Two interesting articles, if only for their outside-the-box approach to local government:
Cherry Hill Courier Post Jeremy Rosen - Jan 16, 2011
Municipal merger bill advances
Earlier this year, a group of Merchantville and Cherry Hill residents ... In Merchantville, the residents collected signatures and sent a petition to the ...
Picture skyscrapers on our side of the Delaware, efficient government and real job growth in and around the city of Camden. I've come up with a revitalization and expansion plan that would create a five-borough metropolis called New City, New Jersey. New City's boroughs -- Camden, Cherry Hill, Pennsauken, Collingswood and Merchantville -- would keep their identities and histories. The potential for growth would be huge, given New City's 3,500 vacant lots and buildings, strengthened tax base, deepened resource pool and potential for grants and federal funding. A more efficient core of government employees could be rehired as New City employees under tighter contracts, annually saving tens of millions in property tax dollars
Why Philadelphia should leave PA and join NJ | PhillyDeals | 12/22
Mergers and hostile takeovers benefit businesses; it's time to let ailing Camden and hungry Philadelphia do the same, argues Richardson ...And don't stop at today's city lines, says Dilworth. Consolidation should also add "some of their New Jersey suburbs... starting, say, with Pennsauken, then Collingswood, then Merchantville, then Woodlyne, and so on - until there were enough higher-income communities added to compensate for the tax burden of Camden, yet not so much that their residents would have the clout to stop the consolidation," especially if their votes were pooled, in a single election, with pro-merger Camden voters.Lastly, the bill on sorting out the the mixed application issue moves from committee to the floor of the NJ Senate:
Municipal merger bill advances
Earlier this year, a group of Merchantville and Cherry Hill residents ... In Merchantville, the residents collected signatures and sent a petition to the ...
39 comments:
The first two articles are hypothetical non-sense. The third one is much more relevant to current events in Merchantville. The Petitionistas don't take no for an answer? I respect their persistance.
["...starting, say, with Pennsauken, then Collingswood, then Merchantville, then Woodlyne, and so on - until there were enough higher-income communities added to compensate for the tax burden of Camden, yet not so much that their residents would have the clout to stop the consolidation "
Let's see, the proponent says the surrounding suburbs would lighten the tax burden of Camden. What does that mean? Would we pay Camden's taxes too? SOUNDS LIKE A CRUISER IDEA.
And the second part: Don't consolidate so much that the suburbanites would have any clout. Is he saying the Camden residents should keep their voting numbers sufficient to run the suburbs as well as Camden? ("Well" doesn't mean better, just "in addition to". Well itself is another issue.) FINALLY, CRUISER HAS A GOOD POINT: We should be absorbed by Cherry Hill so Cherry Hill can out vote Camden when it tries to take over our business.
I heard a commentator speculate today that when Camden's halving of its police force proves smart, neighboring towns will have a model to do their own halving (my words not his). What if downsizing doesn't prove to be a smart idea?
My own proposal for Camden is the plowing up of half its streets, selling the asphalt for reclaimed materials at $5 per yard, and using the money to plant grass. Fewer city employees are needed to mow grass than to repair streets and at a lower cost. Call it the greening of Camden. I suggest "greening" because I remember Camden's attempt at rehabilitation in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Lit Brothers came to town and the high rise apartment buildings were put up at the bridge plaza. Oh, yes, and three college kids bought the New York Shipyard to make it into a seaport. Later desperation brought the regional incinerator, regional sewer processing plant and county jail.
I say take it all down and plant grass, shrubbery and trees. Half the cops would do.
So now that mix and match is aloud will the petition group just resubmit or do we all have to sign a third petition?
I agree with Anon 1/23 5:56.
ktbfw by any other name is still ktbfw. Not worth a further comment.
If, after the legislation passes, a new petition is needed, bring it to me to sign.
now that mix and match is aloud
The comment says it all.
When is the Crown Fried Chicken opening? Someone's gotta know...
Crown Fried chicken is a bit like KFC only cheaper because they don't have to pay "royalties" to the man. It's also a shorter walk than Popeyes. Yay!
liptthey don't have to pay "royalties" to the man.
Col. Sanders sold his franchise with his name to a corporation many years ago. The corporation dropped his name and his picture and adopted the "KFC" label and their "crispy" recipe.
So Sanders (maybe in his 80s by then) opened a new franchise using his wife's name (and supposedly her recipe) but the corporation stopped him, saying they still owned his name and recipe. He then retired.
It is not a matter of paying "royalties to the man". A franchise is a license to sell a specific product using the name and merchandising of the owner. With the right product, a good location and smart management, one could make lots of money as a franchisee. Look at some of the McDonalds owners listed in the stores. Many are millionaires today. But find a Gino's owner if you can.
So the petition group just needs to wait for the soon coming legislation and we'll get this damn study. Let's get this over with. Why can't council endorse the petition application as is and be done with this???
Because council is filled with teachers or consultants to the town that might lose their jobs if we merged. They are far from impartial here.
You people elected them, so you can only blame yourselves for falling for their blather.
Anon 1/26 6:35 AM - Unfortunately the alternatives on the ballot came across as being even more against a merger.
So it looks like Cherry Hill doesn't want to pay money for a study that former Merchantville mayors appointed by North get to shoot down. That makes sense. Away they walk. This is over.
kswann--
How is the Merchantville househunting going? I think you said you only had 2 months to find a home.
Some good houses for sale right now. Did you look at 121 Westminster?
There are a lot of good homes if you want to pay extremely high taxes for a sub par school system.
What's the petitioners' take on the Mayor's update on the consolidation study.
I heard he said Merchantville is awaiting Cherry Hill's appointment of a study committee. We will wait another 30 days before pulling the plug.
Why aren't the petitioners petitioning C.H. to appoint its committee? If C.H. is as pro-merger as the petitioners have indicated in the past, the two committees working together, representing both sides of the issue, should create a pretty balanced picture of the costs/benefits of consolidation.
kswann has already written that she prefers to move to Merchantville rather than Cherry Hill from her current home in Philadelphia.
KTBW would be correct, if all 10 commissioners voted together, but actually a majority of each 5 member committee must first "recommend" the study before it is put to a vote. I don't blaim Cherry Hill for walking away at this point. There is no point in a study that will only be rejected by committee.
A Study Commission has to be approved by the DCA and set up under a method also approved by the DCA. That is the law.
The mayors or town councils cannot appoint a Study Commission unless they do so pursuant to an approved application to the DCA.
Mayor North's committee was not set up pursuant to an approved application so it isn't a "Study Commission" under the statute. If CH were to appoint a committee and the two got together, the fact remains that they cannot be a Study Commission under the merger statute. The best they could do would be to apply to the DCA for the formation of a Study Commission. Perhaps that is what Mayor North is referring to?
On the other hand, an application has already been made by the petitioners using CH's resolution. Once the State Legislature passes the bill permitting petitioners and town councils to work together, that application can go forward.
If someone else finds some other statutory provision that applies or thinks my interpretation is incorrect, please comment.
Alice, as always has described the situation correctly. Both sides of the application propose their commissioners, and submit them as part of the application to the DCA who establishes the Commission.
The Commission is composed of 5 members from each town. At the conclusion of the study these members vote whether or not to recommend the question of merger be put to the citizens in the form of a referendum. If the commissioners from either town vote against putting the question to the citizens, then the process ends, and can not be repeated for a minimum of 5 years.
So the fact is that as few as 3 commissioners out of the total 10 can stop the process dead. This is why an impartial commission is so important. And this is why even a hint of an impartial commission could make Cherry Hill hesitant. As Mayor North said in council on Monday this is precisely what is happening right now. Mayor North recounted a conference call between Himself, Mayor Platt of Cherry Hill, and DCA, where Mayor Platt explained that they have not advanced their side of the application because he has reservations about Merchantville Council's slate of commissioners. This is why there has been no new application following the DCA's ruling on the petitioner's application with Cherry Hill.
So where do we go from here? If Mayor North is sincere about his wish to see the study undertaken then he needs to consider how his proposed commission may be seen by others. He may need to reconsider these appointments. If he reached out to the petitioner group we cold help and it would probably go a long way towards gaining Cherry Hill's confidence. Mayor North has stated repeatedly that he has proposed his commissioners because of their expertise in the workings of the town. Its a good reason, but also places them too close to the government to be seen as impartial.
A better way to leverage this expertise would be to establish an advisory board that would be available to the commissioners through out the process. They could interpret the facts of the study, and lend their opinions to the commissioners on the business that is integral to running the town. This frees the commission to be composed of competent, but neutral citizens who are not so closely tied to the local government. The involvement of the petitioners in proposing the commissioners would demonstrate that everybody on this side of the application was able to work together, and I suspect we would finally get our study.
If that kind of cooperation is not appealing to Council, then we really don't have a way to help them. Or If Council's heart is not really wanting a study, then the current slate of commissioners will accomplish just that - no study. If so, then we wait for the legislation to move forward, and later submit a mixed application again.
I can't wait for Anon or someone else to snark at Lavardara's typos.
What the hell is Anonymous 9:36 talking about? Councilman teacher who?
anonymous post about Mr. Waldron should be deleted, there is no room on this blog for this type of statement, truly despicable comments and accusations!
Signs for the Crown Fried Chicken store are to reviewed by the Historic Commission on Tuesday night.
Let's have the crown fried chicken thread...
At this point I am never, ever going to buy anything at Crown Fried Chicken, I am that sick of hearing about it.
The idea of Merchantville Historical Society discussing the crown fried chicken signs is hilarious.
The Merchantville Historical Society and the Merchantville Historic Preservation Commission are two completely different groups. The Historic Preservation Commission is chaired by Lynn North and the Historical Society is presided over by Maureen McLoone.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is a borough commission that reviews signage, paint colors and building facade proposals prior to their consideration by the Planning Board. It meets at Borough Hall on the first Tuesday of the month (7:30 pm).
Comments that have been requested for removal have been deleted.
a tatoo parlor and a crown fried chicken and we wonder why Cherry Hill had second thoughts...
If C.H. has second thoughts about creating a consolidation committee it is in deference to our leaders not wanting a merger, not because our town has or lacks certain retail outlets.
Cherry Hill would stand to gain millions of dollars of revenue just from taxation of our residents. Suspending that opportunity shows how much respect its leaders have for ours.
It is noble.
What makes you think the CH council has "second thoughts" about the application?
They have consistently proceeded with the application already in place and consistently put off dealing with Mayor North.
Then where is their committee of consolidation volunteers?
Perhaps you visualize Mr. Meachum (sp) when you speak of enthusiastic support of consolidation in Cherry Hill. I was referring to the mayor and his direct communications with our mayor.
Cherry Hill should be all about this. All it does is bring in revenue for their town. Collect the Merchantville "which will cease to exist all together and probably be over run by camdenites" taxes and wham instant revenue. If you think CHILL would make it a point to place any resources into merchantville you better step out of that bubble your livin in. CHILL is in financial crisis just like the rest of the state you think Bernard is going to put money aside to make sure Merchantville is kept the way it is now. Do you think they care about our quaint center of town. They could care less its all about revenue.
Maybe it is not all about revenue. Take a look at your 2010 report card for schools. I will give you a clue. In cherry hill, it is about the schools, stupid.
Just the schools. We cannot absorb a population of non proficient student...and we won't.
An update: The legislation that will affirm the mixed Cherry Hill Council + Merchantville Petition Application to the DCA has passed the Senate today - unanimously. Every Senator, from all over the state, and from both sides of the aisle voted FOR the legislation.
It moves on to the Assembly next week, or maybe the week after.
Still a regrettable delay, we should have been under way already, but all the more affirming to see how this reveals the overwhelming support for the work of our volunteers and for the strong support of the Merchantville citizens who have endorsed the petition. We will have a study.
Yes, a regrettable delay but thanks to people who have made the effort progress has been made. To all of you who thought this was done - think again! Don't know where some of you get your information but it is just not true that Cherry Hill has walked or that this is over. The Senate voted unanimously and the momentum is there for the Assembly bill as well. As Lavardera said, we will have a study.
Post a Comment