Pattye Benson

Community Matters

State House 157

Judy DiFilippo Officially Endorses Ken Buckwalter for 157th State House District’s Republican Primary

April 15, 2010
8 Comments

For those who follow closely, a couple of days ago, Judy DiFilippo’s endorsement of Ken Buckwalter for the 157 was on Community Matters briefly and then removed.  The confusion has been resolved — here is her endorsement.
____________________________________________________________________

Former Tredyffrin Township supervisor and candidate for the 157 State House District seat herself, Judy DiFilippo has decided to formally endorse Ken Buckwalter of Phoenixville in the Republican Primary.  Below is Judy’s endorsement statement:

The 157th State House District includes Tredyffrin, the Borough of Phoenixville, Schuylkill Township, and 6 precincts located in Lower Providence and West Norriton Townships in Montgomery County.  Two qualified candidates were recommended by the members of the Chester County Republican Committee in this District for our consideration in the Primary Election.  As voters, we must now do our part and choose the person whom we believe will best represent the Republican Party in the General Election and then serve the citizens of the 157th District.
 
This is not a ‘Tredyffrin seat’ nor is it a ‘Phoenixville seat’.  As candidate – and now U.S. Senator – Scott Brown said, “It is the People’s Seat!”  It is my belief that Ken Buckwalter is running for the People’s Seat.  I have observed that he is guided by principles, not politics.  He has shown his ability to garner support from voters across ‘party lines.’ On behalf of taxpayers, he is capable of making tough decisions about budgets and quality of life issues.  Though in the minority, he has worked with his fellow elected officials for the ‘greater good’ of the community.
 
As a small business owner, he has first-hand knowledge of how the economy affects jobs and our families.  In addition, he understands the benefits of volunteer organizations and has been a volunteer himself.  Ken has reached a place in his life where he can devote himself fulltime as a Legislator. All of these attributes deserve our consideration.
 
While each candidate is qualified, after long and careful thought, I have made my choice.  On May 18, 2010 I will cast my vote for Ken Buckwalter in the Republican Primary, the candidate who will represent the 157th District in the People’s Seat.

Judy L. DiFilippo

Countdown to May 18 Primary . . . Can we escape negative campaigning?

April 10, 2010
15 Comments

Days are beginning to countdown to the Pennsylvania Primary on May 18 and then on to Election Day on November 2. As the campaign season prepares to get in to full swing, I want to publically state my strong opposition to negative campaigning. Recalling my own experience in last year’s campaign cycle, I know all too well the personal effect of negative campaigning.

On a local level, based on past performance the potential exists for negative campaigning in the Pennsylvania State House 157 race. The Primary has Ken Buckwalter and Warren Kampf seeking the Republican nomination; and incumbent Paul Drucker as the endorsed Democrat candidate. I have had a conversation with two of the three candidates to express my concern that this campaign season not take us down the negative path.

I think that negative campaigning can backfire in local political elections. Poll after poll has shown that voters severely dislike negative campaigning. Ask almost anyone and they will agree: one of the most distasteful things about political campaigns is when a candidate decides to “go negative’ on an opponent. Often times it seems that the definition of “negative campaigning” really depends on which candidate you’re supporting. Many consultants and campaign managers like to call negative campaigning “comparing” or “contrasting” candidates by showing the voters the clear differences between their choices. If your candidate starts “comparing” himself with his opponent, then you’re more likely to look at it as completely acceptable. If, on the other hand, the opponent does the same with your candidate, then it becomes “negative campaigning.”

In our local election, where many of us may know the candidates personally, going strongly negative and personal in the campaign can end up costing you our respect, and ultimately our vote. Sending out a negative mailer about a candidate who everyone knows and thinks is a fairly nice guy probably isn’t going to make us change our opinion of him. It’s much more likely to get us angry at you, instead. I look at this way: if a candidate is severely flawed, then odds are that other people know plenty about his shortcomings. If, on the other hand, the candidate is a generally well-liked person with a clean record, then trying to convince his neighbors otherwise with a negative campaign is a losing battle. Let’s stick to the candidate’s actual voting record and history on issues. An opponent may claim to support a tax cut, for example, but his voting record may show a number of previous votes in favor of tax hikes . . . that would be fair game in a campaign. But personal attacks on an opponent’s private life, name-calling and mudslinging are unnecessary and not OK, and will likely not be favorably rewarded on Community Matters.

If you’re a candidate in a local election who is thinking about “going negative” on your opponent at some point during the campaign, I hope that you will reconsider. The stuff that really wins elections is called Hard Work . . . and if you’re really putting the necessary effort into running a great campaign, you won’t have time to waste on spreading rumors about your opponent, anyway.

Here is a preview of Ken Buckwalter’s campaign mailer for the State House 157, which is going out next week. Ken is taking the ‘high road’ with his campaign strategy, here’s hoping that the other two will follow suit.

Rep. Paul Drucker Favors 422 Tolling . . . what do you think?

April 9, 2010
48 Comments
I was looking at the Times Herald newspaper online today and came across a video of Rep. Paul Drucker; he was at Times Herald in Norristown yesterday and answered questions during an editorial meeting. It was the headline of the following article, Rep. Paul Drucker Favors 422 Tolling which summarized the video that caught my eye.
I know that the State lost its bid for tolling on Interstate 80 a couple of days ago, but the notion of putting tolls on Rt. 422, all I can say is wow! I’m usually in agreement with my friend Paul Drucker but I’m struggling with his support of tolling 422. Route 422 and ‘traffic nightmare’ are words that often find themselves in the same sentence, do we think that tolls is going to help the situation? Tolls on 422 would affect Tredyffrin residents, and I’m not convinced the affect would be positive. Am I missing something? What do you think?
To view Rep. Paul Drucker’s video in the Main Line Suburban.

Rep. Paul Drucker Favors 422 Tolling

By Jenny DeHuff
Times Herald Newspaper

State Rep. Paul Drucker, D-157th, of Montgomery and Chester counties, said he will push for the proposal that would authorize the tolling of Route 422, during an editorial board meeting at The Times Herald on Thursday.

Drucker, in his second year in the General Assembly, admitted he was not fully acquainted with some of the issues, but said the tolling of Route 422, to pay for the Schuylkill Valley Metro transportation project, was a good idea.

“As I understand the proposal, the only way that 422 can be developed, along with the light-rail line, is by tolling,” he told The Times Herald.

“Anybody who sits on 422, or wishes they were on a train, from Reading to Philadelphia or Norristown – they are just counting the days until that development is a reality.”

The busiest stretch of Route 422, which runs from King of Prussia to Reading, is more than 40 miles long. Many advocates of the plan say tolling is the only way to pay for the cost of a rail line connecting Philadelphia and Reading.

According to the Schuylkill Valley Metro Web site, the 62-mile railway system would alleviate problems consistent with growth and development along the Route 422 corridor, which touches along the river between Philadelphia, Norristown and Reading.

The project currently lacks subsidies, and whether SEPTA will commit to a dedicated funding source remains unclear.
“The plan, as it was explained to me, is that short-term users – on- and off-type users of 422, will not be tolled, because of some of the technology that is in place,” said Drucker. “Tolling will be for the people who use it during more of a steady period. The only way (the Schuylkill Valley Metro) proposal is economically viable is with tolling.”

Describing himself as “always learning” more about state house issues, Drucker said the No. 1 flaw he encountered in public service was the lack of bipartisan cooperation. “I don’t think the General Assembly is particularly efficient,” he said. “This has been a very frustrating year. I’m glad we finally got over the paralysis in the budget.”

In Forty Years There Have Been Many Changes in Tredyffrin – Unfortunately Some Things Never Change . . . Fire Company Funding

April 7, 2010
48 Comments

This topic is Community Matters at its best. I received an email yesterday with an attached Suburban and Wayne Times newspaper article dated Thursday, July 15, 1971. A reader was cleaning out his attic and came across this article and forwarded it on to me. No comment or request to post on Community Matters . . . he just thought I might find it of interest. The title of the article is, “Volunteer Firemen’s Financing is Critical”. (A link to the article at the end of this post.)

The article is based on local volunteer fire companies along the Main Line and Valley Forge, including Radnor, Berwyn and Paoli. What is both fascinating (and sad) at the same time is the plea for the volunteer firefighters funding in 1971 is exactly the same as in 2010. The tone of the article begs that more support needs be offered by the municipalities served. In discussing firefighter funding, a fire chief is quoted in the article as saying, “It has to be done on a municipality basis. It’s the township’s or borough’s responsibility to provide protection for persons and property. . . . They don’t take the responsibility . . . The volunteers do it.”

In 1970, Tredyffrin supervisors allocated $15,750 to the Berwyn fire company. Forty years ago, the Berwyn Fire Company had a deficit $1,632, due to lack of volunteer firefighter support. With populations exploding on the Main Line and aging equipment in 1971, all the fire companies were appealing to the local governments for adequate funding. There was agreement among the various fire companies, that greater support was required from the service areas. Here’s a fascinating 40-year old quote, when talking about residents, fire chiefs observed, “Many encounter surprise from new residents that the fire company isn’t a municipal service. Some persons have never even heard of a volunteer fire company, particularly those from metropolitan areas.” I am guessing that our local fire companies still encounter the same kind of remarks in 2010!

There is discussion in the article as to “What can residents do to back the volunteer fire companies”? The response was “Join!”. In 1971, the yearly dues were $1 for the Valley Forge company, $2 in East and West Whiteland, $5 per family in Berwyn and $12 per family in Paoli (which included family and ambulance service).

This post should be more than simply a walk down memory lane. It needs to be a wake-up call to the supervisors and residents. Although I have posted that Paul Olson called and told me that his solicitation committee (which included him, Lamina and Kampf) have made good on the cardboard check they presented to the Berwyn Fire Company in December, . . . there has been no official statement from the Board of Supervisors on the subject. If you recall, the cardboard check of $23,200 represented the amount the supervisors removed from the fire companies in the 2010 budget. Guess my question is where do we stand on the 2011 budget process . . . will the fire companies see their total budget reinstated? And if the township reinstate the contribution to the fire companies in the 2011 budget, what will the supervisors cut from the budget to make that happen?

We are in to the 2nd quarter of the year; has the Finance Committee begun working on the 2011 draft budget? I’m thinking that there are associated winter costs (snow removal, stormwater problems, repair of potholes, etc.) that could be considerably higher than was forecasted for in the 2010 budget. The 2011 budget process needs to be underway or there is going to be major problems come November. With the loss of Dave Brill as the township finance director, I am assuming that the supervisors need to take a very active role in the economic forecasting.

Here is a link to the 1971 newspaper article, if you would like to read it in its entirety. Funding of our fire companies is an important issue and a topic that needs to remain at the top of our priority list. Comments from the readers . . . ?

Just in . . . Carole Rubley Endorses Ken Buckwalter for PA State House 157 District

April 2, 2010
29 Comments

I received the following press release from Ken Buckwalter announcing that Carole Rubley is endorsing him for PA State House 157.

Hon. Carole Rubley endorses Kendrick Buckwalter for 157th District, Pennsylvania House of Representatives

“I respect his work ethic, his strong commitment to the community.”

PHOENIXVILLE, PA. Carole Rubley, the highly respected former member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, today announced her endorsement of Kendrick Buckwalter to become the next member of the House of Representatives from the 157th District.

Rubley said, “I have known Ken for many years. I respect his work ethic, his strong commitment to the community, and his faithful observance to our Constitution. I strongly support his candidacy for State Representative. Ken is a man of principle and integrity who stands up for the Rule of Law. He can be counted on to work fulltime for the citizens of the 157th District.”

Buckwalter, a business owner and member of Phoenixville Borough Council, said, “I’m honored to have the support of Carole Rubley. She faithfully represented our district in Harrisburg. She is a respected member of our community and I appreciate her help and her support.”

Buckwalter is running in the May 18, 2010, Republican Primary for the position. He is a recommended candidate by the Republican Committee of Chester County.

“I’m looking forward to representing the district,” Buckwalter said. “As a Councilman for eight years I’ve compiled a record of protecting taxpayers. I look to cut government programs that waste tax dollars. As a business owner for 36 years, I know the value of a dollar. I’m a businessman, not a career politician.”

Buckwalter is also a defender of the Pennsylvania Constitution. As a councilman, he filed a lawsuit when he believed council was violating a provision of the Constitution. “I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I believe in the founding principles of this country and I had a duty to challenge a violation of our laws. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unanimously upheld my view.” Buckwalter has also served his community as a volunteer firefighter and being a foster parent.

He strongly supports creating jobs, government fiscal responsibility, economic growth, entrepreneurship and personal liberties. Buckwalter has compiled an outstanding mainstream conservative record as a councilman. “I believe in conservative values, fiscal sanity, transparency, honesty, law and order and family values,” Buckwalter said.

Some Community Updates . . .

April 1, 2010
2 Comments

Some Community Matters updates . . .

1. Local Job Fair: State Representative Paul Drucker’s Job Fair yesterday in Phoenixville was an enormous success . . . over 400 job seekers attended! Rep. Drucker reported that people were lined up outside the convention center and down the street prior to opening of the event. Over 40 companies participated in the Job Fair including the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, Social Security Administration, Cosi, Chesterbrook Academy, Wegmans, Northwestern Mutual, TD Bank, to name a few. Rep. Drucker told me that he knows of one employer who hired 5 people yesterday! Sounds like it was a good day for employers and prospective employees. Great job Paul!

2. Fire Company Funding: Supervisor Paul Olson called me yesterday to provide an update on the status of the ‘cardboard check’ to the fire companies — yes, he referred to it as a cardboard check. In December at a Board of Supervisors meeting, the supervisors unveiled a cardboard check in the amount of $23,200 which was to make up the fire company deficit that was removed in the 2010 township budget. Through supervisor fundraising efforts by Supervisors Lamina, Kampf and Olson, Olson explained that they had exceeded the dollar amount of the cardboard check. The total collected of approximately $25,000 was turned over to Rip Tilden of the Berwyn Fire Company for distribution to the fire companies. No information was provided as to the actual source of the contributions. However, one of the individual contributors told me that she received a thank-you from all 3 fire companies so presumably the money has been distributed.

3. TESD 2010-11 Budget: Malvern resident Ray Clarke took the advice of Community Matters readers. Based on posts and comments, Ray has a letter to the TESD School Board with the following list of questions. Here’s hoping that the School Board will consider these questions as they prepare for the important upcoming Finance meeting on April 19. Thanks Ray.

  • Can the school district impose a PIT on the residents?
  • Does Act 511 permit the District imposing PIT?
  • Would imposing PIT require voter referendum?
  • Would the imposition of PIT reduce property taxes?
  • Is a voter referendum required for EIT?
  • If there was an EIT, how would the split of revenue work between Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships?
  • Does an EIT reduce the property tax bill?
  • Would both townships be required to have an EIT in place to receive the revenue? Or, would the townships receive their portion of the school district’s EIT revenue?
  • Would there be a difference to the teacher unions in regards to an EIT or PIT?
  • Does the rate have to be the same for both townships?
  • What are the options for splitting the revenues between townships and school district, and does the split have to be the same in each township?
  • What is the exact nature of the reciprocity arrangements with neighboring jurisdictions, particularly Philadelphia
  • What will be the estimated financial impact to townships and school district, under various likely scenarios of rate and split, on the following dimensions:
    a) Incremental taxes paid by township residents
    b) Taxes currently paid by township residents to other municipalities that will stay in T/E
    c) Taxes paid by non-residents
    d) The total of the above

I’m glad to provide updates to ongoing community issues; let me know if you have anything new to report.

Mt. Pleasant Update . . . 1 house demolished, 3 still standing

March 28, 2010
5 Comments

Here’s an update on the vacant houses on Henry and Fairview Avenues in Mt. Pleasant, the site of the new townhouse development. Mt. Pleasant resident Christine Johnson notified me that Maizie Hall’s house on Henry Ave was demolished yesterday. I’m not sure exactly what motivated the developer yesterday to start the demolishing process (could it have been the wide circulation of my photos?) but I’m impressed!

Not knowing the status on the other 3 houses (2 are on Henry Ave. and the house is around the corner on Fairview Ave.) I drove over to Mt. Pleasant this afternoon. I found quite the pile of rubble where Maizie Hall’s house stood a couple of days ago. In addition to the rubble, 3 other houses remain on the property that are slated for demolition. Three large pieces of equipment are on site, so I am assuming that these houses will be coming down in the next few days. If you would like to see photos of the other houses that remain on site, click here for a slideshow. To see the individual photos in Mt. Pleasant, click here.

All that remains of Maizie Hall's childhood home.

These crumbling steps are located at 985 Fairview Avenue . . . they lead to an abandoned, vacant house on the site of the new townhouse community coming to Mt. Pleasant. Maizie Hall’s house was demolished yesterday and I am assuming that the big heavy equipment that is on site will be removing the other 3 houses, including the Fairview Ave. house.

While I was at Mt. Pleasant today, I met the next-door neighbor of the planned townhouse development. He was glad to see the abandoned houses coming down but pointed out that 2 of the houses that are still standing, have actually been vacant and abandoned for at least 5 years . . . apparently the developer purchased those 2 houses at a foreclosure bank sale. To leave his house for the last 5 years, this Mt. Pleasant neighbor has had to go past these rundown, abandoned houses. I guess he is glad to see some movement on their demolition.

Township Park Ordinance in Violation of State Law . . . so says resident and member of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association

March 20, 2010
7 Comments

A couple of days ago I received an anonymous comment from gunrights-tredyffrintownship. This was an interesting comment for several reasons. Those of you who have been following Community Matters will recall my fascination and naivete over the recent firearms in national parks legislation. That discussion extended to a broader discussion of gun control in the community. Of all the issues that have been discussed on Community Matters, I think this topic generated more dinner table conversation and heated debate than anything else. Recently I met someone for the first time and they brought up the gun control discussion on Community Matters . . . go figure.

This brings me to today’s posting. Below you will find a series of email exchanges between gunrights-tredyffrintownship (an anonymous Community Matters commentor using that name) and the Board of Supervisors and discussion with Tom Hogan. At issue is the signage in our township parks in regards to guns. When it comes to the ability to carry guns in our township parks, apparently Tredyffrin Township’s park ordinance and signs are in violation of Pennsylvania state law. I never read the small print on our township park signs but I guess I will the next time I visit. This person has all of his/her emails with the township posted on the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association forum, located at: http://forum.pafoa.org. It appeared that the email trail ended with a conversation with Tom Hogan late last year. There was an addendeum to the comment that stated the resident was waiting for a further update in regards to the park signage, but so far in 2010 has not received anything further.

There is a cost to changing the signs (the commentator offers suggestions) . . . what do you think? Should our park signs be corrected? From the timeline of this email discussion, it would suggest that this person has been waiting for an answer. Do you think that it should be addressed at a Board of Supervisors meeting?

Preemption Violation – Tredyffrin Township

Dear Board of Supervisors,

I am a resident of Tredyffrin Township and a member of an organization called The Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association. I would like to bring to the attention of the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors a township ordinance that appears to be in violation of state law. I became aware of this issue when I recently visited Louis D’Ambrosia Park and read the park rules sign posted there.

Further research led me to Chapter 138 of the Township Code, Parks and Playgrounds, Section 3 Regulations, Subsection J, which states the following:

“No person, other than township active duty police officers employed in the execution of their duties, shall carry or possess or discharge or use firearms or weapons of any type in a township park. [Amended 6-1-1998 by Ord. No. HR-270]”

This law is in violation of Title 18, Chapter 61, Subchapter A (otherwise known as The Uniform Firearms Act), specifically §6120 (a) that states:

“General rule: No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth.”

The preemption statute I quoted was passed in 1995. I am unsure when regulation J was passed. It may have been in place before 1995, explaining why it could have been overlooked. Unfortunately there was no grandfathering of existing limitations when The Uniform Firearms Act was passed. Regulation “J” as it stands today is invalid with regards to the carrying or possessing a firearm in a township park.

I know some people might want to know why someone would want to carry a firearm in a township park. The answer may be as simple as they carry a firearm daily. I know I do. But that question is not really the issue.

The preemption statute I quoted is very important for Pennsylvanians that legally carry a firearm, in that it removes the problem of a traveling citizen running afoul of a myriad of local laws prohibiting where you can and cannot carry a firearm. In other words, licensed or otherwise legal carriers of firearms in Pennsylvania can carry everywhere not prohibited by state or federal law.

Of particular interest to Tredyffrin Township is that since this rule is unenforceable, there could be negative consequences should an unknowing person, or even one choosing to ignore the rule knowing it is null and void, happen to be cited or otherwise confronted. If a police officer were to enforce such rule or ordinance, wrongful arrest and other charges could be laid on the officer, the police department and Tredyffrin Township– not an inexpensive proposition.

I respectfully ask that the Board of Supervisors look into this matter. Please let me know how you and your colleagues will proceed with bringing Tredyffrin Township in compliance with state law. A copy of §6120 is also attached.

Awaiting your response, I remain,

Most respectfully yours,

I sent the first letter on September 22nd. After receiving no response, I sent the following e-mail to the Chairman on October 7th.

Quote:

From: xxxxxxx xxxxx [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx@verizon.net]
To: Warren E. Kampf
Subject: Initial correspondence

Warren,
Several weeks ago I sent a letter to you and your fellow supervisors
regarding a township park ordinance. As of today I have not received a
response. Did you receive my initial correspondence?

Thank You,

Today I received this reply:

Quote:
Warren E. Kampf wrote:
we did and we are looking into it.

My response tonight was:

Quote:
Warren,
Thanks for getting back to me. I assume the Township Solicitor will be in touch with me when he is complete?

Thanks,

Since they meet twice a month, every other Monday, it shouldn’t be difficult to attend a meeting if I fail to hear from the solicitor soon. I also was contacted by a local newspaper reporter and have been keeping him in the loop regarding progress. I will continue to update as things move forward.

Re: Preemption Violation–Tredyffrin Township–Chester County

________________________________

Update, 6 days ago the Chairman sent me this reply:

Quote:
Warren E. Kampf wrote:
we did and we are looking into it.

My response to that was:

Quote:
Warren,
Thanks for getting back to me. I assume the Township Solicitor will be in touch with me when he is complete?

Thanks,

Yesterday I received this:

Quote:
Either he will or someone from township will.

Nice one sentence responses I get from the Chairman. You would think the least he would do is properly address the person he is communicating with and maybe sign the end of the e-mail.

Re: Preemption Violation–Tredyffrin Township–Chester County

——————————————————————————–

That lets you know how important you are, in his eyes. Perhaps it’s time to start campaigning to elect a new chairman?
__________________

Re: Preemption Violation–Tredyffrin Township–Chester County

___________________

Good news to report here. I received a letter on Friday from the township solicitor, Thomas Hogan, requesting I call him to discuss the letter I sent the supervisors. Around 2:30 pm I called his office. After exchanging greetings with him, the first words out of his mouth were, “I’m in receipt of your letter, and am in complete agreement with your legal position.” I almost fell off my chair.

After reading threads about defiant townships, boroughs, etc, this is not the answer I expected. He also informed me he made a call to the Chief of Police, Andy Chambers. He said he would probably speak with him over the weekend and inform him that the department could not enforce the ordinance because it violates the state preemption law. I almost fell off the chair again.

In the next few minutes of our discussion, Mr. Hogan asked me if I had any immediate concerns, upcoming events in a township park, or if I was worried about this particular ordinance. I reiterated what I said in my letter to the supervisors about gun carriers dodging a myriad of local regulations and if someone were falsely arrested due to this ordinance it would not be right.

I then told him I was happy to see he was in agreement with my concerns and stated the next steps needed to be a repeal/revision of the ordinance, and modifying the signs in the township parks. He said he would speak with the supervisors about how they would like to handle the ordinance part of my concerns. Then came the sign issue. He went on to say the township has a lot of parks and signs and the cost associated with changing all the signs would be an expensive proposition, but next time they change the signs they could modify them.

I told him they could either cover up the part about firearms, or heat up the stick on letters and peel them off. He said he would contact the public works department for how to handle this. Since he was very cooperative and understanding of my concerns, I didn’t want to press him too hard on the sign issue yet. He seems dedicated to addressing these two issues and bringing them to a resolution that is to my satisfaction, so I will continue to work with him. He said I should hear back from him in about one week. He said I might need to appear before the supervisors with him and ask for the ordinance to be repealed/modified. This depends on how the supervisors wish to handle it.

This is how all of the preemption violations we contest should be handled. Mr. Hogan’s professionalism was very refreshing. While many of us are quick to fire off letters and e-mails to persons who infringe on our rights, we should also thank those who work with us in the preservation of those rights and follow the rule of law.

State Rep. Paul Drucker's Bill to encourage 'green' building for schools passes House

March 17, 2010
Comments

News from Harrisburg . . . Our State Rep. Paul Drucker’s House Bill 689 to provide incentives for school districts to construct cleaner and more efficient schools has passed the House with a vote of 106-85. My understanding is the roots of this legislative bill began in 2008 under former State Rep. Carole Rubley’s direction. With some 2009/10 updating, Rep. Drucker was able to successfully move the bill through the House’s voting process. The following is excerpted from Pennsylvania State House press release:

Current law requires school boards to first receive voter approval before commencing any major construction plans over a certain dollar amount, including new buildings or significant renovations. That law, he said, inadvertently impedes the construction of environmentally friendly schools due to the high up-front cost, which may push the cost of green construction over the limit. House Bill 689 would exclude any costs incurred by a school district in the construction of a school building that meets the Green Building Standard from the calculation of construction costs when determining if voter approval is needed. At a minimum, Green Building Standard projects must include performance-based credits that will improve a building’s energy performance and promote the use of environmentally friendly building materials and technologies. Documentation to support the energy efficiency of the project is required. Green Building Standard projects must also employ third-party, post-construction review and have a performance record of certified green buildings in the United States.

The bill includes a requirement that Green Building Standard costs be submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Education at the same time that construction cost estimates are submitted for approval. Drucker said that inclusion of Green Building Standard costs with construction costs would allow districts to demonstrate any long-term savings produced by investment in green building technologies.

“Over time, green buildings save money by reducing energy costs and provide a healthier internal air quality for our children,” Drucker said. “My bill would allow school districts to realize these long-term benefits without being burdened by the up-front costs associated with green building.”

Rep. Drucker’s bill will now go to the Senate for consideration and here’s hoping for a successful outcome!

State Rep Paul Drucker to Host Job Fair on March 31 in Phoenixville

March 12, 2010
8 Comments

State Rep Paul Drucker’s March newsletter arrived in the mail yesterday and contained an important announcement for those in the community that are looking for a job. Together with PA Department of Labor & Industry, Rep Drucker is hosting a Job Fair on Wednesday, March 31, 2-5 PM at the Phoenixville Civic Center, 123 Main Street, Phoenixville. The job fair will include a resume writing workshop and job hunting seminars. Job opportunities at all levels will be available.

Rep Drucker is reporting that the following industries are confirmed to be on-hand:

  • Human Services
  • Retail/Restaurant
  • Non-Profit
  • Healthcare
  • Insurance
  • Financial Services
  • Early Childhood Education

Employers from various additional industries are also expected to be in attendance. The event will also feature job opportunities for veterans. Admission is free and business attire is encouraged. This is good news for local job-seekers. If you are in the job market, mark your calendar for March 31. Thank you Rep Drucker for offering this opportunity to the residents in your legislative district!

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme