Normally I ascribe to the school of thought that says elections should not come down to just one issue. However, in the upcoming Borough Commissioners’ election, the disposition of the Bancroft property is the one issue that will overhang the entire race for many Haddonfield residents.
It was only three months ago that I, along with a majority of other Haddonfield residents, voted to defeat the Bancroft bond. Some may claim that the margin of victory was slim, but slimmer margins have been termed “landslides” in other elections. The victory was particularly noteworthy, coming as it did on a bitterly cold and icy winter day when many seniors, who could be expected to vote against the referendum, stayed home and did not venture to the polls.
Like Hydra’s heads, the Bancroft issue will not go away. Toni Pergolin of Bancroft and Steve Weinstein, the Chairman of the Board of Education at the time, both stated that if the referendum did not pass, the issue would be finished. Yet immediately after the referendum failed, Commissioner Borden was on record speaking about potentially reopening negotiations with Bancroft.
Fast forward to the current Borough Commissioners’ race, and I am perplexed by what I am hearing from several candidates. Candidate Borden says that if he is re-elected, his goal will be to seek a “modest” proposal on Bancroft. As we already know, Mr Borden led the Borough’s negotiations with Bancroft that resulted in the Bancroft referendum, so I am not confident that his next proposal will be modest, particularly when he formulated a deal with Bancroft that he acknowledged could force “less affluent” residents out of town.
Then there are candidates such as Neal Rochford, who was specifically cited by pro-bond organizers in their concession letter as among the approximately one dozen residents who played a key role in promoting the Bancroft bond. And then there is candidate Lee Albright, who has been campaigning with the other Commissioner who spearheaded the Bancroft Bond, Commissioner Colombi. Do these sound like candidates that Haddonfield residents can depend on to put the Bancroft issue to rest in a manner that respects the will of the majority?
If the new Borough Commissioners decide to do another deal with Bancroft, they are not legally required to put the issue to a vote of residents, unlike the School Board the last time around. In other words, the Borough Commissioners will have no legal obligation to respect the desire of the majority of residents who voted against higher property taxes, misplaced spending priorities, etc.
No, I’ll be the first to admit that the resumes of some of the candidates above look impressive on paper. But actions speak louder than words. And during the Bancroft bond campaign, the actions of some spoke very loudly to those residents in the majority who opposed the bond in an election that turned out an historically high number of voters.
I can only assume that underlying the Bancroft issue is a hidden agenda. Or as Deep Throat said ‘Follow the money”. Nothing about Bancroft has been transparent except the drive to raise taxes on Haddonfield residents.
If residents want higher property taxes, more turf, misplaced spending priorities, then vote for the candidates above, and pray for the best.
If residents are not prepared to nullify their vote on Bancroft this past January, then my view is that they would be well advised to select from the list of other candidates.
Jerrold Schwaber
