St. Davids Golf Club Archives - Page 3 of 7

St. Davids Golf Club

Update on the Sidewalks subcommittee . . .

I attended Thursday night’s Public Meeting of the Sidewalks Committee. Based on the February 22 Board of Supervisors meeting, it was my understanding that the Sidewalk Committee would update the public on the prioritizing of sidewalks in the township. If you recall, there was much debate about the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk requirement in their land development plan. First, the supervisors voted to return the $25K sidewalk escrow to St. Davids and then, based on public opinion, opted to reverse the decision in February. The township continues to hold St. Davids sidewalk escrow pending the outcome of the Sidewalk Committee recommendation and then ultimate vote of the Board of Supervisors relative to sidewalk requirements in the township. (I remain of the opinion that the township’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan should provide the basis and guidance for land development plans).

Although it was my understanding that the supervisors had charged the Sidewalk Committee with focusing specifically on sidewalks in Tredyffrin, it appears their interpretation is much broader – to include bicycle paths and trails in addition to sidewalks as part of their recommendation. I am not sure that this was the intended mission of the supervisors for the committee. For me, the larger picture is for current and future land development projects; and the liability issues to the township which currently exist. Land development projects requiring sidewalks and the direction of the Planning Commission on these projects remains open, pending the outcome of the committee’s recommendation and ultimate supervisors vote. A decision is required by the end of the year and I am concerned about the ability of the Sidewalk Committee to meet that timeline given that it’s August.

The Sidewalk Committee has worked on a resident survey and discussed its mode of distribution — whether to email or mail to residents, use the township’s Facebook or the township website and associated costs, etc. How to write the questions so as not to create bias in the response? Following the workshop meeting, an audience member suggested a marketing company needed to review the questionnaire and that a ‘test’ group should receive the survey before a public release.

Another discussion point was in regards to neighborhood community meetings and whether to solicit survey results before (or after) the community meetings were held – do not know if there was a definite answer. The location of the three community meetings was discussed — Panhandle and eastern area of the township; the Chesterbrook area; and Berwyn/Paoli area. I commented that the Great Valley residents should not be excluded in the sidewalk discussion – sidewalks should be a township wide discussion. As a result, I think all residents will be included and encouraged to attend the community meetings.

The Sidewalk Committee will continue to hold monthly public meetings however, I suggested that future public meetings be advertised as ‘workshop meetings’. Similar to the Planning Commission’s workshop sessions, there are no questions or comments permitted from the audience until the end of the meeting; and only if there is time. Discussion from 7-8:30 PM was among members of the committee – the audience could only observe, not comment.

For me, the most interesting part of the Sidewalk Committee meeting actually occurred during audience participation following the workshop meeting. After various questions and comments, a couple who lives on Old Lancaster Ave. spoke about their personal experience with their ‘new sidewalks’ and their stormwater management rain guards. Many of us in the audience and on the Sidewalk Committee were surprised and concerned by the rain guard discussion. I was curious, took my camera to Old Lancaster Avenue, and am now more concerned for those residents. I will share my photos and write about that issue separately.

Interested in the Future of Sidewalks, Trails & Paths in Tredyffrin . . . Attend Tonight’s Sidewalk Policy Committee Public Meeting

August 5, 2010

1 Comment

Do you remember Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting back on February 22? At that meeting the supervisors reversed an earlier decision to return the sidewalk escrow money ($25,000) to St. Davids Golf Club. In addition to a reversal of the earlier decision, the motion by Chairman Lamina also established a township subcommittee to study the future of sidewalks, paths and trails in Tredyffrin.

Although I was glad for the creation of a Sidewalk Policy Committee to review the sidewalk issues and involve the public in the discussion, I voiced concern about the open land development liability issues that remained to the township. What was the timeline for establishing a formal sidewalk policy? I recall asking where this situation leaves current land development projects that contain sidewalk requirements. Setting aside sidewalk requirements in current and future township land development projects, pending the recommendations of the Sidewalk Policy Committee, clearly places the township in a precarious position. Lamina stated that the subcommittee would begin working in March and would be expected to present their recommendations by the end of 2010. In the interim, the township’s liability on land development projects involving sidewalks would remain an open issue.

There is a public meeting of the Sidewalk Policy Committee tonight – 7 PM at the township building. I am curious to see the progress of the committee. Charged with coming up with a formal policy on sidewalks in the township, the committee members are about halfway through the established timeline as set by the Board of Supervisors. With a goal to complete the study and make a recommendation by the end of 2010, they have been working on the project for about five months.

Understanding the township’s open liability issues on land development projects, I am confident that the Sidewalk Policy Committee will update us tonight on their progress. The 9 members of the committee include Supervisors Donahue, Kichline and Richter; Planning Commissioners Whalen, Lukens and Snyder; and STAP members Moir, Donegan and Brake. As Planning Commissioners Whalen and Snyder fully understand the land development liability issues and should be able to address those concerns. Presumably, the next step in this process will be to set up regional public meetings and to distribute a township-wide sidewalk questionnaire. I look forward to updating you on the progress of the committee tomorrow.

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

Devon Resident Bill Bellew’s Remarks at Monday’s Board of Supervisors Meeting Appear as Letter to the Editor

May 26, 2010

9 Comments

In a post yesterday, I provided a YouTube link for Bill Bellew’s comments at Monday night’s Board of Supervisor meeting. Several people have asked me if I had a ‘hard copy’ of his remarks so I was delighted to see that Bill submitted his comments in a Letter to the Editor in this week’s edition of the Main Line Suburban Life newspaper. Bill’s words provide a powerful statement. (see below).

I agree with Bill that we (supervisors and residents) need to be looking ahead to the 2011 budget. Mid-year provides an excellent opportunity to review the actual vs budgeted expenses and revenues of the 2010 budget to date. (the next supervisors meeting in June marks the halfway point). In addition to a mid year 2010 budget review, work needs to begin on the 2011 budget. The 2010 township budget required major cuts across the board, including personnel, fire and library funding, etc. If you recall, by this time last year the BAWG was in place and well underway in 2010 budget discussions.

The 2011 budget cannot wait until November or December; delaying the discussion does not demonstrate fiscal responsibility.

Tredyffrin drama must end

To the Editor:

Day after day, Tredyffrin seems to be bombarded with political drama without an end in sight. Now in May of 2010, the budget “play” leading up to the 2010 year is still out there. A personal opinion might be that the Board of Supervisors might have told the firefighters serving the township ahead of time that a cut in funding had to be made. Added to that might have been a suggestion that together, the BOS and the firefighters could join forces to fill the void.

The reality is that filling the void was not on the BOS’ minds beforehand. Only when the “people of all walks of life” rose in a concerted chorus to point out what impact the “modest 5-percent” cut would have on the three fire companies (our leading volunteers) did the BOS see the dilemma they created for themselves.

For some unknown reason, the BOS has been unwilling to share where the $24,000-plus in contributions to fill the void came from. Let’s end the political drama three of the BOS members created. Here is what I know to be fact:

1) The Republican Party spearheaded the effort to acquire the funding.

2) They did it ahead of schedule and raised more than they thought they would.

3) The party did not write a check – their members wrote individual checks in excess of $5,000 – or approximately 20 percent of the total raised.

4) Six large donations from companies, trusts, and law firms totaled $5,500 – or approximately 23 percent of the total raised.

5) Eight present or former members of the BOS contributed $2,800.

6) One present board member contributed $5,000, which is not part of other contributions listed here. Yes – five thousand dollars.

7) The remainder came from other sources solicited by the Republican Party.

8) Now that is political purpose!!! Hats off to the party for this work. Thank you from all of us.

What many citizens do not understand is why the BOS has taken courses of action that have stirred controversy and raised the hair on the back of our collective necks for no intelligent reason. The two examples to be mentioned are the cutting of the fire-company budget without sharing that with the firefighters beforehand, and the totally unbelievable vote on the sidewalks near Mt. Pleasant.

Transparency in this township is starting to disappear. Some of the present board appear to be turning what happens in Tredyffrin into a back-room game to be run by political hacks.

A few weeks ago, the chair of the BOS wrote his second major article since Dec. 9 of last year explaining himself and his actions. Why? Why is it necessary that so much effort be put into all of this when – if the BOS had been up-front and open – we could be talking about the future and not the past?

What were you thinking? We are not stupid people. My personal feeling is that the BOS has brought the dysfunctional politics of Washington to our community. Ladies and gentlemen of the board – respectfully – knock it off.

We are looking for leadership – not a “bully pulpit” approach to township business. We are looking for progress – not a drama. If the chair thinks “we’re doing what we believe is the people’s business” by the present-day actions of this board, then he is sadly mistaken. The political game is exactly that – a game. The BOS was elected to govern. do it !!!

We have too many important issues in front of us – the largest of which is how we will fund 2011 and beyond. How do we partner with each other to raise funds both privately and collectively? How do we encourage the volunteer spirit to continue across the entire township playing field? How do we make the necessary changes in the budget process?

Keep your eye on the ball, members of the board. Serve the constituents who elected you – all of them. No more surprises. The people of Tredyffrin are watching.

This is indeed a great place to live, and the BOS has helped make it that. Don’t go backwards.

Bill Bellew , Devon

“Dysfunctional Politics of Washington Brought to Tredyffrin” . . . so says resident Bill Bellew

May 25, 2010

3 Comments

During the citizen – new matters portion of the supervisors meeting last night, township resident Bill Bellew delivered a well-written, measured statement to the Board of Supervisors concerning their actions over the last few months. His remarks primarily addressed the cut in fire funding and subsequent supervisor fundraising efforts and the St. Davids sidewalk decision.

Bill’s comments specifically addressed chairman Lamina’s recent letters to the editors in the paper and the leadership of the Board of Supervisors. At one point, Bill suggested that the Board had brought the “dysfunctional politics of Washington to Tredyffrin”.

In closing, Bellew remarks that ” . . . We are looking for leadership; not the bully pulpit. We are looking for progress; not drama. If you, Bob [Lamina], think you are doing the people’s business by the present day actions of this board, you are sadly mistaken. The political game is exactly that, a game. The Board was elected to govern, just do it. . . “

I believe that Bill’s remarks last night represent the concerns of many of us in the community. Listening to Bill’s statement, I would love to think that some of our elected officials would do some soul-searching . . . what’s the saying, if the shoe fits, wear it? But I fear that like myself and others who have raised similar concerns and questions of the Board, Mr. Bellew’s remarks will simply be dismissed. Or . . . will Lamina’s response be another letter to the editor?

Please click here to review see all of Bill’s comments captured on YouTube — his remarks are powerful!

Board of Supervisors Meeting on Monday, March 15 to Include Announcement of Sidewalk Subcommittee Members

March 12, 2010

26 Comments

The February 22 Board of Supervisors motion to reverse the St. Davids Golf Club decision included the creation of a joint sidewalk subcommittee; members to come from the Board, Planning Commission and Sidewalks, Trails and Paths (STAP) Committee. This subcommittee is to re-examine where the residents want sidewalks in the township and then create a formal process and procedure to design, develop and construct sidewalks and paths in Tredyffrin. The agenda for the Monday, March 15 Board of Supervisors meeting includes an announcement of the sidewalk subcommittee members. I am curious which members of the 3 organizations will be on the sidewalk subcommittee. Personally, I would have liked the sidewalk subcommittee to include a couple of residents (non-Tredyffrin board/committee members) to bring a different perspective. Just a thought.

Tredyffrin's Sidewalk Project Gets Underway . . . Work to Start Monday!

March 6, 2010

8 Comments

The start of Tredyffrin’s sidewalk project around T-E Middle School and Conestoga High School was originally scheduled for last month, but due to the wintry weather was delayed. But beginning on Monday, March 8 the construction will begin on the sidewalk construction project. The series of pedestrian sidewalks were made possible by various grant funds, including $2.8 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (federal stimulus funds). To read further about the sidewalk plan, budget, and other specifics, click here.

Marino Corp. of Skippack, Montgomery County will be working on the sidewalk construction for the next 7 months, with completion expected by early October. Sidewalks will be installed along Old Lancaster Road, Conestoga Road, Howellville Road and Irish Road and will provide safe walking routes for students to and from school The thought is that these sidewalk routes will also link to the local train stations and business areas.

A word of warning to all who travel in these areas . . . motorists can expect delays and possible lane closures on each of these 4 roads while the crews are working, 8 AM – 4 PM, Monday – Friday. The first step in the sidewalk project will be the removal of trees and the installation of drainage pipes in the sidewalk areas.

In the Philadelphia five-county area, PennDot is investing $257.7 million in federal stimulus funds on 30 transportation projects; including road and bridge improvements, multi-use trails, traffic signal upgrades, etc. SEPTA received $12.5 million in stimulus money which they will use for improvements/upgrades at their Malvern train station. Work at Malvern’s station will include 46 additional parking spaces, upgraded more efficient lighting and better storm water management. The Malvern train station work is expected to be completed by June 2011.

Speaking of sidewalks, according to the township website, the sidewalk subcommittee will be on the March 15th agenda of the Board of Supervisors, and the members will be announced at that time. If you recall the sidewalk subcommittee (members of the Planning Commission; Sidewalks, Trails & Paths Committee; and supervisors) was announced as part of the St. Davids Golf Club motion of February 22. I am looking forward to the announcement of the members of this new subcommittee at the next supervisors meeting. I think in the best interest of all, it would probably be a good idea that members of St. Davids Golf Club be excluded from membership in this newly designed Sidewalk Subcommittee. I think the last thing the township needs is accusations of a ‘conflict of interest’.

Attorney Offers Legal Opinion on February 22 Board of Supervisors Vote

March 3, 2010

27 Comments

A follower of Community Matters, a local attorney (most likely a municipal attorney) has offered his legal opinion on various township topics, including St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk issue. Overnight I received his legal opinion on the February 22 vote by the Board of Supervisors to reverse their earlier vote and decision to set up a sidewalk and trails review subcommittee (Board of Supervisors 2/22/10 Meeting . . . St. Davids Golf Club Motion.) As indicated in the post of St. Davids Golf Club Decision Reversed but, . . . Was There Full Disclosure, Transparency, Deal-Making? the supervisors vote of February 22 created much dialogue from the community. Understanding the supervisors decision from a legal perspective is important; I ask you to reflect on the following:

JudgeNJury, March 3, 2010 at 12:36 AM Said:

Other matters kept me from focusing on the February 22 vote before, but now that I have looked at it (and at the risk of beating a dead horse), I wanted to add my two cents. In short, it seems to me that the BOS once again failed to follow appropriate procedures when it passed the second part of the February 22 motion.

Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”) authorizes townships to establish planning commissions. Tredyffrin Township did so, and Section 43-6 of the Township Code specifically states that the Planning Commission “shall have all other powers and duties provided by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.” (http://www.ecode360.com/?custId=TR1485).

Section 303(a) of the MPC states that:

“Whenever the governing body, pursuant to the procedures provided in section 302, has adopted a comprehensive plan or any part thereof, any subsequent proposed action of the governing body, its departments, agencies and appointed authorities shall be submitted to the planning agency for its recommendations when the proposed action relates to . . . the location, opening, vacation, extension, widening, narrowing or enlargement of any street, public ground, pierhead or watercourse.” (http://mpc.landuselawinpa.com/MPCode.pdf).

Section 107(a) of the MPC contains the following definitions:

1) “Governing body” includes “the board of supervisors in townships of the second class.” Tredyffrin Township is a township of the second class, and it has adopted a comprehensive plan (http://www.tredyffrin.org/departments/community/comprehensive.aspx).

2) “Planning agency” includes planning commissions.

3) “Public ground” includes “parks, playgrounds, trails, paths and other recreational areas and other public areas.” Under this definition, it seems clear that sidewalks qualify as a “public ground.”

The second half of the February 22 motion did two things: it (1) “form[ed] a Subcommittee . . . to begin a process to reexamine where the community wants and needs sidewalks;” and (2) relieved St. David’s from its obligation “to build the path, until the new policies are adopted or the Township has put in place designs and funding for sidewalks or paths that would connect to the proposed St. David’s pathway.” It seems to me, then, that the motion was a “proposed action of the governing body [the BOS]” that “relates to . . . the location [and] opening . . . of any . . . public ground.”

Therefore, the BOS was required to submit the motion “to the Planning Commission for its recommendations” before it could vote on the motion. The Planning Commission then would have had 45 days to make a recommendation. See MPC Section 303(b). As far as I know, the BOS did not submit its proposal to the Planning Commission before it voted on it.

As a practical matter, compliance with these procedures probably would not have made much difference. The BOS could have submitted the proposal to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then, regardless of what the Planning Commission recommended, voted to approve the motion. That reality does not, however, change the fact that the BOS appears to have ignored procedures once again.

Are Fair Housing Rules being Broken in the Mt. Pleasant Community of Tredyffrin? How Can we Help these Residents?

February 28, 2010

24 Comments

If you have been following the St. Davids Golf Club and the ongoing sidewalk saga, you have probably seen Christine Johnson, who has attended and spoke out at recent Board of Supervisors meetings. A passionate Mt. Pleasant resident, Christine has been very vocal in her support of sidewalks and of her Panhandle community. I have written several posts concerning the struggles of Christine and her neighbors re college housing and associated planning and zoning issues; and police enforcement (primarily noise and speeding concerns in the community).

Back in the fall at a Board of Supervisors meeting there was agreement to conduct meetings between Mt. Pleasant neighbood members and township representatives including the police, zoning officer, township engineer and supervisors. Informal discussions were held and a town hall meeting was planned with the residents in mid-December. Unfortunately, that meeting was cancelled due to snow. Another town hall meeting date was chosen for early 2010 but again that meeting needed to be cancelled due to snow.

As far as I know, a third date has not been chosen for the town hall meeting. This ongoing situation is frustrating for Christine and her Mt. Pleasant neighbors . . . as the problems with college rentals and zoning issues remains unsolved. I am committed to providing updates and to continue to shine light on Mt. Pleasant’s challenges until we can reach a resolution on their problems.

Christine in her quest to research and better understand her rights as a resident of Mt. Pleasant community has reached out to the Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia. Based on the information that Christine is providing below, there has been some stretching of the fair housing laws by some of the landlords in the advertising of college housing in Mt. Pleasant.

I know that Tredyffrin Township does not have specific zoning regulations that deal with college rentals as do some of the neighboring municipalities. As a first step, I think we need to get the town hall meeting back on the schedule and then start working on helping the Mt. Pleasant folks. I think Supervisors DiBuonaventuro and Kichline are onboard to represent the Board of Supervisors; can I appeal to help find a new date for the town hall meeting?

Violating Fair Housing Laws

According the the Fair Housing Act, you cannot discriminate against families. Shouldn’t famillies have the chance to live in Mt. Pleasant? I’m sick of seeing our houses advertised as “Rental – Student Approved” “Student Approved House” “Villanova Student Rental” “College Rental” “Great for College Students” etc, etc, etc.

When describing your rental, please be aware the misuse of a phrase can, however innocently used, be in violation of federal fair housing laws. The list below is fromHousing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME) www.homeny.org:

The following list of words and phrases are considered to be in violation of the federal fair housing laws when used in advertising of the sale or rental of housing because they may indicate a preference, limitation or discrimination to the ordinary reader. This list is not all-inclusive but should be used as a guide and example of unacceptable language.

Max 2 people, 3rd extra charge

Great for one

1 Person pref.

ideal for couple

ideal for working couple

ideal for adults

Suitable for couple

In quiet adult community

perfect for working single

adults pref.

ideal for 2 adults

professional & students only

looking for professional

mature adults

professional couple pref.

1 person pref.

employed couple or single

ideal for a single

employed male/student

ideal for students

ideal for single person /couple

perfect for students

suits 1-2 employed adult/student

Ideal for male/female

great for students

no pets or children

max 2 people

ideal for single female

working single

male/female suitable for one

2 bedroom maximum/2 person occupancy

Township Lawsuit . . . Where Does it Stand?

February 25, 2010

21 Comments

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

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

However….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters