Cherry Hill Mayor outlines plans for moving forward with Merchantville
"Their idea is for Cherry Hill to absorb the existing borough of about 3,800 residents while continuing to preserve the character and identity of the small town.
On the surface, that concept seems like it would serve the best interests of the taxpayers. And I believe that, as the top elected official of this community, I have a responsibility to give the idea due diligence and make an informed decision as to whether it’s worth pursuing."
"Their idea is for Cherry Hill to absorb the existing borough of about 3,800 residents while continuing to preserve the character and identity of the small town.
On the surface, that concept seems like it would serve the best interests of the taxpayers. And I believe that, as the top elected official of this community, I have a responsibility to give the idea due diligence and make an informed decision as to whether it’s worth pursuing."
75 comments:
The little town of South Pasadena, California, is struggling to rebuild its water wells. It has three and it needs all but one is contaminated. If South Pasadena cannot get water it must go the route of all the many little towns once surrounding Los Angeles -- absorption.
When Los Angeles was small BUT "PROGRESSIVE AND PROACTIVE" as the Cherry Hill mayor claims to be, Los Angeles bought water rights in far regions of northern California and to the east in adjoining states. It bought up far more than it needed. One by one as little towns in southern California outgrew their water supplies --or their sources were redirected to others (as northern California cries)-- the little southern towns were forced to merge with Los Angeles for water.
South Pasadena officials do not want to be absorbed by their giant neighbor and so are working fervently to find new water themselves.
Los Angeles is not a good Samaritan wanting merely to help its surrounding neighbors. L.A. wants the almost-free tax revenue. So does Cherry Hill.
Read what the C.H. mayor says. He talks broadly about increasing efficiencies and reducing administrative costs. The facts according to "Courage To Connect" are that Cherry Hill's size is ideal for efficient services and government. So why are Cherry Hill citizens complaining about their taxes? Simple, the mayor doesn't know when to stop adding services and costs.
Absorbing Merchantville is an easy fix for Cherry Hill ... in the very same way Los Angeles continues absorbing all the towns around itself. There is no stopping. Los Angeles does not need more territory and more people. It is too big now by every measure.
Simply said, there is no stopping that "proagressive/proactive" mentality.
Last Tuesday evening while everyone else attended the consolidation-study meeting at Trinity Dr. Gaskill gifted to the Planning Board Chairman and the Borough Mayor a ceremonial chrome shovel to be engraved with the names of all public officials who work towards bringing the three Merchantville redevelopment projects to fruition -- the final approval of TCE, the sale of the PNC bank building, and the purchase and rehab of Wellwood Commons.
In response the Chairman updated the Board on the appointment of a committee of Council members, public officials and himself to expedite all of the redevelopment projects.
Amendments to the Fieldstone Redevelopment Agreement (TCE) were introduced to the Planning Board that night. At its Monday night meeting Council appointed a marketing agent to sell the bank. Negotiations between the Borough and the buyer of 606 E. Maple Ave. on past taxes and fines are in the works.
It appears that pro and anti consolidation people are working together to deliver the same flyer door to door. Its an announcement of the meeting next Monday. Everyone I've talked to has gotten it. How many volunteers does it take to paper the entire town in one day?
How many volunteers does it take to paper the entire town
For decades Gail delivered The Beacon sometimes by herself, sometimes by a couple of children. A couple of letter carriers deliver mail town-wide every day.
Failing to inform Merchantville residents of the consolidation-group meeting was lack of vision, not lack of capability. One might call it Crying to Connect
How many volunteers does it take to paper the entire town
For decades Gail delivered The Beacon sometimes by herself, sometimes by a couple of children. A couple of letter carriers deliver mail town-wide every day.
Failing to inform Merchantville residents of the consolidation-group meeting was lack of vision, not lack of capability. One might call it Crying to Connect
If Mayor Platt were really interested in finding good solutions, as he claims, he could very easily open his schools to our students on a tuition basis. His town would close its school-funding shortfall and his neighboring town (us) would solve its sending problem.
He told Mayor North at the start that he was not interested in doing that. Apparently, his "progressive and proactive" philosophy does not include half a loak is better than none.
School Boards, not the Mayors, make such decisions. Your comment is nonsense.
A correction for “Canvassing” -- Gail NEVER delivered The Merchantville Beacon by herself, and not even with the help of a couple of children. The first few issues were distributed with the help of 3 or 4 adult volunteers and then we paid 16 kids to deliver. It’s not easy to deliver a newsletter or a flyer to the entire town.
Mr. Lavardera is quite right -- school boards, not mayors, make decisions about opening schools on a tuition basis. Mayor Platt can NOT "very easily open his schools to our students on a tuition basis". They are not his schools.
I believe Merchantville students have always been able to apply for acceptance into the CH district on a tuition basis, with parents paying tuition.
The School Choice program, which would open schools to all students on a first-come, first served basis, has not been something CH has been interested in doing. Even if they were interested, the School Choice program cannot specify that only Merchantville students would be accepted. Also, the numbers would be quite limited, so that not all Merchantville students could be accepted by Cherry Hill even if CH decided to participate in the program.
Cherry Hill could agree to seek a high school sending-receiving agreement with Merchantville, but the CH School Board has been unwilling to do that for many, many years. That’s why the Merchantville School Board has been attempting to form such a sending-receiving agreement with Haddon Heights.
It’s important to know what school boards can do and what the mayor & council can do, and to understand what various programs (such as school choice) can do. Facts are important.
Gail said: Facts are important.
Yes, facts are important. That is why only Mayor Platt's comment was cited above. Perhaps Mr. Platt did not have the facts but I suspect he knows where the legal boundaries are and the political ones, too.
In maritime law a sailboat has the right of way over a power boat. Ask a captain of a 100 ton freighter what the expectation is in the real world if a sailboat should blow its horn for the steamer to yield.
I remember listening in on a divorce case in Burlington County Superior Court. A woman had petitioned the court for support payments from the man divorcing her. The husband's lawyer had done some research and found that when the man divorced his first wife in California using a do-it-yourself kit, he filed the wrong papers to "memorialize" the divorce decision.
So the lawyer argued here against the granting of support on the basis that the man, technically, was still married to his first wife and so therefore his second marriage was illegal ... he should not have to pay support in an illegal marriage.
The judge smiled and ruled that he was not going to turn over a 20-year marriage here in New Jersey involving several children because of a clerical error in California a quarter century earlier. He ordered support payments, bigamy or not.
It appears that k t..b.f.w. has stopped creating imaginative monikers for the blog and has stooped to using the Anonymous label.
The fact remains, however, that Mayor Platt cannot very easily open his schools to our students because they are not “his” schools. Maybe he does know where the legal and political boundaries are, but he did say he was interested in knowing how a merger would impact CH schools.
The tales about the sailboat vs the steamer and the divorce case in Burlington County were interesting diversions, but they are not relevant. Are you interested in knowing how a merger would impact our schools, Anonymous? And if you are, why do you oppose a merger study?
Yes. the Cherry Hill School Board is unwilling to open our doors. Correct. However, if Merchantville wants to look at consolidating they need to be willing to close their door. Their school doors will close
As Gail points out, the Mayor of Cherry Hill has no authority over the CH school district, which is solely responsible for decisions about participating in the school choice program and entering into send-receive relationships.
As parents hoping we won't have to join the exodus of families from Merchantville, we know that CH does not allow "tuition in" students from other districts, interested in attending the High School.
We know because we've looked into it - trying to find an affordable way to educate our children and continue to nurture the roots we've established here in this community.
A community which is not defined by its name, but by its people, by their spirit and their love of this place. This place - it's history, our homes, our tree lined streets, the downtown, churches and shops...none of if goes away if it turns out that a merger makes sense.
"...none of if goes away if it turns out that a merger makes sense."
What are you expecting out of a merger? That nothing of importance would "go away"?
Let me suggest what "goes away". LOCAL CONTROL. Control of police presence on your streets. Control of decisions on road maintenance and traffic flow and parking. Control of general maintenance. Control of your elementary school and its personnel and its programs and after school activities. Control of your community center. Control of which buildings should be saved.
Local control and local decisions become regional ... by officials who run not a half square mile but, rather, 48 times that size and run it all with the proudly professed viewpoint "PROGRESSIVE AND PROACTIVE".
Cherry Hill predates Merchantville and it was a hub of government before Merchantville was even a railroad stop. Yet, that 24 square miles of power has four historic houses still standing, two of them saved by individuals interested in a heritage.
Progressive and Proactive knocks down old buildings, quaint roads, historic railroad stations, trees and woods and ponds. They don't care; they see no money in it. They tear down old schools too -- all of them.
If local control does not mean anything to you ... if you don't care if someone else from a modern culture makes your decisions, then merger is for you.
Miles and miles of bigness and "progressive" is not for me.
I don't know about you Anon 7:52, but I certainly don't control police presence or decisions on road maintenance, traffic flow and parking.
Or of the town's general maintenance or our elementary school and its personnel and its programs and after school activities.
Or of anything else.
I participate / volunteer in the life of my community; and I have my say at open forums and by reaching out to elected representatives that are responsible for the operations and oversight you mentioned.
By and large, people living in Cherry Hill are no more or no less satisfied with the services you mentioned than are we citizens of Merchantville.
Just guessing, but it sounds like you may be in the perpetually "less satisfied" group. Or perhaps do you have some position of small town power / influence that you see threatened?
No personal attack intended - just seems like a bit too much emotional investment was reflected in the comment.
Perhaps Anon 7:52 is from one of the families that do control alot of this stuff. The rest of us are busy with other things and not concerned about their potential loss of big fish in small pond power. Let's just have this study.
I haven't lived here too long. I've recently retired from the Navy and travel alot. I got the public meeting announcement yesterday and my neighbor showed me this blog. It seems to me that the people questioning the need for this study are quick to speculate and whine. Am I missing something?
Just my take, If you are against this you already have the upper hand in the long run. All you need to do is pick apart the study and scare people. The burden lies with people seeking change, so quit whining and let them have it.
O. Perspective: Am I missing something?
Are you missing the point that four of the five consolidation-study appointees --selected by the NGO "Courage To Connect"-- had previously made comments favoring merger?
Why do you think the merger group fought so hard, even to changing State legislation, to get its own study group named? Merchantville Council had already selected a study comission composed of distinguished town residents with years/decades of experience in local government -- former mayors, councilmen, planning board appointees, and volunteer citizens.
The shoe is on the other foot now.
A. Rose said: I certainly don't control police presence or decisions on road maintenance...or anything else.
Uninvolved-unaware-disinterested is usually ascribed to a thing called "Renters' Attitude".
Merchantville has a thousand renters; Cherry Hill has tens and tens of thousands who pretty much are satisfied with any level of services. Or they pick up and go elsewhere if not.
Speaking of towns keeping after their apartment facilities, Cherry Hill allowed five high-rise apartment buildings to become so bad that three of them had to be demolished and one was rebuilt as condos.
The fifth nightmare is still there on Route 70, A. Rose, in case that would suit you just as well as noninvolvement in local government.
Re: The comment by Anonymous that 4 of 5 members of the consolidation commission (selected by Courage to Connect) had previously made comments favoring merger.
It’s my understanding that the commission members were NOT selected by Courage to Connect, but by the local group, Merchantville Connecting for the Future.
I suspect the Anonymous comment referred to my own statement that 4 of the 5 commission members had publicly expressed an interest in sending our high school students to Cherry Hill schools. While I believe that shows a bias toward merger, I have not heard any of them say they favor a merger. I have great respect for at least 2 of those 4. Several members of our own School Board have also expressed an interest in sending our high school students to Cherry Hill.
Also, most of the commission members named by Merchantville Council were biased AGAINST a merger. Calling them distinguished citizens does not change that.
Gail is correct.
Courage to Connect had nothing to do with the vetting of Commissioners. The petitioning group interviewed the Commissioners and chose people who were unbiased. As noted before we spoke to several of the people proposed by the Mayor about being on the commission, but they all declined.
I don't think the anonymous claims posted here have much credibility, but if you want to know for yourself that the Commissioners we've proposed are unbaised, then you should come to the meeting on Monday to ask the question, or contact the individuals yourself to talk to them.
Peace
As a long time reader of this blog (obviously a personality defect on my part) I find it funny that Anon (again) tries to disparage the Courage to Connect entity by noting that it is a "NGO" (non-governmental organization).
This isn't the first time this blogger has implied that NGOs are somehow evil.
NGOs by definition are generally non-profit, volunteer, and non-partisan. They are usually involved in activities that are service oriented, charitable and / or promote Human Rights / work to empower the disenfranchised.
PURE EVIL!!!!!
I am also worried about bias. Each of the commissioners lives in a big house and pay over 9k in property taxes. They're probably just look to cut costs. This should about more than just money people!!!
biNGO: NGOs by definition are generally non-profit, volunteer, and non-partisan.
Not this one. CTC is a one person, one-time mayor who lost her bid for a bigger seat. So became a crusader for the very project --consolidating districts-- because her home town would not go along with her scheme.
You are right. She should not be NGO. She should be NO.
and now, Anon...
please give us YOUR history and motivations - and as you took the liberty to do in this case, please do it from the perspective of someone other than yourself.
Someone armed with distain, only a snippet of factual information, and has no problem opining motivation and inferring megalomania.
CHECKers: ...give us YOUR history and motivations
It is not about me, Check. If you think it is, then let me suggest you are reading too heavily into my comments, if those you are attributing to me are mine.
However, now that you have asked, I offer my opinion on a couple of things.
One, History: I favor the old rural saw, "Don't take a fence down until you know why it was put up." Over the past year or so I have read comments that reveal their authors are unfamiliar with what they have, yet they are mesmerized by the thought of changing it. And visa versa.
Two, Construction: I am persuaded that the corollary is important. A fence should be horse high, bull strong and pig tight." Some people buy "new" because it is shiny, not knowing if it works. The original petition was an example of that. Some signers thought their signatures were for merging; others believed they were supporting a study. Even the petitioners did not know.
Three, Self Governance. You don't miss the water until the well runs dry. A. Rose runs a great risk in equating a "sensible" merger just with its people, spirit and love, as she puts it. The loss of local governance could severely jeopardize her concept.
Four, Ambiance. I prefer some things old. I appreciate the "golden ages" of different things ... instrumental music, vocal song, writing, poetry, architecture, civil engineering. The architecture of Merchantville will face challenges under the governance of its big neighbor. I lived in Cherry Hill for a quarter of a century. Nothing is sacred there. Nothing.
Ocean Grove used to be a gated community. Every evening chains would be put across the entrances and exits, it was said, to keep the rabble Asbury Park neighbors from marauding through. Well, ten years ago I read that the town governors decided to take down not only the chains which hadn't been used for years but also the posts to widen the cartways. That was a decision the local government made for itself.
In my mind Merchantville would be smarter to continue to make its own decisions, whatever they might be.
I think it was a rhetorical comment Anon.
Not a request for you to take us on a journey behind the curtain of your mind.
Having said that...
You obviously have beliefs, passion, and live your life based on your experiences and your perceptions of them.
So why then, based on your telling of the CTC founder's story, would you criticize another person that was frustrated by politics and now works outside of that venue to "crusade" for things she (and others) believe in?
Whether I agree with people or not, I have far more respect for those who put their beliefs into action than those of us that sit back an rant about it on blogs!
Anon#2: [CTC] now works outside of that venue to "crusade" for things she (and others) believe in?
Because I am suspect of her believing what she is promoting between C.H. and Merchantville.
Her philosophical premise as she has expressed it to various news media, especially in north Jersey papers, is the efficiency of reducing the many varied-sized N.J. municipalities down to a smaller number (I forget her target number of municipalities) of roughly equal sized municipalities that can deliver services economically. (Sorry about the clumsy sentence.)
Since starting on the C.H./Merch. consolidation she has been silent on her premise. Why? Because the better match of communities in this area for efficiency would be merging Merchantville with Pennsauken. That would result in Camden (ppop. 77,000), C.H. (pop. 71,000) and Pennsauken/Merch (pop. 40,000).
Pennsauken alone does not meet her efficient-size criteria and by merging Merchantville with C.H. instead, Pennsauken is left alone as a too-small municipality in her model model. Furthermore, she knows that Pennsauken's population has been stable for 50 years -- it's 1960 population was slightly smaller than today's. But C.H.s population in that same time period more than doubled. And C.H.s population density is less than half that of Merchantville or Pennsauken so theoretically the C.H. population could double again in the next 50 years -- putting it beyond CTCs range of efficiency if merged with Merch.
Since she has become mum over this merger project flying against her decade-long philosophy, I conclude that she is not honest to her work or to us ... and her efforts are for her political career.
Harsh assessment, isn't it? And then when she publicly (proudly) announced her private sexual life to newspapers and TV, well, she lost my, what should we say?, my affection?
Did you read in S.J. Business People this week the TD Bank ad which quoted five regional business leaders as to their best and worst lifetime jobs? One CEO said his best teenage job was working for the New Jersey Turnpike. He said, "What Happens On The Turnpike Stays On The Turnpike". That was an amusing allusion. What CTC announced was not.
It has established that CH is already at the optimized population for efficiency.
it is unfortunate that the commission members on the merchantville side have already made their decision.
does anyone know the cherry hill folks?
"...when she publicly (proudly) announced her private sexual life to newspapers and TV, well, she lost my, what should we say?, my affection?"
On this point, if she "proudly" proclaimed being a pedophile, than I am in full agreement with you.
If she announced her interest in Sadomasochism, well, it may not float my boat, but to each their own.
If she openly (and even proudly) shared that she is gay or bi-sexual, well - really, so what?
Would that make someone a pariah in your eyes?
Nice. Now you can add un-selfaware bigot to your anti-consolidation proflie.
I'm also concerned because I heard some members of this commission complain about high property taxes. This needs to be about more than money. This is about legacy, history and identity. I've lived here longer than any of the petitioners or their hijacked commission so I know what's at stake. We pay a premium to live in a small community like Merchantville and you should have figured that out on your way in! So what if taxes would go down with a merge. This should never be allowed to happen because it's unfair to people who truly have Merchantville in their hearts.
Lavardera: Now you can add un-selfaware bigot to your anti-consolidation proflie
I am unfamiliar with the Lavadera's word "un-selfaware" but it appears that Lavadera missed the points of Anon 1:45.
Anon said that the CTC consultant's recommendations in this merger are inconsistant with her announced philosophy so Anon considers her "dishonest to her work" in that respect. And Anon said that the consultant's publication of her sexual behavior lost his/her favor.
For myself, I consider such personal talk to the mass media to be in poor judgment.
A few weeks ago at a jazz festival in Bridgeton a singer/songwriter began talking between songs that she not only opposes the middle east wars she does not support our troops because they are waging those wars.
I was bothered by her chatter not only because it was unrelated to the music, it was a failure of the singer to separate government policy from the individuals called upon to execute it.
What I did not read in the Anon 1:45 comment was Lavadera's conclusion that the comment was "anti-consolidation".
Perhaps Lavadera would take a minute to explain why he repeatedly notes that Courage To Connect is different from Merchantville Connecting to the Future but when comments are critical of the CTC consultant, he insists that the criticism is aimed at the merging or against the study.
I checked Wikipedia (already I can hear the coming complaints) for census data on Merchantville residents compared to Erlton/Ellisburg residents. I was surprised.
Erlton citizens are closely matched to Merchantville folks in size of community, population density and individual and family income levels.
For example Median Household Income for Cherry Hill is $87,000. For Merchantville it is $49,000 and for Erlton it is $48,000. Per Capita income for C.H. is $43,000. For Merchantville it is $26,000 and for Erlton it is $25,000.
Population Density for C.H. is 2,900 people per square mile. Merchantville's population density is 6,300 per sq mi and Erlton's density is 8,100 per sq mi.
What I had forgotten is that eastern C.H. has newer homes which are larger, more expensive and spread farther apart.
But here is the point I am leading to. The C.H. governors have supported/promoted the development of large shopping centers mostly separate from the four communities but they have not addressed the decline in small shopping strips such as the one along Rte 70 in Erlton.
Do we need to alert the consolidation study committee to consider whether Merchantville's two streets of retail will be ignored as Erlton's has been?
Lavardera: Now you can add un-selfaware bigot...anti-consolidation proflie
I am unfamiliar with Lavardera's word "un-selfaware" but it appears that Lavardera's missed the points of Anon 1:45.
Anon said that the CTC consultant's recommendations in this merger are inconsistent with her announced philosophy so he considers her "dishonest to her work" in that respect. And Anon said that the consultant's publication of her sexual behavior lost his/her favor.
For myself, I agree that such personal talk to the mass media is with poor judgment.
A few weeks ago at a jazz festival in Bridgeton a singer/songwriter began talking between songs that she not only opposes the middle east wars she DOES NOT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS because they are waging those wars. I was bothered by her chatter not only because it was unrelated to the music, it was a failure of the singer to separate government policy from the individuals called upon to execute it. To me it was poor judgment not unlike the personal-behavior announcement.
What I did not read in the Anon 1:45 comment was Lavardera's conclusion that the comment was "anti-consolidation". Perhaps Lavardera's would take a minute to explain why he repeatedly notes that Courage To Connect is different from Merchantville Connecting to the Future but when comments are critical of the CTC consultant, he insists that the criticism is against merging or against the study as well. It is non sequitur.
Oh really marvin, and I'm sure if a person interviewed decided to speak about their lovely wife and children you would also conclude that their reveal of their personal sexual behavior was in poor judgment. Have you no idea how your statements might feel insulting or cutting, nor how anybody might well recoil at your blind exposition of this bigotry, presented as if you are perfectly justified to feel this way. You go so far as to equate it with political speech. This is nothing but thinly veiled hate, and if you had any self-awareness you would understand why.
I'm not at all conflating criticism of CTC with anti-consolidation. I'm conflating all anonymous posts to the same person, more recently to marvin, which is why I conclude the commenter is anti-consolidation.
This criticism of CTC is incorrect. I've spoken to CTC about this question and your interpretation is completely off base. Its not about hitting some specific data-point, its about reducing redundancy in government and improving services for small towns. A merge of Merchantville and Cherry Hill is completely consistent with their advocacy.
Please leave my name out of it, lavardera. There is a moniker for each posting and a posting date if "anonymous" is used. Follow the blogspot rules and stick to constructive comments. That is a stated requirement.
I for one do not appreciate personal assaults. And they lead me to think less of their authors.
The time stamp sheds no insight on whether a series of anonymous posts are one person, several, or you kt. The onus is not on me to figure out which anonymous is which. If you want to string ideas together in several posts, you have a name - use it.
And I have no obligation to help you maintain your anonymity. I'm perfectly happy to pretend we don't know who you are even though anybody that reads here regularly knows very well who you are and which posts are yours. But the courtesy is off when you deal out your prejudice thoughts. Don't you dare ask me to help you pull a hood over your head when you expose your bigotry.
Using your name is not a personal assault.
"if a person interviewed decided to speak about their lovely wife and children you would also conclude that their reveal [sic]...was in poor judgment...equate it with political speech."
If you are speaking to me, Lavardera, your speculation is correct. Personally, having seen half a century of politicians standing on podiums with spouses and children symbolically standing along side in support, while the politicians explain away and apologize for exposed secret sexual behaviors contrary to social mores, yes, I equate it all with "political speech" as you phrase it, Lavardera. I think it is poor judgment, disrespect and dishonest that anyone would USE his/her family in that self-survival way.
"anybody might well recoil at your blind exposition of this bigotry" [Wikipedia: BIGOTRY: utterly intolerant of any differing creed]
Where I come from, which is Cherry Hill, social mores are "customs of proper behavior ... etiquette or politeness". If you recoil at that, well, you do not come from Cherry Hill and you will not want to go there. In fact, they have gated communities on Kresson Road that will keep you out... unless you are delivering pizza or mowing the lawn.
Imagine a web woven by a spider on LSD and you might see a frightening similarity to the map showing the jurisdictional outlines of our 566 municipalities in NJ. Present the current facts and statistics of the situation to a systems analyst and you can expect howls of laughter. Given a free hand to reconstruct and reconfigure the present map, no one would attempt to justify a replication of the existing system.”
— Alan J. Karcher
I'm happy to pay higher taxes in an independent Merchantville. I don't care how much taxes might go down in a merge. No thank you!
Higher taxes now and a potential forced merger with Pennsauken later.
Not my idea of a Win - Win.
Higher taxes + lower level of services = further depression of property values.
If the town goes into default, only then would we likely be at the mercy of the State to force us to merge with whoever the choose. I'd like to be as far away from that option as possible.
Could someone clarify "potential forced merger with Pennsauken"? Way back on the blog someone made this statement and then added in "or maybe even Camden." I'd like to know is this something the State has said? If we're calling on everone to not use scare tactics and only things that are factual, this would fall in that category. If it's been written or discussed (and recorded) by lawmakers, please share it with us. I think it would be helpful.
There have only been a couple of mergers in the last hundred years...none forced. The blog comments are misinformation or hype.
However, when municipalities have not shown successful management, the State has stepped in. If I remember correctly, the article in the Cherry Hill Sun said the police force and schools in Camden were taken over by the State.
Being absorbed into a township the size of Cherry Hill will NEVER be a WIN-WIN. Try a WIN-WE LOSE everything we care about.
Please do not specifically name or "out" people who wish to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym. And please, for those who wish to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym, please do not use the freedom on this blog to attack the proponents and opponents who are putting their name out there.
This goes for the lady too with Courage to Connect. It's a tough economy. If she can find a way to make a living off of this, all the power to her. Last time I checked though, she doesn't have a vote in all of this.
Wondering - at the preliminary study meeting in Merchantville last week and again tonight at the similar meeting in Cherry Hill, the representative from the NJ Dept. of Community Affairs advised that there is legislation being developed under which a group within the Dept. of Community Affairs will have the authority to recommend mergers of local communities. The consequence of then not merging is that both communities would lose all funding from Trenton. That is a lot of money and would severely impact the property tax levels in the communities.
There is a 1999 Rutgers study which recommends has an extensive list of how individual New Jersey municipalities shoud merge. The recommendation in the study for Merchantville is that it merge with Pennsauken.
Merchantville does not have a border with Camden. If you get a large, detailed map of the area (try Pennsauken Library) you will see that all of Route 130 is in Pennsauken. All of Merchantville's west end is a border with Pennsauken.
Cruiser: Dept. of Community Affairs will have the authority to recommend mergers
I haven't visited the Cape Breton Highlands in Nova Scotia for 40-some years. At that time the roads were gravel, all communities were tucked into coves with access to the sea for fishing and two thirds of the economy was the postal service, forest management, the fire department and road maintenance. I imagine tourism is a big draw today because the Cape in its rural ruggedness is beautiful.
New Jersey has gone big government in the last fifty years too. The State sales tax went from zero to seven percent to pay for it. The difference I see is that NJ's "progressive & proactive" surge is not to service the local communities, as on Cape Breton, but to build a new urban destiny.
Cruiser may be right that the Department of Community Affairs would like to squish little towns like ours into larger units it can more easily manage. He was first correct about the Executive County School Superintendents.
However, I think it fortunate for us in Merchantville that the change in governors, which stopped the Executive Superintendents in their tracks --releasing them as their contracts expire-- will have a similar cooling effect on DCA. Already the Bureau of Housing within DCA has had its employee sails trimmed for heavy weather.
Maybe someday Merchantville could become a tourist attraction for its anarchistic LOCAL CONTROL of government.
Can anyone provide a solid answer on what would happen to our municipal services if the merger goes through. Would Niagara cease to exist or would cherry hill utilize the firehouse. Would our volunteer fireman and our paid "one" be given a job by cherry hill? Also same for police. Would we loose our PD or would Cherry Hill use our station as a sub station. And what about the officers employed by the borough and the clerks. Are they all out of a job if the merger goes through or are they going to be employed by CH? Most importantly will our Ambulance calls be handled by Pennsauken EMS or will Cherry Hill step in and use their own services. I am concerned with response times. Please shed some light if you have any factual answers.
Here is a solid answer to your concerns (and, thank you for your concerns instead of fanatical negative opinion).....
There is no answer. No one knows yet.
The whole purpose of the public meetings were for us (residents of Merchantville and Cherry Hill) to express concerns over a possible merger. These concerns will be addressed in the study that will be conducted to evaluate the ramifications of a merger. So, to sum up:
- what will happen to police?
no idea yet
- fire?
no idea yet
- the school?
no idea yet
- our taxes?
no idea yet
- EMS?
no idea yet
- every other concern?
no idea yet
Sorry to be so blunt. Take a look at the Princeton Borough and Princeton Township study report to see what kinds of things will be addressed.
I agree with "A solid answer."
There are no answers at this time. Lots of speculation but no answers.
The study, which is projected to take one year, ending in August, 2012, will provide answers to the questions posed by Anonymous 7/19 8:16 AM.
Two productive meetings held in Cherry Hill last night gave a platform for citizens of both towns to layout concerns about issues to be addressed in the study.
One impressive Cherry Hill resident had carried out his own study and was able to speak for 15minutes. He felt the numbers did not look favorable, yet explained he was not working with current data because he was forced to reach back to 2009 and 2010. He also did not have nearly the level of detail the Study will address, nor an accurate understanding of Merchantville's costs, but it was impressive none the less!
Others expressed concerns that will certainly be addressed in the Study. One Merchantville resident brought the accusation of Commission bias to the table which was useful that it be addressed in this public forum. Commission members explained that the study being conducted by an independent consultant prevents Commission members from tainting data in any favor, and the fact that the study process is open to the public and the study published for review and verification by anybody who wishes to.
Personally I think its always useful to get have these fears expressed. A thought that may feel threatening in your mind often feels much more emotional or irrational once spoken before a large room full of people. I'm glad these few individuals had an opportunity to vent.
Next step is the action of the Local Finance Board in August, and then we will know if we will have a Study Commission.
I have been looking foward to this merger, just because of my three kids. I want them to go to the high school in cherry hill. I am a merchantville resident who happens to live on the boarder, i "PAY" taxes for cherry hill, yet my kids can not attend the high school. It gets me very upset when i see that 95% of those taxes that i pay cherry hill goes to the board of education!!! And yet my kids do not go there!!! I refuse to pay taxes for cherry hill if my kids will not be attending there school system, i am just paying for other kids to get a better education than mine.
JOsephine
Somebody please explain Josephine's dilemma. I do not understand it.
As to fire departments: If one Googles "Cherry Hill" he will find that all of the fire companies I remember in Delaware Township as a kid are still operating and with ownership of their respective buildings. I noticed that Deer Park Fire Company where I was a member in the 1950s on Route 70 near Marlkress Road now owns a headquarters around the corner on Marlkress Road and also now owns a fire station on Cropwell Road several miles away.
Someone on this blog can tell us if Niagra is its own entity without us waiting a year or more as suggested above.
Ktbfw - I believe Josephine is saying that part of her property is in Merchantville and part of it is in Cherry Hiil. She pays proportionate taxes to both towns. There are various rules regarding which school district the resident children of such a property may attend. Apparently her children cannot attend Cherry Hill schools and that distresses her.
At the meeting in Cherry Hill my recollection is that there was a very brief mention that only one of CH's fire companies is volunteer. I may be wrong on that but that is my recollection.
Did you actuallly attend the meeting in Cherry Hill yourself on Monday night, Cruiser, or is someone telling you what happened at the meeting?
I wasn't at the meeting myself, but I heard you weren't there, either. I must have heard wrong.
Cruiser: part of her property is in Merchantville and part of it is in Cherry Hiil. She pays proportionate taxes to both towns.
Interesting dilemma. She must be considered a resident of Merchantville.
There was a man who operated a business in New Jersey and spent nearly all of his time at that location but still maintained a residence in Lancaster PA where his wife and children lived.
The State of New Jersey decided that the man RESIDED in NJ based on his spending more than half a year here each year and charged him state income taxes as a resident.
He challenged the NJ decision stating that he votes in Lancaster so therefore is a resident of Pennsylania but that if NJ would allow him to vote too, giving him two votes in any presidential election, he would pay the NJ income tax as a resident.
NJ dropped its case and the man lived in Collingswood without paying income taxes to NJ for the rest of his life. He was buried in Haddonfield apparently as a non-resident.
Solid Ans: "look at the Princeton Borough and Princeton Township study report"
Princeton Borough was created in 1813 and the sixteen square miles surrounding it was separated into Princeton Township from other townships a century later. All of the Princeton territory has always used the one post office centrally located in downtown Princeton. Wikipedia states that the Borough and Township together are generally considered to be "Princeton". The University campus overlaps the two. In the 1920s and again in the 1950s the two municipalities ceded to each other various tracts of land to solve certain problems.
"Solid Answer" suggests (with sorrow for his bluntness) that blog commenters interested in typical merger-study questions should read the Princeton study.
I don't know how a study by municipalities with the oneness of Princeton could address the differences of Merchantville and Cherry Hill. That's like using a study on the hissing differences between Siamese cats and longhaired Persians to analyze the differences between a lioness and a snake...Merchantville not being the snake.
Last night the Pronto Pizza man saved my frozen vegetables from thawing. In fact, he keep all the freezers on Franklin Ave. from defrosting.
A couple of weeks ago there was a sharp flash of lightning with a near-simultaneous clap of thunder and then the lights went out on Franklin. It took hours to get the power back on and apparently PSE&G could not find the problem because in every rain since the electricity has cut out.
Well, last night around 10 pm with no power on the street as a result of the brief shower, the pizza man called the lineman down Park Ave and showing him where to shine his spotlight. Sure enough there was a 4,000-volt cable sticking its finger out of the top of a bundle.
Three hours later we got our power back. Thank you, Mr. Pronto.
Gail, for the record, you heard wrong. I was at the meetings in Cherry Hill on Monday.
@ The Study of Hissing: "I don't know how.."
One very good way to address these issues is to have a committee of people from each community who hold public meetings to discuss these issues and get public input.
Alice: discuss these issues and get public input.
Yes, I liked your example last year of the two municipalities meeting routinely across a year with public allowed to speak at each meeting.
So I was disappointed with the suggested Princeton model because the Princetonians who work in Princeton live in Princeton Township. They are one already.
ktbfw,
Are you saying that you are "The Study of Hissing"?
It might make for more clarity if you posted under your regular moniker and used separate titles in the body of your posts.
Both the Princeton and Chester studies show the types of reports that can be done. As one example, they both show what DCA does in preparing a "merged" budget.
There are so few examples we can look at, it is not surprising that neither fits us precisely. One day, the Merchantville-Cherry Hill study will be cited as an example for other towns to look at and will no doubt be dismissed by some as "not like our situation at all."
Alice: One day, the Merchantville-Cherry Hill study will be cited as an example
Well, we do not know yet if our coming study will be well executed. There is a lot of power on the C.H. side. You might not remember when Mr. Platt was a lawyer involved in a Merchantville redevelopment project estate trying to dictate his terms to our Borough.
I can see him and his deputies out-talking our half of the consolidation team. And if analytical work should go to Drexel, already with presence on the team, well ... well, we shall see.
Chester is the study I was trying to remember. And yes, I agree with Hissing's view on Princeton being just its own belt tightening.
I'm surprised and impressed with the commission assembled by the petition group. I've been against them from the start, but I'm sort of proud of them too.
If one side attempts to dictate terms to the other, then those commissioners will most certainly vote against going forward, and the matter will be done, and a waste of both parties time. Both towns know that a mutually beneficial proposal must be reached if the data shows it is possible.
k.t.b.f.w. said...
"I can see him [Mr. Platt] and his deputies out-talking our half of the consolidation team."
I would pay good money to see someone out-talk Anthony Perno. Having sat across the table from him for three years, I can tell you that would be no mean feat.
Now don't get offended, anyone - that's not a shot at Mr. Perno. It's an acknowledgement of his skills at debating and crafting arguments. In fact, I consider Anthony's position as one of the Commissioners to be a big plus for Merchantville.
Mark: ...do not get offended -- that is not a shot at Mr. Perno.
Well, I will take a shot across his bow, seeing as he is a public official and CEO of a consulting firm that SNJ Business People announced was the MOST INFLUENTIAL in changing the landscape of Camden --more than all of Camden's string of mayors and officials-- by its involvement in 600 million dollars of redevelopment funds.
Come merging, our Councilman could further expand his political career as a Cherry Hill resident without even moving his car.
Do you remember a decade ago reading about a Philadelphia director of some important agency --maybe the head of the airport-- losing his job and pension because he secretly lived in New Jersey in violation of Philadelphia's residency ordinance? You see, he should have sponsored a merger of Philadelphia with New Jersey or at the least built some runways in National Park.
Mr. Perno faces a great potential personal gain from a Merchantville/C.H. merge not only for the expanded political arena but also for his young children. Not everyone can rise out of Pennsauken schools with the success of Mr. Norcross who, incidentally, is regarded by SNJ Business People as one of the most influential people in the Delaware Valley.
No, Mark, Mr. Perno will not take on Mayor Platt and the Boys for our cause. The Commission is six to four by my reckoning. Fire when ready!
I have no that that Mr. Perno WILL take on and represent "our cause".
That is, to champion whatever is the best outcome for us. Though that may not jive with ktbfw's predeterminations.
I am not sure how Mr. Perno will be able to represent "our cause" since he spent the entire meeting messing with his cell phone. I found this to be very rude. When someone is asked to come up to the mic and identify himself or herself and address the commissioners I think the least he could do is pretend he is listening! I take it as he already has his mind made up and does not care about anyone else’s concerns.
Actually it looked to me like he was taking notes on an ipad.
If that was the case then I guess he owns the worlds smallest IPad!!! He must be the first on his block! Besides that is not the point. If someone is addressing the panel then he should be looking and listening to that person. Not messing with something in his hand. Other members of the panel managed to do it why can't he?
Post a Comment