Tredyffrin Township Archives - Page 111 of 130

Tredyffrin Township

I found a couple of interesting political notes in the last couple of days . . .

On the Republican side: Phoenixville Councilman Ken Buckwalter (R) who is running in the Pennsylvania State House 157 primary race, has received an endorsement from longtime friend Ed Shanaughy. You may not know Ed personally but I bet that you know his restaurant – Our Deli in Paoli (with the large steer out front). Ed served as president of Paoli Fire Company for 35 years, recently stepping down (John Beatty is now president) to become the fire company’s Chairman of the Board. As a Director of Paoli Business and Professional Association, Ed serves with me on the Board as Director Emeritus.

Both Ken and Ed are local small business owners and have known each other for 30 years; in fact Ken attributes some of his early success with Buckwalter Framing to Ed’s support. Ken Buckwalter stated in his press release,

“To have his [Ed Shanaughy] endorsement is gratifying. I had stated at the candidate interviews in early February that I live in one major end of the district and have done business for many years in the other. I am well-known throughout, and my public service is largely without controversy.”

On the Democrat side: I found this next political tidbit an interesting sidebar on the local Pennsylvania Senate primary race, Senator Arlen Specter (D) vs. Congressman Joe Sestak (D). Yesterday in a press release, Specter claimed that Sestak does not pay all his campaign staffers a living wage, or even the minimum wage, unless they are a member of his family. Specter’s report shows Sestak employees receiving what appears to be far less than the minimum wage. The response from Sestak’s camp is that those are all part-time employees who split their time; people who work 10 percent of their time for the campaign.

In a second press release today, Specter called for Sestak to clarify the reports, or turn himself into the authorities for violating minimum wage law requirements. Sestak’s email response to Specter’s latest pronouncement,

“It’s a shame with the enormous challenges facing our country that Senator Specter is spending his time working on this, rather than focusing on getting our economy in shape or reforming our healthcare system. This kind of petty diversion and focus on personal attacks is why so many people hate Washington-style politics.”

The Mega-Billion Dollar Lawsuits of Brian O'Neill and Citizens Bank Will Not Keep Wegmans Supermarket from Opening!

February 27, 2010

2 Comments

Like many people I have been watching the progress (or lack there of) of the Uptown Worthington project on Route 29 in Malvern. Back in the fall, Citizens Bank had sued Brian O’Neill and O’Neill Properties for $61 million, claiming that the company had defaulted on bank loans. Last month, Brian O’Neill countersued Citizens Bank for $8 billion in damages ($4 billion in compensatory damages and $4 billion in punitive damages), claiming that the bank wrongly called for loans before they were due and that the bank did not follow through with their end of the agreement with construction financing. With O’Neill and Citizens Bank pointing fingers at each other, I was concerned where that left the project. I feared that Uptown Worthington would just become a very expensive mud hole, and one we could look at from 202 for years to come.

The $540 million Uptown Worthington mixed-town center plan called for 752,500 square feet of lifestyle retail space, 227,960 square feet of office space, 753 residential units and 160,000 square feet of hotel space. The site location of Uptown Worthington is on Route 29, between Route 202 and Route 30 in Malvern. My real fascination with this project, beyond the obvious unfinished appearance of the 100 acre site, was the Wegmans supermarket story. A planned anchor store at the Uptown Worthington center, construction had continued on Wegmans. But after multiple delayed openings, I wondered if the grocery store would remain shuttered; a byproduct of the legal wrangling of O’Neill and Citizens Bank.

Good news. I received what I hope is official news; Wegmans supermarket is nearing completion and is set to open in June! Further good news, Wegmans has decided to model the Worthington location after the Collegeville Wegmans. Yes, our new Wegmans will have ‘The Pub’ inside the supermarket. Of the 75 stores in the Wegmans chain, the Collegeville store was the only one with a supermarket pub. This was a social experiment of sorts, connecting one of life’s most mundane chores of grocery-shopping with something that could go a long way toward blunting its misery: alcohol. I have a husband that hates running out to the grocery store, but that attitude may change with the opening of Wegmans. Wegmans will offer spirits for consumption on the premises and will also sell six-packs of beer for carryout. For the singles in the area, there’s even a chance for romance. Apparently, the pub at Collegeville’s Wegmans is reporting one engagement – with the happy couple toasted with champagne.

The Pub experiment at the Wegmans Collegeville location was intended to fill a gap in the store’s Market Café complex, where shoppers can buy prepared foods either to take out or to eat at nearby tables. The Pub is a full-service restaurant where you have a complete meal and enjoy a drink with the meal. Assuming that our Malvern Wegmans stays with the Collegeville model, domestic 12-oz beers go for $3.75; 15-oz drafts range from $3-4. Wine is $5 a glass. Cocktails – $5.25 to $10. And no tipping allowed! The notion being that you don’t tip the guy at the deli counter for a pound of roast beef. I wonder if Wegmans thinks that if you have a drink or two, you may end of running up that grocery tab. You come in, have a couple of cocktails and may buy all sorts of things you didn’t come in for.

Our new Worthington Wegmans supermarket is advertising that it will be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The opening of Wegmans is just one more reason to countdown to spring!

Semi-Automatic Weapons in Valley Forge National Historical Park . . . Do You Feel Safer?

February 26, 2010

52 Comments

This past week brought much discussion on Community Matters about sidewalks, trails and paths. Several people suggested that if you want to walk or bicycle, why not just use the paths at Valley Forge National Historical Park. With that in mind, I wrote the following post with the hope of engaging some lively discussion.

______________________________________________________

The next time you decide to visit Valley Forge Park to enjoy a bicycle ride or an afternoon of sledding with the kids, are you going to feel safer?

Did you know that as of this week, fellow visitors with proper gun permits can legally pack heat inside our national parks, including Valley Forge National Historical Park?

Yes, a law that took effect Monday lifted the long-standing ban on bringing guns into our national parks. In Valley Forge National Historical Park, as we walk the trails and enjoy family picnics, tourists will be allowed to carry guns – handguns, rifles, shotguns and AK-47s. Now, as long as guns are allowed by state law, licensed gun owners can bring firearms on park property. Guns will be allowed in all but about 20 of the park service’s 392 locations, including some of its most iconic parks: Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, Yosemite and Rocky Mountain National Park, as well as historic parks, including our own Valley Forge National Historical Park. Guns will not be allowed in visitor centers or rangers’ offices, because firearms are banned in federal buildings, but they could be carried into private lodges or concession stands, depending on state laws.

The new rule allows people to carry firearms, including semi-automatic weapons, in most national parks and wildlife refuges, so long as they follow the gun laws of the state. (That could get a little complicated, as more than 30 parks occupy land in multiple states.) The rule means people can now carry concealed weapons while camping in places like Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon and Yosemite.

I admit up front that I am one of the people with issues concerning the availability of guns in this country. My stance on stricter gun control rules will certainly strike a chord among some of the readers. I know the argument that strict gun control does not reduce crime because it does not keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. Criminals do not abide by waiting periods or registration requirements. The only people affected by these so-called “gun control” measures are law-abiding citizens, who are rendered less able to resist crime. However almost daily, our world is filled with news of gun violence in this country . . . in shopping malls, on college campuses, office buildings.

Gun crimes in any setting are horrific. However, crimes committed on the grounds of an academic institution take on an almost macabre air because of the serene atmosphere associated with such places. Gun violence on school campuses is a stark reminder that guns cannot discriminate amongst their victims, nor can they discern the intentions of those who wield them. This is repeated so often that it may as well be a cliché. If events over the past decade are any indicator, no positive response seems forthcoming. Though it is a human who pulls the trigger, there is no violent crime without the proverbial smoking gun. National parks [Valley Forge National Historical Park] like our educational institutions, are places that enshrine the ideals of knowledge and tranquility . . . should we not feel beholden to preserve these places as a utopian ideal for the future? Do we want to be remembered as the generation that put guns into paradise?

The way I see it there are two camps on this. First, there are the people who will feel safer knowing that they can be armed in our national parks, just in case they run into troublesome people or dangerous wildlife. The second group will feel more unsafe. You willl never know who is armed, and anytime there is a confrontation, firearms bring a whole new sense of alarm into the equation. Once you pull that trigger, there’s no taking it back. From my vantage point, toting firearms into our national parks poses a serious threat to the public. There, I said it. Personally, the next time I am walking in Valley Forge National Historical Park, I am not going to feel safer knowing that fellow visitors on the path may be legally packing a weapon.

The new law permitting licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks has come over the objections of gun-control advocates who fear it will lead to increased violence in national parks. Responding to the new law, John Waterman, President, US Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police offered the following statement:

The Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police has opposed this ill-considered law from the beginning. The new law goes beyond concealed carry to include all guns anytime. The chances of an inexperienced visitor who has not seen a bear or buffalo wandering through a campground, gets frightened and takes out the now readily available firearm and shoots blindly at an animal or a person in a misguided effort to “protect themselves” from a perceived threat is now increased. Allowing untrained and unlicensed people carrying guns in National Parks is an invitation to disaster. It puts the safety of the public and rangers at increased risk and virtually invites the desecration of our natural and historic treasures.

Pennsylvania has fairly loose restrictions on carrying guns. As long as a person is legally entitled to own a firearm – for instance they must have no past felony convictions, mental-health commitments or protection-from-abuse order restrictions – there is little stop a person from carrying a gun in public. I am sure that there will be readers who completely disagree with my position on the danger of guns in Valley Forge National Historical Park. In fact, I am certain that some people will suggest that their ‘right’ to carry a gun should not stop at the park entrance.

Township Lawsuit . . . Where Does it Stand?

February 25, 2010

21 Comments

I received the following from John Petersen this morning in regards to the township lawsuit. There has been much discussion and debate concerning the lawsuit; I think it is important that the facts be presented in John’s own words.

Just so everyone is clear about the [law]suit – I did speak with Tom Hogan at length on Tuesday. I have decided, for the time being, to stand down on the suit so that the subcommittee can go forward.

However….

I have made it clear that the new subcommittee cannot suffer the same fate as the BAWG. I, along with many of the people here, will pay close attention to happens with that process. I note with interest, the stimulus funds that have been received on behalf of sidewalks. I do wonder what this new process means for those funds….

I want to leave you with Bruce Parkinson’s comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8aILCXIcLQ

When he looked to his left, he was looking at me: re his comments about this matter being a “political football”. If there is a political football, it is because Kampf, Lamina, and especially Olson, have made it so. My issue is about following the rules. Parkinson on the the other hand, apparently believes that as a member of the club and the club itself, is subject to a different set of rules. And to that end, the government can break its own rules for the benefit of the club and its members. At least, I think that is what he was saying. When it comes to political footballs, I take Parkinson’s comments to be nothing short of a political threat.

in other words, they were instrumental in getting people like Olson back on the board…they could be instrumental in getting people removed. In other words, Parkinson was telling the BOS to “play ball.” There is simply no other way to take his comments.

For the record, Parkinson is a local committee for the GOP and is also a member of the county GOP executive committee. Further, he was chairman of the building committee in 2005 when the development was approved.

Parkinson was the one, along with the club president, to agree to the sidewalks. You didn’t hear him talk about that on Monday….did you????

I simply do not have any more time to waste on folks that are so intellectually weak that they could be placed in a position to break the rules (Kampf, Lamina, Olson and Richter). And for sure, I don’t have any more time and patience to deal with the country club set and that faction of the GOP that believes it is OK to corrupt the government so long as it suits their needs.

I believe that if I went to court, I would prevail. However, that victory would not result in a thorough review of the sidewalks, trails and paths. That is what the subcommittee is supposed to do.

If it turns out to be a ruse, there will a stiff price to pay for that.

Political committee seats folks..that is where the path to taking our government and community back begins. That is what I’ll be concentrating on now.

Views from the High School, Part I: Conestoga Students Support Their Teachers During TESD Budget Discussion

February 25, 2010

8 Comments

Members of Conestoga High School editorial staff weighed in on the District’s 2010-11 budget deficit in a recent issue of The Spoke. There were a couple of editorials that I found of particular interest and will post them separately. This Op/Ed piece indicates student support for their teachers; attributing their educational successes to the faculty. Based on past TESD budget and teacher union commentary on this site, views from our high school students present another interesting angle. Do you think that the views of these specific students are representative of the student body? Do you think that the teachers influence the students; in hopes that the students will help influence their parents (the taxpayers)? Comments, anyone?

With early dismissal of school today, maybe local teachers and students can offer their opinions. I will provide Views from the High School, Part II in a separate post.

Printed originally on p. 7 of The Spoke’s Feb. 23, 2010 edition.

Unsigned editorials represent the views of The Spoke editorial board, and not necessarily those of the administration, student body, community or advertisers.

Defining our education

The recent economic downturn is affecting all corners of the country, causing numerous financial problems and leading to the loss of millions of dollars and jobs, both at the national and the local level.

As evidenced by the Tredyffrin/Easttown School District’s budget proposal for next year, the school board is also experiencing economic pressures as it tries to overcome a $9.25 million deficit without sacrificing the quality of the district’s educational program.

Nevertheless, to the consternation of many students and parents, the school board is making an age-old mistake. When tackling budget issues, all businesses naturally target areas with large expenditures. For schools, this leads to the reduction of some very important individuals: the teachers.

In a draft of budget reduction proposals discussed on Feb. 8, the school board’s finance committee acknowledged that “change is particularly challenging in schools where success has become the norm.” While this may be true, the board must also recognize that any success of the students is directly attributable to the high caliber teaching staff we have in the district today.

Still, several proposals in the budget draft will undoubtedly affect some of the most commendable employees in the field. Part of the proposal states that 19 teachers, including those who plan to retire or resign, will no longer be part of the school district next year. An increase in the number of instructional periods for Conestoga teachers is also recommended in the draft.

If this latter suggestion becomes a mandate, high school teachers will have to bear the brunt of extra pressure. An integral part of the school community, teachers serve as accomplished role models for students both inside and outside the classroom. Always available during school, teachers nurture individual student growth and help create learned citizens of the world—all this in a day’s work.

In fairness to the board, we in T/E are facing trying times, and difficult decisions must be made. However, teachers are invaluable resources that cannot be removed simply to alleviate economic woes. They are the most important and influential members of the school community and sacrificing them—though it may offer temporary economic relief—will only have a detrimental effect on the overall growth of students.

The suggestions made in the budget draft are not set in stone, though, and any ideas presented in the proposal can be changed. We, the Conestoga student body, need to step up. If you don’t like certain aspects of the proposal, then make your voice heard. Instead of showing your displeasure through Facebook posts, go to a school board meeting and directly address those who are involved in the decision-making process. It is, after all, your education. It’s your future.

The Good, The Bad, The Ugly Cable Show Hosts Bill DeHaven & Dan D'Addizio Invite John Petersen for an Episode

February 25, 2010

3 Comments

Former Township Supervisor Bill DeHaven and sidekick Dan D’Addizio have hosted the local cable TV show, The Good, The Bad, The Ugly for several years. Their lively discussion on township situations runs the gamut from traffic issues to local politics and everything in between. Down-home charm, amusing stories and their honest way of looking at everyday issues have created a perfect formula for Bill and Dan in the township’s cable TV line-up. About 3 years ago, Judy DiFilippo and I had the pleasure of joining Bill and Dan on their show to talk about the events that we had planned for Tredyffrin 300 — a wonderful experience!

Local political activist John Petersen joined Bill and Dan on the set of The Good, The Bad, The Ugly this week. The taping occurred post-Monday night’s Board of Supervisors Meeting. I am sure John offered his opinion on the supervisors meeting as well as providing his own local political observations.

The Good, The Bad, The Ugly with John’s appearance is scheduled for tonight at 8 PM. Grab your popcorn . . . and tune in for some lively discussion!

You can find The Good, The Bad, The Ugly as follows:

Comcast – Channel 2, Verizon – Channel 24

Air-Times:
• Sunday, 8:00 AM
• Monday, 8:00 AM
• Monday, 2:00 PM
• Thursday, 8:00 PM
• Saturday, 8:00 PM

Main Line Suburban Life Weighs in on Board of Supervisors Meeting and St. Davids Golf Club Motion

February 24, 2010

Comments

Today’s Main Line Suburban Life newspaper offered the following article by Blair Meadowcroft concerning the recent Board of Supervisors Meeting and the St. Davids Golf Club Motion. I decided to post this article because it quotes John Petersen as saying that he intends to move forward with the lawsuit against the township. As of today, John has changed his mind and will not file the lawsuit. Rather than people reading this article and misunderstanding, I thought it best to clarify the situation. John has left on a business trip otherwise I would let him explain . . . perhaps he will offer an explanation for his decision once he gets to Austin.

Tredyffrin board votes to look at St. Davids Golf Club controversy

By Blair Meadowcroft

The St. Davids Golf Club issue, which has been a heated debate for weeks in Tredyffrin Township, has taken yet another turn.

First the Board of Supervisors voted 4-3 to approve a motion to release $25,000 from an escrow account to the golf club on Jan. 25. Then on Feb. 8 three of the four supervisors who approved the motion publicly apologized, saying their actions were not perfect. Two weeks later, after getting requests from numerous residents to reverse the vote, Chairman Bob Lamina offered a new motion that he hoped would serve as a “solution.”

Specifically the motion stated that the vote made on Jan. 25 “be reversed and rescinded.” While this on its own made residents happy, more conditions were added to the motion that quickly changed their opinion. According to the motion, the BOS, Planning Commission and Sidewalks, Trails and Paths Committee (STAP) will form a subcommittee to “begin a process to re-examine where the community wants and needs sidewalks.” Under this motion the committee will look at the “conditions upon which the Planning Commission may from time to time grant relief from our land-development ordinance” among other specific assessments including prioritization and funding sources.

According to Lamina the subcommittee will be initiated in March and the process of re-evaluating should be done by the end of the year.

“I hope this motion can get us back to where we should have been all along,” said Lamina. “We need to get back into a dialogue process for paths and sidewalks in the township. My hope is that we can move forward together and not look backward.”

According to Township Manager Mimi Gleason, the idea of discussing and defining the greenworks network, which is a part of the Comprehensive Plan, had been considered, and such an assessment, if done, would hopefully gain resident input on what is wanted or needed in the township.

However, in response to Lamina’s motion, residents questioned why there wasn’t a simple reversal without added conditions. Many suggested the board divide the motion into two separate parts, and requested to see it in writing and be given time to consider it before taking a vote. The underlying feeling from those who spoke at the meeting was that the residents no longer trust the board and therefore question its actions.

“I wrote the motion with the idea that this was a comprehensive response to the discussions and comments that have been made, and that it would put us to where we were before,” said Lamina. “There is no deal, no reasoning behind the second part of the motion. This is just trying to move forward.”

According to Lamina, St. Davids officials confirmed their continued obligation to put in sidewalks, and that everyone he had spoken to regarding the proposed motion was on board.

As one of the supervisors who originally voted against the motion Jan. 25, John DiBuonaventuro stated that he supported the new motion on the table because “if anything less than a genuine evaluation comes out of this, I will speak up against it and so will you, and for now we have to get past this.”

After hearing varied comments from residents, most of whom were against the motion, as well as comments from board members in favor of it, Lamina held a vote. The board unanimously passed the motion.

As a result of the conditions placed on the motion, Tredyffrin resident and one-time supervisor John Petersen has decided to sue the township. Before the meeting Monday night, Petersen had written up a complaint against the township and specifically the four supervisors who originally voted in favor of the motion. His intention was to wait to see how the meeting played out and then decide whether or not to serve the township the papers.

“They did not do what I requested, which was to formally reverse, in pure form, what happened on Jan. 25,” said Petersen. “I asked for declaratory judgment stating that what happened was wrong, but Monday night there was no admission or recognition that what happened was against the Home Rule Charter, Paul Olson never apologized and the board didn’t simply reverse the vote; they added new conditions.”

According to Petersen, his plan is to review the lawsuit and make a few changes, and will go forward with this within the week.

“I am going to remove the individual names from the lawsuit because the focus of this now is about the township and the board as a collective whole and wanting them to do the right thing,” said Petersen. “With the unanimous action from the board, there is no reason to distinguish the members.”

He went on to say that no such lawsuit should have to be filed, and that his filing will be subject to the board “doing the right thing.”

“All I am asking is that the court declares what happened as illegal, and that the vote made last night was null and void,” said Petersen. “I want everything to go back to exactly the way it was before Jan. 25.”

Board of Supervisors 2/22/10 Meeting . . . St. Davids Golf Club Motion

February 24, 2010

37 Comments

BOS Meeting 2–22-10 Part I: St. Davids Golf Club Motion. Here is the YouTube video clip of Monday’s St. Davids motion made by Lamina, seconded by Olson.

Below is the motion made at Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors’ meeting, February 22, 2010 in regards to the St. Davids Golf Club escrow and the development of the subcommittee. The exact wording of the St. Davids motion was taken from the Tredyffrin Township website, www.tredyffrin.org; the motion is as follows:

I hereby move that the Board’s motion of January 25 regarding St. David’s be reversed and rescinded; and do hereby further resolve that the Board of Supervisor’s form a joint Subcommittee with the Planning Commission and the STAP to begin a process to reexamine where the community wants and needs sidewalks, with a goal that this Board may adopt more formal policies and procedures to provide additional guidelines relative to design, development and construction of the sidewalks and paths in the Township atlarge. At a minimum, this re-assessment should address both the timing, prioritization, funding sources, the conditions upon which the planning commission may from time-totime grant relief from our land development ordinance, and recommend any other changes the prospective new policy might require. While the subcommittee process take place, neither the Board or the Township will be formally moving to compel St. David’s to build the path, until the new policies are adopted or the Township has put in place designs and funding for sidewalks or paths that would connect to the proposed St. David’s pathway. The Subcommittee in carrying out its re-assessment will seek input and participation from the Public and the Committee’s involved which necessarily will include the Planning Commission and the STAP.

Motion made by Lamina; Second by Olson

__________________________________________________________

T/E School Board Meeting, 2/22/10 . . . Meeting Highlights from Malvern Resident Ray Clarke

February 23, 2010

1 Comment

In addition to the Board of Supervisors Meeting last night, at the same time there was a T/E School Board Meeting at Conestoga HS. As usual, my friend Ray Clarke kindly attended the School Board meeting and took notes. Here are the notes . . . thank you Ray!

Selected highlights from the School Board meeting, chaired last night with a light hand by Jim Bruce:

1. The extension of Dr Waters’ contract for a further 5 years. The last item on the Agenda, but given ample discussion. Strong support from the Board, led by Kevin Mahoney, and from community members. There is no salary increase for the full term, and it was emphasized that there are no “side deals” and that effort was made to ensure that this is a “clean contract” It will be available on the district web site soon.

This support seems to me well-deserved (taking the administration’s response ot the budget deficit elimination challenge as one recent example) and it says much about the Board’s commitment to transparency (a word much used last night) and to fiscal restraint, with its benchmark for future contracts of all types. One downside to leadership longevity (Dr Waters will have been the Superintendent for 16 years in 2015) is that you might miss the fresh ideas that an outsider can bring. That perspective can come in part from the Board, and it’s encouraging that we continue to see probing questions from Rich Brake.

2. Bill DeHaven reminded us of the times he climbed the fence at Teamer Field to play football, but more significantly spoke of the Citizen Soldier project that has compiled into a book the names of all T/E residents who served in all the nation’s conflicts up to World War II. The book, available at the CHS and township libraries, is dedicated to its prime mover and my good friend and open space visionary, the late Neil McAloon.

3. Nothing new on the budget, except that – per the Finance Committee discussion – the strategies are being regrouped to link related items, and this list will be available on the web site likely late this week. I had hoped we might hear about substantive discussions of the TEEA offers alluded to at the Finance Committee meeting, but it seems there is nothing to report. Kevin Mahoney emphasized that the Board is taking a 3-5 year perspective on the finances – clearly critical when one element of the near term solution is to use the fund balance, which can only go so far. The Board has recently met with local legislators about the PSERS problem

4. Three items related to our district going digital: a) On line course options will be increased for 2010/11 to 25 courses not currently offered at CHS; b) acknowledgment of the role of blogs like Community Matters as well as all community input (a long list of correspondence to the Board); and c) next year CHS will submit its part of the college application materials electronically – should be a big time-saver, quality improvement and stress-reducer!

St. Davids Golf Club Decision Reversed but, . . . Was There Full Disclosure, Transparency, Deal-Making?

February 23, 2010

66 Comments

I went to last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting convinced that the residents of this community had been heard by our elected officials. I was certain that the supervisors were listening to us when we spoke out at previous Board meetings, wrote passionate letters to the editor, emails to the supervisors and left thoughtful comments on this blog. Last night I entered Keene Hall confident that the energy from so many would pay off, that justice would prevail, and good government would be restored in Tredyffrin Township.

I had heard scuttlebutt about some ‘deal-making’ before the supervisors meeting began but I was not prepared for what was to come. Chairman Lamina read his very lengthy prepared St. Davids Golf Club motion. The motion started out well, stating that its passage would reverse the supervisors’ decision of January 25 and restore the St. Davids Golf Club escrow. That should have been the end of the motion. Was that not the intended purpose of the motion . . . was that not what the public had asked . . . to restore the escrow? But no, Lamina took a breath and launched in to the other part of the motion; this motion would additionally include the formation of a subcommittee to look at sidewalks and trails township-wide; this ‘sidewalk’ subcommittee would include members from the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and STAP (Sidewalks, Trails and Paths); and there would be focus groups formed to discuss the location of sidewalks in the township, starting with the St. Davids area.

After Lamina completed his long-winded ‘motion’ and it was offered for discussion to audience members, I think we all struggled to ‘take in’ what we had heard. What kind of motion was this? . . . Was this just another way to protect St. Davids Golf Club from honoring their land development contract? . . . What about the rights of the Planning Commission who had consistently voted to enforce St. Davids land development commitment? . . . What would this motion do for the precedent for developer/contractors not to comply with their contractual commitments? . . . Would this ‘sidewalk’ committee be part of the existing approved Comprehensive Plan? Many, many questions, no answers offered.

Audience members spoke up, thanking the supervisors for reversing the escrow vote but many asked for Lamina’s motion to be split in to two motions. They suggested the first motion should be for the return of the St. Davids Golf Club escrow, followed by a second motion to create the ‘sidewalks’ subcommittee. The supervisors were not listening; their decision preordained. When several people asked Lamina ‘why’ not separate the motion in to two motions? His response was consistently no; that he wrote it that way. Period. Interesting to note that Kampf offered his commentary on government and making compromise. Perhaps what Kampf should have explained was that the compromise was a behind the closed-door agreement with the other supervisors, there certainly was no compromise with the citizenry. In advance of the vote, both supervisors Kichline and DiBuonaventuro offered that they would be supporting this motion. I guess that was supposed to make the residents ‘feel better’ since these two supervisors, along with Supervisor Donohue cast the 3 votes against the original motion on January 25.

A constant thread among the supervisors comments last night on St. Davids Golf Club was their desire to ‘move on’. The supervisors wanted this motion delivered, a vote taken and the ability to put St. Davids Golf Club behind them. And a vote the supervisors took; it was unanimous, 7-0 to support Lamina’s motion.

Why did I leave the meeting with the feeling that we (the public) had been manipulated and that our government had let us down? I should have felt that justice was served and our government policy and procedure restored . . . after all, the motion did include the reversal of the St. Davids decision. But no, I went home, drank 3 glasses of Pinot Grigio and reviewed what had just happened. The St. Davids discussion and motion was completely orchestrated . . . an obvious deal made in advance. Where was the transparency of the supervisor’s actions? For me transparency in government means that the citizens must be able to “see through” its workings, and to fully understand what goes on when public officials transact public business.

Transparency is the new buzz word in American politics. You hear politicians say it all the time when referring to ways of providing constituents with access to more information and mobilizing people to get more involved in government processes. Transparency is a way of protecting fairness and ensuring common good. When we know what our government is up to, we have a better chance of ensuring that decisions treat everyone equally and protect the common conditions that are important to everyone’s welfare. It was obvious that the supervisors had already debated and settled the issue of a subcommittee, prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting, outside the view of constituents. Am I the only one who is concerned over possible violations of the state’s Sunshine Act? The open meeting law bars four or more of the Board’s seven supervisors from deliberating township business or taking official action behind closed doors, with few exceptions. Why do we have to fight to keep the door open? Is it that the supervisors want the appearance of unanimity, to aim for as little contention as possible in public? When you go behind a closed-door and make decisions, the perception can be as bad as the fact.

As far as they are concerned, the Board of Supervisors may feel that with their vote last night, that St. Davids Golf Club is now past history. But for me, the issue is far from over; no they just created a whole host of new problems with their latest decision.

I can hardly wait to see this new ‘sidewalks’ subcommittee . . . knowing what the desired outcome for St. Davids Golf Club must be, the supervisors will want to make sure that Paul Olson is their representative on the committee. From the STAP committee the supervisors need to make sure that Bruce Parkinson is included on the sidewalks subcommittee; as a member of St. Davids Golf Club he would be an invaluable choice. From the Planning Commission, I am not sure who would be the politically correct choice; are any of planning commissioners also members of St. Davids? If so, make sure and let the supervisors know as that is an important selection criteria. When the Board of Supervisors is forming the public focus group for St. Davids area, they need to make sure that no one from the Mt. Pleasant community is included. As we know, Christine Johnson and her non-country club Mt. Pleasant neighbors live where that proposed St. Davids sidewalk to nowhere would have ended.

Was last night about full disclosure, transparency, deal-making? . . . you be the judge.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters