Saturday, March 17, 2012

It's water (and your survey) over the 3rd St. Dam

If not for millions of dollars and 16 years of delay, the recent developments over the "lost" surveys sent by Citizens Advisory Council might just be funny.  As of yesterday's mail, I've still not received my survey.  However, to my surprise a few single family households have received as many as three and they told me they intend to fill out and return each and everyone of them. It's just my theory, but I suspect that's what may have happened to the missing surveys as to why some got mutiple, why others got nothing.


These people  didn't tell me what bridge options they prefer, but it just goes to show how easy it'll be to "stuff the ballot box" to manipulate the outcome.  I'm sure some will be signed by Mickey Mouse and his pals, Goofy maybe, or others just made up.....who's going to check, CAC...overseen by borough council who wasn't going admit they signed the FROGs petition (i.e. greenway), until asked Thursday night?  And who obviously put their supporters on the committee?

Despite the plea by Brian Hall, Kent Davidson and Paul Robinson that they signed as residents while campaigning last year, they didn't miss the opportunity to support the group in their campaign literature.  And if Kent Davidson thinks he should be judged on his behavior as to whether he's biased or unbiased; know that he signed the FROG petition stipulating no vehicle traffic across the bridge. His wife is an active FROG and he lives at the base of the bridge.  Conflict of interest?
Campaign Literature of Media Democrats 2011. It's nice of them to think of the FROGS over taxpayers and businesses
This week one commenter brought up a good point about the survey.  They essentially wanted to know: how can you make a real world decision as a taxpayer without knowing the projected cost of each option and how it will be paid for?  Apparently, the survey doesn't provide that detail which is very misleading.  Neither borough council nor the CAC has explained to anyone the costs, risks and/or the court order that stipulates the way the issue should be resolved.  The survey presents the bridge/dam options as being equal, but that's far from being realistic.


By not divulging the costs in the survey or subsequent risks of loosing funding for one option over another; the CAC and borough council are hopeful of responses that will further support their position of anything other than what is stipulated in the court order.  They have to in order to support their special interests they've committed to.  Borough council has been far less than transparent in their support for the FROGs. If cost was a factor, would the outcome of the survey be different?!?! Yes, it would!  Especially if what the court order stipulates is 100% financed and ready to begin?


The deadline to postmark your survey is March 19th.  If like many, you still would like to receive one, please check at Media Patch for details.  

Tedman

28 comments:

  1. If you watched the council meeting Thursday evening it was hard not to notice the facial expressions Paul Robinson exibited during his announcement of an upcoming event he is involved in at Broomall's Lake. It obviously showed his disdain for Broomall's and his hatred so it's not hard to believe this CAC group is stuffing the mailbox.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is the oldest trick in the book. It is like asking someone "do you prefer war or peace". And when 9 out of 10 people respond peace, you pretend you can draw a conclusion. Surveys that do not present the full picture are worthless. And yet someone still felt the need to stuff the ballet box to make it seam even more overwhelming. What a joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The censorship on this blog is amazing. So many people who would like to comment but disagree with the blog owner are denied their ability to post. This is disgraceful but typical of those people who are so fair and balanced.

      Delete
  3. Brian has no back bone to lead this effort.
    Amazing how both accused former council members of conflicts when they are even more conflicted then they were.
    Leadership is doing what is best for the community not special interest groups which is what the FROG is.
    It is so obvious the decision has already been made by Hall, Davidison and Robinson to change the design in support of FROGs recommendation. Just go ahead and ask BLCC and County to support their plan and see what they say. Will this council accept dam ownership if it means getting a Greenway? Hall claims to have opposed ownership so it will be interesting to see how he explains the flip flop when he sticks it to the residents to support his special interest group.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. delcotimes.com reports current council members signed FROG petition and a person spoke up stating she was mislead by the FROGs!!!!!

      http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2012/03/19/news/doc4f66917f931e8282248726.txt

      What a fiasco borough council has made this issue into.

      Delete
  4. So........the old dam is unsafe and must be replaced and a bridge will go up.

    Wouldn't logic indicate that NOT putting up a new dam and bridge, and ONLY putting up a bridge over a free flowing creek, would be cheaper than replacing the dam?

    I’m not a mason or an engineer, but I can tell you that the materials and labor associated with a bridge/dam combo is more expensive that letting the lake drain out and putting just a bridge over a restored stream flow.
    Any dam has a very limited shelf life. Even a brand new dam will cost the taxpayers a great deal of $ to replace at another point in the future. In 2004 massive flooding washed out route 70 in New Jersey due to a dam collapsing under the strain of the rainfall. The taxpayers had to foot the bill to replace a major section of that road in South Jersey. Any student of history knows the how the Johnstown flood of 1889 killed over 2000 people because of a failed dam on a private lake. The dam that allows Broomall’s Lake to exist hangs over Glen Providence Park and Baltimore Pike like the Sword of Damocles. The financial risk to taxpayers is too great to allow the continued existence of that dam and the artificial lake behind it. Nobody should be looking to claim private land from the Broomall’s Lake folks, but they have no legal right to maintain something that puts the community in danger.
    I truly understand the concerns about the NIMBY element of not allowing automobile traffic on the bridge. That issue really needs to be well vetted and explained fully by the borough council before a decision is made about the new bridge. I cannot imagine that some level of car traffic coming across 3rd street would be ruinous to that neighborhood. I also cannot imagine that some type of “greenway” would be difficult to construct under and/or adjacent to a new bridge over a free flowing creek.
    In regards to the “final” agreement in court signed off on by borough, county, and Broomall’s that some folks reference, I’ve yet to see any specific explanation from that court about any element of the agreement that is permanent and unalterable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The final agreement as you call it. Is a court order why council won't publish it on the website with the rest of the third st. Info is the real question. so much for transparency. Keep it up Brian, Kent and Paul

      Delete
    2. MediaMike, where do you get off trying to talk sense. The dam should go and be replaced by a bridge over a stream. The dam supports an artificial lake that ONLY benefits the club. If the club can't maintain the lake why should us taxpayers have to dredge their private lake. As far as traffic over the bridge I agree this needs to be vetted.

      Delete
    3. http://www.mediaborough.com/sites/default/files/fileattachments/stipulation_and_order_-_3rd_street_bridge_2.pdf

      Delete
    4. "Artificial" lake. Nice, been there for over 150 years, appx 75 years before the park was dedicated, and over 150 before the FROGs were formed as a front for a NIMBY group. That "artificial" lake represents a significant part of this community's history starting with Mr. Broomall but its all of a sudden marketed as "artificial" to lessen its potential loss. Sad.

      Delete
    5. Yes. Artificial Lake. When one dams a flowing body of water it creates an artificial lake. It doesn't matter if the Romans or Broomall did it, the lake is still artificial. To dam a moving body of water creates significant risk to whatever lies downstream. The history of the property doesn't give it an exemption to put the community at risk. The history of the property doesn't give it permission to risk a multi-million dollar road repair bill if Baltimore Pike were to be destroyed by a future dam failure.

      Delete
    6. If the current dam is so dangerous and is a catastrophe waiting to happen why haven't our leaders drained the lake and breached the dam to save us from disaster? In the interim all this discussion could take place at least knowing we are safe from untold horrors.

      Delete
  5. With all the effort gone into complaining and commenting about not getting a survey, it would be just as easy to go down to Borough Hall and demand one. I guess then it would be hard to cry foul.

    Perhaps some people threw away the survey thinking it was junk mail. Of course nobody can back any claims of stuffing ballots or not receiving surveys or even making up claims of not receiving a survey. This is the best way to get public comment quickly so that a decision can be made.

    You can participate in the process of public comment or you can sit on the sidelines crying that the decision has already been made.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The whole survey process isn't perfect, and wasn't helped out a whole lot by the post office or the design of the envelopes it was sent in---but it's a whole lot better than anything we've had up to this point and at any rate only a part of the CAC's input....and a whole helluvalot better than anything we've had before!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I believe all three, Davidson, Hall and Robinson should be removed from voting on this issue due to a conflict of interests.

    Davidson should take a look at the Borough of Media General Codes and ask himself these questions. Residents of Media should do the same of council.

    12 - 5 that you can not represent private interests. I am very curious if Davidson or any of the above is or were a member of FROG's. If you take a look at his website, Media Pa News, and the FROG website they both look very similar. Not to mention his wife is a cofounder. If at anytime he signed up as a member he would be in violation of this code.

    12-8 Partiality and Favoritism, again, his wife is a member/cofounder of FROGs. One of the options being presented comes from FROG literature. Talk about having the ear of someone who can influence change.

    12-1 Restrictions on use of Public Property for personal gains. By modifying the current approved plans this would have a positive outcome on the price of his home. If this is not personal gain I ask what is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12-5 Davidson signed the petition before elected to council.

      12-8 Despite what some husbands believe, you are not required to agree with your wife on every issue. Also, if a council person's relative were to regularly use a public parking garage, is it favoritism to support an upgrade to that facility? Were any previous councilpersons members of BLC?

      12-1 Its difficult to abstain from any issue that could potentially increase the value of your home in the Borough. Granted, this issue is very close to Davidsons home but it’s refreshing to see that you admit there is value in the alternatives to rebuilding the bridge/dam.

      Delete
    2. Ano 11:50 Yes, you are correct, he signed before he was elected to council. The question is if he is or was a member of FROGs at anytime it would be viloation of the ethics code 12 -5. A request to Frogs for current and past membership lists or contributions/contributors would clear that up. They should provide at the next council meeting and I will be requesting that council ask for this information.

      We know that he does not disagree with his wife, since he signed the petition. He was also very irate after councilwomen roe asked the question and he had to reply that he had the interests of majority in mind. Watch the tape, the disgust was very appearant. If the CAC finds the residents want a roadway it will be great to see if he sticks to his words.

      the code is 12 -11, the author above mispoke. The greenway would have a positive impact on his property value. It would have no impact on others in the area outside a 2 block radius. You could say it has had a negative impact on other homes as traffic has been diverted for 17 years to other streets. If he votes for a greenway over a road their would be a personal gain and thus a conflict of intersts within the code of ethics.

      It seems that if you have to explain yourself, on multiple ethics codes and possible violations it just feels wrong. I am sure others see it as well, FROGs excluded.

      Delete
  8. Hey man, we should just have a dialogue about this GREENWAY man. It’s all about dialogue man, dialogue is good man. Let’s all say it out loud, DIALOGUE. Doesn’t that feel better man? No, then let’s spell it, then, say it man, ready D-I-A-L-O-G-U-E, DIALOGUE.

    Now let’s use it in a sentence – It is just so epic how many people on this blog love using the word DIALOGUE, they just can’t help themselves from writing it in their moronic posts man.

    Yeah man, that’s what I am talking about – DIALOGUE, man, dialogue. Ladies and gentleman Mr. Burt Bacharach - What the world needs now is DIALOGUE sweet DIALOGUE…..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 12:58 Don't quit you day job.

      Delete
  9. Anon 1258 sounds like the town clown. Lets spell IDIOT...
    .I-D-I-O-T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mickey S, I-D-I-O-T is spelled S-T-E-V-E- M-c-D-O-N-A-L-D.

      Delete
  10. It's always fun to see that someone's calling you an idiot in the comments section BEFORE you get to read the article. I'm touched, anon, most wait until after I comment!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think you already did, Steve!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, this morning, after seeing my name come up! Good observation, Anon!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve McDonald had a dam too bad his court order didn't stand the test of time. Deal with it Stevo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also have two cats in the yard, don't forget that one.

      Look anon, if you want to go toe-to-toe with me, you're going to have to take it up a step from being "Anonymous"; I can only go so far with an individual (or individuals) who share a name with an internet terrorist group. As I like to say elsewhere, "reveal thyself!"

      Delete
    2. Now, anonymous, you're getting him angry....

      Eee-I eee-I oh!

      Delete
  14. Anon sounds like the town clown Steve....ignore him

    ReplyDelete