Swede Run Barn Will Be Open for Christmas Cards

Ed Nice November 29, 2012 at 06:25 pm

Just curious, why is it the that township is still paying for the fence to be around the structure now that it has been made safe. The remaining work seems to be cosmetic and not structural so why keep paying the rental on the fence? Take it down and then no one has to be bothered to get the gate unlocked. The barn was open to the public for years inside and out.

Rob Scott (Editor) November 29, 2012 at 06:47 pm

Ed,
From what I understand, it's a liability thing—as long as there's construction going on, the township needs to have the fence up for safety reasons.

Tom Lynch November 29, 2012 at 09:11 pm

What construction is going on ? No one has been there in 6 months and it's an embarrassment and eyesore. It's more like private citizens are allowed to work on taxpayer owned property without any approval. I'm going to grab my tools and head over to install the door with a keyless lock.

Donnie November 30, 2012 at 12:24 am

Didn't know people actually take Christmas pictures in front of the barn? New concept? Maybe I'll agree with Ed and his buddy on this, if people are really going to take Christmas pictures there, having a fence in the background may not look to "nice".

The Situation November 30, 2012 at 02:26 pm

What a surprise, lawyers dictating access. Unbelievable nonsense. Take the stupid fence down, sign a waiver and take your pictures. They act like they're working the federal budget on this thing. It's a freakin shed with an ugly roof, that's what you got to keep out of the pictures.

Dudley Foramen November 30, 2012 at 04:31 pm

I won't be taking my holiday pictures there until they put up the vinyl siding to go along with the asphalt roof.

Our Town November 30, 2012 at 04:54 pm

The Situation brings it.... Remove the fence, if little Johnny steps on a nail, give him a tetanus shot and the parents should have been more careful. To me, the fence reeks of, we spent our time and our money for this barn so we will control who uses it and for what purpose.
What's next, special permit regulations for those that wish to visit the shack?

Tom Lynch November 30, 2012 at 06:49 pm

Did the historical society determine "it was a liability thing" and that is why they have the keys to the gate? I didn't realize the historical society had such special powers on taxpayer property.

Rob Scott (Editor) November 30, 2012 at 06:59 pm

I just have to say, I'm finding it odd that some of you are going after the Historical Society and/or the township on this. Whether you think the fence is an eyesore or that the project is too expensive, I think it's clear the motivations of both parties are the safety of those visiting the site and the safety of the building itself—hard to argue with that in my view. No taxpayer money has been used to fund any part of this project—unless you count the fee for renting the fence, which I'm sure is miniscule—so I don't quite understand the outrage. Perhaps someone could try and explain it to me.

Tom Lynch November 30, 2012 at 07:13 pm

Rob, there was no fence before the work and now there is one. It is on land that we the residents all own. For some group, no matter which, to control access to public lands is unacceptable. Why don't you please explain the need for the fence as it pertains to public safety? Either the outhouse is unsafe and should be closed or it is safe and should be open.
PS - do you know if the historical society approve of the hideous ashalt shingles that are not historical?

Our Town November 30, 2012 at 07:29 pm

Rob, I think I can explain....the relative anonymity of the internet and the ability to virtually hide behind that anonymity to make comments is both a very unconstrained yet sometimes volatile combination. The way I see it is that we get to see how people really think about it as opposed to in person communication where the vast majority of thoughts remain unsaid.
I believe some of it also stems from venting frustration (no matter how misdirected) on how this town manages and spends money on projects. I say that fully realizing the "town" monetary input for this project has been minimal, but the frustration and more specifically, the opportunity to vent that frustration continues to bubble to the surface.

mtwnres November 30, 2012 at 08:33 pm

Mr. Button, open this gate!
Mr. Button, tear down this fence!

Punishment November 30, 2012 at 09:48 pm

only in moorestown! only in this town can a woman offer to facilitate the use of a property for xmas cards and somehow start a brouhaha. Moorestown's new motto "no good deed goes upunished".
the reagan reference was funny though!

mtwnres November 30, 2012 at 10:06 pm

:)

Ed Nice November 30, 2012 at 11:54 pm

Boy, I certainly didn't think that a common sense comment that I made would start all this! Rob, it's really simple. I am a small business owner and I would never pay for something that was not needed that took from my bottom line. Meaning take the food from my family, the car insurance, ect. The same should go for the township. I realize this line item on the township's bottom line is very small, but it is still money not needed to be spent anymore. Paying for this fence that is now no longer needed because the site has been made safe and there are requests to get access to the site at this point is why I pointed out that the fence should come down. Waiting for barn doors should not equate to the building is still under construction. I have no issue with the historical society, I think they have done a good job. I know the shingles are a issue but the are historically correct. Lets face it people the charm of the barn was it's run down condition. Old but not fallen, hole in the roof, covered in snow! That was it's charm. A old barn made new is not going to have the same effect. It is what it is, it had to be done or torn down. We didn't have a choice. People need to lay off the roof. Be happy the historical society was willing to take on the project. Now let's get the township to remove the fence and let the people that want to enjoy it do so. Just saying!

Ed Nice December 1, 2012 at 12:20 am

Hey Dudley if your going to try and break someones stones at least get your comments right. The shingle are not asphalt, they are a specially-engineered composite roofing shingle to look like real slate but are cheaper and lighter than real slate. If you don't like them keep your eyes on the road where they should be when driving by the site!

Ed Nice December 1, 2012 at 12:22 am

Not up to Mr. Button! Call the township manager!

SteveS December 1, 2012 at 02:16 pm

Ed,
I agree with Dudley, it looks more like an asphalt shingle roof then a slate roof. Also, I question, whether a structure like that would have originally had a slate roof. Slate was expensive even in the early 1800's. My guess is either wood shingle or thatch would have be accurate for a structure like that. Is there research to support a fake slate roof in lieu of wood or thatch?

Tom Lynch December 1, 2012 at 02:43 pm

Neither asphalt or fake rubber slate are historical which begs the question what is
is stopping Dudley and me from putting up the vinyl siding and a nice steel door to finish the job? Well, except we will need to get the key to unlock the gate on our land.....

Ed Nice December 1, 2012 at 03:15 pm

Hey Steve did you see what was on there for years? LOL It was slate. So I would say they are historically correct by putting a like material back on the roof. From what I understand it may not have even been a barn or shed either. I don't know for sure. Slate that far back in the day was a common material used because it lasted so long. They didn't have asphalt shingles 200 years ago, so it was either slate, cedars, or tin. Thatch now that's funny.... I think your going a little to far back like to Little House on the Perry to far! LOL The reason fake slate is used on historical renovations is because it is much cheaper and I'm telling you I could line a pile of it up side by side and from a distance of 30 ft. you would have trouble telling the difference. People just don't like the color choice they made. It is not a uniform color which was common because it was cheaper back then compared to paying for all one color slate. Ask Larry, they saw it up close when they took it off. they can tell you if it was a low grade slate which may explain why a farmer put it on an out building. Who knows I wasn't around back then but they are historically correct.

SteveS December 1, 2012 at 06:16 pm

Thanks Ed,
I didn't realize there was a quarry that close by to warrant a farmer to travel to it when cedar and pine would have more plentiful closer to the site. They may not have had asphalt shingles back then; they also didn't have trucks and paved roads to get a heavy material like slate easily to what I imagine would have been a fairly secluded area back in the day. I defer to your expertise on this subject.

Ed Nice December 1, 2012 at 06:35 pm

Well Steve how old is the building, they obviously had the slate back then because it was on the building to start with. So wouldn't putting slate back make sense. You are equating historical to as far back as our country was founded. Well I doubt that building is that old. Historical is 100 years or so. Not sure what the historical society deems, but make sense right. So 100 years ago do you think that slate was more available. I would think so with all the homes in this town with a plaque on them and slate for roofs. Bringing up unpaved roads and limited availability because we are in the stone age is no argument. As I said earlier we're not talking Little House in the Prairie. The material was obviously readily available considering there are so many houses in this town with slate. Once again .... just saying!