Once again smoke and mirrors. #4 "the borough will be forced to consider other plans proposed". There are no other proposals. Noone wants to buy that property for low income development in this economy. The current economy cannot support low income housing.

I commend Bill Duhart and the Patch for continuing to report on the Bancroft bond, since it's a very important issue for Haddonfield residents. Two points of clarification regarding the school board statemens above:
(1) If the borough proceeds with redevelopment of the Bancroft property, it is not a foregone conclusion that the outcome will be negative. Redevelopment would involve input/regulation from the borough (planning/zoning) and local residents. In fact, it's conceivable, as part of a redevelopment plan, that the borough, for example, could convince the property owner to make available a small piece of the land for a high school annex, in exchange for a slightly expanded use of the property. So far from redevelopment being a negative (which proponents of the bond would have us believe), it could certainly be a win-win for taxpayers, particularly since taxpayers would be able to limit their financial exposure to only that portion of the property that may be absolutely needed.
(2) The school board has previously said that it is NOT prohibited from pursuing a second referendum (i.e., that this is NOT a Faulkner Act issue). So, for the board to now suggest otherwise contradicts their prior statements and what many of us understand to be the applicable law.

what is with the Astro turf - the committee who wants it - says its ok - really? nHow about we get a third opinion from environmental and professionals on the pros and cons of artifical turf! Haddonfield can't afford the field, therefore , Haddonfield can't have the field. My property is not the BOE's checkbook.

THERE IS NO RUSH, DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE. NO NEED TO OVERPAY, THE LAND IS LOCKED UP BY ZONING ORDINANCES.

I am disappointed....but not surprised...by the number of red and white "vote no" signs that are disappearing from lawns.....sophomoric, lame behavior by some, it seems. I have also been told that some neighbors have actually asked residents to remove their "oppose" signage...one reason was that the person making the request ran in the same social circle as some of the pro people, and she didn't want them to be upset if they visited her....God strike me dead....you can't make this stuff up!

The $189 assessment is based on 3% interest at a flexible rate. It WILL increase over the years. Plus, knocking down the buildings, putting in turf, etc... are all additional costs on top of the 12.5 mill. What about paying annual salaries and healthcare for the people the town will have to hire to maintain this "open space"?This is just the tip of the iceberg. And, this One Haddonfield Club, funded by Bancroft! What a joke, isn't there a conflict of interest here? Anyone part of that is selling their sole, how can they not see this?

Where do I get a vote no sign???

The $189 is not reflective of the final tax cost. The turfing and installation of Anniversary field was on the BOE bond and pulled at the last second and passed back to the borough, where it will be payed by the taxpayer, just not on the bond referendum. So it's $189 plus the final costs of the 2 fields plus the unspecified costs down the road.
Dawn is quite correct with her tip of the iceberg assessment.
On another note, I had a vote no sign stolen off my porch. If you believe in the bond than support your cause but some of the bully nonsense going on is beneath the dignity of Haddonfield. I won't tolerate anyone stealing a sign from our opposition because everyone has a right to their opinion. Everyone should be given the same courtesy.

Just as all families need to look closely at our money these days, we need to look closely at the Jan 22 Bancroft vote. We agree with many that Bancroft is a "nice-to-have". We are concerned about the overall costs, and the fact that there has been no full plan submitted.

Nice-to Haves are not "Need-to-Haves". We do not have the funds without imposing significant tax hikes, and there are plenty of un-met and on-going infrastructure needs.

There is no reason to hunt for ulterior motives or hidden agendas among our leadership. They are well intentioned, just tone deaf on this subject. Steve Weinstein is to be commended for his stated position that the people should decide and that if they don't like what they see they can vote "No{"

We have lived in Haddonfield for many years and this town is truly like a family. In this little family the kids have come up with an idea of purchasing something that would be nice to have, but one that we can't afford. Money is short and there are other pressing needs. It is time now for the grown-ups to put up their hands and say: "Good idea, but we can't afford it". We need to vote NO on 1/22.
Bob and Sue Heindel