Merchantville-Cherry Hill merger study a long processPhiladelphia Inquirer - Edward Colimore - 6 hours ago So officials and residents of tiny Merchantville Borough and its much larger neighbor Cherry Hill Township are taking it slowly. Hundreds of Merchantville .. UPDATE 10/20 NOON:  |
91 comments:
The Inquirer article says what kt speculated at the very beginning of all this ... that the petitioners made a pact with the nonprofit organization to go around the local bodies to achieve their objectives if necessary.
Bob Stocker is a member of that organization and Gina Genovese, a former North Jersey local politician, started the group before any municipalities of 566 had ever merged except for Vineland 60 years ago and a second district having only 7 residents. The organization has no facts to go by. They are guessing what the merger result would be and it is a political guess.
Bob Stocker was quoted: "You're creating a new township that would include Merchantville ... little would change, but we have to explore it to learn more."
Kt thinks nothing would change in Cherry Hill and Merchantville would disappear in everything but name. It could be like the little town of 7 people after its merger.
Whether or not borough officials are involved, members of Merchantville Connecting for the Future said they would hold hearings in both municipalities.
The citizens group would then apply for funds from the local finance board of the state Department of Community Affairs for the study, Stocker said. The study results would later be presented to residents, who would vote on the merger.
"This is the first time a citizens group has done this," said Gina Genovese, former mayor of Long Hill Township in Morris County and founder and executive director of Courage to Connect New Jersey, a nonprofit that favors the merging of towns to achieve savings.
The Chester Twp./Chester Boro merger study is between two almost equal communities that have partnered on many of their functions for decades. They are sister communities.
Cherry Hill and Merchantville would be the first modern-day merger of completely different towns and there is not one other example to use as a model or to get facts from. It is pure political gambling. So is the organization behind it.
They petitioned the council to form a committee to study consolidation. The council was openly hostile to their petition and did nothing. After much apparent legal research they found a way to force the issue. ONLY THEN did council pass a resolution to form the committee. Council could have done that back in July and I believe the petitioners would have been pleased. I thank them for their efforts.
March 21, 2010
Sarah Schillaci/For the Star-Ledger
Long Hill's former mayor is a lone voice for municipal consolidation
LONG HILL -- In the world of cutting municipal costs, shared services are the prevailing darlings of local politicians. That’s not nearly enough, says Gina Genovese. The former mayor of Long Hill Township and one-time Democratic candidate for State Senate is the executive director of Courage to Connect NJ, an organization that advocates municipal consolidation.
Genovese began considering consolidation during her [1 year] tenure as mayor in 2006, when Long Hill and Bernards townships merged their police communications departments. “At the end of the day, there was very small savings,” she said. "...You’re not taking the largest part of a municipal budget and addressing that. That would be the administrative salaries, a cost that towns of all sizes must shoulder.
Still, Genovese’s full-throated promotion of consolidation is something of a voice in the wildnerness. “I’m the only one,” Genovese said.
The “Courage to Connect” Facebook page has only 75 fans, and when Genovese begins giving talks about her concept next month, it will be a one-woman show.
In a rural Republican township of 12 square miles with a population now double of Merchantville, Democrat Gina Genovese was appointed mayor for 1 year in 2006 out of a three year term as committeewoman.
Genovese wants to tell 80,000 people how to merge based on her one term as a rural township committeewoman and her founding of a political organization 6 months ago that has never done a merger OR SEEN ONE.
Long Hill Township was incorporated as Passaic Township in 1866. In November, 1992 the voters elected to change the name of the municipality to Long Hill.
The Township consists of four communities: the villages of Gillette, Millington and Stirling, and the hamlet of Meyersville. Homestead Park is the name of the first subdivision in the Township developed in the 1920's.
Geography: 12.13 square miles. 55% of the Township consists of vacant land, parks, conservation and open space areas, due principally to the existence of wetlands, flood plains and steep slopes. 47% of the township is public parkland. The longest straight line you could walk within the township is 6.3 miles. Wear boots, since both ends of this walk are in wetlands.
Residential Total: 2918 properties, 33.3%
Commercial and Industrial Total: 133 properties, 4.5%
Developed Areas Total: 44.9%
Open Spaces Total: 55.1%
Population: 8,777 at 2000 Census
Long Hill Township has a Township Committee form of government. Five members of the Township Committee are elected for staggered three-year terms. The Committee elects a Chairperson to serve as Mayor for one year. The present Committee has 6 Republican officials. The township has 63 full time employees and 35 part time employees.
About 16% of single-family residences are assessed at over $500,000.
Our average residence is assessed at $379,000.
The median (half above, half below) residence is assessed at $350,000.
Schools: The September 2010 enrollment for PreKindergarten through 8th grade in the Long Hill Township Public Schools is 946 students.
Organizations: American Legion Post 484
American Legion Auxiliary Unit 484
American Red Cross
Boy Scout Troop 56
Boy Scout Troop 59
Chamber of Commerce
Community Center
Cub Scout Pack 56
Cub Scout Pack 59
BPO Elks, Stirling Lodge 2392
Girl Scouts of Long Hill
Grange #188, Meyersille
Historical Society
Knights of Columbus
Lions Club of Long Hill Twp
Little League
Moms Club® of Long Hill
Parent Teacher Organization
PBA Local 322 (Long Hill Twp. Police Benevolent Association)
Police Explorers
Senior Citizens Club of Long Hill Twp.
Sons of the American Legion Squad 484
Wharton Music Center
I credit the petitioners for getting a number of conversations started. Now we're talking about charter schools and shared services. I don't agree with them entirely, but I admire their efforts.
This is a bit off topic in this thread but certainly not off topic in this blog.
The Inky had this recent article about the end of shared police services between Woodlynne and Collingswood.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20101009_Woodlynne_gets_police_force_again.html
The point in the article I found interesting is that the size of the newly established police force of Woodlynne is about the same size as the Merchantville police force. Woodlyne is a community which has similar policing needs to Merchantville, especially the proximity to high crime areas and the overall size of the community. This sort of justifies the size of the Merchantville police force. When a similar community had the opportunity to establish a police force from scratch, they set it up size-wise very similar to the Merchantville police.
Sorry the URL did not copy. Go to www.phillynews.com and put Woodlynne police in the search block. You should get it. It was in the Oct. 9 Inky.
"The organization has no facts to go by. They are guessing what the merger result would be and it is a political guess."
That's why we're having a Study Commission. To get at the facts.
What are you so afraid of? The facts? People thinking for themselves? We look at the facts and then everyone gets to debate it and make up their own mind.
That's not a gamble, that's common sense and democracy.
Cruiser: When a similar community had the opportunity to establish a police force from scratch, they set it up size-wise very similar to the Merchantville police.
Kids do the same thing when ordering ice cream out. The beginning average size runs at about what the experience of the supervisor knows to be adequate. But somewhere in the team one kid orders a large ice cream cone.
What you find, Cruiser, is that subsequent kids order the big size so to get the most they can with the opportunity.
Merchantville happens to have the big size police force, with per capita numbers exceeding all the other county forces regardless of proximity to Camden.
Woodlynne happens to be the last kid to the counter. Even I would order "the same" as the biggest cone. And don't forget the Jimmies.
You wait for Mr. Cherry Hill to place our order in coming years. You'll be crying, "Did my top scoop fall back into the bucket? Where are the cops we had?"
...the petitioners made a pact with the nonprofit organization to go around the local bodies to achieve their objectives if necessary.
The only thing the petitioners can accomplish is a Study Commission organized under the auspices of the Local Finance Board.
That doesn't seem horrible to me. Isn't the Council trying to do the exact same thing???
I think the Mayor and Council should get on board with the DCA's hearings. There is no point whatsoever in their trying to set up a competing committee. The DCA has to approve the Study Commission and the DCA has the last word on it--not the petitioners.
So it is really silly to keep bashing a legitimate process.
Realist: That's why we're having a Study Commission. To get at the facts.
There are no merger facts, Realist. Maybe that is why the NGO is called "Courage To Connect". They have never done it before; they have never seen it done before. They have no data. The leader has no experience. She was a mayor of a rural community for one year. She complained that sharing the services of one of her departments with a neighbor was "too complicated". The community rejected her consolidation idea. She left and ran for political office and lost the nomination. Her company is 6 months old. It's size this summer was one person, her.
Do you have facts, Realist? Facts that a study commission can use for benchmarks? Better show us because she cannot.
The Fuller Brush man who came to our door long ago carried more goods in his suitcase than she has. She is selling her dream.
Courage to Connect is a bad name. Few people do things that are courageous, and it's naive to think that they will. The way to get public officials, or the public, to do something controversial is to make it appear non-controversial, to make it seem as if there almost is no other choice.
Sense to Connect would be a better name. NJ Alliance for Government Efficiency might work too. It's also good to be *for* something.
I live in Cherry Hill and none of us wants this merger.
Our communities are completely different. We have different values and priorities.
This will not work. No one in Cherry Hill wants this merger and 20 people in Merchantville want this merger.
It doesn't make sense for either community.
Pennsauken would definitely be more workable. Merchantville is already half way there with the schools.
Move to Cherry Hill if you want to be part of Cherry Hill.
There was an Op Ed in the Courier this week that said Democrat Party Boss George Norcross wanted Jeffrey Nash (County Freeholder and Vice Chairman of the DRPA) to be Cherry Hill’s next Mayor. Is there any truth to this?
My read on this thus far is that about 10% are already strongly in favor and 10% are already strongly opposed to consolidation. Those 20% are, in my opinion, Luddites whose desire is to destroy the opposition at all costs, let the facts be damned. I think that the other 80% who know about the consolidation effort are anxious to see the study and to have actual facts in hand before deciding. They will be the ones who swing the ultimate vote. The ridiculous speculating should continue for entertainment’s sake, but let’s get the study done so that the (mostly) silent majority might make up their minds based on something resembling facts.
Also, my guess is that less than half of our population even knows that this argument exists. I fear that there are fewer than 100 of our 3800 neighbors who are seriously considering this as you read this post.
Anon 8:57pm - have you seen the movie Groundhog Day? We get it. You oppose. You allege that you are from Cherry Hill. Cool by me. Start a Cherry Hill anti-merger blog and post there. My time is too valuable to keep reading the same post from you day after day. Either that or try to be so less damn boring.
Anon: I live in Cherry Hill and...
For crying out loud, call yourself "Cherry Hill Does Not Want Merger" and that will eliminate your first sentence in every comment.
Change your spelling of "Does" to Duz or something and that will eliminate your 2nd sentence [our communities are completely different] in every comment.
Better yet, make your title "Cherry Hill Merger Duz Not Work" and that will eliminate your 3rd sentence [This will not work]in every comment.
No, write "Senseless Cherry Hill Merger Duz Not Work" to eliminate your ever-repeated 4th sentence [It doesn't make sense...] in every comment.
If you do that we will remember the rest of your comment mantra, so you needn't repeat those last sentences.
See, you need only to type your title in the box without a message. We'll know.
Thanks.
Facts that a study commission can use for benchmarks
The relevant facts include: what does it cost now for each community to provide a particular service? What would it cost if the communities merged?
There are others we can all think of but it's really a straightforward comparative analysis for costs.
Personally, I'm in with cruiser. The HS is a trump card that you can't beat.
I’m intrigued by 10/15 Anon’s statement that Cherry Hill residents have “different values and priorities” than Merchantville residents.
Older people often have different values and priorities than teenagers ... as do singles vs married couples, parents of school-age children vs parents with grown children, women vs men, entrepreneurs vs government workers, Libertarians vs Democrats ... different values and priorities abound, probably even in homogeneous Cherry Hill.
It would be helpful to know what your values and priorities are. That would be a good starting point for any rational discussion of our differences. Maybe the Cherry Hill community IS completely different from the Merchantville community. Since I know my own values and priorities are not the same as some residents who only live a block or two away from me, or even a few houses away, I have trouble accepting that hypothesis.
Help us understand you, anonymous Cherry Hillean. Please tell us about your different values and priorities.
[Realist: The relevant facts include: what does it cost now for each community to provide a particular service? What would it cost if the communities merged?]
This is what Ms. Genovese said to the Star Ledger after Long Hill and Bernards townships merged their police communications departments.
“At the end of the day, there was very small savings,” she said. “...[it] is taking a complicated structure and making it more complicated...”
That sounds to me like more than just costs being considered by a study commission.
She went on to say that merging the towns would be more cost efficient. She did not say a total merger would be any less "complicated" than her experience with merging police communications only.
I would hope a study commission would, as the Chester commission has done, would address more than just costs as you suggest, Realist.
If it would not, then we would not achieve the equitable balance that Alice thinks is important to agree upon in advance.
I said the report would "include" a comparison of costs. I did not say that would be the sum of the report.
Read the Chester reports. They are mostly about costs.
Pure Political Gamble:
I don't think the Study Commission will fully address the issues you are raising because it is not designed to do so under the process we are following. The issues you raise seem to be issues of negotiation for the "merger plan" phase of this process--a phase which comes after the Study Commission.
My understanding of this process is that the Study Commission will do a report based upon what it is asked to do. If all you want them to study is costs, then that is what the report will be. When I spoke with the petitioners on "info night", I was told that their application did not ask for a "merger plan".
If our Study Commission determines that there would be a real savings in merging, the next step would be to formulate a merger plan. In the plan the issues of planning and governance would be addressed.
Therefore, Political Gamble, you should be in favor of the Commission so that we can get to the issues of balance which so concern you.
Also, I did not understand Ms. Genovese the way you did. According to my notes of the evening, she said the shared services "path" was complicated because you have so many agreements with so many different parties. She thought merger was simpler because a larger entity would be providing the services rather than purchasing them from another town.
She [Genovese] thought merger was simpler because a larger entity would be providing the services rather than purchasing them from another town.
Therein lies the problem for Merchantville. If we were to take Genovese's solution, Merchantville would be "absorbed". Of course she has no experience in any of this so whatever she says is speculation.
Alice's understanding of a negotiated merger plan, though far more complex, is necessary to preserve Merchantville-style services including police coverage.
I think the best merging deal would require the involvement of experienced officials.
Genovese's experience is in playing and teaching tennis, first at the Warren Racket Club after graduating high school and then at her own Gina's Tennis World.
In 2003 she ran as a last minute fill-in candidate for Long Hill Township Committee. Her rotation to mayor in 2005 for a year was heralded as the first Democratic mayor in the history of Long Hill Township, becoming the highest-ranking, openly gay elected official in the state. (The Westfield Leader Times)
In 2007 Gina Genovese unsuccessfully campaigned to unseat State Senator Thomas Kean, Jr. in District 21.
In 2008 Genovese was appointed to the New Jersey Electoral College as a pledged delegate for Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama.
In March of this year, upon the formation of Genovese's "Courage To Connect NJ" LLC, The Star Ledger noted, "Genovese has a vision of a grassroots effort to effect large-scale consolidation, calling for groups of five to 10 municipalities to join together in an effort to reduce property taxes and improve services."
WHO WAS THE DEMOCRAT VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO BORROWED THE FAST FOOD AD SLOGAN "WHERE'S THE BEEF"?
Genovese envisions 5 to 10 municipalities merging. Which ones in Camden County?
Cherry Hill with Merchantville, that's two. Then she'll add Pennsauken and Camden. A foursome. Perfect for a tennis doubles champion.
Cruiser will want to throw in Woodlynne because they modeled their police department on ours.
Why is it so important for this NGO consultant to include in every newspaper article and on her political website that she has lived ten years with a gay "partner"?
Is that the political left fringe equivalent of a Tea Party candidate posing with a wife and two kids?
Don't get me wrong. I have walked dozens of charity walks with gays. Great intellectual conversations! But none of them advertised his gayness. One could only tell by the perfect enunciations ... and the hugs.
No no no, Tea party candidates must pose with their mistresses and kids out of wedlock like Paladino.
Always wanted a paladino. I bought a sorrel once at auction for $17 and a black filly to keep her company for $5. An Amish couple was leaving Burlington County bound for Lancaster where farming costs were not so high.
The next morning the auctioneer delivered 5 horses telling me three were free because no one had bid on them. I gave one to my farrier and another to a neighbor.
Of course you guessed that someone had been rolling in the hay in that auction barn because my new sorrel dropped a little black foal come spring. From the lane on my way to work I thought I saw a goat having wandered onto the farm and befriended Rebecca. My wife explained the private event to me that evening.
I don't know that I cater to Ms. Genovese's public attention-getting announcements of her personal behavior. Maybe it sells liberal Democrat fund raising dinners. I can only say this is the first time I have mentioned Rebecca's carrying ons and she died of old age 15 years ago.
KT: What are you talking about? The CTCNJ website says nothing of the sort. Why are you stretching to make this an issue??
KT: What are you talking about? The CTCNJ website says nothing of the sort. Why are you stretching to make this an issue??
Founder of "Courage To Connect NJ" five months ago, Gina Genovese's untried idea that merging various municipalities in New Jersey, five to ten together, would bring financial efficiencies is not backed by the NJ Department of Community Affairs study completed last year.
In a May 2009 study conducted by the state Department of Community Affairs, a commission found that studying consolidated towns was difficult, as so few consolidation attempts had been successful. In the few towns that merged departments, cost savings came from reducing positions and facilities, not greater efficiency, and only served to offset the actual cost of consolidation.
Merchantville petitioners seem to have hitched their wagon to a dark horse in successful political ventures. PolitickerNJ*, a leading NJ political digest, reported that the NJ Democratic Party conceded that Gina Genovese was "weak and largely unfocused" in campaigning for the NJ 21st district Senate seat in 2007.
By Wally Edge September 26th, 2007 - 10:15 am
Several months ago, there were suggestions that Genovese might get support -- mostly financial -- from a group of key Democratic insiders who wanted to use the 21st district State Senate campaign as a form of retaliation for Kean's U.S. Senate race against Robert Menendez last year. But Democrats now concede that Genovese has turned out to be a weak and largely unfocused candidate with little chance to score an upset in a legislative district where Menendez won 46% one year ago. Genovese's failure to mount an effective campaign has allowed Kean to spend money in other districts.
http://www.politickernj.com/tags/gina-genovese?page=1
Purely Political wrote: "I think the best merging deal would require the involvement of experienced officials."
Why do you think officials wouldn't be involved in a merger plan?
Remember, the Study Commission has not been asked to form a merger plan, only to study the costs and effects of merger.
Well it seems someone thinks that if you can't attack the idea, attack the person. Perhaps this person would have the courage to use a real name since they are being so personal in the attacks?
In this case it is especially silly. Whatever Ms. Genovese thinks about efficiency won't mean anything because the Study Commission will tell us about the actual costs of merger and the actual savings.
We will have the facts about this particular merger, not some general ideas. We will know particularly what positions could be eliminated and how many police we would have.
So let's talk about the issues. The Study Commission hearings will start soon and it would be a better use of time to formulate questions for the DCA than writing about Ms. Genovese's living arrangements.
Alice, remind me who would have input on the composition of the study commission if the Courage To Connect application is acted upon by the Dept. of Community Affairs?
If each town would suggest its own list for the study and the DCA would pick from those two lists, then I would be comfortable with the study commission picks. But didn't someone suggest that the applicant would offer the list? the applicant being in this case, if lavardera is correct, the petitioner group?
If Courage To Connect submits names for the commission, I would disagree with you that who represents the petitioners is unimportant.
Suppose residents of both municipalities think they need not become involved in the public hearings because a reputable organization is handling the matter. They could be grossly mistaken.
From what I have read of the comments on this blog, Courage To Connect NJ is one high school graduate with some tennis proficiency who had a brief stint on a rural town council but failed in the next-larger political arena. The criticisms "one-woman show" and "weak & unfocused" came from two respected news organizations.
Merchantville residents deserve having Toto pull back the curtain hiding this Wizard of Oz.
Gina Genovese has had nothing to do with our application. That was the work of eight Merchantville residents and Andrew Bruck. Andrew works for Davis, Polk & Wardwell. Andrew only helps us in an advisory capacity. We follow the direction of no one and only want this process to go forward in a legal and transparent fashion.
It’s sad that “One of Twenty” has disassociated himself with Gina Genovese, even if Gina had nothing to do with your application. She did single-handedly form the organization (Courage to Connect) you went to for help.
To use some tennis terminology, k.t.b.f.w.’s back-handed slam at Genovese should have been countered with facts.
Let’s concede that Gina Genovese is a high school graduate with some, maybe even considerable, tennis proficiency. We’ll also agree that she had a brief stint on a rural town council (Long Hill Twp.) and was then appointed as the first Democratic Mayor in the history of Long Hill Twp.. Genovese did fail to defeat Tom Kean, Jr. in the 2007 race for State Senator, but Kean was the incumbent and had been a State Senator since 2003. In spite of that, Genovese got 40% of the vote in a Republican stronghold (Menendez only got 46% of the vote in the 21st District, as you say).
Just for fun, let’s compare Genovese’s political career with that of Merchantville’s mayor. Frank North is a high school graduate with some HVAC proficiency. He served as a Councilman for several years in Merchantville, but he ran unopposed in local elections -- for Council and even for Mayor. It’s not hard to win an election when you’re the only candidate.
Long Hill Twp. is a 12.1 sq. mi. township consisting of 3 villages and a hamlet, with a population of 8,777. Merchantville is a 0.6 sq. mi. borough with a population of only 3,801. Small as it may be, Long Hill Twp. has 62 full-time employees and 35 part-time employees.
The quote reportedly from a Dept of Community Affairs report that " cost savings came from reducing positions and facilities, not greater efficiency," makes no sense. Reducing positions and facilities is greater efficiency.
The conclusion that the Courage to Connect presentation or organization is somehow polictical is ridiculous. Persons making such a conclusion could not have been at the presentation or are choosing to misrepresent it. The presentation simply communicated a completely logical, common sense conclusion based on facts. The facts are that New Jersey has over 500 municipal governments (plus separate school districts, fire districts, etc.). The logical, common sense conclusion is that having so many local government units wastes taxpayer money. Merging local governments would save money. That is all they really have to say. That is what the meeting was all about. That is what the Courage to Connect organization is all about.
Those who think Courage to Connect is somehow political should elaborate. What political party is having its goals advanced by Courage to Connect? Which political party is the secret force underlying them? What political party is going to benefit from their success?
I don't think scrutinizing Ms Genovese's background adds anything to the discussion. The discussion is about whether NJ has too many local government units and are they a waste of money. Whether a person barely graduated high school or graduated from Harvard, the facts and the logic of the current situation make it easy to come to the correct conclusion that New Jersey would be better off with substantially less local government units.
Your conclusions are in tune with a liberal philosophy these days, Cruiser.
You probably enjoy hearing Ms. Genovese say again and again since she calculated it three years ago that New Jersey should have 125 municipalities instead of its 566. That comes to an average of 67,000 residents per municipality. That fits exactly into her vision, saying the ideal range is 50,000 to 75,000.
For us, since our petitioners asked, she is willing to bend her ideal a little. Logic tells her that if Merchantville is absorbed by Cherry Hill, that raises C.H.'s population above her ideal number AND LEAVES PENNSAUKEN OUT IN THE COLD FOR MERGING. Pennsauken cannot merge with its other neighbor, Camden City, because Camden's population is too big in Genovese's scheme. It can't merge with C.H. because that would shoot C.H. population well beyond her ideal. So today she says Merchantville should merge with C.H. and tomorrow, perhaps, she will have to say 126 municipalities is ideal, with one a bit smaller.
The politics is not for us, Cruiser. It is for her. She has her one-woman show and is skipping around the state talking to all the towns that invite her ... for her own political future. She is creating an experience base. She's campaigning much as other politicians and wantabees do it. Good for her!
But we should keep in mind those thoughts Fact Collector repeated for us -- limited education, minor experience, theoretical talk.
I am glad to read that she was not involved in the petitioners' application. Restores some confidence that those folks have some depth of thought.
Now on the other side, Cruiser, I happen to believe that little towns do very well governing themselves. I spent 25 years enjoying Springfield Township. Minimal government, low tax, great school, very nice residents, lots of open space, and personal freedom that you could not appreciate -- very much like Long Hill Township before they celebrated their first Democratic "openly gay" (to quote the Star Ledger) council person for one term.
I would like Merchantville to "retreat" towards that philosophical direction. But Alice will tell ya, it is governmental spending that is the devil. And Merchantville cannot stop spending.
I just got a letter from our Fire Official. The registration fee for all commercial properties is rising this year from $10 to $75 annually. The letter reads that the increase is necessary to "allow the Bureau of Fire Prevention to continue to cover its operating costs."
Did you know for decades Merchantville had one fire inspector to inspect all commercial properties. When Mr. Patti was activated for military service, Mr. Abrams substituted as the inspector. I can attest that he did a thorough job of inspecting my property and he told me he was progressing towards full inspection of all properties.
Today I saw on the Bureau's letterhead that we have FOUR (4) fire inspectors now. FOUR. We have fewer commercial properties but three more inspectors. So the fees are being raised. Someone might say that Councilman Perno is a member of the fire company and knows all of these fire inspectors. I certainly hope no one says he is council's supervisor of the fire department and has done for the inspectors what he did as director of public works for his own family.
It could cause me to adopt your philosophy, Cruiser, to merge our way out.
kt,
clearly it would be more efficient to merge, you really can't argue that, but even if we gave you controls over our local government and the power to remove fire inspectors and whomever else necessary, it wouldn't solve our high school problem which is the #1issue at hand here. so the point of arguing over whether we should return to your pre-gay springfield township is moot.
You are right, Chris. It is about the high school, not that I did not know that.
And you also know that I have been just having a little fun showing the dirt in the liberal political linens that Cruiser refuses to wash ... sort of like a blue dress in the closet.
If you know the high school is the problem, you recognize that this push for total merging is not the best solution. It might be an easier solution but it is not the best for preserving our small town environment and small town politics.
We will not get the Cherry Hill mayor to enter his cars in our auto show, to sit above the tank of water while neighbors try to dunk him for dollar donations to a worthy cause, to walk around our streets during our festive celebrations. The news reporters can only speak to his deputies.
We New Jersey residents have one moment now in our unstoppable slide into "big" liberal democracy to use the present governor's recalcitrance and his Department of Education's temporary hostility towards teachers' unions, one moment only, to press with all of the petitioners' vigor for a merger of our little school system with Cherry Hill's. Only merging the schools, not the town.
Don't let Cruiser tell you it can't be done because he could not do it against tide and winds.
We have a following sea and favorable wind with the Republican "school choice". Hoist all school-merging sails to take advantage of it.
As to Genovese, she is not the jib we need. She knows nothing about schools. Right, she knows nothing about consolidation of real towns either. Letting her prattle on about efficiencies will lose the very votes needed.
I note that another good action by the current local government has been mentioned. The fee for fire inspection of commercial properties has been raised from $10 to $75. It is obvious $10 could not be close to covering the cost of the inspection so, wisely, the fee has been raised.
The more one hears about the details of what is going on at borough hall, the more appreciative one becomes of the smart actions taken by our local elected officials.
i doubt this is the only moment in the last 30 years that we have been trying to fix our school system that we could have accomplished anything. lets face reality here, we are NEVER going to get out of this high school situation. its not going to happen. period.
If you went door to door and asked merchantville residents if they would prefer a far better educational system for our kids and higher property values OR have the mayor enter his car annualy and sit on the dunk tank, you'll see the answer is pretty clear.
An article in the Courier post about why the Study is needed:
http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010200307
Try that Courier Post link again
Chris, I too am amazed by the position of people who in the past were extreme advocates of a better high school situation at any cost or sacrifice, (Haddonfield in the 80s, Cherry Hill in the 90s and OOs, etc.) who now are not advocates. Have no doubt that my observation of the entire community is that it would, in the end, favor merger.
I am particularly surprised at the position of people who were on the school board with me. If you see the movie, Waiting for Superman, (currently in theatres, at least it was last week) there is a great discussion about the education system not being for the kids but rather for the adults. The position that the education system is for the adults seems to underlie the position of many people in Merchantville toward a merger with Cherry Hill. They are saying it is better to maintain the status quo of people employed at the school than to achieve a much better overall education situation for the children.
The opportunity to merge with Cherry Hill is golden. It is amazing that it has come along. The consequence of a 'no' answer is that in several years, despite all the good efforts of local government officials, Merchantville taxes will get so high that the screaming for relief will drive the community to seek a merger partner and the only one available will be Pennsauken (not a bad place from a tax perspective but not nearly as good an overall deal as Cherry Hill).
Another thought is that if communities do not voluntarily merge, the state government may take it upon themselves to merge communities to save taxpayer money. Such a situation will push us into Pennsauken. Planners in Trenton may be watching the Merchantville situation closer than you think. If a merger deal is rejected, the planners may hold it up as evidence that voluntary mergers do not work and the state governemnt has to get tough to save money.
To k.t.b.f.w., who wrote: We have a following sea and favorable wind with the Republican “school choice”. Hoist all school-merging sails to take advantage of it.
What I understand of the “school choice” program will not result in fair winds and following seas for Merchantville kids who want to attend a high school other than Pennsauken.
Two key provisions of the new program are:
1) The “receiving” school must apply to participate in the program. The district must also state the number of available seats per grade. My guess is that none of the really good high schools will participate, since they will not be able to give an academic entrance test to students who want to attend their school.
2) Only 10% of a District’s students may attend another school through the school choice program. If Merchantville has 140 high school students (in all 4 grades), only 14 of those may opt for the program. If the percentage is applied to individual grades, then only 3 of our 30 ninth grade high school students could participate.
Maybe I don’t fully understand the school choice program.
Those of you who read Merchantville BOE agendas will see that Dr. John Kellmayer, CSA of the Brooklawn School District made a presentation on inter-district Public School Choice at the last BOE meeting. Brooklawn was one of the districts participating in a preliminary program a few years back. If Dr. Kellmayer made a presentation to the Merchantville BOE, perhaps Merchantville is considering opening its elementary school to school choice participants from other districts, in order to increase income to its district. I did not attend that meeting.
Under school-choice Merchantville would be a reciever not a sender. Our BOE is eyeing the dollars it could capture from Pennsauken and Camden. They are doing the best they can to keep it going.
To Anonymous: Is there a reason some of our high school students couldn't participate in the school choice program if high schools in the area decided to participate?
Are you aware of any high schools who have applied as receiving districts? Also, do you know that Merchantville Schol will be a receiving district for students, or are you just guessing?
Gail, I think your write up and conclusion on the school choice hoopla is correct. Nothing will happen which will be of interest to a Merchantville child and Merchantville Schoold District will not participate as a receiving school. All of that for good reasons.
The school choice is a deal which has appealing concepts and sound bites but has no substance to do it for any school district in the Merchantville area.
Haddon Township, Cherry Hill and Haddonfield will not participate in school choice. I'm not sure about Collingswood. Maybe 10% percent of our kids can go there. Collingswood has made great strides over the last
few years.
Rumor has it that Audubon High is going to participate, as will Merchantville School. A straw vote was taken to submit an application to the State.
Merchantville kids will have a choice not matter whether we become a receiver or not. The only question is what schools will participate, this applies to K-12.
A "straw vote" is an unofficial vote. Action to submit an application to the State would not be taken as a result of an unofficial vote.
Why would the BOE take a "straw vote", Anonymous 8:38PM?
Anonymous 8:41 PM -- what choice would Merchantville kids have if no high schools they might want to attend decide to be receiving schools?
"Alice, remind me..."
I remind you to read the statute.
NJSA 40A:65-25(c) "The application shall include provisions for:
(1)the means of selection and qualifications of study commissioners;
...
(d)(1) An application to the board for consideration of a consolidation plan or to createa Municipal Consolidation Study Commission shall be subject to a public hearing within each municipality to be studied, and a joint hearing in a place easily accessible to the residents of both or all of the municipalities."
Whoever submits the application, whether it is the petitioners or the mayor, has to follow this statute. And the public will have a say in how commissioners are selected through the public hearing process.
They could apply to any school participating as a receivor. If no schools apply then no school choice. I don't know why they took a straw volte but they did.
Only merging the schools, not the town.
Sorry I mentioned "school choice" to convey the present atmosphere for merging schools without merging towns. I should have known that Gail would pull out the parameters on the school choice legislation and everybody would get side tracked.
Hello, I am talking about MERGING the school systems. If Gina can chatter about merging municipalities knowing nothing about that, why can't I suggest merging school districts only?
Alice cited something legislative long ago about consolidation of municipalities and/or school systems. Why not go for the part that nearly everyone cheers about?
What can we lose? Oh, someone said it would not be possible because way back when the Cherry Hill mayor told our mayor "NO" to sharing schools. But suppose we consider his statement as an introductory negotiation and we continue with a school-merger proposal at the study commission level?
We might keep our town. What could we lose?
You’re the one who said “school choice,” k.t.b.f.w. (aka “What Could We Lose?”). It was only then that I pulled out the parameters for the school choice program. Sorry I sidetracked your intended discussion.
The State already has a program for consolidating school systems without merging towns. In March 2009, Peggy Nicolosi, Camden County Executive Superintendent, addressed the Merchantville School Board about Regionalization & Consolidation of School Districts, a State effort initiated by the Corzine administration. She said that Merchantville could seek the agreement of another District to consolidate school districts, and indicated that a feasibility study would be needed. I attended that meeting.
In July 2009, the Merchantville BOE president reported that she had spoken with the Cherry Hill BOE president about the possibility of a shared service arrangement (i.e., consolidation) and reported that “as with all previous discussions and meetings, there does not appear to be any interest”. Merchantville HAS done what you're asking for and “gone for the part that nearly everyone cheers about” ... their attempts have not been successful. The problem is getting a willing partner.
As I understand it, the consolidation of school districts is not up to the mayors -- it’s up to the school districts. The Cherry Hill school district is not interested in merging with the Merchantville school district. You seem to believe we can continue with a school-merger proposal at the “study commission” level. That sounds like a feasibility study to me, which would presumably require finding a district interested in consolidation ... a willing partner.
It would be wonderful if you could accomplish what school boards and mayors have failed to do for many years. You would be a local hero! Go for it.
Article on nj.com about state Democrats supporting consolidation:
They also declared war on home rule, announcing they will push an aggressive agenda of service and government consolidation among towns in order to bring the state’s costly maze of government entities under control.
<a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/nj_lawmakers_propose_changes_f.html")nj.com</a?
try that link again:
nj.com
The article about the Dems intention to merge local governments makes a nice sound bite but I have my suspicions it is true or will be the same as the merger opportunity now available.
Under the Dems there always was an opportunity to merge communities but which communities merged was dictated by the whims of social planners in Trenton. There is a 1999 Rutgers study in this regard which has Merchantville merging with Pennsauken - no surprise there.
The 2007 law which gives citizen groups the ability to petition for merger was passed under the Dems. It is now being used in a way they did not intend. The 2007 law includes provision for the state government (social planners) to first make its recommendations about which communities could merge, akin to the federal government's procdure regarding military base closures. Only then could a study process start and it could only start based on the state's recommendations.
A large part of NJ's inability to get rid of local government units is that the social planners would permit mergers only among commuunities which, for the most part, did not want to merge with each other.
That the Repubs will allow this law to be used among communities which have grass roots support for a merger from the people of those communities is a major change in attitude, a real "power to the people" situation.
Merchantville should take full advantage of it.
All this talk about consolidation is really just a farse, long term savings can only be achieved through reduction in the State Government and unfunded mandates along with a reworking of how our schools are funded. Local purpose tax is a mere drop in the bucket, compared to savings that could be achieved by eliminating unfunded mandates.
Sorry to intrude on this thread, but just want to clear up some confusion about trick-or-treat hours on Halloween.
The MerchantvilleNJ.gov website (see “Community”) says “Safe Halloween will take place on Sunday, October 31 from 3:00-7:00 PM.” A paper was sent home from school saying the same. Hours are 3-7 PM.
Anon 10/23 (:34 AM - So I take it then you are saying there would be no savings if NJ local governments now at over 1,200 (municipalities, school districts, fire districts, etc.) went to about 125. In reality there would be substantial savings from such consolidation. The cost of just the 900 or so elections which would be eliminated is substantial. Consolidation is part of the reduction in government you seek, an integral part.
The most costly unfunded mandate I can think of is the services provided for 'special education' children. How would you propose those services be provided and paid for?
Talking in vague generalities is common. Get into the details and let us hear how you would handle these situations.
What Could We Lose,
Your School Board approached Cherry Hill last year regarding a send/receive arrangement. Our answer was "no".
If you want to rely on a study, please look at the 1999 Rutgers study that said merchantville should merge with Merchantville.
Study already paid for
Cost of analysis: pricelessto cherry hill
I can understand the CH school board (or any other school board) being reluctant to do a send-receive for high school with Merchantville. This despite likely $1 million of revenue going to the receiving district with very little in the way of additional costs for the receiving district. I think a principal driving force in the decisions of boards to say no is the anticipated hassle a transition would take. They observe the prior antics of the State Board of Education and the Pennsauken School Board in the 1980's attempt to change to Haddonfield. Doing a regular send-receive change is just not worth the hassle. But if the merger of entire communities avoids all of the hassle, that considereably changes things. If the attitude of the bureaucrats in Trenton regarding such changes has changed it would also help. There are other ways CH finances could considerably improve from a Merchantville merger betyond the taxes on M-ville's $160 million of ratables.
To Anoymous -- Can you tell us more about the 1999 Rutgers study? Who did the study at Rutgers? Rutgers, Camden, right? Who asked for it, what was its purpose, was it part of a larger study or did it focus only on Merchantville? Clearly you misspoke when you said “merchantville should merge with Merchantville”.
A reminder to the other Anonymous who said Cherry Hill residents had different values and principles -- you never told me how your values differed from mine.
Cruise, special ed cost should be shared statewide, as you well know one costly special ed child in a small district can literally blow up its budget. OK so maybe statewide there would be savings what is our local cost for the sc hool board election, and general election? Is bigger government better? I look to large municipalities in this area and I am not quite sure. Shared services can be achieved without losing our local identity.
Gail, I was the source of the comment about the "1999 Rutgers study." In looking over my files, the exact date is July, 1995. It is from the Center for Governmental Services at Rutgers (New Brunswick). The author is Ernest C. Roeck, Jr. The title is "A Plan for School District Consolidation in New Jersey."
Look at this study, folks. My guess is that commercial operations declined after the previous valuation.
The second point is that higher residential taxes lower property values.
I was looking for Cruiser's study when I happened upon this summary of another study.
"The Potential Impacts of Revaluation on Property Tax Burdens in Newark (1999)"
This report analyzes the impacts of a revaluation on property tax burdens in the City of Newark. A revaluation would increase total assessments from the current level of $816.7 million to just over $5 billion.
The revaluation would result in a significant shift in property tax burdens from commercial and industrial to residential properties, and significant shifts would also occur among residential neighborhoods. Higher tax rates may be capitalized into lower property values. Similarly, factors other than the revaluation affect the property tax rate and levy in Newark. The magnitude of those effects is unclear.
A proposed plan for phasing in a revaluation, a Municipal Loan Program, would use low-interest loans to finance tax credits covering a five-year phase-in of the new assessments.
ktbfw - the conclusion from the Newark study could just as well be that circumstances in the marketplace since its last valuation caused the value of residential properties to substantially increase not that industrial commercial values have decreased. Industrial/commercial values could simply be chugging along at essentially the values they have always had.
IMO, the value of residential property throughout Northern New Jersey is completely crazy, even including Newark.
Bygone bloggers (who seemed more informed than me about local real estate matters) have indicated that the value of similar residential property in Merchantville exceed commercial property values (square footage, lot size, etc.). If that is not reflected in the existing assessments, then a revaluation could put more of the tax burden on residential propertties.
The main aspect of a revaluation is this: if your property's assessed value would greatly increase while others greatly decreased, then you have been underpaying your property taxes relative to your neighbors--probably for years.
With respect to Cruiser's admission that he made the anonymous comment about a 1999 (1995) report on school district consolidation:
In 1995 Rutgers Professor Emeritus Dr. Ernest C. Reock wrote a paper titled: “A Plan for School District Consolidation”, which is cited in a Feb. 1999 State Assembly Task Force Report on School District Regionalization. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/reports/school.pdf
To summarize, Dr. Reock proposed reducing the number of school districts in NJ by half through consolidation of existing limited purpose regional high school districts with their constituent elementary districts and merging districts that have sending-receiving relationships. As my father, who had to drop out of school in the 10th grade during the Depression, would have said: “That’s elementary”. I’m not sure if Reock’s paper mentioned Merchantville, Pennsauken or Cherry Hill by name. Maybe in an appendix or something.
The $32 million dollar State-wide savings Dr. Reock estimated would have come from administrative costs. The Merchantville BOE has reduced administrative costs dramatically since 1999 by cutting two top level administrative positions.
Cruiser's original comment was: “Your School Board approached Cherry Hill last year regarding a send/receive arrangement. Our answer was “no”.“
While I have occasionally used a pen name when making a comment on the blog, I”ve never considered pretending to be a member of the Cherry Hill School Board or even a resident of Cherry Hill. I’m surprised that you would do that.
Gail, better get your facts straight before you embarass yourself. I have not made any anomymous comments. You misunderstand the sequence and author of blog postings. I started the discussion about the Reock study in a 10/23 9:01 AM posting.
Anonymous 10/23 2:51 PM referred to the Reock study in his/her posting.
You requested more information about it in a 10/23 4:24 PM posting.
I posted that I was the source of the Reock study and provided details about it (10/24 2:29 PM).
I did not make any of the further comments about the CH board you are now somehow attributing to me. I have not pretended to be anyone. I do not know who Anon 10/23 2:51 PM is.
For the record, the complete Reock does specifically that mention Merchantville would merge with Pennsauken as part of his recommendations.
Cruiser posts only as Cruiser.
Mea culpa, cruiser.
Looking at your chronological list of comments about the Reock study, I see that you did refer to a 1999 Rutgers study on 10/23 at 9:01 AM. Your comment, however, seems to apply to the merging of communities, not school districts.
Later that day, Anonymous 2:51 PM referred to a 1999 Rutgers study which appeared to apply to school districts. You’re right, I did ask Anonymous (not you) to tell us more about the 1999 study. Anoymous never answered, but the next day you stated that you were the source of the comment about the 1999 Rutgers study, which was actually a 1995 study. I made the erroneous assumption that you were speaking for Anonymous. My sincere apologies.
I’m sure you’re right that the Reock study specifically recommends that Merchantville merge with Pennsauken, but I believe he meant school districts, not municipalities. Could you verify that? I don’t have a copy of the actual report, and it appears that you might have one.
Dr. Reock’s paper was titled: “A Plan for School District Consolidation” and his recommendations were based on consolidating school districts that were already partially merged, through regional high schools or sending-receiving agreements.
Thank you for setting the record straight and for providing the name of the author and the title of the paper.
Apology accepted.
My earlier recollection is that the report was about communities but when I dug it out it is solely about school districts.
Nonetheless I feel the report is representative of the attitude of the social planner types in Trenton whether in 1995 or now. Aside from the current CH/M discussion, everytime I have heard about this issue, be it communities or school districts, it has always been "we (Trenton) will tell them what they can do." In the CH/M discussion it is the expressed desire of the communities driving the process. Maybe that is the effect of the Christie administration and maybe it is the realization that nothing will ever get done in terms of having fewer local government units if they stay with their hard line stance.
If you want a copy of the complete Reock study let me know and I will e-mail an image of it to you.
Cruiser: The facts are that New Jersey has over 500 municipal governments ... Merging local governments would save money.
Those who say that NJ's five hundred local governments would best be consolidated might have forgotten that our state is the only one that has only one elected executive-branch official, the governor, above the local level. All state and county officials --and judges-- are appointed by the governor. No other state has so much authority vested in one elected person.
Tom Kean quipped when he was governor that Russia's president had less power.
The commenters who would consolidate our communities and consolidate our schools and transfer more authority of schools to the county superintendents need to remember that all of those changes further reduce the electoral consent of citizens in a state that already has limited democratic process above the local level.
Cruiser has complained many times over the years about the state Department of Education being unresponsive/insensitive to changes requested by local school boards and residents. Others have complaints about county and state regulations in many areas.
Those who propose massive consolidations of 588 municipalities and 600-plus school districts would significantly reduce the current electoral power of New Jersey residents.
ktbfw, as usual, is wrong. For starters, New Jersey now has an elected Lieutenant Governor.
Beyond that I don't see what you want to have elected that is now not elected. Freeholders are elected; local governments are elected; school boards are elected. Exactly what else do you want to have elected?
Appointment versus election of judges is always a debate. Get familiar with judicial scandals in Pensylvania where judges are elected. Appointment looks good in comparison.
Th elected governor has to run the state and he needs his own team to do it. Are you saying that the governor's cabinet should be elected?
Elected county boards of education which would then appoint a county superintendent is an idea with considerable merit. The county board would replace the local boards. County boards work well in many states. I think the principal benefit is that they would be a sufficently large entity to resist the massive power of education industry special interests. At the present time such interests run ragged over the numerous small school boards.
The notion that somehow more local governemnts are better than less local goverments is ridiculous. Larger local governments are splendidly successful in achieving a high quality of life in their communities. Cherry Hill is a prime example. Cherry Hill people are overwhelmingly happy with the quality of life in their community. They have elected officials; the officials are accountable; they get re-elected.
The present configuration of NJ municipalities is the residue of a bygone era. There is no need today for so many municipalities. Merger is the way to go.
Cruise,
with all do respect do you have a crystal ball? How do you know a majority of Cherry Hill people are happy with their governement? That's certainly not what i have been reading and hearing.
JAMR - people voice their opinions by, among other things, the high prices they are willing to pay for homes in Cherry Hiil - it ain't just the schools which drive the prices. Commercial real estate also sells well. The high prices drive development and re-development which sells. Biggest recent example in this area are the two apartment towers across from the CH Mall. There is no mass movement to get out. People speak highly of the place. Certainly there is a vocal disgruntled group. They get disproportionate media coverage than those cheering for the place. I am comfortable in my statements. People in Cherry Hill are comfortable with their community and the governement of it.
Cruiser: people voice their opinions by, among other things, the high prices they are willing to pay ... Biggest recent example in this area are the two apartment towers across from the CH Mall.
You really need to work on your local history, Cruiser.
Those two apartment buildings, actually three, were built in the early sixties just after the mall opening. They declined far more rapidly than is typical for such units. I blamed it on poor management but surely you could make an argument for the residents (who left) not liking the community and local government. It is the other side of your argument.
Glad to see you blamed it on poor management. Whatever the reasons for the demise, the market is such that the buildings were fully re-developed in an upscale manner and occupied. It cant't be because people hate Cherry Hill.
By the way, regarding your previous post about not having enough offices to elect, I note that the sample ballot contains an election for "surrogate" (the leader of the county office which handles wills and estate matters). Surely it must be of great joy to you that such an office is elected in New Jersey. I'll bet you have been a good citizen and have watched that race very closely and know all about it. You consider citizens spending extensive time to decide on their surrogate vote to be time well spent and that we should have many more minor offices to similarly study. Tell us about your analysis and well thought out recommndation on the surrogate election. Surely you will tell us how it is taxpayer money well spent to have a surrogate election.
What nonsense. The surrogate election is the relic of a bygone era. The freeholders should simply appoint the surrogate. The surrogate election and others like it should be abolished along with the excessive local governments.
Your suggestion that electors do not know the county surrogate judge they are electing illustrates my argument, Cruiser.
Voters know the local people in local elections -- our mayor, our councilmembers.
The farther away from local --and you seem happy about creating elected county school boards and consolidated municipalities to replace local elections-- the less likely voters know the candidates they vote for other than what is broadcast on TV.
Many of our local officials were eager to chat while sipping wine at the Grand Opening of the little Italian restaurant expansion last night.
I didn't see the county surrogate there; did you? Or the mayor of Cherry Hill; did you?
Your "bigger-is-better" idea of government would have eliminated all but one electable official present at that function. Why would you even think of entertaining such an idea, you who tout the achievements of our local leaders?
Well, for starters, our chummy local officials (including myself in not that long ago times) are not able, regardless of political affiliation, been able to do squat about the major problems facing the community. For starters, the high school situation.
Despite their diligence they can not avoid the impending demise of financial reserves and significant tax increases. If all the current oficials want in terms of increased ratables actually happened, it would not be enough to significantly affect the trend of taxes. Even with extreme cost cutting it would not significantly affect the trend of taxes. Even the Republican literature I have seen only talks about moderation in taxes, nothing about cutting taxes.
Having been a local official I can tell you the challenges small political entities must face. In the case of the Merchantville School Board, it principally was the teachers union (which I have always felt was an entity distinct from the techers themselves). Secondarily it was the regulations created at the behest of the special interests in Trenton. You can not fight them. You need big entities, like county school boards, to be able to have a struggle among equals. The special interests love the 600+ school boards. Times have changed since the school boards and all these local governements were created.
I think you are avoiding discussion of the issue of whether the election of the surrogate and similar officials has any meaning or value. I think you are saying it does not have meaning or value. Correct me if I am wrong.
Do you consider the value added to the quality of life by the elction of the surogate to be worth the cost of the elction? Do you want a separate surrogate to be within every local government so that they will have local contact?
Be clear.
Cruiser: Do you want a separate surrogate to be within every local government so that they will have local contact?
You see I am conflicted when it comes to the County Surrogate. The election procedure is designed to preclude conflict-of-interest problems arising in appointments. (See my comment under "Elections".) You complain about the special interests in Trenton all the time which is the demon in the appointment process.
I complain about your desire to distance us from elected officials by "bigger-ing" the election units ... to the county level or by merging municipalities and schools.
The election check is important to me; your proposed bigness is frustrating because it takes the power away.
I would like to revamp the County Freeholders' priorities. When I walk into the polling booth, I can't.
Has anybody in Merchantville heard of the Second-Half Champions Award® given by Wells Fargo Advisors?
"The award recognizes and celebrates individuals past age 50 who have re-purposed the second half of their lives, made significant contributions to society, and achieved remarkable personal goals."
Didn't we used to think in terms of the "mid-life crisis"? This is an award for pulling through it successfully. Great idea!
But let me warn you that as one approaches 70, the body and mind begin slowing down. So restart yourself at fifty as Dick Goldberg, National Director of Temple University's "Coming of Age", did to become the 2010 recipient of the award.
If you decide not to change your life, check out a recent paper by two economists titled, "Mental Retirement". It suggests that if people want to preserve their memory and reasoning abilities, they should reconsider early retirement. Those who stay in the work environment longer, test better on mental abilities.
Cruise,
Do you live in a vacuum? All Muicipalities in this State are facing tough financial times. You speak to decreasing surplus in Merchantville, what is Cherry Hills Surplus? You said it best about Cherry Hill citizens and a small group unhappy get's more than their fair share of publicity, reminds me of the consolidation group and people who are unhappy with Merchantviille.
ktbfw - You still have not answered whether an election for a county surrogate is worth the cost.
Face it, the election of the county surrogate is an anachronism of an era long gone. Appointment of the surrogate by the freeholdrs would serve the county citizens just fine.
Governmental units have to be of a size where they can efficiently and effectively handle the tasks assigned to them. Local is great unless it is inefficient and ineffective. New Jersey's 1,200+ local government units are inefficient and ineffective. There should be a lot less of them. If there were a lot less of them, the quality of life would not suffer. Already existing large communities prove that. The citizens have recourse to their elected officials in those places.
JAMR - I agree that all New Jersey municipalities are facing difficult times - some less than others. I do not know the surplus of Cherry Hill. Among other things, Cherry Hill has the advantage of still adding significant ratables. For example, the continuing devlopment of the race track site - slow on the residential side but very fast on the comercial side. The recent rebuilding and additions to the Mall are another.
I don't think that people who are supportive of the merger are unhappy with Merchantville. I think they view Merchantville as a good thing which has a golden opportunity to be better.
Crusier,
Not ure where you are getting your information. Thise of us that have lived in Cherry Hill for some time do not favor a merger. Nothing against Merchantville, we are already a large community. We do not need another bedroom town filled with churches. Thanks.
Anon 11/03 6:23 PM - I completely understand your opinion although I disagree with it. I am sure that many in Cherry Hill feel the same way as you. Merchantville and Cherry Hill are democracies and, in due course, the matter will be voted upon. All of us will then have to live with whatever the majority decides. Meanwhile, watch the analysis and data which will appear. From a Cherry Hill perspective, a merger with Merchantville is a good deal. It is a good deal for New Jersey too.
Post a Comment