I understand that this town is already in hock for 44 million (between the Boro and the BOE).....Remember, a 750 M bond benefiting state colleges was approved on November 6, plus we are facing a projected 50 Billion clean up bill for Sandy....can't wait to see what that does to our taxes! This credit card, dollar down/dollar a week, pay for it later mentality has got to stop. It is crippling us on a local, state and Federal level.

Fretting about future costs as Brian has done above is not a reasonable endeavor at this time particularly in light of the fact that just like with any bond endeavor, it will be entirely up to the voters at that time. If additional facilities are needed in the future and we DON'T have the relatively cheap Bancroft land, the alternatives and costs will be dramatically higher due to the need to take improved properties through eminent domain. This is not a theoretical point being made and it did in fact happen that way right here a few decades ago when several homes along Sylvan Lake Avenue had to be purchased by us in order to build the C wing at HMHS. Land locking our town's primary campus when a relatively cheap opportunity to avoid that exists would be short sighted and represent a failure to exercise good foresight and vision by residents. Further, while Haddonfield may not need a superior campus and grounds than our peer group, why should we continue to be among the worst in that regard? This is anything but an extravagance, it's about finally providing a reasonable opportunity to have a self contained and safe location for educational and athletic activities in one place that is at least on par with what other communities provide. Why should we continue to be significantly inferior in that regard and how is that a reasonable position? We are blessed that our district performs so well despite the weak infrastructure we provide.

We continue to be a desirable community for families to settle in but should not take our position for granted and always look to solidify it, particularly when such a rare, once in a lifetime opportunity such as this exists.

Anonymous PJ, why not exhibit the courage to stand behind your comments by signing them? And why seek to stifle discussion that you don't agree with? Will you be sure to make the same comment to Brian Kelly if he rejoins the discussion here? Let's disagree and converse openly, thoroughly and respectfully. The people will be heard on this just like they will be in any bond initiative. In the interim, our job is to move the debate along so that hopefully, those who vote have the best information and arguments possible to consider. Stifling debate is not the way to go here. This is a once in several generations visionary issue and not to be taken lightly regardless of one's current position on it.

PJ, about affordable housing, if this referendum passes, we taxpayers will be paying of bond principal plus interest for the BOE to bank a couple of acres of Bancroft land, to later sell to the borough for affordable housing. This is the case even though Ed Borden has said the obligation could be met on the lot the borough already banked behind borough hall. Betcha that fact gets completely ignored in the referendum publicity. BOE can do anything they want with that land including sell it to anyone they want for any use. There is no municipal control, no planning board permission required for BOE land. Look what BOE wanted to do on Radnor Field--sell it for low income HD housing. And they could have.

Our former Mayor Bill Reynolds is right on the money. What's important is every resident taking part in this important issue and making their voice heard. If every citizen weighed in and voted, no matter what the outcome, the people will have spoken and Haddonfield will be a winner.
Bill is also right about a yes campaign starting up pretty quickly...the Bancroft campaign starts this Monday!
No matter which way you vote, do your best to inform yourselves and become part of the process. This is Democracy in action and whatever the outcome, we should all unite and celebrate the 300th anniversary of our great town.

Bancroft's $12.2 million sale price is almost double its appraised value for the variance on residential zoning it has had for years, and it has never been allowed to expand. The $15.1 million appraisal was for institutional zoning over the entire 19 acres--institution is not even a legal zoning in Haddonfield. No developer could build on wetlands and slopes there. And the $3.5 million total in grants includes much less than what the county was supposed to offer. The BOE/borough have had plenty of time to make this a better deal for taxpayers. Why is the BOE still saying $16.8 million when they KNOW the borough has $3.5 million in grants so far? This deal shapes up like a Bancroft/BOE bailout.

Bancroft has said they will stay if the referendum goes down. Our taxes won't increase. We won't drive out less affluent residents to (ironically enough) bank land for affordable housing. We won't divert school budget to new operating expenses and take it away from classrooms and existing building and grounds maintenance where it is needed. The borough and BOE can put a fraction of what they'd pay for turf and replacement every 8 years into a decent grass field maintenance program. Oh, and decide to limit the playing time/number of teams/ etc. to lighten the fields's load. And let kids ride bikes/improve bike lanes, or let parents pay for a bus if our student athletes find the trip to practice so very difficult...There are many ways to solve for the issues if the referendum does not pass.

I was not against a plan that included half parkland for everyone's use at a very low cost to maintain, or a county purchase that would extend the county park, and the one additional field if it were grass, and selling Lullworth Hall as a ratable, to also offset the publics' debt. If the sales price were fair and the borough followed through on their promise to get the $6-7 million in grants, this would have been a vision that many residents could support with a much lower cost per household.. It doesn't seem to be happening that way though, which is beyond unfortunate, after the many hundreds of thousands of tax dollars spent on redevelopment plans since 2006, and now this BOE referendum. And the expense of remediation around old oil tanks could be millions in this "as is" sale agreement--stay tuned on that.

WHY THE RUSH? WHY NOT PARTNER WITH A DEVELOPER WHO DOES THIS FOR A LIVING AND IS AN EXPERT? WHY SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE THE DEVELOPER? HAVE'NT WE LEARNED THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS THE MOST EFFICIENT SOLUTION?

And why hold this referendum in January before the total county and Green Acres grants have been collected? If the vote were later the $16.8 could be reduced accordingly. The BOE appears to be trying to allow themselves the maximum borrowing amount in the referendum by rushing it, and is our borough assisting BOE by stalling additional grants?? This appears to be the case.

One point that should be clarified applies to environmental concerns such as old oil tanks. The way it works on virtually any property sale such as this is that the deal may be "as is" but the buyer is given a reasonable period to conduct their due diligence. During that period, environmental issues are evaluated and if present, any remediation cost are quantified. Then the typical process is to go back to the seller and negotiate a price adjustment to account for those issues. Seller is under no obligation to adjust price, but typically does and if not, buyer can walk away seeing as it otherwise would be tantamount to a higher sale price. We have smart people on the case here and I cannot imagine that they will just ignore those types of issues and when this topic came up with them in a recent discussion such indications were given.

The problem is, the referendum amount and language will be finalized before the end of the due diligence period...how smart is that?

And, our BOE has a VERBAL "understanding" with Bancroft that if the remediation costs exceed what was anticipated, Bancroft will remediate. How will this verbal agreement hold up in a dispute with Bancroft if BOE tries to walk away from the deal over excessive remediation costs, given their WRITTEN "AS IS" sales agreement? You know the answer...and how smart is that? You know the answer.

I have not read this purchase and sale agreement but cannot imagine that there is any obligation on the part of the BOE to close the deal if they find nvironmental costs that exceed what they envisioned. Further, Even have to due diligence Expires after the referendum that would not obligate anyone to close the deal just because the referendum passed.

More pertinent is that BOE does NOT represent the interests of the taxpayers and can elect to proceed with the purchase if the referendum passes, despite cleanup costs that exceed anticipation.

That's just the way deals are done. There are very rarely deal terms that set buyers up for "gotchas" in deals of this size as it relates to environmental matters. If some folks are not in favor of the Bancroft acquisition for public use, that is up to them of course. But fears of open ended exposure to environmental issues for us as the buyers should not be one of the reasons.

"Us as the buyers"? BOE is the buyer.

Their money is our money so same difference in my opinion.

BOE wants OUR taxpayer money to pay for THEIR deal but they do not not represent the community's interests. BIG difference IMO. Let's just agree we disagree.

Concerned isn't that the point of the vote? Why do we pass the budgets every year and pay more for pensions and healthcare costs but not capital investments that will serve generations?

Why don't we have an honest debate on the facts and numbers and budget impact?

BTW agree to disagree is an oxymoron.

@Brian Kelly
“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,” said Brian Kelly, a founder of the group. “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.”

Brian the cause of high taxes is payroll and benefits. Are you and seniors and those who cannot afford to live here willing to demand we cut pay and benefits to lower this burden? I agree our taxes are too high. What are you and other complainers willing to fight for to lower them?

Look at the budgets and you will see why they keep going up.

Should we look for some Obama stimulus to help with money borrowed from China?

The public needs full disclosure to make a well-informed vote. Where is the engineering/environmental/hazardous waste report for the public's review? When will (or was) this work be completed, and if it is done, why hasn't it been posted where everyone can read it? Where is a cost-benefit analysis? How many more staff (with more salaries, pensions and benefits) will be needed to maintain the acquisition? Haven't seen a shred of credible financial analysis. Instead, just an emotional "we-need-more-fields" argument.

I would agree with that we need all the relevant information. What staff will we need? As for fields, between open space and private money, how much is left to be paid on this? Not much I bet.

Has anyone told us how much this new debt will cost? What about pay down of old debts? It all gets blended for cash flow. Where is this data?

Bottom line is the emotional comments like "cannot afford" or "seniors being forced out" or "burden" cannot be true if we keep voting to raise taxes for pay and benefits? Time for everyone to understand the budgets and how they work. Capital investments are not the same as payroll

HBF: Yes, believe it or not, there are people in Haddonfield who cannot afford property tax increases during a recession. And while a few hundred or thousand bucks extra each and every year for the next two decades may be nothing for some residents, it is adds to an incremental tax burden that is death by a thousand cuts for others. But don't take my word for it, see: http://haddon.patch.com/articles/borough-eyeing-a-nearly-seven-percent-hike-in-municipal-tax-rate

Hous bin farteen is arabic for I'm a jackass. We're having a talk about taxes and some lackey for the bancroft deal tries to screw up the page by talking about payroll and benefits instead of 17 mil. Yeah, that's it genius, especially the Obama part and china part. Come on, throw up a few more post to waste everyone's time. Retard.

Jack S what have you done to lower or control the taxes and payroll spending in our town to make it more affordable? Are you saying you are ok with higher taxes for pensions and salaries and healthcare but not capital investments like roads, bridges and buildings you know assets?

This budget shows an increase in salaries, health benefits and taxes. Where can I see your comments on fighting these increases?

http://www.haddonfield.k12.nj.us/BOE/Attachments/UserFriendly%20Budget%202012-13.pdf

Debt locally is from capital investment. Unlike Obama spenders who borrow for day to day expenses and never pay down the debt (it grew from $9 trillion to $16 trillion), we pay it back and then own the assets we borrowed for. Debt is not the issue in and of itself. Cash flow is. Will this new debt or any debt for roads, trucks, cars, etc net impact our taxes? How much old debt is being paid down that this new debt would replace? Who can tell us?

Will you attack all expenses that cause taxes to go up or just this one?

Taking on local debt for a vastly overpriced capital purchase, as is the case with this $12.2 million agreed price for a property appraised at $6 million, reflects poor financial stewardship. The $15.1 million BOE appraisal was for a use/ full build out that would never be legal in Haddonfield, and the zoning history and decisions on Bancroft demonstrate this. Too bad for us taxpayers that the BOE''s appraiser failed to look at the zoning history for the site, as he admitted in a public meeting.

See Mr. Jim Rhoads comments on the Patch articles regarding the appraisal. And see the earlier appraisal from 2007 that the borough finally released. Bancroft couldn't find a buyer for the price they wanted, so they try to get us to bail them out by activating a bunch of field sport parents who don't realize how badly they are being used, to go out and pass this referendum.

Throughout the years, Haddonfield taxpayers have generously supported the school district by passing $47 million in voter-approved bonds. Of this total, $34 million have been approved since 1999 for repairs, renovations and construction to all the district’s buildings. The district expends approximately $2,000,000 on outstanding debt yearly with the final payment due in 2025.

Hous, I didn't understand all your points but the ones I did I agreed with, although
I think if you have a viewpoint about needless spending, it doesn't matter whether it's 100 or 1000 dollars, waste is waste.
The Bancroft deal started out with the purchase of a few acres for the school. The turf committee wanted to turf the high school field. So far so good.
The problem occurred when some of the turf people got involved and the whole idea morphed into a runaway train ending in a vision of a Haddonfield campus replete with multiple turfed fields and endless future costs.
As well intentioned as it might have been, there was no one there to reign the ideas in. This is we heard so many silly talking points for the purchase. I'm sure to the visionaries they sounded valid but Steve Weinstein looked pained trying to make them.
I wonder how much pressure the Mayor and Commissioner Borden are under to make this purchase a reality, but regardless, this vision is going through at the worst time possible for families and seniors. That's just true.
It's no fun criticizing people running the show but when they get hard of hearing you sometimes have to shout to make your point heard.
Feel free to criticize me. I earned it. But all of us in HU truly believe in our cause.
I urge every resident to visit One Haddonfield, the site for the pro Bancroft crowd. We'll post it on our page. Get all the information presented by both sides before making a decision. And then vote!

I had drinks last night with a few Haddonfield friends who were previously unaware of the proposed Bancroft purchase. Their incomes range from about $12.00 per hour to $175K per year. To a person, they all said that they would vote against the Bancroft purchase. As some have noted it is true that local, county and state taxes have long been too high for too long, but there's a strong sentiment against additional property taxes these days -- perhaps for some of the reasons that Remington alludes to above. I commend Haddonfield United and the OneHaddonfield for getting the word out on the vote, since it ensures more people will turn out people for the vote on an otherwise unnotable January 22nd.

@JackS that's fine but how do they really feel about why our taxes are so high? Did you explain it to them about how healthcare costs have risen $700,000 in 2 years or that salaries are higher for town employees? It's one thing to use emotion against this project but its unethical to selectively use information and not tell the entire story. Can we expect these same individuals to vote NO for the school budget this year because it will raise property taxes or what about we all protest the corrupt Camden County politicians for killing us with taxes.

Do you even know what we pay Camco? Right from our website.
County Tax
15,785,508.29
26.49%

That's 50% of what we pay for OUR great schools and almost 2 times what we pay for our township. Did you tell them to vote against reelecting these people or was that not part of the tax conversation?

@JackS that's fine but how do they really feel about why our taxes are so high? Did you explain it to them about how healthcare costs have risen $700,000 in 2 years or that salaries are higher for town employees? It's one thing to use emotion against this project but its unethical to selectively use information and not tell the entire story. Can we expect these same individuals to vote NO for the school budget this year because it will raise property taxes or what about we all protest the corrupt Camden County politicians for killing us with taxes.

Do you even know what we pay Camco? Right from our website.
County Tax
15,785,508.29
26.49%

That's 50% of what we pay for OUR great schools and almost 2 times what we pay for our township. Did you tell them to vote against reelecting these people or was that not part of the tax conversation?

Rem, I agree with all the points you make about taxes. I vote with you. This discussion is about Bancroft, not in the ways taxes are accrued that I have no control over.
This is an issue that greatly affects citizens all over town. There are many people, good people, who aren't aware of how tough it is for many residents. Haddonfield United isn't doing this because it's fun. It's a pain in the ass. We do it because we know it's a reality for these people. There are other components to these issues. Many people have great environmental concerns, the cost of how much Bancroft will be to clean up. Many are upset at the lack of transparency and incompetence involving the whole process.
Many don't want a sports campus they will never use. There have been alterations to it since but the original plan called for a huge sports complex, most believe that's what the ultimate goal is.
I read reasons why it's other taxes and not Bancroft that will affect us, like this deal is nothing. The other taxes have many residents on the brink. Taxes are going to rise because of Sandy along with our insurance premiums. 17 million dollars with untold future costs makes it harder. 12.2 million for Bancroft that's at least 4 million overpriced is wrong. When people get told this won't affect them they get angry because they know better. If you have the money to deal with these expenses, God bless you, you deserve it. There are many who don't. I would advise people to acknowledge this.

Brian, how are my comments misplaced? We vote of school budgets don't we? We vote to elect people who authorize the contracts that spend the money on salaries, pensions and healthcare don't we? We have absolute control over our taxes if we want to yet instead of control and changing it, we vote the same old people in. Most people don't know the first thing about budgets or taxes or spending and they vote carelessly. That is how we got here. The facts are readily available on the websites and in print. Just look at salaries and insurance costs! They have risen more than this deal would ever cost on an annual basis.
If everyone is so opposed to taxes, then stop reelecting those responsible for the high taxes. That's all I am saying.
Regarding "many don't want....won't use." That's not what a community is about. The same could be said about the library, anyone else's roads, etc. I respect your opposition to this project but your arguments are not good ones. Either we are a community or we are not. How about we carve out the taxes for the pro side and anti side and see whose dollars are greater?
how Will Haddonfield's taxes rise due to Sandy? How will our insurance premiums go up?
Why don't we vote on all capital and operational spending via referendum from here on out? We will see what people want and what they don't want.
Again, thanks for your passion. I think we agree more than not. Let's educate others.

Jack S, thank you for your response. I understand that is the immediate issue and I hope we all get all the facts and answers like have been presented here. My greater point is why take the stand on this project when we have watched taxes and spending go up all the time without caring. If Bancroft is not meant to be, so be it at least we get to vote. I hope the same passion to stop raising taxes for all spending is what remains.
I am supporting Bancroft because unlike spending more and more for pensions and healthcare, we will own this asset and improve the asset and improve the lives of our children and residents. Paying more for someone elses benefits doesn't do any of that. We have a hard enough time paying for our own.
Keep educating and fighting for no more wasteful taxes for operational expenses.

Taxpayer, Thanks for letting everyone know the only thing grassroots about One Haddonfield is the plastic turf blades. It makes the refusal to negotiate Bancroft at a fair price all the more telling. A political action committee backing a school initiative may not be illegal but it hardly seems ethical.

5 YEAR PLAN: I would like to see a five year plan of the large expenditures that are planned or needed, but aren't publicized. We have the dead trees at about $400k per year, what else? Sewer and water infrastructure? A new POLE BARN at public works? Any library expenditures on the horizon? Get it out now so we know what we are facing, with or without the additional Bancroft tax levy.

Simply put. This will be a battle between the empty nester 60 somethings/enviormentalists. Vs the families with kids in school/sports crowd. The families will win and vote yes on Jan. 22 because there is simply more of them.

Joecitizen, there are plenty of folks who are a long way from 60 y.o., not empty nesters, have kids in the HPS, and who are not rabid environmentalist, who will vote against this purchase. I, for one, fit that category. And I've spoken with others (including someone yesterday with 4 kids in the HPS) who will vote against the purchase. Simply put, we'd rather put the many thousands we'd save from this purchase towards our kids' college educations, etc. There are too many politically thumbs profitting from this purchase -- the Camden County Boss' son (Norcross) is the bond counsel for this deal, for Christ's sake.

How did you come up with "many thousands" cost from this ? If you pay $100 more a year x 20, that's $2k. Does that pay for college? And speaking of college, talk about the biggest ripoff expenses ever. You know why college is so expensive these days??? Salaries and benefits for staff.
Did you support the $600k a year we are spending now to fix the roads?

I spoke to lots of people too more than 4 kids but less than 200 and they all say they are voting yes. I even hear there is a plan to get all the recent graduates to sign up and make sure they vote for their alma mater.

Brian I have nothing against Bancroft, in fact respect their mission and their right to try to maximize their profit to move, but I am very concerned with what Haddonfield residents will be left with if they do it by getting this refererendum to pass. I have deep Haddonfield roots, and I intend to stay for the rest of my life. I've also seen school bond after school bond passed by naive young parents who don't realize the spiraling cumulative impact, or that this unnecessary bond will surely result in other bonds to build, along with the salaries to staff a new building, leading to bigger annual budgets...when does it end? And when you add up the total property tax increase over many years, families would be far better served taking those thousands and putting them towards college savings and retirement. I have a whole new perspective on all of this seeing my working adult kids unable to afford to raise a family in this town. People who vote these things in and then move out when their kids graduate, and leave the rest of us to pay--it's like ordering the most expensive thing on the menu, then leaving before the check arrives.

Not to mention the message this sends to the state of NJ about our school funding--if this passes, it reinforces the state's impression that Haddonfield doesn't need a boost in school funding. We are already at the bottom of that barrel, but lack the commercial tax base of other districts. This is a key reasons local taxes are so high. Too bad all these school board people with their supposed political influence haven't fixed anything about that situation.

Joe C, Although the 60 something/environmentalists vs. sports crowd has applied to situations before, a different dynamic exists here.
In this economy many families are up against it and are already upset with how their money is being spent in the school system.
They don't care about a Haddonfield sports campus. They want their school buildings and roads fixed first. They see the cut back in services and the reduction in police at a time when we've never had more crime.
They know One Haddonfield is PAC funded and they know a corporate funded sales pitch when they see it. Many people seeing that big sales pitch at the Thanksgiving game will know it. They know something is amiss when prices they'll have to pay are overinflated by millions of dollars.
They had doubts about how Bancroft was handled from the beginning which have morphed into outright distrust.
Another angle also feeds into this. To tell people they don't know any better over something they know is overpriced, overblown and takes precedence over the stewardship of the town angers them. This sentiment has been brewing for a long time.

TP, you are spot on with that. We pay lots of taxes all kinds and get very little back via state aid (it goes to failing districts) and we are required to solve all of our issues with more taxes. If the state would simply send us back $1 million a year, this whole situation would become tax neutral. This is just another reminder to stop voting for those who put us into this situation at the State, County and Federal levels and then claim we don't pay or do our fair share. Having said that, the cause of budget and tax issues is not capital related. It is payroll. We spend more for health insurance than we do capital annually. That is not the way it should work.

Brian and Jack and Jeff H and House and other posters,

Help me understand where you get your information. According to the public tax records, Bancroft is currently taxed at over $12 million

If you think those appraisals are right then we must owe them a huge tax refund for all those years they were overtaxed and the town should adjust the tax bill immediately as we shouldn't be charging them on value that doesn't exist. How much will that refund cost taxpayers?

Chris Christie isn't going to send Haddonfield any more school funding, especially Haddonfield approves this referendum, so don't waste your time wishing for $1 million.

You refer to this referendum as a capital investment, as if the district were a for-profit business. You use of that term is misleading. There will be no financial return on investment from this referendum--in fact the opposite. Businesses make capital investments to increase or maintain profitability. Universities build high-end athletic complexes with the expectation of a huge profit from ticket sales. But the profits are only there for a handful--in fact these kinds of expenditures have been greatly responsible for driving up tuition. I think the parallels with a local public expenditure, (though on a smaller scale) on a sports complex are clear.

Rutgers Athletics: Short on Expectations, Big on Deficits
Posted on December 16, 2011

More than two years after the $102 million expansion of the Rutgers football stadium was completed, a Star-Ledger report found Rutgers football and its broader athletic program to be among the biggest money losers in the nation. According to Jarrett Renshaw who reported on the Star-Ledger story, Rutgers needs to generate $26.8 million per year from student fees and other tuition dollars to cover the cost of its 24-sport athletics program. That figure puts Rutgers in the top ten money losers out of 120 schools ($37 million per year was the highest figure). NJToday’s Mike Schneider spoke at length with Renshaw about the school’s deficit.

While the football program — the biggest driver of revenue — has increased ticket sales dramatically, Renshaw says the increased revenue does not keep pace with the cost of coaching salaries and stadium expenses. In sum, says Renshaw, the program spends much more than it takes in. The financial gap has become a rallying point for the academic faculty who have not had pay raises and have been told to cut back on expenditures, says Renshaw.

Colleges have dealt with financial losses by getting rid of full time faculty and bringing in low paid, less qualified adjunct faculty who get no benefits and who cannot be tenured, and by increasing class sizes, to name a couple of negative educational impacts of unwise spending.

The public school budget is limited to a 2% increase. It is false to argue that because one set of expenses (staff salaries and benefits) pressures the budget, it therefore makes sense to take on a whole new project that will bring with it an increase in annual operating expenses. This referendum if it passes will drive up operating expenses, and within the relatively fixed budget of the district, divert funds from classrooms and core curriculum delivery. The district may cut staff, increase class sizes and cut curriculum to put together a budget within the cap. Or, otherwise, we all can expect to see school budget votes held at taxpayer expense and campaign after campaign to pass budget increases above the 2% cap. The pro-athletic complex folks are either unaware of or ignoring the bigger picture budget ramifications for the rest of the district.

(Oh and about adjunct faculty: I did not mean to say they are less qualified but rather that the professional and career development opportunities are fewer, and the university support is much less, which is through no fault of their own. This is a shame.)

The 2% cap does not apply to healthcare, pension or debt service costs
Healthcare alone will nearly cause us to hit the cap next year.
Tax levy $31 million x 2% = $620,000
Healthcare $5.4 million x 10% = $540,000
Salaries $15 millon x 2% = $300,000
We are already over the 2% cap

Please explain how this deal will drive up operating costs and divert funds. Doesn't paying more taxes for staff's healthcare every year divert money from other things?

it is false to complain about one expense and not the other as the cause for voting no. You can't complain about Bancroft and then say OK to higher taxes for other things. All expenses drive up taxes.

Is fixing the roof or roads a capital or operating expense? Do you not know the difference or how they are treated in the school or township budgets? Very scary for you to say that investments in assets don't have returns. When we irrigate the grass or fertilize it, is there a return on it?
If you fix your kitchen, it that a capital investment even though it doesn't increase productivity. Keep trying to explain away how investments in our property plant and equipment are bad. I hope you don't treat your house or car the same way

It amazes me how uneducated people are about budgets, taxes and spending yet they are allowed to vote.

TP you bring up good points about educational quality. Through many years I've watched the district make cuts that had a big impact on the classroom environment. In elementary schools we didn't have enough EAs with the training to handle disruptive kids, and believe me even one disruptive kid could keep the teacher from covering the curriculum for every kid in the room for the whole year. After a couple of bad years, kids never catch up, that's been proven. So kids who should be advanced proficient on state tests aren't, and that could be part of the reason.

I've seen the district delay replacing nonperforming teachers because of the expense of paying qualified substitutes. Then parents pay for private tutors so their kids don't lose that year.

I've seen families with kids who have serious disabilities have to pay thousands for testing and tutoring because the district fights spending on those services, and doesn't even do the basic testing in second grade that other districts do routinely.

Other districts have better technology than we do. Our current buildings are not even wired adequately for technology, and we make families pay and PTA's fundraise for it. It is patched together very inconsistently and that is unfair.

Other districts pay for AP exams. We don't. Get ready for that cost at $89 a pop. Other districts provide SAT prep courses within the curriculum. We don't. Families pay hundreds to thousands per kid on SAT prep. And why should our kids need that prep, anyway? What didn't they learn in their classrooms?

I've seen the district restrict AP course offerings to contain costs. Those courses can save families a bundle on college credit. And they can help kids figure out college majors and future career interests, avoiding wasted time in college because of changed majors or transfers.

What is more important in the long run for your kids' futures? Is it really this athletic complex? Maybe a couple of HMHS kids in a good year get any kind of major athletic scholarship, and just as often, no one. Colleges don't recruit from the HS games except for football. And if a kids drops the sport they lose some or all the scholarship, depending on the reason they drop it. How many kids from HMHS have gone pro for a field sport?

The biggest return comes from what goes on in classrooms.

My last comment relates to curriculum needs. In our HS, when a teacher leaves, they typically take their curriculum with them. If a teacher leaves their position any time other than at the end of the school year, the kids are left without curriculum until a qualified replacement teacher comes in with their own curriculum, materials, lesson plans and so on. I saw these situations happen a lot more than I would have ever expected. As a result, parents pay private tutors so their kids don't fall behind on learning and get poor grades. Other districts give teachers a modest stipend to develop curriculum and materials and lesson plans that the district then owns even if a teacher leaves. But not here. Save your money for tutors. The amount families spend on tutors is not something anyone wants to publicize, but it is a fact that it is a major hidden cost families bear. Better district management and wiser spending could address this issue and spending toward this should be a priority.

Imagine my delight when I found out that my taxes had been reduced to $5,000!!! (See "WLDO" comment, today, 4:25 AM) My out-of-state relatives and friends can't believe our tax burden. But.......Happy Thanksgiving to all and God Bless! Oops, hope I didn't offend the atheists and agnostics!

Happy Thanksgiving and God Bless as well! I am thankful we can live in our great town and have the freedom to hold this debate on Patch. I don't care if I offended any atheists or agnostics no more than they care if they offend me. The 1st Amendment works in both directions. Can't wait to say Merry Christmas for 30 days!

Ms. Campling, if the public tax records are correct, your home is assessed at 201.7k and the taxes are $5328.91. Great thing about public information and google, it's all right there.

1. Several dozen regular ed teaching, EA, and curricular supervisory positions have been eliminated since the 1990's
2. The great majority of teachers are dedicated professionals who play a tremendously important role in kids' lives. Unfortunately for the rest, a few aren't cut out for that role or struggle with some of the same problems that can impair job performance in any sector. There are a number of reasons teachers and admin can be exited and it is done to protect kids, and it has all happened here. Think alcohol/substance abuse, anger management, absenteeism, bad judgement calls that put kids at risk, sexual harrassment... Districts can't disclose personnel matters, but the kids talk. This author was a HMHS student:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/08/06/he_failed_me/

Joe on your other points, first, the character and educational benefits can be realized on other non-field sports, or on grass just as readily as turf. Second, not all kids play field sports. Yet you argue we shouldn't support AP because not all kids take that? I don't follow your logic. I realize sports has a huge audience. So do other kinds of entertainment. Does this obligate taxpayers or the district to put in place a curriculum and infrastructure to feed kids with skills for the entertainment industry? Schools have to meet core curriculum standards. This acquisition and turf are not essential to meet NJ's core curriculum standards.

I did not say stipends for tutoring, I said stipends for curricular development.
Let's clear up some misinformation in your post. A portion of the cost was fundraised. The balance and probably the majority of the cost, when the real installation bills and overruns are paid, as well as maintenance (which absolutely will be more than the district spends now on all of its fields) will be paid in all of our taxes. And we taxpayers are all on the hook for replacement to the tune of a million just for 1 and 1/2 fields every 8 years. Add another half million or more for each additional field if the referendum passes.

Teachers go on long term disability, retire mid year, move away unexpectedly to follow spouses' job changes, and even die, to name a few other reasons that a position has to be filled unexpectedly mid year. Trust me, this has all happened here. I did not say stipends for tutoring, I said stipends for curricular development to maintain curriculum delivery despite unexpected gaps in classroom teaching (and save all of us the costs of private tutors).
I am for wiser spending on what has been proven to benefit kids in their educations and outcomes. I'd rather see the schools do the right job with what taxpayers have given them, including $46 million in prior bonds. Clearly we have different priorities about what that right job is.

Joe T: Of course, real estate taxes are a matter of public record....but thanks for helping me make my point. $328.90 doesn't make much difference to us.....heck, I have more than that in my back pocket right now....it's my "walking around" money. But, as hard as it is to believe in this day and age....that's a significant amount of money to some folks. That's what I find so discouraging.... lack of empathy for others....it's an epidemic in our society. I was at a well-known, local garage on Wednesday. I asked "how's business"...they said that they had to recently lay off one mechanic (try telling that guy that these are not tough times). He said that the leased Mercedes, Jags, BMW's, etc. go to the dealers for service. The majority of his business are the regular folks...he said he works on cars that have 100,000+ miles on them. and the owners are begging him to keep it on the road, as a new (or newer) car isn't in the budget. I have two cars, Joe, paid cash for both of them....I am blessed that I can do that but I KNOW that most folks don't have that ability. Clearly, some folks have gotten themselves in trouble by living beyond their means, but many are having a tough time making ends meet with ever increasing food, utilities, heating, etc. costs....not to mention taxes. I sometimes wish I didn't care...but I wasn't raised that way. Well, Turkey Day's not even over....but let me be the first to wish you Merry Christmas and God Bless!

njuThe fact that Joe Citizen has researched and published Maryann Campling's property tax statement shows exactly the One Haddonfield mindset.
Maryann's business is located in Haddonfield. She boards and takes care of people's pets with love and dedication. She goes above and beyond the call of duty as she cares about her customers.
Not long ago her clients were on vacation and a pipe burst in their house. She cleaned up the mess, called a quality plumber at the best rate and then supervised the project. She didn't charge her clients one extra penny.
If she had the mindset of Joe Citizen she would have charged through the roof and been closer to his tax bracket.
In the calculated effort to dilute a simple message of fiscal responsibility and caring about our neighbors we've read attacks on our opposition to a Bancroft project touting a mega turf sports complex. If you'll notice, the central argument for the One Haddonfield mindset on this page, is not 17 million dollars with undisclosed future costs adding to our debt, it's payroll and benefits. While I agree these are serious concerns, if I was a teacher in Haddonfield I'd have serious reservations about the amount spent on sports and the rhetoric displayed by people who obviously have clout concerning the school's fiscal policies.

Folks, thanks for a lively debate. We're going to shut off comments on this story now.