.

Borden's Candidacy Gives Haddonfield a Contested Commissioners Race

The incumbent commissioner seeks a third term on Haddonfield's board of commissioner. There are now four candidates for three seats.

Commissioner Ed Borden announced Wednesday that he will seek a third term on the Haddonfield Board of Commissioners.

Borden has been a practicing attorney for more than 25 years and is a former Camden County prosecutor.

“I believe that my experience as a lawyer and prosecutor has been a big plus for our public safety forces," Borden said. "It comes in handy almost daily in my work with our police.”

He joins incumbent Commissioner Jeff Kasko and challengers Neal Rochford, a former commissioner, and Lee Albright as declared candidates for three, four-year terms. All three seats on the board are open concurrently every four years.

Incumbent Commissioner .

“We in borough government have to remember that we are in the service business and always strive to deliver the bread-and-butter items our taxpayers demand,” Borden said in a statement. “Haddonfield deserves commissioners who embrace creative and innovative approaches to the challenges faced by local government. I believe that I bring that kind of perspective to the job, as well as practical knowledge and valuable experience, including eight years as a commissioner and director of public safety.” 

Borden said that his priorities will be keeping the overall property tax burden as low as possible through shared services arrangements with neighboring towns; supporting the downtown business district; exploring sale or privatization of the operation of the aging municipal water system; using the resources of borough government to empower Haddonfield’s volunteer organizations; and concentrating on the bedrock services of police and fire protection, street repair, leaf collection and snow removal.

He is a senior partner with Earp Cohn, P.C., a Cherry Hill law firm. For five years, he served as Camden County prosecutor, the county’s chief law enforcement officer. In that position, he had supervisory responsibility for the county’s 37 municipal police departments.

Borden, a Democrat, said he opposes a countywide police department, which has been proposed by the Democrat-controlled Camden County Board of Freeholders.

“What we don’t need,” he said, “is to be part of any county police department. What we do need is to explore cooperative arrangements with nearby towns to share costs and thereby reduce expenses, particularly in senior management and administration.”

Haddonfield elections are nonpartisan and candidate's party affiliation are not printed on the ballot.

Borden pledged that he will continue to accept no borough health benefits and to contribute 100 percent of his borough salary to Haddonfield-related nonprofits and community organizations. 

Borden’s civic service includes five years on the Haddonfield Board of Education. In both races for the school board, he received the highest vote total of all candidates, according to his news release. He served on the finance, curriculum, technology and policy committees, and chaired the latter two. He was instrumental in the board’s strategic planning initiative.

In 2002, Borden was asked to chair the Camden Diocese Commission for the Protection of Children. The commission’s report was one of the most comprehensive and far-reaching responses to the clergy abuse crisis. In recognition of his work, Borden was awarded the Bishop’s Medal and the St. Thomas More Society Award. He is a member of Christ the King Parish.

Borden’s wife, Barbara, is a special education teacher. Their daughters, Emily and Meg, are both HMHS graduates. Emily graduated from Mount Holyoke College in 2011 and Meg is in the nursing program at the University of Scranton.

For further information on the campaign, visit the campaign website at Borden2013.com or email Ed at efbordenjr@gmail.com.

Don't miss any Haddonfield or Haddon Township news. Sign up for Patch's free daily newsletter, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

PJ February 28, 2013 at 09:07 PM
Speaking of Borden, I find it very strange that the Board of Education wants to buy open space for the benefit of the town and the town wants to buy turf fields for the benefit of the Board of Education. What's up with that? Why can't these officials stay in their lane and do what they were elected to. Apparently the Board of Ed is bored of ed and the commissioners have extra money to throw at the school. Makes me want to vote.
Bill Tourtellotte February 28, 2013 at 09:23 PM
The rec council and town sports programs do extensively utilize BOE lands in a collaborative manner. I would expect that this is the rationale for a borough contribution.
Jeremiah Wright March 01, 2013 at 01:44 AM
Liberals gave us political correctness and have instituted their lovely speech codes on university campuses across America (What is the opposite of diversity? University!). And for example we've seen the retaliatory liberal lynch mobs in action in Cailfornia against people who happen to believe in traditional marriage. I too hold a position in which people automatically assume that I'm a liberal and some would likely be appalled at my conservatism and support for limited government. So no, I won't be using my real name here anytime soon. Oh, and more thing - nobody thinks your brave here Bill.
Jim March 01, 2013 at 03:31 AM
Bill stay on point and make a difference stop complaining about others people who input and opinions .
Jim March 01, 2013 at 03:38 AM
Answer move to a tax friendly state if you are un willing to tackle the real problem posted previously.
Susan Hoch MD March 01, 2013 at 03:23 PM
The state is giving Haddonfield $32,000 more this year. That means the B of E still has a deficit over $400,000. To no one's surprise, they will be increasing the school tax by 1.98%. Now that is only a little over $100 dollars per year but $100 here, $100 there, soon you are talking real money. In terms of the Borough's budget, I have been trying to think of ways to increase revenue besides raising property taxes. I welcome you all to brainstorm about this, even Bill T and Silance Nogud. How can we increase revenues? I suggested to Ed Borden a couple of weeks ago that we hold a referendum to legalize alcohol and sell the three liquor licenses. That would be a one time revenue increase. However, if we ended up with helping some of our fine restaurants increase their business - for example imagine drinking hurricanes at Melange with their wonderful New Orleans style food or drinking an ale or Guiness Stout with your mashers and bangers at the British restaurant or having one of the drinks with paper parasols or Tsingtao beer at Oriental Pearl. Or imagine a sophisticated wine bar. Anything that increases business in town also contributes to an improved revenue stream. Your thoughts - let's help the town out.
Joe Taxpayer March 01, 2013 at 03:48 PM
A consumption only liquor license for bars/restaurants is worth exploring. Selling the utility is worth exploring. I have looked into this before. I think Boro residents pay nearly $50 million in state income taxes yet we only get back about $1 million in school aid. I think it's time to ask for a more consistent and faired method of redistributing our taxes. Let's say for arguements sake, our aid was always 5% of the amount we contribute. That would make a meaningfun difference to our property taxes. The other thing is to get a better handle on why we pay 26% to the county. This is much higher than other counties. If it were cut back to 20%, we would also see an amazing improvement in revenue back to us. These are tough lobbying items but the money is ours and we should fight to keep more of it.
James F. Conway March 01, 2013 at 04:14 PM
Joe T - The NJ pension fund is woefully underfunded as a resulut of past administrations, both R's & D's, not contributing and faulty assumptions regarding investment income. We (the State) have an obligation to our public employee retirees. There is still a huge deficit that needs to be addressed and unfortunately that is agreement we have all inherited. We can only hope that in the future the state will move to a 401k system. As to your other point about the inequity of our tax bill : we pay more than towns in other counties because Camden is in our county. On the state level think garden spots like Newark and Patterson.
Joe Taxpayer March 01, 2013 at 04:29 PM
James, I know the pension is underfunded - some $50B or so. The issue is affordability and honestly. The State is choosing to spend money on a benefit both Rs and Ds promised that we cannot pay for while at the same time we all struggle to take care of ourselves. It's time to choose! Do we continue to spend Billions on the benefits for a few or spend the money on state/muni aid and helping people afford to live in this state. You can't do both anymore. We have been paying a diproportionate share of taxes for everyone else's benefit and we beat each other up locally over the things we want/value. It's ridiculous.
Susan Hoch MD March 01, 2013 at 04:40 PM
Response to Joe T - The reality is that the taxpayers of NJ are going to be on the hook for the D's and R's, beginning with Christie Whitman, who underfunded the pension funds and assumed that the investments would increase at unrealistic rates. What we can do is go forward - the state should be pressured to switch to a 401k system for all hires going forward. That includes the teachers as well when a new contract is negotiated. In addition, going forward, they should pay more of their own medical costs, like everyone else, as should the borough employees.
Jim March 01, 2013 at 06:12 PM
The pension is under funded so that is the pensioner problem. Benefits should be reduced to fund the short fall not raise higher taxes to fund an un popular program, Freeze all pension benefit and start 401 K only and the pension will never be under funded again. Where is the leadership put it up for vote and the tax payers will vote for private sector 401K not the bloated pension system.
Joe Taxpayer March 01, 2013 at 06:57 PM
Sue and Jim - AMEN! Think of how much tax relief could be achieved if the pension contribution went to helping the taxpayers afford to stay here. Check out this group http://www.njtaxes.org/
James F. Conway March 02, 2013 at 01:36 PM
No it is not the retirees problem. You and Joe T apparently fail to grasp the reailty of state retirement programs and the laws which govern them. The current employees who qualify for a state pension did so thru collective bargaining which means they have a contract with the state. No one can retroactively alter the contract. The longer the pension fund is under funded the worse the problem gets. No court will permit a state to avoid their obligation. The answer quite simply is to raise taxes in order to meet the obligation. So all your wishful thinking is for naught. Pension contributions will NEVER be shifted to provide tax relief - period, end of story.
Jim March 02, 2013 at 02:37 PM
Jim Conway it will if you put it to a public vote that will over come any judge ruling. And old way of doing this because some union boss put his signature to a Union contract can be broken so vote to the change the system since it is broken the 401K can was introduced and private pensions frozen and the new system has been put in place to the private sector. Jim vote for real Change stop the insanity of funding million dollar pension for all teachers [ who move out of state when they retire] in the next school public Vote . Sign a referendum to place that on public ballot .Jim would you vote for that change a judge can not change a public referendum .Bill T Vote the same way and make a difference. You have 400 applicants for every teacher position now. The private sector survived that change so stop making excuses and vote for real change and write and call your Governor and Commissioner and BOE officials.
Jim March 02, 2013 at 02:43 PM
Have the new Commissioners place any major spending bill like the public library and Bancroft on public Vote. Place the Pension revision to a vote and the Public can make a real change.
Jim March 02, 2013 at 02:44 PM
Joe T is right vote to make a Real change and the pension is now not a tax payer problem.
Joe Taxpayer March 02, 2013 at 04:26 PM
James, I expected a more serious comment than that's the way that it is. Let's review the facts. 1. The pension is $50B underfunded and growing 2. All govs stopped funding. But what did they do with the money? They gave it out as aid and higher union wages and healthcare. 3. If they paid $1B a yr over past 20, they still would be short and the increased costs from LESS aid would be embedded in our already high property taxes. 4. There is NO money. The choice should be the publics. Money for pensions or money to state aid. 5. The promises can be broken. It's called bankruptcy. If we cannot pay our bills like GM, we can restructure and eliminate the problem. 6. Taking your OH Well position and complaining about property taxes is the problem. 7. I am after solutions so we and our kids and grandkids have a future. One that is about their savings and not paying for someone elses. Too bad if that offends the 1% of the state population that is in the union. Time for the 99% to stand up!!!
James F. Conway March 02, 2013 at 10:26 PM
My position is not "oh well". It is reality. We cannot just break state contracts. Remember there are two sides to a contract. The voters do not have the authority to vote to stop paying pensions. Nor can states declare bankruptcy. The courts will force the state to raise taxes. Should we have a 401k going forward ? Absolutely ! But the people currently vested in system are entitled to the benefits - by law.
Mrs. Silance Nogud March 02, 2013 at 11:45 PM
So, you're a go-go dancer in a gay bar. I could see how your views would be considered awkward.
Jim March 03, 2013 at 08:34 PM
Move is the answer to a more tax friendly state if you can not change the entitlements in Liberal NJ.
Susan Hoch MD March 03, 2013 at 08:59 PM
There are some interesting implications to Jim's post. If enough of us put our homes on the market, since the law of supply and demand still holds, housing prices will fall. If they fall enough, then eventually assessed values will fall (due to reassessments with comparative home sales) and then property tax revenues will decrease. So in the end, the path the Borough and State are taking will only add to their financial woes. In terms of the state, businesses will leave and new ones will seek more friendly places for commerce.
Jim March 04, 2013 at 01:32 AM
New York will financial center will be in Florida in the next 20 -25 years. Taxes in NJ NY are too high and the liberal policies will doom these Liberal states.
Maryann Campling March 04, 2013 at 11:36 AM
Interesting comment, Jim. I just had a conversation with a good friend of mine who lives in Philly and is affiliated with a big company in the Financial District (I can't divulge the name). They have already started to move their operation from Manhattan to Florida. I imagine we'll be seeing more of this.
Joe Taxpayer March 04, 2013 at 01:31 PM
Sue, the boro and county (and country) have spending based budgets that require taxes in our case primarily prop taxes. They don't care if our assessments drop as they need the same amount of money (barring changes as we have been discussing). Lower values and ever increasing prop taxes will put additional price pressure on home values resulting in even more destruction of net worth. At some point, no one is going to pay $10k in prop taxes for a $300K house The state and unions have chosen to pay their members salaries, benefits and pensions over what is best for the 99% of the state's residents. How many times do you see service cuts so the money can go towards paying the unions. The politicians have gladly given away our money for the power they crave. How else can the state have unfunded liabilities of over $80B for pension and healthcare. Who in their right mind would sign off on that deal? It's criminal and they should be prosecuted.
Joe Taxpayer March 04, 2013 at 11:26 PM
More bad news but let's just pretend it doesn't matter shall we. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-04/n-j-unfunded-pension-deficit-rises-to-47-2-billion.html
John Drake March 08, 2013 at 03:42 PM
Bill - If all you do is post comments saying what a great job the Commissioners are doing and what a thankless position it is then of course you don't have to worry about repercussions. Woe to the person who posts something negative about Lee Albright and then has to face the Spanish Inquisition of the Historic Commission. Get ready to submit if you want them to approve.
John Drake March 08, 2013 at 03:49 PM
Has anyone looked at the platforms of any of the proposed candidates on their websites? Do any of them take a position on anything? Lee Albright's big push is to use "technology" so that residents can better communicate with borough officials. Someone should clue her in to this new thing called "email". I hear it's all the rage. I don't think the problem is that residents can't communicate with officials it's that the officials don't want to listen. Anyone addressing our high taxes, runaway spending and overstaffed Borough Hall? This town is in big trouble.
Susan Hoch MD March 08, 2013 at 09:36 PM
Lee Albright does not have a website up and running at this time. Her Facebook page does not mention her candidacy and seems more like a personal Facebook page. I agree with you about some of the problems. The other problems relate to issues about the County and the state and the contracts with teachers and borough workers that need to be changed but will have to wait to the next round of negotiations. The other issue that I have mentioned previously is trying to identify any sources of new revenue besides raising our already astronomical property taxes. I wait to hear about this from all the candidates.
Susan Hoch MD March 08, 2013 at 09:44 PM
Letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer Lee Albright November 10, 2005 BANCROFT SITE: DO THE MATH Is there any way, short of finding an authentic crystal ball in a Haddonfield antiques shop, to show the future of the Bancroft site? Actually, there is, and you don't need an obliging fortune-teller, just a calculator and a few Cost of Community Services work sheets. Since the late 1980s, more than 100 communities nationwide at crossroads similar to Haddonfield's have used a financial-analysis tool called a Cost of Community Services study to put a dollar figure on how much each type of land "costs" the municipality. This simple, inexpensive study takes municipal revenues and expenses in a given year, allocates each proportionally to the three general categories of land, and calculates a revenue-to-expenditures ratio. ...."Will new housing bring increased revenue or increased taxes?" .... Using land for residential purposes doesn't make money; it costs money. Analysis shows that among communities of different types, sizes and locations, the median ratio for residential land is $1 to $1.15; i.e., for every $1 of taxes generated, $1.15 in municipal services was required. ...... ..... we can throw away that crystal ball and look at the cold, hard facts. Developing the Bancroft site might cost us all much more than we ever imagined, both in taxes and lost opportunities. Wouldn't it be ironic if, by chasing ratables, we only guaranteed a higher tax burden for everyone?
Jim March 11, 2013 at 10:28 PM
The commissioners except Jeff do not respond to email so you are wasting your time trying to communictate Tish Columbi has never responded in the last 12 years

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something