Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Warren Kampf

Request that Political Posturing by Candidates re Rt. 422 Wait Until the Facts are In!

August 11, 2010
20 Comments

The following letter to the editor appears in this week’s Main Line Suburban newspaper. The letter is written by the Tom Caramanico, President and CEO of McCormick Taylor and Co-Chair, Infrastructure Working Group, CEO, Council for Growth. Mr. Caramanico takes to task those political candidates that are jumping ahead and using Rt. 422 in their election strategy before knowing all the facts.

Mr. Caramanico is in the trenches when it comes to the slow process of reconstructing Philadelphia area’s infrastructure. Like many cities in America, Philadelphia and its surrounding suburbs need to have serious attention paid to its roadways and bridges. Unfortunately, infrastructure improvements (and paying for it) is something that few elected officials or political candidates wish to discuss. Many candidates feel compelled to assure their constituents of ‘no new taxes’ mantra at all costs.

Is it possible that applying that type of attitude to Rt. 422 may be short-sighted; both for future economic development in the region, as well as safety concerns? Remember that 8-lane bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007 which killed 13 people and injured 145. Immediately following that incident there was nationwide discussion on our country’s aging infrastructure and need for improvements, . . . but what has actually happened?

Fast forward to 2010, we have the CEO Council for Growth and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, among other organizations, trying to improve the safety and efficiency of the area’s transportation system. Yet as Mr. Caramanico points out, politics and political posturing by candidates may be slowing the process of discovery. I agree with Mr. Caramanico, we should keep the options open and explore all alternatives . . . not just take the knee-jerk approach and say ‘no’ before knowing the facts.

Although Mr. Caramanico’s letter was not written specifically for the political race between Paul Drucker and Warren Kampf, it should cause those campaigns a degree of pause . . . are these candidates keeping an open mind on the 422 corridor master plan? As an aside, I would suggest that the website http://notolls422.com/ is not helpful for those working to improve 422.

Review the letter to the editor – I’d be interested in your comments.

Calmly look at U.S. 422 issues

To the Editor:

More than two years ago, the effort to restore passenger rail service on the R6 line to Reading was on life support because of the lack of federal and state funding, and the most recent version of PennDOT’s 12-year plan does nothing to address the daily 15-mile backup on U.S. 422.

Yet congestion on the corridor is an enormous drag on the region’s economic prosperity. Whether it’s time spent in traffic commuting to work, lost time with family or trucks stalled from delivering their cargo, congestion is costing individuals time and businesses millions of dollars each year.

Although the needs along U.S. 422 are great and the benefits of rail service and highway-capacity improvements are very understandable, it is also apparent that government alone cannot accomplish these goals.

That’s why a group of businesspeople in our region got together to seek a solution now. The CEO Council for Growth along with Montgomery, Chester and Berks counties and other stakeholders along the U.S. 422 corridor commissioned a study to look at the feasibility of financing infrastructure improvements there. The study is in progress and preliminary results are expected this fall. The study will examine a variety of financing options, including an assessment of collecting a toll on U.S. 422 to pay for transportation improvements in the U.S. 422 corridor.

As businessmen and women, we are not committed to any financing option until we have all the necessary information available. Information such as: what improvements could be provided, how would rail service and highway improvements work together, how would we guarantee the money is spent on our improvements and not in other areas of the state, how much would a toll be, and where would it be collected? Only when these and many more questions are answered should anyone take a position for or against the idea.

Unfortunately some candidates running for office have taken a position before all the facts are known. This is a mistake. As statements containing half-truths, pseudo-facts and misinformation come from both political parties, the public is not well served. Sadly for purely political purposes, issues that require mature and reasonable discussion are reduced to a sound bite or simplistic headline.

Worst of all, this kind of political posturing will effectively chase away the private sector. Entrepreneurs and business leaders won’t want to invest in a public/private partnership if they believe the “public” piece of the partnership to be impetuous or, worse, misguided.

This is a call for restraint on the part of our candidates and elected officials. Let all concerns and issues be raised and considered, but please refrain from taking a position for or against any ideas until the facts are known. If the numbers don’t work or the impacts are too great we will all be opposed to it.

However, if there is a way to improve our transportation system in the corridor, we can work on the issues together. When the study is done, let the proposal be discussed and let it rise or fall on its own merits, based on the facts. Let the process work – the success of our region requires it, the public deserves it and these difficult times demand it.

Thomas A. Caramanico, P.E., President and CEO, McCormick Taylor Inc., Co-Chair, Infrastructure Working Group, CEO, Council for Growth

Pennsylvania Ranks #1 . . . but don’t know that residents want this distinction!

August 3, 2010
4 Comments

Sometimes it’s good to be #1 – to be at the ‘top of the class’, but I don’t know that the following is a distinction that will excite us. A report from the Pennsylvania School Board Association (PSBA) that was just released lists Pennsylvania as the national leader in public school teacher strikes for the 2009-10 school year – 6 strikes over the 501 school districts.

For those that are interested, these are the six districts in Pennsylvania where strikes occurred during the 2009-10 school year:

  • South Butler, strike from September 21 – October 6
  • Saucon Valley, strike from October 14 – October 30
  • Lackawanna, strike from October 29 – November 2
  • Penn Hills, strike from February 2 – February 9
  • McGuffey, strike from March 22 – March 23
  • North Penn, strike April 19 – 27

To give you a comparison, Ohio had no strikes with 612 school districts during last year’s school year. Pennsylvania is one of 13 states in the country which legalizes strike by state employees, including public school teachers.

There’s a state representative Paul Clymer (R – Bucks) who is the minority chair of the House Education Committee who has decided that to make it his priority to outlaw teacher strikes in Pennsylvania. There are currently 2 House Bills and a House Resolution that would either ban teacher strikes in Pennsylvania or further restrict them. State Rep Daryl Metcalfe (R – Butler) introduced HB 2092 which would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to prohibit teacher strikes and lockouts. HB 1334 introduced by State Rep Doug Reichley (R – Berks) would not ban all strikes by teachers by would require more arbitration and fact-finding.

Rep.Clymer is arguing that the Commonwealth needs to stop teachers’ strikes in a tough economic year because Pennsylvanians cannot continue to pay the real estate taxes of previous years. “Taxpayers are really hard pressed to pay any increase in real estate taxes and we have to find different avenues to balance school budgets,” Mr. Clymer said. “When the teacher contracts become too onerous financially, too much of a burden for the taxpayers we have some serious problems. I’m sure the school boards do their best to come up with equity in the contract [but] everyone has to cut back, government included.” The Democrat majority chair of House Education did not respond to Clymer’s remarks.

Do we think that Paul Drucker and Warren Kampf would come down on party lines on this discussion? Would Kampf side with some of the outspoken Republicans who want to ban public school teacher strikes? And Drucker . . . would he support the right of state employees to strike? Interesting question.

Questions Posed to State Representative Candidates . . . Should Voters Expect Responses from Drucker & Kampf

July 22, 2010
58 Comments

Voters can visit the campaign websites of State House 157 candidates Paul Drucker and Warren Kampf and read about the issues . . . explore how the candidates feel about jobs, economy, spending, education, environment, etc. Using social media as an integral component of their campaigns, the candidates suggest that you follow them on Twitter, become their Facebook fan . . . sign up for email updates, etc. Drucker and Kampf give voters contact information including special campaign email addresses and encourage questions or comments from the public. Just this week, Kampf tweeted, “. . . if you have any questions or comments feel free to contact the campaign at contact@warrenkampf.com.”

Representing Community Matters, I recently contacted each of the candidates through their campaign websites. Based on Community Matters discussion and questions posed from readers, my questions to Drucker and Kampf were straightforward and non-confrontational. Candidates encourage questions from the public so I asked each a question and the results are in . . . below are the questions that I posed to Drucker and Kampf and their respective responses.

Recently, Drucker presented a $1 million check from the Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program to Strategic Realty for phase 1 funding of the Paoli Transit Center. In the press release, Drucker stated that the project would “. . . ultimately create more than 5,000 construction jobs and more than 2,000 permanent jobs in Paoli.”

My question to Drucker: Could you please provide the analysis for the 2,000 permanent jobs in Paoli that would be provided by the Paoli Transit Center Project?

Peter Monaghan, president of Strategic Realty provided Rep Drucker with further details on temporary job and permanent job estimates for the Paoli Transit Center Project. Estimates for permanent job creation are based on the square footage of planned office, retail and residential space. The private development component of the Paoli Transit Center project will yield approx. 300,000 sq. ft of office space, 75,000 sf of retail space and 525,000 sf of residential space. The formula for permanent jobs is as follows:

  • Retail: 75,000 sf @ 1 job/500sf = 150 jobs
  • Office: 300,000 sf @ 1 job/200sf = 1,500 jobs
  • Residential: 525,000 sf @ 1 job/10,000sf = 53 jobs
  • Transit: 50 jobs

A recent post on Community Matters prompted 80+ comments (including Phoenixville Councilman Ken Buckwalter). The subject of the post – the current FBI investigation of local attorney Jeffrey Rotwitt for his role in the Family Court land development project scandal in Philadelphia. In April, Rotwitt hosted a campaign fundraiser for State Rep candidate Warren Kampf. As a result of Kampf’s association with Jeffrey Rotwitt, Rep. Drucker released a statement calling for Kampf to return of money raised at the Rotwitt fundraiser. Hoping to provide Kampf an opportunity to respond to Drucker and to the resident’s interest in the topic, I contacted Kampf for a response.

My question to Kampf: Do you have an official response to Mr. Drucker concerning the FBI investigation of Mr. Rotwitt and money raised at your April political campaign fundraiser hosted by Mr. Rotwitt?

Unfortunately, there was not a response to my email by Kampf nor any acknowledgement of my communication. Not receiving a reply, I sent a follow-up email that repeated the question . . . to date, there remains no response. For me, I am left to wonder why Mr. Kampf sent this tweet to his followers “. . . if you have any questions or comments feel free to contact the campaign at contact@warrenkampf.com.”

Updates from Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors Meeting Last Night

July 20, 2010
20 Comments

Summer Board of Supervisors Meetings are traditionally sparsely attended and last night’s meeting was no exception. In fact, Chairman Bob Lamina was absent and Vice Chairman Paul Olson presided.

From my standpoint, there were 3 noteworthy discussion topics from last night’s supervisors meeting. The first I mention for selfish reasons . . . I am a member of the township’s HARB (Historic Architectural Review Board) and each year we select a residential and non-residential property in the township to honor for historic preservation. The HARB award for residential historic preservation was awarded to Margie and John Sacharok, owners of Upper Stream Farm in Berwyn. This beautiful circa 1760 home was featured on last year’s 5th Annual Historic House Tour and has been wonderfully restored. The award for non-residential historic preservation was awarded to Montessori Children’s House of Valley Forge. Montessori Children’s House created a partnership with Valley Forge National Historical Park and the school’s new home is in the southern corner of the park on Thomas Road. Restoring a historic house and barn for the nonprofit school was a unique pairing and one of the few partnerships in a national park in the country. I gave a brief historic overview of each property and showed a PowerPoint presentation featuring the before and after journey of the new home of the Montessori school in Valley Forge park.

The second item of interest from the supervisors meeting had to do with the 2011 township budget. During the liaison reports, Phil Donahue updated on the Finance Committee. Supervisors Donahue, Paul Olson and John DiBuonaventuro sit on the Finance Committee along with the township finance director and township manager. In his committee update, Donohue suggested public meetings in September and October to discuss the revenues and expenses in the 2011 township budget. This type discussion would be useful prior to the formal township budget process in November. I applaud Donahue’s suggestion, however there was very little further discussion from the other supervisors. So I’m guessing the discussion of the planned public finance meetings now moves to the August Board of Supervisors meeting. I have a feeling there may be more to the 2011 budget discussion than we saw last night!

The third topic from last night and the one that generated the most discussion was in regards to the township building’s failing HVAC system. Public Works Director Steve Norcini asked the Board of Supervisors for an additional $111K (not contained in 2010 budget) to perform needed HVAC retrofitting. If I understand the discussion correctly, the 2010 budget contained $85K for the necessary work but an early estimate has determined that the total cost of retrofitting the HVAC is significantly higher than in the budget — approximately $193K (thus requiring the extra $111K).

There were many questions from Supervisors DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Donahue concerning the HVAC issue including (1) why would the prospective HVAC contractors know the estimated cost of the project in advance of their bid, (2) why was the project estimate so substantially lower in the 2010 budget than the actual estimated cost; (3) why did the project require a complete retrofit rather than repair; (4) why were the 2 rooftop units installed 2 years ago if the controls and ducts were known to be failing, etc., etc.

Initially Olson made a motion and Kampf seconded to move the HVAC project move forward to bid, however after further discussion from the board and citizens, a new motion was made to table the discussion until the August Board of Supervisors meeting, allowing for further investigation. This topic must have been discussed for at least 30 minutes and afterward there remained many more questions than answers. It seems so curious to me that the HVAC retrofitting estimate in the 2010 budget would be less than half the estimated ‘real’ cost to do the project.

State’s Rights of Interstate Tolling May Pose an Additional Transportation Issue for Drucker & Kampf . . . Tolling of I-95 in Pennsylvania?

July 17, 2010
Comments

The topic of 422 tolling has spurred much debate and discussion on Community Matters – along with the cost to develop the proposed 422 master plan and questions about how it would be financed. As a result, I was interested to read that there are plans in the works in Harrisburg for a special session to discuss transportation issues state-wide.

After recently passing the state’s budget, the idea is that the special session on transportation would present an opportunity to address Pennsylvania’s estimated $3 billion in needed revenue for transportation projects. A funding gap of $450 million was created when the Federal Highway Administration denied the tolling of I-80; the special session focus is to encourage the lawmakers to reach a consensus on how to fund the transportation funding gap.

Unfortunately, the $450 million number continues to increase. In May, the Transportation Advisory Committee said that it would take $3.5 billion annually to maintain Pennsylvania’s roadways over the next 20 years. That need is strongly linked to the increase of traffic predicted for the state’s roads. One report estimates that the number of trucks on Pennsylvania’s interstates will increase by 50% by 2030.

No date yet set for the special session but probably will occur in late August. It is hoped the meeting will encourage consensus building in tackling the considerable transportation issues. One of the specific areas of focus for the lawmakers will be I-95 as it runs through Philadelphia. This section is one of the most expensive to maintain because it is elevated nearly its entire route through the city. But I-95 is also one of the most important roads through the city and not an easy one to close for repairs and upgrades.

With tolling of I-80 off the table, I have read about some interesting proposals to help the transportation shortfall including a series of suggestions by State Rep Rick Geist (R-Blair) who serves as the minority chair of the Transportation Committee. One of Blair’s suggestions is to ask the federal government for the right to toll I-95 as it did for I-80. I don’t really see how there is any difference between the request to toll I-95 vs. I-80. In denying the I-80 toll request, the US Department of Transportation told the governor no tolling because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law.

My guess is that there is a grassroots effort to encourage the change in the law and to give the use of the state tolling revenue back to the individual states and out of the federal government hands. This poses an interesting situation regarding federal vs states rights as it relates to tolling of interstate highways. The state of North Carolina has determined that if they were to toll their 185 mi. stretch of I-95, revenue would be $300-350 million annually. So maybe the lawmakers in Harrisburg are going to seriously consider the tolling of I-95. But to expect a different outcome than received from the I-80 toll request would require Pennsylvania to join the movement to change the federal law and give authority of how the tolling dollars are spent to the individual states. How do we feel about changing federal law and giving more rights to the individual states as applied to interstate tolling? Remember the federal vs. state control issues . . .

Another idea of Griest’s is to raise the ceiling on the Oil Company Franchise Tax, which reached its current ceiling in 2006, and divesting the state police from the Motor License Fund, which could free up $500 million annual for transportation.

The chair of the House Transportation Committee, State Rep Joseph Markosek (D-Allegheny) said one idea which had gained some support was the use of public-private partnerships (known as P3’s), which allow private firms to manage public properties such as highways.

As an aside, a toll increase on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in January will make it the most expensive long toll road in the nation. This past week the Turnpike Commission approved a 3 percent increase for users of E-ZPass and 10 percent increase for cash customers, effective Jan. 2, 2011. That will raise the cash cost of driving the turnpike to 8.5 cents per mile, highest of the 11 U.S. toll roads of 100 miles or longer. Currently, the Pennsylvania and New Jersey turnpikes are tied at 7.7 cents per mile.

It is looking like 422 tolling may not be the only transportation topic debated in the upcoming Drucker – Kampf square off . . . I look forward to hearing the 157 candidate’s opinion on I-95 tolling and on federal vs. state’s rights on interstate tolling.

And just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water . . .

Kampf’s Campaign Fundraiser Hosted by Jeffrey Rotwitt Raised $$ . . . Rotwitt Under FBI Probe Over Family Court Scandel . . . Should Kampf’s Campaign Return $$?

July 13, 2010
81 Comments

Just a couple of days ago, I was writing about the PA Turnpike Commission officials in trouble with the law . . . and then I receive a press release about a FBI investigation probe involving local attorney Jeffrey Rotwitt. Rotwitt hosted an April fundraiser for State Representative candidate Warren Kampf.

If I understand the story correctly, Rotwitt earned fees on both sides of a deal to build a new Family Court building in Center City. In late May, Rotwitt’s law firm, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP fired him after Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille killed Rotwitt’s deal to develop a $200 million Family Court tower at 15th and Arch streets.

The Family Court project is still going to move forward but with the state serving as developer. There is no way of telling whether the state will recover any of the millions in fees already paid out to Rotwitt and his partner, Conshohocken developer Donald W. Pulver. Taking money from the state ($1.1 million) and also receiving $500K as developer of the project . . . what did Rotwitt miss the ‘conflict of interest’ course in law school? Rotwitt who was with Obermayer for 35 years, continues to suggest a ‘misunderstanding’ as the FBI investigates. (As an aside Rotwitt’s developer partner Donald Pulver either received or was in line to receive $6.2 million in fees and costs for the project from the state!)

I was aware of the FBI investigation of Rotwitt from reading the Inquirer but did a little research on Rotwitt’s employer, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel. The Philadelphia-based firm has 125 lawyers and has been a big-money player on Pennsylvania’s political scene; last year contributing a total of $175,000 to statewide campaigns.

It wasn’t until I received the following press release that I made the connection between Jeffrey Rotwitt and Warren Kampf. Just prior to his firing from Obermayer in late May, Rotwitt hosted a $250/person campaign fundraiser for Kampf in his home. As he follows the FBI investigation of Rotwitt, I’m guessing that Kampf may want to distance himself from his friend and the FBI probe . . . probably returning the dollars raised at that April fundraiser might not be a bad idea. What’s that saying about ‘judging people by the company they keep’?

In case you are interested, here is the press release that is being circulated from State Rep Paul Drucker in regards to this matter:

Rep. Paul Drucker Calls on Opponent to Return Money Raised by Fundraiser under Federal Investigation

Kampf received thousands raised by Jeffrey Rotwitt, currently under investigation by the FBI for role In Philadelphia’s scandal-plagued
Family Court project

PAOLI, Pa. – State Rep. Paul Drucker today called on his opponent Warren Kampf to return money raised for him by Jeffrey Rotwitt, an attorney who is currently under investigation by the FBI for his central role in the scandal-plagued Philadelphia Family Court development. Kampf held an April fundraiser at Rotwitt’s home that raised thousands of dollars for his campaign.

“Warren Kampf can’t call himself a reformer if he tries to ignore the fact that one of his chief fundraisers is under federal investigation for his role in the Family Court fiasco,” said Drucker today. “We need to change the way business is done in Pennsylvania, and if Kampf is serious about running an honest campaign, he should return the money Rotwitt raised for him immediately.”

A Philadelphia Inquirer investigation revealed that Rotwitt, who was a paid advisor to the courts for the project, was also working as a partner in the development itself – getting paid by both sides without fully disclosing his dual role. Rotwitt was fired from his law firm when his dual role became public. The scheme has cost taxpayers millions and is being investigated by the FBI.

“While I work toward real solutions, my opponent is working with people who epitomize our broken system of government,” Drucker said. “This is not the kind of reform Harrisburg needs.”

422 Master Plan & Tolling . . . Talking Point of Drucker & Kampf

July 13, 2010
30 Comments

It’s fascinating how political campaigns evolve . . . the tolling of Rt. 422 has become an interesting talking point between the Drucker and Kampf campaigns. Back in April, Drucker spoke on a news video for Times Herald; the video was accompanied by an article where the 422 master plan and tolling was discussed. I heard the words ‘tolling on 422’ and immediately assumed that my trips to the outlet malls just became more expensive! However, I discovered that occasional or short on-off users of Rt. 422 would not be charged a toll in the proposed 422 expansion plan. Likewise, my trips to the 422 movie theater would remain ‘untolled’ under this plan.

In fact, I was able to go back a few months and find the Times Herald article, where Drucker explains — “The plan, as it was explained to me, is that short-term users – on- and off-type users of 422, will not be tolled, because of some of the technology that is in place,” said Drucker. “Tolling will be for the people who use it during more of a steady period.”

Drucker provided follow-up information in last week’s Main Line Suburban newspaper — should there be any misunderstanding among residents. Drucker wrote the following op-ed article on the master plan for Rt. 422:

Looking Carefully at the Route 422 Corridor Master Plan
By PA State Rep Paul Drucker (D-157)
Recently the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission and the Chester County Planning Commission have presented to several municipal boards in our area the Route 422 Corridor Master Plan. This is a proposal that could significantly alter the transportation infrastructure of the Route 422 corridor.

The Route 422 Corridor Master Plan, among other things, provides for light rail service through the corridor and could be economically advantageous to our region. Pennsylvania needs a strong infrastructure to keep us competitive to attract and retain businesses to our state, and along with them, much-needed jobs.

With over a half a million jobs in Montgomery County and more than 250,000 jobs in Chester County, 28 percent of the Gross Southeast Regional Product is generated in these two counties alone. By 2030, the Route 422 Corridor is expected to add another 30,000 jobs.

Congestion on Route 422 is strangling the area with 15-mile backups daily on the highway and overflow onto parallel local roads. All of us who have spent time on Route 422 knows that it is a frustrating driving experience, to the point that we have recently witnessed a dangerous episode of road rage. In addition, there is no room for businesses to expand or new companies to locate in the corridor.

Currently there is no federal or state money forthcoming to the area to help with infrastructure improvements. Today, over half of the region’s long-range major capital-investment plan for the southeastern counties is consumed by existing assets that need to be rebuilt or replaced, such as crumbling bridges, and the number of major new investments that expand capacity is extremely limited.

One of the more controversial aspects of the plan is the possibility of tolling a portion of Route 422. Modern tolling technology allows for an express lane accessible only to long-distance travelers of the road. It would not be accessible to those drivers who travel Route 422 for short distances. I think such an option could work. However, I would not support a tolling structure that forces daily, on/off drivers to pay tolls.

I know many of my constituents use Route 422 every day, some several times a day. I do not support placing the burden of multiple tolls daily onto my constituents, especially in these difficult economic times.

As a policymaker I have an obligation to give serious consideration to plans that can improve the lives of people in our region and address our serious budget and transportation challenges. This proposal deserves the consideration of all of us who live here.

I will continue to monitor this plan as it moves forward, and I will remain focused on my priorities of delivering a fair, balanced budget in a timely manner, creating jobs in our district and helping Pennsylvania to recover from this difficult recession. I have always, and I will continue to, keep your wallets in mind as I represent you.

Drucker’s op-ed article does well to clarify his position and to once again state that the master plan would not include tolling of occasional users of Rt. 422, or those that are on-off and not traveling the entire stretch of the highway on a regular basis. I think we could all agree that something needs to change on 422 – if you are ever up watching the early news on TV (as I am) you know that the discussion of 422 back-ups and traffic slow-down is part of the daily news updates. It is understood that discussion of 422’s master plan is in the very early stages but it is refreshing to know that there are people with vision and long-range future planning skills. Like it or not, something has to significantly change on 422; the problem isn’t going to solve itself without help!

In response to Drucker’s op-ed article, Warren Kampf wrote the following for his website. Kampf is taking the stance of no tolling, apparently under no conditions. From a long-range planning standpoint, how does Kampf propose to help relieve the traffic nightmare of Rt. 422? What is his solution to the problem? I support debate on the 422 master plan and tolling issue but Kampf’s criticism of the plan without offering a viable alternative is not a solution. Kampf’s is clear that he does not support tolling . . . again, I would ask that rather than poking holes in his opponent’s plan, a better approach might be to present his own options to fix the traffic problems of 422. How would he design the Rt. 422 master plan . . .?

Why I oppose tolling Route 422
By Warren Kampf, July 12th, 2010

I read with incredulity a recent letter to editor by Paul Drucker attempting to change his position on the tolling of Route 422.

As reported by The Times Herald on April 9, 2010, Mr. Drucker told their editor that he supported tolling specifically for the proposed Schuylkill Valley Metro. Now, however, Mr. Drucker is trying to change his position to make it less politically damaging.

My position on tolling Route 422 is clear: I oppose it. I do so for the following reasons:

1. I do not believe that burdening our working families and seniors with added costs in these troubled economic times is a good idea, but that is exactly what a toll on Route 422 would do.

2. The revenue from this action comes nowhere near what is needed to fund the $2.2 billion (or more) cost of the proposed Schuylkill Valley Metro. There is no reason to investigate or begin tolling 422 for the purpose of building a light-rail line unless and until other construction funding is secured. [In 2004, estimated cost for the Schuylkill Valley Metro was $2.2 billion (Pottstown Mercury); taking inflation into account, current costs would probably be higher today.]

3. Tolling Route 422 and only Route 422 equates to unfair taxation. Unlike Mr. Drucker, I do not believe those who utilize Route 422 deserve to bear a greater burden than those who utilize Route 202, the Blue Route, the Schuylkill Expressway, and other highways that are just as important to the economic well-being of our region as Route 422 is.

4. There are no guarantees that tolling revenue will be used as Mr. Drucker and his Harrisburg politician allies claim.

Unlike the Turnpike, which is a separate authority run by the revenue it raises from tolling, tolls on Route 422 would go into the state’s general fund and could be used for any purpose (unless the Legislature passes special legislation approving a local authority.) Remember, these are the same people who passed gaming in our state by promising to use the money for property tax relief and instead spent it to help build a sports arena in Pittsburgh.

There is simply too great a risk that Mr. Drucker’s toll money will be used to fund items other than the construction of the proposed Schuylkill Valley Metro.

Since Mr. Drucker made his tolling proposal, I have consistently stated that I do not support it for the reasons above. Unfortunately, once Mr. Drucker was hit with the reality that the people he represents do not want his tolls, he has tried political back-pedaling to re-write history. Today, he is attempting to say that this tolling money would be used to maintain and improve Route 422. As stated above in number 4, we can’t trust that tolling revenue will be used for this purpose.

Rather than always look to new revenue sources (taxes, fees, tolls) first, Mr. Drucker and those like him in Harrisburg should first look to prioritize spending on core services by cutting spending on non-core function programs. Instead, they continue to over-spend and over-borrow (including more than a half-billion dollars this year to “balance” their budget) and then support other fees – like 422 tolls – for projects they claim are vital but don’t have the wherewithal to fight for in the regular budget process.

Yes, we must address congestion on Route 422 and the need to continue building upon the positive economic impact this corridor has on our region. To do so, I believe we must first work to cut wasteful state spending and focus the state budget on priorities like education, job creation, property tax relief and infrastructure improvements.

Only after we have exhausted all efforts at controlling and focusing spending wisely — and only after a thorough and careful analysis of all options is completed — should we ever look toward an increased burden on our citizens. That is what I will work to do in Harrisburg.

Montgomery County’s 2011 Budget Will Require ‘Radical Changes’ – Is this Handwriting on the Wall for Chester County, and Specifically Tredyffrin Township?

July 12, 2010
9 Comments

I just read the following in Norristown’s Times Herald referencing radical changes needed by Montgomery County government to either drastically cut expenses or increase revenue to fill the $22.5 million funding gap expected in their 2011 budget.

OK, I know that we are not in Montgomery County; and I understand that this is county government vs. township government. But is it possible that the crisis facing our neighboring county’s budget for 2011 could be similarly recognized in Chester County, . . . and then ultimately Tredyffrin?

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to suggest a correlation between Montgomery and Chester County government funding issues. We can only hope that Chester County does not face the enormity of the budget gap for 2011 as forecasted by Montgomery County.

There have been recent comments on Community Matters that Tredyffrin’s 2011 budget can (and some have suggested, should) wait until later in the year for discussion. From my vantage point, postponing township 2011 budget discussion until November or December is short-sighted and not fiscally responsible.

In my opinion, a mid-year discussion of 2010 budget (expenses and revenues to-date) and forecasting for the 2011 budget is a fiduciary responsibility. My desire for a public 2010/11 township budget discussion is not about Warren Kampf’s political campaign or for that matter, ‘party politics’. This country, state, county, and yes, Tredyffrin Township are struggling with finances — so instead of suggesting that supervisors and residents just wait until November or December for budget analysis, I would simply ask why wait?

By July of last year, the BAWG committee was well underway in their 2010 budget meetings. Shouldn’t we review where we are with BAWG’s 2010 recommendations . . . have all the cost-saving suggestions been implemented? I don’t know, but maybe if we started discussing the township budget situation now, there would still be time in the 2010 calendar year to correct or to implement some of the BAWG recommendations. I just don’t understand how putting off the budget discussion helps anyone?

By KEITH PHUCAS
Times Herald Staff

COURTHOUSE — With economy still in the grips of a slowdown, Montgomery County government has to cut expenses or raise revenue to fill a $22.5 million funding gap for the 2011 budget, and officials are expected to discuss shrinking the size of government.

In a June letter to the commissioners from Chief Financial Officer Randy K. Schaible, the county can’t count on transferring funds as it did this year. For the 2010 budget, the county used $8 million from its capital reserve fund for the general fund.

Schaible said borrowing will increase the county’s debt service in next year’s budget. The county borrowed $35 million for open space in March 2010, which will push up debt by $2 million per year. As well, the government is expected to borrow for capital spending, which includes the recent prison expansion, and that will cost $4 million a year in debt service.

At the commissioners meeting Wednesday, Deputy Chief Operating Officer James Maza said officials would ask departments to draw up a proposed no-growth and no-tax budgets, and to avoid raising taxes could mean a 9 percent cut in departmental expenditures “across the board.”

“This gap contemplates that we’re going to have to make some radical changes from previous budget decision making,” he said. “We understand that’s going to call into question downsizing both the function and the size of government,” Maza said.

Also, in order to meet pensions, the county is considering issuing pension obligation bonds to fund the $20 million contribution, he said.

A major concern is state grant funding. Schaible estimates Pennsylvania is behind by $1 billion in its budget. Recently, Congress voted against sending more than $800 in Medicaid payments to the state. Officials hope the Obama administration will reconsider restoring the aid.

In December 2010, the commissioners voted 2-1 to adopt a $407.7 million budget and managed to avoid a tax increase. Commissioners’ Chairman Jim R. Matthews and Vice Chairman Joseph M. Hoeffel voted in favor; Commissioner Bruce L. Castor, Jr. voted against the spending plan.

What’s in the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Water?

July 10, 2010
Comments

What is wrong with the Pennsylvania Turnpike officials . . . they seem to have a high propensity to break the law. Have you been keeping track? There has been a steady flow of Turnpike officials in the news, including three arrests of Turnpike officials.

The latest Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission official caught red-handed was their chief operating officer. George Hatalowich, CFO was arraigned this past week for an incident that occurred in April. Hatalowich was charged with drunk driving, causing property damage, reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident. He drove a car that spun out of control, then crashed in to a Hershey Park fence. However, that was not the end of it – he then drove off, heading north in a southbound lane. Police stopped him and his blood alcohol level was about double the legal limit.

Good news for the Turnpike Commission . . . Hatalowich was driving his private vehicle and was not on public time when the accident occurred. Hatalowich is in the process of applying for admission to the state’s rehab program, which is available to first time DUI offenders. If the program, which includes a suspended license and safe driving classes but no jail time, is fully completed by the offender, the DUI record is expunged. If the application is rejected or the program is not successfully completed, the offender will still face a criminal trial.

Hatalowich’s DUI charge follows the February resignation of Tim Carson, who was the vice chair of the Turnpike Commission. Carson had a couple of drunk driving accidents in 2003 and 2006, however unlike Hatalowich; Carson was driving state-owned vehicles. After Carson’s second DUI in 2006, he got a Turnpike Commission employee as a chauffeur. The chauffeur, Mimi Lindelow, was officially a Turnpike marketing/community relations officer but she spent much of her time driving Carson places in his Turnpike vehicle. Carson apparently had to be driven places because his driving license was suspended for a period following his second DUI conviction. However, Ms. Lindelow’s chauffeuring continued beyond the time he must have had his license restored. Here’s a downside to Carson’s resignation . . . he had to give up the Turnpike car and the ‘chauffeur’. Guess it’s back to her 9-5 desk job as the Turnpike’s community relations officer for Ms. Lindelow.

There was also the firing of the chair of the Turnpike Commission, Mitchell Rubin. Governor Rendell fired Rubin in March 2009 after the FBI began investigating Rubin for his connection to a political corruption scheme that was the mastermind of state Senator Vince Fumo. As an update, Rubin was sentenced to 6 months of house arrest in April. Fumo is serving a 54-month sentence in a federal prison in Kentucky.

Wonder what’s in the Turnpike Commission water? Speaking of the Turnpike Commission, I am a member of the Turnpike Commission Roundtable group and I have not received any communication for several months. What’s the status — does the Turnpike widening project continue to remain on hold? What about the Rt. 29 slip ramp? Or the sound walls along Yellow Springs Road? Maybe our elected officials could ask for an update from the Turnpike Commission.

Why Does Tredyffrin’s 2011 Budget Discussion Have to be a Political Party Debate? Why Does Transparency and Open Government Need to be Criticized?

July 7, 2010
31 Comments

Wayne resident, Rob Betts wrote a letter to the editor which appears in this week’s Main Line Suburban, as a rebuttal to a written statement by Dariel Jamieson, chair of the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee, delivered at the June Board of Supervisors meeting – here is a copy of the TTDEMS 2011 Budget Proposal as presented.

Although Ms. Jamieson represented herself as chair of the TTDEMS at the June Board of Supervisors Meeting when presenting her statement, I wrote the following in a June 22 post on Community Matters:

” . . . The suggested TTDEMS 2011 budget process further includes a request that the budget discussion occur in an open and transparent manner with public involvement.

Although the proposed 2011 budget process was suggested by the local Democratic Committee, I do not believe their recommendations are politically polarizing. Rather, this suggested 2011 budget process encourages a thoughtful, systematic budget approach in difficult and challenging economic times; a process that many residents in the township would probably support (regardless of their political affiliation).”

I found Rob Betts op-ed article interesting on several levels. In reading the article, what first jumped out at me was a missing piece of information. Members of the community have been quick to criticize those that write political opinion articles and do not state their own political affiliations. Personally, I believe that if an individual is writing on a non-political topic, such as Ed Sweeney’s letter to the editor last week as a member of the Knights of Columbus, there should be no need to identify with a political party. However, if someone is writing on a political topic, I agree with critics that the writer should inform the reader of their political affiliation such as a committee person for either the local Democratic or Republican parties. For the record, Mr. Betts overlooked providing his political affiliation as the GOP committeeman for E-4 in his letter to the editor.

Reading Mr. Betts op-ed article, and of his membership on the BAWG committee (and participation in the subsequent BAWG report) brought back memories for me. I recall standing in front of the Board of Supervisors last fall and asking a series of questions regarding the BAWG report and the $50K St. Davids sidewalk offer contained in the report. If you recall, I provided the supervisors with questions in advance; one which included a question about whether any BAWG members were members of St. Davids Golf Club. If memory serves me correctly, Tom Coleman (as chair of the BAWG committee) was asked to answer my question and he reported that Mr. Betts was a St. Davids Golf Club member, but quickly added that Mr. Betts had recused himself for any votes related to St. Davids.

So in reading Mr. Betts letter, I had to ask myself why is he so seemingly concerned about the transparent budget process that Ms. Jamieson suggested in her proposal? But, when I recall the St. Davids Golf Club $50K sidewalk offer, and the attempt to cover-up the offer contained in the report, I guess I have my answer. We all remember the negative attention that our township and supervisors received over the St. Davids Golf Club offer!

Transparency from our elected officials is important to me and it saddens me to know that people can be criticized for wanting that kind of open and honest government. I believe that the suggestions that Ms. Jamieson posed in her 2011 Budget Proposal were ones that we could all support. I would take it a step further and suggest that rather than representing the TTDEMS with her proposal, I believe that the suggestions may have been better served if presented as a resident rather than a political party chair. However, I understand that as chair of the TTDEMS, Ms. Jamieson probably thought it best that her remarks be with full disclosure.

As I said in my Community Matters post of June 22, ” . . . this suggested 2011 budget process encourages a thoughtful, systematic budget approach in difficult and challenging economic times; a process that many residents in the township would probably support (regardless of their political affiliation).”

Below is Rob Betts letter to the editor . . . you make your own judgement.

Openness plea a Dem power play

To the Editor:

I was left shaking my head at the demand from Dariel Jamieson that the Tredyffrin Township supervisors open up the budget process to more public scrutiny. I believe the request is nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to discredit the budget once it is adopted by claiming it wasn’t “open.”

The Democrats’ goal is to increase the scope of government at all levels, which requires an increase in revenue, and unlike Washington, our supervisors can’t print money. An Earned Income Tax is their ultimate goal, but without any Democrats on the Board of Supervisors, the best they can do is complain about the process. The request for openness is just their way of saying the 2011 supervisor election has begun.

As a member of the Budget Advisory Working Group last year, I can assure you that the township budget is lean. Much of the township’s budget is fixed due to debt service and collectively bargained contracts. The supervisors refinanced a significant portion of the township’s long-term debt this year (a BAWG recommendation), leaving union contracts and their benefit cost as issues to be addressed.

The current contracts with the township’s unions run through 2013 so those costs are fixed for the current budget cycle. Long-term, the defined-benefit system and free retiree health care for uniformed employees must be changed, for all levels of government, not just Tredyffrin Township. Our supervisors should be applauded for forcing arbitration with the police union on the health-care issue and maintaining the township’s AAA credit rating during the recent bond refinancing.

The Democrats are ready to start the next supervisor election. Look for lawn signs in December.

Rob Betts, Wayne

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme