EDITORIAL
By:
Money magazine’s annual list of the best places to live in the U.S. released last week placed Hillsborough at No. 23, which probably didn’t surprise too many residents, but we hope the ranking doesn’t actually go to anyone’s head.
Already the ranking has been bandied about as a political tool, offered as proof of the quality of local government. At the July 18 Charter Study Commission meeting, Township Committeeman Carl Suraci suggested the ranking counters arguments any change of the township’s charter should be considered.
But if anything, we suspect the list is as much a marketing tool for the publishers as an accurate reflection of the communities listed.
A comparison of the last three years’ rankings show towns tend to jump on and off each list, with few repeat winners. What can explain the demise of Moorestown, 2005’s best place to be, but absent the list ever since?
What consolation is there for Middleton, Wis. this year’s No. 1 town that was also No. 7 in 2005 but conspicuously absent from the list in 2006?
That Hillsborough is a great place is not news; that there are many truly delightful towns in the United States are also well known.
But trying to quantify those features that make it so the magazine’s editor’s challenge is like trying to count the grains of sand in dune. Shifting perceptions and values will always move the target, and apparently, make for ever-evolving compilations.
The magazine said this year’s rankings were based on towns with the "best combination of economic opportunity, good schools, safe streets, things to do and a real sense of community."
Officials should use the ranking for promotional purposes, but don’t imagine it has more value than that.
Mr. Suraci’s comments at the charter study meeting marked a turning point for the meeting, which subsequently went downhill.
Later on, commissioners George Ostergren and Glenn van Lier abruptly walked off the dais, after arguments over the commission’s plans to proceed on preparations for its final report due by Aug. 8.
We’ve watched the commission attempt to sail the rocky shoals of its studies, mindful of the positions commissioners Ostergren and van Lier had publicly taken before their election to the panel, and felt the group has generally done an admirable job of avoiding some of the obvious pitfalls.
In November, when voters knowingly chose three commissioners who had been actively involved on both sides of 2005’s failed bid for a direct change to a mayor-council form of government ( Mssrs. Ostergren and van Lier led the petition drive to put the question on the ballot; Commissioner George Fenwick, who died in February, campaigned against the question), it was clear we were in for an interesting discussion of the various forms of government state law allows.
Consequently, it’s been clear from the get-go there’s political pressure from all directions confronting every discussion, debate and dialogue of the commission.
Many residents believed the commission has already determined what recommendation will be made, but last week’s shenanigans should make it clear there’s little consensus on the commission and that the debates will be heating up as the deadline approaches.
Let’s remember it’s a five-member panel and at least three of those members have to agree on any recommendation.
Chairman Christian Jensen has his hands full navigating those shoals, but we think this ship will arrive at its port intact, ultimately giving residents a carefully considered and explained recommendation.
Events and debates such as this are the warp and woof of Hillsborough’s political life our community.
And isn’t that part of what put us on the Money list?

