It seemed very clear that Radnor was off the table and not to be developed or considered for development. Why it was still part of the issue is odd.

Because people are still very confused and misinformed about the details around all of the issues regarding the Bancroft purchase, open space taxes and uses, zoning laws, the mysterious $29m capital improvement plan, whether or not the school roof is leaking, etc. Also, there are many people who refuse to believe anything that any commisioner or BOE member says on whether it is true or not. I've been participating in the comments section for yesterday's article, and I'm amazed that some of the most rabid "NO" supporters are surprised about some of the "facts and details" that have been known, discussed and published for quite sometime. I think a lot of people just boiled it down to "Yes" means taxes go up , and "No" means taxes don't go up.

The debate is still very much alive, and if anything Radnor is now "In Play" more than ever.

As a Radnor resident who voted YES II'm deeply disappointed for all of Haddonfield. This was a unique opportunity to improve our community at a modest cost and we let it drift away in a cloud of misinformation. If you voted NO please tell us what your vision is for the Bancroft property, or if you have one. We all understand the issues of development and fair taxation, those concerns were addressed again and again. The information was out there. If you think you casted an informed vote, I respect that. But progress demands bold and new ideas. Status quo and in-action are the obstacles to a better Haddonfield and we've seen it too often. And to the citizens who chose to not vote (half of you), thanks for nothing.

It doesn't get much more direct or clear than this, but of couse somebody who is firmly entrenced in their "NO bubble" would never look at any information on the oppositions website:

http://onehaddonfield.org/uploads/Radnor_Letter.pdf

You know, frankly I opposed the Bond because of its vagueness and my lack of trust in the truth of what the Commissioners in this town say. I also didn't think a parking lot was so important. The kids can bicycle or walk to school. Students with an athletic injury or disability should be eligible to park but for the rest of them, I say walk. We have an obesity epidemic. Why contribute to it. I know this is an affluent town with kids having their own cars but the tax payers don't need to spend money to subsidize that. I originally offered a couple of solutions at meetings. One was for a technology office park with businesses such as software developers, computer companies etc that would be encouraged to relocate and pay taxes. That idea did not get a legitimate hearing. At the time, the turf fields were still included, I suggested at a meeting that we encourage a For-Profit Radiology Center with MRI and a Surgi-Center and maybe a Rehab facility or physical therapy facility, all of which would pay taxes. in addition, the student athletes could then go directly from the turf fields to the MRI to the Surgi-Center and Orthopedic evaluation when they tore their anterior cruciate ligaments. I thought it was a good idea but I know Ed Borden did not.

A parking lot (and even a turf field) is a cheap and quick way that the land could be utilized without significant short term capital investment, and the space could be used for development and other uses in the future with minimal remediation.
Setting aside that there is significant low cost commercial real estate available locally (Cherry Hill), and we would probably need to offer tax breaks to incent businesses that are not dependant on location to move here, and assuming that rezoning the area for commercial development wouldn’t trigger a lawsuit from Bancroft (which I would advise if I were their lawyer), these would all be valid options for consideration. Alas, since we have voted NO, we have no options…..

They were not considered by Ed Borden and the other Commissioners when I brought them up. I think they had other plans and all those meetings were just for show. A partking lot is a poor idea - cheap but ecologically unsound, contributes to local micro climate warming, encourages the use of cars for short term trips, I wouldn't call turf fields cheap and quick way to utilize land. They require maintenance and replacement every 8 years, they are associated with thermal injury in warm weather, they are associated with injuries such as ACL tears and they have environmental issues, especially so close to wetlands as this location is.
One of the problems with our tax base is that there is excess commercial real estate space in Cherry Hill. So, if we are going to have a pro-business climate, some kinds of tax breaks should be considered for businesses that we would want to move here. We can only have so many nail salons and hair salons and fancy dress shops. We need businesses that can be helped to succeed to expand the commercial diversity of our town and also of course expand its tax base.
Frankly, I think we are better off letting Bancroft stay and making sure that they are in compliance with all potential regulations, including the environmental impact of whatever they do, especially as regards their proximity to the wetlands on their property. Hold their feet to the fire.

Reply to Pro-Haddonfield. What was not present in the transcript was the contempt and arrogance with which Steve Weinstein answered John Stokes. I had never been to a B of E meeting and could not believe Weinstein's tone of disregard and lack of respect for a citizen of this community. John and his group left shortly thereafter and I knew myself at that moment that if we turned out district 9 and 8, we could win this.

OK, you think they gave you the "High Hat", so you showed them. I think giving tax breaks, and incurring legal fees to defend unfair zoning practices for commercial development makes little economic sense at that location, but it could have been considered and analyzed as an option.
I didn't say a "Paved" parking lot. In fact, most of the current parking lots are semi-permeable, and will probably continue to be used as parking lots, so this is net-neutral in terms of the environmental impact (unless we force Bancroft to remove the parking lots). Additionally, there is nothing that says we can't have a REAL turf field made of grass which would improve the environmental footprint of the current site, and negate all of the "health concerns" around artificial turf fields.
Again, since we voted NO, we have no options other than to “Hold Bancroft’s feet to the fire.” I hope that we can still maintain good relations with Bancroft, but I think that a considerable amount of goodwill has been eroded with them. Hopefully it will not escalate to the point where they sue us for unreasonable zoning practices, or reclaim the current land where the high school is encroaching on their property.

I appreciate many of the comments, and I do see the Bancroft purchase as a leap of faith to some extent. That being said, I would rather have the town own the property and quarrel over its use than not own it and simply hope that the property is not sold for a use that no one in the town will appreciate. That is one of the many reasons that I voted "yes."
As an aside, I believe that the men and women on the BOE and the commissioners approached the issue with great thought. Maybe you agree with them, maybe you don't. Either way, I see no reason to assail their character by suggesting that they are less than truthful with the public. I may not always agree with the decisions that are made, but I do appreciate that these people are attending meetings and researching issues that affect all of the residents. That is a considerable undertaking and one that takes these people away from their families. To me, you simply lose credibility when you attack them personally simply because you disagree with a position one of these individuals has taken.

Reply to Pro-Haddonfield.
Regarding the field conditions, I do have a couple of thought. I think a Haddonfield Day of Service to clean up the town, do deferred maintenancemight be a good idea and perhaps we could do some work reseeding fields etc.
I would observe that the thousands of dollars that the town and the Board of Education spent over the last years moving toward the presentation of this vague plan would have been better spent on maintenance of schools and fields.

I love real grass. I was being sarcastic. Maybe we could get assistance from the Center for Turfgrass Science at Rutgers for advice on drainage issues and what turf would be best to grow. They are a fabulous resource that we have in New Jersey. In terms of Radnor being limited to specific sports, one of the things that we do not have in this part of town is a playground for children. I'd like to see one on Radnor field. Does everything in this town have to be about specific team field sports? Even some of our kids play other sports such as tennis and basketball and golf. And they will likely continue to play those sports in adulthood. Radnor used to have a basketball court and two tennis courts but they were not maintained and then removed. There are adults in this town who either don't have children in the schools now or never had children in the schools who pay taxes and who benefit from outdoor space. I'd like to see a fitness course for adults as well. Again, that could be thought about for Radnor Field.
I don't frankly care what assumptions you make about me because I am a private citizen. However Mr Weinstein, as a government official, did not need to be arrogant and disrespectful to Mr Stokes (and also to Angela Melzi). I had never seen him before in person but his tone and sense of his own entitlement was outrageous. This is a democracy. He works for us. He is a public servant. He has no right to treat his employers (the voter) with contempt and disrespect.

I agree Radnor needs help. If we fix the drainage issue, and add some more defined field space, we could increase the density of its usage substantially. Additionally, we could add lights which would significantly increase the hours of usage. Parking is an issue, but I'm sure we can relax the parking restrictions on the adjoining side streets to handle the extra traffic. This would have the additional benefit of tying the BOE more closely to the property so that they would/could never sell it.

All of those ideas are noble, but it should be used for something that will benefit the schools/children more directly since the BOE owns the property. Unless, of course the BOE donates it for this use. Also, we might need to find a place to build a new track since the last three lanes of our track are technically on Bancroft property, but I'm sure they will still let us use it as part of that whole "two way street" philosophy. Someone should suggest this at the board meeting tonight.

Also, we have several of these facilities in town within walking distance that could use some investment. Why don't we fix those up first before we start spending our money on duplicating facilities.

First of all, guys, it's over. Secondly, can we stop blaming it on Radnor? Maybe the people near Radnor voted based on Radnor but there were 1,775 other people not near Radnor that voted no. At the end of the day, it was an uphill battle to ask people to OK a tax increase with a plan that showed a ball field and a parking lot. That’s the bottom line. And if you’re going ask people to OK this, don’t make unsubstantiated claims like the high school is cramped (it's not), that “school regionalization has been discussed in NJ for several years and continues to gain momentum” (it hasn’t), and that this opportunity won’t be available again in “our lifetime, our children’s lifetime, or our grandchildren’s lifetime” (Ed Borden’s great quote!).

I agree it's over. Going forward, let's only discuss options for Radnor, the difficulty of our current situation with Bancroft, and options to spend our open space money.

The BOE, the Commissioners, and the developers all told the residents that in order to prepare for our future we needed to shoulder the costs of this development. Not once did I hear any of the triumvirate mention what they were going to do to help ease the cost of this project. What expenses could the BOE or our town cut to help the greater good of the community? What spending cuts would the BOE make? Everyone else in the private sector pays for benefits and their retirement. Why can't the public sector in Haddonfield do the same? Or how about our public works department or our town halls combine with other municipalities to help ease costs? Nope. It was always "we need to do this for the future, and YOU taxpayers need to pay this." This expectation is not realistic today. The private sector is tired of supporting everyone else while their standard of living stagnates. In any negotiation you have to give some in order to get something in return. That did not happen and a poorly communicated plan by our public servants resulted in the defeat of a great idea.

I love the idea of developing Radnor and maximizing it's usage. You could add two softball fields and two addition soccer/lacrosse/field hockey fields in each outfield. Lighting Spicer field and the two multipurpose fields would off set the loss of a multipurpose field at Bancroft. Let's make the fields at Radnor the best fields possible for our students and the neighbors, I have always said that if I lived near Radnor I would want it to be the best field possible.

Of course we would have to ease the restrictions on parking in the neighborhood, but I don't think the neighbors would mind since they wanted to be neighbors with the BOE forever.

AN OBSESSION? YOU WOULD NOT KNOW IT BASED UPON THE WAY WE (POORLY) MAINTAIN ALL OF OUR FIELDS AND RECREATION AREAS. BUT IT'S ALL A MOOT POINT SINCE THIS WAS OUR 'LAST CHANCE'!!

I voted no because i have always been proud of bancroft being part of out community and our history. But the town opposed bancrofts efforts to modernize as needed and argued that the lack of tax rateables was the primary problem. (And traffic for about 7 households) But when tax rateable development plans were on the table, the town opposed them primarily because a few lower income families would be in our schools. And we ended up with what was to me the worst of both worlds - the loss of Bancroft, zero increase in rateables and an actual tax increase likely to grow even more in the future.

It's now time for the town to do the right thing and support bancrofts modernization efforts. It could be the Jewel in Haddonfield that we would be the home of one if the most cutting edge autism schools. So many ways we could use its presence as an educational plus for all of our children

Either that or rateables. One or the other

Reply to Pro-Haddonfield. Do most of the kids really choose field sports? That's a shame if it is true because tennis, swimming, golf, basketball are sports you can do for life. Forty year old women don't still play field hockey or lacrosse but those of us such as myself who were tennis players learned a sport for a lifetime.
You completely and intentionally missed my point.
Radnor is the only accessible open space in this neighborhood. In terms of using Cooper River Park, Ed Borden has pointedly told us at TAPS that no one should walk down Coles Mill Road because it is too dangerous but of course we can't do anything about it such as build sidewalks or a crosswalk or park access. There are people on my street who walk for exercise and they have no where they can safely walk except to Radnor (assuming they are on the correct side of Coles Mill) or are able to cross it safely. Others walk their dogs to Radnor. You may not heard of adults who want the open space but I live in a neighborhood full of them. My suggestion was an adult fitness course. I have not heard my neighbors ask for it but I think people might appreciate it. Regarding putting the playground at Bancroft, the whole point for a parent with a toddler would be to have a local playground and Bancroft is certainly not local. And your point about those kids getting older is meaningless. This neighborhood is starting to turn over and the demand for a playground will only increase.

No actually I find that most children at some point do play a field sport especially soccer or baseball. Most parents in the town expose their kids to these at some point to see if the interest is there. I too value court sports and golf, swimming etc so that was not my point. Bancroft would have been a great spot for more tennis or basketball courts. I don't think a golf course would have fit (joke). My forty year old neighbor plays women's field hockey actually and soccer and rugby for adults is active in our town as is adult league baseball and basketball pickup games are going on all over town inside and out. I never said playgrounds weren't a good idea. Our topic here has been Bancroft but I did point out to you earlier that I thought an adult fitness trail or playground over by Radnor was a great idea. If you didn't see it, I encouraged you to spearhead a committee to explore and raise funds for this great idea and pointed out how it happens all the time all over town. I gave examples. Get to work! You've planted the seed now grow it.

With regard to Radnor and parking, that is an issue and I acknowledge that. I would hope that people would consider carpooling to use Radnor. I think the best place to put the Radnor parking would be over on Coles Mill. The traffic on Coles Mill is ridiculous and designated Radnor on street parking on Coles Mill would effectively slow traffic down, as would stop signs at the Farwood-Coles Mill Road intersection or even better a traffic light. In addition, I would like to see bicycle racks at Radnor to encourage people to bike there. Haddonfield should try to encourage more bicycling. Most ot the year, the weather is good and the town is so small that driving the small distances is really only necessary for the elderly and people with babies. From an environmental and health point of view, our policies should be to discourage unnecessary car use. Carpool, bike or walk. That's why I support limiting parking at the high school to teachers and staff and only students who need it - the disabled or the injured athletes. The rest of the kids can bike or walk or be dropped off by their parents. I will talk with the organized Radnor folks and see what they are thinking about. In addition, I will be at the next TAPS meeting and see where the four way stop sign for Coles and Farwood has now that the Bancroft Bond was defeated and Weinstein is less likely to sell Radnor for housing.

To Pro Haddonfield....your contempt at the people who engage you in this forum is short sighted. Your facetious responses should not be directed at those passionate for or against this referendum. Rather direct your opinion to the 50% who did not vote. Or the town and school board who didn't clearly communicate a cohesive plan. We need to standup against entitlement. The current tax system is unsustainable. It is a ponzi scheme that our children will inherit. This is the biggest travesty that few speak out against for fear of reprisal.

Steve Weinstein's arrogance and disdain for public input has been on display for a long time, this isn't something that only Dr. Hoch has recently observed. I've been taking it in and reacting critically to it for many years. Weinstein should resign and move to Wyoming or some such place where there's lots of open space and fewer people for him to inflict himself upon. Clearly, his "service" on the BOE has been driven by egoism not altruism. How do jerks like him get elected in the first place?

JJK....I guess they get elected because good people don't run and disinterested people don't vote! My observation about politicians on all levels is that they are driven by a personal agenda, be it ego, future career aspirations, perceived social status. And please, before the hate mail starts...I also know that some (read few) do have the best interests of the folks at heart. I know several people in town who would be brilliant serving as a Commissioner....they are bright, dedicated, clear thinking individuals who love this town, but....don't have a personal agenda, or ego and just don't have the heart to tolerate all of the "stuff" (you know the word I'd like to use, but Mr. Duhart would have to edit it!) that goes along with the job. I am encouraged by the outcome of the recent referendum, not just because the bond was defeated, but more importantly....maybe now more people will be paying attention to what goes on in our town.

Eric John......school systems help you sell a house. They don't appreciate a house. The other reasons why people move to Haddonfield is the PATCO, downtown and driving distance to Philadelphia. What is not sustainable are the benefits and pensions that we continue to pay for so the public sector can have what the private sector does not. Putting in small amounts of money and taking out large amounts over 20-30 years after retirement is killing us. Putting in $100K and taking out over $2MM in pension benefits for a NJ State Supreme Court judge is unsustainable