Because there is less and less open space, the tick population has become a health hazard to both human and canine. If the majority of residents lose the battle to prevent these artificial turfs from being implanted with our tax dollars, perhaps we can use them for walking our canines to preclude being covered with ticks and becoming infected with Lyme disease. If we can't have open space to protect our environment and health, because a few want to be subsidized by constructing these artifically turfed fields, then we might as well use the artificial turf for walking our canines to prevent tick infestation.

Sorry Johnny Anonymous. Your cheap charges don't fly. I can assure you that the citizens rallying around the Moorestown Save Open Space go across the political spectrum. There are plenty of strong supporters of both parties, and plenty of independents. What we all have in common is an interest in protecting the integrity of the Open Space Fund. It's not a Democrat operation or a Republican operation, but plenty of passionate supporters of both parties. Actually two Republican members of Council, Stacey and Chris, have done a great job of listening to the citizens and voting to represent their concerns. Get involved in the community and you'll find endless examples of people of different parties or beliefs working together for the common good of Moorestown!

Mark - So when the Town Council, including the two you hail for their "great job of listening", vote to approve the current budget which uses in excess of $250,000 of Open Space money to fund the Rec Dept. budget, what will you and the MSOS people have to say? When you expressed your opnions at the budget workshop when the Rec Dept director presented, how did Council respond?

OS funds have been used to acquire land, develop land, maintain land and preserve historic buildings (ask Tom Ford). What Mark Hines and his wife don't like is they can't have the taxpayers money all to themselves as if all people supported the referendum only wanted to only "acquire" lands. If they have such a strong case, tell the council to remove the monies "stolen" for maintenance because it's illegal or don't fix the building on Swedes Run. Let us know how that goes.

Two to one our of 30.... The voters supporting the LEGAL use of OS money didnt need to come to that meeting to hear OS supporters whine about the inevitable outcome. You cant go back and change the law because you didnt bother to know what you were voting for.

The Ordinance states money to be used to maintain property purchased with OS funds. WB not in that category.

OK, so you are saying that your opposition to the use of the OS Funds for the KIDS Initiative has nothing to do with artificial sufrfaces, rubber fields, scoreboards, etc right? It';s simply about the money right?

I’d be shocked if there was meeting. No agreement can be reached unless the REC gives back the money the Council stole from OS. Council made the decision based on solicitor advice.

I’ve been told that some intern that works for our solicitor developed the opinion that use of the funds was OK and the Solicitor didn’t even sign his name. Guess that way he can’t be accused of giving false recommendations. Council just followed the intern’s advice.

George you need to be VERY careful of your language. No one stole anything...

BTW George, your "source" gave you bad information! It is you that are following false recommendations and personally I would be very careful about attacking the character of an attorney particularly one with such a stellar reputation as Tom Coleman!!

You say all these questions...So what else goes to a ballot? Library size? Rec Center construction? Allowing private contractors to do work on Township fields as donations? Rent vs Build for Town Hall? Where does it end? Where do you daw the line?

I would draw the line at a number. Maybe anything over 1 million goes to a vote unless a dire emergency. None of the things we are talking about are emergencies so lets stop fighting and lets vote on them.

BTW, Why can't private contractors to work on fields as a donation? I know someone re-seeded and had a water truck at the flag football fields for a couple of weeks gratis to the town, a few years ago. Baseball maintains their fields. Wasn't Fullerton more or less a donation?
KJL if you're planning to donate some grading work, I'd be happy to help you stake the the grade if you let me play on the bull dozer. Nothing better then moving earth to bring the Tim "the tool man" Taylor out in a man. (Cue monkey sound)

First of all, there is now way my insurance carrier would allow me to put you in the seat of my dozer!

Secondly, anything over a million? Really? You want to vote on a $1.1MM roadway overlay contract? Or a $3.0MM water tank painting contract? Or a $1.5MM pump station contract? Remove your tongue from your cheek and give me a real answer.

The question about private contractors donating is not mine...however, when it happens IN ADDITION to township funds being spent, it leads to debate. Again, not my issue as there is no such thing as a bad donation but an issue nonetheless.

I have a cert to operate one, got it online.
My million was an arbitrary number, maybe the right number is 2 or 3 million. But in my defense the things you list are necessary maintenance items that are more less un-debatable. That is not the case with our rubber field, library or town hall which as the web site has proven is totally debatable.

I also think we are of the same opinion as far as service donation. People who donate should be thanked not admonished.

So by scaling down KIDS slightly, there is no need for a vote, right? You are on a slippery slope with your thought process and no online cert can help you!

And do me a favor, can you and the other opponents of KIDS please stop referring to it as rubber/plastic fields and scoreboards? Not only is it offensive to those of us who have worked tirelessly to fix the issue of our field ocnditioons but it puts a negative spin on something that is unfair.

Sorry but no good deed goes unpunished in this town lately.

Let me clarify, I am not an opponent to KIDS, I'm actually a proponent of the idea. I think the priorities are a bit skewed and if you eliminated the artificial field, the scoreboards and the paving of the parking lots. I would vote for a referendum that bonded the rest of the work.
My question is why are you afraid of a vote? Let the work stand on it's merits. Make 3 small changes and you have my vote.
Other topic:
Can you fill me in about the contractor thing? It doesn't make sense that the town would turn down a generous donation. Is this recent?

You are a proponent? Kinda reminds me of the old adage..."with friends like you, who needs enemies?"....

OK, got it....so as long we propose what YOU want, you are in favor.....let's throw away nearly two years of research and hard work because the final reocmmendation doesn't agree with UTR's....OK but do me a favor, let the Town Hall Task Force know what you think of its recommendations so they don't waste any more time thinking about other solutions...and please let OSAC know what acquisitions they should recommend so they don't waste any of their time by researching something you may not like...and please let Jake D at EDAC know what your thoughts are on Economic Development...he seems like a VERY busy guy and can cut down on his workload by knowing what you think is a good idea up front...

The point here is that I am frustrated and quite honestly disgusted over how volunteer advisory groups are being treated over the past several months...being called liars...secretive...hidden agendas...conflict of interest....shameful. Open Space people berating KIDS for "stealing" money...library people berating the tH Task Force for a library that is "too small"...

KJL, I feel your frustration, but I've always given credit to your task force for a fine job. And I do not believe I have called anyone the names you listed or anything else. I appreciate and respect everything these committees do. However, just because you did a lot of work and spent a lot of time on something doesn't mean I have to agree with your conclusions. Put it to a vote. You still haven't answered my question, if KIDS or any initiative is based on quality work (which I have no doubt yours is) shouldn't it be able stand up on its merits before the people who pay for it so they can decide whether it is not worth the price.?
Again, I'm not diminishing your work but am I not allowed to have an opinion or voice that differs? I've been and continue to be respectful to you I ask you do the same.

You are correct in that I do not remember a time where you fell prey to the easy path of name calling so I apologize if you took it that way.

As to your insistence that it go to a vote, I am 100% certain that there would an affirmative majority if KIDS was placed on a referendum, and would even speculate as to it being overwhelming. However, what I find greatly disturbing about your recommendation is that it makes the job of governing the Township the repsonsibility of people in a poll and not that of the Council we elected. Who decides what is vote worthy and who decides what Council can handle itself? How often do we vote? Do you even know what the current Township laws state with regard to what can and cannot be placed on a referendum?

Your last few sentences are the reason for my original post. I was asking a question not making a statement. How does the referendum system work? I am also fairly certain you initiative would pass so if I was against it why would I ask for a vote? I believe you are mixing up governing and allowing people the right to decide how their money is spent on non-essential items. I do not diminish the items I merely say that no will die if we don't get a town hall, library or artificial turf (3 times now). We didn't elect a council to find ways new ways to spend our money, we elected them to oversee the way our money is spent.
A big contributor of the vitriol that has been dispensed on this website is distrust of how these big ticket items are being handled, in my opinion. It doesn't appear transparent at least to me. And in some cases "the lady doth protest too much, me thinks". So why not take it to the people and let them decide? So there can be no complaining, or back biting.

If the majority of the people want artificial fields, I'm okay with it. Democracy is a good thing.
As to your recommendations comment, it was sort of selective as are the FACTS. One committee they ignored was the open space committee. And some of the facts you espouse are really conjecture, i.e. the fields in their current state are dangerous, no one has been able to give me one example of an injury on those fields that was directly caused by the condition of the field. Is it a fact that a pair of $36K scoreboards are necessary for the safety of our children? I digress. I support the council too but I wish there we a few people from another side, Democrats or Liberatians on the council to balance it. We've seen what happens when one party controls government. Balance would be a nice thing. Utopia here I come

utr -Didn't both committees get ignored? Which do you think they should listen to? Which one represents the better cross section of goals for the taxpayers?

PS - There was a boy who broke his leg playing football. He came and spoke at the very first meeting. Perhaps you can reach out to him to learn more.

Did they both get ignored? I assumed since the Open Space unanimously voted against using the funds yet the Council still still went forward they were the one's ignored. Please enlighten me how other committees have been ignored? As to the goals of the taxpayers, that suggests that some have an agenda, is that what you're insinuating.

If you're talking about the kid who broke his femur a couple years ago. I was at that game and if I'm not mistaken it was on the turf. But irregardless, are you saying if we get a new artificial field, no one is going to break a leg playing football? Tell that to Michael Irving, I'm sure he'd disagree.

Yes they both got a response they both did not like with their respective advisory opinions. Was the open space vote really unanimous? Did Mayor Button vote no there and then yes later? Do you know if open space member Hess voted on something like that when she is trying to sell her farm to the township as Tom Ford has indicated. Can she do that?

Dude, I'm not a lawyer 9 times of 10 I ask a question to be informed. I did not know Mayor Button voted no and then yes but it sounds vaguely like what one the candidates in the last presidential election did. How's he working out for you? (That falls under the 10% of the questions I do know the answer to).
Part 2: I don't know Ms Hess. Her voting no to paying for the KIDS initiative with OS funds, which in my mind doesn't really affect her deal, is no big thing. I would hope when the time comes for a vote on her land, she recuses herself. But if you disagree, the same argument could be made of Mr. Testa, an elected official, whose business could possibly benefit from new turf. I haven't figured out how he could, though someone must have because he is getting slammed in some circles. It all seems petty in the grand scheme of things. He did this, she did that--please.

Her voting to only use OS funds for acquisition only purposes (despite what the law says) could be a set up to support buying her farm but I do agree it is a stretch. My question was related to your reference to a unanimous vote. You also raise an interesting point of the field question. Does fixing a field used by various sports and adult groups benefit anyone but the users? What exactly is the benefit a better field might offer? Do all improvements count like watering and fertilizer since they also fix the fields or is it just turf which I know is a touchy item for many?

Utr..sincere question. How does Mr. Testa indoor facility benefit from creating an opportunity to play more outdoor sports. As I understand this season it has been quite the opposite. Since we only have one turf field, the rainy spring forced some teams to hold mtgs and mini practices indoors at that facility. Aside from the equipment they sell, which will be purchased rain or shine, could you let me know how he will benefit. I am open to honest answers..I think the slamming is just a way of side tracking the fact that those that dont like KIDS need avenues to complain because the legal issue of OS funds is a dead one. I think putting it out there without supporting it, allows the nay sayers to pick thru and jump on your statement. From what I have heard, those attacks are personal and not all all based in fact but mere frustration.

Ginger, re-read my post. I was trying to say that accusing Ms Hess of conflict of interest in the KIDS matter was as silly as accusing Mr Testa of the same.

Only those hiding in the shadows fear the light.

Considering you know my first and last name and you are just george... it would appear you are the one afraid. Assuming that you can read, take a look at the referendum and please tell me where you can argue that anyone is steeling anything. It was presented exactly as the state law is written, which has been challenged and repeatedly upheld. So unless you are saying that there is a grand conspiracy across the state, then you just need to find yourself a flashlight and face your demons. Stop the name calling and biblical references and state some facts to support your slanderous accusations. If you can make a valid legal argument, I am open to the truth and more than happy to offer a public apology. I respect your difference of opinion, its the accusations of theft that I object to.

The NJ law does not apply.

Moorestown ordinance says: "The Fund will continue to be used exclusively for the acquisition of lands for recreation and conservation purposes; development and maintenance of such lands; "

What part of "SUCH LANDS " don't you understand.

Clearly George you are not an attorney and have little understanding of how the law works. Moorestown law cannot supersede State law. If Moorestown law is not consistent with state law, it is invalid. The mere fact that you suggest that is hysterical as if Moorestown is the center of the State's legal direction. Heck who needs the State Constitution because Moorestown can do whatever it wants.

It's also clear sentence structure is not a skill of yours. It clearly states that development and maintenance of lands is permissable.

Perhaps you should read the state statute. Here's the link to help.

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/lgs/lfns/98lfns/98htms/mc98-2.htm

In case you needed more legal info, acquisition of open space does not have to be done by open space money. Here's that statute reference unless Moorestown's is better too.

N.J.S.A. 40:12-15.1
1. As used in this act:
“Acquisition” means the securing of a fee simple or a lesser interest in land, including but not limited to an easement restricting development, by gift, purchase, installment purchase agreement, devise, or condemnation;

I guess you cant read either. It states "such" lands, (meaning the ones purchased with OS funds).
You must be a lawyer yourself, as you only quote the words that you think support your aguement.

George - I am an attorney but what difference does that make? You are the one who thinks Moorestown law governs in this example. I'm wondering if there is a Moorestown Supreme Court which will agree to hear our respective arguments. You can state your case based on a word not even found in the statute and I will cite case law and statutes that are absolutely consistent with the applicable use(s) in question. It's ok to disagree with me or the law but Moorestown law has no standing if different than the state for one. Two, the law clearly provides for Moorestown to use the trust for any of the identified purposes pursuant to 40:12-15.1 In closing, Burlington County's open space law, which we also all pay taxes into, also follows the state statute. Please feel free to look it up.

If the Moorestown Supreme Court won't hear your case, maybe we can petition Judge Judy.

George, Hire a lawyer that you believe and offer a valid challenge. You wont win but feel free to prove your point and when a judge says what the town is doing is theft I will buy a page in the paper of your choice and offer a public apology!

Ginger, I will split the cost of the add with you....since there is no risk of it being needed! ;)

George, at what point will you throw your hands up, accept that the use of OS funds for KIDS is legal even if not desirable to you, and lay the blame where it belongs....at the feet of the Council members responsible for not approving the KIDS Ordinance?

So Jack, when I read 40:12-15.7.a.2.c: “”Amounts raised by the levy imposed pursuant to this section shall be deposited into a "Municipal Open Space, Recreation, and Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund" to be created by the municipality, and SHALL BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES AUTHORIZED BY THE VOTERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY. “”? That states the funds are to be used i.a.w. what the voters approved.

It does not say, as you indicate “…any of the identified purposes pursuant to 40:12-15.1”, nor does it say only for the purposes or combination given in 40:12-15.1. 7. a. (1).

I’m just a dumb schlep reading the words, and the words tell me that these paragraphs flow authority down to the municipality, not up to the Statute.

Thanks Jack, Dennis & Ginger, I guess you all agree with my argument…………..since you can’t come up with a counter in the past month.

You guess wrong George... we have countered many times and many ways. You just refused to listen. I absolutely DO NOT agree with you!

As I understand it, Ms. Hess recused herself from anythimg to do with the potential purchase. From what I heard she wasn't going to vote on it but Mr. Testa had Mr. Coleman make sure that she did not vote. Does anyone know anything about this?

Let's be clear about something ....the OSAC has no voting authority so any recusal by a member on a "vote" is meaningless. However, actively participating on a committee that has the ability to recommend that you receive millions is a conflcit of interest. Participating in, even if not "voting", on an issue whose sole purpose is to preserve the treasure chest of funds that will find its way directly to an individuals pocket seems a bit odd. Frankly, it waters down the OSAC opinion on this issue in my mind...

Can you imagine if a turf manufacturer was on the KIDS group???? Or a contractor on teh Town Hall Blue Ribbon Committee who ultimately builds town hall???

Probably a good idea for Debbie to quit the Committee before this issue shows up on CNN. At this point, she is doing much more harm that good.

Thanks Dennis. Sometimes you just have to stop talking to the wall and say a prayer this his God will have mercy when making that final judgement he likes to keep referring to. Let's get on with the constructive debate and finding solutions.

Good Morning Ginger,
Do you think "his god" has a beard? I think mine does. Have a great weekend.

UTR..wouldnt know the answer, but I was being a bit snarky as I dont know what that has to do with any of this. If he is challenging my faith, rather than the facts of this issue, not only is that an obvious sidetrack, it is inappropriate and ....well Im not even going to begin to go there. Unfortunate string of nonsense!!! Have yourself a wonder and faithful weekend!

I was just trying to give you a smile. Politics and religion are both very dangerous topics. I try to stay away from the latter, way too personal a thing to a lot of people.

UTR... you do make me smile in a good way. While we dont often agree I think we have a mutual respect for the issues and the effort it takes to get things done. Our banters are healthy and informative because we ask honest questions with the ability to say "gee, never thought of it from that side..." (I actually dont really say gee out loud)... It is so old school not to be able to discuss religion and politics because of the passion involved but at the same time it is what democracy is built on... being able to discuss openly the differences we share....its a beautiful thing when exchanged between mature and open minded individuals.

Hey Big, is there a lawyer in Moorestown that is for OS? Certainly would be nice if one stood up and took advantage of an opportunity to add to his /her resume by beating Council on this issue.

It’s not just acquisition.

Yes, I do know the intent. Intent is clearly identified by the referendum voted in favor by 2:1 margin. From ORDINANCE NO. 18-2007, “THE FUND WILL CONTINUE TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR RECREATION AND CONSERVATION PURPOSES; DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SUCH LANDS;” Read carefully the words SUCH LANDS.

WB was not purchased with OS money!

George - Aside from interpretational issues, let's be clear on something...are you on OSAC? If so, would it be fair to say you speak informallyfor them? If not, would ytou at least define your self as an Open Space advocate? Then let me ask you....if the kIDS Initiative were proposed to be built on land acquiored with Open Space Funds, would you adn OSAC support the use fo OSFunds for the purposes of developing the land for a recreational fields?

I’m an advocate of the law passed by the voters. If the field hockey club, or whatever, needs money, put that up for a vote. Why not ask the voters for $10M, so you can do the job correctly, without cutting corners.

Seems that the OSAC has made their position very clear, and if you don’t know what that is, you should ask them, not me. I voted for open space that is not covered with rubber. I enjoy the birds and animals and smell of the swamp, and not of chemicals used to process rubber rugs.

If the rubber fields and scoreboard are so important, then just float a bond for that purpose and stop raiding the “easy money”. Put a $3M bond for paved parking lots and concession stands for the sports teams up for a vote and see what happens. I think that would fail. For crying out loud, this town wouldn’t even come up with a few bucks to fix Fullerton.

Dennis, if you and yours feel so strongly that the voters will support you, why don’t you float a sports bond issue as I suggested? Why don’t you?

I know why – because that initiative will fail ! ! ! ! ! It’s easier to get money from other sources. Go get your own money, just like the OS folks thought they were doing.

I know that you will not respond to my challenge. You rather develop petty arguments supporting the confiscation of other peoples funds.

Respond to your challenge? Seriously? It is not up to me to decide how to raise the money, it is up to Council to decide. Do I think a KIDS vote would pass? Yes! However, that is not YOUR money George...nor is it the "OS folks" but rather the money belongs to ALL of those who pay taxes...and those who voted for the Open Space Referendum. Go get "your own money"? You cannot be serious.

So George, using your logic...the Library folks need to float a bond issue for the library construction? Rec folks for the Rec Center?

Now you are starting to understand, and I am serious. The only way to control discressionary funds is to require a referendum for big ticket items, say over $500k, is by letting the voters decide if it is really important. Library – yes. RAC – yes. I guess that you agreed with the library fiasco a few years back when they wanted to spend $4.7M to re-define themselves as a “social gathering place”. Did you agree with that one????? Did you?

BTW, it is MY money, just as it is YOURS.

Frankly, I don't know enough about the Library issue, need vs. desire, to offer an opinion over what is a fair amount to spend. However, let's make sure I understand...you want a referendum for all expenses greater than 500k, right? So when the town decides to buy police vehicles or pave its streets, it will need a referendum if over 500k? And when Town Council decides to dump a couple million into the lap of an OSAC memeber to buy a farm, will that too be placed on a referendum?

Do you consider police vehicles and road repair as discretionary expenses? I do not.
I’ve stated my opinion about Debbie in a prior post.
Purchase of farmland already has the approval of the voters (several times).
I know you think it would pass, but are you in favor of placing $3M for rubber fields up for a vote?

You can definitely make the argument that the recent purchase of hybrid police vehicles had some discretionary components and you can also make a sound argument that some of the roads being considered for paving currently could hold up a couple more years....much the same as some think the athletic fields can survive for a while longer...

The basis for your position is, and correct me if I am wrong, that the KIDS Initiative is wholly a "discretionary" expense? And by discretionary, you mean what?

You can nit-pick all day long, but can you seriously compare a scoreboard to a police vehicle?

Nit-pick? I am not equating a scoreboard to a police vehicle. Your continued use of scorebaords as representative of the KIDS proposal is an indication of your ignorance of the facts or your intentional mislabelling of the proposal to suit your positions....either way, are you going to answer the question or is this yet another Georgey sidestep????

The basis for your position is, and correct me if I am wrong, that the KIDS Initiative is wholly a "discretionary" expense? And by discretionary, you mean what?

George, It was voted for. It is unfortunate that you and others didnt read what you were voting for. I agree with $3M on its own ballot would be a challenge, but I believe winnable with honest information for the tax payers to make an educated choice, but I also strongly believe if the voters knew that there is a legal alternative to using the OS money with little effect on their tax bill, they would absolutely agree to go ahead with the project.
You have yet to answer two questions posed several times... 1. Is it turf you are opposed to, in other words would the money be ok if used for grass? 2. Once the Hess farm gets purchased with OS money, will it be ok to build rec fields on it as you have agreed is part of the referendum?

I really hate to interrupt this debate by interjecting facts but, here goes:
1) The overall cost of the most recent KIDS Proposal is $2.2M so let's stop saying $3.0M
2) The cost of the scoreboard in the most recent proposal is 16,500 or .75% of the total amount so let's stop characterizing the KIDS as a scoreboard issue.
3) The artificial fields are not made of rubber so maybe use the term "synthetic surface" when belittling our efforts
4) Much like the township roads and its poilice vehicles, the athletic fields are a township-owned asset that has fallen into a state of disrepair. Not sure how that is considered a discretionary expense.

Which legal challenge by the residents are you referring to in the past?

FYI... I am a democrat and think the MSOS is a JOKE and WAY out of line in their constant attack of honest people no matter what party they support. No sure what makes you think they are all democrats. I bet you are completely backwards on that....

Does that go for building the library? Moorestown Alumni YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT to the rest of us MHS Alumni. Not only is your writing horrific and poor example of the education you had access to but clearly didnt take advantage of, your general personality comes across mean and hateful. You are spewing lies and untruths. Get the facts straight at least. Show everyone that you werent one of the MHS students who brought down the averages or at least change your name to MHS alumni who didnt pay attention is school.

I'm an MHS Alumni ditto-head. Best arguments to date!

Duh, what's wrong with them dems?

To be fair each club paying a user fee is a red herring. $100/club/season hardly covers any costs for field maintenance. But you are right this guy is nutty.

If you signed up early, you paid $70/ kid . If you include field lining and yearly seeding, my guess is that $7- $10 of your fee goes to maintenance. This assumes 600 players. But that is only a guess based on numbers 3 years ago.

Thank you for this information. Assuming 600 kids at 70 bucks equals 42k a year. If 10 a kid goes to maintenance, that's 6k a year. what does that get us? Does the local government match it or is the federation on its own?

That 6 K went to seeding South Wesley Bishop field and maintain the lining. In addition to that Pete Palko donated a water truck to wet the fields to get the seed to take. We did this as a contribution to the town in an effort to make the fields less muddy when it rained. Unfortunately, the rocket scientist who were responsible for mowing the fields for the town set their mowers to the lowest setting in mid July and killed the field. Apparently, we have a new turf management company over seeing Wesley Bishop AND according to a RAC member THE FIELDS ARE SLOWLY COMING BACK. Which may be a reason enough to give them a season before we drop 3 million of public and private money.

To answer your question the town did not match nor are they required. It is more of a non-profit giving back to the community for use of public lands. Pretty good concept, huh?

utr - your use of the "we" pronoun leads me to assume, since your identity is unknown, that you are involved in flag football. I strongly suggest that the folks involved with flag football, and lacrose for that matter, beg Pete Palko to continue his amazingly generous philanthropic efforts. Unfortuantely for Pete and anyone else that makes significant contributions to maintain the Township-owned fields, it seems as though Council has embraced Pete's donation practices as the norm....now they have suggested that someone donate their time/resources to fix the building at Swede's Run...and someone to donate or cover the costs of the new christmas decorations for Main Street...i am all for private contributions but is that how we are going to solve all of the township's asset maintenance problems?

KJl, I have it on very good authority, several members of Council went through the roof when Mr Palko had his crew installing town bought turf at Wesley Bishop for free. The reason for them being upset: his work could concievibly used against the council's agenda to implement the KIDS program. This is not rumor, I have seen emails from members of council stating such. Pete Palko is a very generous man and this town is lucky to have him. I think if he along with you (from what I've learned you have been more or less a voice of reason on the committee) would have been brought into the KIDS loop sooner, the bond refererdum would have passed and our fields would be improved, as we speak for a lot less money. Maybe the turf fields and the all or nothing attitude of some of the committee members would have been abated by profesionals like Pete and you.

To answer your last question, unfortunately, we need to rely on private donations for these things. This council was elected to lower our taxes, yet people are being forced to sell their homes in droves and I'd be willing to bet a big reason is high property taxes. The town is shrinking and aging before our eyes (student enrollment drops by 15% in less then three years), people are tapped so raising revenue is not the answer reducing spending is. I'm not sure what has to be done to that stone building on Swedes Run but the MSOS people should step up to the plate and do it privately, put your money where your signs errrr mouth is so to speak. I'm sure Jake can get private support to decorate Main Street as well.

utr - I am shocked to hear that a councilperson shared an email from a colleague with you....very disappointing. I would love to see the email to see if it is being taken out of context...just seems odd that your fixing a field that was NOT part of the KIDS proposal would upset someone.

It's interesting that you say the Council was elected to LOWER our taxes when the most recent additions to Council ran on a platform that included fxing Town Hall, which will raise taxes. The current council should be given credit for continuing the fiscal prudence at budget time that the prior Council initiated. Hopefully it continues.

Your contention that reliance on private donations is to be expected will be put to the test when Council gets around to solving Town Hall....where will private funding come from to fix the admin...police...library...and rec buidlings? Can you imagine if council could solve those building issues without raising taxes???? Just like it can solve field repair and maintence issue without raising taxes....are you in favor of fixing those things if it can be done without raising taxes?

utr, yeah, "that stone building on Swedes Run but the MSOS people should step up to the plate and do it privately,". Tell the MSOS people and Council to cancel the referendum that voters approved 2:1 in favor of OS taxation.

KJL, You're not shocked. In fact you know what I say to be true. You even were pissed about it when it happened. Go to the beginning of this blog an d when I asked you about this subject, you replied "No good deed remains unpunished" As to the email, believe it our not there are several of our employees who are a little miffed that they are asked to do with less while Council debates $2-$3 million on an artificial field. As I have learned, they also like to gossip among themselves even sharing emails of irate Councilman about our favorite topic.
I concede to your second paragraph, you are more right then I. Though, I was really refering to the election of Mr.(s) Gallo and Testa. I also agree that the Council has done a good job keeping our taxes from escalating.
I happen to believe until this town comes to terms with a long term plan for where this government is headed they should continue renting. But that's a conversation for another day.
Finally, I am in favor of fixing things without raising taxes. However, it needs to be done in a responsible way. Artificial fields are not ecologically, or fiscally responsible at this time.
Private funding is a good thing.

George, how about instead of canceling it, putting the tax on hold until we get through these next few years of recession. The referendum was approved when everyone in this town was flush with cash. I wonder if it would pass by the same margin now.
As to fixing the stone house, why not do it privately? Just because the town has Open Space cash doesn't mean it has to spend it on what some would call an insignificant structure in the grand scheme of things.

Your facts are wrong. Baseball spent an average of 54k IN 2007,2008 AND 2009 on maintenance. I can't believe that number would jump to 117K in 2010 to get to that 75K/year average.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2009/237/431/2009-237431805-06a6439b-Z.pdf

Ginger - why waste your time arguing with someone who has lost touch with reality. What does OS have to do with our school system? No one agrees with anything MHSA has posted. They are just posting stuff to agitate people because they are bitter with Moorestown and their high school experience. Instead of moving on with their life, they feel the need to try to put Moorestown and the school system down. I guess they are filling a void or trying to heal deep wounds. Nothing anyone says or posts will change their mind, so in the words of The Beatles, "Let It Be".

KJL,
What does that yearly 75K cover? Mowing , electricity, etc.... it seems high but I'd like to be enlightened.
Baseball is a very well run club. I know that the town rejected Baseball's offer to fund all of their improvements which makes no sense at all to me. Like you Mr Loftus, baseball is a stand up org.

Do they also sod infields?
I know the parents provide the labor to prep the fields so labor doesn't enter in to that cost or does it.
It's got to be more then fence and backstop repairs to get to 75K yearly. I would think mowing or electricity was more expensive then mending a fence. How many baseball fields are there in town? Still sounds high to me but again I don't doubt the costs just think it would help me get a handle on this whole issue.

Please define/describe the "structure" that was built.

For Green Acres purposes, “development” is the improvement of parkland with facilities for outdoor recreation and/or conservation purposes. Examples of development projects include construction of tot lots, athletic fields, running tracks, athletic courts, walkways, trails, boat ramps and boardwalks. Structures that will be used to support the outdoor recreation use of parkland (such as restrooms, maintenance sheds, or concession stands) may be constructed with Green Acres funds.

I googled your question and this came up

Q What types of projects are not eligible for Green Acres funding?
For acquisitions:

Any site to be purchased in fee simple to which public access is not provided;
Any permanent conservation restriction or historic preservation restriction that does not provide meaningful public access as determined by Green Acres;
Any structure that will not be used in support of outdoor recreation and conservation purposes, demolished to create open space, or preserved as an historic site;
Any site that is, or is intended to be, used as a public road right–of–way;
Any site with uninsurable or unmarketable title; or
Any site that is already permanently preserved for recreation and conservation purposes, as determined by Green Acres.
For developments:

Any facility or structure that does not support outdoor recreation or conservation;
Any facility to which public access is not provided;
A professional sports facility;
Any development that will significantly impair the land's natural resources, as determined by Green Acres; or Shore protection or beach renourishment or replenishment activities that are eligible for funding under the Department's Shore Protection Program, administered by the Bureau of Coastal Engineering in the Office of Engineering and Construction.