A little over a year ago, I wrote a little manifesto. While I have personal concerns with an upcoming election and the sensitivity around a potential Merchantville - Cherry Hill merger that could increase anonymous vitriol on this site, this site will continue to allow individuals to post anonymously or under a pseudonym for the foreseeable future. It's not a perfect system - requiring a blogger to carefully moderate; but for now, the arguments (1, 2, & 3) for an individual's preference for a pseudonym or to remain anonymous outweigh the calls (1,2, & 3) to go to a confirmed identity require for commenting.
The site saw on average 1400 visits in 2009. With the talks of merger, the number of visits have more than doubled.
At some point this year, I will remove the cloak of the pseudonym Mville Citizen for personal reasons. In the meantime, I thought the below excerpt from John Adler captured my position on blogging under a pseudonym:
I also think it is important to distinguish between anonymous and pseudonymous blogging. While complete anonymity may enable someone to evade any accountability for intemperate or unwise remarks, the creation and maintenance of a pseudonym can have a disciplining effect on blogger behavior, and thus should be encouraged as an alternative to purely anonymous blogging and posting. Reputation effects and the desire to maintain readership can impose significant discipline. A pseudonym operates like a brand name, and the value of the brand is, at least in part, a function of how the pseudonymous blogger acts over time. This disciplining effect is hardly perfect, however, particularly when it comes to maintaining civility. As I believe the tone and snarkiness of many pseudonymous bloggers and commenters attests, a pseudonym can reduce a blogger’s vulnerability to personal attacks and can shield him or her from social sanctions for uncivil conduct. I believe this means that those who utilize pseudonyms should take greater responsibility for the tone and content of their own posts so their pseudonymous shield does not become a license for nastiness and snark (and I hope I was able to do this when I used a pseudonym). But I also believe that, barring exceptional circumstances (e.g. something far worse than wrong-headed criticism) other bloggers should respect the choice of others to rely upon pseudonyms.Of course one blogs under a pseudonym at their own risk. There is no guarantee pseudonymity can be maintained over time. When I blogged as ... I was well aware I could be exposed by those I debated or criticized. Indeed, I assumed it would happen long before I came clean on my own. The more I blogged in my own voice, focused on issues about which I know a fair bit about, and revealed details of my life, the more likely exposure became. In the end, my identity was probably something of an open secret among most of those who truly cared. So while I don’t know how much the threat of exposure would have influenced my own blogging on this site, the more acceptable it is to expose the identities of pseudonymous bloggers, the more potentially valuable voices the blogosphere will lose. Whatever is to be gained by chastening the intemperate pseudonymous blogger is outweighed by what is likely to be lost.
208 comments:
1 – 200 of 208 Newer› Newest»Blogger/Hypocrite,
Do not uncloak yourself.
I love you just the way you are. Everyone does. Learning who you are, where you have been, with whom you have bedded and how many warts protrude could ruin the image.
Pretend you are F.D.R. and keep the wheelchair on the train. Who knows, you could be lavardera ... and I don't want to know that.
Tell me, though, do you make up these word verification codes? Who else could think up the word obshad?
Don't reveal who you are. For all we know you are several people.
you all know who he is.. comon. he used to blog under his name.
He's running for mayor...
If you are a long time reader of the blog, you know that mville citizen has referred to having children.
Mark Brunton has no kids so he can't be the blogger.
Frank North has children but his writing is very different from this blogger's.
Is there another mayoral candidate?
Poor choice.
LaVardera -- would you mind telling us what you mean by "poor choice"?
I'm sure that wasn't a political statement since you're clearly adverse to making political statements on this blog.
So I really don't understand your comment. Thanks.
I believe the former Mville citizen spoke of having children, but not the present Mville Citizen. Remember, it was only Anonymous who said “he’s running for mayor” and I think you were deliberately led astray for reasons known only to Anon.
Councilman Brunton clearly stated at the top of the next thread that he has nothing to do with the Merchantville Blog. This is what he wrote on 8/11: “ 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 believe Mr. Brunton -- he’s not Mville Citizen.
We don’t yet know what LaVardera meant by his comment.
I really don’t think any useful purpose would be solved by trying to guess the identity of the blogmaster. It's unfortunate that this guessing game has begun.
The blog owners choice to continue to permit anonymous posting is a poor choice.
This is one of the more insightful things I've seen written about managing an online community:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_7.html#jardin
and I quote:
I grew to believe that the easier it is to post a drive-by comment, and the easier it is to remain faceless, reputation-less, and real-world-less while doing so, the greater the volume of antisocial behavior that follows. I decided that no online community could remain civil after it grew too large, and gave up on that aspect of internet life.
The blog owner can institute a policy that requires accounts, with valid emails, but enables people to remain anonymous. This would do away with the greater part of the false identity posting, the multiple persona posting, and the willfulness to be nasty to somebody because nobody can tell you are. The blog owner can provide other anonymous channels to drop messages, and keep anonymous posting under full moderation - not with full access to the blog.
Right now the blog master does not have the tools to deal with these issues, because Google Blogger simply does not offer them. If this was a different blog platform such as WordPress or TypePad it would be a different story. The blog master would be able to identify people abusing the privilege of posting, and remove them. As it stands here now the comments in this blog are rife with bad behavior that nobody would be willing to have attached to their name.
I've taken a lot of heat on this blog, but I've owned any accusation I've made. The anonymous posters have made much more outrageous claims than I have, yet most seem to have no concern. They simply slip back into the shadows, you'll never know who that was. And yet my integrity is called into question, for being willing to stand in the light. If you don't see it, shame on you for being so blind and gullible.
So the blog owner chooses to maintain this status. Its a poor choice. No valuable public discourse can take place when half the participants are wearing hoods over their faces.
[lavardera: No valuable public discourse can take place when half the participants are wearing hoods over their faces.]
My opinion is opposite. I think the commenter who writes the longest, pointless entries should put on a hood. Maybe an iron mask. A gag, even.
But that is not what I want to chat about. Here's notice that the garage is now sitting ON the trailer ready for its short trip to the backyard tomorrow. Can anyone tell me if I should announce that it is being moved to Cherry Hill?
Alice asked: “Is there another mayoral candidate?”
Lavardera replied... “Poor choice.”
Gail asked: “LaVardera — would you mind telling us what you mean by “poor choice”?”
Lavardera replied: The blog owners choice to continue to permit anonymous posting is a poor choice.
I think the heat is getting to me. You lost me, LaVardera. Was your comment: “The blog owner’s choice to continue to permit anonymous posting is a poor choice” an answer to Gail's question or was it an answer to Alice’s question?
All my comments were in response to the blog master continuing to permit unregistered anonymous comments.
Everybody clear now?
Lavadera,
I wish you would post anonymously, you might get more people to read your nonsense.
Lavardera,
maybe you should petition the blogmaster to not allow anonymous posts? Better yet only allow posts that agree with you. If the blogmaster doesn't agree with you or move quick enough maybe you could petition Cherry Hill to not allow anonymous posts on the Merchantville Blog.
I’m clear now ... can’t speak for everybody. Thanks.
It might have been better if you had just written your very understandable 4:22 PM opinion and not made the earlier two-word comment at all, since it didn't add anything to the conversation.
I looked at the edg.org site you mentioned and read Xeni Jardin’s entire article. I especially liked the "secret weapon" they finally came up with to handle the drive-by trolls. It’s the “disemvoweller.” Xeni says “If someone’s misbehaving, she can remove all the vowels from their screed with one click. The dialogue stays, but the misanthrope looks ridiculous, and the emotional sting is neutralized.”
Don't you love it?
I appreciate you taking the time to read the article Gail. The goal is eliminate the nonesense such as the anonymous posts above taking cheap personal shots. I just have to wonder - is this really the kind of conversation the blog owner want to host? Just make everybody register at least - people can use a code name if they wish, but at least we would not have strings of vitriol all posted by the same anonymous person.
[eliminate the nonesense such as the anonymous posts above taking cheap personal shots.]
You invited it with your unending complaints about anonymous. Could have talked about something meaningful or stayed playing with the pigeons in the coop.
Guess you can't answer my question. Where do I find the petition and names other than on Facebook which I do not visit?
Great! Now can Greg and Gail kiss and make up? We love them both.
I think the current blogmaster is doing a great job, as did the first blogmaster.
Even though I usually use my own name on this blog, sometimes I use “Anonymous” to say bad things about people (just kidding). Truly nasty remarks about someone are out of line, even if we know who the commenter is. That goes for LaVardera, too.
I wouldn’t like it if we had to register to make a comment -- that would stop some people from giving us their good ideas. This blog is fine, even with the Anonymous commenters, but I like the “disemvoweller” idea. It seems like fun.
I also don’t think the blogmaster needs to reveal her identity, but that would be entirely her choice.
I ran an ad to fill an apartment on Craigslist in May. I am still getting emails from vendors, porn operations, and make-a-million-dollars-in-your-home hawkers ... about one every week these days.
Nowhere is safe on the internet.
A few weeks ago I also got a telephone call from an out-of-state person asking about the apartment in Merchantville.
I asked her where she found the information and she told me that she Googled apartments in Merchantville and up came our blog to the question that someone asked about any apartments in Merchantville which I had answered at the time with various suggestions including a reference to my website, ApartmentsNearPhilly.com.
This "internets" (G. W. Bush) that Mr. Gore invented sure is fantastic ... and as dangerous as Hell.
Good warning, Alice.
NJ Monthly High School Rankings
http://tiny.cc/urrq0
Cherry Hill East is 61 of 316
Cherry Hill West is 96 of 316
Pennsauken is 290 of 316
I remember in the 1970s and '80's our deep concern over the degree of drug involvement of students in high schools in affluent districts.
Can anyone give an update?
Earlier this week Mayor North mentioned that he and the Ragan Design Group met with Pennsauken Mayor Taylor regarding the $60,000 planning study for the West End.
Pennsauken agreed to join the planning group, the mayor saying that he would like to see that intersection and area improved. It is Pennsauken's front entrance too.
Camden agreed to join the group awhile ago. It looks like the joint study can convene.
Last Tuesday our Planning Board met to consider an application for a 6-foot fence along the back of a multi-family building that meets the Wellwood Manor property. Unknown to the applicant, the proposed fence would block off an alley which does not show in the paved-over area. When the owner learned of the easement, he wanted to block it off anyway. He complained that residents (not his) throw their trash in the area rather than carrying it to the dumpsters down the walk. His 6-ft fence would solve the problem, he argued.
I am not a government-type person but I am fast concluding that Merchantville should consider installing a regional surveillance system with 24-hour cameras in high risk areas including the West End alleys and the bike path.
We have no violent crime, true, in Merchantville but a surveillance system seems to be a worthwhile investment for keeping up the quality of life we want at a time when we must seriously consider cutting our police force.
We run shifts of three officers, one of which is always in the headquarters. Having neighborhood surveillance might allow us to cut some safe shifts to two.
Think of our situation this way. If we should merge with C.H., we would just about lose all shifts.
Survelliance - good idea on the cameras.
On the prospects of policing should the meger with CH happen, your statement that "we would just about lose all shifts" may not be the correct assumption. CH has large police resources it could assign to M-ville if the need for them is apparent. CH seems to be a sufficiently safe area that it may very well have redundant police in some areas it could readily assign to M-ville.
[Cruiser: CH has large police resources it could assign to M-ville if the need for them is apparent.]
Cruiser, help me with my math. The New Jersey Department of Law and Safety reports annual county and municipal police statistics. The most recent data are for 2008.
Merchantville's statistics have been the same for years with 16 full time personnel in our police department, 14 being officers and 2 civilian employees. That comes out to about 3.5 officers per 1,000 residents.
Camden County's average is 2.7 officers per 1,000 which, if Merchantville was at that average, would be 10.8 officers working for us, not 14.
Cherry Hill's average number of officers per 1,000 residents is 2.04 per 1,000. That ratio would give us the service of 8 officers under Cherry Hill's political jurisdiction ... 6 fewer policemen than we have currently -- a force 42 percent the size of ours today.
I agree with you that C.H. could assign officers to our area if, as you say, "the need for them is apparent". Unfortunately, therein lies a big sacrifice according to what our officials and YOU have claimed for years. When I made pitches for us to cut police arguing that we could use Pennsauken as a backup when needed, you responded that we cannot cut police personnel because it would invite an increase in crime. I was suggesting that two cops be cut or even just one to balance our budgets. You tell me, what would a cut of 6 cops do to that invitation?
Yesterday I was chatting with our mayor about the proposed merger. He still believes, after years of arguing with me against police cuts, that cutting our police force would cause a creeping increase in nonviolent crime. The State Police statistics tell the mayor's story. Cherry Hill's crime rate in 2008 was 34.3 crimes per 1,000 residents. Merchantville's crime rate was 20.2. Cherry Hill is tolerating a crime rate half again higher than ours in order to control their budget.
Add to that a problem I see in this merger. Cherry Hill is a suburban community with low-density population and a small police force to handle suburban needs. Merchantville is categorized as urban/suburban. We need more eyes on site at high crime times.
Conduct a test, Cruiser. Ask around among our nearby Cherry Hill neighbors about how often they see C.H. patrol cars cruising through their neighborhood. I heard someone say "rarely" unless there is an incident.
[Cruiser: CH has large police resources it could assign to M-ville if the need for them is apparent.]
Cruiser, help me with my math. The New Jersey Department of Law and Safety reports annual county and municipal police statistics. The most recent data are for 2008.
Merchantville's statistics have been the same for years with 16 full time personnel in our police department, 14 being officers and 2 civilian employees. That comes out to about 3.5 officers per 1,000 residents.
Camden County's average is 2.7 officers per 1,000 which, if Merchantville was at that average, would be 10.8 officers working for us, not 14.
Cherry Hill's average number of officers per 1,000 residents is 2.04 per 1,000. That ratio would give us the service of 8 officers under Cherry Hill's political jurisdiction ... 6 fewer policemen than we have currently -- a force 42 percent the size of ours today.
I agree with you that C.H. could assign officers to our area if, as you say, "the need for them is apparent". Unfortunately, therein lies a big sacrifice according to what our officials and YOU have claimed for years. When I made pitches for us to cut police arguing that we could use Pennsauken as a backup when needed, you responded that we cannot cut police personnel because it would invite an increase in crime. I was suggesting that two cops be cut or even just one to balance our budgets. You tell me, what would a cut of 6 cops do to that invitation?
Yesterday I was chatting with our mayor about the proposed merger. He still believes, after years of arguing with me against police cuts, that cutting our police force would cause a creeping increase in nonviolent crime. The State Police statistics tell the mayor's story. Cherry Hill's crime rate in 2008 was 34.3 crimes per 1,000 residents. Merchantville's crime rate was 20.2. Cherry Hill is tolerating a crime rate half again higher than ours in order to control their budget.
Add to that a problem I see in this merger. Cherry Hill is a suburban community with low-density population and a small police force to handle suburban needs. Merchantville is categorized as urban/suburban. We need more eyes on site at high crime times.
Conduct a test, Cruiser. Ask around among our nearby Cherry Hill neighbors about how often they see C.H. patrol cars cruising through their neighborhood. I heard someone say "rarely" unless there is an incident.
I am sure your statistics are correct, cops per 1000, etc. but the one cop who is in the office all the time (2 patrolling, 1 at headquarters) is no longer necessary if you merge with the CH force becuase you have someone doing that job already. you can lose 33% of your workforce without losing any street patrol.
The Cherry Hill PD has the wherewithall to clean up 606. They work with the DEA. Merchantville doesn't. That being said, I know who I'd rather have a beer with. I've always been a big fan of the Merchantville police.
ktbfw - First of all, the statements you claim I have made for several years are simply not my statements. My constant refrain on the police department is that as long is there is a separate M-ville government, it should have its own police force and the elected officials should manage that force to be as efficient and effective as possible. I think the elected official have done that. If you think they have not done that, vote them out of office.
You have conveniently left out the details of CH crime. What exactly are the crimes which happen in CH and make its crime rate so high. CH has a lot of stores - could shoplifting in CH be higher than in M? those shopping areas have lots of parking lots - could car theft in CH be higher than in M? - could thefts from parked autos be higher in CH that in M?
People come in high numbers to CH from other communities. If a crime happens to them while in CH, it is a CH crime. Comparing such crimes to just CH residents makes no sense.
You have conveniently left out the total number of CH police. If my math and your 2.04 police per 1,000 residents are correct, CH's 70,000 people have about 140 police officers. They certainly have demands on them but with that large a number to work with and good management seeking to ingeneously deploy them throughout the community where they are really needed and effective, there could be opportunities to have solid policing everywhere it is needed. If a merger happened, M-ville could sometimes, as needed, have large numbers of police assigned to a specific concern. But I really am not qualified to make judgments in this regard. The study may provide insights into how police are now assigned in CH and M and how they could be assigned if a merger happened.
In the law which Alice circulated, there are significant provisions which protect existing police officers in the event if a merger. They are not a firm guaranty that all positions will exist forever but they are significant in the event of cut backs.
[Chris: one cop who is in the office all the time (2 patrolling, 1 at headquarters) is no longer necessary if you merge with the CH force ... you can lose 33% of your workforce without losing any street patrol.]
That has been my argument for the last five years, Chris. Merchantville could contract with Pennsauken for dispatch and backup. We need only one patrolman on duty. Many towns do that, especially when situated next to each other. We have the great advantage of Pennsauken surrounding us and having to drive through us on a high percentage of their own calls.
I know many of you are deaf from hearing me suggest, suggest, suggest that we could safely pare our force in a shared-tasks relationship with our immediate neighbor.
There's a really eminent possibility a C.H. merger would prove that we should have run through our own options for maintaining a flat budget. Theirs is far less attractive considering their fewer patrols per population, heavier crime rate they tolerate, and greater distance to reach our downtown when needed in a flash. They won't be changing any of those lesser standards.
Cruiser tries to mitigate the statistics by suggesting Cherry Hill's crime is different from ours? Well, sorry to spoil your tenet, but C.H. violent crime is TRIPLE ours and their nonviolent crime is 150% of ours. Those are the categories reported to the state. We must assume, Cruiser, that the state officials know what records to collect. http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/stats.html
Let me start by trying to get some basic facts out. It is my understanding that the merchantville Police do not have an officer in Headquarters 24/7. Manpower is deployed where it is needed most on the street. There is a Chief and Detective every other officer's prime responsibility is patrol.
Statistics do tell a good story but I think the basic fact is that our town has a strongly staffed police department, this allows a pro-active rather than re-active approach to policing.
Cherry Hill could certainly target areas with increased patrols, but only on a limited basis.
Surveillance cameras more often capture crimes rather than preventing them. They are in my view more reactive than pro-active, although we could probably have a healthy debate on that issue.
Real safety, and crime prevention comes from a pro-active, community oriented, knowledgable police department. It appears efficiently run and I feel I get alot of bang for my buck.
What would Merchantville's crime rate look like if our PD pursued the criminals who operate an open air drug market on the West end? I suspect that the Cherry Hill PD would shut that down and make our "crime rate" climb. Is that a bad thing. How many non-violent crimes are committed by desperate junkies looking to score a ten sack.
HUH,
where is there an open air drug market in the West area of Merchantville? I would like to see for my own eyes.
Yet another convoluted ktbfw post. The last thing M-ville should do is build more contractual bridges with Pennsauken. It will only cause the winds of merger coming from Trenton to blow in that direction.
In the belief that you can support any lie with statistics (and not refuting the stats which ktbfw has cited), try this researcher's comparison of CH and M crime risk: http://www.clrsearch.com/RSS/Demographics/NJ/Cherry_Hill/Crime_Statistics?compare=08109
The following quote is ktbfw balderdash at its highest level: "There's a really eminent possibility a C.H. merger would prove that we should have run through our own options for maintaining a flat budget. Theirs is far less attractive considering their fewer patrols per population, heavier crime rate they tolerate, and greater distance to reach our downtown when needed in a flash. They won't be changing any of those lesser standards." This is typical ktbfw persoanl-agenda-driven commentary. Any accurate anaysis would include the effectiveness of M budget money spent on high school education (to say nothing of the importance of a quality high school education experience to the community's children) and the extent of non-residential real estate in CH which pays for a lot of the costs of CH's high quailty services rather than having residences pay them.
What is this "distance to downtown" nonsense. CH is now inches away from the M downtown. It gets patroled all the time. What does "greater distrance to our downtown" as one of the lesser standards which "won't be changing." With or without a merger, the distance between the present CH and the present M will emain the same.
ktbfw shoiukd stop dragging his long term dislike of the current M-ville budget into the merger discussion.
I love the Merchantville police! They drive by my house all day and waive. The Cherry Hill police look like state troopers (no personality, all business).
There is an open drug market on Maple by the apartment buildings. I'm a social worker in Camden and Ive heard that this area is relativelly "safe" for drug dealers because the police don't pay attention.
[Cruiser: ktbfw shoiukd stop dragging his long term dislike of the current M-ville budget into the merger discussion.]
Okay, Cruiser, let's do it your way. Let the Merchantville municipal budget continue to run full bore so we can see if that will squelch the merger talk.
Even Alice seems motivated partly by having lower taxes as a Cherry Hill annexation. I'm thinking that way too. So are you.
For crying out loud, half of the petitioners' arguments are about not affording Merchantville services. The other half are about Merchantville education. For 8 years I have been suggesting ways to keep our town independent and school alive ... keeping a nice, small, affordable town to live in with well educated kids. If you don't like the ideas, okay. We'll throw away your past efforts on the Board and in town and don I Luv C.H. sweatshirts. Geez!
Do you know who these guys who want nothing changed remind me of? The man who refused to leave Mount St. Helens, saying it was his home.
Cruise,
Come on man, do you really think our taxes will significantly decrease? Do you really think our level of services will increase? The only benefit to a merger would be for our schools. This petition reminds me of the man who would cut off his head to spite his face.
Anon
what apartments are you speaking about? Have you provided this information to the PO PO? I live close to that area and don't see an 'Open Air Drug Market'. And are you kidding me I see the PO PO stop everything that moves!
JAMR,
I agree that our taxes are not going to go down, even if it were to appear it should. Government will never give the taxes back if they have them. That said, the upgraded school situation is not the only benefit. Property Values will rise for sure.
ktbfw - Gald to hear you are concerned about the quality of education. What are your practical ideas for the high school portion of that education?
Chris,
I am not sure that our property values will increase enough to make the merger worth it. Losing local control and becoming part of the Cherry Hill Monopoly is not worth the potential increase in property values.(In my opinion)
NJSA 40A:65-28 "Equalization of Property Assessments for Apportionment of Taxes"
"b. The owners of any residential property or residential tenants of any municipality consolidated under [the Act], who experience a municipal or school district purposes real property tax increase in the first tax year following municipal consolidation shall be entitled to annual property tax relief until such time as they sell or transfer their home or no longer reside as tenants..."
There are qualifiers but it looks like the legislature anticipated the potential for tax increases after consolidation and provided a safety valve. The qualifiers are pretty extensive.
The Study is required to show what the commission thinks the tax effect of consolidation would be.
As I read it, under the shared services statutes, a municipality is not permitted to eliminate police officers based upon a shared services agreement.
So if Merchantville had entered into an agreement with Pennsauken for policing, we would not have been able to eliminate any police positions as a result of that agreement even if it caused redundancies.
Under a consolidation plan, a municipality is permitted to eliminate redundant positions, "...including those held by tenured, certified officers...", for reasons of "...economy, efficiency or other good cause..."
J.A.M.R.--
Any future consolidation plan would propose what features of local control we would retain. For example, I have already written about advisory planning boards. There is also a provision for "the establishment of service districts comprised of the boundaries of any or all of the former municipalities which may be used to allocate resources and used for official geographic references..."
And "the continued use of boundary lines...to continue local ordinances..."
It sounds like we could keep our geographic boundary and still call ourselves "Merchantville" as well as retain local ordinances, like local historic designations.
These are just things that the statute permits. The existence and strength of these items in any future plan is what will determine whether I support a consolidation. It is far too early in the process for me to decide what is best.
Alice, I do not have the legal back round you do, so I will not debate you on interpreting the statutes you cite. However you need only to look at Woodlynne and Audubon Park who entered into Shared Services with other Municipalities for Police services. All of the officers lost their jobs with no guaranties of being hired onto the department taking over the policing responsibilities.
While I agree tax relief is nice at what price and cost is it worth it. How much do you anticipate we would save off of the local purpose tax which pays for our local heroes? Let's not have a fire sale here to save a few dollars.
Alice, I have reas your posts and understand. I think the key word in your statement is 'Advisory'. Why should we chance losing our local control? We already have enough healthy, and unhealthy debate and mistrust in our small community. I believe becoming part of such a large community is wrong in many fundamental ways. I can not quote statutes and laws and legal opinions. I have a pretty basic common sense philosophy on things which seems to have done me well so far in my life. "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its probably a duck"
Alice, I respect your opinion and legal cites and we all know the devil is in the details, but I just don't care about a feasability study for consolidation with this metropolis. I wish we could find similar smaller towns in Camden County or even Burligton that we could incoporate into one umbrella government. This type of consolidation would have much more of a chance of working and allowing the communities to retain their identities.
To paraphrase J.A.M.R., if it looks like a high quality of life and it quacks like a high quality of life, then it is a high quality of life. Cherry Hill is one of the most admired communities in the area. It has quality government services, quality people, quality amenities, quality reputation, quality real estate values, etc. Overall it has a very high quality of life. That is why it is so admired.
Merchantville shares many of those attributes. Have no doubt that if M and CH were to merge, a major vision of the combined government would be to be sure that all areas of the combined community contain the attributes that make CH so admired. M-ville would sort of be like the line from the song (the name of which I will not mention) from the play Chorus Line which goes "keep the best of you and [re-do] the rest of you." The combined community would go out of its way to be certain that the attributes which now give Merchantville an admirable identity are maintained. Why would it do otherwise?
J.A.M.R.'s dream of combining small municipalities is nice but it can only be a dream. Unless there was the unlikely event of a simultaneous groundswell among the governing bodies of several municipalities all desiring to merge with each other, it ain't gonna happen. Even if several governing bodies did that, there are likley major hurdles in the existing laws which would effectively prevent it from ever happening. It can not happen under the citizen committee law because the law specifies that such committees can only be from contiguous communities (40A:65-25 b (2)).
Merchantville is good but it could be better. It faces very major financial challenges in the very near future to stay as good as it is. An opportunity to seriously consider a merger with CH is too good to pass up. The study and the commission should promptly proceed.
Ok Cruise,
It may be a dream but was just a point that we would be a better fit with other small communities. I don't know where you have been but Cherry Hill is not the utopia you speak of. May of us could have bought in that town but chose this small community because we love this town. You speak of financial challenges for Merchantville? What about the financial challenges Cherry Hill has been facing and will continue to face? Let's not fall in love with an idea simply because you see it as a solution to the high school situation.
i continue to scoff at the notion that "we chose to buy in this town" over cherry hill. There is nothing in Cherry Hill comparable to Merchantville. There is no victorian community with a walking downtown. If there were then you could say you looked at both. If in fact there were, most of us could not afford it and would have ended up in Merchantville for economic reasons. Hey if you can assume, so can I. The point is that an addition of merchantville under the cherry hill umbrella of govt. retaining its walking downtown becomes a community on par with the Moorestown, Haddonfield and Collingswood.
Under the statute, the minimum requirement is an advisory board that the planning board is required to respond to. A consolidation plan could include much greater planning power in a Merchantville board.
The last anonymous reference to Moorestown may be a good analogy for us to follow as we proceed with this study and possibly onto a merger plan. It would be fruitful to see how Moorestown retains its unique historic character in the oldest parts of town while developing the rest of the township in a very different way. It seems it can work, but requires attention and foresight. In the past, cruiser has argued that Moorestown can do this because the real estate market in Moorestown is stronger. I think this is not a full explanation but the market is a factor. Would merger with CH make the real estate market stronger in Merchantville and thus give more latitude for better historic protections?
I have not been very impressed with Merchantville's protections of its old buidings and neighborhoods. Perceived economic need has outweighed historic research more than once.
A new start with real protections for old buildings, such as Moorestown has, would be welcome. This doesn't require a merger but if such protections were included in a consolidation plan, it would be worthy of serious consideration.
This is not an argument for consolidation, but for getting the best deal we can and then seeing if it is good enough.
Alice, your assumptions seem to include that Cherry Hill planners on the whole would be smarter than what we have been in recent years.
Would they have sat the Maple/Chapel redevelopment building on the sidewalk?
Would they have let Wellwood Manor alley remain a haven for undesirables while the street of the councilman in charge of the streets department was totally redone?
Would they have chased out the country's 4th largest bank and bought the building on a promise of owning (no less) a microbrewery?
Interesting assumption.
The borough clerk has had ten days to certify and return our petition. That deadline has been missed. We are not in possession of our paperwork,.
You can scoff all you want, I don't know what your motivations were to buy in Merchantville, I can only tell you that I bought here because I fell in love with this small community, and yes I am still in love with this community. I am not ready or willing to get divorced from Merchantville, I accept its faults and will try to work to improve them.
J.A.M.R - you avoid my point. But that is understandable because your response is emotional and void of logic. There will be no convincing you of the potential and you offer no factual foundation for your concerns. You add nothing but noise.
The decision to pave both Morris and Prospect were made before Brennan and Perno were on council. It is mere coincidence that both live on these streets. Good try though. Pretty impressive if one or both orchestrated that before they even ran for office. Get a life "assume know better".
Anon said: The borough clerk has had ten days to certify and return our petition. That deadline has been missed. We are not in possession of our paperwork,.
On Page 2, paragraph 5 (Aug. 11, 2010), Mayor North states: “The petition was forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs.”
Two points:
Scoff I see nothing factual in your comments, it is merely a statement about Victorian Homes and a walkable downtown, isn't that an emotional decision to buy your home? You are right I will continue to disembowel this whole Idea of merging our town with Cherry Hill, I do not see a benefit for our community and if a when a feasability study is done i am sure we will still be having the same debate.
The decision to pave those streets along with many additonal items such as curbs, and speed humps were made before Perno ws on council. Council minutes do not lie. or is this going to be one of those Clinto type statements " I never had sexual relations with that woman"
Geez,
I guess I should check my post before I post. The decisions to pave the streets, place speed humps, curbing etc. were made while Perno was on Council.
Site the council date and minutes when the decision was made to get this work done. I am not talking about the details of accepting the bid. When the initial call to have those streets done. I would bet a lot of money JAMR works downtown. So leave your office and look it up.
So JAMR and assume is the same guy. what do you bet he/it is also the one who posted the racist stuff, posed as a cherry hill resident etc. I look forward to arguing with you after the study. As bugs bunny so simply stated - "what a maroon"
Moving on, did anyone see the C-span broadcast of Acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro's presentation at the Governmental Accounting And Auditing Conference of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants? Well, Dogs, and Cruiser will like this too, Mr. Dodaro showed a graph of the number of American workers paying for the number or retirees. You won't believe it.
When I entered the work force there were 5 workers per 1 retiree. Today the ratio is 3 workers per retiree and Mr. Dodaro said Monday THE RATIO IS RAPIDLY DECLINING to 2 workers per retiree.
The tax burden story does not end there I am sorry to say for those of you in non-governmental work. No, the average salary and benefits of governmental workers --including teachers and policemen-- is about $120,000 whereas the average pay and benefits of private employees is $61,000 LESS. So those two employees are paying taxes for salaries and benefits that are double their own.
We are not done yet. Due to fraud New Jersey failed to fund its retirement system for teachers, policemen, firemen, and state government workers --tens of thousands of them-- so somebody has to fill up that financial hole. I guess it will be the same two workers.
So what's my point, Cruiser and the petitioners ask. My point is a question. Why not start cutting governmental expenses here in town? Freeze salaries in the coming contracts. Increase employee contributions to their own health benefits and retirement funds. Expand employee job responsibilities. Cut personnel. In the end why not curb governmental salaries and benefits down to the level of private-sector compensation? Why should governmental employees earn double what they did for the same work they and private-sector workers did a generation ago?
I suspect that such changes would end the financial need for merging. Then we could work on fixing our educational offerings.
Ktbfw,
are you collecting a governement pension?
sounds like you already know what council minutes etc. I don't need to cite anything, if people want to check facts they can do it for themselves. I am sure once the feasability study is done there will not be much room for debate as it will never be fair or independent.
anon,
I am sure you would bet alot of money as to where I work. I wish you would becaue you would be as wrong and wasteful as all the money you want to fund a feasability study. Which will only tell you what you want to hear anyway.
Anon - 8/22/2010 2:07 PM - good question! Perhaps part of the solution is to cut the government pension plan benefits of those now receiving them. I am sure ktbfw would agree!
ktbfw will be as silent about that as he has been about providing brilliant, practical ideas to improve the high school experience of Merchantville children.
JAMR makes false accusations and when challenged on them his response is, "because I said so". Good one. Credibility cleanly in tact. You craft a brilliant position. Next he will say someone told him so. His argument that Councilman Perno is behind all of this has been refuted by those who actually started the petition. Then he sites the paving of the streets Councilman Perno and Brennan live on. The fact is that the decision by council to pave those streets happened before either was on council. I asked councilman Brennan that myself and got confirmation. So what is next JAMR? I read in another post how you claim to be of high integrity. Is that because you said so also?
[Anon: are you collecting a governement pension?]
No. And my personal work experience did not adversely influence my reporting of the news released by the Governmental Accounting Office.
Nor am I disgruntled in having chosen private special education. I had freedom to design and implement educational programs that public sector administrators wished having.
Let's see if Merchantville School can redesign its programs this year to deliver more effective teaching at less cost. So far, things look good in the conference room.
Cruiser mentioned high school education and the same day someone else mentioned that Haddon Heights might be thinking of talking to us again.
Haddon Heights might be thinking of talking to us again. Oh please...
ktbfw - What a lame response on the high school situation. The "possibility" of Haddon Heights is dragged out every time there is controversy or pressure regarding the high school situation. It is sort of like the line from the movie Casablance, "Round up the usual suspects."
But for puposes of discussion, assume that we can get out of the send recive with Pennsauken and get into one with Haddon Heights. There would be a very significant increase in Merchantville taxes because of this. The tuition rate would be higher and many more Merchantville children would attend Haddon Heights.
This gets us back to the basic problem. Merchantville does not have enouh ratables per resident to provide quality governemnt services at a reasonable tax rate.
Merger with Cherry Hill is a golden opportunity.
In Merchantville I can walk to the Merchantville Dinner or McFarlens. What does Cherry Hill have? Ruby Tuesdays and Shop Right? No thank you. We don't need to become Cherry Hill. That is stupid.
How many people will lose their jobs? That's what we should be thinking about. It's not fair.
I have news for you. Even in the slim chance that we merge with Cherry Hill, you will still be able to walk to McFarlans and the Merchantville Diner.
Everyone crying about how the town is going to turn into the next strip mall needs to calm down. We'll have a different council and a better school situation. calm down.
[anon: How many people will lose their jobs? That's what we should be thinking about.]
Yes, you are right but for the wrong reason. We should be / we should have been thinking long ago about people losing their jobs. And their pay scales. And their benefits.
Running a town and school is not about jobs. It is about municipal services and about good education -- both to be run efficiently. The very same local government jobs that were well done forty years ago at a cost less than the average private-sector worker now cost us double what is paid in the private sector. The same jobs. The same work. We are paying double what the private employers are paying. EXPLAIN THAT!
Your preoccupation with jobs is what got us into this mess. It is what diminished our school. If you want to concentrate on jobs, get a human resources position. Even there, my friend, you will find yourself cutting jobs. Maybe your own.
I am a Cherry Hill resident and am all for Merchantville stidents going to haddon Heights!
Sounds great to us!
I call B.S. on all posters claiming to be from Cherry Hill. The only out of towners on this blog are Mville employees and their families. Just like on Facebook where most of the oppositional posts came from places like Maple Shade, Palmyra, Philadelphia, etc. Nice try! Not much integrity among the opposition.
Let's stop with this consolidation non-sense. If you want to be Cherry Hill MOVE! Let's get creative and find ways to raise revenue in order to save our quaint town.
1) TCE is a must. The added revenue from additional luxury apartments or high end condos will go a long way to shore up our finances and bring upscale shoppers to the downtown.
2) Brewpub- this will raise untold revenue and make Merchantville a destination.
3) New construction projects- Collingswood has beautifull high rise apartments in park settings. We could place such a building where the community center stands and use Borough hall as a community center.
We need to start making tough decisions now in order to avoid being paved over by Cherry Hill.
Anon, you keep on harping on the same topics. Let me address them one by one.
1.Who is going to buy and high end luxury apartment in our town while we send our kids to Pennsauken? The value is simply not there. We have beautiful victorian homes going for $300K in merchantville. That same house in Haddonfield is worth $600K. #1 reason, school district.
2. Everyone wants a brewpub. No one is against this....except the brewers. There isn't enough foot traffic through town to warrant it. We have been trying to lease that spot for over a year and where are we?
3. Same as #1. Who is going to buy a luxury high rise apartment in town?
The quality of a town's educational system is ESSENTIAL to everything. start with that.
Okay Chris,
Maybe the apartments won't exactly be "luxury", but at least they will bring in the revenue to keep our town autonomous. If we can't find a tenent for the PNC building we can make it into a community center and redevelop the current community center. Have you seen the high rise apartments that are parkside in Collingswood? I believe that we could get additional state funds if we were to build affordable housing for seniors. I know these sound like big changes, but we don't have enough ratables currently and need to think outside the box.
TCE has already been promised a 5 year tax abatement. And when will it be built--there's not even a plan on the table right now. The BrewPub company pulled out of the deal. We are left with the building and the debt to pay. Many of our downtown retail spaces are empty.
Are you seriously advocating building high rise apartments on the eastside playground? That's the equivalent of burning down your house to get rid of the mice.
It would make the town unappealing to those interested in buying our beautiful large (room for kids!) houses. And I doubt those residents on the "rich" side of town would support it. But even if you started working on that project today, it would be years before we saw any revenue.
The revenue from TCE will not be realized soon enough to sustain the town. Furthermore, it will not be enough to sustain us long-term without very significant tax increases.
Our Master Plan noted that we need to build a new Police Headquarters as our present arrangement is inadequate. Where will the $$ come from? Soon the school will need significant repairs--lots of deferred maintenance there. Where will the $$ come from?
I would like to see what the Study says. If we can retain some planning control (like Alice suggested) and we have lower taxes and a better school, it will be hard to turn down a merger proposal.
There will be no study. I suggest we come up with some creative ways to enhance revenue and cut costs.
I would expect the petitioners to pursue getting signatures in Cherry Hill. Wouldn't you?
There are still four sessions left in “Fantastic Voyage,” a new six-part health series being held at the Free Library at 1901 Vine Street. Two faculty members from the Penn School of Nursing will provide a guided tour of the human body for those 55 and older.
Upcoming topics are
September 15: The Heart;
September 22: Bladder and Bowel;
October 20: Sexuality & Seniors; and
October 27: The Feet.
Lectures begin at 11:00 a.m.in Room #108. For more information, call (215) 686-5331. FREE
Last Tuesday our mayor asked the Cherry Hill mayor to advise us on whether C.H. wishes to pursue obtaining the required signatures on a petition or prefers Merchantville’s governing body to pass a resolution.
Perhaps a petitioner would post for us what Cherry Hill wants seeing as the two speak with one tongue.
What is the size, shape and dexterity of a tongue always first in flashing tidbits across petition lines? Is it a scarce breed like the carrier pigeons of the Second World War?
What would we have done without them? What are we to do with our petition tongues fallen silent? ...no word of blame, no incriminations, no sabotage. Must we await the final end in silence?
Awaiting word... - Mr. North's inquiry to the CH mayor was a proper, normal, thing to do in the circumstances.
If the petitioners (M and CH)now dropped out of the project but the merger study project continued under the auspices of the local governments, that would be fine with me. The important thing is that it continue. It is also important that it be carefully watched and I am sure the petitioners and other concerned citizens will do this.
Good post, Cruiser. I agree with you on every point.
I do not know if a merger initiative could make the November ballot considering that the Dept. of Community Affairs must approve things. Even not knowing, I suggested to the mayor the other day that he ask Council to consider passing a RESOLUTION OF INTENT to maintain basic municipal services while holding taxes nearly flat for the next five years.
Respected economists and the Federal Reserve Chairman project a slow, steadily improving economy over the next several years with no inflation, if not deflation. So Merchantville should be able to plan ahead five years under a stable tax promise.
Such a resolution might go a long way in responding to half of the petitioners' complaints. Then we would have just the school situation to resolve.
"..just the school situation to resolve.." is rather underestimating the problem, isn't it?
As for the improving economy, all that would do in the first few years is mean some of us would have better salaries with which to pay the higher taxes. It wouldn't bring in new ratables for years after that--even the smallest building projects take years to get going.
[ Realist: ...underestimating the problem, isn't it?]
Well, I was looking at the problem differently. My suggestion was to keep taxes FLAT for 5 years by keeping BASIC services. My thinking was that Council would provide services as Cherry Hill would be providing them (despite Alice's legislation saying the world after merging will remain just as rosey --which most of us know will not happen--).
As to the school problem let me assure you I do not underestimate it.
Let's ask Alice for another consolidation opinion. Alice, remember the "IF" clause in the consolidation legislation that separates schools from municipalities in the application? How about if we talk to Cherry Hill about a consolidation study on merging high school FIRST with an option to merge elementary schools and municipalities later? Is there a rule against such?
That should keep both camps happy on this side of the border.
First, somebody on this blog already answered the “IF” question by suggesting that regional schools might not require a school merger because the schools would already be merged.
Second, Mayor North said he suggested to Cherry Hill in June that they take our high school students and we take some of their elementary students -- the Cherry Hill BOE was not interested.
Third, the Merchantville BOE has been asking Cherry Hill for years about a send-receive arrangement for our high school kids and they’re not at all interested. Even if they were, and if Pennsauken willingly agreed to end the send-receive arrangement, the Merchantville school tax would increase dramatically if that happened. Not only would we bring an additonal 20-40 high school students back to the public school, the tuition per student at Cherry Hill would probably be significantly more than the amount we’re paying Pennsauken now. Whatever you hope to save on keeping municipal taxes flat would be overshadowed by a significant increase in the school budget.
The ONLY real reason to merge the municipalities is to get our students into Cherry Hill high school.
The next time you talk to the Mayor, why don’t you ask him why the Merchantville local taxes (school and municipality) are 11 cents per $100 while the County increase is 10 cents per $100?
See if you can get Camden County to keep taxes flat. That would help a lot.
ktbfw wrote: "...(despite Alice's legislation saying the world after merging will remain just as rosey --which most of us know will not happen--..."
Would you mind being a little less cryptic? I have no legislation.
Seems that Gail knows it all even though I did not ask any of the questions she formulated answers for long ago.
My apologies for answering questions you didn’t ask, k.t.b.f.w.. It won’t happen again.
ktbfw should stop dragging his budget blather into the merger discussion. The budget in the next five years may be his pet peeve but it is not what the merger is about.
The merger is about solving three problems: (1) the high school situation and the detrimental effect the current arrangement has on the community; (2) the deteriorating economic mix of Merchantville because fewer affluent families choose to live here with the high school situation being a significant factor in their decisions; (3) the financial reality that there are not enough ratables in Merchantville to support quality government services.
Tax rates in the short-term are not a driving force in the merger. The effect of a merger on short-term tax rates is obviously of great interest and should be carefully calculated and communicated. My expectation is that a merger will have no significant effect on Merchantville or Cherry Hill property tax rates. It may prevent tax rates in both communities from having significant tax increases in future years.
[Cruiser: ktbfw should stop dragging his budget blather into the merger discussion.]
Cruiser would like the blog world to believe that k.t.b.f.w. is the lone author of complaints against high taxes, that escalating taxes/ diminishing services is not on the minds of the petitioners.
He needs to reread the petition.
I read the petition as being about long term sustainability.
In that context, cruiser has pretty well laid out the situation.
Rising taxes and lower property values is where we are right now. The HS is a significant drag on our property values. I also question whether, after nearly ten years of trying, we can attract commercial development to increase ratables.
I don't see a five year plan being any better than the last five years.
Sell the bank.
to who?
cant be worth much in this market.
My co-worder signed the petition in Old Orchards yesterday. The woman told her that she only needed 8 more signatures in that neighborhood. Why would they stop at a pre-determined number from Old Orchards? This is very strange. Has anyone heard from our petitioners in Merchantville lately?
Obviously they are going door to door all over Cherry Hill in this sweltering heat. They sure do love petitioning. Maybe they should try something else like a "sit in".
A sit in does not get the DCA to set up a Study Commission. Perhaps you could organize one to protest the petition? I suggest sitting at your computer and not typing for the whole week as a protest.
What is wrong with you people???
If you want to live in Cherry Hill then move to Cherry Hill!
It is very simple.
I never would have moved to Cherry Hill 18 years ago when I was looking for a new home, but if there had been a beautifull unincorporated town within Cherry Hill township with Victorian houses and a walkable downtown. I probably could not have afforded it. Let's have the study and see what's in it for us. Let's do our homework.
Has the state ever come back and tell us if they would cover all or some of the cost of the Study? (if we vote to conduct one that is)
I will be voting against this merger study. If we become part of Cherry Hill, my rent will go up or worse yet some rich person will buy our home and turn it back into a single family dwelling. How could I afford to live here???
...if there had been a beautifull unincorporated town within Cherry Hill township with Victorian houses and a walkable downtown. I probably could not have afforded it.
If the petitioners succeed, some day not many tomorrows away you could be saying and your grown children might be saying "I cannot afford to live here."
Every REVITALIZED COMMUNITY, large and small, has lost its original citizens, from Society Hill in the 1970s to Inner Harbor Baltimore in the 1980s to northwest Washington DC and Georgetown today ... all longtime residents lamenting that they must sell and leave.
Even the poor sections of prosperous towns drive out their residents under revitalization -- witness Haddonfield near Mountwell Pool, the Lenola area in Moorestown, Cooper Village and Kingston Estates in Cherry Hill. They are fast becoming "too expensive to live there".
When Cruiser talks about increasing ratables, he is talking about your house and your neighbor's. Ratables means revenue. Who's money is that?
We will we be driven out due to increased property values and our downtown will end up flooded with overpriced fancy shops and exotic trendy restaraunts. No thank you!!! I love Merchantville just the way it is.
The last few posts seem to be under a severe misunderstanding of how taxes work.
Lower property values won't reduce your taxes. The amount of taxes raised depends upon the cost of government.
Taxes are apportioned to each property based upon the assessment. If gov't needs only $1000 then the $1000 is apportioned across all properties. If they need $1million, then a $1million is apportioned.
If your house is assessed less than your neighbor's, you pay relatively lower taxes. But if everyone's assessed value goes up, and the tax revenue needed by gov't stays the same your taxes will stay the same despite the higher value of your property!
Higher property values does not mean higher taxes. The cost of gov't is what makes taxes higher. The study is needed to tell us, among other things, what the impact would be on the cost of government.
Our downtown flooded with shops and restaurants???? The HORROR!!!
So called "revitalization" is what ruined Manayunk. In my day Manayunk was a tight knit, solid working class neighborhood. Now it's all yuppies with their $6 coffee drinks, Thai food, and male fashion boutiques. That is what might happen here. We can't let them do this to us. Merchantville is fine the way it is thank you very much. If this happens I will move.
because that is worse than empty store fronts and the crap we have down there now? i mean, you are afraid of restaurants??...do you need help?
"...male fashion boutiques..."
What does this mean, anon? Because it reads like you are making some kind of homophobic statement here.
I'm not afraid of restaraunts. That is rediculous. I'm just afraid of this thing ruining the essence of Merchantville. This town is not about trendy shops and fancy hair cuts that stuff is for other towns. I'm not interested in any "revitalization". We already have one monkey bar. Let's not get Manayunked.
I'm not afraid of restaraunts. That is rediculous. I'm just afraid of this thing ruining the essence of Merchantville. This town is not about trendy shops and fancy hair cuts that stuff is for other towns. I'm not interested in any "revitalization". We already have one monkey bar. Let's not get Manayunked.
I wasn't being homophobic. There are lots of great gay people in town now, but they will be priced out of their homes just like us. We don't need to become a starbucks town. No to the study!!!
NO to Revitalization and restaurants and YES to zero ratables and empty store fronts. wow.
anon, you crack me up.
I've got news for you. the name of the town makes no difference to a business. If the town rents the bank space to a brew pub, will you protest the foodie types that woudl go there?
What the hell is a "foodie type"?
If you already own a house you can't be "priced out" of owning one if the value goes up. And based upon current rental listings, the rents here are the same as in Cherry Hill and Collingswood.
Taxes are already going up about 5%per year.
Are you saying you won't be able to shop in town if the stores are too expensive for you so you will have to move? Seriously?
Finally, I still don't get why you had to say "male fashion". Still sounds like you were trying to make some kind of gay reference.
If anon was so interested in keeping the town to some lower property value version, then I am surprised (s)he never spoke up at the TCE heairngs. The whole project was about builidng 90 or so "luxury condo units" to sell for $300,000 or more.
The current TCE proposal is to build luxury townhouse and apartment units.
It doesn't seem at all like anon's vision.
Have you spoken against the project, anon? or are you just making it up as you go along?
Alice said: Higher property values does not mean higher taxes.
Alice makes clear that the roll of the dice does not occur with the merger. And what about reassessment?
The roll of the dice comes with reassessment. That is when an outside professional takes a look at our beautiful, individually styled homes on tree lined streets and compares them to the development houses in Cherry Valley, Kingston Estates, Barclay Farm, Charleston Riding, Point of Woods and Old Orchard -- 4,000 of them.
My bet is that ours will appraise higher, much higher. And although the new tax rate will be applied evenly to all properties throughout the new township, our area will be the high stakes gaming table.
Alice says our valuation is 54 percent. She says C.H.'s is closer to 45%. Cherry Hill is now in the bracket where the state mandates revaluation.
Don't answer the door.
realist -
3rd floor walk-up apartments are not "luxury" units. They're tenements.
All Merchantville residents should do like me - get out while the gettin' isn't too bad (in this economy I can't say "is good").
A merger with Cherry Hill will certainly solve the town's school problem. It will also solve the financial crises that was created by the Brennan and North years of unrestrained spending. We could solve the latter ourselves easily, though - reduce out police coverage to what Cherry Hill will by laying off 4-5 police officers. So what if the crime rate goes up here next to Pennsauken and just across 130 from Camden?
Merchantville's day is done. Face it. Give her a decent burial and get the heck out. Let the Brennans, Norths, Higgins and Pernos fight with the mergies over her corpse.
Goodbye, fair Merchantville. We still love you.
Roll of the dice - Alice's real comment is basically correct. You are quoting her out of context. She said that if Merchantville property becomes more valuable as a result of the merger, real estate taxes would not immediately increase. That is true. It would take time for the increased values to work through the system and cause assessed values to increase. A reassessment would accelerate the process and, in all fairness, that is what should happen as part of the merger plan.
Remember that a key reason the values in all those communities you mention are high is because of the schools. M gets the benefit of the aura of those schools from day one.
As I understand the reasessment process in New Jersey, it is not an attempt to appraise individual houses the way a commercial appraiser would do it. The state develops statistics about real estate from the sales data it has collected - things like lot size, square footage per floor, bathrooms, structural quality (age, single-twin-row, central air, maintenance free exterior, number of rooms, etc.). The inspector is not a professional appraiser but rather a trained person looking for differences between what the record has and what exists (new bathroom has been added, HVAC, finished basements, etc.). The correct data is determined and the various factors applied. You can let in the reassessor if you have nothing to hide.
The major cause of the financial crisis was the way-too-low spending of administrations prior to the Brennans, especially in the area of redevelopment. The pre-Brennans believed that development would take care of itself but it never did. Their minds were living in the pre-Cherry Hill Mall/ Merchantville High School days. They were in denial that those days were gone. They thought PHS would get better. They were wrong.
Good bye and good riddance to 'goodbye my love.' Merchantville's best days are ahead if this merger goes through.
Try the peach salad from Mcfarlan's.
It is really, really good!
So cruiser's perspective is that we didn't spend enough years ago.
He's right. If Bert German, Jack Morrissey and others pre-Brennan had spent like druken sailors, we could have gone into financial ruin much sooner.
What an interesting twist on the "spend your way to prosperity" theory. You must LOVE Obama's deficits, cruiser.
[Cruiser: It would take time for the increased values to work through the system and cause assessed values to increase. A reassessment would accelerate the process...]
Aah, good thinking, Cruiser. I think that is what Roll Of The Dice said. And s/he said higher assessments on some of the houses (the "beautiful" ones) would raise their taxes even higher than the others in C.H., right?
So Alice is right that taxes would not rise in the short run. Dice is right that the mandated reassessment would raise Merchantville's taxes down the road. And you are right, well, are you right? that our "financial crisis was the way-too-low spending of administrations prior to the Brennans"?
Lavardera asked me to explain RIVERTON's flat taxes for the past two years. Maybe you could better explain it with their no high school, no parks, no banks, no shopping centers, no commerce, no industry, no redevelopment, no public spending, small police force, small roads department, small government, low sewer cost, no crime. Just 2,400 people.
Explain their ignorance of your "too-low-spending" theory.
I will try this again:
Higher taxes are caused by higher gov't spending. Taxes are apportioned through assessment. If the spending does not go up, then your taxes stay the same even if your assessment is higher so long as everyone's assessment increases at the same rate. This is simple math. The complaint that higher property values, in themselves, will increase taxes is just off the mark.
Taxes are going up in Merchantville whether we merge or not. The average has been about 5% per year. A Study will show what the effect of merger would be on both spending and taxes in both municipalities.
Do the Study, and then decide whether the results are to your liking.
Maybe my rent won't go up right away, but what's to stop some body from buying my home and converting it back into a single family mansion. If Merchantville becomes part of Cherry Hill it will very quickly become very upscale since we've got giant old houses with tree lined streets and a downtown just minutes from the city. Some rich doctor or executive sort could just come along and give us all the boot. Is their any sort of protection against this?
yeah, its very simple...you don't sell your house realist. and if you do sell your house at a premium rate because property values increased, then you can afford to move to pennsauken which you clearly prefer to be.
Hey Alice, we are well overdue for a revaluation. Some of those "beautiful homes" may find that they are over-assessed and some under. I live on a street that extends into Cherry Hill, and every one of those Cherry Hill houses pays thousands less in taxes than the Merchantville houses on the same street. And the houses are about the same in size and quality. So it seems to me Cherry Hill should be more afraid of a reval than Merchantville.
A revaluation puts fairness back into the system by bringing everyone up to market value.
Who could be against being fair?
Reality Check: Take a clue from your own handle-- There's nothing stopping your landlord from selling the house right now. Nor does any town prevent an owner from occupying her own property. In fact, it's preferred.
You are way over-thinking this. How long do you want to rent there? It will be many years before the cost of restoring that house to single status makes the conversion worth it, if ever. Far easier (and cheaper)to buy one of the already single homes. Collingswood only got people to convert to single by offering grants and tax breaks.
Cherry Hill has the lowest municipal tax rate in the county, but they don't have that small town feel. I pay more for that. The police know my name and they drive by my house and waive. It makes us feel good.
My gut tells me that if this merger abomination takes place, Merchantville will be too expensive to rent in. We'll all be replaced with a new crowd of Starbucks sippin outsiders with $100 shoes and fancy haircuts. I hope you like tai food!
ktbfw - roll of the dice did not say that. Roll's misunderstanding is that as soon as property values increase, say through a merger, that assessed values and therefore taxes on individual properties immediately increase - that is not the case, as I explained. The increases in market value take time to work their way through the system.
Another ktbfw error is that beautiful homes are assessed at higher values than not so beautiful homes. The values at which homes are assessed in a reassessment are based on an average of the actual sales of all homes in an area. If there is a beautiful home in the midst of not so beautiful homes, the assessed value of the beautiful home is likely lowered by all of the not so beautiful homes around it because when the not so beautiful homes sold, they sold at lower prices and this influenced the factors developed from the sales. The assessed value of the beautiful home is calculated based on the same factors applied to lot size, square footage, etc. as the not so beautiful homes. The lowly home in the midst of beautiful homes would have the opposite effect. Its assessed value would be increased by the sales data of the beautiful homes around it. If the owner of such a lowly home feels that the assessed value is not fair, they can appeal it.
You can not lower your taxes by neglecting your home. The lot size, square footage, etc. all stay the same regardless of condition. The condition of a property may drag down the selling prices of other homes and thus will drag down the assessment factors but the same factors are applied to the neglected homes as to the well-maintained homes.
If the mandated reassessment to which Dice refers were to increase the taxes due on Merchantville properties, it would only happen because the value of Merchantville properties in the marketplace increased. You can not and should not have the best of both worlds. You can not have high property values and not have a correspondingly high share of the costs of running the government.
Yet another ktbfw error is taking Cruiser's comment regarding the "way too low" spending of the pre-Brennan administrations out of context. The original statement included the phrase, "especially in the area of redevelopment." If you are going to quote me, quote me correctly and completely.
Merchantville taxes are high principally because there are not sufficient ratables, particularly commercial ratables, per resident, to support a program of quality government services. The spending levels are not the financial crisis - the absence of ratables is the financial crisis. The pre-Brennan administrations essentially did nothing to advance needed redevelopment.
The reality is that spending by Merchantville governemnt units (Borough Council and the School District) is already low. The community also gets a 'bargain' by not having to pay the full costs of education of its high school age population.
I realize that ktbfw has long been of a mind that even lower speding could somehow solve the problem but when details of how spending would be lower are requested, all that is proffered are chintzy, insignificant amounts or impractical ideas. Such amounts are not going to solve the financial crisis.
I am still waiting for ktbfw's brilliant, practical ideas to resolve the high school send-receive situation. These were requested quite a few blogs ago.
At the level of the tax assessor/Board of Tax Appeals, the most important factor in your assessment is the size of your property. Lesser factors are certain amenities like central air.
The quality of your house doesn't become a factor until you appeal to the Tax Court. At that point, appraised value becomes more of a factor and it is necessary to compare your property to "comparable" properties.
I rarely agree with cruiser on policy, but his description of how market values effect assessments is exactly correct.
It would take a while for increasing property values to impact assessed values. And then it would only effect county taxes (not municipal or school)which are based upon the equalization rate, until a revaluation is done.
We are overdue for a revaluation and many properties are currently under assessed in Merchantville. Some are overassessed. I think the objection some have raised are really the effects of a revaluation, not a merger (even if the merger raised property values).
Reality check. There are still plenty of towns like the one you desire. Cash in on your higher property value after the merger and move to one. I love Starbucks and Tai food.
This is really more of a meat and potatoes town. That's my point. If you like Tai food, Starbucks, and fancy clothes you should move elsewhere. Don't redo my town. Think about this- maybe sending your kids to Pennsauken High School will build character and the strength to just say no. I shake my head whenever I see these kids on the bike path with their big helmuts. In my day we used to hop railroad cars at the age of ten. Think about it...
I am guessing you went to pennsauken high school reality? That fact that you can't spell "helmet" or "Thai" food gave that one away.
Your points are the worst. you don't like kids wearing helmets when riding bikes, you don't like restaurants and you don't like clothing stores.
is there anything you do like?
I love Merchantville the way it is. This merger scheme will turn Merchantville into an uppity hell with yuppies walking thousand dollar dogs and bragging about their $200 pants. We will all be priced out and taxes will triple. You'll see.
RC, the kids are required by state law to wear helmets. Have been for years. It's nothing to do with merging the town.
Working class snobbery is no more valid or convincing than upper class snobbery.
Merchantville was founded by wealthy businessmen from Camden and Philadelphia. They built mansions. Their house servants used to arrive by trolley from nearby towns. As late as the 1960s, housekeepers would ride the bus from Maple Shade to come to Merchantville to clean the houses of wealthy people.
Meat and potatoes? Well only if it was the finest cut of meat and cooked with the right sauces.
That's our history.
I am willing to see what the Study says to get FACTS about the present, not whining nostalgia for a very recent past.
I have to say that when I spend days away from the blog, my outlook improves. I walk around this town and it feels good. I come back and I see we're having the same discussions that we were having weeks ago. And I see the town being torn apart especially with negative comments regarding the incorrect spelling of helmet, etc.
Look - everyone will have to make the decision for themselves as to whether to vote for the study. If you are against a merger regardless and you know the results of the study (and its financial implications) aren't going to change the way you feel, then vote "no". You don't have to go along with a study. And that's ok. You're feelings are valid. If the study is going to affect how you feel about a merger and the taxes and spending will be the deciding factor for you, then vote "yes." Go ahead. It's up to you.
Who would vote against a study?? Vote to not get the data and do our homework?? Bury your heads in the sand and hope for a lucky break....
Who would vote against a study??
I would. I hope everybody does. It would be another expensive professional report exactly like all the others we have bought in the last decade that tell nothing more than what we can figure out ourselves.
What, are we too stupid? We own a patch of land to ourselves with smart people living on it and the public laws say we can elect our own people to keep things the way we want them and our people volunteer free to do the managing.
You say the study would be free. Well, think again. Handing off your tax money to a distant office to be sent back to pay for that study doesn't make the study free.
What else do you need to know? That great men risked their lives and property over hundreds of years protecting your rights to this patch of land?
All we need to do is tell our elected leaders to cut our costs. They have not been doing it, not because they can't, but because they do not think we want anything cut.
And the school? You have representatives on the school board who will not make educational improvements because they believe the changes might hurt the faculty's pocketbooks and privileges. Replace those people. That is the reason why we have our own patch of land and elections.
And the high school? Approve a borough ordinance that grants a voucher to all parents for 3/4 of our tuition to Pennsauken if they choose to send their child(ren) to another school. Their choice; end of problem.
Furthermore, to your neighbors who prattle that we are too few to run ourselves, remind them that Delaware Township was smaller than we are today when it decided to run itself.
The "study" enthusiasts need to get out of their box for some reality thinking.
Merchantville has been OVERPAYING for professional reports for years. It can be done much cheaper.
3/4 of what we pay for PHS wouldn't pay for half of a good school.
So if you want to keep things the same, with no ratables and 50% apartment dwellers, the town will continue to sink. Professional/ higher income families will continue to move out. That is what you want.
Do it yourself is very naive and lives in a wishful thinking world completely unrelated to the facts.
For starters, the facts are that there are laws against tuition vouchers. They can not be done.
The reports of professionals, costly though they may be, are an integral part of good government. While recent reports related to M may be about subjects and results that could have easily been concluded without a report, there are many instances where hairbrained schemes of some can never get professional support in a report so they are not even attempted. The requiremnt that a professional report be obtained is a good one.
I doubt if the armies that marched, the navies that sailed and the scribes who wrote ever considered your or my little pieces of land. What they struggled for was the right of people to live by the rule of laws that were their own, determined by a majority of the people - the right to freely govern themselves. Obviously a vote of citizens regarding a study is a great testimony to the traditions of those whose sacrifices gave us the ability to do so. People should vote however they choose to honor the efforts of our predecessors.
If the study happens and the merger after it - guess what - you still have the ability to vote on community leaders and local issues. You will also be able to do so in a much more financially sound environment. Nothing is happening here which will take away your right to vote.
The issue of cutting costs again comes up as all that needs to be done to bail out M. This is ridiculous. The writer does not understand the numbers and the problems. No practical amount of cost cutting will make a real difference. The writer should list out exactly what would be cut and by how much in the scenario he envisions. Let's see a five or ten year plan. Such a plan will only lead to much higher tax rates and ultimately a desire by the majority to somehow get relief. Absent this Cherry Hill opportunity, the only option in the future will be Pennsauken.
A real way to cut costs is to merge and get the economies of scale that only bigger organizations can bring. Lower costs and lower taxes for all is ostensibly what the merger talk is about, with the tremendous side effect for M of a much better high school situation.
Vote yes on the merger if you get a chance to do so.
There is no vote on the Study.
Please read the statute. Here is a new link.
http://tinyurl.com/2dx3a2o
The Study is initiated by application to the DCA. An application can be filed either by the municipalities governing bodies or by a representative group of voters as defined in the statute. In either case, there is no vote on it by the residents.
The Study is needed to show what the impact on taxes, expenses and revenue would be in the event of merger. It is necessary to examine differences in statutory matters as well between the two towns. It will look at how police and fire protection would be maintained.
A Study will show us more about Cherry Hill's finances (and vice versa)then we could easily determine ourselves. A Study will include a report from the County Superintendent of Schools. A Study will look at the two towns and tell us what positions are redundant and which might appear to be so but are really not.
A Study will present the material and allow you to express opinion upon the material gathered. At the end of the Study we will have a common set of facts to discuss instead of going off on wild tangents of speculation. You can even dispute the methodology.
Even if you skipped the Study you would have to have a "plan for consolidation" approved by the DCA before a merger could be voted upon. The plan would contain many of the elements of a Study. You still have to show which positions would be eliminated, how debt is being apportioned, how the statutory schemes are being merged, etc.
Skipping the Study does not seem smart considering what is involved in a merger.
Alice - you have obviously read this more thoroughly than I have. But it seems that there are different ways to proceed - 40:43-66.41. Question of forming consolidation commission submitted to voters; alternative methods It looks like going through with a vote is one alternative. What am I missing?
My apologies. The second link is to the old law (still in effect) which is not being used in our case.
Here is a better link which is to the 2007 streamlined process which is the process being used with Merchantville and Cherry Hill.
http://tinyurl.com/27ah5nm
The 2007 law is "in lieu of" the old law. Under the 2007 process, no vote is needed for the Study.
Here is a link to a League of Municipalities booklet on the topic.
http://tinyurl.com/28phu4x
Here is a quote from the League's booklet:
"There are several options under the new and prior statutes to develop the basic organization to do the necessary studies. There is no recommended option: each must be viewed in terms of the particular circumstances of the municipalities involved. The Division of Local Government Services has published several Local Finance Notices on these options as well as a booklet outlining the original and revised statutes governing consolidation. Basically there is a formal legal process that can be used for the required study involving an independent Consolidation Study Commission (the original statute); a more flexible process involving the Local Finance Board of the State Department of Community Affairs (the 2007 revised statute); or an informal study only process to determine if the concept should proceed forward at all."
When was it determined which option we were following? Does the original statute with a legal process require a vote?
I hadn't realized the Council had decided which method to go...
I hear that there were petitioners in Brandywoods yesterday. They expect to close in on 2,000 by Labor Day.
I am going to refer to this as a Commission or a Study Commission from now on. Calling it a Study makes it sound like it's just a report done by some hired firm. It's not--it's a Commission that is formed to study a potential merger.
This is how I read the statutes, and I appreciate anyone who can read them as well and see if I am wrong. I am by no means an expert in this and am just reading the statutes and the booklets put out by DCA and the NJLOM. I have no connection whatsoever with the petitioners or Courage to Connect.
The process is in the two statutes I linked to. As I read it, under the 2007 law, anybody can start the petition method process to apply for a Study Commission. The 2007 petition process doesn't require either action by the council or a general vote.
Once there is an application to the DCA for a Study Commission, then the DCA will hold a series of public hearings (one in Merchantville, one in Cherry Hill and one joint) and then decide whether to proceed with a Study Commission.
Has anyone noticed that the EMS building and 9 West Park Ave house are for rent?
The mayor had said just before the auto show that a maintenance crew would clean out and ready the EMS to be rented until Fieldstone got around to redeveloping that portion of the triangle.
It appears the owner of 9 W. decided not to stay in his building after its sale to the Borough. That is separated as a duplex, so in all we could be seeing about $2,500 in rental income to help cover the loss in taxes on those Triangle properties.
There is now a petition in Colwick by Cherry Hill residents against a study and merger. They got just about every signature in the neighborhood. This is the community that was against any type of merger in 1999.
Next stop is Kingston.
I think we should be able to vote on which direction to take
A petition against a Study is meaningless under the statute. If 10% sign for the study commission then an application can go to DCA.
They are wasting their time with a petition "against".
If they want to stop the study then they will have to wait for the public hearing on the Commission held by the DCA.
It is really amazing how people will just go out and waste time instead of taking ten minutes to read the law and find out what really needs to be done.
"Vote on which direction to take"
Another time wasting moron.
IF AN APPLICATION GETS TO DCA, THEN THERE WILL BE A HEARING ON WHETHER TO HAVE THE STUDY COMMISSION.
YOU CAN SPEAK UP AT THAT TIME!
Yeesh.
There is no anti-merger petition in Colwick. This would be a waste of time, instead it is a lie. No one in Cherry Hill cares one way or other.
REALLY? I live in Cherry Hill and I care. I don't want to subsidize another town's student education.
I Live in Cherry Hill and we are big enough. NO to a study and potential merger. AGAIN, NO!!!!
If Merchantville pays the school tax, how are you "subsidizing" anyone's education?
You need to educate yourself. Support the Study and get the FACTS.
Anon 8:33 is a liar. Not a Cherry Hill resident.
Anon 8:33 is a Cherry Hill resident.
How about posting the new article.
DCA application Stalled. Both towns must submit application in the same format.
looks like a resolution by merchantville town council or a petition in cherry hill.
there will never be a petition in cherry hill.
http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20100907/NEWS01/9070328/Towns-face-delay-on-merger-effort
anon 8:33 is a cherry hill resident that does not want the merger.
yes, both towns pay school taxes.
cherry hill pays more per student than merchantville. therefore, to bring merchantville in to the fold, cherry hill will need to subsidize their funding.
this will never happem
You're idea of taxes is wrong. I wonder where you got them. Are you being deliberately wrong?
If the towns are merged then taxes are apportioned over the assessed values. Everyone pays the same rate of tax.
Merchantville doesn't "pay less per student" after a merger. Merchantville pays whatever the tax rate is, just like Cherry Hill residents.
You seem confused about taxes. Take a look at Alice's excellent discussion of taxes and assessments and the effect of merger.
Okay, this thing is over now. Let's all be friendly neighbors again and not hold grudges. Let's change the subject to something new. I'd like to see a new thread on the blog and an end to consolidation talk.
i agree with anon 9:07.
the merger is over - new subject please.
It's too bad that the merger movement is dead, but I'm willing to move on. Let's bury the hatchet. Can we all just get along now?
What makes all of these anonymous people think the merger movement id dead?
Because they are all just Anti-Merger people or person with the belief that if you say it enough, people will believe it.
I wouldn't doubt if its not our own politicians trying to sway opinion.
I am one of the original petitioners. I am ready to start working together with everyone on a new charter school.
Petitioners always said who they were. But I’ll play the game.
Is there a building in Merchantville that’s large enough to serve as a high school for 80-100 students?
Let us know how you can be contacted so we can start working together A.S.A.P.
I would like to compliment the petitioners on all of their hard work. Although I never agreed with their position, I respected their efforts. I look forward to seeing their talent and energy in future community endevours. We can all work together to build a better Merchantville.
I would love to assist with a Charter School. What about that bank building? any possibilities?
I am an original petitioner as well. Since this effort is dying (dead), I am willing to look at other efforts.
What ever happened with Haddon Heights? I thought they were very responsive. Now that state aid has been cut we should revisit that possibility.
The bank is not big enough. Would MES fit an additional 80?
I don’t believe a public school building is allowed to house a charter school. But Merchantville can probably choose to operate its own public high school.
If Merchantville Elementary graduates about 35 students a year, we might expect the usual 15 or so to enroll at a parochial or vocational school, so there would only be about 20 students per year to accommodate. For that small number, we’d just need a single classroom for each grade -- a 9th grade room, a 10th grade room, etc. Maybe we could have another room for all students with special needs.
The students would probably have to follow the same academic schedule, because we surely couldn’t afford to have a Spanish class AND a French class, nor could we offer general math and Algebra. Calculus is out of the question.
Let’s not even think about science because some students just couldn’t handle a physics class, but we couldn’t afford a physics teacher anyway, unless he could also teach French. No advanced placement classes.
If there were only 80 kids in the whole high school, it would be impossible to field a football team, unless we allowed the girls to play. No cheerleaders or marching band to cheer them on.
This is fun. Next, let's look at the costs.
The lies on this blog are getting out of hand. These anon's posing as "original petitioners" are just trying to stir things. There are 7 original petitioners who are still very active as shown on facebook. The study is not dead nor is it in a holding pattern as the CP article suggests. This article is two weeks behind on it's information.
There is one person on here trying to make it sound like it is dead. It is the same person who has posed as a CH resident. Google and download the software IPstriker5, it allows you to see masked IP addresses of the posts. Although you wont have the actual ip address you will see who is a phony.
Google and download the software IPstriker5
You do it and tell us about it. Include you own.
One of the Anons posted on 9/04 that it would be a waste of time to create a petition against a merger. That the time to speak up would be at a public hearing. Wouldn't it be pretty effective to come to this hearing with petitions against the study and merge?
come to this hearing with petitions against the study and merge?
Seems like a fair enough proposal. Why should discussion be limited to a study and its content?
One doesn't need a rational basis for deciding what government he wants. Our forefathers didn't do a study. They wrote a letter to the king claiming an "inalienable right" which they neither defined nor cited references for. They asked for, no, demanded plain and simple, a smaller country than the British Empire so they could do what they wanted to do ... without asking.
"How preposterous!" Cruiser would say in his world requiring seven permits to build a porch.
Have you noticed that every modern-day, expensive, professional study calls for BIGGER? How is that?
"Our forefathers didn't do a study."
Yes they did. Of course they studied the issues first.
They selected leaders and gathered together to form a Committee who discussed the problems and gave examples from their own towns. Then the Committee delegated the task of writing a Declaration.
They quickly formed many sub-committees to deal with issues that came up and debated long over them.
Even in writing our Constitution, they studied governments of the past to select what they thought were the best solutions to problems.
As learned men of the Enlightment, they took time to consider and debate the issues.
They most certainly did produce reports ("Studies") and kept accountings and consulted with experts.
I have read through the thousands of pages of studies the state did several years ago on shared services and consolidation.
The experts did not uniformly suggest "bigger". What they suggested was sharing services and merging to save money and effort. They gave examples where it worked and also examples where it didn't.
So the "bigger" was always linked to cost and efficiency.
The expert testimony that I read was most definitely not in favor of bigger for its own sake, but only bigger where it resulted in better service.
The way to know if the service is "better" (less costly more efficient) is to crunch the numbers. You really can't tell that "in your gut" or by applying any ideology.
ktbfw - read the Federalist Papers which is basically a study leading up to the constitution. The nation is greater because studies were done. Go to a bannana republic if you want to see the chaos in government and infrastructure that results from the absence of studies before things are done.
[Alice: They selected leaders and gathered together to form a Committee who discussed the problems...]
Your summary sounds good, Alice, neat and tidy and all. Folks probably feel good that their forefathers formed a committee and conducted a study as you say. But let's think about that history for another moment just to clarify some details.
The "problems" you did not go into detail on were pretty dramatic. The Bostonians happened to have been at war with the Brits for almost a year. Remember, the Bostonians protested a tax levied on them to help pay for the French & Indian war. The King retaliated by closing Boston harbor and billeting British troops in the homes of the colonials. A group of protestors were fired upon by British sentries, a few protestors getting killed. In the countryside New England militia men were waging guerilla war on British patrols. And (this is a big "and") Boston rebel leaders named "Adams" WARNED their neighboring colonists that their ports would be shut down next and their streets would be filled with British troops in a matter of time. They pleaded for help.
So I don't know if the academic/legal study that the Colonial Committee conducted was of great importance in their decision making process. The comment of Benjamin Franklin certainly makes the headlines in history books -- better hang together or will hang separately.
Perhaps the Merchantville/Cherry Hill study will include a Benjamin Franklin type ... perhaps a Mr. Perno will appear to warn that the towns need to hang together lest all the streets of those who matter will get repaved separately. Who knows.
ktbfw's commentary has gone from nonsensical to pathetic
Has anyone heard if the Cherry Hill petitioners hit their required numbers? Didn't someone say by Labor Day? I would expect that it would be revealed on the blog (since there was so much mention of it on here), correct?
I heard that they stopped just short of Labor Day. I'm not sure what that means.
They could finish their petition by canvasing the C.H. schools.
Please don't come near our schools. You will be arrested.
Go canvas pennsauken schools - that's where you should be going.
Don't forget the anti merger cherry hill petition.
I signed this petition.
Study and potential merger only if it does not involve Merchantville going to our schools. they can stay with their send-receive relationship with pennsauken.
I strongly suggest a visit to the Constitution Center and the exhibit on "Rome-America."
The founding fathers did in fact form committees and did studies on legal matters before drafting the Constitution.
The records from the Revolution are quite clear on the amount of work and study that went into conducting the war as well.
And since we are dealing with matters are far less urgent than war and the founding of a nation, we can certainly take our time and study the matter to determine the best course of action.
[The records from the Revolution are quite clear on the amount of work and study that went into conducting the war as well. ]
Perfect example, Alice.
Congress studied and prepared their reports ... but forgot to feed and supply its army sitting up at Valley Forge, and at many places before and after that encampment, starving and with tattered clothes and no boots and weaponry enough for one in five. What did those congressional studies tell them?
In Merchantville we have a councilman today who studies and promotes a merger yet has limited his "director of works" duties to repaving his own while the West End derelicts run free in unlighted, unpaved, unkempt alleys.
Maybe you can give him a badge of courage for supporting the abandonment of his own government in the financial crisis he helped to create.
Yes, more studies, bigger grants, new bonds ... and not a dime saved for the citizen patriots.
Alice, did you know the planners of the "Constitution Center" refused to include mention of the Friends' contributions to the Revolutionary War because they (Quakers) were "pacifists"?, wash your mouth out with soap for saying the word.
Sort of like our Council ignoring Brunton because he is a "Republican budget cutter" (more soap).
At this point you are seriously arguing that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would handle things differently in Merchantville. O, and Constitution Center is unfair to Quakers, so naturally we can't have a Study Commission.
That's your argument against studying the facts of merger? against making information about finances, services and governance public? This is not a reasonable argument.
If we ever get to the point of DCA deciding on a Study Commission, I am for it. The amount of information that will become public on finances, services, and governance, for all of us to analyze is well worth it.
Could someone from the Merchantville Connecting for the Future group confirm if Cherry Hill made their numbers? I have to believe that someone from the group is monitoring the blog.
I've heard that they've got the numbers, but believe that they don't need them anymore. They might be in contact with the Governor's office.
The numbers are no longer needed from either party.
There is a new twist
stay tuned. politics at its finest.
Any chance that we can drop the "suspense" and just say what it is? If you know and you're posting anonymously, can't you just put it out there?
I don't know anything. I just like to make things up and put it on the blog like everyone else.
[Alice said: At this point you are seriously arguing that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would handle things differently in Merchantville.]
Author Michael Zukerman believes Jefferson interfered with the development of public education.
Merchantvillans might conclude that Jefferson would not support a merger for a better public high school.
Zukerman writes:
"Between Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, which Founding Father did the most by far to promote and shape the future of public education in America? ...
"Thomas Jefferson's proposal of 1779, had it passed, it would have provided a scant three years of elementary schooling—in little more than the three Rs—for the “free children” of Virginia. Beyond that, it would have set up 20 secondary schools around the state, each of them offering a conventional classical curriculum to the sons of the affluent planters. Each year one boy from each elementary school would have been chosen to study, at public expense, alongside dozens of scions of privilege. But after a year, a third of that paltry cohort of scholarship boys would have been sent home. After a second year, the rest would have been sent packing as well, “save one only, the best in genius and disposition” in each secondary school, who would have been eligible to go on for four more years, solitary recipients of state support among swarms of boys who attended because their fathers could afford the tuition. “By this means,” as Jefferson proudly proclaimed, “twenty of the best geniuses will be raked from the rubbish annually.”
"In the last decade of his life, he fought actively and ardently against the education of the children of commoners..."
Paternity Test By Michael Zuckerman. Illustration by Chris Sharp. ©2010 The Pennsylvania Gazette
ktbfw,
If you are going to quote me then use the whole quote.
I wrote that you argued the founding fathers would act differently "...so naturally we can't have a Study Commission."
I disagree with you on many grounds, not the least of which is that your statement of history on this point is wrong and that the FF used committees to study issues.
By leaving out the last part you twist my meaning and distort my views. It is unethical to do so, and I ask you to stop.
[Alice: If you are going to quote me then use the whole quote.]
It is a reference, Alice, --an arrow pointing back to the part of your comment that I wish to address-- so others know to what I am referring.
Your whole comment is in plain sight. I am not trying to hide anything you said, or twist meanings. If I were to repeat all that you say, there would be less space to make points / counter points. And too, the blogger's summary column would just be repeating your comment and nothing more.
In a reference it is not necessary to repeat the whole. Would you prefer that I use footnotes?
As to your conception of our founding fathers creating our independent nation via study committees, I read our history differently. Let me refer you to the 4,000-letters of correspondence between John Adams and his wife, Abigail, during those formative years. They paint a different picture -- one of blatant politics and power plays among representatives, including those members in committees ... and the decisions in constituting those committees you refer to.
Mr. Adams was deeply troubled by the goings on behind the scenes and on the chamber floor. Often he expressed his discontent and was just as frequently ignored or rebuffed. If you were to accept McCullough's history [ Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of the second president. John Adams By David McCullough 736pp, Simon & Schuster, $35], you might be persuaded as I am that the Revolutionary War would not have been declared by a "study committee". For example, Virginia was adamant about negotiating a settlement UNTIL George Washington, one of the Virginia delegates, was rumored to be selected to command the forces. The Virginia delegates then reversed themselves.
I mentioned that Congress failed to fund and supply Washington when he commanded our army. Do you know what the solution was to that problem? Not a committee. Washington struck a deal that he would pay the costs out of his wife's fortune and be reimbursed afterwards with interest. His final bill was --hold onto your hat-- four million dollars. Part of the settlement was a grant to him of a quarter million acres of Georgia swampland. Sounds like a bad deal to us, perhaps. But those swamps abounded with straight, tall pitch pines needed at the time worldwide for ship masts, timbers and decking. Shipbuilding timber was one of the reasons England wanted to hold onto the colonies, she having exhausted her native timber long before. Committees did not make decisions such as those.
I believe, similarly, that the potential merger of Merchantville with Cherry Hill will not ride on a study recommendation, no matter what the recommendation is. I think it will come down to people reflecting internally on whether they want to govern themselves and continue as a political entity, or surrender to our Goliath of a neighbor to let it run us. It will be a gut vote.
Quote me on that!
Post a Comment