Kevin Riordan: In Cherry Hill's west, Merchantville merger welcome
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Recent Comments
Merchantville Blog 2.0
- Mville Citizen
- Merchantville, NJ, United States
- Please send suggestions
for topics to mvillecitizen@yahoo.com.
30 comments:
I have friends all over Cherry Hill and they all think this is a great idea. And they've heard no objections from their neighbors. Some in Cherry Hill are excited by the prospect of a place to hold parades. I never thought of that.
Greater attendance at various public events and Rec. Commission programs would all be welcome. Our business district and merchants would gain a new audience as well.
Exactly what is the benefit to Merchantville as a whole for this to happen? I mean, I live on Glenwood, so I know the upside for me.
And where exactly would you propose a parade?
St. Peter's Parish includes parts of Cherry Hill.
Merchantville.com is running an editorial against merging with C.H. titled "The 92nd neighborhood". The editor challenges a proponent of merging who claims Merchantville would keep its identity as have Erlton, Barclay Farms .... The editor rebuts saying the areas mentioned were residential subdivisions (developments), not former towns, and that such a comparison is "apples to oranges". She also says, oranges to oranges, that Ellisburg and Colestown would be proper comparisons to Merchantville and that both have vanished. She is correct about the towns vanishing but I think she is wrong in speculating that those towns were ABSORBED by Cherry Hill. More importantly, her conclusion that Merchantville would also cease to exist in the same way is illogical.
My history of Cherry Hill, part of which I borrow from the Cherry Hill Township website (the history shown in italics) and another part from my own experience, is that those two agricultural hamlets were engulfed by development, not by governmental takeover.
In 1695, the English formed the community of Waterford Township, one of the original townships of old Gloucester County. On March 13, 1844, residents held a town meeting and incorporated the Township under a new name- Delaware Township- which then became part of the newly organized Camden County.
Ellisburg once served as the social and governmental hub of the former Delaware Township. The prominent Ellis family settled the area.
As a kid I remember Ellisburg ... or what was left of it. The Ellisburg Circle and its gas stations and diner demolished the center of the hamlet. An old auto garage remained and the brick town hall and some houses all in woods down Kings Highway to the Cooper Creek and up Kings Highway to De Cou's nursery still stood in the 1950s. We had scout troop meetings and 8th grade dances as well as the township meetings in that building. But the town was long gone before C.H. arose.
Colestown was a small village founded in the late 1600s on the south branch of the Pennsauken Creek near the present-day intersection of King's Highway and Church Road. It was named after Samuel Coles, who purchased 1,000 acres there in 1685.
The village, which contained two stores, a blacksmith shop, several dwellings, a church and a cemetery, grew with the popularity of the Fountain Hotels resort in the 1800s. Its main attraction was a mineral spring thought to have medicinal value. The owner reportedly had the water tested, and a record of the analysis was cut into a marble slab, set up beside the spring.
The Colestown Cemetery, where the earlier burial was recorded in 1746, is the only remnant of this long-vanished hamlet.
Old time residents of Merchantville may remember home delivery of "Gaskill's Dairy" milk in the 1930s from the family farm diagonally across from the Colestown Cemetery. The mansard-roofed Victorian farmhouse stood at the corner until a residential development took down it, the barns and 2 tenants' houses.
The Colestown mineral spring STILL EXISTS farther down the hill along Kings Highway towards the Moorestown Circle (oops!) and there is a sign that marks it for visitors. But Colestown vanished with its hotel and the prominence of its spring and, ever so important but never mentioned, the abandonment of the old colonial stage coach road that passed the hotel on its path from Camden to Fellowship. Colestown died long before Cherry Hill arose.
In other neighborhoods like Hinchman, Locustwood, Erlton, Barlow, East Merchantville, Still Park and Wilbur, similar expansion continued throughout the 1900s. ...During these years, most residents adopted mailing addresses in nearby, more developed towns.
Erlton had its own post office and Springdale used the Marlton post office. Delaware Township did not have a post office that I remember before being renamed to Cherry Hill.
Unlike Ellisburg and Colestown, Merchantville is fully developed and viable, complete with post office, before becoming a part of Cherry Hill ... should that be in the tea leaves or spring waters.
Guys - go to a cherry hill council meeting or cherry Hill school board meeting. Most cherry hill residents that attend this meeting are against this merger.
Its simply preposterous to assume that small towns that combined to become Cherry Hill 100 years ago are some precursor to Merchantville loosing its identity. Its up to the people that live here to define our identity.
Its more interesting that the Brennans continue to lurk in the shadows, no by-lines, not standing up in public and saying they are against a merger. They continue to misdirect and prey on peoples emotions, and not the facts. We want a study. We want to talk about the real facts about merging. Not scare tactics about loosing our identity.
I am tired of Lavardera repeatedly attacking "the Brennans" because they support an independent Merchantville and have expressed their viewpoint publicly. So, even though I live on the opposite side of the political fence from those folks, I defend them personally and their right to speak out.
The Brennans have lived in Merchantville for GENERATIONS. They are smart and articulate, something I cannot say about our merger friend on this blog. The Brennans have taken a strong interest in preserving our town not for weeks when fashionable but for decades. Patrick was mayor for 18 years I think. Much of the adornments you see around town -- the iron lampposts and banners hanging from them, the railroad park and walking path, the Morrissey vest pocket park -- were built during his tenure.
By comparison I have seen nothing from our friend with the pigeon coop on his roof but his complaints and personal attacks. He refuses even to answer the incorrect points of those who want to preserve this town ... if he could.
Enough of the negative -- go positive or go away. Your big town is calling you!
Brennan want to retain an independent Merchantville simply because if Merchantville dissolves, so does his behind-the-scenes power in town. Nothing else.
Enough Said:
I AGREE!
The Brennan's publically support a study looking at connecting with Cherry Hill. Privately they seem to be opposing it rather strongly. What frustrates people is their unwillingness to publically take a stand. The accusations against Pat and friends have been that they do their business behind closed doors with friends. This seems to be the case here as well. They deserve to be called out.
Bingo
First of all my statements above were not attacks. Calling them out to speak their position in public, rather than attempt to manipulate in the background is just. They are being duplicitous.
Second, parading opinions on Merchantville.com without a by-line, and without disclosing that it is no longer the official township web site is misleading. Sure, if you dig into the About page you can figure it out. But this served as the town web site for so long it needs to be stated up front.
So far they have made weak arguments that:
- That the school system could be saved via creating a Charter School System
- That Cherry Hill is full of troubles
- That Merchantville's identity will mysteriously dissolve.
Perhaps they can take some of your advice to stop going negative.
Merchantville's downtown area would be perfect for destruction and new construction as leases lapse. There are some big box stores that could be perfect for the area as well.
part of the deal would be that zoning would need to change. Cherry Hill would control those changes.
What you are suggesting is patently ridiculous. The private owners of all the commercial property in our downtown would have to cooperate to sell all the property to a developer who would build a Big Box store? There is'nt even enough space to park for a modestly sized big box store.
The only way the wholesale demolition of our downtown could happen would be a condemnation and redevelopment process. There is no way that this commercial district could be condemned for redevelopment. You would have to have 90% of the store fronts empty, the buildings all in disrepair.
This is just a ridiculous suggestion with the hope that it will scare some people into opposing a merger.
I hope the readers here see the manipulations of these various Anonymous commenters. None of them are willing to say who they are. I would not trust anything they have to say.
lavadera - anything is possible in a deal.
unless you are in the minds of council and school board members, you really have no clue what the thoughts are.
right, because when Bernie Platt was meeting with the Mayor regarding a merger, all he could think about was "man, we could totally fit a home depot right next McFarlans and there is ample parking"
I agree Lavardera on this one, you are ridiculous Anonymous.
Interesting article in today's Inky about the virtues of local versus regional government units:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/100009314.html
Local units have their merits as this article eloquently points out but in Merchantville's case I still feel that the benefits of a CH merger outweigh the drawbacks.
You people turn my stomach - on both sides!
I think he was thinking Lowes not Home Depot.
The movement in favor of the consolidation of the city and districts had been agitated. A committee appointed by town meeting drafted a bill to be laid before the Legislature, fixing the details of the measure, was adopted by the General Assembly on February 2,1854.
The bill provided that the city of Philadelphia, as limited by the charter of 1789, should be enlarged by taking in all the territory comprised within the county of Philadelphia. The incorporated districts were abolished. Southwark, Northern, Liberties, Kensington, Spring Garden, Moyamensing, Penn, Richmond, West Philadelphia, and Belmont ceased to have corporate existence. The borough of Frankford, Germantown, Manayunk, Whitehall, Bridesburg and Aramingo were deprived of their franchises. The townships of Passyunk, Blockley, Kingsessing, Roxborough, Germantown, Bristol, Oxford, Lower Dublin, Moreland, Northern Liberties (unincorporated), Byberry, Delaware, and Penn were abolished, and all the franchises and property of these governments transferred to the city of Philadelphia.
The passage of the bill was the cause of great rejoicing. The Governor and Legislature and the chief officers of the State were invited to participate in ceremonies arranged by a committee. The Board of Trade engaged the Robert F. Stockton for a ride on the river on March 11, 1854, with a banquet on board. In the evening the Consolidation Ball was held in the Museum building. The next day, March 12, 1854, a banquet was given the city's guests at Sansom Hall.
The question is, What do they think today about that consolidation?
I would guess, well, you take a ride through some of those once-nice municipalities and guess for yourself if they would like a second chance at home rule.
Interesting article, Cruiser. Thanks for posting the link.
I saw the opposite when living in Burlington County. Wealthy developers with slick lawyers came to small, rural municipalities along Rte 206, entered sales agreements with local farmers, and presented sophisticated development plans to the local zoning committee for approval. The locals denied the applications; the developers went to court; the locals had no zoning safeguards in place or legal arguments; the courts ruled in favor of the developers.
That's not the end of the story. Non-farm people move into the developments; push out the locals; and pass ordinances against the smells, dirt and agricultural pollution of the farmers ... putting them out of business.
Who needs a study/2nd chance - You really need to ask your question in the context of the extreme prosperity the communities within Philadelphia enjoyed for the 100 years or so after 1854. At that time, the big cities were in their heyday and being a part of them was an ultimate place to be in society. All of the communities you name were far better off becoming part of Philadelphia in 1854 and for many, many years thereafter. The best point to be taken away from your history lesson is that times change. The automobile came along and more than anything else diminished the cities as places to live and to work.
I will get sophomoric and quote the Declaration of Independence, "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."
Whether is is separating from England and becoming independent or giving up independence and becoming part of Cherry Hill, the driving force is that it has "become necessary" due to the facts and circumstances of the times. What made the separate existence of Merchantville a beneficial circumstance in 1874, no longer exist today. Times change. It is time to change with the times. Merchantville alone, even with planned developments and a bit of luck, does not have the ratables per resident to provide quality services for the indefinite future. Some may think it does because it is getting the "bargain" of paying for less than its normal complement of high school students due to the perceived low quality of the high school. It needs to merge with a community which does have the ratables and the highest quality educational services.
[Cruiser: Merchantville alone ... does not have the ratables per resident to provide quality services for the indefinite future.]
Cruiser, I accept the face of your arguments on the annexation by Philadelphia of its county municipalities being beneficial to them.
But I am having difficulty accommodating to your thesis that Merchantville's absorption would continue services otherwise not affordable.
It is my understanding that in the first Cherry Hill/ Merchantville meeting our mayor offered to swap kids with Cherry Hill, they taking our junior high and high school students in exchange for our taking their elementary students in our area into our school. C.H. said "no" flatly.
From that alone I conclude that C.H. is not interested in a quid pro quo (a more-or-less equal exchange or substitution of goods or services).
One has to ask what Cherry Hill wants in only wanting to talk about a complete town merger. It seems plausible that C.H. sees great advantage in gaining our ratables thinking it can service our area without adding personnel to its budget. That would be cash in the pocket for C.H. and diminished services for Merchantville "into the indefinite future" as you say.
anonymous 8/02/10 9:07 pm: I have friends all over Cherry Hill and they all think this is a great idea ... a place to hold parades
Cherry Hill friends see a NEW RAINBOW curving down to the streets of Merchantville ... giving 4+ million reasons for parades. They see in their sky our POT OF GOLD which allows them to not cut their maintenance or police budgets.
Our tax revenue would be four times higher than their cuts in State funding. Lots of parades!
Those friends can't wait to vote for merger.
I'm not surprised CH refused an offer of our taking in their elementary students.
ktbfw you have detailed many suggestions for improving our school and have no illusions about the quality.
A "quid pro quo" is an equal exchange, and that offer was not an equal exchange.
Furthermore, I doubt our mayor had any legal authority to discuss school mergers in the absence of a complete merger of the towns based upon my reading of the school consolidation info put out by the state.
Based upon the equalization rates as required by the consolidation statute, if there is no revaluation, then the tax revenue would be smaller than that currently paid to Merchantville. Under the statutory scheme, as I showed before, Merchantville would pay lower taxes just by being in CH if costs remain the same or lower.
The CH mayor has already stated publicly that additional revenue at low cost is what draws him to the consider merger.
From the Cherry Hill Sun:
"In a letter to Cherry Hill residents, Mayor Bernie Platt said the merger could possibly stabilize the township’s tax base, raise overall property values and increase the effectiveness of municipal services. The township will have to investigate the possible costs associated with extending services to the citizens of Merchantville."
Read more: http://cherryhill.elauwitmedia.com/2010/08/16/merger-study-to-move-ahead/#ixzz0x5FvCvLB
http://www.cherryhillsun.com
[Alice: I'm not surprised CH refused an offer of our taking in their elementary students ...
"quid pro quo" is an equal exchange, and that offer was not an equal exchange.]
Your other points were good, Alice, but I beg to differ on your suggestion that the proposed student exchange would not be quid pro quo.
Cherry Hill's Joyce Kilmer Elementary School has a "Great Schools" rating which is the same as Merchantville's due to poor mimimum-skills test results. That is the school that would have traded students with ours.
Recently Cherry Hill approved a $5 million project to improve student performance in low-functioning schools.
Last month Merchantville School created a committee to investigate changes for improving student performance and controlling costs. The recommendations will be submitted to the Board in November. Already in the works are two differentiated-instruction programs that will be operational this coming school year.
If the improvement efforts in both Cherry Hill and Merchantville schools are successful, the only difference would be the $5 million price tag.
Joyce Kilmer is one school in the CH district. Merchantville has not initiated any new programs which would impact student performance in the next few years.
I stand by what I said and your statement makes it even more true. There is no quid pro quo in the offer of having CH take our HS students into what are already good High Schools in exchange for an under-performing elementary/middle school that is only recently even investigating ways to improve.
Post a Comment