Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Paul Drucker

PA State Representative 157 Race – Candidate Question #4 and Response

This is the Candidate Question & Response Forum for the Pennsylvania State House 157 candidates. As previously stated, candidate Warren Kampf declined to participate in the question and response forum. Candidate Paul Drucker’s response follows the question. Each Monday for six weeks, a new question and response will be posted. The candidate forum will end the week before the election.

Question #4: Looking past the 2011 state budget, what are your recommendations to close future budget gaps and still meet the needs of the residents? Until the national economy improves, where do you propose making cuts in future state budgets?

Paul Drucker’s Response

I look at the state budget the same way I look at my family budget. It’s a matter of setting priorities and making difficult decisions.

While the 2010-2011 budget included some very painful cuts, I felt it was important to pass a responsible, balanced and timely budget. I will continue to feel the same way as long as the voters of the 157th district send me back to Harrisburg.

While the volatility of the economic climate makes future revenue estimates unreliable, there is no doubt that some very difficult decisions remain ahead of us. It is my hope that we can put aside partisanship and work together to produce a budget that is in the best interests of our constituents.

PA State House 157 Race — No further comments accepted for candidate question #3!

No further comments will be accepted in response to candidate question #3.

In August, when I approached State House 157 candidates about a candidate forum, I envisioned a much different outcome than has evolved. I designed thoughtful, engaging questions that I thought would be representative of important issues to this community. I stated that I would not edit the candidate’s responses, and as moderator, I would not weigh in with my opinion. Presumably seeing no value in this process, candidate Warren Kampf chose not to participate. However, incumbent candidate Paul Drucker returned his responses to my questions. At the time, I questioned whether I should go forward with the Candidate Question and Response forum with Paul’s responses (without Kampf’s participation). Ultimately, I moved ahead with the forum, deciding that Paul Drucker should not be penalized because Warren Kampf declined to participate.

I now recognize that my vision for this candidate forum was naïve. Rather than tolerant, respectful dialogue that discussed the questions and candidate response, I had the task of reading and uploading some of the most negative partisan, personal attacks than I could have imagined. Many comments were not on topic and some remarks lacked civility and respect. It is my opinion that the partisan, negative remarks were evenly distributed between both sides.

Having a strong opinion (from personal experience) on political misinformation and campaign negativity, I have chosen to accept no further comments on candidate question #3. I view negative campaign remarks in a negative light. These comments do not focus on substantive issues or policies but rather tend to focus on personality. This type of negative approach may motivate the base of support of each of the candidates but I think it could also alienate centrist and undecided voters from participating on Election Day – and possibly reduce the low voter turnout even lower.

On Monday, October 11, I will post candidate question #4 and will accept comments. If the comments remain on the question’s topic, I will continue to accept comments until the following Monday.

Thank you.

PA State Representative 157 Race – Candidate Question #3 and Response

This is the Candidate Question & Response Forum for the Pennsylvania State House 157 candidates. As previously stated, candidate Warren Kampf declined to participate in the question and response forum. Candidate Paul Drucker’s response follows the question. Each Monday for six weeks, a new question and response will be posted. The candidate forum will end the week before the election.

Question #3: There is evidence of the large and growing gap between infrastructure needs and the resources available in Pennsylvania. How do you propose paying for transportation improvements?

Paul Drucker’s Response

The needs of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) have been growing from year to year. There are now 12000 structurally deficient roads and bridges throughout the commonwealth. There is simply not enough money in the budget to repair them all, let alone to break ground on new projects.

I have met with members of the house and senate transportation committees, transportation industry leaders, the chambers of commerce, commissions and boards created to address the transportation needs and constituents. The one thing everyone agrees upon is that something must be done.

I propose that we begin to explore new revenue sources not only for our roads, but also for new light-rail systems and other mass transportation needs. With an additional $3.5billion needed per year merely to keep up with infrastructure maintenance, there are some difficult decisions ahead of us.

I know there is some talk of imposing tolls on certain roads and that this idea is being studied. There are additional potential sources that the Governor has suggested be utilized for revenue, such as closing tax loopholes for oil companies and creating public private partnerships. While these ideas seem worth exploring, I’ll want to make sure they are fair, reasonable and that all impacts are fully evaluated and addressed.

We should also consider dedicating some portion of a tax on the Marcellus shale natural gas extraction to fund our transportation needs. Pennsylvania has the second largest reserve of natural gas in the United States. However, of the top 15 energy-producing states, Pennsylvania is the only state that does not have a severance tax. Such a tax, on the billion dollar companies making huge profits off our resources, would begin to fill the revenue gap.

PA State Representative 157 Race . . . Candidate Question #2 and Response

This is the Candidate Question & Response Forum for the Pennsylvania State House 157 candidates. As previously stated, candidate Warren Kampf declined to participate in the question and response forum. Candidate Paul Drucker’s response follows the question. Each Monday for six weeks, a new question and response will be posted. The candidate forum will end the week before the election.

Question #2: How do you propose to encourage job growth in the Commonwealth and specifically in your district?

Paul Drucker’s Response:

The length and depth of this economic downturn is astounding. I think a great deal about my friends, neighbors and constituents who are unemployed or struggling to keep their businesses afloat—and I know that we have to do a better job of fostering a climate of economic growth in Pennsylvania.

While I am proud of some of the economic development projects I helped bring to the district, like the $1 million grant to the Paoli train station that will produce 5,000 construction jobs and 2,000 permanent jobs, I also know we need fundamental changes to Pennsylvania’s business climate.

First, we need to invest in a modern day infrastructure that includes new roads and bridges, better rail access and high-speed internet in rural areas. Next, we need to ensure Pennsylvania students have the best education in America. Finally, we need to help our small businesses grow and expand with a fair tax burden and access to low-interest grants and loans for new equipment and technology.

Castle Doctrine – House Bill 40 . . . Discharge Petition Vote Tomorrow in Harrisburg

I was troubled to hear of the Seton Hall University, E. Orange, New Jersey shooting last night. Having been denied access to the private college party, the gunman later returned and began shooting, killing one student and injuring 4 others. The gunman remains at large.

For those that regularly follow Community Matters, you are aware of my somewhat naive views on local gun ownership and support for gun control legislation. So you may find the following an interesting email that I received today from Daniel Pehrson, the Founder & President Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association concerning the discharge petition filed for House Bill 40, Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine bill. In order to get the bill to the House floor for consideration, this petition must be approved.

House Bill 40, sponsored by State Rep Scott Perry (R-92), would, “ permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their homes and any places outside of their home where they have a legal right to be. HB 40 would also protect individuals from civil lawsuits by the attacker or the attacker’s family when force is used.”

Important Castle Doctrine Vote Monday! We need your help to break through anti-gun tricks and get a vote on House Bill 40

Over the past year gun owners in Pennsylvania have made great strides in getting Castle Doctrine (House Bill 40), past all the anti-gun roadblocks placed in our way, and believe me, they’ve tried every trick in the book. On Monday, September 27, there will be a pivotal vote on a discharge petition, which would put a stop to all the dirty tricks from anti-gun politicians, and get us one step closer to an actual vote on the House floor. The Castle Doctrine bill that has wide bi-partisan support, and should easily pass if we can get this discharge petition moving H.B.40 forward.

Because of this we need you to contact your state representative and politely let them know you expect them to support the discharge petition and floor vote for H.B.40.

Your action on this matter is urgently necessary for us to pass these much needed reforms. Reforms that would protect law-abiding gun owners, like yourself, from prosecution and lawsuits should you ever be forced to defend yourself inside, or outside of your home.

PA State House Representative 157 Race . . . Candidate Question #1 and Response

This is the Candidate Question & Response Forum for the State House 157 candidates. As previously stated, candidate Warren Kampf declined to participate in the question and response forum. Candidate Paul Drucker’s response follows the question. Each Monday for six weeks, a new question and response will be posted. The candidate forum will end the week before the election.

Question #1: How is the Commonwealth going to help the Tredyffrin-Easttown School District’s ballooning pension obligations?

Paul Drucker’s Response:

It is important to note that there is no silver bullet to fix the pension obligations of Tredyffrin-Easttown or any of the other school districts in the 157th district. The situation in which we currently find ourselves is a cumulative effort that has been in development over the past 11 years of irresponsible handling of the pension system, combined with the stock market collapse of 2008.

Eleven years ago the rules were changed concerning vesting, multiplier rates, lump sum payouts, actuarial analysis and other matters. As a result, the Commonwealth and the respective school districts find themselves with millions of dollars of unfunded liabilities and are facing a potential spike in the payments due in the immediate future in the billions of dollars.

There are some acts the legislature can take to begin fixing this problem. This session, the House passed a pension reform bill that relieves many of these problems. By reducing the multiplier used to calculate benefits, eliminating the lump-sum payout employees receive and raising the retirement age, we addressed this crisis in a responsible, bi-partisan manner. 194 members of the House voted in favor of the bill (although, surprisingly, my opponent has stated that he opposes it). While the Senate has not yet taken action, I strongly encourage them to do so.

PA State House Representative 157 Race . . . Candidate Questions & Responses

Back in August, I approached the two State House 157 candidates, Paul Drucker and Warren Kampf in regards to a ‘Candidate Question & Response’ forum. Recognizing that Community Matters has a regular following of interested concerned residents, I sent a joint email to both candidates asking to meet with them [together] to explain my idea. Below is an excerpt from that email of August 23, 2010:

“Warren & Paul –

As candidates in the PA State House race, I would like to meet with you to discuss an opportunity that would benefit you both. . .

I have come up with a list of six questions that I feel are important issues to our community. You will be given the questions at our meeting and are asked to return your responses to all six questions to me by September 17. That will give you 3+ weeks to answer the questions and the word count is to be limited to 300 words per response. Each Monday, starting September 20, I will post one of the questions with each of your responses. The questions will be posted for 6 week, ending on Monday, October 25. I will not edit your responses nor will they be shared with anyone prior to posting on Community Matters each week. You will not know the order that the questions will be posted, and to be fair, I will change whose response is first each week.

My proposal offers an opportunity for voters to better understand your views on important campaign issues. Your participation in this process will guarantee a larger audience hears your views. Because I am doing this for the community, I will remain neutral; the questions and your responses will be posted each week and the readers will be encouraged to comment. I will serve as moderator and will not weigh in personally. . .”

Neither candidate would see the questions before deciding if they would participate. I did not want their willingness to participate to be predicated on the specific questions. Drucker responded, stating that he would participate. I asked him if he was willing to answers the questions, even if Kampf declined, and his response remained yes. On behalf of Warren Kampf, his campaign coordinator Michael D’Amicantonio replied via email, declining to participate. Here’s an excerpt from the email –

” . . . We have accepted an invitation from the Phoenixville Chamber of Commerce to participate in their candidate forum, and we have already reached out to the League of Women Voters to take part in their traditional and well-respected debate. . . ”

For the record, I can confirm no evidence of a Phoenixville Chamber of Commerce candidate forum and no evidence of a scheduled League of Women Voters debate.

The upcoming November election is important to all of us. We do not always understand candidate’s views on specific issues; it was my intent to provide the candidates a greater audience through Community Matters. I believe that my candidate questions are reflective of the resident’s interests. Unfortunately, as I stated Warren Kampf will not be participating but I did receive Paul Drucker’s responses on Friday, September 17 as requested. Shortly, I will post the first question and his written response. As detailed in my email to the candidates, this process will continue for the next 6 weeks, ending the week before the election.

Beyond Campaign Rhetoric, Can Candidates Offer Solutions?

It does not matter whether it is Tredyffrin Township, Chester County, the Commonwealth or the entire country, aside from the overall economy, the discussion quickly turns to jobs . . . where are they . . . help in finding one, . . . and how to bring them to our community.

With barely 60 days until the November election, we are hearing much political rhetoric from candidates about the job situation. Regardless of party affiliation, all candidates understand that voters are desperate to find jobs. Beyond using the right buzzwords as they stump, how many of the politicians are citing specific job creation plans. Americans want to believe in the politician’s promises but we need reason to believe. Candidates need to offer the unemployed single mother of three some hope in finding a job. Candidates need to provide incentives for the struggling small business owner to keep his door open. Candidates need to explain how to rebuild the small town whose major employer went bankrupt. I want candidates that offer solutions.

This past week, Pennsylvania District 6th congressional candidate Manan Trivedi presented his personal formula for creating jobs. Trivedi’s job plan contained the following points — (1) tax incentives to small business owners; (2) investing in infrastructure; (3) government crackdown on companies who hire illegal immigrants; (4) elimination of tax breaks to companies that ship jobs to foreign countries; and (5) investment by government in clean energy that would stimulate job growth.

Do we believe that Trivedi’s plan can translate to creating and sustaining jobs? Does Jim Gerlach’s campaign offer a similar job plan? Most importantly, how will Tredyffrin Township directly benefit? Do our State House candidates Paul Drucker and Warren Kampf have a job creation plan to help us?

Here is a New Twist to Save Money in Pennsylvania . . . Let’s Do Away with Township & Borough Government

There are some elected officials in Pennsylvania that think they have come up with a way to save money although it would require changing the Commonwealth’s constitution to make it happen. The proposed Pennsylvania House Bill 2431 would eliminate city, township and borough governments . . . in other words; the bill suggests collapsing local government to create county-run control.

Those behind the bill believe that state-level legislation to consolidate local government is a way to reduce the overall cost of government. Forced municipal consolidation would radically change the governing of Pennsylvania. Potentially all local governments would be wiped out in one fell swoop and the municipal responsibilities would move to the county level. The bill would create a committee to condense the townships and boroughs and have local control pass to the county level. From snow removal to providing water and sewer, from law enforcement to land use decisions — these now local services would become regionally provided for by a centralized, bigger government . . . the county!

Under the current system, our local government is local. We have our elected officials working and living in the area they serve. With this proposed legislation, resident questions and concerns would pass to the larger county government. For instance, if a resident or a neighborhood has a zoning issue (Mt. Pleasant community as a recent example) you would be reliant on the county officials to respond. Under this proposed bill, the residents would contact an unknown official who could be on the other side of the county. How much would the county official really understand about a localized community issue? Stands to reason that depending on where the resident is in any given county, there could be a complete disconnect and lack of understanding of the specific issue. Look at Chester County and our diversity . . . one could imagine the vast difference of issues of residents in the dense, more developed areas of northern Chester County and the rural, less-populated areas of southern Chester County. In making decisions, would the county officials be able to offer even handedness of all resident issues. Not sure that would be possible.

However, shared services between local municipalities should be heralded as a form of cost cutting. Based on the specific needs of given local governments in the Commonwealth, municipalities should encourage the consolidation of services where fiscally responsible. Depending on the township or borough, the sharing of services could take different direction . . . health care plans, snow and trash removal, law enforcement, etc. Individual local governments and their elected officials should take up this cost-saving cause . . . but not forced consolidation by state mandate.

Although I am not aware that our elected township officials have responded specifically to the proposed legislation, many townships in Chester County have been very vocal about passing a resolution to oppose House Bill 2431. The Pennsylvania Association of Township Supervisors is supporting resolution to oppose the proposed legislation. The road for House Bill 2431 is a long one . . . if it were to get House and Senate approval; it would still require the support of the majority of Pennsylvania residents. Although not likely to be supported by the residents, the bill would then go back to the legislation to be shaped in to a specific law with guidelines.

This is one of those proposed legislative changes that is unlikely to go very far; although it would be fascinating to know how much money would be saved if you did away with all local government in Pennsylvania.

However, at the end of the day, I think House Bill 2431 makes the case that ‘bigger government’ is not necessarily ‘better government’.

Board of Supervisors Meeting Goes to the 11th Hour . . . Student Housing Ordinances and Public Budget Meetings are Late Night Decisions

Last night’s Board of Supervisors Meeting and public meeting on student housing was a marathon! After 4-1/2 hours, the meeting finally ended at 11:45 PM . . . a long meeting by any standard; plus there was no air conditioning! By the time the meeting ended at nearly midnight, all that remained of the audience was myself and 2 other residents, the township staff and the supervisors. I didn’t realize until I got home but the taping of the meeting stopped at about 11:20, which was prior to the 3 important votes – decisions of the evening.

Many who attended last night’s supervisors meeting waited patiently for the public hearing on the two proposed college student housing ordinances – the Registration Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance Amendment. As the hour got later and later, a decision was made to suspend the regular supervisors meeting, conduct the public meeting on the student housing ordinances and then complete the regular supervisors meeting.

As was discussed in an earlier post, the Planning Commission had come up with very strict language in their proposed ordinances. In my opinion, the proposed ordinances provided as much future protection against student rentals as was possible within the law. In fact, some of the restrictions (including a 10 ft. wide buffer on the sides and back of the student rental properties struck me as a bit ‘over the top’ and overly restrictive). It was obvious that some of the supervisors had a clearer understanding of the proposed ordinances than others – at one point, it was suggested that the public meeting be continued until a future date. But Supervisors DiBuonaventuro and Donahue pushed for resolution last night on the ordinances.

Many Mt. Pleasant residents attended last night’s meeting and were determined that their voices would be heard. And heard they were! On one side, the residents very much wanted to see the proposed ordinances passed but they also wanted more to be included in the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. Specifically, the residents sought to remove the grandfathering rights of the landlords from the ordinance. The residents wanted the same restrictions for new student rentals to be imposed on existing student rentals. But as they were told, this is simply not possible legally. Not because of township laws, but because of Pennsylvania state law.

Supervisor Kichline and the township solicitor explained to the residents that those properties that were existing student rentals would be allowed to continue operating and would not be subject to the proposed zoning amendment ordinance. However, all current student housing landlords would have to conform to the proposed registration ordinance. Mt. Pleasant residents questioned if other municipalities had taken out the grandfathering clause from their student housing ordinances, why couldn’t Tredyffrin. As township manager Gleason explained, other municipalities may not permit grandfathering in their student housing ordinances but it is not enforceable by law. Period. Not the answer the residents wanted; they had to accept the proposed zoning amendment could not legally include existing student rentals.

The supervisors passed the student registration ordinance with minor tweaking but there seemed to be endless discussion on the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. Lamina made a motion to continue the discussion on the zoning amendment to the 2nd meeting in September. The motion was seconded but failed to receive the necessary votes. There was more discussion and a motion was made on the proposed zoning amendment ordinance – to pass it ‘as is’ . I don’t know if it was the lateness of the hour (by this point it was 11:30!), the audience remarks, or what . . . but the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. That’s right, Tredyffrin Township now has a very strict zoning amendment ordinance for student housing and a student registration ordinance. Although the newly passed ordinances are not going to solve all of the student housing issues in Tredyffrin, I think great strides were made in the right direction. Gold stars to the residents, the Planning Commissioners, the township staff and to the supervisors for working together for resolution!

The public meeting ended, many in the audience departed and the regular supervisors meeting resumed. The meeting agenda finally got to the new matters – Board members, and I waited to see if the suggestion of public budget meetings discussed at the July board meeting would be re-visited. And yes, Supervisor Donahue once again brought up the suggestion of a public budget meeting (to be scheduled in advance of the traditional November budget discussions.)

All 7 supervisors agreed in favor of a public budget meeting. Supervisor Olson suggested a Saturday morning meeting at the township building as a good time to schedule the meeting. Lamina suggested either Saturday, September 18 or 25 but Supervisor Kichline quickly pointed out that September 25 was my historic house tour (thank you Michelle!) and maybe the budget meeting should not be scheduled on that date. Lamina asked Mimi to look at the calendar and see about setting up the public budget meeting in September. Under new matters – citizens, Dariel Jamieson thanked the supervisors for setting up the public budget meeting and asked if the BAWG recommendations could be included in the meeting . . . the supervisors seemed to think that was a good idea and will include BAWG updates at the meeting.

Thank you supervisors for choosing transparency and citizen participation in the township budget process – we will wait to hear the date and time of the public budget meeting.

Just a couple of other items from the supervisors meeting. As a member of HARB, I joined the other members in thanking Jim Garrison, a historical architect, for his 12 years of service to the HARB. Jim and his wife recently moved from the township and therefore he is no longer permitted to serve on HARB. In their move, the Garrison’s have joined the ranks of ‘old house owners’. They purchased a 250-yr. old stone farmhouse that is on the National Register. Congratulations to Jim but the HARB will miss him!

The other item of personal interest from last night has to do with Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust. Newly appointed Trust board member, Jean Sauer, presented an update and PowerPoint presentation on the Jones Log Barn project. She provided a short history and background on the barn. The Trust is now in Phase II (final phase) of the project with an intended completion date of 2011. On behalf of the Trust, thank you Jean for providing a wonderful overview of the project.

I updated the supervisors on our Trust fall events, including the 6th Annual Historic House Tour on Saturday, September 25. our annual In the Mood fundraiser on Friday, October 22 and our Fall Lecture Series. (Tickets for the house tour are now available on our website, www.tredyffrinhistory.org) The Trust is underway with the Capital Campaign to raise the remaining $200K for Phase II. Please contact me directly at tredyffrincommunitymatters@gmail.com if you would like to help with the Capital Campaign, the house tour, In the Mood fundraiser, the Jones Log Barn reconstruction project, etc. – we will be put your time and talents to good use!

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme