Several folks who are wiser than I said that the Commission most likely had Plan B on the back burner....looks like they know what they were talking about! I understand that there is a Commissioners' Meeting tonight (Jan. 25, 6 PM), wonder if Bancroft is on the docket?

The referendum was rejected by voters by a very thin margin percentage-wise. While I personally am neutral on the turf issue and associated costs, I am confident that had that been stripped out of the referendum, it surely would have passed. Frankly, gravel parking areas like we have at Crows Woods would be fine for a decade or two to trim the costs even more. Personally, I would love to see a revised referendum that reflects a more austere approach as well as one with a broader level of land preservation. and What do we have to lose by seeing how the people feel about that at the ballot box soon? There is nothing wrong with more democracy and seeking to reflect the community's true desires.

As an active member of Haddonfield United, and having spent many hours defeating the Bancroft bond, I fully support the Commisioners investigating a better solution to this issue. There were a number of things they could have done to make the purchase more attractive. While I respectfully disagree with Bill that the turf field issue alone could have swung the vote, getting the effective purchase price down (by getting a lower price, or finding an offset for developing part of the property, or maximizing all open space grants) would be a great start. I hope this time around the powers that be articulate a clear vision and cost; ultimately I believe a lack of this is what caused the failure of the referendum.

The public determined it didn't want the whole of Mitt Romney. Can we just have the fiscal part?

If I can have one part of Romney? I'll take the hair.

Look, the wounds are fresh right now and this is not the time to re-visit the battlefield. The people spoke through the referendum. The "no" voters, like me, still feel emotional about the mis-information and questionable tactics used by the Bancroft supporters. For Ed Borden to make such a statement to the press on the eve of his defeat only heightens my emotions. He should get someone's advice regarding what constitutes common sense [he obviously demonstrates that he struggles with the concept], and remain quiet for a while. If a package can be developed that does not increase the tax burden or, dare I say, DECREASES the tax burden in Haddonfield {what? Am I arousing suspicions that I am from another planet?], it should be discussed much later. But, if this happens, get rid of the smoke and mirrors this time. Bob

Truly odd comments from Ed after sending everyone in town a letter where he said that if the referendum fails, "the chance to convert the property to public use will be gone at least for our lifetimes and those of our children and grandchildren." I'm not trying to be cynical but just add that statement to the litany of reasons why it failed. Everyone knew this idea of "once in a lifetime" (essentially an ultimatum) was ridiculous. I'm all for getting back to the negotiating table with Bancroft and that's what a lot of people were saying with their NO votes - "This is a bad deal, we can do better".

Let's leave Bancroft alone for awhile. Bancroft won't be doing anything quickly. We all need a break from this angst and should concentrate on the things that we currently have that need repair. The election in May will allow for new leadership for the Borough, and possibly in the future there will be new BOE leadership. The NO voters were clear in their distrust of our elected officials. That won't go away anytime soon. Even if the land is purchased at a lower cost by the Borough using more grants, there will still be huge costs required to demolish 15 buildings, take care of environmental problems, regrade and resurface the land for whatever use is decided upon, and eventually build. Costs were an issue for the NO voters as well as the inability to maintain all current public buildings and land. How will pursuing Bancroft now change any of that?

If Bancroft want to modernize the campus have them donate even we have a joint use the additional sports field and more shared parking at no additional bond cost to the Borough. IF Bancroft want zoning or variance to re develop the property ask them to donate the landed need by the high School any developer would be willing to do Have the open space fund complete the renovation of the additional land at no additional tax cost to the Borough Tax Payers

It's rich how the "NO" voters who won are now complaining about the "Misinformation and questionable tactics," of the people who supported the issue. Rhetoric and hyperbole were utilized by BOTH sides in their arguments but, in my opinion, the level of slanderous insinuation was a much greater part of the “NO” message. Do people really believe that this was cooked up as an elaborate scheme for the BOE members and the Commissioners to line their pockets? Really?
The BOE proposal WAS a once in a lifetime opportunity for a public entity of the borough to own and control the Bancroft property outright with no encumbrances. Was the price fair? Well, it was the price that Bancroft was willing to accept for this offer. That’s capitalism. I truly believe that we have little leverage to ever get the same terms for a reduced price, and any future “deal” would be a compromise that would still require dealing with Bancroft. So yes, this was a “Once in a lifetime opportunity”.

So why not just drop this and never talk about it again? Well, that’s democracy too. There are many issues that need to be resolved if Bancroft stays, and the potential for “Compromise” that should be considered. We don’t have the luxury of pretending that now we have no more issues vis-a- vis Bancroft, and time will only continue to limit our options as Bancroft moves forward.
I’m sure that the “No taxes for nothing, no how!” group will never be convinced that we should spend ANY money, for ANYTHING even if we could get Bancroft for a dollar, but I believe there are many people who voted “NO” who may be willing to vote “YES” if a new proposal came to the table.

Questionable tactics…
-Telling everyone that it’s a “once in a lifetime" chance to buy the property (it's not – see above!).
-Telling everyone that this was about education when not one dime of the $12.2m was going toward academics.
-Telling everyone that HMHS is "cramped" (it's not)
-Using an appraisal that was done AFTER the deal was negotiated and that was based on the property being purchased by a NON-ZONED use (which wouldn't happen)
-Saying that there is "not adequate playground space" at our elementary schools (there is).
I can keep going…?

And to answer your question, Silance, I do not think the BOE or commissioners were doing it to "line their pockets". Not at all. I think Weinstein and Borden really believe that this is the right thing to do for our town and their intentions are good. Unfortunately though, they knew it was a tough sell and they resorted to some, let's say "curious" claims, to try to push this thing through.

"NO" supporter questionable tactics:
- Telling everyone that Radnor was going to be sold to fund the purchase and meet COAH
- Telling everyone that the schools NEED $28M in upgrades and repairs which will raise our taxes more based upon a grant request and PLANNING PROPOSAL.
- Insinuating that our elected officials are "on the take".
- We can force Bancroft to give us land for free through zoning blackmail.
- Accusing OneHaddonfield of a sign steeling campaign.
I can keep going....?

Look, I see both sides of it. I want that ground for public use just as much as you. Well not just as much obviously, but I want it too! But it's got to be the right deal. And we can do much better than what was proposed.

And don't worry about a developer buying it. After seeing how this referendum played out, NO ONE is going to want to go through the land development process with this town. There are no other buyers for that piece and now we as a town are in a better position than ever to negotiate a good deal. Bancroft too knows that there are no other buyers, otherwise they would put the thing up for sale. (Their only leverage is to say they're going to stay and renovate). This thing will get done. Trust me.

I was completely undecided when I voted yes. It was like paying full price for something at a store that I knew would be put on sale in the future, but there were limited quantities of. Ultimately, I was afraid it might "sell out". So I voted yes. I think the people who stood their ground made the right choice and they were aware of the debt load that I believe Bancroft is carrying. As a nonprofit, Bancroft's worth can be accessed To me that is the most important part of the puzzle. I wish that someone would do a current assessment! Are they being told by their lenders that they need to cut their losses?

How about we privatize it? Create a homeowners association and charge quarterly dues. Those that don't want to be part of it can have a voucher to send their kids elsewhere? Residents that don't belong but want to use facilities can be assessed for their usage? Like privatizing a toll road.

I can't figure out why, both before and after the vote, such degree of mania surrounds the acquisition of.....a couple of sports fields and a parking lot. These are not high-stakes possessions and the intensity of some of the yes camp makes me feel this ultimately has to be about more than what we know.

Don't get me wrong--when the idea of purchasing Bancroft as open space first emerged, I thought it could be a great idea to have this land under borough control for borough needs. I looked forward to the creative ideas that might be planned out. The proposal we finally got was vague. Given all the insistence about education needs and forecasts of future strains on the high school--combined with all the consulting, time and money that went into this--I have no idea why the plan didn't have any detailed concept for educational buildings or anything else directly related to curriculum. If the borough was going to link this purchase with solving future school issues with overcrowding, then the proposal needed to spell out exactly how this land would address those problems.

Bancroft. It's not over until the Fat Eddy sings.

Pro-Haddonfield.
I don't try to denigrate you or question where you live. You may not have found my attempt at humor funny but what does that mean about where I live? Do people in Haddonfield not make jokes?
I actually tried to lighten this conversation with the above joke.
Second why would someone who didn't live in Haddonfield be interested in posting about a bond referendum here.
And for another thing, I am offended by your mocking me. I worked long and hard to get my MD and then working for the last almost 40 years. Why don't you show some courage and post your opinions under your own name and take responsibility for them. You are a coward, Pro-Haddonfield Coward.

"....that Walsh character."???? This is the first time I heard of questionable behavior at the polling place. Perhaps, Pro Haddonfield, if you are sure that something was amiss,, you should report it to the Board of Elections. Of course, you will have to use your real name. Dr. Hoch.....very funny!!! People....lighten up! You witnessed Democracy in action; majority rules; and if Commission B. brokers a deal that benefits ALL residents of Haddonfield, not just the sports crowd; more power to him.

First of all I'm not pro haddonfield MD. Someone else is. Second look at your comment and mine.i didnt find it funny. I was being sarcastic. Haddonfield adults don't act that way. You take such issues with parenting in this town then call Eddy fat. You can't sling insults from your high horse. Ill post under whatever name I like and feel just fine about it.

"Commissioner Ed Borden said Thursday he thinks the borough still needs to "have a conversation" with Bancroft" ........ said the totalitarian, seemingly oblivious to decision just rendered by his subjects. He will ignore their will and ram this white elephant down the throats of Haddonfield's citizens whether they oppose it or not, not unlike fellow democrat King Barack and Obamacare.

I have a very nice Craftsman pitchfork in my garage that frankly gets quite bored just turning the compost pile every month. Need some torches though. I think they sell those at Lowes, right?

Now that I fun funny. Maybe if we build a Walmart at Radnor field we won't have to drive so far for pitch forks and Cheetos. G'night folks.

Herb,

2005 was 8 years ago, is it possible to get current information. From what I can see from public records they have refinanced with TD Bank in 2010 for 8 million dollars for up to 30 group homes in the surrounding area. Plus other outstanding loans.

Although at times contentious, the referendum displayed democracy in action. Everyone from children to senior citizens took an active part in it and I'm proud of all my fellow residents on both sides of this issue.
While we waited in Borough Hall for the election results, we were a room of neighbors, congratulating each other on the hard word both sides had put in. Our Commissioners, Superintendent Perry, One Haddonfield chairs Jack O'Malley and Lee Pease are terrific people.
I especially want to thank President Steve Wienstein. When I look at all his accomplishments and everything he has done to make Haddonfield the best in education I realize a guy like me is just a spit in the ocean compared to him. But he was so gracious to me all through the referendum process.. I can't tell you how much admiration I have for the man.
He also helped me put things in perspective when we talked months ago. He said, "No matter what happens, the next day the sun will rise, children will go to school and life will go on".
When the vote came in I was very proud of our efforts, but shared in the disappointment of people who believed in their vision and love Haddonfield every bit as much as I do. My neighbors.
It's now time for all of us to work with our Commissioners and make the next step with Bancroft one that benefits all our residents.
It's time to celebrate our 3000th anniversary together.

It's the 300th anniversary, but I'm sure I'm probably misinformed on that also.

Haddonfield will celebrate by getting a new Mayor! Another cause for celebration hopefully will be Borden not being re-elected!

So what part of "NO" doesn't the commissioner understand? I smell a sore loser. Can we please put this boondoggle to be?