Philadelphia Inquirer Archives

Philadelphia Inquirer

Closing the chapter on the alleged football hazing incident at Conestoga High School — Is it finally over?

January 3, 2017

The following statement was released this morning from the Chester County District Attorney’s office regarding the Conestoga High School football hazing incident. As I read the statement, it appears that the three juveniles have received an offense of harassment. According to the statement, the broomstick did not penetrate the victim but rather it was used to poke him in the leg — painting a much different picture.

Coaches lost their jobs and had their reputations tarnished over the alleged football hazing incident. The statement says that the victim and charged juveniles and their families would like to move on their with lives and will be making no further statements but where does this leave the former football coaches, Conestoga football players (and their families) and the students and staff?

Hazing and bullying has no place in our high school but moving on may not be that easy.

Judge Tells Lower Merion School District to Revoke Tax Hike — Could the same thing happen in T/E School District?

September 1, 2016

28 Comments

A significant decision in the Arthur Wolk vs Lower Merion School District (click on bolded link to read 17 pg. decision) case was rendered by Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge Joseph Smyth this week. Judge Smyth ordered Lower Merion School District to revoke its tax hike, claiming that the school district could not increase taxes for 2016-17 by more than 2.4 percent. If a Lower Merion resident could take on his school district for over-taxing (and win), this decision has far-reaching ramifications for other school districts, including T/E School District. Not only front page news locally in the Philadelphia Inquirer but the Associated Press has picked up the story with articles appearing in the Washington Post, Boston Globe and beyond.

In his decision, Judge Smyth ruled that Lower Merion School District had consistently understated revenues and overstated expenses so it could falsely raise taxes when in fact it had huge surpluses. TE School District residents are you listening? Our school district has raised taxes for the last 12 years (see chart below) and continues to build its fund balance. The TE School District fund balance as of June 2016 school board meeting is $32,381,047. Just like Lower Merion School District, our school district continues to raise taxes and increase the fund balance. Folks, that is $32+ millions of taxpayer dollars!

Taxpayers in TE School District have seen their taxes increased for the last twelve years as follows:

2016-17: 3.6%
2015-16: 3.81%
2014-15: 3.4%
2013-14: 1.7%
2012-13: 3.3%
2011-12: 3.77%
2010-11: 2.9%
2009-10: 2.95%
2008-09: 4.37%
2007-08: 3.37%
2006-07: 3.90%
2005-06: 1.40%
2004-05: Zero Tax Increase

Will the Court’s decision to revoke Lower Merion School District tax challenge the TE School Board to reconsider their budgeting approach?

Attending TESD Finance and School Board meetings over the years, we have witnessed knowledgeable, educated residents appeal to the District on this subject – Ray Clarke, Neal Colligan, Doug Anestad, etc. have repeatedly weighed in on financial issues with their comments and suggestions. The discussion of the TESD 2016-17 budget even had former Tredyffrin Township Supervisor Mike Heaberg attempting to reason with the school board. Sadly, the school board does not listen – but continues to increase our taxes, build its mountain of “fund balance” dollars and, for the most part, does so with a unanimous 9-0 vote. Where does it end?

Having read the decision in the Lower Merion School District case, Neal Colligan (with input from Ray Clarke) provides the following economic analysis between LM and TE school districts. Thank you both – and here’s hoping that the TE School Board reads it!

I know we’ve all been reading with great interest the results of the Lower Merion tax case which made its way to page 1 of the Inquirer today. This is frighteningly similar to the operations of our School District and I thought it might be interesting to do some comparisons.

The resident case against the LMSD basically argued that they had District had entered into a pattern of projecting annual operating deficits during their budget (and tax rate increase) process and ended each year with large surpluses. The lower Court judge agreed and ordered LMSD to rescind some of their current tax increase. As you know; we’ve experienced the exact same pattern in T/E. For each of the last 5 years; the District has projected a deficit in its budget deliberations; set an aggressive tax (sometimes the Max allowed in the Commonwealth) increase to “close the gap” ; and each year ended in a Surplus position. It might be fun to dig deeper.

LM’s current budget allocates approximately $259 MM to District spending; T/E’s current budget is about $131 MM…just about half the size. According to the press releases; LM accumulated $40 MM in Fund Balance over the last 6 years (16% of current budget); T/E has accumulated about $13 MM (10% of current budget). In the prior six years LM taxes increases have been 21.01%; in T/E we’ve had 18.68%. (The Judge’s order states that since 2006 LMSD has increased its taxes by 53%; the increase in T/E has been 38%. I used the more narrow, recent figure as LM’s increases were skewed in the early years). LM’s accumulated Fund Balance is reported at over $57 MM (all Fund/Capital accounts included); T/E’s is about $42 MM (this includes Fund Balance and Capital Fund which was funded by Fund Balance transfer)…about 74% of LM. Let’s go deeper: The Court commented in the LM suit that the District’s average overestimation of expenses was 5.5% and the average underestimation of revenues was 1.1%. T/E has a similar history (I say it differently); in the last 10 years, our District has spent about 96% of its budgeted expenses (this budget drives the tax increase obviously) and collects about 101% of its budgeted revenue. Does it all seem similar?

Some other interesting notes. LM Enrollment growth in the last 4 years-9.03%; T/E Enrollment growth 1.46% (this statistic was used in the LM budget presentation to justify the tax increase). Students (approximate): LM-8,200; T/E; 6,400. Years in the last 6 that tax increase was in excess of Act 1: LM-6; T/E-5. EIT in community: LM-No; T/E-No. Special Education budget: LM-$46 MM; T/E-$20 MM. Salaries: LM-$123 MM; T/E-$57 MM.

In many ways, we compare favorably to LM. Remember that LM spends the highest amount on a per-student basis in the State. Without getting too far into the weeds; the fact remains that we, like our neighbors in LM, have been given deficit budgets in each of the last 5 years followed by “necessary” aggressive tax increases. Our results have been a production of SURPLUS in each of those years; just like LM. That’s the fact pattern that this suit took to question. The same fact pattern exists here…almost precisely. It’s nothing new; we’ve talked about in the T/E Finance Committee meeting for years BUT now there’s a new finding from the Courts.

Come to your own conclusions…the facts are pretty easy to find.

It’s Official — Covered Wagon Inn is saved! Local history will coexist with CVS Pharmacy – thank you Summit Realty Advisors!

May 20, 2016

5 Comments

At last night’s Planning Commission meeting in Tredyffrin, the proposed land development project to construct a new CVS pharmacy building with drive-thru on the corner of Old Eagle School Rd. and Lancaster Ave in Strafford was back in front of the planning commissioners.

Much has happened since the developer of the project, Summit Realty Advisors, first presented their redevelopment plans for the property in January which included the demolition of the Covered Wagon Inn.

As I have said from the start, the property owner John Hoopes and the developer for CVS Pharmacy, Summit Realty Advsiors and owner John Zaharchuk, were within their legal rights to demolish the Covered Wagon Inn as originally planned. There is no current historic preservation ordinance in Tredyffrin Township that protects the community’s historic buildings — not even those that are registered as National Historic Register properties!

To change the redevelopment plans for CVS Pharmacy project to include saving the Covered Wagon Inn was time-consuming and expensive for the developer — John Zaharchuk met the challenge and was successful!

It is important to acknowledge and thank those involved for saving the Covered Wagon Inn which I did publicly last night on behalf of myself and Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust. We know that redesigning a significant redevelopment plan to save a 250 year old inn was not easy (and was not legally required) — yet you did and we thank you!

It was a pleasant surprise to see writer Michaella Bond of the Philadelphia Inquirer in the Planning Commission audience. Michaella’s continued interest and support of the Covered Wagon Inn has been much appreciated — her latest installment appears in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer:

Plans for new CVS store in Tredyffrin that preserves historic inn advances

by Michaelle Bond, Staff writer

Plans to build a CVS pharmacy in Strafford, revised last month to preserve a historic Main Line landmark on the property, moved forward Thursday when Tredyffrin Township officials approved the new preliminary proposal.

The plans that Ambler-based developer Summit Realty Advisors submitted to the township on April 22 call for a 12,900-square-foot store with a drive-through and a stone facade. The proposed project no longer includes the demolition of the Old Covered Wagon Inn, an 18th-century fieldstone structure at Lancaster Avenue and Old Eagle School Road. The inn, which measures about 800 square feet, would remain on the corner of the property with the CVS beside it, according to Summit’s latest application.

The six members of the township Planning Commission who were present voted unanimously to approve the preliminary land development plans. The developer still must meet several requirements, including measures to control storm water runoff, streetscape improvements, and a written promise that the inn would be preserved.

The developer will restore the exterior of the inn and provide four parking spaces for any potential tenant that moves into the building, said Lou Colagreco, a lawyer for Summit.

Summit first brought the project before the commission in January. But after residents learned that the developer planned to raze the inn, citizens and preservationists rallied to save the building, where Duke Ellington and other famous musicians performed, where residents attended wedding receptions and got together for family meals. More than 4,300 people have signed an online petition to save the onetime tavern along the first turnpike.

The developer said in February it would come up with a compromise.

“They’ve come back successful,” said Victoria Snyder, chair of the Planning Commission. “We thank you so much for that.”

The company went with a plan that had worked in Lower Providence Township, Montgomery County. There, the Audubon Inn, built in the 1750s, was included in the development plans for a CVS and kept on the corner of the property. The Audubon Inn houses law offices.

Plans for the CVS in Strafford still include the demolition of an addition put on the Covered Wagon about 50 years ago that housed several restaurants through the years and provided space for the Thos. Moser furniture store, the most recent tenant of the Covered Wagon building. Residents focused on saving the historic building.

Pattye Benson, president of the nonprofit Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust and leader of the campaign to save the inn, acknowledged that the developer and property owner would have been within their rights to demolish the historic building.

“To me, this represents really good development and how you can put a new building in and still save a historic building,” she said.

The Fate of Tredyffrin Township’s Covered Wagon Inn spurs discussion by Radnor Commissioners

February 26, 2016

3 Comments

If nothing else, the possible demolition of the Covered Wagon Inn is furthering discussion about local historic preservation and municipal protection (or lack thereof) of historic buildings.

The ‘Save the Covered Wagon Inn’ historic preservation issue has not aired publicly in Tredyffrin Township. However, it was good to see that Radnor Township Board of Commissioners used the precarious future of the old inn in Tredyffrin, as an impetus to discuss ways to strengthen their own protection of historic buildings at their meeting this week.

As reported by Linda Stein in Main Line Suburban Life, Radnor Board of Commissioners President Jim Higgins asked local historian Greg Prichard to update the community on the protection of historic buildings in Radnor. One of Prichard’s recommendations for the township was to update the inventory of historic properties — Radnor’s current survey list is over 25 years old.

Interestingly, Tredyffrin Township already accomplished Prichard’s recommended task with their own 2003 Historic Resource Survey, which researched and photographed over 400 historic properties in the township, including the Covered Wagon Inn.

I was on the Tredyffrin Township’s HARB at that time (Tredyffrin no longer has a Historical Architectural Review Board) and it was our intent, at that time, that the 2003 survey would become the basis for a historic preservation ordinance to protect the community’s historic properties. But sadly, without municipal and/or elected official’s support, the historic preservation protection initiative never moved forward in Tredyffrin.

Fast forward to 2016, and local residents who care about protecting the Covered Wagon Inn, find themselves at the mercy of the CVS/Summit developers.The good news is that the developer has shown a spirit of cooperation and a willingness to help save the Covered Wagon Inn.

In discussing the plight of the Covered Wagon Inn, Prichard told the Radnor Commissioners, “The next time an important place is threatened in Radnor, I feel we shouldn’t have to organize big protests and publicity campaigns, when in most other places as special as ours, it’s a matter of policy.” Following-up on Prichard’s remarks, Solicitor John Rice offered that Radnor could update its zoning ordinance to offer more protection of its historic properties.

Thank you Radnor Board of Commissioners for caring about historic preservation and thank you for having an open dialogue of ways to increase ;protection of historic buildings. We know that all developers will not be as willing as Summit Realty to help save a historic building, especially if there is nothing to prevent their demolition.

Preservationist and retired architect Edward Davis Lewis of Gladwyne penned the following op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer this week … at a minimum, the fate of the Covered Wagon Inn has people talking.

ISSUE | HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Save the Old Covered Wagon Inn

Bravo for running “Preservationists try to save landmark inn” as a front-page story (Feb. 16). In a toxic, throwaway society, voices of conservation should rightly be front page.

Like so many old taverns, the Old Covered Wagon Inn in Strafford, Chester County, is a landmark, a milestone, a stopping place on the turnpike of our shared history. Inns served as meeting places for traders and travelers, post offices, polling places, and employment centers for immigrants. In the age before radio, TV, and the Internet, locals gathered in them to hear news and discuss the issues of the day. They are our national heritage.

If the developers, Summit Realty Advisors, would build next to, instead of in place of, this old inn, they would gain value and give identity to a CVS pharmacy, unlike those in so many anonymous crossroad malls. The tear-down, throwaway mindset needs to be replaced by recycle, reuse, and renew with creative planning.

|Edward Davis Lewis, retired architect and preservationist, Gladwyne

People continue to sign the online petition, ‘Save the Covered Wagon Inn’ — to date, over 4,100 have shown their support. Click here if you would like to add your name.

Support continues to grow on the ‘Save the Covered Wagon Inn’ Facebook page – click here to visit the FB page.

In 1986, the Covered Wagon Inn was saved from demolition — will history repeat itself?

February 16, 2016

10 Comments

Timing really is everything! Over the last couple of weeks, I had been working with Philadelphia Inquirer writer, Michaelle Bond on her Covered Wagon Inn article for the paper. As often happens in the newspaper world, local stories tend to get pushed back from their initial date of publication. I had just about given up on ever seeing the article, when “Can main line history coexist with a CVS” appeared on the front page of today’s Philly Inquirer and, as they say in the newspaper world, the story was “above the fold”.

Michaelle did her homework on the article, reaching out to the developer, Summit Realty Advisors, Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission, Tredyffrin Easttown Historical Society and Tredyffrin Township staff. She also spoke with the Greg Caneda, a member of the family who owned the Covered Wagon Inn from 1959 to 1986. Since 1986, the property has been owned by John G. Hoopes of Berwyn. All parties contacted by Michaelle responded with the exception of Hoopes, who did not respond to her requests for comment.

Hoopes owned Hoopes Realty, one of the Delaware Valley’s largest residential real estate firms for many years. I did a little research on Mr. Hoopes and interestingly thirty years ago, Hoopes had plans to demolish the Covered Wagon Inn. Immediately after Hoopes purchased the property on the corner of Lancaster Avenue and Old Eagle School Road from the Caneda family, he presented his redevelopment plans for a 9,000 sq. retail building to the Tredyffrin Township Planning Commission in January 1986.

Hoopes’ plans called for a new retail building using a mixture of exterior materials, including stone and stucco. One of the walls was to use glass brick and the building was to be topped by a clerestory tower. Hoopes land development plan included the demolition of the Covered Wagon Inn.

According to a Philadelphia Inquirer article dated January 20, 1986, ‘Building Plan Called Junk’, Hoopes proposed plan, which included the demolition of the old Covered Wagon, was called “junk” by several of the township’s planning commissioners.

An interesting read thirty years later, the article states that former Commissioner Robert Rand said to Hoopes, “You’re taking an ‘anywhere USA’ solution to what we think is a unique corner,”

In explaining his desire to demolish the Covered Wagon Inn, Hoopes said, “The building there now is very unfriendly to the public.” Former Planning Commissioner Chair Oleg Dudkin responded, “What you’re seeing here is a unanimously unfriendly attitude now to what you’ve got!” He further stated, “There’s an impasse here. That corner is sensitive”.

Thirty years ago, Tredyffrin Township’s Planning Commissioners stood up to Hoopes; telling him that he needed to redesign the plan so as not to demolish the Covered Wagon Inn. Although certainly dissatisfied with the planning commissioners, Hoopes balked at redesigning and did not pursue his 1986 land development plan, The Covered Wagon Inn was allowed to remain for the next thirty years.

As was the case in 1986, and continues to be the case in 2016, there is no historic preservation ordinance to protect the Covered Wagon Inn or any other historic building in Tredyffrin Township. Will our 2016 Tredyffrin Township officials have the same commitment to preserving our local history as those who served thirty years ago? We may have an answer to that question soon.

On Wednesday morning, I will join the developer, his attorney and engineer, township staff, a planning commissioner and a couple of supervisors for a meeting to discuss the CVS Pharmacy land development project. Here’s hoping that there’s a solution for the fate of the Covered Wagon Inn.

The Sam (Severino) Caneda family owned the Covered Wagon Inn (1950’s) and share their personal memories

February 10, 2016

42 Comments

The passage of time … The following is a press release from the Sam (Severino) Caneda family, owners of the Covered Wagon Inn in the 1950’s, regarding the proposed land development plan which includes the demolition of the building.

Folks driving through Strafford have probably passed the Old Covered Wagon Inn building – as we know it – and wondered what it was. We pass it and see it as home and as a living manifestation of the American Dream.

When our parents opened the Covered Wagon in the 1950’s they had nothing but determination and a belief that their hard work would be rewarded. Their commitment to living their dream paid off. For decades the Old Covered Wagon Inn was the center of civic and social life in Wayne. The hottest big bands of the day, stars like Duke Ellington and Count Basie, stopped by to play there. Saturday days were for wedding receptions, nights were for dancing to Orr Marino and the Mainliners; weeknights were for Rotary & Lions Club meetings, Ward Marston on the piano, flambéed entrees & Caesar salad prepared table side in the colonial rooms. The Junior League held their Tinsel Ball there every year, St Raphaela Retreat house held an annual first flower of spring luncheon fashion show in the terrace, Villanova’s Blue Key society held fund raisers and Villanova boosters launched their campaign to reinstate football (they won!) at “the Wagon.” On any given day, at lunch or dinner, you would see the who’s who of Strafford, Wayne and Devon. Small business owners, whether it was Rod & Charlie Park from the hardware store, Bill Braxton, Joe Flagler (Flagler’s Citgo), Mr.& Mrs. Pugh, Mr. & Mrs. Rossi (Anro, Inc.), Russ Morgan (Main Line Printing), Mr. Eadah (Eadah’s Rugs & Ernest’s dad), The Taylors from Taylor Gifts, Sam Katz (Wayne Jewelers), Mr. Cappelli the Tailor, Mr. Fox & Mr. Roach BEFORE they became Fox & Roach, “the regulars,” all part of the history of that wonderful building.

The days when such community institutions existed may have passed, but the value of a building that reminds us of what it means to be a community has certainly not. And you can see that meaning in the memories and stories people posted online in response to the news that a developer is looking to tear the building down.

What’s more, there is real economic value in a building with the architectural surprises of the Old Covered Wagon Inn. Many of those treasures have been covered up over the years but all it takes is one visionary entrepreneur to figure out how to embrace the uniqueness of the building and its meaning as a community institution while giving it a 21st century twist.

A CVS can be built – or rebuilt – anywhere. A drive thru may be convenient but it certainly does not make our community special.

Once you tear down a historic building that meant so much to so many for so long, you do lose a piece of what makes a community special. We lose a piece of what makes Strafford, Strafford. And then what’s to distinguish us from every other town in Pennsylvania, or the United States, for that matter?

What’s in a Name … Miles Tavern, Black Bear Inn, Irish Tavern, Commodore Decatur, Conestoga Waggon Tavern, etc. The Covered Wagon Inn from the 1700’s: Update Part II

February 8, 2016

6 Comments

In describing the importance of the Covered Wagon Inn, Laura Hutton comments on the Save the Covered Wagon Inn Facebook page, “… This historic building adds to the character of this township, it demonstrates a continuity to our past and pride that our past is also part of our future.” Laura, your words could not be truer and only amplified by the historical findings of historian and author Margaret DePiano of Devon.

Since reading about the proposed CVS land development project which includes the demolition of the Covered Wagon Inn, Margaret DePiano has been pouring over the early history of the building. She has identified early owners, their relationships with historic events and compared multiple sources for documentation. Her research about the historic building (Covered Wagon Inn), its 18^th century owners and the ties to the Revolutionary War era are fascinating.

Margaret is continuing her research on the early days of the Covered Wagon Inn but I wanted to share some of her findings on Community Matters. Thank you Margaret; your research underscores and adds to the importance of saving this building.

For those who would like to add their signature to the growing list of names on the Save the Covered Wagon Inn petition, please click here and you be taken to it directly.

The Miles Tavern circa 1747 – 1784 (Covered Wagon Inn)

Around 1720, when the Old Eagle School Road was carved out to intersect Lancaster Avenue (then Conestoga Road) the new road meandered through fields and pastures of our early farms. Those farms had many out buildings and one out building in particular is a part of the Old Covered Wagon Inn. The out building referenced here is situated within the middle part of today’s structure showing the outside chimney facing Lancaster Avenue. This out building existed on a farm that most likely dates back before 1700.

Many land records, tavern licenses, etc. before 1800 may not exist or incredibly hard to locate. According to an old circa 1776 map the particular location of this out building identified as the Miles Tavern was actually very close to the Chester and Philadelphia County border. Delaware County was not founded until 1789 and it was years later before its border could be identified on area maps. Many tavern proprietors or landowners close to this Philadelphia County border identified Philadelphia as a source of origin for their establishments. These early taverns often served as posts for military recruiting as well as for military signaling. The proprietors and their families of the many taverns along the old Conestoga Road were prominent individuals.

The Miles Tavern (The Old Covered Wagon Inn) was established around 1747 according to historical writings found within our local historical societies’ records. This tavern’s proprietor James Miles married Hannah Pugh and was a very active participant in the founding of The Baptist Church in the Great Valley. The Miles Tavern was ideally situated as a military post in the early days. It was located on the Conestoga wagon route with a direct access to Philadelphia as well as with Old Eagle School Road, which provided a short traveling distance to Valley Forge. Many unnamed Patriots are buried at the Old Eagle School Cemetery.

A possible historical association to the old Miles Tavern, which was located adjacent to or within the Philadelphia County borders that may be most impressive, was the then-Captain Samuel Nicholas who was the first commissioned officer by the Second Continental Congress on November 28, 1775 to lead a battalion of Continental Marines. Surmised by historian Edwin Simmons, Nicholas used the “Conestoga Waggon” tavern as a recruiting post however; the standing legend in the United States Marine Corps places its first recruiting post at the Tun Tavern in Philadelphia. This historical reference to an old “Conestoga Waggon” recruiting post at, near or within the Philadelphia borders may place the Covered Wagon in a position that quite possibly played a role in forming the Continental Navy in 1775. Today’s Old Covered Wagon Inn with a different spelling of “Wagon” may have taken its name from the early “Conestoga Waggon” tavern.

To add to the historical intrigue of the old Miles Tavern, Samuel Miles, son of James and Hannah, enjoyed a very prominent career in the military as well as in other careers that followed—A few historical snippets include: enlisted in Isaac Wayne’s Company, a part of Pennsylvania’s militia during the French and Indian War; organized a militia company of his own early in the American Revolution; entered politics and was elected to the House of Assembly in 1772 and was an advocate for American independence early on; George Washington’s dependence on Miles to secure boat transport for Washington’s army as it made it’s way south from New York to Yorktown in 1781; continued his role in history as a businessman when in 1783 he negotiated with financier Robert Morris to help underwrite the voyage of The Empress of China, the first American vessel to visit China’s mainland; cofounder of Centre Furness in State College with John Patton in 1791; was made Judge of the Appeals Court and served as an alderman and mayor of Philadelphia from 1790-1791—and there’s so much more!

Many taverns along the old Conestoga Road changed names frequently and at times, some taverns were acknowledged as having a shortened version of a name, given a nickname or no official name at all. Historical writings indicate that from 1747-1832 the Miles Tavern changed it name many times such as: John Miles Tavern; The Black Bear Inn; The Irish Tavern; The Unicorn (different location as the later Unicorn Tavern at Conestoga and Lancaster); The Commodore Decatur—named after Stephan Decatur Sr. and Jr. (Navy); and at times, no name.

Writings indicate that Jonathan Pugh with his son Captain Samuel Pugh were proprietors of the “older” portion of the tavern with James Miles’ son Richard owning the “newer” part until 1784. Around that time, the tavern was renamed The Unicorn. This reference about an “old” and “new” lends one to believe that the tavern had been enlarged before 1784. There was also an indication that from 1778-1784 Robert Kennedy rented The Unicorn—which was formerly named the Miles Tavern. Records indicate that Robert Kennedy purchased the establishment in 1784. There’s so much more “early” history associated with The Old Covered Wagon Inn that we as a community cannot let this awesome piece of history slip away.

By Margaret DePiano, author of the DEVON book

References: The Continental Era in History of the United States Marine Corps on Wikipedia; Tredyffrin Easttown Historical Society Quarterly, The Village of Spread Eagle by Herb Fry, The Old Lancaster or Conestoga Road by Boyle Irwin and Howard S. Okie; The Radnor Historical Society Bulletin Vol. III Fall, 1977 #7; Samuel Miles, Stephen Decatur Sr. & Jr. on Wikipedia; ExplorePAhistory.com Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike Road; Circa 1776-1777 Map – http://www.mapofus.org/_maps/atlas/1776-PA.html; Haverford Township Historical Society, The Lancaster Road and Turnpike

Shire moving Chesterbrook headquarters to Boston – 500 employees expected to leave Tredyffrin

November 19, 2014

17 Comments

Sadly, we learned this morning in Joe DiStefano’s Philadelphia Inquirer column that one of Tredyffrin Township’s largest employers is moving the company headquarters from Chesterbrook to Boston.

In the Fall of 2012, Shire announced a decision to build a new large office complex on Trammel Crow property at the intersection of Rt. 29 and Yellow Springs Road, moving their 1,500 employees out of Tredyffrin to neighboring East Whiteland. Shire’s decision to relocate meant the vacancy of four large corporate buildings in Chesterbrook.

However, in May 2013, Shire reversed their decision to move their headquarters from Chesterbrook. After analyzing its ‘global footprint and its real estate presence’, Shire’s new CEO Dr. Flemming Ornskov, concluded, “We feel fine where we are.”

However, eighteen months later, comes today’s announcement that Shire’s headquarters will not only leave the Philadelphia area, it will move to Massachusetts. What is curious is the same Dr. Ornskov, now says, he prefers Boston (he has a graduate degree from Harvard) and a Shire spokesperson says, “Our strategy is to become a leading biotechnology company, and Boston is a biotech center”.

Mixed messages from Dr. Ornskov to his employees! If the move had been a relocation to East Whiteland, as was his plan originally, Shire employees would have probably have retained their local jobs and their homes (many of whom no doubt are Tredyffrin residents with children in the TE School District). Just when the Shire employees thought that they were staying put in the Chesterbrook location, they receive today’s relocation announcement. According to DiStefano’s article, more than half of the Chesterbrook employees will make the move, “Shire plans to move 500 staff — executives, research and development staff and the gastrointestinal, internal medicine and neuroscience business groups — to Lexington, Mass., near the company’s infectious-disease unit.”

Shire plans to start moving its employees in phases, starting in the first quarter of 2015, with completion by the first quarter of 2016. The TE School District has forecasted a potential increase in student enrollment from current township development projects and has held discussion on how the District will meet the increase. Inasmuch as the school board discusses potential increase in enrollment from District development projects, will they likewise discuss how the relocation of 500 Shire families out of the community may potentially decrease the District’s enrollment.

Tredyffrin’s Solicitor Vince Donohue claims that government does not seek to suppress public comment … Really?

November 4, 2012

42 Comments

The Pennsylvania Sunshine Act requires all public agencies to take all official actions and conduct all deliberations leading up to official actions at public meetings. According to 65 Pa.C.S.A. § 708(a); Sunshine Act, Section 8(a), there are certain discussions that can take place in an executive session where the public is excluded. At the onset of every Board of Supervisors meeting, Michelle Kichline, in her capacity as chair, makes a statement that the Board met prior to the meeting in executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. Under the provisions of the PA Sunshine Act, those township matters pertaining to personnel or legal matters are not discussed publicly In fact, if during the ‘New Matters – Citizens’ section of the Board of Supervisors meeting, a resident asks a question that falls into the legal or personnel category, either a Board member of the township solicitor quickly points out that they cannot respond to the question. Over years of attending supervisors meeting, I can attest that the solicitor does not permit the supervisors to respond to citizen questions that fall into personnel or legal areas.

Understanding the provisions of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, it was surprising to read that Tredyffrin Township’s solicitor Vince Donohue had a public response on a legal matter in Main Line Media News article, ”Community Matters blogger Pattye Benson calls for Tredyffrin Township to adopt policy regarding the use of its website” written by Richard Llgenfritz.

If you recall Llgenfritz wrote the story, “Tredyffrin zoning hearing board member not guilty after police are a no-show at her trial” in late August. His article, in addition to TE Patch, Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily Local articles, blog posts on Chester County Ramblings and telephone and email inquiries from residents, were the reasons that I conducted my mini-research investigation.

As part of my research on the police matter, I spoke with Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors chair Michelle Kichline, Chester County District Attorney Tom Hogan, Tredyffrin Police Superintendent Tony Giaimo and District Judge Tom Tartaglio. For the results of my research and corresponding comments in post, “Community Matters closes the chapter on police investigation but Tredyffrin supervisor opens a new one”, click here.

Because of the newspaper articles, blog posts and related public comments on the police situation, Tredyffrin Township supervisor John DiBuonaventuro decided to write and post a personal letter dated September 5, 2012 on the township website, using township resources and township letterhead. Although the use of government resources by an elected official is surprising, it was the fact that the other six supervisors, the township manager and the township solicitor sanctioned the behavior of DiBuonaventuro that underscored the importance for a township website policy.

This past Friday, I posted the letter from my attorney Samuel Stretton on Community Matters. Stretton’s letter was sent to the seven members of Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors. I learned in Llgenfritz MLMN article, that Stretton’s letter was forwarded to the township solicitor Vince Donohue. No surprise as this was a legal matter and as the township solicitor, he clearly needed to be involved. However, because this is a ‘legal matter’ (remember the PA Sunshine Act and that legal and personnel matters in the township are not publicly discussed but held for executive session discussion), I was amazed that Donohue discusses Stretton’s letter with Llgenfritz. Gosh, I would think that Donohue should not be talking about sending a response to Stretton – isn’t this a legal matter? And then to further throw out there that it would be up to me whether I make the letter public or not? To my knowledge, Stretton has not received a letter and I certainly have not seen any letter from Donohue. (I will assume that Donohue’s response is ‘in the mail’). So, I am struggling to understand this – the supervisors are not permitted to discuss legal matters in public but it is OK for the township solicitor to discuss legal matters? Shouldn’t the more appropriate response from Donohue to Llgenfritz have been, “… this is a legal matter, and I am not at liberty to discuss”.

However, Donohue does not stop there in his comments to the newspaper, he goes on to address some of the issues that others and I have raised – i.e. First Amendment rights. According to Donohue,

“This township has no interest what so ever in suppressing anybody’s first amendment rights and in fact does not. All you need to do is take a look at our five six-hour public meetings that we’ve had in the last few years. All you need to do is look at the Trout Creek overlay ordinance process where we involved no fewer than 30 members of the public on working groups and commissions held six or seven public hearings even for those members of the community that didn’t like the outcome I think it’s hard to argue with the openness and the fact that the township encourages and invites public input. I think this township’s actions belie any claim that it seeks to suppress public comment positive or otherwise about township matters.”

All I can say is, wow. Donohue approved DiBuonaventuro’s letter going on the township letterhead on the township website. I suggest that he needs to go back and read it and then come up with a more convincing argument as to how his letter is not an attempt to silence those who dare to disagree. DiBuonaventuro writes in his September 5 letter, “What is more important for community to realize from this example is the disturbing trend that has developed with most of the internet elements of legitimate newspapers and the tabloid formatted blogs like “Community Matters”. Public discussion of important community matters is a ‘disturbing trend’ — whether public discussion is over the backyard fence, in the aisle of the Paoli Acme or on the Internet, it is our First Amendment right; open debate and commentary exists under the US Constitution.

In fact, before I contacted Sam Stretton, I sent DiBuonaventuro’s letter to several attorneys and journalists; individuals who do not live in the area and would not know any of the people involved. Not one person responded that they thought the actions of our government in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s letter were OK. In addition, I should add that many people used adjectives like ‘chilling’ in describing DiBuonaventuro’s attempt to suppress public discussion.

It is interesting that Donohue would point to the many meetings held over the Trout Creek ordinance (for the record, there were 7 public hearings), as somehow public comment at supervisors meetings was the same thing as DiBuonaventuro’s use of public resources, public letterhead and public website. Certainly, there were many meetings over Trout Creek, but I wonder how many of the Glenhardie residents feel that their voices were actually heard during the process? Donohue makes no mention of Trisha Larkin and her neighbors in the Daylesford neighborhood. Like the Glenhardie residents, how many of the Daylesford folks think that their voices made a difference to the outcome. The Daylesford neighbors, in addition to many residents throughout the township, were overwhelmingly opposed to the C-1 zoning change. However, as we all saw, their voices did not matter. Yet Donohue claims that the township “encourages and invites public input” … maybe that’s true if you happen to be developer Ed Morris or his attorney Denise Yarnoff, who now have the green light to build an assisted living facility on 1 acre on Lancaster Ave.

As a resident of Tredyffrin Township, this is all so very disheartening, including Donohue’s response to Main Line Media News. I am amazed that it is OK for the township solicitor to discuss a legal matter of a private citizen with the newspaper — to talk about a township response that he has sent to my attorney, Sam Stretton, that I have not even seen. Wow.

It’s like some of the rules in Tredyffrin Township only exist when they benefit our elected officials, not the citizens.

Police Department Provides Press Release re Clerical Error of Police Officers

September 5, 2012

9 Comments

Michelle Kichline, chair of the Board of Supervisors provided the following press release from the Police Department in regards to the Suzy Pratowski matter and the absence of police officers at the hearing. I believe that this was the press release that was sent to the Philadelphia Inquirer. This press release indicates that an internal investigation was conducted and the report was then reviewed by the BOS chair and by the District Attorney’s office.

Tredyffrin Township Police Department

Press Release

With reference to the case involving Suzanne Pratowski, a hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, August 21, 2012 regarding the summary charges of criminal mischief and public drunkenness. Due to a clerical error on the part of the officers (affiants) from a rescheduling of the original hearing date of Tuesday, July 24, 2012, the officers were unaware of the scheduled summary hearing.

A complete and thorough internal investigation was immediately conducted by and reviewed by the investigative division (internal affairs) of the police department. The Chairman of the Board of Tredyffrin Township Supervisors and the Chester County District Attorney’s Office has reviewed the police department’s findings. The findings showed that this was a clerical mistake on the part of the police officers and no outside influence of any type were evident in the process. Internal corrective actions were taken as a result of this investigation.

← Older Posts

Pattye Benson

Community Matters