Tredyffrin Township Archives - Page 56 of 130

Tredyffrin Township

Free Community Easter Egg Hunt — Children (all ages) Invited to Attend

When: Saturday, March 24

Time: 12 Noon

Where: Frank Johnson Park, 122 Bridge Avenue, Berwyn

Sponsored by: Easttown Township Parks & Recreation Board

Questions: Contact Mary Schultz at mzshultz@comcast.net

Bring your baskets and your cameras for the annual Easter Egg Hunt. Thousands of eggs and each filled with a surprise! Children (all ages) are welcome and gift bags for all participants.

Rain Date: Sunday, March 25, 12 Noon

Rain date information available at: www.berwynmontessori.com

T-E School District has Projected $16 million Budget Shortfall but Underfunded Pension not the Only Factor

March 14, 2012

16 Comments

Over the next few years, Tredyffrin Easttown School District will be faced with a $16 million budget shortfall; but the pension crisis is not the only contributing factor.

For many years, a growing economy propelled increases in stock prices, enhancing the coverage of many pension plans, public and private. In the old days, the nature of traditional pension coverage in the private and public sector was quite similar; the majority of all employees were covered by a defined benefit plan where the liability of the pension lies with the employer. However, there is a reason why in the last decade that the vast majority of private sector employees have turned away from defined benefit plans to some form of a 401(K) type plan – the challenge of keeping a defined-benefit plan, particularly in our unstable economic climate, has proven too great for most companies to bear.

Defined-benefit plans may provide the best financial safety net for employees, but most private sectors can no longer afford to maintain them – the strain on the company balance sheets has proved too large for firms to withstand. And even in the case where a company struggled to keep a traditional defined-benefit plan in place, the economic downturn has prompted plan changes whether they were preferred or not.

Pennsylvania, like many states in the country, is facing a multi-billion dollar public pension crisis and now is the time for pension reform in Harrisburg. The Public School Employees Retirement System (PSERS) and the State Employees Retirement Systems (SERS), the two systems administering retirement accounts for state and public school employees, are severely underfunded and will become insolvent without an increase in taxpayer contributions.

Pension reform will be to the topic of Rep Warren Kampf’s town hall meeting on Sunday, March 18, 4 PM at the township building. The school district’s public budget workshop on Monday, March 19, 7:30 PM in the Conestoga High School auditorium, will include discussion of the pension crisis and its impact on the school district.

Kampf plans to introduce legislation that would move state workers and school employees to a 401(K) style retirement program. All lawmakers should embrace fundamental pension reform but this type of reform legislation is likely to be met with significant political barriers in Harrisburg. A key driver of ever-rising retirement benefit costs is their hidden nature; it is easier today to promise retirement benefits that will not have to be paid out for years.

The true extent of the unfunded liability of the state pension plan needs to be fully understood. Most of the funding for pension payments – 69% over the last 25 years – comes from investment earnings. The state and school districts combined for 17% over those years, with employees contributing 14%. The causes of the pension-rate jump, PSERS officials say, were pension-payment increases made over the last decade or so that the legislature did not fund adequately, and investment-market declines in 2001-03 and 2008-09. A Pew Center study shows that the Commonwealth has contributed only 40% of what is actuarially required — the lowest percentage of any state government.Pennsylvania’s two major pension funds were 116% and 114% funded in 2001, but dropped to 83% and 79% by 2009.

We can accept that the pension crisis contributes to the projected school district’s $16 million budget shortfall over the next few years but is not the only factor that led to the current economic situation. Because school districts are so reliant on property taxes to fund their respective budgets, the last few years and the next several years will show an ever-decreasing revenue stream as property values and real estate transactions have tumbled. The unfunded and underfunded mandates serves only to exacerbate the already difficult fiscal situation faced in the school district.

Looking back at the last teacher contract, the economic picture in the Tredyffrin Easttown School District was very different in 2007 than it is in 2012 — the school board signed a contract that guaranteed 5%+ salary increases each year. Add to that the rising healthcare costs plus the required PSERS contributions, and the total yearly compensation increase package is much higher. Therefore, it is impossible to balance that increased expenditure when the Act 1 index plus exceptions is below 4%.

Rising healthcare costs and PSERS contributions coupled with decreasing real estate revenues and state and federal support … equals the unprecedented new fiscal reality of our school district.

T/E School District and Teacher Union Contract Negotiation Honeymoon Period Over

March 8, 2012

50 Comments

The contract negotiations between the T/E School District and the T/E Teachers Union (TEEA) started in early January. What is the saying about the ‘calm before the storm’ – I had been thinking that the teacher contract negotiations must have been going well as everything was quiet.

In a Community Matters post, Expert Negotiators Named as TESD Teacher Contracts Talks Begin, dated January 28, 2012, I wrote the following:

“ … With a cooperative tone, both sides have issued their preliminary statements – the school board recognizing the quality and standard of the District’s teachers but reinforcing the severity of our economic times. And the teachers union proudly applauding the school district as one of the best in the state and stating their desire to work together through the contract negotiations…”

This week in the Tredyffrin-Easttown School District would suggest that I might have spoken too quickly. First, the T/E School Board publicly stated in a contract negotiation update on the school district’s website that ‘TEEA Negotiator Refuses to Discuss Healthcare Options”. The school district’s negotiator, Jeffrey Sultanik claims that TEEA “does not want any changes to the existing plan or premium share increases for the employee”. Sultanik suggests that the negotiator for the teachers union, Ruthann Waldie, refuses to budge on the healthcare issue. The school board has made it clear from the start that the teacher contract needs to focus on reducing healthcare costs. Having attended a number of finance committee meetings of the school district, the teacher’s benefits are routinely discussed, especially healthcare.

When the school districts’ negotiating team was named (Dan Waters, Sue Tiede and Art McDonnell in addition to Jeffrey Sultanik), I shared TEEA’s concern that there was no school board director serving on the negotiating team. The residents of TESD elected the school board members to serve them and at least one of them should be ‘at the negotiating table’. One of the school board directors, Kevin Buraks, is an attorney who specializes in the collection of unpaid real estate taxes in municipalities and school districts in Pennsylvania. Certainly, given his background, Buraks would have been qualified at the very least to participate as a contract negotiation ‘observer’. As far as I know (please correct me if I’m wrong) no prior contract negotiations in T/E school district ever occurred absent school board directors.

Soon after the school district posted the contract negotiations update on their website, TEEA fired back with a response that suggested the school district’s update is “a collection of factual inaccuracies, misinformation, mischaracterizations and personal attacks”. The response from the teacher’s union suggests a willingness and desire to negotiate issues … but at the bargaining table, not through press releases and websites, as the path that TEEA believes the school district has chosen.

Because there is no representation by the school board at the negotiation table, it is a bit like ‘whisper down the lane’. The information and updates that the school board receives are not through first hand attendance at the meetings, it is from one of the four members of the negotiating team. That’s not to suggest that the school district is intentionally misleading the public through its updates, but I would suggest that some of the nuances that occur in a meeting can be missed in the translation.

According to TEEA, the teachers union has presented a comprehensive set of proposals to the school district and are willing to discuss “the district’s finances, staffing levels, school calendar, health insurance, wages and all other important issues …”

As a taxpayer in this school district, I want to know that the contract negotiation updates are completely accurate … can the school board members provide that reassurance to the public. On the other hand, having attended a number of school district finance committee meetings, I also know that the current teacher healthcare benefits exceed much of what most of the residents of this school district receive themselves.

We are fortunate to live in one of the best school districts in the state and preserving that school system should be a priority to the residents, school district and the teachers. The new teacher’s contract needs to be line with our current economic reality. However, the negotiation process should be accomplished with a spirit of collaboration.

According to TEEA and the school district, there is no next negotiation session scheduled. I make a motion to move the contract negotiation process forward; do I hear a second?

PA Voter ID Bill: Costly and Unnecessary … How about Unconstitutional?

March 8, 2012

68 Comments

Amended House Bill 934, the vote ID bill passed the state Senate yesterday and is on its way back to the House. In a state where there are major budget shortfalls that are forcing reductions in many programs, how is it possible that there is money for this new government program – Pennsylvania voter identification legislation is unnecessary and unaffordable.

There is no evidence that there is fraudulent voting in Pennsylvania that showing a photo ID would solve. HB 934 will disenfranchise thousands of senior citizens, disabled, working poor and students. Not only will the bill eliminate voters from exercising their Constitutional right to vote, but also it would cost Pennsylvania approximately $4.3 million to implement.

Looking for another reason that HB 934 should not pass, how about unconstitutional? According to Steve Shapiro, an attorney and Judge of Elections for Tredyffrin W-1, House Bill 934 violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. Please read the following comment that I received from Steve:

Two things happened this week relating to this issue. First, the Senate yesterday passed an amended version of HB 934, which will now return to the House, where it almost certainly will pass. According to news reports I’ve read, Governor Corbett likely will sign the final bill into law. Second, on Tuesday, a state court Judge in Wisconsin enjoined Wisconsin’s voter identification law because, he held, it likely violated the Wisconsin Constitution (http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Voter+ID+injunction.pdf).

The Wisconsin opinion led me to look at the Pennsylvania Constitution and, sure enough, it appears that HB 934 violates Article VII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The email below, which I sent to Representative Kampf last night, explains why:

“Warren,

I understand that HB 934, as amended by the Senate, is on its way back to the House for a vote. I am writing to express my grave concern that the proposed law would violate the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Article VII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that: “Every citizen 21 [now 18] years of age, possessing the following qualifications [relating to citizenship and residency], shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact.”

As I understand this provision, any qualified voter (i.e., a citizen that meets the residency requirements) who has registered pursuant to the registration laws enacted by the General Assembly has a Constitutional right to vote. HB 934 would prohibit a registered voter who meets the qualifications set out in the Pennsylvania Constitution from voting if he or she does not have proper identification. As such, it would appear that the proposed law would violate the Pennsylvania Constitution, and I am concerned that, if HB 934 is enacted, my fellow poll workers and I will be required to enforce a law that infringes the Constitutional rights of our neighbors.

I urge you to look into this issue before voting on the bill.

Thanks.

Steve Shapiro
Judge of Elections, Tredyffrin W-2″

Thank you Steve for your thoughts on HB 934. If you are concerned about the voter identification bill and wish to contact State Rep Warren Kampf, his email address is: Wkampf@pahousegop.com

Removal of Wawa and Apartment Building from Richter Development Plans

March 8, 2012

8 Comments

Still in the early stages of discussion, we do not know where the proposed Trout Creek Overlay District zoning ordinance change and the development of the Richter property will ultimately end. My last post contained details from the long public hearing and as part the follow-up, the potential developer Joe Duckworth met with a small group of nine local Glenhardie community members. To assure transparency and to allow maximum community input, other interested residents were invited to attend the meeting held at the township building.

Many of the resident comments at the public hearing focused specifically on the ongoing township stormwater issues. The Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District ordinance would permit additional redevelopment usages on large properties in the Trout Creek Watershed in exchange for much-needed stormwater facilities help. As follow-up to the public hearing, there is a community meeting Thursday, March 8, 7 PM to discuss stormwater and flooding problems along Trout Creek – Township Engineer Steve Burgo will present the township’s 2010 study of the watershed and recommendations for improvement. The public hearing for the proposed zoning ordinance amendment continues at the next Board of Supervisors Meeting, Monday, March 19 at 7:30 PM.

Beyond stormwater issues, there was much discussion about the possibility of a Wawa or a large apartment complex that the proposed zoning ordinance would permit. Some of the residents asked specifically that ‘retail with accessory gas’ and ‘apartment house’ usage be removed from the zoning ordinance amendment language of the Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District.

For those opposing a Wawa or apartment building on the Richter property, there is good news to report!

The proposed developer for the project, Joe Duckworth, contacted me for an update. As I said in my last post on Community Matters, “I have found Duckworth to be very community-minded and responsive to all questions and concerns related to the development of the Richter tract” and this continues to be the case. Duckworth explained, that based on the community input at the public hearing, he immediately reached out to the Board of Supervisors to suggest that the gas station and apartment building usage be removed from the proposed zoning ordinance amendment for the Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District. Those usages will be removed in the revised amendment and Duckworth presented this new information to the residents at the follow-up community meeting. For the record, Duckworth says that a Wawa was not a consideration by Arcadia Land Company for the Richter property.

With Wawa and apartment building out of the proposed zoning ordinance change, the majority of the 30-35 Glenhardie residents who attended the community meeting, are OK with the Richter development plans for carriage houses and townhouses. But what’s the saying about not being able to please all the people? Duckworth explained there remain a couple of residents who are opposed to development project regardless of the removal of the Wawa and apartment building.

We discussed Duckworth’s plans for the Richter site; carriage houses and townhomes sound like they could provide a great option for Tredyffrin residents, particularly for those wishing to downsize for their large single-family homes but remain in the community. The carriage house concept with the master bedroom on the first floor has become a popular feature sought among the retiring baby boom generation. I have heard of several local residents who are already planning a move when the carriage homes are built.

According to Duckworth, the total number of carriage houses and townhomes in the proposed development will be around 120, although the breakout between the design types is not known at this time. Pricing for the carriage houses will probably be mid-$500K and townhouses in the $400K range. Duckworth confirmed that the entrance to the project would be Old Eagle School Road not Walker Road. With entrance to the proposed development off Old Eagle School, I voiced concern for the Valley Friends Meeting cemetery, which could be close to the new driveway. Duckworth reassured me that he was very aware of the situation and appropriate buffering and landscaping would be included in the plan to protect the cemetery.

The Richter property was one of 10 locations named in the 2010 Trout Creek Watershed Study and Stormwater Management Practice Analysis for stormwater best management practice in the township. The study suggested a 6-8 acre stormwater basin and Duckworth confirmed that his Richter plan sets aside 8 acres for the basin. According to Duckworth, the cost for the township to construct this large stormwater basis would be approximately $1 million plus the additional cost of land acquisition. Were the township to purchase the property and construct the stormwater basin, the costs would be several million dollars. As part of the Richter land development project, Arcadia Land Company rather than the taxpayers absorb these stormwater costs.

Without a Wawa or an apartment building in the Trout Creek Watershed Overlay District zoning ordinance amendment, the continued public hearing on March 19 will probably be less contentious. Although the Richter land development project is only in the early stages of the planning process, it looks like a community-minded developer may be the key to its success.

Understanding the Trout Creek Overlay Ordinance … More Complex than a Wawa or an Apartment Building

March 1, 2012

19 Comments

I attended Monday night’s marathon 3+ hour public hearing and Board of Supervisors meeting. The main event of the night was the public hearing and resident comments in regards to a zoning ordinance amendment that would develop a Trout Creek Overlay district. (Here is a link to the meeting video).

There was much to take in from the meeting and I have struggled to ‘wrap my head around’ the details of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, affects the development project and storm water improvements may have on the community, misinformation and a degree of confusion among some residents. Part of the confusion about the project is in the labeling – although the township information refers to it as the ‘Trout Creek Overlay’ proposal, the problem is that unless you attend Planning Commission meetings, local residents may not have initially recognized it was the ‘Richter’ tract and its possible development was discussion.

The Richter tract is 36 acres located at Swedesford, Old Eagle School and Walker Roads in the Glenhardie/Wayne area of the township. Currently, twenty-six acres of the property is zoned R-1 residential district and the remaining ten acres is zoned ‘professional’ district. R-1 zoning permits single-family homes and with special exception house conversion to multi-family dwelling. The Professional zoning district permits office or professional buildings.

The proposed zoning ordinance amendment to develop an overlay district in the Trout Creek Watershed is more than just about the development of the Richter tract; although the Richter tract is the largest undeveloped property in the Trout Creek Watershed. As the economy improves, there may be opportunities for future redevelopment projects in the township. Therefore, this proposed zoning ordinance amendment change could be used elsewhere in the Trout Creek Overlay district as an incentive for developers.

As an example, we recently learned that the US Postal Service will consolidate postal services and the Southeastern PO distribution center will close in May. The Southeastern PO location could become a future redevelopment area that might benefit from the proposed zoning amendment. Click here to see the Trout Creek Watershed map and what areas would be potentially affected by the proposed zoning ordinance.

The reasoning behind the creation of a Trout Creek Overlay district is to provide for public stormwater improvements on development projects in the Trout Creek Watershed district. (Area as identified on the Trout Creek Watershed map).

Back to the Richter property — this appears to be the guiding force behind the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. The way I see it, there are four major groups of players in this specific development project – the developer Joe Duckworth and Arcadia Land Company, the Glenhardie area residents, township Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

Anyone living in Tredyffrin, knows that there are major stormwater issues all around the township and those problems are long-standing. In addition, the township has been working on solutions to the flooding problems in the Glenhardie area for years. The challenge for the township is that a number of large properties are needed for stormwater management facilities that would hold back runoff during heavy rain, thereby reducing the volume of water downstream into Trout Creek. However, the real problem is how to come up with long-term solutions, particularly in an economy where money is not easily available.

If the township does not have the necessary resources for stormwater management, and if the residents are not interested in paying increased taxes … what is the solution for stormwater problems? One idea is to offer incentives to developers in exchange for increased stormwater management components in their land development projects. I believe it was that specific objective, which drove the Planning Commissioners to create the proposed Trout Creek Overlay zoning amendment. To be clear, I do not think that the proposed zoning amendment was some kind of quixotic effort on the part of the Planning Commissioners to encourage a specific development project. But rather the Trout Creek Overlay zoning amendment was a time-consuming, thoroughly discussed plan to encourage development but to also aid in stormwater management.

As an aside to the Planning Commission process to develop the Trout Creek Overlay zoning amendment, is the Richter property developer – Joe Duckworth and Arcadia Land Company. Attending various Planning Commission meetings, I have found Duckworth to be very community-minded and responsive to all questions and concerns related to the development of the Richter tract. However, those discussions were about carriage homes and/or townhouses on the residential parcel of the Richter property.

In reviewing their website, Arcadia Land Company has developed some beautiful residential properties – places that would be very well suited for Tredyffrin Township and our residents. Arcadia Land describes their company as “Town Builders and Land Stewards”, and further states, “Arcadia’s approach to town building has been influenced by the New Urbanism and the conservation development movement. New Urbanism is a movement that promotes compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods as a positive alternative to low-density, automobile-oriented, single-use development. New Urbanism supports both the revitalization and expansion of existing centers as well as the creation of new neighborhoods.”

Obviously, this wonderfully progressive planning language also needs to be tempered by local community and the resident’s needs (or desires). My sense is that many of the local Richter property residents could accept (maybe even embrace) a beautiful carriage house/townhouse community. What a great option for residents who want to downsize from large homes but continue to live in Tredyffrin! Moreover, according to Duckworth, this project would include a costly and involved stormwater plan that would contain a 6-8 acre stormwater basin. It should be noted that the stormwater issues in Tredyffrin are dramatic and it would be an overstatement to suggest that the Richter tract development would completely ‘fix’ the Trout Creek stormwater issues. But an improvement, nonetheless.

However, enter the proposed Trout Creek Overlay zoning amendment change, and the beautiful carriage house/townhouse community concept planned for the Richter tract takes a back seat to the possible commercial use of the ten acres currently zoned ‘professional’. The proposed zoning change would extend the usage of this parcel to include retail stores with accessory gas (Wawa) and apartment buildings, among others.

Herein lies the problem – many of us have a vision of a huge Wawa facility, like is found on Rt. 29 in Malvern. However, the Wawa site was built in a field next to Route 202 versus a residential location. As was pointed out at Monday’s meeting, these multi-function gas stations are the real estate model for Wawa. Rationalizing that perhaps Wawa would consider some small residential-friendly gas station instead of a commercial giant, I was willing to wait for the project design. But when I heard there was discussion of possibly building a 250-unit apartment complex on the 10-acre site, there was no way that I could support that concept. For one reason, our school district simply cannot bear the number of additional students such a project could represent. In a letter presented to the Board of Supervisors on Monday night from the T/E school district, they said just that – they could not afford to have the additional students in the district from a large apartment complex.

The stretch of Old Eagle School Road between Swedesford and Walker Rds is short but significant — home to Valley Friends Meeting and their cemetery. Lewis Walker, one of the earliest settlers in Tredyffrin, and one of the founding members of this Meeting, left to Friends in the Valley the 18th century property on which his family burial ground was located, now the burial grounds of Valley Meeting. Several members of Valley Friends Meeting attended the public hearing and presented a poignant history of the building and the cemetery. The Valley Friends Meeting presents another reason for us to pause as we consider appropriate development for that area.

Whether the proposed development for the 10-acre corner site is a Wawa or an apartment building, the concern from the Glenhardie neighbors goes beyond a NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude. Their concerns about additional traffic in the area are real. Then there is the issue about stormwater management – is the neighborhood helped more from an 8-acre stormwater basin or hurt more from the development of the property? Some local residents suggest that as the Swedesford Road corridor between Gateway and the new Wegmans has developed, so has the stormwater problems.

I would ask for some kind of middle ground on this project – understanding that the Richter tract is a premier building site and that the owners of the property have rights, should we not also show consideration for the Glenhardie neighbors, Valley Friends Meeting and what is best for the entire community, including the school district.

In closing, I want to address the Board of Supervisors and how I view their participation in this process. I understand how upset many in the Glenhardie area are over this proposed zoning change for the Richter property. I live in the Great Valley but my husband and I have owned an investment condo in Glenhardie for almost twenty years, so I have more than a passing interest in this project. As a Glenhardie condo owner, I know first hand the Trout Creek stormwater issues and the ongoing attempts to resolve the water problems.

But upon reflection of Monday’s public hearing, I feel compelled to defend the supervisors. It was apparent by some of the resident’s comments, that there are those that think the supervisors have made some kind of ‘backroom deal’ with Duckworth with regards to the development of the Richter property. If you believe that has happened, I would suggest that you are incorrect.

It was the Planning Commissioners who wrote the proposed Trout Creek Overlay zoning ordinance and submitted it to the Board of Supervisors for review. I am not suggesting that the supervisors did not talk to Duckworth – some probably have, as well as Mimi Gleason and Steve Burgo. In fact, supervisor Mike Heaberg often attends Planning Commission meetings where Duckworth attended. But folks, there is a difference between supervisors having individual discussions with a developer versus the suggestion that some kind of backroom deal has been made. Chair Michelle Kichline’s response to some of the resident’s accusations was measured but absolute; no deal has been made between the Board of Supervisors and Duckworth. And I believe her.

However, maybe Phil Donohue, the middle district supervisor could, have lessened some of the confusion of Monday night, with a better resident outreach program. At-large supervisors (Michelle Kichline, Kristen Mayock, EJ Richter, and Mike Heaberg) have a township wide responsibility versus the district supervisors (John DiBuonaventuro, Paul Olson and Phil Donohue) who are elected and represent residents in a specific area of the township. Not that the district supervisors should not be involved in township wide issues; but they should have specific focus on the western, middle or eastern districts, which they represent. Perhaps some of the circus-like atmosphere of Monday night could have been avoided (or at least lessened) with an ongoing dialogue between residents and the middle district supervisor Phil Donohue. I look forward to better communication in the future.

Before any decisions or votes can be taken, there is obviously going to be much more public discussion about the Trout Creek Overlay zoning ordinance and the Richter tract and its development. As suggested, there will be a community meeting on Thursday, March 8, 7 pm in the Tredyffrin Township Building to discuss stormwater and flooding problems along Trout Creek. Stephen Burgo, Township Engineer, will present results of a 2010 study of the watershed and recommendations for improvements.

Will Latest School Gun Violence in Ohio Make a Difference for PA House Bill 1523?

February 29, 2012

7 Comments

Today in Ohio, there are families making funeral arrangements for three children who died at the hands of another high school student allegedly using a semi-automatic gun stolen from an uncle’s home. This senseless tragedy once again points to why this country needs stricter gun control laws.

Young lives lost and families forever changed. Where is the outrage over this latest school shooting and national demand for stricter gun legislation? How many of our children have to die because of handgun abuse and assault weapon ownership? Yet, the pro-gun activists will continue to argue against any laws that may place regulation on their gun ownership; defending their firearm rights at all costs.

Will the tragic shooting at Chardon High School– which left three teenagers dead and two others hospitalized – encourage gun reform in America? Doubtful. For a few days as the shooter’s motives are analyzed, his childhood reviewed and his family scrutinized, there will be national attention and a renewed debate overAmerica’s gun laws.

For those of us that want stricter gun controls in this country, we can hope that the national discussion will lead to change, but as we saw in the aftermath of the high-profile shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, that probably will not happen. Although gun-reform legislation was introduced in Washington in the wake of Giffords shooting, it was never considered.

Do we really believe that is what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment of the US Constitution? The amendment was designed to protect the right of the people to keep and to bear arms but could the writers have imagined the America of 2012? A country that protects the rights of Americans to own semi-automatic guns and assault weapons.

In a couple of weeks, our state house legislators will have the proposed PA House Bill 1523 on their agenda for discussion. HB 1523 would penalize cities and towns across Pennsylvania for their commonsense reform that supports keeping illegal guns off the streets. As amended, proposed HB 1523 legislation grants legal standing to the NRA, allowing the pro-gun organization to sue local municipalities with lost-or-stolen gun legislation, just like individual gun owners.

Illegal guns should to be off the streets of America– lost or stolen guns need to be reported. This week, a 17-year old shooter in Chardon, Ohio used a stolen semi-automatic gun to kill three high school students. Our children should be safe in their schools. According to Kid Shootings, over 3,000 kids are killed annually by gunfire and 17,500 are injured . . . every day eight children die from gunshot injuries in this country. Where else in the world does this happen – only in America.

Will the latest school gun violence in Ohio, make a difference in the minds of Pennsylvania legislators as they review proposed House Bill 1523?

Boy Scout’s video of Paoli … Hometown challenges as seen by our children!

February 27, 2012

3 Comments

Down around the corner
A half a mile from here
You can see them long trains run
And you watch them disappear
Without love
Where would you be now
Without love . . .

~ “Long Train Running”, Doobie Brothers

“Long Train Running” is a song written by musician Tom Johnston and recorded by The Doobie Brothers in 1973. Four decades later, the song provides the background music for a special video produced by a talented 12-year old township resident. A seventh grader at Valley Forge Middle School, Michael Pacca is the son of Bob and Tara Pacca and lives in Paoli.

Michael is a Boy Scout and a member of Paoli Troop 1; one of the oldest Boy Scout troops in the United States and the oldest continuously active troop. Originally founded in 1911, out of the Church of the Good Samaritan in Paoli, the troop has since moved to 20 acres in Wayne.

As one of the steps to becoming an Eagle Scout, Michael worked on his Citizen in the Community merit badge. The final of eight requirements for this merit badge, Michael needed to:

“Develop a public presentation (such as a video, slide show, speech, digital presentation, or photo exhibit) about important and unique aspects of your community. Include information about the history, cultures, and ethnic groups of your community; its best features and popular places where people gather; and the challenges it faces. Stage your presentation in front of your merit badge counselor or a group, such as your patrol or a class at school.”

Boy Scout merit badges give scouts the opportunity to investigate around 120 different areas of knowledge and skills. The merit badge program plays a major role in the scouting advancement program and participation can begin as soon as a scout registers with a troop. Each scout can explore topics from American Business to Woodworking as he has interest. To reach Eagle rank, a scout must complete at least 21 Boy Scout merit badges listing them in his handbook, 12 of which come from the Eagle-required badge list – the Citizen in the Community merit badge is on the required list.

To fulfill the Citizen in the Community merit badge requirement, Michael created a video about his hometown – Paoli. Michael spent several hours taking photos of Paoli and the surrounding area, and then created a video with the music ‘Long Train Running’ as the backdrop. After watching the video several times, it is clear that Michael not only accomplished the assignment but also far exceeded the requirements in level of quality and creativity.

Michael’s video is important on a number of levels; it highlights the talents of a creative young mind and fulfills a requirement for a wonderful organization, Boy Scouts of America. However, beyond that, this is a video that I encourage everyone to watch. It may be only four minutes long but as the music fades out, there is such poignancy to the photos as seen through the lens of young man’s camera.

The condition of the train station and the vacant storefronts do not escape the eyes of our children . . . this is their hometown.

I was struck how Michael accurately captured the “challenges that the community faces” in his video. When asked what he thought was the ‘greatest’ challenge facing Paoli, his response, the “train station”. What businesses would Michael like to see filling the empty storefronts along Paoli’s Lancaster Avenue – a movie theater and an ice cream store! A 12-year old response but an answer that many of us could agree with.

A budding movie maker and a talented musician, Michael chose the Doobie Brothers background music himself, thinking that the ‘Long Train Coming’ song just suited Paoli and its train station.

I was overwhelmed by Michael’s photography skills … the depth in the images and a gift for composition and perspective that truly belies his young age. In fact, I was so impressed by his talents that I signed him up as one of the official Paoli Blues Fest photographers – he then tells me that he can create a blues fest video from the photos! What a great kid!

Michael plans to continue making movies – he and his friends have future ideas for making other videos, including scripts, costumes, props, and sound effects. Based on this and other videos that I have seen by Michael, all I can say is Steven Spielberg had better watch out!

Michael Pacca of Paoli, PA – video click here.

Assisted Living Facility . . . A Good Fit for a Decaying Former Catering Business

February 25, 2012

5 Comments

Since attending this week’s meeting between the developers for the Jimmy Duffy’s project and the neighbors, I have received a number of calls and emails. Some township residents have thanked me for my support and “thoughtful’ articles while others have questioned ‘why’ I am involved; reminding me that it is not my backyard. Several attendees of the meeting called or wrote to say that my account of the meeting was accurate but I also received remarks that I did not provide a balanced view of the redevelopment plan.

First, I have to accept that I will never please everyone. That said, Community Matters represents my thoughts and opinion of an issue; I am not a paid newspaper reporter nor do I receive any revenue from advertisers. Whether it is attending a community meeting for a proposed redevelopment project, a facilities subcommittee meeting of the school district, or responding to a resident’s email or phone call asking for my help – it’s just what I do, whether it is my backyard or not.

As for the proposed redevelopment project for the Jimmy Duffy’s site – let me re-state clearly, that I support Capital Health Services proposal for a residential care-assisted living facility at this Lancaster Avenue location. I understand that there will be many opportunities for public discussion as this project moves through the extensive planning and township approval process. It is assumed that all issues or questions from neighbors concerning traffic, lighting, trash removal, landscape buffering, etc. will be addressed as the plans progress.

At the meeting, a question arose as to how an assisted living facility would affect local property values. Based on one resident’s account of theft of copper from the old catering building and observations of vagrants around the property, I think this proposed redevelopment project would add favorably to the real estate values of neighboring residential properties.

As I told one resident after the meeting, unlike a fast food restaurant or a typical office building, an assisted living facility will need to have upscale, resort-type landscaping to increase the curb appeal and desirability for prospective tenants. Another advantage to the local residents is the proposed project will include increased storm water management requirements.

Answering a question about the resident rental rates for the proposed facility, the developer indicated the cost at $4-9K per month, depending on size and whether single or double occupancy. I don’t know what these kind of units generally rent for in the area, but this sounds very upscale and will certainly attract the kind of residents that we would all like to have as neighbors. In addition, there is the extra bonus of bringing in a population that is not likely to disrupt the current local residential community.

I still stand behind my previous articles on the Jimmy Duffy redevelopment project. As I indicated, there have been discussions with the township in regards to this project and presentations to the Planning Commission dating back to September and October of last year and to the Board of Supervisors as recently as last month.

An assisted living facility is an excellent use for the old Jimmy Duffy building and would be a welcomed replacement for the decaying former catering building. In addition, a residential care option would provide a way to utilize this property in a way that still brings a residential flavor (versus commercial) to the neighborhood. However, to maximize the potential for a successful redevelopment project, it is very important for the developer to keep those most affected by the proposed project – the residential neighbors – fully engaged and informed in all aspects of the process.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

February 24, 2012

3 Comments

Attending last night’s meeting between the Daylesford Neighborhood Association and the developers of the former Jimmy Duffy’s catering site was interesting. Representing the applicant for the project was Gerard Farrell, partner and general counsel for Capital Health Services along with the project’s attorney Denise Yarnoff and the developer Ed Morris of Morris Realty Advisors.

For the first hour plus, most of the 50+ neighbors listened intently as Ed Morris spoke of the planned redevelopment project, a residential care – assisted living facility. Morris repeatedly described the project as ‘beautiful’ and presented an aerial view of the proposed structure, the parking, neighboring buildings – the Vetcare on one side, a large office building on the other side and to the rear the Larkin’s residential property.

The focus of the questions was primarily centered on traffic concerns. Although Morris attempted to assure the residents that traffic from the proposed assisted living facility would enter and depart from Lancaster Avenue, many in the audience were not believers. From the rear of the Duffy property, there is an emergency exit onto Pennsylvania Avenue, which residents report is routinely used by employees of the adjacent office building. Pennsylvania and Glenn Ave. are quiet suburban township streets and residents suggest that there will be increased traffic due to shift changes of the workers employed by the assisted living facility.

In addition to the traffic concerns and the suggestion that perhaps, that Pennsylvania Avenue could somehow be blocked for use by the assisted living employees, other concerns surfaced including privacy issues, lighting, height and size of structure, parking, trash and trash removal, landscaping, etc. For the most part, the representatives for the proposed redevelopment project, did a good job of explaining and convincing the residents that they were listening to their concerns and delivering assurance that they will ‘work’ together with the neighbors for satisfactory solutions.

As I said, for the first hour plus, the presentation was going well and I thought most people were buying in to the project. I thought Morris sincere in his response to resident’s questions and concerns. In fact, satisfied by what they had heard, some residents began to leave the meeting. About this time, Trisha Larkin (the neighbor whose property is closest to this proposed redevelopment project) makes a statement that suggests Morris has not been entirely forthcoming or upfront with residents; and that this proposed redevelopment project has been going along for sometime without their knowledge. Morris would have been well served to say nothing but unfortunately, he decided to spin the story, claiming that a recent article [Community Matters] was incorrect and that he had not been to the township in regards to this project, etc.

I have never met Ed Morris and he obviously does not know who I am but there was no way I was going to sit there and let him suggest that I somehow misrepresented the redevelopment project in Community Matters. I explained to him and the audience, that I was the writer and that the information contained in the article was entirely accurate. The quotes contained in the article came directly from the meeting minutes of September and October 2011 Planning Commission meetings and the January 2012 Board of Supervisor meetings, which indicate discussion of the Jimmy Duffy redevelopment project and presentation of sketch plans. (If you click on these links, you will see that the redevelopment project was formally presented to the Planning Commission along with sketch plans – the meeting minutes speak for themselves.)

This twisting or stretching of the facts by Ed Morris is obviously what has troubled the Larkin’s, and probably the reason that Trisha Larkin took up the cause to inform her neighbors of this project. In a matter of a couple of minutes, I went from completely supporting Ed Morris and his redevelopment plans, to fully appreciating the concerns of the neighbors.

For the record, I support an assisted living facility as a good use for this site, especially given all the far more invasive types of buildings that could go there, fast food, restaurant, bar, etc. I just wish that the developer had not turned a positive meeting with the neighbors into a situation that left me questioning his sincerity.

As I said yesterday on Community Matters, to maximize the potential for a successful redevelopment project such as what is being suggested for the Duffy site, it makes good business sense for the developer to engage and get ‘buy-in’ from those most affected – the neighbors. What I should have added is that this ‘buy-in’ from the most affected – the neighbors, needs to be with honest and open discussion from the developer.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters