The undercards feature Jim Moore and Pam Matukonis for the GOP vs. Anthony Perno and Steve Volkert for the Dems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Recent Comments
Merchantville Blog 2.0
- Mville Citizen
- Merchantville, NJ, United States
- Please send suggestions
for topics to mvillecitizen@yahoo.com.
93 comments:
Cruiser raised three issues, aside from merger, for the candidates to discuss -- tax rate, redevelopment and high school.
I agree that those four issues would be good for evaluating the candidates. Now, if we could only get the candidates to discuss them. It won't happen in the friends-only coffee klatches of the parties.
How could it happen?
I am reposting this, with some edits for clarification, from the prior election thread because the information is relevant.
The assessed values(including equalization rates, figures for exempt property and tax rates) for all Camden County towns can be found at the Board of Taxation's website here
http://tinyurl.com/23yaoac
There has been no revaluation in Merchantville in the period of Mayor North's term (2006-2010) so the years can be fairly compared to each other.
The dollar figure is from column a in the Equalization Rate Tables and is the total of assessed real property.
2005: $158,328,600
2006: $156,852,100
2007: $157,475,000
2008: $157,894,000
2009: $157,814,400
2010: $157,657,300
So in the first year of Mayor North's term, the assessed real property value dropped $1.476million. There has been a recovery of value in the amount of $1.205million up to 2010 for a net loss in assessed values of $671,300.
Note that the loss in property values did not result in lower taxes overall.
{Note that the loss in property values did not result in lower taxes overall.}
I do not understand your argument. Why would lower valuations lead to lower taxes OVERALL?
Haven't you been arguing that changing valuations (say, by sale prices) only benefit individuals and that government spending is the culprit affecting taxes?
As to declining tax base, Alice, just in the triangle two properties were taken off the tax map valued at over a million dollars. And across the street from each are properties that got tax reductions in past years. (PNC, 9 W. Park, Verizon, Collins House.)
Next to the post office we lost the Chase building and its taxes. And then there is the continuing PILOT at Clifton Commons that Cruiser won't let me talk about anymore.
These are reasons why our taxes don't go down. Plus the continued spending.
Didn't the mayor take office in 2007?
Wouldn't that change your math?
The Wikipedia entry for Merchantville has the mayor as serving a four year term. I think Anon 9/28 12:46 PM has it right.
Using Alics's statistics, ratables have increased during Mr. North's term.
ktbfw - I agree with your 9/27 11:04 PM posting.
I wrote that about the taxes because the argument was made, rather vehemently on this blog, that rising values result in rising taxes. The corollary would be that declining values lead to declining values.
I do not think that the assessed values are the reason for either. I think that increased spending is what raises taxes.
I wrote "overall" because an individual may have had property taxes lowered by appealing the individual assessment.
PCS
In 2005, the assessed value of all real property exempt from taxation was $23,041,700.
In 2009, the assessed value of all real property exempt from taxation was $23,055,300.
So it doesn't seem that the difference in assessments is due to the taking of property off the tax roles.
I assume that when Alice says "taxes" she means "tax rate." The tax rate is simply the division of the tax levy by the ratables. So the ratables, when they do not increase from year-to-year, have a significant effect on the tax rate year-to-year. Merchantville ratables are basically unchanged year-to-year so the tax rate goes up even though spending, a part of the levy, may be under good control. (i am ignoring the decline in revenues from the state in this discussion.)
Have no doubt that I agree that spending is part of the calculation and has to be watched and I am glad that citizen watchdogs are watching it. But if there is not a process to similarly watch and improve ratables, all of that watching of spending will be for naught. Ratables will eventually go down and there will not be an improvement in the tax rate.
So then, what are the positions of the candidates to control spending and improve ratables. Specifics - not generalities. Sack the police? No consideration of redevelopment deals? Whatever.
[ Alice: I wrote that about the taxes because the argument was made, rather vehemently on this blog, that rising values result in rising taxes.]
Let me take one more run at this "rising-taxes-resulting-from-merger" hurdle and then I'll move onto the javelin.
My argument has been that taxes, and I'll use Alice's word, OVERALL would rise for Merchantvillans upon a merger --perhaps not instantly-- because sale prices would be driven up by buyers who would otherwise not purchase a Merchantville Victorian because of our school situation.
This would occur after any equalization that the two towns might agree to make at the merger.
Why would Merchantville's taxation increase and not Cherry Hill's? My supposition is based on two points. One, Merchantville is so small compared to C.H., Cherry Hill's tax rate would not be affected by increases in Merchantville's property values (due to the new demand). Nor would the County tax rate be adjusted to reflect equalization.
In Cherry Hill's tax arena, Merchantville would be comparable to an individual property jumping in value. Alice has already made clear the variability of an individual's tax increases/decreases in a merger.
Now, to keep my hind foot from hitting the hurdle, let me join Cruiser is saying that the outcome for parents of school children would outweigh the higher cost of home ownership.
BUT MERGING WILL NOT HELP THE REST OF US WHO COMPRISE THE MAJORITY. Where's my javelin?
Mayor North's first year was 2006, when he was sworn in. His first year saw our largest drop in assessments from the prior year.
The recovery has been small and not made up the difference.
This may or may not be due to his policies.
This would occur after any equalization that the two towns might agree to make at the merger.
The equalization is not subject to agreement. Under the statute, the regular equalization rates are used in the first year. Although silent on subsequent years, the implication is that a revaluation is done very soon, (within the first year?) to apply to year 2-11, when the next revaluation could legally be done.
One, Merchantville is so small compared to C.H., Cherry Hill's tax rate would not be affected by increases in Merchantville's property values (due to the new demand).
You are going to have to explain this. In a merged entity the tax rates are the same for all properties. How would rising values change the tax rate for individual properties within a municipality?
Nor would the County tax rate be adjusted to reflect equalization.
The equalization rate adjusts county taxes between municipalities within the county. Not within a municipality. If Merchantville values rise relative to Cherry Hill and the ER cannot be adjusted to reflect this, then this fact would be in our favor, wouldn't it?
...
The total assessed taxable real property in Merchantville in 2009 was $158,364,000. In CH, it was $4,601,834,600. Merchantville assessments would represent 3.32% of the total assessments of a merged entity. If Merchantville homes increased at 10% per year, and CH at only 5% per year, then at the end of 10 years Merchantville would represent 4.97% of the total assessments. That's a mere 1.64% more.
IOW, if assessed values in Merchantville increased 57.5%, the relative increase in the total assessments is only 1.64%.
I did not adjust for property that is currently exempt (like PILOTS) but would come onto the assessments in that 10 years. CH has much more of that than we do.
Given this reality, can you show your calculation for how rising values in a merged Merchantville will result in higher taxes than under a separate entity scenario?
I am willing to be convinced that rising property values will result in disparate tax increases if the math will prove you right. But right now, with the facts we have, it is a huge hurdle. Instead of javelin, perhaps you should try the long jump next.
A Study Commission will report on costs and taxes. From that we can make better predictions of future taxes and thereby make better judgments.
So who is this Mr. Rogers that's running for Mayor.
And what are his positions?
thanks!
Anon is correct. Mayor North started in 2007 for a gain of $182,300 overall. Slightly down from the high in 2008.
I would ask both candidates what they would cut. Sharpen your pencils and take a look at our $1.3Million police department. Maybe incourage some older teachers to retire. Maybe we should take a hard look at outsourcing EVERY function of municipal services, in order to remain a viable stand alone town. I see Pennsauken and Cherry Hill police cars driving through town every day. We need to keep all options on the table. We can't bleed $300k per year for ever.
I wonder what the candidates think is a reasonable tax bill for Merchantville. What are their goals for the budget and what do they see as the consequences of their budget goals?
Fiscal Conservative - our Mayor and Council cannot "incourage" older teachers to retire. That is up to the Board of Education, a separate elected entity. And while retirement of older teachers might save money, the notion is a bit discriminatory against those who still add value even at an advanced age.
Drew said: ...while retirement of older teachers might save money, the notion is a bit discriminatory against those who still add value even at an advanced age.
There are nondiscriminatory ways to "cleanse" the ranks to save money and increase instructional productivity.
Counseling out requires the greatest supervisory skill. It is a matter of talking to the employee about his performance compared to the school's goals for students. Not far from here there was a principal long ago who was superb at counseling out marginal teachers and still maintain a friendly relationship with those who changed careers as a result of his intervention.
Early retirement incentives empty the ranks of older employees. Public employees cannot be paid for time they do not work but around the edges school districts have been successful at negotiating "special-offer" retirement benefits. Drew is correct about losses in teaching skills but generally teaching performance peaks with about five years of experience while salary schedules have many more steps.
A third method is sometimes brutal -- reassigning employees to work slots they do not want. There's many a teacher who has retired early to avoid a scheduled reassignment. I remember a draftsman who retired early to avoid conversion to metrics, he said.
Facebook now has link to websites for the November election candidates, both parties.
Mr. Rogers indicates he is going to eliminate the back room deals which raise taxes. I can only presume that he has specifics of such back room deals if he is going to eliminate them. If he truly knows about alleged back room details he should provide those details to the public. Exactly when and where did the back room deals happen? What were the deals about? Who was unjustly enriched by the deals to the detriment of taxpayers? Were there really back room deals?
What about the deal with Maple Chapel for a tax abatement? The taxpayers were told there would be no tax abatement for that deal.
And the Fieldstone tax abatement? The taxpayers were told no tax abatement would be made for that deal and Fieldstone said they didn't need one.
The taxpayers found out after the deal was done and no chance to say "no!".
O they that have eyes but will not see!
I don't think those were back room deals. They were done in the open. There was plenty of furious opposition to them. Experience has provided strong evidence that the non-single-family-residential real estate situation in Merchantville is not going to improve unless there is a "local contribution" of some kind, be it a bargain price for land, tax abatements for a number of years or a PILOT - whatever it takes. The deals simply will not work for investors unless there is a local contribution. If you want to get rid of blight and cause attractive structures to be built or restored, the community needs to make a local contribution. After that is done, other investors will hopefully come along to invest without the dreaded local contribution but we are not quite there yet, especially for the bigger properties.
Candidates can certainly be philosopically opposed to local contributions but they should also express how they are going to improve blighted properties without such financial techniques. The Republican candidates seem to be saying they are not going to use such techniques - but what are they going to use? Or are they simply going to do nothing? If the latter, they should say they are going to do nothing.
The "furious opposition" only came out after the deal because the they were "done deals" before the public found out.
And ears that will not hear.
Still waiting to hear how the blight problem will be solved without local government participation and the possibility of local contributions to redevelopment.
Is "do nothing" the approach of the Republicans? If so, they should say so.
Back room deals are no way to alleviate blight.
Whatever the Republicans propose, it will be better than lying to the public about the deals. "Lying" as in, telling us there would be no tax breaks and then turning around and granting them.
Cruiser,
Nobody said anything about no "local government participation," as you put it. The issue is above board, appropriate "local government participation" vs. the hidden, decided in other-than-open-forums meetings as is done now.
Lying even to Council members behind the abused veil of "private session" while buying properties for the TCE project, then writing a resolution that inaccurately states elements of the basis of the vote is one example of abuse.
You want more details read them on www.mabrunton.com (you'll have to find them - check the news items on the homepage and the news archives on the site).
Cruiser: Still waiting to hear how the blight problem will be solved without local government participation ...
On another thread Chris made the argument that results is his mantra, not efforts. (I think it was Chris.)
A few weeks ago I learned why Wellwood Manor continues to languish despite our repeated activities in inspections and citations. A couple of times I asked Council to apply to the Court for receivership so that rents can be escrowed by the court for making the necessary health and safety repairs. The court can even appoint a manager to oversee the repairs.
Well, a council member told me privately that we have taken Wellwood's owner to court BUT THE JUDGE IMPOSES MINOR FINES instead of ordering the property into receivership. Mr. Malik pays the fines and continues to do nothing.
The failure of our local government is not moving the case beyond the local court. We need to file a motion in the Camden County Superior Court.
That could be an election issue, Cruiser, don't you think?
Well, I reviewed the website as Mark B suggested. I read the write-up of the acqusition of 9 East Park. The write-up is basially hyperbole for political purposes. The public purpose of the acquisition (assemble land for the eventual redevelopment of the area) is well known. That elected officials would take steps to achieve this goal is normal and routine. The bank property was acquired and this acquisition are just obvious steps in a process that has been much communicated and debated. The outcome of all of that is that TCE is going to be redeveloped. Steps have to be taken to do that. That being the case, there was no need for extensive communication of this minor part of the overall deal. The price paid was reasonable (the website even admits this); the need for the acquistion is obvious.
I ask again, what are the Republican plans for areas and situations like TCE! Do nothing or do something. If the latter, what is that "something?"
I have noticed some council persons can't make meetings on a regular basis. Even in an election year
Are these guys really against bike paths? Isn't that like kicking babies?
A bike path from Moorestown to Fairmount Park sounds great!
I think they are against $400,000+ bike paths with all the bells and whistles when one of the people voting for the path gets paid the money to build it.
Please, layout your detailed description of this scandal because I don't understand.
This whole campaign issue around the bike path is suggesting conflict of interest where none in fact exists. I would assume that anybody can confirm with the Borough that none of the candidates have any financial stake in the work proposed for the Merchantville bike path. Perno's work on a regional masterplan for bike paths does not constitute any kind of conflict.
So are the Repubs fabricating an accusation of wrong doing - bad. Do they not understand what is going on - also bad. Or do they just not like bikes?
I suspect that they just don't like bikes from Camden. This resistance to connecting our bike path to Camden seems like nothing but thinly veiled prejudice.
Its a poor issue to hang their campaign on. I'm really sad to see the choices they've made.
[lavardera wrote: I suspect that they just don’t like bikes from Camden. This resistance to connecting our bike path to Camden seems like nothing but thinly veiled prejudice.]
I don’t particularly like bikes from Camden, either, Mr. LaVardera, and my resistance to connecting Merchantville to Camden is not thinly veiled prejudice at all. Prejudice is unreasonable bias, and there is nothing unreasonable in not wanting to have a bike path connecting Merchantville to the city with the highest crime rate in the U.S. in 2009.
That kind of opposition is not like “kicking babies” -- it’s more like protecting babies from harm.
Great, since we can confirm that there is no conflict of interest involved and talk about the real issue, is that some people are afraid of crime, and some candidates want to exploit that to their benefit.
Tell me then, what risk does a bike path present when Camden and Merchantville are already connected by numerous roads and sidewalks? What is the crime-wave that will suddenly flow down the bike path on two wheels to terrorize our citizens?
There is nothing wrong with being afraid, but you have to be able to own up to irrational fears. There is no threat presented by a bike path.
However exploiting your fear for political gain is just dirty. They are vilifying brown and yellow people by saying we should be afraid to connect our neighborhoods to theirs. Its prejudice, and reflects poor judgment on the candidates part.
If its not about fear of the bike path for them, then this issue should just go away now, because we know there is no conflict of interest.
A regional bike is a significant infrastructure improvement for Philadelphia. Having a bike path go through our town is as significant an infrastructure improvement as having a regional train stop. The bike network makes our town much more desirable to people in the region who want to live within a bike commute of their work place, just as some look to live near a trolly stop. This means increased property values, better quality of life, and positive economic pressure for all the communities along that bike path. The best thing we could do to reduce the threat of crime from Camden is to complete this bike path. The shortsightedness of opposing it is astounding.
You either talk too fast or I hear too slow, lavardera. How can we “confirm” that there is no conflict of interest involved? You drew that conclusion much too quickly for me.
Do you know for a fact that Anthony Perno (as President of Cooper’s Ferry Development Association) is working on a master plan for a regional bike path that would connect the west end of Merchantville with Camden?
If part of Perno’s job with Cooper’s Ferry is to get approval for a bike path that would connect Merchantville with Camden, then it would appear that he has a vested interest in the matter. If Merchantville Councilman Perno took action to do that, that sounds like a conflict of interest to me ... unless he abstained from voting on the bike path and if he did nothing to acquire “stimulus” money for it.
What do you mean by accusing the GOP of “vilifying brown and yellow people”? How dare you say opposition to more easily connect Merchantville with the #1 Crime City in America is “prejudice”! I’m talking about murderers and rapists and robbers ... whatever their color. In my opinion, opening the old RR bridge across Rt. 130 will NOT improve property values at the west end of Merchantville, nor will it bring a better quality of life.
I am not connected in any way with the GOP. I've been a non-affiliated voter for 3 years and am speaking only for myself.
Let me ask you this: Would you consider your own strong opposition to sending Merchantville’s high school students to Pennsauken High School to be “thinly veiled prejudice”?
I live near the bike path off of Route 130. I walk my dogs around that spot everyday. The fencing is all cut up there and anyone could walk through right now in the cover of bushes and overgrown weeds. We should at least cut down all that foliage and put lights up to see who's in there.
And by the way, I used to live directly across 130 a few years ago and that's not a bad neighborhood. That is Pennsauken and a good FAMILY neighborhood. Why is it that Merchantville people keep bashing Pennsauken? People in Pennsauken aren't much different from Merchantville people. Do you think you're so much better?
Gail, the Master Plan has no bearing on actual projects that happen to to construct a bike path network. It is a reference document that all communities can work towards so the network of paths connect and that you can actually get somewhere.
Merchanville's bike path improvements are one such project. Funding for that is completely independent from any other bike path improvement project in the region. It went through our Borough Council and was subject to local control just as any other project.
Cooper Ferry operates only within the confines of Camden City, so if and when any money is ever spent there on bike paths it has no connection or entanglement in any way with our local project.
Sorry - the GOP candidates are way off base here.
This is not the same as school preferences. Nobody is saying they don't want their kids to attend Pennsauken because the school is full of "murderers and rapists and robbers". Its about the performance of the school. Meanwhile you broadly generalize everybody on the other side of the bridge as criminals.
The other side of the bridge is a good neighborhood in Pennsauken. Its Pennsauken's job to finish that portion of the bike path that continues to Camden and Philadelphia. The Merchantville project extends towards Maple Shade and Moorestown - its the completely opposite direction! So yes, I think our GOP is unfairly using "Camden" to attempt to scare people when it has nothing to do with the Merchantville project. Its a lame attack and they should be ashamed.
[Euclid wrote: We should at least cut down all that foliage and put lights up to see who’s in there.}
I drove down to that area late this morning and had a lot of trouble even finding the old RR bridge, which once was clearly visible. I agree wholeheartedly that the bushes and overgrown weeds should be cut down as soon as possible, and that lights should be installed for safety reasons. I believe the bridge and the adjoining property are located in Pennsauken. Maybe the planning group that’s working with the joint Merchantville/Pennsauken/Camden committee to improve that area has already recommended that.
In answer to your question about why Merchantville people keep bashing Pennsauken -- my observation based on 29 years of living here is that many M/V residents DO believe they’re much better than their Pennsauken neighbors. Ironically, it’s probably because they’re NOT better that they think that.
Some helpful reading:
Bicycle Paths: Safety Concerns and Property Values
There is no increased threat of incoming crime from Camden because of a single bike path. There are dozens of streets that cross and connect between Camden and Pennsauken and Merchantville. The idea that the addition of a single path would pose additional risk is absurd.
Thanks Gail. I'm not saying that everyone in Merchantville is a snob. Drive on over to Chestnut on the other side of 130. It is not a slum. It's a good family neighborhood. I'm far more concerned about some of the transients in the apartments on Maple.
I do see a potential conflict of interest.
If Mr. Perno is paid to promote bike paths, then is he voting his own interests or the interests of Merchantville taxpayers when the question of whether we should pay hundreds of thousands for a bike path comes up?
The question is really whose interests is he representing and how can we trust him to represent us.
Maybe the bike path is in our interest; maybe a less expensive path would do. But if Mr. Perno is already paid to formulate a bike path Master Plan then it is reasonable to ask: Why would he vote against the very plan he was paid to design?
I just have questions here. I'm not talking about whether the bike path is a good idea. A question is raised whether Mr. Perno should be voting to spend our money to do the plan he was paid by the county to formulate.
Isn't that the issue the GOP is raising? A question of do we trust M. Perno to vote our interests over his own?
So his job is contained to developing Camden and nothing further. He is obviously an advocate of bike paths, but he is not gaining materially from a bike through Merchantville. No conflict. Should he recuse himself for having an opinion??
Some factual information about the bond issue for the bike path:
Bond Ordinance 10-09 would pay to add an additional path to the current bike/pedestrian path and would also extend the path across Centre St. to Cove. Rd. The total estimated cost is $400,000 -- approximately 80% of which would be paid for with “stimulus” & grant money. Local taxpayers would pay $75,000 and it’s my understanding that includes a $50,000 embedded light crossing at Centre St..
This ordinance was originally 09-09, approved in May 2009, then became 09-18, which was adopted in Dec. 2009. Ordinance 10-09 was adopted in July 2010. Can’t tell you why work has not yet begun -- must be one of the “shovel-ready” projects. Actually, some work has been done -- the RR ties from Park Ave. to Cove Road were removed.
Keep in mind that it only took a year and 45 days to build the Empire State Building!
So the plan is to extend the bike path from Center St. to Cove? Why does this document in my mail say that they want to build a bike path to Camden? Are they just using the word "Camden" to scare people, even though it's going the other direction? Do they think that we're stupid. Shame on them.
I wrote"Return to sender" on my Republican propoganda. Why the scare tactics? Isn't there about a half mile of Pennsauken between the M'ville border and the Camden border in that area.
Realist - you don't understand what a conflict of interest is. Mr. Perno can not materially gain from a bike path being constructed in Merchantville no matter how he voted for it. The success or failure of a bike path project has no impact on whether or not the company he works for makes a bike path in Camden. He has nothing materially to gain from supporting or opposing our local project, so the only interest he can have in his actions on the Merchantville project is Merchantville's.
When you say he was "paid" to write a Master Plan, you mean that he works for the company that wrote the Master Plan, and he was the person in the company that worked on it. There was no "payment" for the plan. There is no opportunity for resultant compensation by the execution of the plan. There is no conflict of interest.
That study could have been a Master Plan for Bike Paths in Camden City, but it was done for the whole region - why? Because its a good thing to do, and a bike path plan for the region is a good thing. Thats called ADVOCACY. Thats what good leaders do.
The way you frame your question is extremely bias. This is a lame attempt to cast suspicions on a good project here in Merchantville. The GOP took the low road, and its a shame. Its not what good leaders do.
lavardera,
You don't know what you're talking about.
Talk to the folks who know best about people coming across the RR bridge to commit crimes on this side of the road - the police. I have.
The fence is cut and broken down very soon after Pennsauken repairs it - every time. It's not the dog walkers who are doing that - it's those with crime on their minds.
I've advocated for years to weld steel plate across the bridge that would take torches or other such heavier tools to breach, but Merchantville has no control over the bridge.
I know of specific instances where a few people have been caught hiding in the drainage ditches and the foliage near the bridge and RR right-of-way. Why were they hiding? Because they had just burglarized homes on our side of 130 (in Pennsauken and in a few cases Merchantville) and were waiting for the cops to leave to cross back over into Camden - on the RR bridge.
As for conflict of interest - you bet there is, but like Cruiser, you believe any report of such, if against those you support, is a fabrication by the opposition, so it's not worth the time to detail it all out for you.
Here's an idea - why don't YOU detail it all out and explain at each step why there is no conflict of interest? Instead of just crying "foul!" like a little baby who doesn't get a lollipop he thinks he deserves, actually EXPOSE the foul.
Mark B - There is no conflict of interest involved in the bike trail project. You know that. Stop trying to make something out of nothing for political purposes. Stop implying scanadalous behavior on the part of local elected officials when you know there is none. Your rebuttal that those who don't believe your lies should meticulously analyze the project is ridiculous. The onus is on you to prove your scurrilous allegations. That is the American way.
Having cleared the record that there is no corruption involved in the bike path project I will go on to say that on these blogs, from the first time I heard about it, I said this was not a wise project. I still think it is not a wise project at this time mainly because of the crime related matters discussed in this blog. It is a very wise project for the sake of regional planning. It looks good on a regional map. I hope that the future suggested by the detractors of the project (including, I guess, me) does not happen. The main thing which will happen is that people in the area of the bridge will have the perception they are less safe, regardless of how much their safety actually changes. Perception is reality to those people.
The time simply is not right for the bridge to be opened. Camden has to solve its ills quite a bit more before opening the bridge becomes a reasonable action.
Nonetheless, I view this as a minor atter which will not dissuade me from voting Democrat on election day. The Democrats are the people who have the best interests of the community at heart. Their good points far outweigh their bad points. Their track record demonstrates they work hard. In the Republicans all is see is the party of no, do nothing and no ideas.
cruiser,
You didn't "clear the record" on corruption or conflict of interest or anything else. You just gave us some biased, uninformed yammering on the topic, just as you did about the 9 E Park acquisition.
Using an elected position to promote a project that benefits you or your employer personally in some way is a Conflict of Interest. Lying to obtain approval for the borough to purchase a property from a "special treatment" friend at over $100,000 above fair market value, is certainly not ethical behavior (except maybe in your eyes). I have both the documents AND the Council meeting recordings to back all this up.
Chuntering on about it not being so doesn't make it that way, cruiser. As I said to laverdera, why don't YOU detail these things out and tell us all how they AREN'T conflicts of interest or just out-and-out corruption. I'd especially enjoy reading your explanation about that for the property purchase.
The Mville Republicans are the ones making charges so they have the burden of proof. I vote Republican in other elections, but not this one. Mr. Perno is being accussed of using his position to make money off of the Merchantville bike path. Mr. Perno has a wife and two kids in town. He serves as a volunteer fireman in town. He probably passed up more lucrative careers to work in non-profit. These are attributes of a giver not a taker. These accusations are shameful. This is not good for a small community.
Really Mark. The GOP has made the accusation. Show us the money trail. There is none. Its a ridiculous assertion, and reflects badly on the judgment of these candidates.
As for the bridge, if restored for a new bike path the fencing, the wild shrubs, the gullies will all be rejuvenated with lighting and eliminate hiding places for criminal activity. The situation you are bemoaning would be greatly improved.
The fact remains that criminals have any number of paths into and out of Merchantville. A new bike path will hardly increase risk, and in fact will eliminate a place that is difficult to police.
The fact remains that the Merchantville bike path project has nothing to do with the bridge, and the places you are complaining about. The fact remains that its in Pennsauken, and it will be Pennsauken's job to deal with the bridge, not Merchantville. And the unfortunate fact remains that the GOP candidates choose to use fear of Camden as a campaign issue when it has no bearing on the races here.
It was a sleazy tactic and it reflects poorly on the GOP candidates. Nothing you can sling at me here will change that. They made their bed and they will lay in it.
Mark B. - so now it is out that there is no personal financial gain to any council member arising from the bike path project or anything else.
No personal financial gain.
No personal financial gain.
NO CORRUPTION.
In the bike path what we have is a council member who works for a not-for-profit organization involved in improving communities, and everyone knows he works for such an organization. There is no secret about it. A community improvement project is arranged (that is, substantially paid for with a grant) through his organiztion. It is what the organization does. Regardless of how he voted on the project, his vote was not needed to approve the project. If Merchantville did not get the project, some other community would get a project they wanted. This is not corruption. He did not personally gain from this. His organization did not gain from it; if they got something for their services, they would have gotten it from the others seeking the grant money. The web you are trying to weave is far, far from the truth.
In your bantering you have said that there was "Lying to obtain approval for the borough to purchase a property." What exactly is the lie which was told? No lie was told. There were outcomes which you did not like (which is fine). Merely expressing your dislike would not be enough for political purposes so the truth is being empbellished for dramatic effect.
Who got the money for the property? What did that person have invested in the property, especially improvements since it was acquired? What is a reasonable rate of return on such an investment? Was the acquisition by the borough disruptive to the business established in the property justifying additional sale price to cause it to become unoccupied? You can ignore all of those things and ascribe the appreciation to scandal but the facts do not support scandal.
Putting this exchange and political differences aside, I thank you for your service as a Borough Council member. I appreciate your willingness to just be there, considering all that comes before a council and striving to do the right thing in regard to all those matters.
Best wishes for success and happiness in your new position and community.
Indeed, thank you for your service Mark.
However, no thank you for your Guilty until proven innocent philosophy. That has no place in our society, whether for Councilmen, or Camden.
Lavardera, your immediate neighbor told me last year when the committee was working on the bicycle path that he supported opening the bridge across Route 130 but that Merchantville police did not want it opened.
Your neighbor proposed that the cross over be lighted and protected by a surveillance camera connected to police headquarters.
I thought it was a good idea at the time. The committee decided, prompted by Boro Engineer Brickley, that the path would begin at Euclid Ave and not extend into Pennsauken to the R/R bridge.
A funny thing, I proposed to Council that Merchantville extend the path beyond Cove Road into Pennsauken towards Union Ave (heading towards Moorestown). Our mayor forwarded that proposal to Pennsauken for its cooperation. Pennsauken Council decided not to open the R/R bed from Cove due to security fears.
Apparently, Pennsauken is just as afraid of us as we are of them.
"Guilty until proven innocent philosophy"? Please! Your refusal to see what's right in front of your nose does not an innocent man make.
I've made my points, and the evidence is there if you choose to look at it. If you don't want to see it I'll not waste your time and mine further trying to show it to you.
It has been my honor to serve the residents of Merchantville over the last three years. While I have been at philosophical odds with some of the other elected officials, we worked together more than some might gather from this blog. The different philosophies of governance we've had - and they are starkly different, as you all know - are all part of our system of government. I appreciate your thanks for my time on Council, cruiser and lavardera, all the more so because our points of view are so often divergent.
Mark, what is in front of my nose, what is the facts is that there is no conflict, there was no payment. The GOP campaign claims are wrong at best, misleading lies at worst.
I've seen no evidence. If you think you have some, then please lay it out. If you think the claims are true, there is always time for truth. Please explain.
So if criminals can hide out in the weeds and bushes along the railroad bridge, clean it up. Put up some lights or blow up the damn bridge. I would prefer a bike path to the mess I see up there now. At least a well lit paved area could be watched effectively by police.
Again there is no reason to fear the people living in Pennsauken on the other side. Those folks are too busy working hard, some of them work two/ three jobs. They will not rob you! If they have time to ride their bikes over here, good for them. My problem is with transients and bums who hide in bushes and steal. Those folks live on this side of 130 too. Remember that.
lavardera,
"The payment" doesn't have to be monetary in nature, or even some sort of quid pro quo, but in this particular case it is monetary - the payment in question is Mr. Perno's compensation for his work at Cooper's Ferry Development. If this regional bike path becomes a reality, Cooper's Ferry's stock in trade will rise, and so would Mr. Perno's. Promoting it through Merchantville is the Conflict of Interest, because his personal interest will be at odds with his obligation as one of Merchantville's elected officials and policy makers.
It's like being a contractor who bids for work in the town, and also being one of the town officials who decides which contractor to hire (low bid doesn't always automatically win, BTW). Clear conflict of interest.
Same concept, slightly more complex circumstances.
okay, so their "stock in trade" may rise, huh?
I'm sorry Mark, but that is ridiculous stretch of reasoning.
If they do something that successfully improves the infrastructure in the region, their "stock in trade" will rise, enabling this non-profit to do more beneficial improvements to Camden City, and if we are lucky the region. And so by striving here in Merchantville to improve our own bike path, and improving our own community, that is somehow in conflict with the interest of our town? I could make the same accusation against any local official that did a good job. How do we know that your fine work as councilman did not filter back to your employer and garner you a nice promotion? Have you been acting in our interest, or trying to impress your bosses?
Its ridiculous. And the scary language on the mailing is so way over the top of this slanted interpretation of events. I'm so flabbergasted I can't even muster any more shaming words. Now thats out I hope we can retire the whole question. I admire you had the gumption to actually disclose the thoughts behind this despite the weakness of the reasoning. Thanks for that at least.
Rather than "conflict of interest", which some commenters are assuming must be monetarily strong, let's consider using the term "self interest". Self interest seems less reprehensible to some and even acceptable to a few on this blog.
Alice passed off my complaint about our councilman who, while Director of Public Works, rebuilt his street, curbs, sidewalks and installed a speed hump right in front of his own door after announcing that paving and lighting the alley behind Wellwood Manor was a low priority. She said we expect such behavior in local officials.
I do not. I assume that personal responsibility among local officials would be comparable to that expected of lawyers and judges. All take an oath. The councilman in question is a lawyer by chance. Why shouldn't he behave as required in a court of law.
I'll give you another example. Cruiser says the Surrogate's Office is an anachronism. I suppose conflict of interest and self interest are not important to him as it applies to real property rights of individuals. In law surrogacy is so important with respect to conflict-of-interest principles that,
An attorney who is a surrogate or deputy surrogate in any county, or who is in the employ of any such official, shall not practice law in any estate or trust matter in or out of court. Furthermore, a surrogate or deputy surrogate shall not practice law in any criminal, quasi-criminal or penal matter, whether judicial or administrative in nature, in that county, nor in the Superior Court, Law Division, Probate Part in any county. [NJ Rules of Court, R.1:15]
Surrogates are elected, as opposed to appointed, to further maintain the wall against conflict of interest. That is not important to Cruiser, apparently.
It is to me.
lavardera,
Maybe YOU think opening the bike path to Camden is an infrastructure improvement. I do not. Many agree with you, and many agree with me. THAT'S why being paid by someone else to support a project that you have to sit in judgement upon in another part of your life is called a Conflict of Interest. Pretty much ANY ethics officer would try to explain that to you. You can't seem to grasp the concept, so they'd likely fail (as I have), but they'd try.
From Dictionary.com:
"conflict of interest
"–noun
"1. the circumstance of a public officeholder, business executive, or the like, whose personal interests might benefit from his or her official actions or influence: The senator placed his stocks in trust to avoid possible conflict of interest.
"2. the circumstance of a person who finds that one of his or her activities, interests, etc., can be advanced only at the expense of another of them."
Just to be clear - The thoughts and comments I'm expressing here are mine and no one else's. I haven't disclosed anyone's thoughts but my own, because this flyer and the rationale behind it was not discussed with me before it was distributed. If you want to know Jim's, Pat's or Steve's thought process on this, talk to them.
I'm now finished with this topic - there isn't really much else to say either way, I think, and you can continue to willfully misunderstand what I'm saying forever. To paraphrase an old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but if he's too stupid to drink, it's not your fault."
So how 'bout them Giants?
Mark, I know exactly what a conflict of interest is, and its not what is going on here.
The GOP mailer asserted that Perno was putting money in his pocket by building a bike path to Camden. A direct gain in his personal interest.
But what really is the story is that he advocated for the improvement of Merchantvllle's bike path. Which could contribute to the improvement of infrastructure and property values in town, and "raise our stock in trade" as you say. And if that is part of an improving regional bike path, it will contribute to making that bike path a more valuable asset to the region. And if that happens if will shine well on the Cooper's Ferry Development company for coming up with the idea. And if Perno is still in the companies employ, and still living in Merchantville at that time, it may "raise his stock" as you stay. We're may 3 or 4 stages of separation from direct personal gain here.
If that is questionable ethics, then any councilman and the Mayor should be suspect for any action they might take to improve the town for it might also benefit them personally as they live here, and their status in town may be raised. Are you also suggesting that no Councilman should advocate for policies they believe are right because some disagree? Because if that were so then nothing would get done.
There is no conflict of interest here, no questionable ethics. There is no legitimate claim here.
What went on here is the candidates went out with a mailer to every voter in town with wildly inflated claims of conflict. I don't need an Ethics Officer to tell me that is wrong. They've conflated this weak argument into a public accusation of payola, they've leveraged irrational fears of Camden and predjudice into an issue that is unrelated. It was dirty politics, and I question your own ethics for defending it.
Greggy,
I question your intelligence for refusing to see the truth. As my old pappy used to say "If it was a snake it would have bit you."
"Alice passed off my complaint about our councilman...She said we expect such behavior in local officials."
What???
This is a bad paraphrase, ktbfw.
I wrote no such thing and no reasonable person could interpret anything I wrote in the way you have.
lavardera--
In fact, I know very well what a conflict of interest is having worked for many years in local, state and federal governments, including a local judicial system before my retirement. I chose my words carefully and meant them to be read the same way.
The narrow definition of conflict of interest that you use in which only direct payments would result in a conflict is not the definition used in most governments. Indirect payments as well as the appearance of a conflict are included in most jurisdictions.
I also think calling the CEO of a company someone who "works for" the company as you did a rather out of focus gloss on the position Mr. Perno holds.
I see a potential conflict in that Mr. Perno has already been paid to develop the bike path plan for the county. To vote against it in Merchantville would appear to undercut his company's proposal but to vote for it without explanation of Merchantville's needs appears to be supporting his company at our expense.
Mr. Perno could have dealt with the situation by either recusing himself from voting or by making a loud declaration of his company's work and then forcefully explaining why he thinks spending taxpayer money this way is a good plan for Merchantville.
I think his actual response, the densely written letter in which he denies getting a direct benefit from the Merchantville bike path, falls far short of the kind of open government the Democrats promise in their campaign literature.
Again, I am not writing about the benefits of the bike path but I am pointing out that the Republican literature raised a good question about a particular vote and whether the councilman was voting in his own interests or ours.
You can decide that the question doesn't matter to you--but to say it is not a valid question is missing the point entirely.
I want to also say that I support consolidation and I think Mr. Perno supports it more than other councilpersons. But in this matter I think he mis-stepped.
The Republican campaign mailer did not raise a question. It greatly misrepresented reality, it exploited peoples fears and preyed upon prejudice. They could have easily raised the question rationally, but they did not. We can have differences on whether you consider this a conflict of interest. There is no room to say that the campaign literature was not a gross misrepresentation.
You are also mistaken that the county paid Cooper Ferry Dev to prepare the regional bike path plan. That was done on their own initiative. Your facts are wrong. This was public advocacy by a non-profit company. No matter how you try to paint this like some kind of personal profiteering, there is just nothing there. The connections that have been drawn from Merchantville improving its bike path, to Cooper Ferry, and Perno benefiting are so tenuous its ridiculous. Any benefit that comes out of this is common, not personal. Again, you could paint any councilman with the same brush for doing a good job and gathering achievements on their record. But somehow this is painted as a conflict.
I'm disappointed in the choices that the GOP candidates have made in taking their campaign this way. It reflects badly on them as candidates to be our leaders. I'd like to have better choices.
I'm trying to post a link to a document about the Merchantville bike path, but it keeps disappearing. This is a test.
To better understand what the discussion on this blog is about, please read: “Camden 2010: The Camden Active Trail Network”, published by Coopers’s Ferry Development Association in June 2008. It’s only 20 pages long and has pictures and maps -- fun reading.
Here’s the link: http://tinyurl.com/2dtva4c
I found the following statements to be particularly interesting:
1. “CFDA has been working with NJ DOT to plan six distinct connections from Camden City out to the region.” One of the 6 connections from Camden City is: “Linking to the Merchantville Bike Trail through Merchantville to Moorestown”. (pg. 2)
2. “Since 2007, Cooper’s Ferry has been organizing stakeholders to promote and support the campaign for the Camden Active Trail Network.” (pg. 5)
3. “The possibility of federal funding is the carrot which will entice even the most independent community to come together.” (Pg. 6)
Anthony Perno was the Vice President & COO of Cooper’s Ferry when this paper was published. He is now the President and CEO of that group.
To better understand what the discussion on this blog is about, please read: “Camden 2010: The Camden Active Trail Network”.
Here’s the link: http://tinyurl.com/2dtva4c
I found the following statements to be particularly interesting:
1. “CFDA has been working with NJ DOT to plan six distinct connections from Camden City out to the region.” One of the 6 connections from Camden City is: “Linking to the Merchantville Bike Trail through Merchantville to Moorestown”. (pg. 2)
2. “Since 2007, Cooper’s Ferry has been organizing stakeholders to promote and support the campaign for the Camden Active Trail Network.” (pg. 5)
3. “The possibility of federal funding is the carrot which will entice even the most independent community to come together.” (Pg. 6)
Anthony Perno was the Vice President & COO of Cooper’s Ferry when this paper was published. He is now the President and CEO of that group.
Only if you look at all of this with a jaundiced eye can you come to the conclusion that there was something untoward in Mr. Perno's actions with respect to the bike path deal.
From a regional perspective, when looking at it on a map, the bike path is obviouly a good thing. It is the normal type of thing which is promoted by organizations like Cooper's Ferry and they write glowing advocacy reports such as this. What do you expect reports about it to say? If anything, this report demonstrates that there was nothing secret about what was going on here. The entie thing was out in the open. There is nothing improper in Mr. Perno's handling of any of this.
It is very sad that the jaundiced eye has produced such hateful, untruthful discussion for political purposes.
Cooper's Ferry is Perno's LLC as you say and the long range plan is for one of the bike trails to go to Moorestown.
However, in the bicycle planning meeting last year Mr. Perno did not support extending the Merchantville path (which ends at Euclid Ave) that last block to the Rte 130 R/R bridge. He was clear that he would like to see a complete path and that clearing the underbrush and installing security cameras would be an improvement over the existing hazard BUT HE DID NOT SUPPORT THAT EXTENSION BECAUSE THE MERCHANTVILLE POLICE WERE AGAINST IT.
Let me suggest that the bike path to the R/R bridge is not a significant debate. Taxes and merger are.
I think Republican candidates should distribute ON MONDAY a counter to yesterday's Democrat flyer titled "It's Time for the TRUTH" which states that all three candidates are united with a "vision" that supports "community participation and action". That flyer can be read both as support for and opposition to merging with C.H. They also state that preserving the town consists of continuing their current management. These are contradictions. But with the contradictions that party will get votes from both sides.
Republicans need to say there is no vision in the present spending path -- that spending has led to today's turmoil, that the Democrat slate is severely divided on its "vision", one candidate advocating a municipal merger while the others are opposed, and that electing a divided slate would jeopardize the future of our town as all citizens want it to exist.
How about that for staying neutral?
Kudo's for kt for stating what everybody seems to know but won't say, that Council is overwhelmingly against merger.
What you don't have straight however is that the bridge is not in Merchantville. Its not even possible for our Council to run a project to improve or extend a bike path across the bridge no matter what we or any of our councilman feel about it.
So to be campaigning over a desire to build a bike path to Camden is really about trying to scare voters over unspoken issues, like crime, and prejudice. It was a bad decision, and something that has clearly backfired on them - deservedly so.
ktbfw - I am sure that not even the Republicans will take that convoluted advice.
The "time for truth" flyer from the Democrats had nothing to do with the merger issue. It had nothing to do with the redevelopment issue. It was about a correct analysis of annual spending for the past several years. As the analysis showed, spending has been substantially reduced. Debt service was also reduced. If you want a local government that is tough on spending and has substantial experience in being so, then the best choice is to vote Democrat.
Today (Sunday) brought the latest Republican flyer (purchase of the bank) to my mailbox. This clearly shows the anti-redevelopment stance of the Republicans. If this stance were around in the last ten years we would not have the Blue Monkey, Chestnut Station Apartments and townhouses, new PNC bank, etc. I doubt if we would have McFarlan's as the investor's decision to do the project had to be affected by the improving trend in town brought on by the Democrats.
Even the Repulican's plan for the "attractive town center" they envision depends upon the sound previous actions of the Democrats. The land the Republicans plan to use for this project is the land the Democrats acquired in the bank deal. Had the Democrats not exercised the leadership to acquire the bank property, this Republican plan could not exist. Their plan also connotes that they plan to retain the bank property and pay the very debt service they are accusing the Democrats of having wastefully entered. They are saying, in effect, that acquisition of the bank property is a good thing which they will continue perhaps in a differnt manner than the Dems plan to, but a good thing nonetheless.
The Republicans are simply out of touch with reality or are hypocrites.
Also of note is the appearance of ugly yard signs in Merchantville. I have lived here over thirty years and have never observed them before. I understand there was a long-standing agreement between the parties that they would not be used that was unilaterally and with out communication changed this year by the Republicans. It is sad that the Republicans would act in such a manner.
There has been a lighter side to the signs issue in that they have been installed by friendly pranksters in the lawns of those who are not voting Republican and the search is on for the "friends" who did it.
The local Democratic candidates have taken the term “smoke and mirrors” to a whole new level!
They have not reduced actual spending ... they have only reduced “appropriations” (that’s what they take from us and don’t spend.) They have not reduced the Borough’s debt. They have simply called it something else, maybe “bond anticipation note”.
You’re not stupid, Merchantville taxpayer. You KNOW your municipal property taxes have increased since 2008. Look at your own tax bills. In 2008-09 the borough tax rate was $1.228 per $100; in 2009-10 it was $1.279; in 2010-11 it was $1.335. That’s an increase of 10.7 cents per $100. Figure it out for your own home. For my home the municipal taxes went UP $211 in 2 years. That doesn’t sound like reduced spending to me.
During that same 2-yr. time, my school taxes increased only $97. But my County taxes went up $140.00 (those Freeholders aren’t getting my vote, either.)
Is it under this shell ... or maybe this shell?
I’m proud to say that I have two of those political yard signs supporting the local Republicans and I’m proud of it. That’s not “sad”, Cruiser -- as Martha Stewart would say, “it’s a good thing”. It means our republic is alive and well. Be thankful for that.
I will also vote to replace Rob Andrews, the Democratic Freeholders, and the surrogate. Am only sorry I can't relieve John Adler of his job.
For the record, I'm not even a Republican -- the GOP in Merchantville is not conservative enough for me.
Are you saying that Democrats are moving Republican signs? Now THAT’s sad. And a little childish.
Mark,
As you head onto greener (or at least warmer) pastures I too would like to take a moment to thank you for your service to the community. Sometimes I agreed with you and sometimes I didn’t. That is the beauty of a republic - we elect people to speak for us and if we don’t like what they say we have the opportunity to vote them out a few years later. My only official interaction with you was near the end of my tenure on the BOE when you were reviewing a defeated budget. I expected you to be a slash and cut adversary with a narrow-minded agenda when we should all have been looking to balance and maximize benefit for both the students and the taxpayers. What I found instead was a colleague who respected the Board’s experience, knowledge, and efficiency and who carefully considered all factors affecting the difficult decisions that Council needed to make.
Good luck as you move on and keep those V-22's flying high and performing well.
The continued accusations about improvements to Councilor Perno’s road are ridiculous. First, they were planned before he was elected. Second if you had ever spent time on his street you would know that those improvements were amongst the most needed in the Borough.
While I respect Mark B. for his service, I must say that I find the negative tone of the Republican campaign repugnant. (Disclaimer - or not - I lean toward Mark’s side of the political aisle). I have my own OPINION about what Councilor Perno has or has not done as regards consolidation and as to whether or not there was a conflict in his actions supporting the bike trail, but I KNOW that I have only seen attacks on the Democrats from my neighbors running on the Republican ticket for Council. They have not presented any answers as to what exactly they would do differently to improve our lot if elected. Many may think that what is happening is bad, but where is the articulation of what you would do better? Attack ads are effective when presented to an uninformed electorate. I’m reasonably certain that the regrettably small population who will actually vote in Merchantville are not that uninformed demographic.
The Republican candidates have grossly underestimated the affection that Merchantvillian’s hold for their neighbors who essentially volunteer their time to improve the community whether we agree with them 100% or not. Insinuation is barely tolerated. Blind accusation is NOT and turns us quickly to defend the accused that have done more to help the community than the rest of us – including the current Republican candidates – ever have.
Gail, your taxes went up even though spending went down because revenues from the state governemnt went down substantially.
I have no qualm with the content of the lawn signs. The problem I expressed is that the Republicans surreptitiously violated a long term agreement with the Democrats to not use them. It indicates the Republican lack of class.
My review of the Borough budgets shows that State aid to the Borough went down $143,431 in 2010 and only $14,314 the previous year, for a total of $157,745 in two years. (I’m looking at Sheet 11, Line 3B: “State Aid Without Offsetting Appropriations”.)
We still got $1,259,323 in those two years from the State, along with the substantial aid that came with offsetting appropriations.
In 2010 and 2009 we applied a total of $500,000 from our municipal surplus, which should have more than covered the $157,745 loss of State aid. My conclusion, therefore, is that municipal spending did NOT go down. Maybe you can help me understand the math.
I just read the Democrats' "It's time for the truth" flyer.
A few points:
The GOP candidates have NEVER advocated reducing the Police Department. In fact, they expressed concern about it when it looked like it was on the table this past year.
Likewise, they have never advocated cutting funding to the fire department.
The Democrats' flyer may be misconstruing, as the GOP Candidates' position, MY suggestions to cut the paid firefighter and the Community Affairs Officer positions from the budget this year and last. Presenting this as the candidates' position is an error (I hope an unintentional one).
I will be glad to explain MY rationale on those positions to anyone interested.
As far as the debt service goes, that is absolutely true, but it's only half the story.
The half they're not telling you is this:
At the end of 2007, the Total issued debt (bonds and notes) was $3,490,243.27.
At the end of 2009, two years later, the Total issued debt was $6,196,872.43.
That's an increase of 78% in just TWO YEARS!
This is from Note 13, CAPITAL DEBT, Summary of Debt, Issued, page 34 of the Borough of Merchantville County of Camden Report of Audit for the Year 2009, prepared by Bowman & Company, LLP, Certified Public Accountants & Consultants.
As far as two million in grants for aging infrastructure - I wish they would have published a list. There was no two million in grants obtained for that purpose by the elected officials I served with. Even though my website has not been updated for several months due to my work schedule out of town, you can go through the resolutions, ordinances, Council minutes and such there and add up the grants - they'll be well short of two million dollars (be sure not to include the many loans obtained during the past three years).
You need to work harder at reading the words on the lines, lavardera, not the ones in your predisposition.
I did not say Council is overwhelmingly against merger, lav, I said "one candidate advocating a municipal merger while the others are opposed". The key word is CANDIDATES, Democrats at that, and I must admit, I am surmising a bit based on things other than direct conversations.
Second correction, lavardera, is that I do "have straight" where the R/R bridge is located. If you knew the terms of the grant and those of the R/R right of way, you would know that any municipality or any not-for-profit could lease the R/R bed for recreational purposes and apply for highway funding to improve it following a decline of the home municipality to join the proposed project or to use the land itself in another way. Merchantville asked Pennsauken and got a pass to do what Merchantville would want.
So, improving the bed and bridge was a viable option ... but not approved last year. Then-Boro-Engineer Brickley did get his $50,000 twinkling lights across Centre Street at the gazebo, though, over my scoffing.
You might be interested in my counter proposal. I asked the mayor to move Brickley's lights from Centre St to across Maple Ave from the tip of Morrissey Park to the CVS/Post Office. The post office could offer a commemorative stamp showing smiling Brickley crossing the street with twinkling stars at his feet. That trade off would be worth 43 cents, don't ya think?
Now, lavardera, if you want to improve Merchantville's attractability to Cherry Hill, why don't you form a not-for-profit to lease the Pennsylvania railroad bed from Cove to Union? That would open up a park larger than Wellwood with mature hardwoods and a clean little creek with an Indian name that escapes me at the moment. All for a one dollar lease and an hour's worth of grant application writing. Cherry Hill needs parkland, having overdeveloped all its 24 square miles of open space decades ago.
Gina could help you read and write the words.
One thing on which Republicans and Democrats can likely agree is that they are glad they do not have ktbfw on their ticket.
Indeed!
kt - I'll put that on my lengthy to do list.
Read Mr. Rogers bio.
From what I read, he is a full time State of NJ employee. Ethics rules PROHIBIT him from seeking or holding partisan, elected office.
North - 830
Rogers - 471
...Perno - 772
Volkert - 834
Moore - 505
Matukonis - 467
Andrews - 750
Gladding - 460
Egan-Jones - 682
Leone-Zwil - 494
McDonnell - 653
Rodriguez - 663
Zallie - 477
DeCristofaro - 471
Post a Comment