Good luck Haddonfield United. Vote NO!

In a few hours we will see if logic and a sense of fiscal responsibility triumphs over emotion and image; I have faith in the residents of our town to do the proper thing and vote NO. We must keep Haddonfield a town that takes the needs of ALL citizens into consideration and, therefore, keeps our taxes as affordable as possible.

Lets hope that positive vision and learning from our past successes and failures leads most voters to support our future with a yes vote.

Folks long before us made a commitment to the future, to us, and we now have woods, fields, a library and walkways to enjoy. Living in Haddonfield has truly been a blessing and I feel a responsibility and pride in voting YES to extend this legacy for all of us.

Exactly. We enjoy the fruits of the many the examples of sacrifices made by past generations for our benefit. The preservation of crows Woods, Hopkins Pond, Scout Field, Green Acres, and even the Fortnightly. This is about vision and our legacy, while at the same time, removing the growth pressure from an incompatible use that is overdue for relocating.

If your vision includes making a commitment to pricing those who made this town out of it, then vote yes. If you have a commitment to the well being of ALL your neighbors and fiscal responsibility then vote no. Turf fields don't make a good education, people do.

Good luck Haddonfield. It is well worth the cost to save this amazing piece of History.
The cost of approx. $200. a year is a very small price to pay for a jewel in the crown of this town. It would be tragic to see this property mis-managed or over developed and be the cause of property decline for the local homes near-by."No" voters: You are being penny wise but in the long run dollar foolish.

Like the vast majority of my neighbors, I will be voting NO on the referendum. We have learned a lot about the failure of education in democracy in this town from this referendum. The Board of Real Estate in its cynical way planned this election at a time most likely to inconvenience elderly voters. And by having this election at this time, rather than with the Commissioner's election, they managed to spend additional tax monies. The YES forces, who don't appear to understand freedom of speech, stole signs and fliers from people's doors hoping that would change people's opinions. The town tried to make it difficult for seniors at the Mabel Kay house to obtain absentee ballots. I had to go to the Clerk's office in Camden myself to make sure that they would be available for all who wanted them.
This town's ugly side has shown itself in this referendum among the Yes voters.

$200 per year per family is 57 cents a day. Less than the cost of a cup of coffee.

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.

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.

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.

I was talking to a young (30 something) couple this morning and asked if they were on their way to vote. They said "no," that they don't involved with town issues...when I said that result of the vote will affect their RE taxes....they replied "we're moving when our kid is out of high school." I don't want Haddonfield's "legacy" to be a scholastic revolving door and a transient population here to feed off of our educational tax dollars.

At this point its doubtful than anyone will reverse their intents. 12 hours and we will have the result and live with it. While debate is good and the exchange of personal opinions always positive in all the years I have lived here (40+), I cant remember such a polarization. While my kids won't get the benefits of having our land locked town able to enhance the quality of life with the acquisition of prime property, maybe my grandchildren might? I hate taxes also, but if I have to pay them, I feel better about being able to contribute to a project that we can benefit from instead of sending checks to DC and Trenton while receiving nothing in return.
You can debate the price all you want but in the end it is the "right" thing to do. It is unfortunate that some elect to cast their ballot with their wallets instead of looking at the greater good. Regardless of the outcome, there will be a legacy left. We the voters in 2013 will be remembered, hopefully for our foresight.

Mr tax free, you are a person who gets it. This is not, and should not be about self interest. This is about our legacy and the future of the town that most of us love. I am hoping to be proud of being part of a generation that had vision and hope to avoid being embarrassed and ashamed of this time period. As an example, it was silly to not have grabbed that land behind the library when it was available and history proved those folks to be short sighted. Lets hope that history does not repeat itself here.

TFT: "it is unfortunate that some elect to cast their ballot with their wallet............" . Although an increase in taxes won't negatively affect me, not everyone in this town walks in tall cotton, and,, indeed economic survival trumps "vision."

I hope everyone will continue to the same passion and energy when the budgets are discussed this spring. If anything is forcing residents out, its runaway government spending on benefits for a few at the expense of the many.

I am voting yes because I do believe there is a difference between capital investment and owning something (Bancroft) and healthcare costs (operating). I appreciate the opportunity for us all to vote and make our voices heard.

If it fails, i hope Bancroft will expand the current site and make better use of the land. Of course, we won't receive any more in tax money since not for profits are tax exempt.

Everyone, please exercise your right to vote today. And don't worry, you only need ID to get cough syrup, not vote. Go figure

Maryann,
We choose to live in a region and a state with incredibly high taxes. This is our choice, no one forces us to subject ourselves to this cost of living. There are many places that have no state income tax, low property taxes but we choose to live here and although taxes are a painful pill to swallow at least this referendum is about us utilizing our resources to benefit Haddonfield as our collective special interest. Should the effort to acquire the property to succeed there will be plenty of time and additional referendums to debate how it will be developed. No one will be forced out of town. 57 cents a day to control the future of this property? 3% interest rates to finance? Its a no brainer economically speaking. Future development should be where are different opinions converge. Personally, I want the right to voice how this prime parcel should be utilized but first it is important to place it in the Haddonfield inventory. While I respect your position about survival, I doubt that anyone who chose to live in Haddonfield which has always been an economic trade off versus more affordable towns will be seriously affected by 57 cents a day.

vote yes higher taxes higher over head higher taxes unknown. future bond cosst to support building and tearing down old buildings on the site more taxes no disclosed budget discussed by BOE or Commissioner just million of dollars of hidden and un dis closed costs Millions more needed to complete the purchase and demo of buildings and envoirmental costs .vote no and look for lower cost to purchase and a real budget to support the future purchase

It is wonderful to see this community come together this past week! And also on this blog today. many new names are showing support that i have not seen before today. I saw dozens of young children out with parents yesterday to place green doorknockers on homes and just spending time together in chilly weather on what should have been a day off. Not everyone will be pleased with the results. But, whether this finishings yes or no: TODAY is a turning point in our community. A time when we are starting to identify and realize just how wonderful we are and express to everyone around what makes Haddonfield so special. I encourage anyone who has stayed on the outside reading these blogs to just type something about this community and hit Submit. If WE build it, They WILL come!

Voting no.

Voted NO....I would have voted YES if I had full-disclosure on the purchase of this property and its developement. Unfortunately, with the state of our schools (both the physical building and the teachers educational needs, books, computers, etc) and our library, I can not in good faith vote YES for this referendum.

Haddonfield has always been about education, and I can not in good faith vote for purchasing proeprty with unknown uses, I'd rather the $0.57 a day go to the school systems to keep it at the top of the county.

Regardless of the results, once it's over we will come together as one town and celebrate our Tricentennial. There have been arguments made on both sides and it's up to everyone to decide Haddonfield's future with one of the most democratic principals we cherish. The right to vote. With this one act we are all truly equal.
There has been talk about vision on both sides and both have substantial merit.
I feel the best future for Haddonfield lies in taking care of our own house first and weighing exactly how essential our sacrifice will be. Who will it benefit? Who will it hurt? Are we taking care of what we have?
If the referendum fails, responsibility of Bancroft falls back to our borough officials. Our once in a lifetime opportunity will still be there. We can get land for our schools that won't break the bank. Although the bond cost of $189 seems trivial to some, the addition of the borough purchase of two turf fields and their year round maintenance and insurance are never discussed. Likewise the future expenditures of the campus. Our town owns 41 million dollars in debt. Our school buildings and town infrastructure need millions in repair.
I applaud the vision my fellow neighbors have but in every step forward Haddonfield took, we had the priorities of the town in order. We used common sense in our investments. Unless this investment in the future is absolutely critical to our town, take care of the present first.

Google Bancroft Neurohealth Sale, the first story that comes up is Bancroft saying that they are looking for and need a 35 acre site to operate and are actively looking for such a site.
They also say that they have 500 employee's assigned to the Haddonfield campus, with 400 there at all times. That's a lot of traffic, and this is just their employees coming and going 24-7 not including the countless vans and buses from other townships.
How much have they paid to our Borough for 130 years?? all through the mid 2000's our fire department was there just about every night, false alarm, did they pay anything for that?
Time to go!

Lots of luck trying to "zone" out handicapped kids. Sure the courts will uphold Bancroft's ability to redevelop the property anyway that is reasonable. Then you can really be critical as you will have a huge amount of activity and traffic in that area with no benefits to existing residents. Taxes? This situation is a rarity that permits the residents to actually see their tax dollars at work. If the addition to the HS had not occurred in 1969, it is hard to envision that Haddonfield would have an operating HS now with just the old building. Forget a highly ranked HS, and any enhancement of property value due to desirability, we would be sending our students to a regional high school.
If you don't approve of our elected officials, vote them out, run yourself, or find some that you believe can represent you better.

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

TFT: I feel that I am at somewhat of a disadvantage....since you KNOW my name; the 57 cents/day argument is compelling, but just doesn't hold water. The issue, as I see it, isn't $189 per annum, but the vague, ambiguous development costs, an issue that has been conveniently side stepped by the BOE. What exactly are the development plans and what impact will they have on our already crushing tax burden? I just don't get the "we have to buy it now, and we'll worry about that later" attitude...it just makes no sense to me. I also know that a couple of our elected official's philosophy is "if they can't afford to live here...then move" and I know that, unfortunately some of our residents share that thought. That kind of elitist, insensitive attitude should disturb everyone. Folks work hard to maintain their homes and have a decent quality of life....they shouldn't have the blade of unknown taxes hanging over their heads.

Maryann,
you are right, no one should feel that they are unwelcome or that the community is elitist. It would disturb me also to have any attitude implied that if you can afford it..move. From my knowledge of the community, this is not the case and in my experience the residents have gone to great lengths to take care of those in need either financially or in other ways. I don't think there are any immediate development plans for the property other than making it part of the inventory of space available for the Borough and BOE. Any additional monies will require voter approval unless i missed something? The referendum is for approx. $12 mil?
From my perspective this is something that should be done to assure that in the future the opportunity to utilize this property is at the discretion of Haddonfield residents. There are so many potential uses many of which would require no government funding. Maybe I am missing something but in this case in particular an opportunity lost is equivalent to a realized loss. Only difference is that it is the future generations that will regret the loss.

Whatever happened to liberals lecturing us about "Sustainability"? "To live simply while others may simply live"? To "reduce, re-use, recycle"? Here we have an opportunity as a community to walk the walk - to live within our means - to re-use/recycle (repair) our existing facilities which have admirably served the community for generations and have churned out best educated kids in South Jersey, but apparently this isn't good enough. They want more more more. If taxes in this town continue to skyrocket, together with the inevitable federal tax increases associated with supporting Obama's Cloward-Piven spending the country into oblivion strategy - this town - this country - will soon be toast. Count. On. It.

I have to say, I really have mixed emotions about this. As "J" said above, I just wish there was a plan in place. It just seems like the only opportunity lost here was for our commissioners to have presented a real plan. Asking us to cough up $12.5m for what is essentially a turf field and a parking lot is pretty ballsy.

Worth repeating because we all know - pro/con - the following to be true:

"Unless the school district plans on leaving the land fallow (which it clearly does not), $189 will soon turn into $500 or $1000 once ground is broken on their contemplated "educational campus."

Response to Joe T. Re Radnor Field, John Stokes asked Chairman of the Board of Real Estate Steve Weinstein to state publically that Radnor Field would not be sold if the referendum passes. He declined. Regarding maintenance at Radnor, you are correct that the Board has no money for maintenance. Their own architect estimated last year that they need $28 million just to maintain the existing school structures. I have not seen an estimate for maintenance of current athletic fields. It is fair to say that maintenance has not been a priority of the board. If it had, we might have seen a Referendum to pay for maintenance.
The issues regarding affordable housing and Radnor are complex. I live in the Radnor neighborhood and it is the only accessible open space in this part of town. Over the past ten years, we have tried to get Ed Borden and TAPS to consider how we could link to the Park so that citizens don't have to walk down Coles Mill Road or even Grove - no sidewalks at the end - to reach the park system. We have a terrible traffic problem in this part of town. In the last traffic study on Coles Mill, 28,000 cars went from Grove to Utica in one week and we can't even get a crosswalk or a stop sign. So no, we don't want to lose our only open space in this part of town and we don't want to increase our already burdensome traffic.

Sue, is it possible that the answer is if we need to build affordable housing, we need land someplace and maybe, unfortunately, Radnor fits that need unless other options can be found at great expense.

The $28M is a wish list same as the boro's capital plan which included the $2M for a new library. How much of that is absolutely necessary is something we all need to know.

A referendum to pay for maintenance. you may want to check the referenda laws I don't think that one applies. They can certainly raise the open space tax and dedicate the increase for maintenance or raise it and pay more for the turf field. BUT, it's still a tax increase so that's probably not gonna work.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want Radnor developed or housing built that we have to subsidize but if it is forced on us, then we have few options.

How much of what you discussed could we get the county to do for us? They do get 26% of our taxes. What is our ROI on county tax money?

Sue,
Obviously you have given a lot of thought to the issues. You speak as someone informed. I have a difficult time buying into the "conspiracy" theory. If protection of Radnor as an open space and recreational venue why do the residents object to having it lighted and developed into a better multipurpose complex? What about the situation of vandalism supposedly caused by a local resident of group? Ruined locks, damaged equipment, etc.
Many different groups other than just the high school teams could utilize the complex and I know factually that they would provide needed funds to maintain and improve the facility. The message has always been that you are not welcome at Radnor. The BOE and sports teams are tolerated. This probably isn't indicative of every resident in the area but yes the vocal minority seem to have it their way.

I'm concerned that future costs, and we all know that they are coming, will force me to leave the town I love. Also, the people in the Radnor field area might be getting new neighbors as developers offer sweet financial incentives to the borough so they can make some nice profits.

It has been informative to see all these various opinions expressed today, the recurring theme seems to have some common threads. All want to preserve the quality of life in this town. There are fears of out of control taxes which given the current experiences with state and federal government are not unfounded. Whatever the outcome hopefully the enthusiasm to express ideas will provide a direction that will enhance the future while not creating hardship or destroying what we presently enjoy. The best situation for concerned Radnor residents is to embrace improvement of those fields. Lighting the varsity baseball field would provide essential usage and assure that the property always remain open space.
I hear you "citizenman" and if I have a vote, you will be staying in this town. Those of us that want to pursue and improve the future won't allow those like yourself who helped get us here to be forced out. Let's balance the interests and give everyone a portion of what they want?