It was March 1995 and Hillsborough residents were heading to the polls to try to fix the problem that had vexed the Somerset County municipality nearly every year for 40 years. Since the first large-scale post-war residential developments were laid out in 1955 the schools were perpetually out of space. Building after building, construction referendums seemingly without end, and annual tax increases exponentially greater than the relatively puny ones of the past few years - even before accounting for inflation! - nothing seemed to put Hillsborough schools ahead of the curve.
 |
| 1 October 1995 Courier News |
Now the 25-year-old high school was 150 students beyond its 1,350 capacity with no end in sight. Just three years earlier, in March 1992, the voters passed a $13.4 million referendum that added a 500 student annex to the middle school. But with enrollments growing by the hundreds each year, that capacity was soon devoured.
 |
| 3 October 1995 Courier News |
So the school board endeavored upon an ambitious plan to build a brand new high school at the northwest corner of Beekman Lane and New Center Road on the farm of Preston Quick, Jr. The $54 million school would have a 2100 student capacity - expandable to 2800 - and utilize a unique "House" concept. Each of four independent "houses" would have a mix of students from each of the four grades and be led by a vice principal. Students would remain in their "house" for their core classes, and mix with other students for PE, music, art, etc.
 |
| 26 March 1995 Courier News |
A second question on the ballot asked voters if they would rather have a small 300 seat theater or a full 1200 seat auditorium at an added cost. If the referendum were to pass, the current high school on Amwell Road would be converted into a second 6-8 middle school, and the middle school annex would become a self-contained seventh elementary school. District officials warned that because enrollment was expected to increase by 2,000 students in the next five years, there was absolutely no choice but to build.
 |
| 13 September 1995 Courier News |
Despite hiring a public relations firm to handle a publicity campaign for the referendum, the school board still heard complaints. Residents were not happy about the site away from the center of the 54-square-mile township and had reservations about the school being on "the wrong side of the tracks" - literally - as the Quick farm was just north of the as-yet-un-gated railroad crossings. Residents were also unsure of what bringing sewers to that part of town would mean for future development. And of course, there was the price tag, which was expected to raise taxes on an average home by $287.
 |
| 29 March 1995 Courier News |
When voters rejected the proposal by a vote of 3,282 to 3.050 - and rejected the auditorium and its additional costs by an even greater margin - the board redoubled its efforts. After taking another look at one of the previously rejected sites for the school - on the 317-acre section of the former Belle Mead GSA Depot then owned by Chemical Bank - the board returned to the Quick farm. They devised a plan, praised by township officials, for the school to have its own waste treatment plant, and commissioned a scale model and artist's renderings of the school to help win over the public.
 |
| 13 September 1995 Courier News |
In an attempt to squelch ongoing criticism of the chosen location, the district released notes on all fifteen rejected sites. And they planned an October referendum.
 |
| 8 October 1995 Courier News |
In the week leading up to the slightly scaled down $50 million referendum, The Courier News ran a story each day. There was no Fake News here - everyone agreed the district would be completely out of space in a couple of years.
 |
| 11 October 1995 Courier News |
When voters, school board members, and district and town officials went to bed on election night, some may have been dreaming of a miracle. With the nays ahead by 393 votes and just 403 votes outstanding in a malfunctioning voting machine, it would have taken a miracle for the referendum to pass.
Alas, it was not to be. The school board took this second rejection as basically a veto of the Beekman Lane site. In 1996 they would come back with a completely new proposal. Stay tuned!
No comments:
Post a Comment