UPDATE 8/13:
Proposed merger of
ORIGINAL POST:
By Courage to Connect New Jersey
8/10/2010
Two to become one?
By ROBERT LINNEHAN | The Cherry Hill Sun
(Be sure to vote in the poll whether yes or no!)
And finally, if you would like to have your voice heard and possibly published in the Courier Post, the following community editorial boards have gone up in the past two days.
207 comments:
1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»This is off-topic, for which I apologize, but...
After the Council meeting Monday night, I was surprised to hear that a rather large group of folks in town think I am the Blogmeister here. I want to clear that up.
I am in no way affiliated with this Blog. I am not the owner or the blogmeister, and I don't know who they are. I don't even know whether or not they are the same person.
I am directly affiliated with only my own websites - mabrunton.com and thecbandqinwyoming.com. I am less directly affiliated with MerchantvilleGOP.org and the Merchantville Republican campaign facebook sites.
That's all. Word of honor.
I hope someone will clarify something for me. As I understand it, a group of residents called Merchantville Connecting for the Future (with about 300 signatures on a petition) and Cherry Hill Township (with a 9-0 vote) will submit an application for a consolidation study to the State Dept. of Community Affairs. What happens next?
The Cherry Hill Sun says: “The first step in the process would be for both municipalities to approve a referendum for a study of the merger.” In the same article, Dan Keashen (speaking for Mayor Platt, as always) said: “The next step – if approved by both municipalities – would be the formation of a committee consisting of five representatives from Cherry Hill and Merchantville.” Keashen’s comments seem to confuse the process.
Has a consolidation study already been approved? Will there be a referendum on the ballot? If so, what will it ask the voters to appprove?
There's a graduate course in most universities called "The Politics of Education" in which one learns that those who want power and cannot get it in the existing structure move the issue to the next higher level. It is a political move.
I remember a teachers union was unhappy with their superintendent who had the full support of the board of education so they began buying full page ads for public support in the coming election of candidates who would oppose the superintendent. Sounds great, right? Democracy in action.
Well, there is a second rule in the Politics of Education course which reads that the risk of raising an issue to the next higher level is that you can lose control of the issue.
The community was outraged by the teacher ads and they voted their anger. The teachers union not only lost support for their cause, they lost a good reputation.
It looks to me as though the merger issue is about to enter a new arena. Who's in control?
Gail, The Sun has the story somewhat muddled. They are quoting process from the Mayor's letter. If you recall I posted here immediately after it was published to say that the Mayor's letter does not tell the whole story and there were other paths that could be taken to a study.
What is going on is that a petition will be made with a combination of our citizen's petition, and a resolution by Cherry Hill. We are now waiting for Our Clerk to verify the signatures. They have 10 working days. You can expect them to use all of those 10 days. Once certified the application will go to DCA and the process would begin. No referendum is needed. All of this is in accordance to the applicable law.
During this certification period you will see our Borough Council do everything in their power to undermine this. We expect them to attempt to replace our petition with their own resolution. What is at stake here is who gets to appoint the Study commissioners, and the influence those commissioners will have on the process. We believe that Council will appoint commissioners who are bias against merger and it will taint the process.
So that is exactly what is going on. Watch for youself. I hope that its now clear what Council's intentions are. All the things we said are true.
Merchantville has not returned calls from Cherry Hill for over a month. Now suddenly they are in contact.
Council did not explain the full story of how a study may be started - only the most difficult option. They were not being forthcoming to the citizens.
Council has been delaying and avoiding creating a study since March. Now suddenly they are eager to pass a resolution. Watch for an emergency council meeting sometime in the next two weeks.
Our local government has broken our trust here. Instead of acting in the best interest of all the citizens they have been pursuing a private agenda. Now finally that is wide open for all to see, and truthfully its a pretty sad day for that.
Whoops - typo in this sentence
What is going on is that a petition will be made with a combination of our citizen's petition, and a resolution by Cherry Hill.
Should read:
What is going on is that a application will be made with a,,,
I don't see from the information presented anywhere so far on this that borough council has has been devious and diabolical in its actions on the merger initiative. Certainly their moving faster would be more to Mr. Lavadera's liking. Have no doubt there are those in the community who legitimately oppose consideration of a merger and borough council has to carefully consider their viewpoints.
Having said all of that, and considering all that has happened, it is now time for borough council to promptly pass an equivalent resolution to what Cherry Hill has passed. That the preponderance of the community supports such a measure should be blatantly obvious to borough council. The sooner they do this the better. If they don't pass a resolution, they should clearly communicate they are not going to pass a resolution.
I will be very disappointed if they do not promptly pass such a resolution. Whatever is causing the mountains to move may only be fleeting and it is best to seize this opportunity. The benefits of a CH merger are so great that any opportunity to obtain the benefits should not be passed up.
If council members felt they had to make gestures that they are considering the voices of the opposition, they have dutifully done so. They can now proceed with a clear conscience to get on with the study. The study process will produce numerous opportunities for merger opponents to voice their facts and concerns.
Let's get on with it.
Their is no need for a Merchantville council resolution. The petition will suffice. As soon as the signatures are certified an application will be sent to DCA, on behalf of Cherry Hill's council and the Merchantville citizens group.
Have no doubt there are those in the community who legitimately oppose consideration of a merger and borough council has to carefully consider their viewpoints.
I have to disagree. You can legitimately oppose a merger, but you can't legitimately oppose consideration of a merger.
A study is about informing us of our options. Opposition to a Study is advocating ignorance on the question. Nobody has a legitimate excuse for that.
So, the fact is that an application from 300 of Merchantville’s citizens and 7 Cherry Hill Council members will be sent to the State asking for a consolidation study. No referendum is needed to authorize a study, either in Merchantville or Cherry Hill.
I’ve seen reports of a 9-0 Cherry Hill vote, but Cherry Hill has only 7 Township Councilmen. As for Merchantville, the requirement is that signatures from 10% of the voters in the last General Election are required. Since 1,271 ballots were cast in the last Merchantvlle general election, a petition signed by 128 voters would have sufficed. That would mean that a request by 135 people out of a total of 52,859 voters in Merchantville and Cherry Hill can make a consolidation study happen.
If the expenditure of any Borough money will be required, will that have to follow the normal procedures of advertising, public hearing, and Council vote?
That would mean that a request by 135 people out of a total of 52,859 voters in Merchantville and Cherry Hill can make a consolidation study happen.
Well, not really. That's what it would take to make an application. We have yet to see what else has to happen before a study is done.
If you want to frame things that way, Council is right now trying to replace our Petition with their Resolution, which will make it only 14 people that made a study happen. Its really not a meaningful way to look at things.
The truth of the matter is our group spoke to hundreds of Merchantville citizens, and collected 3x as many signatures as the law required.
it is important to note that this is just to move a study forward. Not to actually connect (merge) the towns. That still will have to be approved by the voters. The group gave council plenty of time to produce a commission. They chose not to. Well done people. Merchantville's future looks much brighter today.
People can legitimately object to even consideration of a merger. I believe there are lots of people who wholeheartedly object to even considering it, who want to nip it in the bud.
If there was to be consideration of a merger with Pennsauken, I am sure there would be multitudes who would legitimately object to it at the point it was only being first mentioned (me included).
Council and the mayor should give all their just due, make their decision and take action or clearly communicate their position.
I don't see what the petitioners have done as admirable. I see it as sneaky, back stabbing, and just a disgrace. i have no problem with a state funded feasability study, but due course should be taken. Its like the Rabbit and turtle analogy. Someone is looking to stick a feather in their cap at the every one elses expense.
I see it as an attempt by the citizen group to put a feather in the caps of all in the community.
Thankl you citizen group.
Cruise,
you couldn't be more wrong or out of the loop. But so be it.
Over the last 4/5 council meetings, why didn't they simply pass a resolution to look into a study together with Cherry Hill? Yes, they should tread carefully, however, they haven't moved at all. What where they waiting for to pass a resolution? If they had good intentions, why didn't they act on them. Two petitions and all those signatures certainly give an indication of the "pulse" of the community do they not? I'm on the fence... and I don't feel comfortable that the council has the town's best interest at heart.
"Questioning???" said: Over the last 4/5 council meetings, why didn’t they simply pass a resolution to look into a study together with Cherry Hill?
I believe the consolidation group presented its original petition to Council on 14 June. At the very next Council meeting,on 12 July, Mayor North said he and two others had met with Mayor Platt and some of his staff at Senator Beach’s office to discuss the consolidation issue and consider the next steps to be taken, such as getting funding for a study.
There have not been 4-5 council meetings since the petiton was presented -- there was only ONE meeting. Before the next Council meeting (on 9 August), the consolidation group decided to go to the Cherry Hill Council to get a resolution passed because they felt no action had been taken by the Merchantville Council. Seems a tad impatient to me.
Please don't make me defend this administration.
In 2 1/2 days we gathered 350+ signatures of people who agreed with this strategic move to better our community. 9 out of 10 signed it. There are strict laws regarding how this petition can be presented and we followed them word for word. There is no funny business here. Aparently the "majority" wants a study done and doesn't want to wait for council.
This isn't "disgraceful" this is the law.
Gail, I think they are talking about the meetings going back to when this mysterious "Blue Ribbon Commitee" was announced in March or so. I know it doesn't show up in any meeting minutes but North has publicly aknowledged it. After 6 months of talking about it he never got it off the ground.
Just a thought.
Gail - I appreciate the astute observation that Keashen is always speaking for Mayor Platt.
There never was a blue ribbin committee. That's a fabrication based on a comment made by one Councilman that maybe there should BE one. Nothing more.
Is the Councilman you're speaking about Perno?
Does this mean there's truth behind the rumors that there are some "hush-hush" ties between Perno (President of Merchantville's Borough Council) and Keashen (spokesman for Mayor Platt.) Poitical aspirations perhaps? Just sayin...
Here they come...
We can expect for the public workers union to descend on Merchantville- Fighting like hell to see this never happen. We might also get a visit from the Governor, whose tax cap is designed to push consolidation.
What??
There never was a blue ribbin committee. That's a fabrication based on a comment made by one Councilman that maybe there should BE one. Nothing more.
That is just a bald faced lie. This was agreed on by all the councilmen. The solicitor told the body a resolution was not needed to form the commission and that was how it was left. The mayor and councilmen subsequently spoke to many individuals about this, myself included.
Don't come here under an anonymous banner and try to rewrite history.
I went to Borough Hall yesterday to ask the Borough Clerk how long it would take to verify the signatures on the petition. LaVadera had stated on 8/11/10 "We are now waiting for Our Clerk to verify the signatures. They have 10 working days. You can expect them to use all of those 10 days." The Clerk informed me that the signature verification was finished. Time - 2 days.
Is there anyway that everyone can keep statements as close to "true" as possible? Without exaggeration or inaccuracies? Whether its comments about Blue Ribbon commissions or claims that the Borough will milk the time it takes to verify signatures, you diminish the validity of everything else you say. Please!
Yes, I agree with "Wondering" on the careless comments serving to diminish the validity of everything else you say.
Someone else wondered aloud why people against the merger have stopped commenting.
I can tell you that I have stopped commenting for or against the movement simply because of the unending nastiness of lavardera and others. They have been asked by several or maybe many to stop the bloodletting ... but even today after hundreds of comments venting their spleens, some still continue.
Don’t be so quick to call something a bald-faced lie, LaVardera. I know, I’m supposed to be taking a hike ... guess I just missed your pleasant, reasoned responses.
I actually spent some time today trying to track down that elusive blue ribbon commission and have determined that Councilman Perno made a suggestion to the Mayor and Council that we might have to look at other options to manage our budget. That suggestion was most likely made at one of the budget work sessions that preceded a Council meeting in the early Spring. It’s not clear whether Councilman Perno actually said the word “consolidation”, but it’s my understanding that the Mayor said that they could form a blue ribbon committee. There is no evidence that any further action was taken to actually form such a committee, nor was there any follow-up by Council members.
I do know that sometime in the Spring, Councilman Perno’s wife, Jennifer, announced at a school board meeting that a Borough committee was being formed to look at a merger between Merchantville Borough and Cherry Hill. This is not in any BOE minutes (I checked), but you can ask members of the BOE. I got that information from a school board member and even passed it along to former mayor, Jack Morrissey, when I ran into him at Staples soon after I learned it. Needless to say, he was very surprised.
If you can cite unanimous agreement by Council, as well as a comment by the solicitor, then you will also be able to identify the date and listen to the tape of the meeting. Please do that. I’m sure you would agree that would be a lot better than calling something a bold-faced lie without proof.
Let’s not allow anyone rewrite history ... not “tonto” or “Lavardera”.
Gail, your account agrees with mine, although you may be missing some of the detail.
And you are right - no further action was taken to realize the committee, which is precisely why our group eventually was formed.
Yes - the signatures were verified in 2 days, and I do apologize for presuming it would be purposely delayed. Yet the Petition was not returned to our group and we've not gotten an explanation as to why.
[Yet the Petition was not returned to our group and we've not gotten an explanation as to why.]
Get used to that. Communication is weak --if not worse-- in all systems that run with non-professional elected and appointed personnel who work on a part time or stipend basis.
Consider yourself lucky even to have a person to talk to when you dial the office phone number. In our case the municipal office has good, alert people who try to stay on top of events. So be happy with that.
If you want some information, take the initiative to ask. If you don't and they do not get info to you, blame yourself not them. They have hundreds of other things to do first.
Let me add to the other commenters on your continuous complaints about our local officials not waiting on you, lavadera. GET OVER IT. You are not four years old anymore, we hope ... but are no longer sure. If you want something, or need something, get out of the chair and get it yourself making sure you turn off the light when you leave the room.
I appreciate the advice Marvin. We did ask. We were told the Clerk was instructed to mail the Petition to Trenton by the Solicitor. No why forthcoming, and why does not matter much at this point. We need to get the Petition back so we can complete the application and submit.
lavardera---
In your application, do you say what you want the study to particularly address? Or is the study done to a set formula?
There are some items that I would want to see in the study to help me make up my mind about consolidation. For example, how would Merchantville's debt be handled? What happens to PILOT revenue? What happens to our Historic District? our Master Plan?
Can you put your application on line at the Facebook page? If not, how can a copy be obtained (is it subject to an OPRA request?)
Alice what you are describing is more about the content of the study. No, the Application does not get into any of that. Its basically just asks permission of the state to form a commission and take the steps needed to have a study. But it does not get into that kind of detail,nor lock us in to what questions to ask of a study - none of that has been decided. As soon as we hand it in I think the plan is to post it online- we are going to put up a web site. But you are more than welcome to stop by my office - I have the copy I carried when collecting sigs. Or I'll gladly come to you.
According to Camden County, in 2009 Cherry Hill property was assessed at 48.11% of market value. From the same source, Merchantville was assessed at 54.62% of market value. http://www.camdencounty.com/sites/default/files/files/2010.pdf
The 2009 Merchantville tax rate was 5.049 and the Cherry Hill tax rate was 5.319.
In order to directly compare compare how Merchantville property would taxed in Cherry Hill we need to make sure we use the same ratio of assessed to market.
A house assessed at $100,000 in Merchantville would pay taxes of $5,049 and have a market value of $183,083 when we apply the equalization rate.
Applying the Cherry Hill equalization rate of 48.11% means this same property would be assessed at $88,081 in Cherry Hill and pay taxes of $4,685.
So, if the Cherry Hill tax rate did not change as a result of consolidation (all Merchantville expenses wiped out, no new expenses for Cherry Hill to cover Merchantville, and no debt added) then the Merchantville house would pay lower taxes merely by being part of Cherry Hill. It is a big "if" and I hope the study will say whether any changes in the tax rate would result from consolidation.
I am not taking any position on consolidation. I need to study the study first. But I think if we are going to make statements about current tax rates, we should compare apples to apples and not merely apply the Cherry Hill tax rate to a Merchantville assessment.
The article posted on 8/13/10, NJ.com read:
If the merger were approved, Cherry Hill would get the property taxes from Merchantville residents yet wouldn’t have to add many salaries to maintain municipal services.
"The mayor’s overarching philosophy is that any time you can eliminate redundancy in services, it’s going to benefit the taxpayer," said Dan Keashen, spokesman for Cherry Hill Mayor Bernie Platt.
If Cherry Hill’s over all philosophy is to eliminate redundancy won’t that include Merchantville School?
I know some have said “don’t worry, Merchantville school would stay.” “It will just be used as a K-5th.” Isn’t that a redundancy of services? I cannot image that even if they bus in children from other areas of Cherry Hill that maintaining the school building could in anyway be cost effective. Cherry Hill would have to hire more teachers and office staff and stretch their already overworked principles and maintenance people to run the school and maintain the grounds and athletic field.
I think if I were Cherry Hill the first thing I would do is sell off the athletic field because it would be redundant to keep it. There would no longer be the Merchantville Little League because Cherry Hill already has many athletic leagues and fields. I also image this open land is prime for development. I do wonder where the others in our community like St. Peters, St. Stephens, etc. that use those fields to play baseball, football, soccer, field hockey and to run track and field will go. Like I said, just thinking out loud…
If a merger with Cherry Hill took place, they could sell the municipal building, the firehouse, and the school — may as well throw in the bank.
Somebody with a lot of money could buy a whole group of Borough buildings ... sort of like playing Monopoly with real buildings. And they’re all brick!
Forgot about the Community Center and the Public Works building.
Good point Game Player.
But you forgot to mention some of the other Boro owned properties.
All the land located behind the bank building in the heart of town and the Community Center and all of it’s surrounding land.
Cherry Hill’s HPC and Zoning Board will have a field day with all this space.
Has any one notice the height of those structures that they are still building at the Race Track.
I for one would love to be the first to take in the fabulous view from the penthouse of the new high rise located in the center of the Merchantville district of Cherry Hill.
“Look honey… from way up here you can see all the way out to Lower Merion!”
"And look Coopers Ferry too!"
Thanks Alice for putting some apples out there to compare. WOW LOWER TAXES!
This is all rumor, and speculation. Hopefully now we are going to get our unbiased study, thanks to the petioners. We can't really know what's best without data. And we can't trust the council and mayor judging from their website.
Perhaps the mayor, Brennans & company have been buying property irresponsibly for years (banks, etc.)to bankrupt the town, because they prefer a merger with Pennsauken. They could be big men and town leaders in Pennsauken and they'd be nobody in Cherry Hill. Build more tenements like TCE quick...
Which website? Remember that www.merchantville.com is not the official website of the town.
The race track condos are the same height as the former proposed TCE which was, at the time, supported by Mayor North.
Since the failure of that project, the council adopted a resolution lowering the height allowance in the redevelopment area.
Here is a link to the DCA's Shared Services and Consolidation guide. The section on consolidation starts on page 17.
http://tiny.cc/nw4rn
It looks like a joint public hearing with CH is required on the proposal to set up a Study Commisssion and the DCA then votes on whether to continue.
The required content of the study is on page 19.
[Alice: Since the failure of that project, the council adopted a resolution lowering the height allowance in the redevelopment area.]
If you are referring to the AST Town Centre East project, Alice, remember that Council in the infamous March 19th meeting, with residents filling the room and hallway and stairway, failed to raise the height limit to 60 feet from 40. Afterwards Solicitor Higgins said an ordinance change was not necessary, that the redevelopment action was sufficient to override all existing ordinances.
With this year's TCE redevelopment plan approval, Council raised the height limit to 44 feet -- I guess just to be safe.
So if Solicitor Higgins were correct, and I have never known that to be true, then Cherry Hill could declare any of our public properties as redevelopment zones and put up anything they wanted, piercing the sky, bulging over our roads, and tunneling under our houses. A basement-level Macy's clearance shop with a Starbucks, McDonalds and Ritz theatre attached -- that might be nice.
Cherry Hill has to follow the same procedures as Merchantville for a redevelopment area.
As to what would happen to planning and zoning in a consolidation, that would be a matter to be addressed in any future consolidation plan. Perhaps the plan could require that Merchantville be an historic district or a Special Planning Zone. I would like to see such protections--even more than we have now.
These are things to be considered if Merchantvillle moved toward consolidation. Rather than engaging in speculative fear mongering, perhaps we could discuss what items would be best to have in a consolidation plan. Our Master Plan would be a good start as it was based upon extensive community input.
According to the DCA guide, a Study Commission could include development of a "consolidation implementation plan." (NJSA 40A:65-25c(4))
lavardera, will your application include a provision asking the Study Commission to develop an implementation plan?
Again Alice nothing specfic has been decided - just not gotten that far yet. I agree with you that implementation and transition are important, but not sure when if it would be done with the merge study or afterwards by the towns themselves.
BTW our downtown is already a historic district. This is just fear mongering that the protections of our town would be stripped.
[lavardera: BTW our downtown is already a historic district. This is just fear mongering that the protections of our town would be stripped.]
Guess you were not here during the AST redevelopment times. The "redevelopment zone" designation obliterates all local ordinances -- height, setback, density, overlay, fenestration, master plan ... you name it. Ask Solicitor Higgins.
A little fear mongering right now would be a good thing to wake folks up to watch what is happening under our Victorian street lamps and in the shadows over there behind the NGO headquarters.
Where are you standing, Mr. LaV? I can't tell from your voices.
[Alice: we could discuss what items would be best to have in a consolidation plan. Master Plan would be a good start ... require that Merchantville be an historic district or a Special Planning Zone.]
Good thinking, Alice!
Some might want to save the elementary school, too, I would guess. But I suspect the field on the street out to Cuthbert Blvd. would have to be granted back to Pennsauken, though, seeing as it was given to us when Pennsauken students attended Merchantville high school.
Right Monger, any redevelopment project can obliterate our codes if we decide to. But the fact is that downtown is a historic district that has protections, all which should be transferred in a merger. What you are implying is that Cherry Hill will do away with them, declare our downtown a re-dev zone, and destroy the place. How about Godzilla? Zombies?
And I post in only one voice, unlike the hordes of anonymous posts. If you are referring to Alice - she is a real person, with the courage to not post anonymously.
Greg,
get real Cherry Hill will have say on what happens to all our redevelopment etc. They will not be able to cater to a select few as they have the entire township to worry about. Our local problems will become just another drop in the bucket for their council. you can't be that dense not to see this can you? Its not fear mongering but something called common sense. There are those of us who like our little twon even with all its little faults. many of us work to improve this community. You seem hell bent on taking a different road, so be it that is your right. It's ashame that you have allowed yourself to become a pawn in someones political agenda. There is a right way and wrong way to do things, in my opinion you are doing it the wrong way, it boils down to integrity something you and your group seem to care little about.
The complexity of this merger will far exceed any 100K study. Many would think the KISS method would apply (Keep it simple stupid) Merchantville would become part of Cherry Hill Township. All municipal services would be handled by Cherry Hill Township, The school would become part of the Cherry Hill School System and be governed by the Cherry Hill School Board. Thats it that simple. decisions for our community would be decided by Cherry Hill Council and Chery Hill School Board. Maybe someone from our town could get elected to either maybe not. Cherry Hill is very large and very political. Maybe our taxes would go down, maybe that would stay the same, maybe they would go up. Either way these decisions would be made for the good of the entire township of Cherry Hill not just a select few thousand former Merchantvillians. I don;t need a study to tell me anything else. If you want a larger government, paid politicians, then a Cherry Hill merger is for you. If you want to maintain our small community where you have a voice and don't want big time politics then this merger makes no sense.
Unitl the State finds a new formula to fund Public Education you will see no significant decrease in your taxes.
LaVardera has said twice today that Merchantville's downtown is already an historic district.
My own research shows that there are only 5 places in Merchantville on the National Historic Register. They are, with the date they were added to the register shown in parentheses: Collins & Pancoast Hall (1984), Centennial House (1991), Dorrance House at 28 Franklin (1994), Cattell Historic District (1994), and Oaks Historic District (1997). I’m not sure if the Community Center has been added to that list.
It’s my understanding that the Merchantville downtown is not and never has been designated a REAL historic district, as recognized by the National Historic Register. My recollection is that when the Merchantville Historical Preservation Commission was established in the late 1990’s, the downtown was designated a local “historic district” for the purpose of establishing and enforcing design criteria for changes to properties in that area, such as paint colors, signage, etc. Their charter may also include stores at the west and north ends of the Borough, as well as the Chapel Ave. circle.
The HPC is a local commission working under local guidelines, namely the Merchantville Historic Preservation Ordinance. That ordinance might well disappear with a consolidation, as would the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning Board, etc.
So when you say that our downtown is “already a historic district that has protections” -- that’s probably not true as far as most people’s perceptions of what historic buildings and districts are.
I would certainly wonder how Merchantville’s eclectic downtown, with its odd assortment of buildings including the pizza parlors, the stucco front of Merchantville Cleaners and the permastone front of the News Nook, not to mention your own industrial looking addition above the old Towne Pharmacy, could be considered historic in any sense of the word. The oldest building in that area is probably the 100-yr.+ old “House-Built-in-a-Day” on E. Park Ave., which we intend to tear down.
I will defer to the opinion of the Merchantville Historical Society and its president, Maureen McLoone, as to whether our downtown is a true historic district.
Yes Gail, the designation is just as you've described it. I dont see that designation going away.
To my friend with the scary predictions - come up with a better alternative. Work on the budget. Show us the numbers how you'll maintain services in the face of state cuts and the budget cap and running out of surplus to fall back on. Come up with a real solution that works, please.
In the meantime I don't buy into your assumption that the history and value of our town will be gutted. We've lived the priveledge of independant government. It's great, but when it gets to the point that we have greatly diminished services combined with rapidly rising taxes, then it's time to consider other options. I hope you will finally decide to come out from under cover and have a real conversation where you own your outlandish claims.
I hope everyone takes the time to read the DCA guide I linked to above.
Under NJSA 40A:65-26 (Required information to be included in municipal consolidation study commission reports), the study shall address "the use of advisory planning districts, comprised of residents living in the former territories of each former municipality, to provide advice to the planning board...on applications and master plan changes affecting those areas."
Now that is just the minimum requirement. An implementation plan could be far more protective and give the advisory board more teeth, if the residents pushed for it.
Whether you are ultimately in favor of a consolidation or not, if a study or an implementation plan is being written, then it would be prudent to advocate in front of the Commission for the planning protections you want.
Greg, that is councils job not mine, I would ask you what has Cherry Hill done with their budget? You would trust our tax money to that group of individuals. Don't dismiss me because of my anonymous moniker. All the issues I have raised are ral and true, you just don't have answers for them.
I do discount your comments if you can't say who you are. How am I supposed to judge your comments. Please, elevate the converstation here and say who you are.
As far as your comments about zoning and redevelopment fears, no - you are totally off-base. Alice proved in 5 minutes that the process includes the opportunity to study and resolve these items, and in our case if we need to extend the function of our Historic District into Cherry Hills zoning ordinance, that will have to be explored in the study.
It would be really valuable of you to channel this into good questions and concerns to feed to the committee, rather than spinning scary scenarios here. Seriously - you can play a part in being sure your concerns are addressed. Your doomsday predictions don't help anybody.
You will have a pretty tough case establishing that Merchantville has done any better with their budget than Cherry Hill. Unfortunately most towns are facing the same troubles. So no - I don't agree with your vilification of Cherry Hill. As far as coming up with a budget solution being Council's job, and not yours. I'll just submit that they have not adequately answered this question yet. I'm not faulting them for that - there is no easy answer. The study will provide another option. There is lots of time between now and then to work on an alternate budget in support of remaining independent. I'm all for having more options.
More ktbfw bad facts. Only a portion of the athletic field was given by Pennsauken to the Merchantville School District at a time when Pennsauken children attended Merchantville High School. There were deed resrictions that M-ville had to comply with (that the land be converted to athletic fields) but these have long been complied with. The land is owned, free and clear, by the M-ville School District. The logical thing to happen to it is that it becomes the property of the Cherery Hill School District as part of the merger of Merchantville and Cherry Hill. From there, the new CH school board decides what to do with it. At this time it is likely the CH school board, which residents of the former M-ville School District will elect, can decide how to best utilize the property.
My guess is that the property will remain in use as an athletic field for the surrounding communities to use. Note that this property is very, very close to the existing Cherry Hill border. The athletic fields are not going away. The most likley affect that a merger could have is that the condition of them could substantially be improved.
Alice, thanks for the DCA guide. I have not, as yet, read it in detail, but I will. Skimming through it, it seems to me that the law is carefully designed to prevent the larger partner in a merger deal from running roughshod over the sensitivities of the smaller partner. That is good law and good common sense.
There is nothing in this process which in itself should be a deal killer. Mergers of any kind always require compromise.
Anonymous: it boils down to integrity something you and your group seem to care little about.
Sigh, the irony would be funny if was not so sad. Don't lecture me about integrity if you can't post under your own name.
I have high hopes for this blog supporting a valuable discuorse. It simply can't happen if the dialog is dominated by anonymous posts. My thanks to Alice Diamond, Mark Brunton, Gail Ford for being brave enough to speak under their own name. Mike, Marvin - you should consider altering your handles, at least for the duration of this study.
Anonymous 8/15 12:41 PM - Your posting mentions the merits of small, local government but fails to mention that the M-ville local government, despite the hard work of all involved in it, has not been able to achieve two very important results:
1. A scenario in which there is a prospect for long-term continuity of essential services without very significant tax increases or cutbacks of services. Merchantville does not have sufficient ratables, especially non-residential ratables, to support quality services for its residents.
2. A quality high school.
The logical thing to happen is to merge with a community which has the sound ratables base and the quality education program.
Now if I post under just my first name, will you call me out and use my full name as well? I didn't know who Alice was until now. Maybe she was fine with it, maybe not. But the point is that it was for her to decide not you. Don't ya think? So I'll decide when I'm ready to come out, k?
And Mike and Marvin, don't know your last names nor your handle, and that's cool with me.
lavardera: when it gets to the point that we have greatly diminished services combined with rapidly rising taxes, then it's time to consider other options.
How about throwing the rascals out who would raise taxes? Too novel for you? All YOU need to do, lavardera, is walk next door to complain to councilman Perno -- he's the biggest spender in town-- and then YOU might draft a petition among residents supporting a slate of alternative candidates for council.
Wouldn't think another petition would be too much work for you. Maybe call NGO for publicity, too.
Mr. Lavardera,
I have a time-honored blog handle which I would like to continue to use on this blog WITHOUT YOUR ATTEMPTED EXPOSURE of my personal information.
Please refrain from violating my privacy, as I have yours, so that I do not have to abandon this forum.
Personally, I can assess and evaluate the merits and shortcomings of comments on this blog without knowing prejudicial personal information about the authors. I do not know why you cannot and I am not interested in learning.
As a courtesy, I ask that you not try to draw me out. Thank you.
My guess is that LaVardera actually prefers anonymous commenters.
He might fuss a lot about not knowing their names, but he invited one up to his office for a personal talk and even offered to buy another one a beer if it turned out he was wrong. (The odds are good on that one, by the way.)
I comment using my name, as I have for years, and he tells me to “take a hike”.
Anonymous commenters gives lavardera something to talk about that he knows nothing about ... sort of continuing his tradition.
There are two towns I know of in NJ that are combined for purposes of administration but retain separate identities.
Verona and Cedar Grove in Essex County and Milburn and Short Hills in Union County.
I lived in Essex county for years and never knew that Verona and Cedar Grove were actually one town administratively. The towns retained their names and separate identities.
And, yes, I prefer to go by my first name only on the blog. The reason is that my name could be searched on google and would show up if both first and last are used. Using my first name only discourages casual busybodies.
"Merchantville connecting for the Future"- What a joke! This is an historic town. We should be connecting with our past. What would the founders of the town think? We should think about that...
I heard a story from an old resident I thought interesting (both story and resident). We were discussing the 1921 Merchantville tax map that someone here on the blog introduced all of us to several months ago.
In discussing the Merchantville boundaries the friend said they were irregular in one section because at the time of the creation of Merchantville, the residents in that area were given a choice of which municipality they wanted to live in. The line was drawn accordingly.
I don't know if the story is correct; I don't care. It makes for a great legend to go with our "house in a day" and my father being named for his grandmother's French lover. As American Movie Classics (Cable channel 41) says, "It's the story that counts".
thinking out loud...is correct.
Merchantville school would be the first thing to go. It is a redundancy that is not effective. most teachers are are on the high end of the scale.
merchantville kids would be bused to kilmer.
the fields would also be sold immediately.
do any of these petition signers have children? one of the big draws to merchantville was that there was no bussing. say goodbye to that.
have you been on the east side of cherry hill recently?
merchantville will be drained an swallowed whole.
Merchantville will no longer be Merchantville.
I moved here because it was a small town - not Cherry Hill.
I don't understand it. Why would we want to merge with Cherry Hill and be part of Cherry Hill. If you want that, sell your house and move to Cherry Hill. This makes no sense!
Bala Cynwyd, Ardmore, and Bryn Mar are all separate towns with in Lower Marion Township. We would still be Merchantville. Most people won't even notice the difference.
Keep smoking whatever it is you've got! It sure seems to shield you from reality.
So anyone who disagrees with you must be on drugs? Grow up.
I wonder where the Lower Merion arguments came from and who sold you that BS. There is no comparison to our communities and theirs.
Sewaren, Iselin and Avenel are all separate towns within Woodbridge Township. We will still be Merchantville. A community is not defined by its government or municipal services.
Sewaren, Iselin and Avenel are all separate towns within Woodbridge Township. I don't think this nor the comment regarding Lower Merion Township is an apples to apples comparison.
Is the goal of the petitioner's group to consolidate Cherry Hill and Merchantville and create a new township? If not, the comparisons to Woodbridge and Lower Merion seem a little bit of a stretch.
Fact:
If merchantville consolidates with Cherry Hill, Merchantville will cease to exist. I will live in Cherry Hill Township, pay my taxes to Cherry Hill Township etc. Our kids will attend Cherry Hill schools. Our Fires will be put out by paid Cherry Hill fireman. I doubt Cherry Hill council will have any representation from my old town. Oh I guess we could keep some cute signs that say Merchantville Section of Cherry Hill. Let's be real any remnants of Merchantville will die as time passes.
[J.A.M.R.: Oh I guess we could keep some cute signs that say Merchantville Section of Cherry Hill. ]
Does anyone remember when I-295 was constructed over the Rancocas Creek? Two large signs went up announcing the exit, "Bridgeboro". Up only a few months they were replaced with signs reading "Delran".
Delran had complained that Bridgeboro was in Delran Township.
I believe there is still a sign that says East Merchantville, I have seen it just can't remember where.
Merchantville will be gone. In a few years, no one will remember the name.
Historic area, etc. it is all negoatiable.
I like the idea of the Lowes where the school is now located - of couse the streets will need to be widened.
The historic area has been negotiable for decades. Have you seen what has been built around town?
Clifton Commons with its back toward the street, Chestnut Lane fronting a parking lot (again, not engaging the neighborhood by facing the street), new homes/apartment complexes built in nothing like a traditional style (Springfield Ave, Chestnut Ave, Maple Ave), Victorian homes with contemporary windows and aluminum siding all through the Catell Tract, a messed up downtown with some really in need buildings.
Merchantville has frequently sacrificed its Victorian charm for economic expediency.
It's hard to be sentimental about the way we have treated our heritage.
Will Cherry Hill do better? I don't know. I like Alice's suggestion of Moorestown as a model. But I have no illusions that we don't have a long way to go before we can say we have preserved our historic character as well as Moorestown has.
Maybe if real estate values rise, we will have the wherewithal to do some real historic preservation and not just have pretty shop-signs.
What's more important to you, keeping boro hall employed, or keeping the area economically stable?
I want to see the Study and I am tired of people saying what WILL happen if we consolidate before we actually have a Study. Here's where I agree with Mayor North AND Mayor Platt, let's see what the Study says.
[David: I like Alice's suggestion of Moorestown as a model]
I like Alice but her suggestion is opposite from our situation.
Moorestown was born an historic town and grew up that way. The folks who manage the town and its expansion are rooted in its history. In 1970 eighteen percent of Moorestown Township was developed; the rest was farmland. Growth started near town and spread outward, controlled by Moorestownians and in many cases built by Moorestownians.
The golf course out beyond the Navy ship was built by a corporation of 4 including a farmer. Did you notice that the clubhouse is located in Mt. Laurel for the liquor license. Cherry Hill would never have stayed dry if it had been to lose that ratable.
Our merger scheme is the opposite. Old town Merchantville is begging to belong to an eclectic, commercial monstrosity.
Nothing historical has been preserved by the Cherry Hill government including the "hill" itself. Can you imagine? The municipality allowed a commercial building to be constructed on the front lawn of the original Ellis farmhouse. Ellis as in Ellisburg. The farmhouse is still there --on the C.H. Historical Society register-- but travelers cannot see it from the street.
The McCracken farm in Springdale, a delightful Victorian building with porches all around and a gliding swing we used to play monopoly in while waiting for the school bus and a pitcher pump with a large bowl on top to keep a constant water flow after you stopped pumping, is now an extension of the county college -- a characterless building. No, worse!
If Bob Scarborough had not saved the Barclay farmhouse and the little stone bridge dating to historical times, the historical society would have three monuments, not five.
No, I like Alice and her thinking but that model comes from her North Jersey life experience, not from Moorestown.
David's point is fair. The stewardship of our history has not been what it should be. And that a rise in property value can and will attract residents that have the resources to update and maintain these big old homes. But his best point is the most obvious. Can we wait for a study please and then start arguing. Then at least there will be something to base it on.
[anon: his best point is the most obvious. Can we wait for a study please and then start arguing]
David did say that but then he said several other things of more interest although the study has yet to begin.
He led me towards a hypothesis that a study will not address, that is, suppose our town leaders are just not astute enough, or not free from politics enough, or not tough enough to solve the problems holding Merchantville from "preserving its historic character".
[David: The historic area has been negotiable for decades. Have you seen what has been built around town? ...Will Cherry Hill do better?]
I would add a follow up question. Do we care?
Thirteen years after Merchantville was founded, an architectural firm published a tremendously popular book (50,000 copies) titled Palliser's New Cottage Homes. Driving through parts of Merchantville one can see many of those now-classic Victorian designs.
However, as David pointed out above Merchantville has sacrificed its charm for economic expediency. He asks, "What's more important to you...?"
As to architectural priority, listen to what Palliser said in 1887. ...we find in the rural districts among the buildings erected at the present day almost an entire absence of the vulgar, meaningless, square-box like or barnesque style of Architecture... which years ago was the rule rather than the exception.
Of late we have allowed the slide back into "vulgar, meaningless, square-box" architecture. Some even brag about it.
Cherry Hill is not interested in preserving our historical character. Perhaps the petitioners are not interested either. The ballot box referendum will tell us.
Many of you seem to miss the point that in a merger plan it is possible for Merchantville people to have control of planning and development in Merchantville. It is also possible for Merchantville to maintain its ordinances concerning historic preservation. The statue allows for all of this. We would have to make sure it was part of the plan. Are we interested enough to do so? I think that was David's point.
ktbfw, I do not see the point of mentioning my "north Jersey experience" other than to suggest that after 8 years in Merchantville, being active in CCM, thoroughly researching the House Built in A Day as well as the Bartine House, and renovating an old house (1906) myself, I am somehow "out of touch" with the needs of historic preservation by reason of having lived in north jersey for 10 years out of my 50. It is not a good argument and unworthy of you as you know better.
The Moorestown experience is quite relevant. Moorestown was not always interested in historic preservation. The current town shows what can be done with a combination of attention and higher market values. It also shows how large scale commercial and contemporary housing developments can be carried out by the same town that is also responsible for historic preservation.
Cherry Hill has an active historic commission and also supports Smart Growth (as does Merchantville)
Cherry Hill Historic Commission
http://www.cherryhill-nj.com/government/boards/historical/historical.asp
Barclay Farmstead
http://www.barclayfarmstead.org/
Croft Farm Historic Site in Cherry Hill
http://www.cherryhill-nj.com/government/departments/recreation/croft.asp
None of the rabble pushing for a merger are Merchantville people. They have all lived here less than 15 years and don't understand the town. Maintaing the town and our autonomy means finding additional revenue. We NEED The TCE development and a brew pub, which would be a cash cow. This is only a start. With additional revenue we can handle all additional state funding cuts. It's time to shift the conversation away from Cherry Hill and think up some creative ways to enhance revenue. A merger is not what the real Merchantville people want.
So because I have been here for only 14 years, I don't get a say in the future of the town? Stop being so arrogant about your seniority in the town, you really just sound like a clown.
No offense Chris, but you don't really have a stake in the town. I was born and raised here, you're just passing through. Why don't you move to Cherry Hill? And if we really need to merge, what's wrong with Pennsauken. They are much more like us than Cherry Hill.
No offense Chris, but you don't really have a stake in the town. I was born and raised here, you're just passing through. Why don't you move to Cherry Hill? And if we really need to merge, what's wrong with Pennsauken. They are much more like us than Cherry Hill.
Well then i guess you are the person to blame for being here all of your life and not doing ANYTHING to improve the educational system for our kids, or putting the town in a better financial situation to handle basic services. Good work.
And your answer is to beg a brewery to open up shop in town so they can be our cash cow? The fact that the Bank building is not housing one right now should open your eyes to the fact that our local economy is in serious disarray. We're practically giving that lease away at this point and we can't get someone.
Seriously though, 90% of this whole merger talk is about our high school situation. maybe 95%. To be against even looking at our options to improve it, is in support of letting our educational system get worse, which will sink our property values even more. you cool with that?
You knew the situation with the school and town when you moved here. Shame on you. Why don't you move and leave the town the way you found it? My neighbors kid graduated from Pennsauken High School a couple years back and she was accepted to Rowan University. She is doing just fine thank you very much. We have nothing in common with the people in Cherry Hill. And I've heard that we are very close to landing a deal with a microbrewery. Any study will be a waist of money, because the financial situation will get better around the next corner.
Just out of curiosity, when am i allowed to care about my town? Do i get a say at 15 years, or do i have to wait until you are no longer here?
and i'm glad your neighbor's kid is doing well, but lets stick to facts. Ranked 270 out 315 is nothing to be bragging about.
You are demonizing residents for wanting better for their kids. SHAME ON YOU. I almost ashamed that your my neighbor. Hopefully, i live on the other side of town.
I am demonizing no one. If you want your kids to go to a different school, then move. It is that simple. Don't come into my town for a couple years and then have the nerve to destroy it just so your kids can go to school with rich kids. That is stupid and selfish.
Thats exactly the point. Every resident with half a brain and the ability to do so, moves out of this town because the high school situation is unacceptable. How can we hope to build a community where our kids grow up with the same kids their whole lives if everyone moves out before 8th grade.
I love this town. I love that we have a down town. I love that I know my neighbors. But we have to change something, we can't just sit here like the curmudgeon you are and do nothing because thats the status quo. And honestly, even if we were to merge, I am confident that your every day life wouldn't change a single bit, I really don't know what you are complaining about.
What if i suggested that instead of merging the town, we sent our kids elsewhere (in the even slimmer chance that we can get out of the send/receive relationship with penn) but it would cost our average taxpayer $300 a year. Are you against that as well?
I don't believe that the town could afford to change the current arrangement with Pennsauken. The rate would probably go up and we would end up paying for a lot more kids, maybe even all of them. It's never going to happen and that's a good thing. Didn't you know all of this before you moved here? What's wrong with Camden Catholic?
Good news everyone, we found the one person in town who favors our send/receive relationship with Pennsauken....wait, are you the superintendent for Pennsauken High School?
Seriously though, you keep repeating yourself with the "didn't you know the school situation before you moved here?" question. Its irrelevant. I don't have kids going to school here. I do however own property whose value is EXTREMELY affected by the sub-par high school situation. And i do care about that.
And lets be honest, it wouldn't cost that much to switch our situation. Right now, we send about half (100) of our high school population to Pennsauken. The other 100 go to Camden Catholic or Eustace. Assuming it costs around 10K per child to send them, if we assume the responsibility of the remaining 100, its $100K a year, or $350 per household (the remainder being split amonst the commercial, etc). Thats not much in comparison to how it would affect our property values.
[Chris: if we assume the responsibility of the remaining 100 [H.S.students], its $100K a year, or $350 per household... Thats not much in comparison to how it would affect our property values.]
Ahh, wait a minute. You suggest we should be willing to pay $350 MORE plus raising our property values which means paying more?
How come I'm so dumb? I'm the only one in town who believes (notice, it is now just a belief system, not reality) the town should be CUTTING EXPENSES? Did budget tightening go the way of hand-crank car windows?
Yes we should be cutting expenses. Any change in the high school would cost lots more money. That would be a big mistake. Right now people who don't like PHS pay for their something else. That's fine with me. Most people around town agree with keeping the send/receive. They just aren't saying so, because it's unpopular. Let's be realistic.
You are welcome to live here, but petitioning for a town change is really beyond your rightful place.
I know! Maybe we could establish a send/receive with haddonfield!
Oh i see, MORE is the guy who lets his roof fall apart, his yard overgrow and never improves anything because he wants his property to be worth less so his tax rate goes down. Thats some good financial planning. Buy your house and hope it will one day be worth $1.
And since you are so up on cutting expenses, why don't we just stop providing school to our kids altogether. That would be a tax saver.
I mean, its not like we're talking about millions and millions of exuberant expenses and lavish school amenities, we're talking about providing a high school situation that isn't 270 out 315. And frankly, if the town can't find $100K a year in its budget for such a cause, we probably should merge.
Chris: if the town can't find $100K a year in its budget for such a cause, we probably should merge.
I agree. But there are only the two of us.
(Chris: Assuming it costs around 10K per child to send them, if we assume the responsibility of the remaining 100, it's $100K a year.)
Did you just multiply 100 kids by $10,000 each and come up with only $100,000? I counted 6 zeroes, which would be a cool million -- $1,000,000.
[Chris: You say the expense of paying for educating another 100 students would be about “$350 per household (the remainder being split amongst the commercial, etc)”.]
Your math continues to confound me. If each household were to throw in another $350, as you suggest, it would take only 285 households to come up with the extra $100,000 you want. There are about 1,500 households in Merchantville.
But property taxes aren’t determined that way. A penny on the tax rate is equal to about $16,000 in expenditures. To raise an additional $1 million (not $100,000), we would have to increase the annual tax rate by 62 cents per $100 in assessed value. For a home valued at $150,000 the increase in property taxes would be $930 per year.
It's fun to play with numbers. Where are you trying to go with this, Chris?
yes, you are correct, i left a zero off, but my point is still the same. and while i know thats not how tax rates are calculated, assuming we have 1500 households, its $650 per household, that $650 being offset by commercial, etc.
And none of that even matters, because if tomorrow every 8th grader decided that pennsauken was their best choice, we would have to pay for it. To argue against fixing our high school situation because you don't want to pay for the 50% that choose to go somewhere else is moot.
[Chris: To argue against fixing our high school situation because you don't want to pay...]
Maybe that is your argument, not others'.
Many others have tried to change the high school relationship ... the school board over years, groups, individuals. Supporters and critics alike. The petitioners are just the most recent.
The truth is exactly what commenters on this blog have repeated time and again, folks coming into this town know the school situation when they come. The real estate prices tell them. They make their plans for the day they need schooling if they are smart.
What disappoints me is Merchantville not succeeding with the educational program it does control. It is those eight years that make the greatest difference.
KT
Totaly agree with you on not improving the education we do have control of.
The argument of "well you knew what you were doing when you moved here" is crap. You can't condemn new residents (or old residents) for wanting better for their community. Every resident gets a vote, period, regardless if you have been here 6 months or 60 years. And the sad state of affairs right now is that for years (30 years) we have been trying to get the high school situation resolved and its gotten to the point that its easier to dissolve the town then to get out of the ridiuclous send/receive relationship. And unfortunately for those in town who wish to do nothing but watch property values continue to slide, they are outnumbered by those who want better. If this merger does go through, they can blame themselves for letting their serives to the community get so horrific that it took the action of disolving the community to correct it.
So we're going to dissolve the town just because of a failing school. What about the police? They are the best. One time my neighbor reported something suspicious and an officer staked out the house most of the night night. Another neighbor of mine had a question and the chief of police himself came to visit. He stayed for coffee. This is the type of personal touch we would lose. Most of my friends don't have kids at home anymore.
Chris: Every resident gets a vote, period, regardless if you have been here 6 months or 60 years.
Yes, that is right and do not be surprised at the tally.
Let me suggest that we all should work on our school, work on a better send/receive partner, and cut ecpenses all around. Inch by inch it will get us where we want to be.
Young teachers sometimes ask their administrators how to become a superintendent. The best advice is, no matter your position, TO THINK LIKE A SUPERINTENDENT in your everyday work if your want to become one.
I think that we would be in for far higher taxes even with cutting expenses.
I remember this discussion when the municipal budget was discussed. Even very deep cuts amounted to little tax relief.
I ask you all, are you comfortable paying over $10,000 in taxes per year on house with a market value of $250,000? Because even with big cuts at the municipal level, when the surplus runs out, that's where we will be. The taxes on my house (valued in 2009 at $270,000) are already at $8000.
TCE won't save us--it's already too little too late.
Realist,
what would your taxes be in Cherry Hill, and your assessed value? Are we that far out of line with other NJ communities?
Where did all this talk of doom and gloom come from it reminds me of Al Gore and his Global Warming rhetoric. All towns are struggling, Our town is alive and well.
Realist: The taxes on my house (valued in 2009 at $270,000) are already at $8000.
How can that be? Mine is valued at $180,000 and I pay $10,000+
Gail put up the County tax increase somewhere recently if I remember correctly. Up 4+ percent, right? A little less than Merchantville's tax increase?
Well, this month's SNJ Business People reported the Burlington County budget. Burl lost $750 million in ratables. Yet, their budget came in $9 million UNDER its spending cap. The county will spend LESS MONEY PER CITIZEN than any other county in the state. Unemployment is 9.4% which is below the national average, isn't it?
The Governor's Office says State spending is down 9 percent.
I spent a couple of minutes looking for a slogan which might apply to us, borough and county, in lowering our taxes as our neighbors on the other side of Pennsauken Creek. Can't think of any. Keep coming up with the old song, "Only The Lonely" (dum dum dum dumbie do bye.
Notice, I did not mention Riverton's flat budget for 3 years. Don't want to get lavardera fluttering again.
On the home value comparisons, I believe one blogger ($270,000) is using a current market appraised value and the other ($180,000) is using assessed value. An $8,000 tax (ouch!) seems about right for a home assessed at $180,000.
If we can get it, a merger is the way to go. A merger wuth CH is what will be best for Merchantville in the long run.
JAMR
I've answered this question before and also in the merchantvillenj Facebook page.
CH assesses at only 48% of market and Merchantville assesses at 54% of market. So assuming a recent valuation, Realist would pay about $600 less in taxes in a similarly valued house in Cherry Hill.
A good place to look at when we need to cut expenses:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244369/cops-and-robbers-daniel-foster?page=1
Alice, I may be dense but still confused, would the value of my house go up in Cherry Hill as people are asserting? Therefore my taxes would increase? Also what about the Fire District tax, anyone have any idea on that cost?
Are we not long overdue for a reval? How about Cherry Hill's last reval. Certainly we can get a decent answer to these questions without a feasability study.
JAMR - let me try to explain the assessed value and the equalization percentages to which Alice refers.
Theoretically New Jersey assesses at 100% of market at the time when a re-appraisal is done. My recollection is that an assessment is to be re-done every 10 years but there are exceptions to that rule so that re-appraisals can be done sooner or later. I believe it is more than 10 years since Merchantville was re-appraised. I do not know about Cherry Hill.
For each property sold, the Department of Community Affairs in Trenton keeps meticulous records regarding the selling price and the appraised value for tax purposes (that is, from the last re-appraisal) at the time of sale. It summarizes all of this sales data and establishes a percentage for each community.
As an example let's say that since the last time Merchantville had a re-appraisal, the selling price of all of the real estate sold was $18.5 million; at the time of sale the total appraised value for tax purposes of all of the sold properties totaled $10 million. That would be mean that M's appraised values for tax purposes are 54% of their market values (10/18.5 = 54%).
In normal times, the principal place this percentage is used is in determination of the county tax rate for each community in a county. If they did not do this, communities which have recently had a re-appraisal would get an unfair higher tax. This is called an "equalization" calculation.
In a merger I think the way it would work is that if a tax levy is to be made based on the existing tax assesed value of each each merged community, a calculation similar to the equalization calculation would be made. For purposes of discussion let's say that the tax appraised values of CH are $4.9 billion and M is $100 million for a total value of $5.0 billion.
If the existing tax appraised values were used, current CH properties would pay 98% of the levy (4.9/5.0 = 98%) and M would pay 2%. Using Alice's equalization percentages (54% for M and 48% for CH), the $4.9 of CH values becomes $10.2 billion (4.9/.48 = 10.2); the $100 million of M values becomes $185.2 million. The total becomes $10.4 billion. The tax levy would be shared 98.1% (10.2/10.4) to CH and 1.9% to M. There is not much of a difference because the equalization percentages are so close to each other. If existing vaues are used, there would have to be different tax rates used on the initial CH and M tax bills based on the existing tax appraised values to be fair. (In county taxes, the various communities in a county have different rates to achieve this same fairness.)
A reasonable part of a merger plan would be to initially use equalization calculations and then have a joint re-evaluation which would bring all property to 100% of market.
What I believe you are talking about in your question is the expected increase in M market values should there be a merger. If the increase in M market values happens, it will eventually get into the statistics in Trenton as properties are sold but initially it would not affect your tax appraised value.
Let's say you have a M house currently assessed at $150,000 and in the current market you could sell it for $275,000. Assuming the M tax rate is $5 per $100 of aseessed value, your current annual tax is $7,500. After merger, your house market value becomes $350,000. Initially your annual tax would stay the same but in due course it would increase through equalization or re-appraisal. The real estate tax is based on the value of a property; if the value of the property goes up, the tax on it, in all fairness, should go up. If it does not increae in value, the tax does not go up.
This is certainly a boring post.
There will be no study. Merchantville remains- Love it or leave it! Good try.
You should all now focus on the send/receive. Haddon Township has been calling. They really want Merchantville kids in their High School. Let's focus on this and we'll all walk away winners. Get to it!
Anon --Did you mean to say Haddon Heights instead of Haddon Township?
Once you get the name right, what do you know about the status of negotiations -- or are you just blabbering?
He is just blabbering. its about the 10th time he said "there will be no study" as if he is some position of power to make that decision.
how about this:
There WILL be a study. It will be favorable for all and we WILL merge. DEAL with it anon.
Cruiser,
Not boring at all. I hope everyone took the point that increases in market value will only indirectly effect your taxes through the equalization rate until there is a revaluation. As things stand in 2009, a Merch house would pay lower taxes than the same assessed value in CH even applying the higher CH tax rate, because of the effect of the equalization rate.
In the past year, according to Zillow, Merch properties decreased 4.7% and CH decreased 1.2%. This may or may not match the county records, but if it does, then the gap widens.
I would add one other factor to taxes:
The assessed value is the value to which the tax rate is applied. The tax rate is determined by the budget.
So, if it were less expensive to run Merchantville and Cherry Hill combined than it was to run Merchantville and Cherry Hill separately, the tax rate would reflect the savings. How that savings impacted each former municipality would depend upon the equalization rate or a revaluation, as cruiser explained it.
The complexity of the factors is why the Study is needed before any merger is decided upon. The Study is required to specifically show the fiscal impact of merger.
yeah alice, unless you have been here since you were born and maintained residence in merchantville for at least 65 years, you don't get to have an opinion.
Can we please just stop with this "you haven't lived here long enough nonsense", its ridiculous.
The petitioning has begun! A friend of mine was visited by a petitioner last night- On the East side of town! It looks like this is well under way.
The mayor's letter arrived yesterday. I thought it was well written, even to responding to the rumors. In politics and law a complaint not answered is judged to be true.
As to progress towards a consolidation study, the timetable showed good speed in the preliminary work. Of course anyone proposing a merger would want immediacy but, then, isn't that what causes mistakes in petitions, communications and rumors?
I have come around to wanting Council to approve a resolution for a consolidation study but with that I would like Council to endorse a five-year budget projection providing basic municipal services while holding taxes nearly flat.
Having both a merger initiative and a five-year budget plan would give voters a real choice in the voting booth come November.
except the budget plan would in no way address the situation for our high school, so its not really a choice between the two.
Why is there a petition going around Cherry Hill, if it's pretty darn clear that council will pass a resolution? This crowd loves to petition. They should go on a hunger strike next.
By petitioning in Cherry Hill the group accomplishes two things: (1) they may get the required # of signatures and so the Study can proceed without the Council and (2) the petition drive puts pressure on the Council to pass a resolution so that Council keeps a small measure of control over the process.
I think they have made a good decision to continue the petition drive (if there really is such an effort) if they want to have the Study go forward.
The next boro Council meeting is August 30.
and is the creation of a commission on the agenda for that meeting?
My parents live in Ramsgate. They didn't see petitioners themselves, but a couple of their neighbors signed it. The group has a copy of the application with them.
Correction to Alice's statement about the Council meeting.
August 30th is "an advertised but not scheduled Council meeting".
The next "regularly scheduled" Council meeting is set for September 13th.
The Mayor could hold a special Council meeting on Aug. 30th without having to put a legal notice in the newspaper.
Cruise, Thanks for taking the time. Does anyone have a figure on the fire district tax? that would be in addition to the other taxes with seperate elected commissioners? Does Chery Hill have a seperate Sewerage authority bill?
The fire district tax is part of the CH property tax bill and represents about 7% of the total tax rate.
It's included in the rate that everyone is quoting. It's not separately billed.
JAMR,
yes, they do have a separate sewer bill, its similar to ours though. and of course, ccmua.
Some of Cherry Hill's water comes from the Delaware. Will we have to drink that too?
actually, no. Our water system would remain the same as it is a closed system.
KT:
We drink water from the Delaware now. Our water company buys a great deal of water from the American water company. The well is not enough...
As I remember the annual report, 2 percent of our water usage is from New Jersey American's inlet pipe in Cinnaminson.
I was just playing with the thought.
When I was a kid on Springdale Road in Delaware Twp. the water level tended to drop below 23 feet in our shallow well in droughts so in midsummer it was common to see the sign hanging from the toilet handle reading "3 Pees To A Flush".
The deep water table in the Cherry Hill/ Mt. Laurel area has been dropping about a foot a year for the past 60 years. One might shrug his shoulders claiming "that's the price of progress" but town along the Delaware including Merchantville should be concerned about that void which is being filled by Delaware River seepage.
In early mornings I see runoff into our streets from lawn sprinklers in Clifton Commons, homes along Chestnut and down many other streets. That is 7,000 year old pristine water being wasted.
Maybe while we still have a local government and pure well water someone should suggest an ordinance prohibiting irrigation runoff. There are laws against leaves for criminee sake, why not one for water?
There are petitioners in Oak Knoll today. My cousin signed. They claim nearly one thousand signatures. Unbelievable.
They are looking to keep the Merchanville School operating...as the Alternative High School and possible an Alternative Middle School.
The other thought is to make it a police substation for Camden. It will house prisoners as well.
Anon 5:31 is a clown.
Hinchman School was knocked down and sold to an insurance company(?).
Coles School was sold to a private special-education school.
Erlton School was razed for a park.
Sharp School is a health care facility.
Stafford was sold to a private special-education school.
Ashland School ?
Olde School,
The County Superintendent's report will very likely address the issue of what's to be done with the MES as part of the merger Study.
Until then, speculation is useless.
Alice,
the County supt. can recommend but the Cherry Hill School Board will have final say, and you can bet that MES will go Bye bye
You have no way of knowing that. It reads like a scare tactic.
After the Study, we'll know what's recommended and can proceed from that point.
I think the community has to steel itself as to the prospect that MES could close as a result of a merger. I basically think it would be a bad thing if MES closed but if its closing brought about a vastly improved high school situation plus all of the other benefits of the merger, then it would be worth it.
I believe the study will simply advise that the M School District properties will fall under the jurisidction of the elected CH school board. M voters would participate in the election of CH board members. I would not systematically write off MES as the location for a school. The CH board will need a facility in the area. It could end up being MES.
In terms of a history lesson, I recall a time, probably about 20 years ago, when M wanted to buid a new school on land near the water tower owned by the Borough. It got on the ballot but was defeated.
We have no way of knowing at this time what the Superintendent will recommend. We don't know right now what would be best to do for the school if a merger does take place. At this point we can't see what the options are because nothing is being proposed.
We have both an elementary school and a middle school in one building. That may change or it may not.
There's certainly no inevitability about a closure.
If in the future a school closing or some other action with respect to the school is proposed that would be the time to deal with it.
If in the future a school closing ... is proposed that would be the time to deal with it.
Great strategy! Buy a gun and load it. Allow someone fifty times your size to grab and aim it at you. Then decide how to deal with the situation.
Any other transcendental thoughts?
There is no proposal for the school.
Your fears and hysteria (and attempts to incite it) are not the basis for any rational plan.
Read the Study and then decide whether further action is needed.
Alice, you sound like a nice person but I think you don't quite get what is going on here.
You think that public policy is based upon reasonable people looking at the facts and debating the best course of action.
Maybe that's how it worked in the debate club, but that's not how Merch is going to decide upon consolidation.
No Alice. Here's how it works: people will make up their minds based upon whatever narrative they have internalized. The best narrative will be a simple one with good guys v bad guys and the good guys win. It doesn't matter whether consolidation is or is not itself good. It doesn't matter what the Study says. It matters who wins the narrative battle.
So far, the opposition has several narratives it is floating and here they are:
1. CH has high crime and not enough police. If we merge then criminal gangs from Camden will cross the border and kill us all. The only thing saving us now is a Merchantville Police Force and no other police can save us;
2. CH looks different and if we merge we will look like CH and lose all our uniqueness. We will stop being friendly, all caring Mayberry and become a strip mall with people who are all alienated from each other and don't have town birthday parties.
3. The School will be taken away and there is nothing at all we can do to stop it. Our children will be bused who-knows-where to schools far,far away. Parents will weep and tell themselves they remember when we were once a free and independent people.
4. Everything will get too expensive and all the oldtimers (the Real Merchantville) will be forced out by arugula eating, latte sipping know-it-all newcomers.
5 And the petitioners are all no good sneaks who do things behind our backs and in secret.
Now, given those stories how can "Let's see what the Study says" possibly convince the majority? By the time you have a Study and it shows whatever it shows, you will have people looking at it through the lens of these narratives and the merger will lose. Even when you know what they are doing you can't stop it. How many people already believe these stories?
PoliPhi - I don't disagree with your comments and could probably add a few more to the items you listed. Nonetheless, I believe if the matter gets put to a vote, Merchantville voters will approve it in a flash.
"PoliPhi Junkie" : While you certainly are witty, I think to be fair, both sides have presented their narratives that are extreme. And I would wager that the Opposition, as you put it, feels the same way as you do. That the train has left the station and people already believe that we are in the toilet and the ONLY option, absolutely the ONLY option is to merge. That the sky is falling and the sun soon won't shine if we don't do something now.
I think the discussion would best be served if both "sides" admit that there is no way to be sure. That to say that the town won't change and we won't even notice is just as unlikely as to say that we will be sucked up by Cherry Hill, turned into a strip mall, have no police, etc. There will be many variables that we will know from a study, but just as many that we won't. That kind of honesty would be refreshing from everyone.
Wondering - I don't disagree with you either except that in a Cherry Hill merger situation the high school situation will improve. There is no doubt about that outcome.
Cruiser - that is true. But you can't ask residents to look at that one piece in a vacuum without looking at all the potential baggage that comes with it (and I mean good or bad baggage - before someone jumps on me)
I think cruiser has hit the nail on the head: we have exhausted every high school option. Municipal consolidation is the only way out of PHS.
And ultimately, that alone should carry the vote.
Everything else is just minor differences: the taxes, the police, the fire, the planning board. None of that will be substantially different with a different administration. Taxes always go up, just like ugly buildings will and the police are not going to abandon us. Old people move out, new people move in. We can have Little League and Birthday Parties and Memorial day parades.
So, the Study will tell us what those minor differences are and the "merger plan" will tell us what jobs stay and what goes, but they really aren't nearly as big as the one big difference: the high school.
So I've come round to cruiser's way of thinking. If you want a different HS, this is your only chance. Don't blow it.
Ahhh, the old "both sides do it" as if the volume and quality of trashy narratives has been equal.
Check the threads, my friend, the number of posts matching my "opposition" list far exceeds the petitioner's. And the trashiness!
Compare the petitioner's weak "Mayor North didn't return phone calls" to the opposition's "Perno is a crooked polititian acting for personal gain." And the petitioner's didn't even stick with their story whereas the opposition repeated their story in many different ways.
Compare the merch.com site calling the 2007 law "obscure" and implying that secret groups are acting to merge the town against the will of the majority. That post is still on their site. And the editorial with complete misinformation about the tax rates! It's still up on the site. Now look at the petitioner's FB page: a bunch of links to minor stories about consolidation. The merch.com site is focused on discrediting the petitioners. And the petitioners seem to be focused on, well, nothing in particular.
cruiser may be right that today the vote would be to merge, but wait till the opposition narratives take hold. "The outsiders (Perno, newcomers, criminals from Camden)are trying to kill us (the town, the "Real" Merchantville, the school)!" Once that narrative takes hold, the merger doesn't stand a chance.
PoliPhi - your analysis and prediction may be correct - only time will tell.
I would find it astounding if in the end that M would vote against anything which would get it out of the send-receive with Pennsauken. The strong desire to be out of the send-receive has gone on very long and very consistently for many years. If the M community is truly a nurturing place for children, I don't see how voters would reject the first real opportunity to substantially better the high school experience of the children. More than anything else, a vote would be about children.
Nonetheless, those with sincerely opposite points of view, along with special interests, can propogandize people to vote against their real best interests. Read the book, "What's the Matter with Kansas" for interesting insights into how people can be brainwashed into voting against thier own interests.
A merger with CH is best for the children and best for the community. Vote "YES" on it when you get the chance.
cruiser, your lament sounds a little bit like the New York liberal who said "I don't know how Nixon won--nobody I know voted for him."
But I am overstating a bit. The narrative you have stated ("Think of the children") is also very powerful in Merchantville. And the send-receive is a longstanding sore spot in town.
I don't mean to make light of the very real issues surrounding merger. But my experience with political campaigns is that the strongest narrative wins. And the strongest narrative is usually the most negative one.
[A merger with CH is best for the children and best for the community.]
I like to agree with you when I can, Cruiser, but I don't know if your conclusion to merge is the only solution let alone the BEST SOLUTION.
You make big assumptions. There are municipalities that have a poor public high school option but are successful. I have talked about Riverton as one because I am familiar with the town. There are others.
I sent my kids off to Holy Cross as my alternative to Northern Burlington Regional. Yet, as I chatted with KWADZ last year, Springfield Twp is rated near the top of the scale for home ownership and family raising. The elementary school is great.
The woman I married decades ago had been educated in a parochial high school on Washington Square in Philadelphia although she lived in Thorofare, NJ. Her parents were escaping Woodbury H.S. Thorofare was and is a good community for raising children.
However, I am not promoting private education exclusively, although I believe that education at any cost is each parent's responsibility. No, I believe there are public options right here in Merchantville.
Once we get our school board away from protecting personnel, we could create an excellent elementary/middle school program. That would add significantly to the community. You already know how I would reshape local government to make it work efficiently. So that leaves us with the high school problem ... and it is not a problem to everybody.
I happen to like the voucher idea, allowing parents to choose a public high school. If you are correct in suggesting there are laws to get around, then we should talk to our "super" county superintendent about how we might do that. Many high schools take outside students on a tuition basis, including Haddonfield, Moorestown, Cinnaminson (?) and maybe even Cherry Hill. Local school districts are required to reimburse parents for transportation to other schools. Tuition reimbursement should be a short step away legally.
Then there is the charter school alternative. Congress just beefed up that funding. I would think some dedicated parents --enlist Mr. Perno for such a project as an alternative to his selling out our town-- could get a charter high school up and running for all of those parents in the Delaware Valley who want an alternative to poor-performing high schools they want to avoid.
Selling out our town, Cruiser, is not the only way to go.
Has anyone thought about getting involved with the Pennsauken Board of Education in improving their programs?
Cruise,
Respectfully speaking, you are just dead wrong on this issue.
Alice,
No feasability study can tell us what will happen a few or more years after consolidation. Cherry Hill has mismanaged their finances year after year, this is fact not fiction. We have much more say in what happens to our town now. Consolidate and that will be gone. I am sure a feasability study will happen, and I am sure it will not change anyones mind. the study will be used by both sides to point out positives and negatives, much of which we can already figure out on our own without spending any taxpayer monies. This issue is more than just about legalities and bean counting, this is nothing more than a corporate merger, the big company swallowing the smaller. Well from my view this is more than a dollar and cents issue this is my home, my town and I love it for just the way it is!
Cherry Hill, by comparison, is a model of good responsible governance. They have been striving to make cuts in their budget in order to fill the gap left by State Aid. Earlier this year they gave the police union a choice: wage freeze or lose six positions. The unions whined and chose to have officers fired. What has Merchantville done to cut anything??
We're driving straight to the cliff like Thelma and Louise.
KTBFW and JAMR are right on all points. The cost of education is the responsibility of parents. If Pennsauken isn't good enough for you, pay for private school. Young families cost our community much more than they bring in. Why should we cater to them, we should be shoeing them along like unwanted cats.
Anon, I am curious you know so much about the police wage freeze or layoff situation. There were many cuts to employees in Cherry Hill which begs the question: Did they already have too much Fat?
You should take the time and ask a Councilman from Merchantville ways in which the Borough cut costs. I think the answer would suprise you. To my knowledge there were several, and not something new every year it appears this is done. Certainly we could cry for more cuts but I applaud most of Council for having the wisdom to maintain superior services at what I believe is an economical cost.
Reality check you just cloud the water with your sarcasm.
Anon, I am curious you know so much about the police wage freeze or layoff situation. There were many cuts to employees in Cherry Hill which begs the question: Did they already have too much Fat?
You should take the time and ask a Councilman from Merchantville ways in which the Borough cut costs. I think the answer would suprise you. To my knowledge there were several, and not something new every year it appears this is done. Certainly we could cry for more cuts but I applaud most of Council for having the wisdom to maintain superior services at what I believe is an economical cost.
Reality check you just cloud the water with your sarcasm.
Alice,
Take a moment and speak to the current School Board President and ask her what Cherry Hill School Board thinks of the MES building. Then ask a former Board President or two the same question. There answers will be more telling than any feasability study.
The Board president is not and has not ever been interested in helping Merchantville's Schools situation. She only stayed on the board for pride because she was beat in an election for president 2 years ago. Her kids are at Camden Catholic, she answers to the Republican club in town and she is quite happy with the send receive because it keeps taxes down. Her opinion on Cherry Hill is about as sincere and informed as her pursuit to find a send receive partner outside of Pennsauken.
Go to a Cherry Hill Board meeting. The MES will be the first thing to go.
MES kids will be split up among MANY (4) elementary schools.
This will happen for several years until redistricting will take place. Cherry Hill doesn't want to redistrict
Merchantville will be the red-headed step child and through in whereever there is a spot.
You all better wake up. Consolidation may be possible but it will come at a severe price.
To Anon., 6:38
In my opinion, you've made several slanderous statements about the School Board president.
Read the School Board minutes for some facts about efforts made to find a different send-receive arrangement. Track the money that's been spent on that effort over the past 3 or 4 years or more.
If you’re going to attribute motives and opinions to someone, at least have the decency to tell us who you are.
You seem to know a lot about school board politics, anonymous. You sound a lot like a disgruntled school board member. What a conniving coward you are.
Anon 7:01,
drop the line about going to a Cherry Hill Board Meeting- I've been to every one of them and none of what you say is true. You only know how to stoke fear. Find something productive to do.
Gail,
I agree with you, however I would guess that it might be a former school board member. The school board is doing everything in its power to make this happen. Any negative comments about these volunteers is certainly not based on fact but bullshit.
It is not always the happiest thing to be right.
But you see right here the negative trashy narratives I was writing about. And the majority are from the "opposition to merger" group. I see that the "outsiders will kill our school" story is very popular.
Here's why: the strongest negative narrative is one that takes one side's greatest strength and turns it into a weakness. Here, the CH High School is the strongest argument for merger. If I oppose merger, how do I combat that? What I do is to make the school merger a problem. In Merchantville, I trash the CH BOE and plant the idea that the CH BOE will treat Merchantville children like second class citizens. In CH I tell them that the Merchantville students are well below standard and will take up more than their share of time and money.
It's really pretty easy to do.
It doesn't matter how many times or how thoroughly the trashy narrative is debunked--all you need to do is plant the seed.
How do you fight a trashy narrative? You need to get some prominent well respected people on your side and they need to be LOUD in your support. They'll get trashed too, but hopefully they have enough good-will that people will ignore the trash. You may have to de-bunk the same trashy narrative hundreds of times, like it's some kind of unstoppable zombie.
Good Luck Merchantville. The garbage has only begun to fly.
PoliPhi - I sadly agree that, in general, your analysis of negativity in politics is correct. Some campaign consultant recently on televison expressed it,"If you are going to spend money on an affirmative campaign, the money would be better donated to charity."
JAMR, respectfully speaking, how am I "dead wrong" on the merger issue?
Are you saying I am wrong in the statement that M strongly dilikes the Pennsauken send-receive arrangement?
Are you saying I am wrong that M children would have a better high school experience if they went to CH high schools?
Exactly what did I get wrong?
I am glad to note you have come around to my way of thinking (9/4 5:10 PM) regarding the quality job Botrough Council is doing in controlling costs.
ktbfw (9/4 10:23 AM) This is certainly one of your lamer posts. All your alternatives do is kick the can down the road. They would take many, many years to perform and there is a high liklihood they would not be successful.
The best way for Merchantville to thrive is to merge with Cherry Hill. The high school situation, the economic mix of people, the efficiency of government and the level of taxes would all be vastly improved from what they otherwise would have been.
[Cruiser: The best way for Merchantville to thrive is to merge with Cherry Hill.]
From what you suggest, Cruiser, you do not know C.H. well. Listen to one who lived there for 20-some years and worked in the schools afterward.
Contrary to what Junkie espouses, I can trash C.H. based on long-term experience. Listen to me, YOU WILL NOT GET THE DAILY SERVICES FROM C.H. THAT MERCHANTVILLE PROVIDES. Why do you think I have been complaining to Council every year for the past seven about TOO HIGH a level of municipal services?
Again and again I have said we can cut our police force; our neighbors do not have such a force. Again and again everybody in Merchantville, including you, Cruiser, answer back that we are happy with our numbers.
Well, think logic! You will not have sixteen in your precinct. You will have none --despite what Alice says about maintaining status quo-- and the hundred and forty seven available for calls will be just that, available. No smiling faces and a nod of the head to you as you mow your lawn.
Now I should be Junkie's advocate for merger by this argument but I am not. I am just projecting the simple truth that C.H. beats us in the efficiency game by doing with less.
The other day a friend was standing in my driveway when our trash crew stopped at the curb. Three trash collectors plus a driver. The friend said to me in disbelief, "Why do you have 4 men doing the job of one?"
Cruiser, next Tuesday, take a walk down Chestnut to where Pennsauken borders us. Wait for the Waste Management truck to pass. Notice that the third largest trash collector in the United States has one man per truck. Tell me, do you think for a minute that C.H. will be sending a trash truck with 4 aboard for us?
Have you seen our crew mowing our parks to an inch and a half? Drive down to Cooper River and measure if that grass is shorter than 4 inches on any day.
You repeat yourself about C.H. efficiencies being based on economies of scale. It is not economy of scale that does it. It is economy of personnel, economy in frequency. It is economy in services provided.
If that is what you want, we can do it here, ourselves, better. But everybody has been saying, "We don't want that!"
k.t.b.f.w.
I never said we would have the status quo, or worse or better. I have all along maintained that we need to see what the Study Commission says on such matters, analyze the report for ourselves and then decide whether we like the result. I also maintain that we have voices and should speak up for what we want in a merged town. If waving police officers and short mowed grass is your desire then speak up for it.
(On the mowing, it is a bad example because the best mowing height for a healthy lawn, according to Rutgers University studies, is no less than 3 inches.)
(On the trash crew, my street extends into CH, the trash truck 25 ft away from our border appear to be exactly the same as that used in the rest of CH. I suppose 2 people could jump off before the truck rolls through the Stop sign on the way to my house, but why would they? Something to ask about as the process moves forward.)
KT,
Its not about municipal services here its all about getting our kids out of Pennsauken. It is a simple issue of people willing to give up our town to get our kids to CH West.
While this would be a positive step for our kids and our town, doing it this way by consolidation the negatives would far outway the positives. But the people behind the petition have been sold a bill of goods that the school board is doing nothing, and there is no hope except such an extreme measure as consolidating our town. Cruise that's where I think you are wrong that a whole consolidation is best for the whole town, it would be best for those families with children approaching high school age and thos efamilies contemplating selling their homes int he short run. Just my humble opinion. We see eye to eye on most things but not this one.
Re-reading your post, I see you are saying Merchantville has 4 man trucks and Waste Management has one man trucks.
I spoke just now with my neighbor on the CH side of the street, and he was extremely puzzled by my trash collection questions. It seems that the trash collection is fine by him, he never noticed how many men there were per truck. I never noticed either, but his block doesn't seem any more dirty than mine.
Does this argue for or against merger?
He hadn't heard about merger talks, but said, he thought more towns needed to merge "to save money."
It may be that on the public works side, we don't have any difference in quality after a merger. It may be we save no money with a merger. Or we do. Let's find out.
Alice,
I just wonder how much a feasability study will show, and at what cost. I am just suspect of a study. As has been said before I think many people have already made up their minds for or against a consolidation. Those circulating the petition certainly have already made their decision but won't admit it. Many on the political side will just stand by and wait to pick and choose a side for political reasons.
Its funny how anyone can be 100 percent for consolidation without having a feasability study. I understand why there are people against it, there reasons are plausible....not wanting big government, not trusting of poorly run Cherry Hill Council. Wanting to keep Merchantville Merchantville.
I don't pretend to read minds on this blog, and I highly recommend that you don't. I go by what people say and do. The petitioners have said they have concerns about Merchantville's financial future and want a Study Commission to explore merger with CH. I think you are engaging in mind reading to say otherwise.
A Study Commission is not a "feasibility study." It is a Commission of people exploring consolidation form various aspects: community, services, financial, legal.
Here is part of what the NJ League of Municipalities recommends communities consider. And I don't see how you can explore these issues fully without a Commission:
"http://njslom.org/magart_2009_05_pg60.html
What are the key social/demographic /economic interrelationships in each of the municipalities? Is there commonality? Compatibility?
Are there existing social, educational, religious groups or employment bases that currently transcend municipal boundaries?
What would make consolidation or working together difficult?
Are there unique characteristics in any of the participating municipalities that should be preserved: Community identities, historic sites, local institutions, development profiles, etc.?
Are there recognized and agreed-upon activities/functions/deficiencies that need change and improvement? If so, list them for consideration.
Are there activities/services provided in one municipality that need to be continued in that area of any new municipality?
What are the current development patterns in each municipality and what is projected for the next five years?
What special assets must be protected in the existing municipalities such as key environmental features, commercial/employment opportunities, unique cultures?"
Alice,
I am not engaging in mind reading. I communicate with people and we discuss these issues, they tell me their thoughts, I tell them my thoughts.....that's not mind reading. I think a commission to look at shared services, and or consolidation is an excellent idea and support it fully with one caveat. The commission should be made up of well respected and informed members of our community. Fair minded people with no hidden agenda, and the public should be able to attend all of these meetings. I don't need any State beauracrats to be involved.
Maybe off track here but is there going to be some type of debate involving the council candidates?
Alice,
Can you answer these questions without a commission? You should certainly be able to make a strong argument already on these issues one way or another.
ktbfw - I have not said that costs could not be cut if local government officials wanted to get chintzy on services. What I have said is that any practical cuts are not significant enough to significantly affect the tax rate. The principal problem with high tax rates in Merchantville is not enough ratables, particularly commercial ratables, per resident.
I have observed Waste management Trucks and they have more that one man per truck.
Having more men per truck can allow for quicker servicing of the routes, getting to the disposal station, etc. That may be more practical in the overall accomplishment of the M trash collection process. Why don't you be thorough in your analyses before making outlandish comments. Interview the public works supervisor about the effect of smaller crews on all of the work to be done.
Meanwhile, all of your fantasy cost cutting will not make the high school situation better.
Practically speaking - Your comment that CH is mismanaged is preposterous. CH is now and has been for many years one of the most admired and respected communities in South Jersey. People strive to live there. Its reputation speaks loudly about the quality of its management. A community does not get such a sterling reputation unless it is well managed.
On your list of those who generally oppose merger, be sure to include the special interests - the employees, contractors and professionals associated with the borough. Their opposition is normal and not dishonorable so long as they disclose their special interest status in making comments about the merger. I can sympathize with their plight but just like in the business world, you follow the fortunes of your employer. The merger plan should include provision for fair treatment.
Anonymous 9/5 3:02 PM - I doubt that either political party will say much about the merger possibility. They will prefer to not take sides in public. There will be a lot of rhetoric about just waiting for the study to be completed.
Regardless of the merger issue, I doubt there will be any debates associated with the election. There have not been debates for many years.
Anonymouses-- if you pick a handle I can tell if I am speaking to one person or different people. I will assume you are the same person for answering you.
The statutes provide a legal process for answering those questions and more. I hope you looked at the link and saw the breadth of the questions the NJLOM recommends. There are many in depth financial and legal issues in addition to community ones.
How would you answer them without public hearings? The point is to get community input from both municipalities. How would you get at the financial information needed without a legal process for doing so?
The Study Commission method seems to me to be the most transparent of the various statutory routes to consolidation. By law, a Study Commission is subject to the Open Public Meetings/Public Records Act. I don't know what other method you could suggest that would be so open.
Do you know how the Study Commission members are selected? By your statement it seems not. The only NJ State member of the Study Commission is a non-voting DCA person. The only county member is a non-voting Dept of Education person. All the rest are selected in the way the applicants suggest and only after a series of public hearings on the matter. If you have specific ideas on how Study Commission members should be selected, go to the hearings.
Yes, I can see the Study Commission becoming horribly political. But, like democracy, it's the worst system--except for all the rest.
This is why I said you are engaging in mind reading:
"...I think many people have already made up their minds for or against a consolidation. Those circulating the petition certainly have already made their decision but won't admit it."
Since they "won't admit it", how do you know they have made up their minds?
OK Alice I understand your point. Cruise Cherry Hill is in worse financial shape than we are according to their budget.
Merchantville is in much worse shape than Cherry Hill financially. Merchantville govt. does a great job of masking the truth. You'll all learn the truth in short time...
Cherry Hill has scale and transparency at least.
Alice said: Yes, I can see the Study Commission becoming horribly political.
It is good that you can visualize reality in this event. I recall when the near-defunct Republican Club was being reorganized by a few "newer" residents at the time of the AST redevelopment arguments. The "new" group called for a meeting to reorganize the Club and generously invited the "old" membership to attend. Elections for new officers were held and the new members bowed in respect, allowing one, no, two of the old guard to take office. Nominations were invited for party candidates to run for borough council. The club officers held a private caucus in the kitchen with old guard leaders and in the ensuing club election the old guard candidates prevailed -- taking back the reins of the club.
As you describe above, Alice, I foresee appointees to the study commission pretty much following the interests of those appointing them ... irrespective of the professional study results, although that will have a bent in itself that reflects the minds of those who authorize it.
Sounds cynical, doesn't it?
"Reigns" is exactly right. If council is ever forced to appoint a committee you can bet that their cronies will see to it that this thing dies in study...
They'll all go down with the ship and as the deck is taking on water and all of the life boats have left, one group will be making optimistic statements about brew pubs and send/receive- the other will be shouting "you never should have bought that bank".
Anon- if the Merchantville ship goes down as you predict, they will all be saying,"we should have merged with Cherry Hill when we had the chance." The alternative to a current merger with Cherry Hill is a later merger with Pennsauken.
Post a Comment