One of the most moving moments of the Board of Supervisors Meeting was when Mt. Pleasant resident Christine Johnson took her turn to speak. Christine eloquently spoke of her community, Mt. Pleasant as not being a sidewalk to nowhere as is often referred to by Supervisor Olson. Christine is a research librarian and she put hours in to research, providing copies of minutes from Board Meetings, Planning Commission meetings, STAP meetings, etc. Please watch Christine’s passionate delivery of information . . . and please watch as virtually no response is offered from Chairman Lamina.
Please watch this video clip: YouTube Video Part II: Christine Johnson
9 CommentsAdd a Comment
The BOS decision to release the St. David’s escrow was wrong. However, people need to stop harping on the “sidewalks to nowhere.” At this point and for the foreseeable future the proposed St. David’s sidewalk connects to no other sidewalk. It is clear that many on this site are more concerned with gaining patrician leverage than addressing failure of the process and good governance.
I completely agree. The sidewalks are but a symbol; the problem is far greater. Policy and procedures as detailed in the Home Rule Charter were completely disregarded by 4 of our supervisors. Our elected officials are elected to serve all the residents of this community but the St. Davids vote clearly indicates a failure of Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter to provide that expected good governance. I don’t care how much they apologize — for me the only thing that will make it right, is that they ‘fix it’. They need to right the wrong and just follow the rules.
An amusing slip of the tongue/fingers – implying that Democrats are more concerned with gaining”PATRICIAN leverage”…No that’s what those who influenced the St. David’s vote are seeking – special treatment for the “ruling class” at the golf club.
But let’s talk about partisan leverage…..There are seven Republicans on the BOS – thankfully not all of the same mind – but three of them feel they can run this community for the benefit of themselves and their supporters – and the fourth is easily influenced..
If you can’t see the arrogance that reigns and the degree of wrongdoing that has occurred, you’ve drunk the kool-aid. I guess that anything Republican is better than the non-PATRICIAN alternative., right?..
Democrats are seeking partisan leverage? No, we’re just giving voice to what a lot of people are thinking right now.
How ’bout supporting some fair and balanced, some open and transparent, some basic good government – regardless of your party affilication?
Kate, you may be jumping to a conclusion that may (or may not) be accurate. Panhandle Moderate did not say Democrats in his/her comments. Isn’t it possible that he/she could be speaking of Republicans (or Democrats or Independents) who comment on Community Matters, as attempting ‘Patrician leverage’. I thought the overriding intention of their comment was the failure of our goverment to follow policy and procedure.
As an audience member at the February 8 meeting, it was clear that the many residents providing commentary, did so without any political bias. Their genuine concerns and questions were based entirely on what they viewed as the failings of certain elected officials to simply ‘follow the rules’. I hope that people watching the supervisors meeting at home or seeing the video clips will recognize the solidarity felt among the audience members.
Maybe I did over-react to Panhandle Moderate, but I was offended by the suggestion that anyone is making more of the St. David’s debacle than is necessary – for partisan reasons.
In this case, I don’t believe they are. I feel as you do – that the problems people have with the way the St. David’s vote was handled are based on the poor judgment of four supervisors – who happen to be Republican. Neither party is free of self-serving, dishonest and short-sighted politicians.
In Tredyffrin, as anywhere else, we just don’t want them infecting our community…
If the shoe fits put it on.
Olson deserves to be voted out because his argument against sidewalks is the street is too dangerous. Brilliant!
Just don’t pretend that the sidewalk to nowhere comment was aimed at the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood. It was no more aimed there than at Box Hill Road or Fox Chapel or anywhere else. Trying to turn this into a “ruling class” vs. a particular neighborhood is not productive and is not good for our community. That was the only point.
I agree with your view of why some are harping on it, but I don’t agree that the sidewalk is not relevant for the “foreseeable future” — because I think the reasons to build sidewalks are to connect places…absent the St. Davids piece, the township has no incentive to build any part of the sidewalk to the library…which I can assure you would be a welcome addition to this township. NIMBY folks always resist change — look how long it took to build the Radnor Trail — and visit ti anytime and see how well used it is. The first STAP piece is funded largely by grants — and a green initiative will certainly reward sidewalk planning.
Mr. Lamina’s response to Christine Johnson is unbelievable — the “comprehensive plan” he references as a visionary document…and he refers to St. Davids as “the applicant” — but I understand they did not ask for relief….so on what level can he refer to them as “an applicant.” Isn’t that the whole point — they were NOT applicants — they were beneficiaries of the aging leadershipwho want to live in 1950s Tredyffrin.
To be honest, who cares one iota if the sidewalks connect one lace to another, if they dead-end, etc. By Supervisor Olson’s own admission, that section of Upper Gulph is a dangerous section with heavy volumes of traffic. This alone should be reasoning enough to put sidewalks in.
This is a newspaper quote that someone definitely needs to call Supervisor Olson on at the next meeting.