Following is a letter sent this week by the group Haddonfield United to the Haddonfield Borough Commissioners concerning Camden County's possible acquisition of a portion of the Bancroft property in Hadonfield:
The Honorable Jeffrey Kasko, Mayor
The Honorable John Moscatelli, Commissioner
The Honorable Neal Rochford, Commissioner
Borough of Haddonfield
242 Kings Highway East, Borough Hall
Haddonfield, New Jersey 08033
Open Letter: County Acquisition of the Bancroft Property
Dear Commissioners:
Haddonfield United is contacting you regarding your recent announcement that the Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders intends to pursue the purchase of thirteen of the 19.2-acre Bancroft property located in the Borough of Haddonfield.
As an initial matter, Haddonfield United wishes to thank you for making local residents aware of the Freeholders’ intentions, and we look forward to participating, along with other members of the public, in an open and transparent discussion of this undertaking.
As might be expected, the announcement caught many Haddonfield residents by surprise. It was only earlier this year that residents were told that approval of the January 22, 2013 Bancroft bond referendum represented a “last chance” and the “opportunity of a lifetime” to purchase the property. At that time, Bancroft Neurohealth, for its part, vowed to remain at the property and to expand its footprint if residents defeated the referendum.
Now, a little more than one-half year after the defeat of the referendum, Haddonfield residents find themselves faced with yet another proposal to purchase Bancroft. With an eye towards helping to ensure the latest proposal does not repeat the missteps of the past, Haddonfield United wishes to highlight the main reasons why we believe that the majority of Haddonfield voters struck down the referendum:
-The $12.5 million purchase price vastly exceeded the property’s appraised value for permitted uses (i.e., $6.5 million for the entire 19.2 acres);
-The referendum failed to take advantage of all available state, county and local open-space grants to offset the purchase price;
-The referendum was not revenue-neutral and would have increased local property taxes substantially from the perspective of seniors and others on fixed incomes;
-The uses of the property were left open-ended, which, in turn, risked the imposition of untold additional millions for future school and other construction at the site; and
-Our school board declined to provide meaningful assurances, such as a conservation easement, for the protection of Radnor Field.
Against that backdrop, Haddonfield United has several concerns regarding the county’s current interest in acquiring the Bancroft property:
First, Haddonfield United is concerned that county taxpayers (and, to the extent the Borough proposes to contribute to the purchase price, local taxpayers) will be asked to overpay for the property. The Philadelphia Inquirer recently quoted Bancroft Neurohealth's president as saying that the institution would seek $12 million for the 19.2-acres property, which would represent little or no reduction in per-acre price that the institution demanded the last time around. As you are aware, the most recent appraisal for the entire 19.2-acre property, which the Haddonfield Board of Education (“BOE”) commissioned from Renwick & Associates, valued the property at just $6.5 million ($338,541 per acre) for permitted uses.
Second, Haddonfield United is troubled that the county appears to be interested in only thirteen of the 19.2-acre property. While Haddonfield United recognizes that the county has no legitimate interest in owning the historical mansion or carriage house at Bancroft, we are aware of no valid reason why the other remaining acres should be excluded from the county's purchase. It is our understanding that sufficient state, county and local open-space funds exist to purchase and to preserve those remaining acres as open space if the price for the property is in line with the most recent available appraisal for permitted uses.
Lastly, Haddonfield United is concerned that the county’s failure to purchase the additional acreage will serve as an open invitation to the BOE to purchase that land, either directly or indirectly (e.g., from the borough or a third party), for costly future development. Haddonfield United points to the school district’s stated intention in the run-up to the January 22, 2013 referendum to use a portion of Bancroft property for construction of a third turf field, a high school extension, and/or a new middle school. Even more recently, the BOE, in its 2013-2014 goals, released August 22, 2013, stated that it hopes to "[s]eek out parcels of land within the community that may be utilized in the future to address enrollment growth and expansion issues." Haddonfield United believes strongly that our elected officials need to prioritize fixing the public infrastructure in place today (i.e., our potholed roads, sewers, schools and other public buildings) before they require Haddonfield taxpayers to acquire more land for costly school and other construction that would be ‘nice to have’ but of debatable necessity.
Haddonfield United is hopeful that the above comments will help guide the borough and other parties as they begin to weigh a possible deal with Bancroft.
With kind regards,
/s/ Brian Kelly
Founder, Haddonfield United
No comments:
Post a Comment