Or donate via check to "HERD" and mail to:
HERD c/o Chris Maynes
7 Roberts Ave
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Update March 9, 2025
CLICK HERE FOR OPEN LETTER TO BOROUGH REGARDING BANCROFT
UPDATE Mar 6, 2025:
ROCHE VOTE INVALIDATED!
WOODMONT AGREEMENT INVALIDATED!
REVIEW OF ALL 9 RFP RESPONSES REQUIRED!
Read the full order by clicking HERE and please donate to help us cover the legal expenses.
Donations can be made via the GoFundMe link above or by mailing a check to: HERD, c/o Chris Maynes, 7 Roberts Avenue, Haddonfield, NJ 08033.
UPDATE 02/15/2025:
STATEMENT REGARDING THE WOODMONT LAWSUIT. We were going to wait until the final order had been signed by the judge next week, but inaccurate rumors regarding the lawsuit have begun circulating. Those rumors appear to have originated from a social media post by a prominent borough leader, which attempted to frame a patently false narrative to the residents of Haddonfield.
HERE ARE THE FACTS: On Friday, February 14th, the Woodmont lawsuit ended successfully IN THE PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR without trial. Our lawsuit sought invalidation of the infamous May 13, 2024 “Roche” vote naming Woodmont as the conditional redeveloper; (2) invalidation of any and all contracts with Woodmont; and (3) any other remedies that the judge deemed appropriate.
Not only did the Borough agree to (1) and (2) above, but they must now re-open the RFP review process based on the original Bancroft Redevelopment Plan, which did not permit rental units. The judge will dismiss the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE, meaning that the plaintiffs may re-open it if the Borough fails to fulfill its promises.
Any statement or insinuation that this case was dismissed in the Borough’s favor is inaccurate, as the public filing this week will demonstrate.
Update 01/28/2025:
A case management and settlement conference is scheduled for February 14, 2025. As summarized in the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgement, the key facts remain:
1. Roche never spent a single night in his "leased" Haddonfield residence after moving to Washington, DC, on April 15, 2024.
2. His Haddonfield lease was never signed by his friend, "the landlord."
3. No check was ever cashed for rent.
The question of Roche's residency / eligibility was raised to the Commissioners PRIOR to the Woodmont vote, yet those concerns were evaded and ignored. Mayor Bianco-Bezich, who participated with Roche in the fraudulent Woodmont vote, is an attorney, and she holds her office under the same eligibility rules as Roche. Presumably, she would understand the rules of eligibility and know how to research them and interpret the law. She should have tabled the vote until the question was resolved and was -- at the very LEAST - negligent for not doing so. Why were the Mayor and Roche so intent on steamrolling this vote through to benefit Woodmont and clearly against the wishes and concerns of so many Haddonfield residents? Inquiring minds want to know...
Update 12/20/2024:
CASE UPDATE...
Roche never spent a single night at his “leased” Haddonfield residence after moving to DC on April 15, 2024! His Haddonfield "lease" was never signed by the “landlord” and no rent check was ever cashed. But the mayor pushed the Woodmont vote through anyway, despite public objections over Roche's residency. Roche freely admitted all this in his 10/29/24 deposition, and yet the mayor has been pushing forward with Woodmont despite the facts laid out in the 10/29 deposition -- amending the Redevelopment Plan to suit Woodmont's wishes. Read the details in the Motion for Summary Judgement filed today.
Click HERE to read the filing, and please donate to our legal fund at the link below...
Update 11/23/2024: HERD offers 3-Phase Plan to solve the Bancroft issue once and for all!
Please click HERE to see our 3-Phase solution, with financial analysis.
Update 11/22/2024: Lawsuit progresses...
Our attorney completed the deposition of Kevin Roche on October 29, 2024.
We now have until December 20th to file a motion for summary judgement against the Borough.
The Borough will have until January 10, 2025 to respond, and we will have until January 17th to reply to the Borough's response.
The next case management conference is scheduled for February 14, 2025.
Click HERE to download and read the full complaint.
Our fundraising efforts have covered this initial legal action, but we anticipate a long road ahead.
If you've already donated, "Thank You!" -- and if you haven't donated, please consider doing so via the link above.
Say NO to 120 Units at Bancroft!
When it comes to the Bancroft redevelopment and our Borough commissioners, it's... THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT!
First it was the drug rehabilitation center proposed at the former Bancroft site, next to HMHS, followed by the over-priced / over-sized townhomes which were "targeted" at seniors but cost nearly 50% more than the average cost of a Haddonfield home (Who can downsize to a more expensive home?), and now it's a high-density, 3.5 story, 120 unit apartment complex that they're trying to drop on the property -- in the already over-capacity Tatem school neighborhood.
The school district is already reeling from overcapacity. At what point will additional housing units tip us into needing another school, at a cost of $30M+? We're almost there already!
We had high hopes for a reasonable resolution to the Bancroft saga last year when the Commissioners initiated a bidding process for the redevelopment of the property, and the borough did manage to receive nine bona fide proposals for the project.
Yet, once again, the commissioners (2 out of 3, anyway -- Bezich and Roche voted Yes, while only Troy voted No) have failed to listen to their constituents.
Without consulting the public or allowing public review of the nine builders' proposals (the only glimpse the public got is behind a paywall website), they chose an option with 120 apartment units -- higher density than any of the previous proposals which had been opposed by a significant number of residents in prior years -- and among the highest density proposals received in response to this RFP. Additionally, this proposal includes tax breaks for the developer while simultaneously burdening the school district with 120 additional housing units, none of which will be age-restricted. The proposal is neither: (a) affordable for seniors; nor (b) open space, which to many residents would be a worthwhile community investment in lieu of tax-ratable housing.
Nothing like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
Commissioner Roche summed it up perfectly when he said... “I think this is a great way for professionals with still higher price points to get in."
At this point, faith is lost in our governing body to make the right decision for the Bancroft property, particularly when it comes to building any type of housing there. As taxpayers, we've been paying for the property acquisition of the past seven years. Let's finish paying it off and make it an asset to us -- the taxpayers. A park, a field, anything other than 120 more housing units in our already congested town and school district.