted this in every case where it has limited the First Amendment.In this case the context is that you are the principle editor of a newspaper designed to serve Cranbury Township. When you published your editorial supporting small town mergers, you did so at a pivotal moment when Cranbury was concerned with new legislation that could eventually pressure it into consolidation despite the realities of our already successful balance of outsourcing services with other Townships. You not only chose exactly the wrong content, but you completely missed the more opportunity to editorialize on why, despite your general belief that some New Jersey Townships should be merged, Cranbury is an exception and why. I humbly suggest that you are not just anyone in your current position. Regardless of your personal beliefs, the Cranbury Press was the wrong forum and context for your message and it was an error in judgment to publish that position there at that time. Had a third party submitted that editorial and you had published it besides a counter opinion, that would have been fine. But it should not have come from you as editor.As for the current Library issue, I don’t believe in conspiracies, though I disagree with the paper’s position. Further, I again think you are not demonstrating adequate sensitivity to the context around you in the local community. The possible PNC Bank site purchase is the most divided, hot button issue to affect local politics in Cranbury since the property tax reassessment. As such, I respectfully suggest you would have exercised better judgment for the paper to remain officially neutral on the topic. Rather, you should have solicited editorials from both sides and published them side-by-side. For the paper to take an official position that many people would view as seriously contrary to their interests as taxpayers was asking for trouble. And it was unnecessary since it would have taken a simple post on the site to which you responded to receive multiple strong positions on both sides.The past cannot be changed. But if you want to continue to earn the trust of your local readership, a critical priority for any small town paper, I suggest you be more sensitive to the line between your position as editor and your personal position as an opinionated individual. The Cranbury Press is not a blog. It is appropriate to self censor your own words in its pages and to instead act as an outlet for equal time and weight to local citizen’s positions on both sides of the issue, something not achieved by the paper’s official position versus a letter to the editor in response week’s later._____Switching topics. Since you have solicited responses to your position on the PNC Bank purchase, here is mine.I oppose the purchase of the PNC Bank site by the Township at this time for the following reasons:1) I believe our current school-attached library is adequate for a town our size and there are numerous larger local libraries in the immediate area freely available to us should we need them.2) The Township is in significant debt and should not be pursuing \”like to have\” projects until the debt is reduced. The TC can’t have it both ways – they can’t cite payment on the debt as a driver for our skyrocketing taxes then say that we can afford new elective projects.3) The timing is poor. Besides the debt, the economy is (effectively if not technically) in a recession, taxes have gone up significantly, the school budget has increased rapidly, the reassessment just put a bigger piece of the total burden on residents and we still face the very real treat of a crippling COAH affordable housing requirement. Whether you support the idea of a new library or not, this is not the right time to spend on it. Some say this is a “once in a lifetime” opportunity for the perfect building and location. I disagree. But even if it were, learn from business. Any Fortune 500 company would tell you that they sometimes have to pay more for something later that they could have acquired for less before when the timing was not strategic. Big business knows that timing does matter.4) It sends the wrong message externally. It is harder to argue poverty to the State or the courts over the COAH requirements if we are supporting large new elective amenities. It may also have a chilling affect on local home buyers into Cranbury and therefore home values if, combined with the COAH uncertainty, there is a perception that Cranbury is unconcerned with escalating debt and tax burden.5) The jury is out of whether it is even helpful to the business district to have a Library slightly closer to Main Street than the current one versus making sure the building goes to another business to attract more shoppers.6) Perhaps most importantly, I fundamentally reject as bad public policy and business for the Township Committee to commit this property until they have demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the full short and long term costs, including renovation, maintenance, operations, etc. Anything less is irresponsible. And if they have, they should publicly share it with enough time for review before a public comment period.7) I oppose this being settled in closed session and further I believe it should be subject to decision by the registered voters of Cranbury as a whole. We have an upcoming primary election for Township Committee already scheduled. Attach it to that ballot.8) Those in favor of the new Library have not made their case with any hard facts. It seems odd to commit to a project that will affect all taxpayers on the basis of theoretical arguments. They say it will help local businesses. Where is the proof or the facts to support this? They say parking is an issue. Then prove that parking is losing the Township enough business to justify the seven-figure expense. They say the current library has security issues. Prove it with actual accounts. Then prove it is not more cost effective to address them with additional measures at the current library. Etc. Short of proof, it seems like folly to spend this money on everyone’s behalf. Anyone can come up with theoretical arguments in support of something. But Township’s shouldn’t spend on the basis of them.Respectfully,Jason Stewart (Cubberly Court)