Don't Have to Be Sherlock Holmes to Figure this One Out

Thomas More March 17, 2013 at 09:45 pm

Pat-
The vandals were not identified Haddonfield Public school students and I did not indentify them as such. And to this point it does not matter who the vandals are. I went to lengths and gave this all the clarity it deserved in my "bad eggs" point. Again, I am responding to the ambivalence that some have expressed in their postings towards the graffiti sprayed on the Christ The King school buidling. The article was vague by referring to this as a "complex". It was the school that was vandalized. "How did you get from Graffiti to being under appreciated?" It is as much about the graffiti but also the indifferent responses by some on their posts to the act of vandalism at our school that is a tipping point. As far as the balance regarding "being under appreciated" that is a dissertation best reserved for another time and place. No, I will not work to remove the graffiti from the school and I do not want the school to pay for the removal. That is up until a reasonable time that the "vandals" have been found and they can remove the graffiti. Or, to Susan Hoch's point, a commmunity service project can be organized to remove the graffiti from Scout Field, the public high school stadium and the Catholic school in Haddonfield whose parents are saving Haddonfield/CamdenCounty/NJ $4,947,000 annually in public school expenses.

Barry Bergquist March 18, 2013 at 02:32 am

Herb Hess brings up an incisive analysis as always. As a Haddonfield ex pat I feel this stain as well. Barry Bergquist

Brian Kelly March 18, 2013 at 02:18 pm

Add the steps from Centennial Field to the tennis courts as another hit for the 2013 paint job.

Scott March 18, 2013 at 05:48 pm

I still find it funny that you think you are being bullied. I also find it funny to have heard recently that when your children played organized sports (baseball and football was it?) that you were a vocal critic of the condition of the fields. Now all these years later concerned citizens have done something about it (since you apparently did not) and you are now a vocal critic of this noble effort. Seems like your criticism is self serving rather than being community centered.

Susan Hoch MD March 18, 2013 at 07:34 pm

Reply to Scott. You may not be a bully but you are spreading misinformation about me. First of all, only one of my children played any sports in this town. My older child graduated from high school in Masachusetts. My second child played soccer and baseball in 8th and 9th grade here. I never complained about the fields. In fact, frankly I did not notice their condition. He and I did play on the Radnor tennis courts and did notice their deterioration. So I have to laugh at you when you come up with some story about how I complained about the fields. Talk about self serving.
You can't even get your information right. I request an apology.

Scott March 18, 2013 at 09:18 pm

You've gained some notoriety based on your off the rocker posts as of late. More than one person recounted to me how you criticized the condition of our fields. Whatever sport it was they found it funny that you were now taking such a strong stance against improving our fields.

Scott March 18, 2013 at 09:19 pm

...maybe they were thinking of a different Dr. Susan Hoch of Haddonfield.

Susan Hoch MD March 18, 2013 at 11:14 pm

Wasn't me. My younger kid played for maybe a year and a half - soccer and baseball. I was working and did not go to most of the games. He was never injured so I don't think I would have noticed the fields for that reason. The only fields he was on that I remember (this is 17 years ago) were Scout and Radnor. That is my only experience with fields in this town. He previously played in the city on the fields by the Art Museum and before that in Boston. So, whoever told you that is confused. Or someone who is self serving and thinks that if he/she paints me this way, it would invalidate what I say.

C.V. March 18, 2013 at 11:17 pm

Can we take this on Judge Judy?

Susan Hoch MD March 18, 2013 at 11:29 pm

To C.V.
I care about Scott's slanderous charges because I see that this is how these people work - they try to tear down people whose views they don't agree with. So, they had to find some way to attack what I have said since they don't have reason or facts on their side. So they make up something and think people will believe them. What is so funny to me is that up until last year when I retired, I frankly did not have any time to be involved in any town affairs, including limited time for my son's sports involvement seventeen years ago. His Dad was probably at more games than I was. I don't remember anything wrong with the fields at that time and I haven't been to a game in this town since 1995 or so. So I have no idea where this is coming from except I find it offensive that these people seem to have to attack people personally when they don't agree with them. I think they probably never learned how to make a cogent argument that would stand on its own merits.

Joe Taxpayer March 19, 2013 at 12:42 am

Sue, and your arguments about high heels and cigarettes and the plethera of other excuses has been oogent and on the merits. Please stop. Go speak to someone who did the analysis, identified the problems and helped determine why an artificial surface makes sense. Or you can go get some hay and replace the asphalt shingles on your roof and pretend it is as effective in keeping the rain out.
it's over. The turf is happening. You lose. Let's move back to the real issues like payroll, pensions, healthcare.

Pat walsh March 19, 2013 at 02:18 am

Susan,
1.) your posts have referred to our commissioners as corrupt.. "in the bag for the freeholders" among other choice quotes. That is slander. 2.) I seem to remember your "Fat Eddie" comment a while back, yet you are constantly offended for perceived slights toward you. Simply hysterical. 3.) you comment on virtually every topic many of which you are ignorant of the facts. "the teachers will probably strike" this ia actually prohibited by law for public school teachers in NJ 4.) you blame the schools and community for the vandalism you have assigned to the towns youth. That is a failure of he kid who did it. Not my failure or Dr. Perry's (by the way you have NO idea who actually did these things. 5.) bizarre comments like "hate crime status" do all the nescessary work to delegitimize your non stop commentary. 6.) for 5 freaking minutes just be quiet!

Pat walsh March 19, 2013 at 03:44 am

Thomas take it easy on all the savings calculation. Christ The King property has an assessed value of more than $10,000,000 and they pay exactly $0.00 in property taxes. If those parcels were residential properties the value and the tax impact would easily exceed $500,000. / year. Our present per pupil costs are about 12k/year and so you have to value the offset and the actual # of haddonfield residents in the student body to calculate the savings to the borough.

Susan Hoch MD March 19, 2013 at 11:38 am

Just a few References on high heels follow - from turf maintenance PDFs, Why don't you read them?
www.redhenturf.com/pdfs/TheTruthAboutArtificialTurf.pdf www.pocoverde.com/service/guides/care%20guide/ArtTurf.pdf www.synturf.org/forbiddenfields.html Of your other points, I agree that I did not realize that teachers in NJ can't strike - I was not aware of that since I read about teacher strikes in lots of other places. Ed Borden told me he thought my Fat Eddie comment was funny but that he was offended by being called Eddie. Re your point 4, I think that how a child behaves is a reflection of the family, school and community as well as the child themselves. Do we think that problems with kids in Camden just reflect the child themselves? Certainly not. You do not need to agree with my opinion but I note that I do not personally attack you. If you don't like what I say, then don't read it.

Scott March 19, 2013 at 02:35 pm

The high heel debate continues. Yes there are always restrictions on turf fields. Most of them apply to athletic fields of any surface. Most are fenced for this purpose. I find dog excrement on Centennial all the time. Whether turf or grass it shouldn't be there. It's up to the people of this town to use good judgement. Practically speaking I can't see any reason why someone would walk on any athletic field in high heels. We're all smart enough to exercise common sense.

Mrs. Silance Nogud March 19, 2013 at 05:12 pm

I agree, high heels are very dangerous and should be outlawed. Here's some more evidence:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/scientists-look-at-the-dangers-of-high-heels/ Also, I agree that kids today are terrible. Back when I was a kid, we didn't have time for mischief or "Games" after working 12 hours a day, but if we did, we would have been happy with a bare dirt field. Kids today are spoiled rotten!

C.V. March 20, 2013 at 04:22 pm

haha fat eddie.

Scott March 20, 2013 at 05:59 pm

No matter how Ed reacted to your Fat Eddie comment, the fact that it was made to begin with lacks class...big time. Glad to see he took the high road.

Susan Hoch MD March 20, 2013 at 06:43 pm

Scott whoever you are - beware of Facebook
My Fat Eddie comment was a joke, in the context of It's not over until the Fat lady sings. He didn't take umbrage,. You don't need to get your panties in a wad.

Scott March 20, 2013 at 07:03 pm

You always make me laugh. I'm a boxer guy. Just a personal preference. Since you bring it up why should I beware of Facebook ? You stalking me still?

Susan Hoch MD March 20, 2013 at 07:38 pm

Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny especially since Sarah Palin used that phrtase recently to describe Christ Christie. I thought the Fat Eddie comment was funny as well. Not stalking you at all. What happened is that I was looking at the Haddonfield United site and was reading some of Brian Kelly's postings and realized that someone named Scott Batson was arguing him using the language the Scott on the Patch did. I put one and one together. I think if you want to be anonymous, I would not use Facebook.

Scott March 20, 2013 at 09:27 pm

That's exactly my point that you are missing. I'm not trying to be anonymous. Everyone who posts regularly knows what my views are and my affiliations. My last name has nothing to do with it and doesn't matter. If it is so important for you to know my last name you can look at the rec council web list. Again.... The more you post your full name on these sites the more results through google are diluted. If someone wants to research you as a possible Dr and all they see are your patch views then they aren't getting the info they want. That is why I leave my last name off. As I said before. You could post as Susan or The Doc and nothing changes.

Thomas More March 21, 2013 at 12:46 am

Pat, Your rebuttal regarding CKRS is the proverbial response by people who refuse to give credit to Catholic school parents. It is also a non-sequitor. Catholic schools are a tradition in the Church. They are a seperate entity from the church. You should know this if you are a Catholic as you had stated. So unless you are a non-diocesan school such as Bishop Eusatce (where we have a child who is a student) then you support a school that does not own the property. CKRS is a builidng, it also students and parents. If every Catholic school parent in NJ were to transfer their children to the public schools tomorrow, the state would have to come with $1.3 billion (which is about 25-30% of the total outlay the state NJ spends on public education) to educate these children. Understand, this $1.3 billion would only include operational expenses such as teachers salaries, benefits, pensions, vendor services etc. It does not include the costs which would have to be outlayed for capital infrastructures such as the real estate that would have to be purchased, the buildings that would have to be constructed and/or purchased to house these additional students. Once you include these costs you arrive at a number which almost hard to estimate because it would be so profound. Are you implying that the opportunity cost as a result of a non-profit private, in this case, Christ The King Catholic School located in Haddonfield is greater than what the town would derive from ratables at the same

Thomas More March 21, 2013 at 01:05 am

.....at the same location. Are you implying that Christ The King school is not an asset to Haddonfield? That Haddonfield would be better served with condos at the same location? What are the taxes paid by Tatem, Lizzie Haddon etc..? Public schools are the bedrock of American society. They are an expense which my wife and I are more than happy to pay for in addition to paying for Catholic eductation. We made this choice. The $17,000 is the average expenditure for public education in NJ. If you are a private or Catholc school parent the savings to public education does not circle back to a specific town, it is spread across the metric of our case Haddonfield/Camden County/and state of NJ as I previously expressed. Any scholar and state authority worth their weight understands that Catholic schools are an unquestionable asset to the communities they serve. We do not want a bench with our name on it on Kings Highway. It's ashame, this is a response that isn't necessary in town's in Pa. such as the Haverford's, Havertown's, Narberth's, Exton's, Northampton's, Glenside's, Warminster's etc...Or....Haddon Township, Haddon Heights etc.. We just seem to encounter it in Haddonfield. And again, my wife who and many others who have lived here for generations will tell you that it is a new phenomenon. What we can't understand is why? In the meantime let's all agree that spray painting walls should not be taken lightly regardless of the school.

Pat walsh March 21, 2013 at 05:02 am

Thomas,
First off ,I want to say that as someone who attended a catholic elementary school (St.Rose) I have great respect for the faith based approach to education that they provide their students and families. My wife and i considered CTKS as we did Friends when making the decision about which schools our children would attend. As you know, Haddonfield tax payers fund the local district not the residents of Cherry Hill or Barrington or the other local municipalities where CTKS draws the majority of their students from. Haddonfield taxpayers do, however, effectively subsidize CTK. The property on which the church and school reside are in this borough and they generate exactly $0.00 in property tax revenue. The calculation to determine exactly how much CTK students save Haddonfield taxpayers is (# of haddonfield resident students at CTKS x haddonfield per pupil costs - the lost tax revenue for the borough of the rateable) perhaps still a savings but your estimates wildly overstate their value in this particular district. More importantly, I assume that you made the educational choices you made for the perceived benefit of your children rather than your desire to lower my tax bill. If you did, then you are completely correct and I owe you a debt of gratitude.

Thomas More March 21, 2013 at 02:17 pm

Pat, Catholic schools are one example of the good works of the Church. That is one of the reasons why our family chose Catholic schools. The goal of the good works of the Church (or at least the intention) is to have a broad benefit to the larger community. We are sorry you can't see that. You are correct that Christ The King Catholic Church is tax exempt as is First Presbyterian (again a wonderful pre-school), Grace Episcopal, Methodist etc... It so happens that Christ The King Catholic Church has a school (K-8). This school houses students. These students are out of circulation as a financial burden to the town-cities/counties/state as it applies to public education, regardless of where they come from. You are correct, at Christ The King Catholic School, admittance is not contingent upon a zip code or the town you live in. You are correct that the majority of students are from outside of Haddonfield (but more from Haddonfield than what is perceived) The tax exemption for Christ The King Catholic Church would exist iregardless of where these students would be educated..at home, at a non-sectarian private or at a parochial school. The NJ local, county and state taxes that we all pay circle back to each public school district (some more than others as you are well aware). "Perhaps a savings" ? Do you want to test that? Let's have a day when every Catholic school family shows up at the over 600 or is it 800 school districts in NJ to register their children. We are already..

Pat walsh March 21, 2013 at 03:29 pm

Thomas,
I'm not taking issue with the idea that Catholic schools are plus for the community. Both spiritually and financially they provide a valuable service. CTK's impact on Haddonfield taxpayers is simply a math exercise. I'm not suggesting that we would be better off without CTKS. I am, however, certain that if all the catholic school students who were eligible to enroll in Haddonfield public schools showed up at the front door, they would be promptly be seated in a classroom with little to no disruption to the system. No new buildings would need to be built...maybe we would need to cap the # tuition students we accept from other districts. I do think the bench idea is pretty funny though....

Thomas More March 21, 2013 at 04:21 pm

...paying over $10,000 a year in property taxes to subsidize the public schools....so bring your check book. No one owes us anything or is indebtted, this would not fit the definition of charity. Again, if you look at my original post, I was responding to the indifference by some on this post to the vandalism at Scout Field, HMHS football field and at our Catholic school. I also slightly postulated a "what if"...what Tatem, Lizzy Haddon or the Central School would have had their school walls spray painted? Would there ave there been the same indifference? Just wondering. But by virtue of how you chose to respond to this specific point, I think I know where CKS stands.

Pat walsh March 21, 2013 at 05:17 pm

You keep referencing the $10,000. Bring my checkbook?? I pay more than double the property taxes you pay including years where I had no kids in the system and was paying for Beechwood. Never even occurred to me that someone should thank me. Your property taxes are not charity.

Thomas More March 21, 2013 at 06:49 pm

When I stated "No one owes us anything or is indebtted, this would not fit the definition of charity", I was referring not to the taxes we pay but rather what our family saves the Haddonfield school system by not burdening the school system with the costs to educate our children. We are not looking to receive credit for this, because if we did then it would not be (by Catholic standards) the proper decorum. As I previously stated, the Catholic school parent m.o. is to be modest and reticent about the postive results of our charity. As, I stated and I believe this is the 3rd time, we are more than happy paying the taxes for Haddonfield Public schools. However, as also previously stated, if someone vandalizes OUR Catholic school and it is meant with indifference, then modesty and reticence are put to the side...quickly.