“Rome Wasn’t Built in a Day” . . . But how long will it take to build the Paoli Transportation Center? http://wp.me/pRqOw-277
Tredyffrin Township
Go Green . . . Backyard Eco-Tour in Tredyffrin Tomorrow!
Based on the overwhelming success of last year’s garden tour, eco-gardener extraordinaire Cheryl Bittner has organized and chairs tomorrow’s backyard eco-tour in Tredyffrin. Featuring eight eco-gardeners in our community, the public is welcome into their backyards on Saturday, July 16.
The Tredyffrin Backyard Eco-Tour will offer an opportunity to see how some residents are gardening in an environmentally friendly way. Living in a sustainable community nowadays is becoming more important as our water and non-renewable resources are becoming scarcer. Eco-gardens prove that you can have a landscape that is beautiful and unique – and gentle on the environment. The tour will provide visitors with plenty of inspiring ideas for their own gardens.
The cost to tour the backyards of this year’s selected eco-gardeners is $10 per adult, with children under 18 free. The tour is 10 AM – 4 PM and you can purchase your ‘badge’ and pick-up maps and directions starting at 9:45 AM at the Tredyffrin Township Library parking lot, 582 Upper Gulph Rd, Strafford/Wayne. The eco-tour is self-guided . . . go where you want for as long as you want.
Sponsored by the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee, the eco-tour is non-political event and everyone is welcome.
Billed as a ‘rain or shine’ event, tomorrow’s forecast is for a beautiful summer day . . . perfect for a garden tour!
Previewing a Lifetime of Memories . . .
Last week, I mentioned that there was an estate auction scheduled for a house and its contents in Tredyffrin Township — 788 N. Valley Road, Paoli for Saturday, July 16. I stopped by the Open House over the weekend. Although advertised as a ‘fix-me-upper’, the statement is inaccurate; this house is a complete teardown. The auctioneer George Wilson and his wife were removing the remaining items from the house and suggested that if I went in the house, I probably would not stay long. They were right.
Probably built in the 1960’s, the brick house is a one-story style, typical of the period. It was obvious that in the past, the courtyard and gardens would have been beautiful, but now completely overgrown with weeds and vines. I was interested in the back-story of the house and its owners. I was told that a 92-yr. old woman had owned the home before her passing (her husband had predeceased her) and that her family was selling the house and its contents. As I wandered through the house, I could not help but wonder if this woman spent her last days in this house, and was she alone. If so, how very sad.
The ceiling is falling in, floorboards in disrepair, damage and holes in the walls . . . complete devastation. However, the house had a story of the grand life the owners had lived. Amidst all the wreckage of the house, were old black and white photos in antique frames from the 1930s and 40s of the owners taken with famous people. An upright Steinway piano with sheet music at the ready sat in the empty living room, a Staffordshire china tea set discarded on the floor and elegant vintage clothing left on their hangers . . . a lifetime of memories.
I asked the auctioneer who these people were that lived in this house and why was no family here to remove the many beautiful things. Apparently, the family had removed what they wanted and all that remained was for auction. I was told that this is the way families often times settle estates. The auctioneer did offer interesting trivia – the owners of the house were the ones responsible for bringing the Chihuahuas breed of dogs from Mexico to the United States many years ago.
Two very large Pods sit outside the house and are filled with antique furniture from the house; a lifetime of collections waiting to be sold. On Saturday, July 16, the antique auction will preview at 9:30 AM with a start time of 10:30 AM. The real estate (house and 3.2 acres) is to be auctioned at 1 PM. The property on N. Valley Road is located parallel to Rt. 202, although this is a section of Rt. 202 that is scheduled for sound walls. As I said, the house is a complete tear down along with the garage and other outbuildings – nothing can be saved.
In the kitchen, the dishwasher door is ajar with dishes waiting to be removed, the auctioneer explained that this was the way they found the house . . . it was as if the house stopped in time with the passing of its owner.
I left the N. Valley Road house on Saturday with such an overwhelming sense of sadness. Where was this woman’s family . . . did she die alone in the house . . . why didn’t someone care?
T/E School District (Paoli) House & Contents Goes to Auction July 16
I received a notice from an antique auction site that caught my attention. Although fairly common in some parts of the country, I don’t recall the last time I saw a house and its contents on the auction block in Tredyffrin Township.
On July 16, a ranch style house at 788 N. Valley Road in Paoli is going to be auctioned (open house is this weekend) — details are in the advertisement below. The property includes 3.2 acres and is a fixer-upper. This is a lovely area of the township and my guess is someone may buy it and rather than fixing the house, will knock it down for the property. I’m sure that there is story behind this auction as I am on this road almost every day and there was not a ‘for sale’ sign, so appears that it is going directly to auction. Is this auction an isolated situation, sign of the economic times or foreshadowing of what’s to come.
| |||||
OPEN HOUSE JULY 8th, 9th & 12TH FROM 2-5 PMON SITE REAL ESTATE AUCTIONSATURDAY JULY 16, 2011 AT 1:00 PM788 N. VALLEY ROAD, PAOLI, PA 19301VALLEY GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP TREDYFFRIN- EASTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFERING 3.2 ACRES, RESIDENTIAL, WITH A ONE STORY BRICK RANCHER FIX ME UPPER. PROPERTY INSPECTION: JULY 8TH , 9TH & 12TH FROM 2-5 PM. TERMS: $20,000.00 CERTIFIED FUNDS DUE AT KNOCKDOWN. SETTLEMENT 30-60 DAYS. THIS PROPERTY IS BEING OFFERED SUBJECT TO OWNER CONFIRMATION. ANTIQUES AND PERSONAL PROPERTY WILL START AT 10:30 AM. GEORGE H. WILSON, AUCTIONEER, AU-001020-L 610-955-9417 OR 610-283-8469 |
Following the Law, but was Justice Served for Caylee Anthony?
I followed the Casey Anthony murder trial over the last few weeks, just wanting justice served for the beautiful little 2-yr. old, Caylee Anthony. I do not claim to be any legal expert and was driven by the emotion surrounding such a heinous crime. I accept that my opinion for the outcome to the trial was based on seeking justice for the little girl who could not seek justice on her own.
We all knew that a guilty verdict for Casey Anthony was not going to bring Caylee back . . . but for justice to be served in this case; I thought that was the required outcome. When the verdict of ‘not guilty was first announced, I immediately thought of the OJ Simpson trial and what I perceived was a similar injustice. In reflection, I can see that the trials and ultimate verdicts of not guilty in the Anthony and Simpson cases really are not the same . . . although I wanted justice for Caylee Anthony in the same way that I wanted justice for Simpson’s victim.
Much evidence was presented in the OJ Simpson trial – beyond any reasonable doubt. However, the jury in the Simpson trial was impacted by the media, the public, issues of race and the best defense attorneys that money could buy. A media circus surrounded the Simpson trial and in the end, the media won.
The Casey Anthony trial also played out in the media, but this time the law won. The verdict may not have been wanted I wanted, but the prosecution had an obligation to establish guilt beyond any reasonable doubt and they were not successful. Do I think that Casey Anthony committed the murder of her daughter? Yes, but the prosecution did not make the case, simply not enough evidence to convict.
Initially, upon hearing the not guilty verdict, I was outraged at the jury. I figured that with only 10 hours of deliberation it had been a slam-dunk for the prosecution. No, just the opposite, the jury’s seemingly quixotic decision was based on evidence, or rather ‘lack of’. In deliberating the case, the jury followed the law – and in the end, isn’t that what we want from our legal system? Still it is hard to look at the Casey Anthony verdict as good news . . . after all a beautiful little girl is dead and the murderer may have gone free.
Bambi May Soon Have Another Day to Worry About Hunters
It has been awhile since I visited the topic of gun control and 2nd amendment rights on Community Matters. For those that followed the gun control discussion, you may recall my dismay last year over the federal legislation that lifted the ban on guns in national parks (including Valley Forge).
The blog post, Semi-Automatic Weapons in Valley Forge National Historical Park . . . Do You Feel Safer? generated much debate in the 50+ comments on guns in national parks, many from 2nd Amendment supporters. As a result, my naïveté on guns and gun controls was put to the test. That discussion extended to a broader discussion of gun control in our community. I learned that many living in this community not only supported their right as an American to bear arms, but that it was clear from comments, that many did!
Although not swayed by the overwhelming pro-gun rights comments, I did find myself sitting in the minority; continuing to support stricter gun control rules. I wrote, ” . . . 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. . . “
In addition to discussing 2nd amendment rights and gun-control issues, Community Matters visited the subject of the overpopulation of deer in the area, specifically in Valley Forge National Historical Park. With a two-year plan in place, skilled sharp shooters began last winter to reduce the deer population from 1,250 to 200 in the park. Although I cringed at the idea of guns in Valley Forge Park and the shooting of deer, I took solace in knowing that 7,000 pounds of venison was donated to the needy.
At this point, I am sure you are wondering why this walk down memory lane? Answer: deer hunting. I do not claim to know much about deer hunting – I actually don’t know the dates of deer hunting season. I do not know when it is ‘bow’ season any more than I know when it is gun season for deer hunting, nor do I know many deer per hunter is allowed – just don’t know any of the specifics. I am not a hunter so why would I need to know this information. As a “stricter gun control supporter”, and probably not likely to become a deer hunter, I do admit I was interested to learn of House Bill 1760 that would allow deer hunting on Sundays. Deer hunting on Sundays . . . ? I didn’t know that Sunday deer hunting was illegal in Pennsylvania. Apparently, hunters in Pennsylvania can legally kill foxes, coyotes and crows on Sunday, just not deer. Pennsylvania is one of 9 states that do not permit Sunday deer hunting.
According to a recent Daily Local article, “ . . . Sunday hunting is expected to generate $629 million in additional spending and create up to 5,300 new jobs, resulting in $18 million in additional sales and income tax. . . ” In addition, Sunday hunting is expected to generate a substantial increase in out-of-state license revenue.
So here’s my question. . . if the current law allows deer hunting 6 days a week, why not allow hunting all 7 days of the week? I may not be a gun-supporter nor a deer hunter (and I appreciated that I am in the minority) but I don’t understand ‘why’ deer hunters cannot hunt on Sundays? I guess I can see the purpose of House Bill 1760 – if you support deer hunting 6 days a week, why not support deer hunting on Sundays.
Corbett’s Property Tax Reform Throws a Curve Ball to School Districts . . . Limits on Act 1 Exceptions May Cause Angst to School Boards
School vouchers, Marcellus Shale fees and transportation funding may have been temporarily sidelined in Corbett’s budget but not so for property tax reform.
When Gov. Corbett inked the budget this week, school districts across the commonwealth collectively received a curve ball. Included in Corbett’s budget was property tax reform, which makes change to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2006 (Act 1) that could effect future school board’s financial decisions.
With school districts struggling with significant reduction in state spending, many used Act 1 exceptions in their budget decisions, which permit tax increases without allowing voters the right to veto. However, with Corbett’s property tax reform, the school districts will not be permitted to increase property tax above the rate of inflation without voter referendum. Corbett suggests that the property tax reform will give the power to the taxpayers to decide whether they want a property tax increase to fund a particular program. A reduction in allowable Act 1 exceptions will force school boards to make their case to the voter for approval of a property tax increase.
Prior to the amendment, Act 1 included 13 permitted exceptions including new construction projects, debt, pension and special education costs – school boards could increase property tax using these exceptions without a voter referendum. The Act 1 exceptions will continue to include special education spending and payments to the state pension system but no other exceptions will be permitted without voter approval.
It is my understanding that if a school district has a building project underway, the previous Act 1 exception for construction will remain in place for the length of the project. However, the amendment to Act 1 does not permit an exception for future constructions projects without voter approval. So where does the Act 1 reform legislation leave TESD’s planned transportation garage/storage building on Old Lancaster Ave.? Although the project is only in the initial architectural development stages, the Facilities Committee may need to rethink their plans or be prepared for voter input. No longer qualifying for an Act 1 exception, this proposed new construction project would require a voter referendum. In addition, because the transportation garage is not educational programming, I would suggest that voters might not show their support for a property tax increase for this type of project.
By removing so many of the Act 1 exceptions, school boards will be limited in their ability to increase property taxes without voter referendum. On the other hand, you could say that property owners in Pennsylvania will have a more active roll in what school boards do with their money. Gaining voter support at the polls will require public convincing by school boards. Do you think that this is the way for taxpayers to receive property tax relief? I also wonder if some school districts will opt for creative responses to the Act 1 changes, such as forming their own charter schools.
On the subject of property taxes but slightly off topic, the T/E school district tax bills arrived in the mail. Having just read somewhere online that the average school taxes paid in Pennsylvania is $1,200 – I am struggling to see how that is possible.
My husband and I own an investment property in Glenhardie Condominiums in Wayne — a small 1-bedroom condo. According to the tax bill, our school taxes for the 1-bedroom condo are $1,232 — equivalent to the average school tax bill in the state. It is interesting that our 1-BR condo represents in T/E the model for the ‘average’ price of real estate across the state. So . . . $1,200 in school taxes buys you a 1-BR condo in the T/E school district – wonder what that same $1,200 in average school property taxes buys you in other parts of the state? A quick search online indicates that Pittsburgh is ranked as one of the ‘best buys’ in America. For the price of a 1-BR Glenhardie condo, one could buy a nice 4-BR house in Pittsburgh!
Supporting Corbett’s Budget, Rep Kampf claims it a “Victory for All Taxpayers”
| I received an official email from Rep Warren Kampf supporting the newly approved state budget and claiming that it a “victory for all taxpayers”. Included in the email was a YouTube video of Kampf’s remarks presented last night in Harrisburg. The 4 min. video contains something for everyone . . . I encourage you to watch it and look forward to your comments.
| |||
| |||
Corbett’s Budget – No Marsellus Shale Fee but $1.3 Million Restored Funding to T/E School District … Any Chance of a Rebate on 3.77% Property Tax Increase?
The fiscal year for Pennsylvania starts July 1 and for the first time in 8 years, a signed budget will meet the deadline. The Pennsylvania House Republicans passed the budget and all that awaits is Gov. Corbett’s signature.
In the last few days, there was a major battle over the projected revenue surplus. Expected to be close to $700 million, the Democrats wanted most of the money to go to the Department of Education to restore spending cuts to higher education and to school districts across the state. There was support from the Democrats that the revenue surplus should also help restore the funding cuts to human services. The Republicans argued that the $700 million should be held in reserve. The battle is over on this one – the revenue surplus will go to the ‘rainy day’ fund; although some might argue that we are living in the eye of the storm now.
Some are suggesting that this budget is not a ‘no-tax’ budget as has been touted but rather a ‘tax-shift’ budget. Using the ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ approach, the money is coming out of one pocket and going to another pocket. Theoretically, Corbett can claim that his budget does not include a tax increase to the taxpayer, the end result filters down locally. Pennsylvania taxpayers may not see an increase in state tax but due to the decrease in public education funding, school districts are forced to increase property taxes. Isn’t this shifting of the tax burden creating the same product? Whether it is at the state level of locally, the taxpayer will see an increase in taxes.
I received a copy of a ‘talking point’ statement circulated by the office of House minority leader Frank Demody (D). Among other things, it addressed the tax-shift notion of Corbett’s budget, claiming that, “. . . middle-class homeowners and seniors being forced to pick up the tab through higher local property tax hikes”. I uploaded the statement – click here for an interesting read.
Although the education cuts are not as severe as were contained in Corbett’s draft budget in March, significant cuts remain – approximately $860 million from public schools and funding to higher education remains scaled back. School districts will receive less funding than a year ago but certainly more than in the original March budget proposal.
Sen. Andy Dinniman, minority chair of the Senate Education Committee released the figures on the Chester County school districts. Collectively the 13 Chester County school districts will see state funding restored by $11+ million over the governor’s original budget. From Dinniman’s office, the followings list indicates the school district and the increase over Corbett’s proposal from March.
Avon Grove $ 280,716
Coatesville Area $1,987,156
Downingtown Area $ 949,310
Great Valley $ 750,487
Kennett Consolidated $ 405,560
Octara $ 120,294
Owen J. Roberts $ 785,118
Oxford Area $ 186,084
Spring-Ford Area $ 893,610
Phoenixville Area $ 825,756
Tredyffrin-Easttown $1,276,771
Unionville-Chadds Ford $ 827,233
West Chester Area $1,757,349
The timing of this information comes after the deadline for school district budgets. The T/E school board passed the 2011-12 school budget with a 3.77% property tax increase for taxpayers just a few weeks ago. The school budget passed 7-2 with school board members Debbie Bookstaber and Rich Brake casting the opposing votes. At the time, Brake who serves as the board’s legislative liaison, offered that he believed that some state public education funding would be restored. Although Brake did not have a crystal ball, he was estimating the amount could be $900K to $1 million. At $1.3 million in restored funding, T/E school district exceeded Brake’s expectation and was only behind Coatesville and West Chester on the county list.
For the record, T/E school district currently has $29 million in the fund balance. The $1.3 million will be additional revenue for the 2011-12 school year. Based on the restoration of $1.3 million in state funding, presumably there is no mechanism for the school board to recalculate and lower the approved 3.77% property tax increase. I guess it is not possible for TESD to offer some form of a rebate back to the taxpayers.
We have learned that the state budget does not contain imposition of a fee or tax on Marcellus Shale gas drilling. Further discussion of imposing a natural gas extraction fee is off the table until at least the fall. Another topic that will take a break is the school voucher discussion. Although temporarily on hold, legislators will most likely take up that discussion after their two-month summer break. Transportation funding is also on hold until late summer or early fall.
Political Shortcuts Around Tredyffrin . . .
We learned this week from the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee (TTDEMS) there would be some changes on the November ballot. At-large Democratic supervisor candidate Ernie Falcone’s name appeared on the May primary ballot. However, according to a press release from Dariel Jamieson, chair of the TTDEMS, Falcone has withdrawn from the race, stating ‘personal reasons’. Replacing Falcone as a Democratic at-large supervisor candidate is Murph Wysocki, currently serving as vice chair of the TTDEMS. Wysocki joins Molly Duffy as at-large Democratic candidates. Opposing Wysock and Duffy in November for the 2 at-large supervisor seats will be Republicans Kristen Mayock and Mike Heaberg. At last month’s special election, Heaberg won the special election by 2 votes and now occupies the vacated seat of Warren Kampf. You need a scorecard to keep track of the candidates and the races.
Due to the at-large supervisor candidate switch, I assume that the TTDEMS have to provide the required number of signatures for Wysocki by the August deadline. Falcone must file to officially remove his name from the general election and the TTDEMS will file the necessary paperwork for Wysocki. Also noted in Jamieson’s press release was the announcement that John Cameron, a Democratic committee person from W1 received 979 write-in ballots in the May primary and will run as a candidate for Township Auditor. Cameron will oppose incumbent Bryan Humbarger (R) for the position.
In addition to the two at-large supervisor races, there are two other Tredyffrin supervisor races . . . in the eastern district, incumbent Paul Olson (R) will be challenged by Tory Snyder (D). This is going to be a very interesting race in the township for several reasons. Olson has served on the Board of Supervisors fir 30 years with only a 2-year leave a few years back. Snyder is a first-time supervisor candidate but has served on the township’s Planning Commission for several years and recently chaired the sidewalk subcommittee. If the township supervisors do not resolve the St. Davids sidewalk issue by election time, that issue is apt to play an important role in the Olson-Snyder race . . . Snyder supports the Green Routes network and the township’s plan for sidewalks whereas Olson opposes the sidewalks at St. Davids.
In Tredyffrin’s western region, District 3 has a supervisor position also on the November ballot. Incumbent supervisor John DiBuonaventuro (R) currently holds the seat and has no Democratic opposition. The District 3 supervisor race is the only unopposed Tredyffrin race for the general election. However, there is 5 weeks for that scenario to change! The deadline for a third-party ‘Independent’ candidate to register for the November general election is August 1.
To understand the process and the registration requirements for an Independent candidate, I called Chester County Voter Services. First off, to register as an Independent candidate for November’s general election, you must already be a registered third-party Independent voter (And I believe that you needed to be registered by April 10 as an Independent). Assuming that you meet the initial registration criteria, an Independent candidate must file a ‘Nomination Form’ with required signatures by August 1. How many signatures are required by the Independent candidate? An Independent candidate is required to obtain signatures equal to 2% of the highest vote getter in the last election (November 2010) in the district for which the candidate will register.
According to Michael at voter services, in the 2010 general election District 3, Gerlach received the highest number of votes – 2,538. Calculating 2% of that vote total, and a prospective Independent supervisor will need to obtain 51 signatures for the Nomination Form. Required signatures can come from Republicans, Democrats or Independents as long as the person is a registered voter and is in one of the 4 precincts of District 3. Here’s an interesting aside . . . In doing the precinct calculations for me, Michael discovered an interesting fact . . . in the 2010 State House 157 race, the vote count in District 3 for Warren Kampf and Paul Drucker was exactly the same – 2,239 votes for each.
Back to District 3 discussion, how many registered Independents live in District 3? Assuming that my arithmetic is accurate, the combined total of registered Independents from the 4 precincts in District 3 of the township is 1,240. That means there are 1,240 voters who could collect the required 51 signatures to register as an Independent supervisor candidate and appear on the general election ballot. If you believe that there should be choice in November and you are a registered Independent in District 3, perhaps you will consider challenging JD for his supervisor seat. However, the clock is ticking . . . only 5 weeks for registered Independents in District 3 to make up their mind.
A few more political notes . . . This week I attended the Chester County Preservation Network dinner and reception. An annual event, it highlights the preservation work of the HARBS and Historical Commissions throughout Chester County. I had the pleasure of meeting the newly appointed County Commission Ryan Costello (R). A supporter of historic preservation, Costello was charming and quite personable . . . I could really see him continuing to climb the political ladder. I also received a press release that our former State Rep Paul Drucker (D) will be starting a new job with Kunkle & Sennett, a West Chester law firm specializing in worker’s compensation and employment law.