How Will You Vote on the Bancroft Referendum?
Jan. 22 will be judgment day for a $12.5 million referendum on the Bancroft property.
Photos
Haddonfield residents will have an opportunity to go to the polls next Tuesday to decide a $12.5 million school board bond referendum on the public purchase of the 19.2-acre Bancroft property on Kings Highway East.
The school board and the borough have a joint purchase agreement for the $16-million acquisition which includes $3.5 million of guarantees for open-space preservation funds from the borough, county and state.
If the proposal does not pass the BOE will drop its proposal for acquisition, and the borough, acting as the redevelopment authority, will be forced to consider other plans proposed as a result of the designation of the property as “in need of redevelopment,” according to a school board statement. These alternate proposals must be addressed as a matter of law. The BOE has no intention of pursuing, or even a right to pursue, a second referendum, it said in a recent letter to the community.
The BOE estimates a typical resident with a property assessment value of $492,000 will pay $189.22 a year in additional taxes for the next 20 years for the Bancroft purchase.
Haddonfield’s average property tax bill of $12,088.88 is nearly twice the state average at $7,776, according to the state Department of Community Affairs. Haddonfield has the second highest average property tax bill in Camden County. It trails Tavistock, an exclusive enclave at the tip of Haddonfield, enclosed mostly in a private golf course. Haddonfield's property tax bills are 27 percent higher than Voorhees, $8,777.41, third in the county.
Opponents of the plan, like the group Haddonfield United, say: “If approved, the school board’s $16.8 million bond will drive up our local property taxes at a time when many Haddonfield residents are struggling to pay their existing tax bills. Supporters of the bond referendum may claim that the property tax increases will be ‘small,’ but our town’s middle-class residents and seniors on fixed incomes would beg to differ, especially in light of the fact that they are already paying twice the state average in property taxes.”
The Board of Education and other supporters of the plan say they want "to seize the opportunity of acquiring this historic and prominent 'gateway into Haddonfield' for use by the community at large, for educational and recreational purposes, to allow for possible future school expansion and development of a high school campus, and to secure an open-space legacy for our children."
What do you think? Please vote in our survey below. The survey will only allow you to vote once.
Mister Mike
6:22 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Bill, your poll becomes even less scientific as both Haddonfield and Haddon Township account members can cast a vote here. Perhaps adding something like: I'm not a resident of Haddonfield, but if I were I would vote - YES or NO.
Just a thought.
Steve C
6:47 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Um, the whole world can vote here.
agent itchy
8:02 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
it's a crying shame that we keep voting for open space only to see it later developed.
to me open space means allow nature to manage the land not another sports complex.
in Cinnaminson, we spent $5 million to buy a former farm and guess what, another soccer complex is coming soon :(
Susan Hoch MD
8:31 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Actually the bond includes less than 4 acres of committed open space. Most of that is wetland or steep slopes which would be impossible to develop. The Borough chose not to request all the open space grants it was eligible for - a total of $6 million but only asked for $900,000 to preserve part of the space. The assumption therefore is that the Board of Education plans to develop the remaining 15 acres although there is no money in the bond for further development. Given that Haddonfield currently has a $41 million deficit, it is hard to see where financing to build anything would come from - unless they decide to have another Bond referendum in a couple of years.
Joe T
10:13 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
itchy - yep too bad. Open space by statute means a lot of things! Ball fields and turf fields included. The farm was saved from houses so what do you care if kids kick a ball around on it and get exercise instead of playing video games.
Dr. Hoch - we don't have a $41 million deficit. People have posted the boro and BOE have outstanding debt of $41 million which I haven't confirmed. If you look at the 2 budgets, there is roughly $4M allocated to debt service (principal and interest) each year so the $41 million is being paid down unlike what the pretender in the White House does which is borrow money to pay interest on the borrowed money.
I wish the BOE or boro would provide more clarity on the debt, its paydown and the true impact of additional borrowing. having said that, the boro is worth $2.5 Billion dollars so $41M in debt really isn't a lot especially compared to other towns.
Mike McCready
8:10 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
It's truly appalling that the referendum ballot question doesn't include the fact that our taxes will go up as a result of this purchase? Shouldn't that be in there somewhere?
Jeremiah Wright
9:21 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
They're counting on low information voters to ram this white elephant through. The lack of hard numbers is all part of the strategy.
Susan Hoch MD
8:32 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Mike,
I've lived in Haddonfield for 20 years now and the taxes have NEVER gone down. What is truly appalling about this referendum from the Board of Education is that there is not a penny in it for the educational needs of the students.
David Siedell
1:01 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
No, our 35 million dollar yearly budget pays for the current educational needs of our current students. This is a 20 year bond for an asset, land, the best kind of asset because it doesn't depreciate, not money for technology that will be obsolete in 5 years. These are 2 completely different things.
Susan Hoch MD
8:54 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Here is a reply to Dave Siedell. I assume he did not attend the December Board of Education meeting and hear Dr Berlin report that they do not have enough money for the computers they need. In addition, they don't have the computers required for the state mandated tests - I agree those are not educational. And our 35 million dollar yearly budget doesn't pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the facilities that the students need for their education. The Board of Education's architect has said that they require $28 million for maintenance and repairs for the buildings that the Board currently owns. You are right that buildings and computers do depreciate and our Board doesn't do maintenance well and apparently doesn't care about obsolence in roofs or drainage systems or books or computers. I fail to see what land has to do with education. Some of the best high schools in the country such as Stuyvesant in New York City do not have a lot of land. A good education comes from students who are lucky to have parents who stimulate them when they are young and from inspired teachers. Land has nothing to do with it.
David Siedell
9:17 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
I was at the meeting. You were huffing at every comment from the board and the pro referendum audience all night. What Dr. Berlin said about the testing is that although it would be great to have that many computers we didn't have enough in the whole district for the state mandates and that we would probably rent computers to administer those tests. That idea sounds like good financial prudence. Oh, State mandates forcing us to spend money, how about WHEN the state mandates regionalization.
As for other technology purchases, another poster pointed to the PTAs purchasing of technology as an aspersion on the the BOE and their purchasing priorities. The PTAs work WITH the technology chair and Director of Technology to do computer and smart board purchases. 3 huge reasons, so 1) That money can go into labor pools instead of buying things, 2)The district rightly shouldn't take PTA money for capital purchases as it would cloud their planning and 3)The whole reason the PTA does this is so "their" children can have the latest in learning technology without placing the purchasing burden on ALL the taxpayers. I am proud that I work on my school (EHS) PTA. They do wonderful things and actually take pride in helping keep taxes down and learning up.
Susan Hoch MD
9:40 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
A comment to Dave Slidell about "state" mandates.
Those state mandates come from the Federal mandates of No Child Left Behind. That law was passed in 2001 and signed by President George W Bush, a Republican. And they, in my opinion, waste the time of good teachers with having to give tests and teach to the test limiting time for real education of our kids.
With regard to the fear of regionalization, I'm afraid this is another bogeyman that the Bancroft forces are trying to scare voters about. Regionalization of Haddonfield High School is not going to happen as the voters don't want it and our politicians are not going to force this on us. What is going to happen to the town however is that as taxes go up, people move out of town. Younger people with kids move to towns with more modernized school systems and lower taxes (such as Voorhees). And population demographics show that there will be fewer young people as birth rates have been falling for the last twenty years. With more houses on the market for longer, property values fall, then eventually assessments fall and the tax base falls further. Since we have no industry and few businesses in town, there is no way to make up the deficit in the tax base. Interest payments on the town's deficit mounts. The state can't help out. That's the future unless we get the town's fiscal house in order. And buying land at one and a half times its assessed value will contribute to this scenario. And it isn't Barack Obama's fault.
atimelost
1:21 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
joe taxpayer.........is there any possibility that you can comment on town issues without making constant irratating references to president obama. we get it. you didn't vote for him. somebody did and he's a two term president. can you just stick to the issues. i personally do my best to not even respond to when you do stick to the issues as annoying as i find those comments. focus.
Adam R
7:22 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Thanks, atimelost.
Joe T
8:18 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
atimelost, I could but then what would anyone do for perspective. I mean on one hand the boro votes for Obama and other Democrats who raise our taxes and borrow money they don't pay back and on the other hand the tax impact of Bancroft is forcing people out of their homes and people complain. Are you kidding me! I can't stand the inconsistency! What cost people more money Obama's 2% payroll tax increase or Bancroft?
If you are against taxes and debt, fine be against it BUT be against it ALWAYS!
Susan Hoch MD
8:49 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
We know one thing about Joe Taxpayer for sure. He or she is a coward who is not willing to post under their real name. In addition, Obama has actually nothing to do with this issue. This issue is about overpaying for a luxury asset when we have other needs in this town, for 28 million in maintenance of current school properties and for upgrading the schools for the 21st century. Finally, in terms of borrowing money that can't be paid back, I seem to remember there was a President call George W Bush who borrowed money for two wars and a Medicare D drug plan, none of which were paid for out of the current budget. At the national level over the last twenty years, it has been Democrats who give us surpluses and Republicans who are into deficit spending. But "Joe Taxpayer" is not one for FACTS.
Adam R
9:18 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Thank-you.
Mister Mike
6:09 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
@ Susan Hoch. There are many good reasons why people don't post under their real name on the Internet. You're making a big leap in calling Joe Taxpayer a coward for not using his.
Good for you in feeling comfortable to use your own name. The interesting thing is that you also find the need to use MD after it. I'd venture to say that your being a doctor has nothing to do with 99.9% of the comments you have made on Patch articles. If an article were to be medical related then mentioning that you are a doctor in a comment you made would indeed be appropriate. So, if Joe Taxpayer is a coward for not posting under his own name then you must be a snob for using MD after yours!
Jeremiah Wright
8:59 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
It is telling that alot of the same people who have the green signs on their lawns are also the same people - (slip and fall lawyers for instance) - who had the Community Organizer's signs just a couple months back. Just yesterday, Jake Carney - BHO's Propaganda Minister - wouldn't answer the question as to how much BHO wanted the debt ceiling raised by and for how long. The administration's lack of transparency reminds of a certain town in South Jersey..................the name escapes me.
Susan Hoch MD
9:05 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
In regard to the lack of transparency in Haddonfield government, I would note that it has been aided and abetted by both a registered Republican (Tish) and a registered Democrat (Ed). This is not a partisan issue. However, I think the best thing that could happen would be for an independent forensic accountant to be able to look at the town's books. I, for one, would like to know where the tax monies truly go. We have the highest taxes in South Jersey and so many unanswered municipal needs from potholes and sewer and water main maintenance to tree removal and replanting and to the school building infrastructre and maintenance of current athletic fields. What exactly are we buying with our taxes in this town?
Joe T
9:18 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
And you think Jeremiah Wright is a real name!?!
Our taxes are high. A large reason is 25% goes to the county. the 75% left pays for a lot of value in terms of the boro and schools don't you think?
Joe T
9:00 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Thanks for the chuckle Doc. So Joe "T" is not as good as Jack S or Jeff H or others huh. Ok, thanks for being the Patch posting police.
Is the issue overpaying or too much taxes and forcing people out? Can't you keep your stories straight?
You're funny on your debt stats.
Debt Jan 2009 - 10.6T
Debt today - $16.5 T
The wars are over and the debt is higher. Bush too?
If Demwits didn't want Medicare D, why do they vote to fund it? Just unfund it but then they would have to explain to seniors they cut medicare? They controlled congress from 07-10....where was the vote to eliminate? AH, it doesn't exist because they are LIARS!
Do you even know Medicare/medicaid runs a $600 BILLION a year deficit. Stick to your liberal talking points. I will stick with numbers.
BTW, Bill Clinton did leave with a surplus in that budget year of course 911 hit so that hurt or did you forget. Clinton also added 40% to the debt NET of his "surplus" years. Look it up! FACT!
Now focus. This is about Bancroft. We can discuss liberal failures another time.
Susan Hoch MD
9:21 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
The facts on Medicare D follow.
Introduced in the House as Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 by Representative Dennis J. Hastert on June 25, 2003.
Passed the House on June 27, 2003 (216 - 215, 1 Present)
Passed the Senate on July 7, 2003 (Unanimous Consent)
Reported by the joint conference committee on November 21, 2003; agreed to by the House on November 22, 2003 (220 - 215) and by the Senate on November 25, 2003 (54 - 44)
Signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003
Just to remind you Joe Taxpayer. In 2003, George W Bush, a Republican, was President. Both the House and the Senate were controlled by Republicans. It provided seniors with a prescription drug plan but was not funded at the time, so that it has been paid out of borrowed money. This is one large contributor to the Bush deficit.
Back to Bancroft - we are paying 50% more than assessed value for land that contributes nothing to our childrens' education at a time when the schools have other more pressing needs (like leaky roofs) and the town has other serious needs that are not being addressed. This is a luxury item that we can't afford and we have other priorities.
Joe T
9:38 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Thanks for sharing. As I said, information is key.
The vote was a squeaker. I guess no Demwits supported it eh?
Unfunded? Nothing is unfunded.
If you and Dems are so opposed to it, why is it still there?
Tough to complain about something when you don't try to eliminate it. At least R's keep trying to defund Obamascare.
Speaking of unfunded, if we borrow $1+ trillion a year, then lot's of stuff is unfunded, well funded by Bank of China debt anyway.
The assessed value according to the tax assessor is $12.2M. Maybe you meant the "appraised" value which based on Renwick is more than that. I recognize others challenge this "appraisal" as "made to order" but I rely on the professionals hired. If you don't agree with it, you get to vote no.
Ok, I can live with other priorities so what are the other priorities you speak of? Don't they cost money too and will raise taxes? Won't higher taxes force people to move out?
Are we against higher taxes or just higher taxes for Bancroft?
Susan Hoch MD
9:48 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Rer unfunded - that is shorthand for unfunded out of present income. That means we have to borrow to pay from it (and a lot of our borrowing has been from China). That is why George Bush ran up such as deficit. He borrowed to pay for two wars and the Medicare D drug plan.
Other p[riorities for the school board might be to maintain the school structures they currently own. Water and sewer main maintenance is important. So are potholes. Diseased trees will eventually come down on their own if the town can't afford to take them down. And unless the town has the money, they will not be replaced and eventually the shaded character of the town will change without the shade trees. I also support the police force in our town (and did not agree with regionalization of that) which fortunately did not go through because the citizens and representatives were against that. Similarly I doubt that regionalization of the high school will go through either, even though the pro-Bancroft forces are using this argument to scare voters.
Higher taxes. And lack of transparent government. Do you know what your tax money is paying for in this town when there are so many unmet needs. Our taxes are already the highest in South Jersey. Haddonfield wins that competition.
Jeremiah Wright
10:30 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Hey, so I just got done reading a letter to the editor in the Haddonfield Sun. Turns out Bancroft funded OneHaddonfiled to the tune of $3,500 or 85% of its funding.
No, we're not overpaying for this white elephant. No, not at all. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.
Reed Rothchild
10:56 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
The BOE should all be replaced for this statement alone:
"The BOE has no intention of pursuing, or even a right to pursue, a second referendum, it said in a recent letter to the community."
So this is basically a strong-arm scare tactic aimed directly at the people who elected these people? Completely writing off a second attempt at purchasing the property is ignorant, irresponsible and absurd. The proposal and plan could be re-evaluated as necessary if Haddonfield votes "NO" on Tuesday.
This whole situation, and the way it's been handled is extremely questionable on the BOE part. For the town's sake hopefully some better candidates surface when the positions are up for re-election.
Susan Hoch MD
1:55 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Reed. I cannot agree with you more. In the past, Board of Education candidates have run unopposed for re-election. That must end. Citizens who are interested in education - parents, teachers, and others - should run for school board. If we can defeat this referendum, we will have a political organization ready to support candidates for change in the Board of Education. In addition, I note that our Commissioners, Tish Columbia and Ed Borden, are also up for re-election. They have been in there too long and are part of the problem in our town, not part of the solution. We need new leaders who push for Open and Honest government in the town with transparency. Jeff Kasko needs someone he can work effectively with,. I personally hope that one and preferably two candidates like Jeff Kasko step up to challenge Ed Borden and Tish. I will personally work hard to retire them both. They have put in their time and it is time for new Commissioners with new ideas and no ties to the powers that be.
Roland W
11:02 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
I thought we were talking about Bancroft. That
deal is going to take more money of my pockets. I read about this tuition program. They're going to be shipping kids in to go to school here when they finish building this monster on my dime.
Mike McCready
11:12 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
I couldn't agree with you more, Reed. This goes back to the "Once in a Lifetime!" BS they keep shoving down our throats. Apparently if we don't buy this now, Bancroft will never listen to another outlandish offer for its property.
Jeremiah Wright
11:36 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
And for those of you who don't think Obama is relevant to this discussion, just remember that this past July, his own budget anticipates a national debt of 25.4 trillion by 2022. If you don't think we won't be seeing some massive federal taxes coming down the pike on top of massive increases in local taxes to pay for this aquisistion and development of a "campus", then you're a fool. The supporters of this Bancroft white elephant are the same reckless bunch that voted BHO back into office in November. Their recklessness and disregard for the future knows no bounds. Vote no on Tuesday.
Joe T
2:50 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
"That means we have to borrow to pay from it (and a lot of our borrowing has been from China). That is why George Bush ran up such as deficit. He borrowed to pay for two wars and the Medicare D drug plan. "
Medicare Part D and 2 wars are the problem? Odd, in 2007, the deficit was 161B with the 2 wars and Med D in it. In 2013, the deficit is $1.2 Trillion without the 2 wars. Didn't they teach math class in Med school?
BUSH
Year Revenue Expense Surplus(Deficit)
2001 1,991.1 1,862.8 128.2
2002 1,853.1 2,010.9 -157.8
2003 1,782.3 2,159.9 -377.6
2004 1,880.1 2,292.8 -412.7
2005 2,153.6 2,472.0 -318.3
2006 2,406.9 2,655.0 -248.2
2007 2,568.0 2,728.7 -160.7
2008 2,524.0 2,982.5 -458.6 2
OBAMA
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489
2011 2,303,466 3,603,061 -1,299,595
2012 2,468,599 3,795,547 -1,326,948
Now Doc, how could Obama spend $3.8T in 2012 when spending in 2008 was only $2.9 Trillion? Was this magic spending? Is that $900 Billion increase from Med D and the nonexistent wars or is Obama borrowing money from China for entitlement spending?
2005 - opposed the debt and debt ceiling. Blames Bush
2006 - opposed the debt and debt ceiling. Blames Bush
2008 - attacks Bush for using the Bank of China Credit Card. Against debt. It's irresponsible and unpatriotic unless Obama spends it, then it's cool and helpful
F. Stone
4:46 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
If the referendum is approved, I don't want the new gateway to Haddonfield named after any politicians.
Butternut squash
10:46 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
F Stone
Jack S
Joe t
Roland w
Adam r
Steve c
Doc hoch says you are all cowards. I agree
Adam R
11:15 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
I say that you are a fruit that has a sweet, nutty taste similar to that of a pumpkin.
Jayne L. Grabowski
6:51 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Jayne Moore Grabowski
I have raised four children in this lovely town. My grandchildren are sixth generation "Haddonfielders". Obviously, we love it here.
There have been issues in the past that have concerned me, but this is the first time I am frightened for my town. Collingswood and Medford are in financial trouble due to financial mismanagement. Recent projects in Haddonfield have been less than impressive. Tanner Street took considerably longer to repair than estimated, more costly, ultimately hurting businesses. The intersection at Ellis and Potter is badly designed, which could result in accidents. And let's not forget the waste of time and money trying to push a multi-million dollar library.
HMHS is in need of repair, and our athletic fields have been neglected. The high school and fields can be improved for significantly less than the purchase of Bancroft.
I have always voted yes for education. I feel this has absolutely nothing to do with education.
Let's teach our children an invaluable lesson. Live within your means. Please don't put our beautiful town in debt for decades.
Maryann Campling
9:19 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Mrs. Grabowski: Thanks for your insightful, common sense comments. Some of us who opposed this purchase have been accused of not caring about children's education, hindering a "once in a lifetime" opportunity, fear mongering....and the list goes on. We are just clear thinking folks who, like you, love this town and don't want it crushed with additional debt for an overprice parcel of land, and vague development plans when we are in a tough economy and so many other things in town need attention. I guess we are of the generation who didn't get everything we wanted.when we wanted it...I know debt was anathema to my Mom and Dad. I've been here for 28 years....I hope that I can afford to be here for as many years as the good Lord gives me....some folks just don't seem to care about other people, I'm afraid. Keep fighting the good fight!
taxfreetrader
9:57 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Unfortunately, so many vote with their wallets and own special interests instead of a view of the future. Maybe it is a time to consider paying it back and forward. This town and lifestyle did not occur by accident. Instead it took residents with vision that not only considered themselves and the "not in my back yard" attitude. It takes foresight to invest in the future. Those that oppose progress are protecting themselves or so they think. Believe it, your property values will stagnate or drop should those that oppose investing in the future have their way and save the $190 per year. Many have returned to Haddonfield or moved here because of the outstanding educational rankings. These superior results are not the result of superior IQ's or the fantastic facilities offered but rather are produced by the examples set by the parents who are passing on the legacy of hard work and determination to succeed. Maybe these opponents should try eating out a couple less times per year, cut out a ballgame, or not taking that extra day of vacation. Come on, is it really possible in this day of $3+ per gallon gasoline, $2 coffee, that asking residents for an extra 52 cents per day is extravagant? Borrowing costs are the lowest in 50 years! Do the math! It is a mistake to blame our incredibly high taxes on Haddonfield officials. If you want to blame anyone, start with the liberals in DC and work your way back. Why not consider paying it forward and leaving a proud legacy?
Susan Hoch MD
10:35 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
In terms of investment in Haddonfield's future, I would like to see maintenance of sewer and water pipes, repair of potholes, additional of sidewalks to the streets where residents want them to make the town more foot accessible. I'd like to see replacement of the 1800 diseased trees with more resistant species sooner rather than later to maintain the shaedes streets of our town I would like to see us honor our excellent teachers by maintaining the buildings that they teach in. I would like us to help prepare our students for their lives in the 21st century by making sure they have the appropriate education in science and technology. For those reasons, I urge a NO vote on Bancroft.
Jack S
11:16 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
The argument that we have to spend more money on a large property to attract more parents with kids is specious. I've lived here over 40 years and, without large acquisitions, we've had no problem attracting such families. Instead of treating Haddonfield like a revolving door that serves only the interests of families with students (and I happen to have a family with students), let's act more like a community and less like a private school. After all, only 35% of our households have someone under 18. The rest of the town should not be looked upon as being here solely for the purpose of supporting the school system.
Joe T
3:48 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Sue, where would the money come from to do what you suggest? Didn't you previously post we pay too much now! I agree we should fix these things but I want to know where the money is coming from. Seems like you are saying no to more taxes but then yes to lots of spending that requires new taxes.
And why aren't you calling the others without their full names cowards too? I am offended that I have been the only one. Consistency of complaints matters.
Oh, and in case you missed it, here's a story today about the national debt. Seems like your guy BO is killing us with debt. the same debt we are afraid is going to kill us here in the boro.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/first-term-obama-increased-debt-50521-household-more-first-42-presidents-53-terms
Maryann Campling
10:49 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
I don't think that too many residents would be financially crippled by the $189/year figure that the BOE proposes for 20 years....the real issues are the inflated price, the four acres of committed open space...consisting mostly of slopes and wetlands, not one cent of the 12,5M earmarked for education,the projected 28 M required to update existing schools, our current 41M debt, annual upkeep and replacement costs in eight years for turf fields, and, of course, the ongoing maintenance of the infrastructure of our town, water and sewage systems, roadways, etc....I, personally, want my legacy to Haddonfield to be that I cared enough about all residents that I took a stand to help keep their taxes affordable and that they have the best quality of life that this town can provide....if that's being short-sighted....guilty as charged!
taxfreetrader
12:12 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
All opinions are respected and obviously the debate is endless. Many residents have complained that the acquisition does not benefit the whole community? . Many would like to see a community rec center, the public library could be included as well as a performing arts center. The possibilities are endless and YES these special interests could be accommodated with private monies that are available. Consider that a huge portion of the turf fields are being paid with private donations? Look at the $4million community athletic complex in Haddon Twp which was financed mainly by private donors.
The "C" building addition to the HS had much of the same rhetoric in 1969. It took eminent domain to convert the land to public use. What would the HS be today if that had not been accomplished? The grand planat Bancroft was rejected by special interested residents, some at Radnor field which they claim as their own back yard, some that complain about traffic, some that are scared about taxes.
We should all be fearful of tax consequences without a doubt but it is the County and State whom we should challenge since they take our money and we receive virtually nothing in return. Change is coming to the Bancroft site, the only question is it going to be the residents who benefit or will Bancroft redevelop the property for themselves. Any notion that Bancroft can be zoned out will fail and there will be 19 acres of prime property generating no taxes or usage to Haddonfield residents.
Jayne L. Grabowski
6:05 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Just wondering how taxfreetrader would feel if his neighborhood had been targeted. I back up to Radnor field. I don't claim it to be my back yard, nor do any of my neighbors. We were told that Radnor would never be built on, which is why we purchased our house. We love the open space behind us, who wouldn't? The reason I am voting no is mainly because of putting our town in debt, and increasing our taxes. I have three grandchildren in the school system. If this was about education, I'd be voting yes. My fear is that purchasing Bancroft is just the tip of the iceberg. I can only imagine the problems and hidden costs down the road.
This referendum has created tension in our town. Stealing signs and flyers off of neighbors' homes is something I find unbelievable. My husband and I didn't deliver "no" flyers to homes with yes signs, although I had a "yes" flyer on my steps. I've talked to many people who are afraid to have signs on their lawns, so they don't make enemies. There have been heated back and forth posts that sometimes become sophomoric.
If this does get voted through, I hope it's turns out to be a great thing for our town. I hope it goes off without a glitch, and that my grandchildren and future generations benefit from it. I want only what is best for Haddonfield, which is why I'm voting no. I would hate to leave a legacy of uncontrolled debt, financial junk bond status, and a glut of homes that can't be sold due to high tax rates.
taxfreetrader
6:30 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Jayne, no one should feel like they are being targeted. The situation at Radnor is unfortunate. It could and should be utilized as part of one of the prized possessions in the Haddonfield inventory of open space and sports venues. Instead there are some residents there that consider it their private property and begrudgingly accept the HS teams since the BOE owns it. At one point Radnor was a premier facility and now represents some of the worst in the region with some officials refusing to umpire because of the dangerous conditions. Instead of being a lighted multi purpose venue it sits in the mist of contention among neighbors and those interested in utilizing it to its full potential. There has been mass vandalism rumored to be caused by extremist residents who dont want anyone to use it.
Obviously, you are not part of the Radnor group who doesn't want it used to its potential or developed. It's a shame a minority can produce contention. I also hope that the Bancroft issue has a resolution that we all can be proud of. Neil Rochford put out an email that described the many changes our town has faced over the last 50 years. His "imagine" topics really emphasized the important decisions that created the Haddonfield we know today including: the Patco stop, underground rail through town, Crows Woods, Scout Field and the downtown shopping district. It is in this spirit that I elect to vote YES.
Susan Hoch MD
6:53 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
I guess Neil Rochford didn't include the decision by the developer to build housing around Radnor field so that the families in the neighborhood could enjoy that open space. The current situation of Radnor field is yet another example of the Board of Education's inability to maintain what they have. In the early 1990's, my son and I used to play tennis on those courts. But the Board of Education chose not to maintain them and then eventually took them out. The extremists were the Board of Real Estate (typo - I meant Education). As you know their own architect has pointed out $28 million in repairs and maintenance for the existing school structures. The Board doesn't do maintenance apparently. I, of course, will be voting NO along with so many people in our neighborhood and town. I am praying it will be enough to reset the politics of the Board and the Commissioners of this town.
Jayne L. Grabowski
8:01 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Taxfreetrader, I grew up in this town. I know all about what makes this town what it is today. I remember going to the dump, that is now Crows Woods thanks to Walt Saladik. Sometimes not all "imagine" topics turn out for the better of the town. My mother went around town and got signatures to prevent a Sears store from being built next to our home, where the Fargo development was later built. Someone at the time must have thought that was a good idea. Imagine.
I have backed up to Radnor field for 27 years. I used to go over to the tennis and basketball courts with a trashcan and broom and clean up all the broken glass. The courts were neglected, broken down nets and asphalt. I asked over and over again for help from the borough. I was once promised to my face that the courts would be fixed up for the children in our area. It was very disappointing when it never came to pass. I can assure you that the residents in our area are not vandalizing Radnor field. I have never heard of such a thing. I think that is a vicious rumor. If anything, I have seen neighbors tend to the field, such as cleaning up after a soccer game. My brother has umpired at Radnor field many times. He feels that Radnor has been purposely neglected.
Whether voting yes or no, the people of this town are passionate, because we love our town. I have always been proud to say I live in Haddonfield, not for any status reason, it has always been home. I will vote no, and always hope for the best.
angela melzi
7:45 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
I am prompted to post after witnessing inadequate school building and grounds maintenance and learning that PTA had donated many tens of thousands to fund building security and educational technology when the district did not provide for these important needs. As a veteran parent I can tell you these have been long-standing issues going back 20 yrs. I question why the BOE prioritized spending on land acquisition and artificial turf when there are core educational and facility needs that the district has not found the funds to address.
On June 6, 2012, a $28,944,688.00 report was presented to the Haddonfield Board of Education for capital improvements for the five existing schools. This report was presented by Garrison Architects. These improvements include but are not limited to repairs, renovations, and infrastructure needs.
The report suggests that funding for these necessities may be derived from a bond referendum. The Haddonfield Board of Education has not made this proposal known to the public. Apparently the BOE deems repairs, renovations and infrastuctural upgrades (with a few exceptions) as necessary. You can view the Garrison proposal via this link: http://haddonfieldunited.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/haddonfield-schools-ga-1.pdf The videotaped 11/27/12 BOE meeting where I questioned the BOE about the 6/6/12 proposal is posted by the Civic Assn.
angela melzi
7:48 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
In addition, I would like to respond to claims by our BOE and other Bancroft bond supporters that if we do not expand the high school campus, we will be forced to consolidate/regionalize. Consolidation/regionalization is NOT inevitable. Both sending and receiving districts MUST VOTE in a referendum. Who would vote for a measure that would actually increase the cost of education and bring with it considerable negative consequences?
One big negative to regionalization is that it means a change from being a walking district to busing (a district, by law, must bus ALL students if it buses any of them). In the neighborhood vs. grade level schools debate in the late 1990s, the district learned that the cost of busing was so significant that it prohibited the change from neighborhood schools to grade-level schools (which would have required busing due to student distances from their schools). Our BOE recently said they could not afford the cost of even one additional bus to take students to after-school practices at fields in town. Another source of significant increased costs is that regionalization requires raising the salary scales of the lower-paid district to that of the higher-paid district. Remember that our district actually had to cut a number of staff positions in spring 2010 because of budget cuts. Finally, consider the multimillions to build new buildings and/or additions to accommodate a sending district--one new school costs about $40 million.
angela melzi
7:48 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
I don't know one parent who would view regionalization as a positive change for our schools or our town. Furthermore, I think it is highly improbable that our state legislature would make any changes that would force costly regionalization on our public schools. In my opinion, we need BOE representatives who are willing to work against rather than ask us to pay more to facilitate a path to regionalization.
Finally, what are the additional district operational costs will be for the acquisition if it passes, and how this will impact budget for the rest of the district's function? Will teaching staff or curriculum have to be cut to keep budget increases within the cap? The BOE has not presented this to the public.