Sunday, March 11, 2012

Media's Third St. Bridge: Leadership you CAN'T trust


#delcotimes
 #mediapa
The Political Agenda of the Third St. Bridge (uncovered):

This week I received a news article written by the Daily Times showing that former Council President, Joan Hagan (D) and Solicitor, Frank Daly (D) agreed that accepting the "non-federal aid agreement" would clearly define ownership of the bridge.  Former Council President, Joan Hagan is even quoted as saying, "I can't believe there will be any objection to our taking ownership."  So why did Media Borough file a lawsuit and incur thousands of dollars in legal feels to have the courts determine who owned the bridge and repair work?

Daily Times Article written by Susan Serbin - Sat. Sept 23, 2000 (excerpt)

This is a good question worth better understanding since the bridge went from initially costing taxpayers $1.4 million 12 years ago, to a hefty price of $3.5 million today.  Having a needed and dangerous bridge held up over a political agenda for the last 12 years; at an additional cost of $2.1 million to TAXPAYERS is an outrage.

To deflect responsibility,  the Media Democrats released a letter to the editor  of the Daily Times last September stating the bridge repair delay was the fault of the County and Broomall's.  The following was stated by Joan Hagan and former Borough Councilperson, Gail Whitaker:
Campaign Contributions
 It is most interesting that because of the refusal of the county and the club to acknowledge ownership, this issue has languished without resolution. Media, in 2006, filed an action asking the court to determine ownership of the dam. As the litigation stalled, council leadership realized that the people of Media would be better served by keeping Third Street closed and, in July 2009, council voted unanimously to abandon the roadway? The county and Broomall’s Club responded by filing an action seeking monetary damages against the borough which action had the effect of preventing the street abandonment. It was, therefore, the failure of the club and the county which has delayed the project and driven up the cost from the initial $1.4 million to today’s quote of $3.5 million or more.
The bridge was not only abandoned, but the engineer who was hired by the Media Democrats years ago went on to bill almost $100,000 in fees for a closed bridge.  During the span of the bi-partisan coalition, he was removed, but not after giving thousands of dollars in campaign contributions throughout the years to the Media Democrats.  The engineer was also Chairman of the Brookhaven Democrats.
Daily Times Article written by Susan Serbin - Sat. Sept 23, 2000
During those 16 years both Council President Brian Hall and Councilman Paul Robinson, who were recently elected again last fall,  served prior terms on borough council as vice presidents.  Again, why weren't they able to address bridge ownership?  And, if a greenway was so important to the "community" why wasn't it brought up then?!?!  What's interesting is that, Paul Robinson served as VP under Council President, Joan Hagan and Brian Hall served as VP under then Council President, Frank Daly. If that doesn't illustrate a political agenda, I'm not sure what would. (Ed. note:  I asked the person who gave me this letter above if there were corresponding Borough Council meeting minutes and was told the borough couldn't find them.  I'll formally request these minutes from the borough next week.)

So after 16 years, how is the bridge now on the verge of finally being resolved?
About 18 months ago two democrats and two republicans had had enough of 16 years of "political agendas" and decided that in the best interest of the town; a bipartisan coalition was needed.  With 4 out of 7 votes between them, the coalition replaced Council President Peter Williamson (D), with Pete Alyanakian (R).  With Monika Rehoric (D) appointed as Vice President, the coalition went on to resolve the legal hurdles, and applied for an received, $75,000 from the county for design costs, and $650,000 from the state for the repair.  With PennDot already committed to 80% of this cost, the bridge became fully financed.  Interestingly enough, what they accomplished in a year, the democratic majority couldn't do in well over a decade.

At what might be considered spite; last Fall, the Media Democrats then went on to support and bolster the Friends of the Glen Providence Park group through their campaign literature while appealing to the FROGS for candidates that would fight the vehicular traffic of a new bridge (i.e.support a greenway).  Kent Davidson, who's wife co-founded FROGS is now a Councilman.  In fact, everyone who signed their petition during the election last year is now on Borough Council!
Media Democrat's campaign literature 2011
Where this issue stands:
  1. Croynism:
    The friends of the Glen Providence Park petition that clearly argues the need for a greenway was signed by three people who are currently now on Borough Council:

    • Council President, Brian Hall 
    • Paul Robinson (Chair of CAC)
    • Kent Davidson (Wife co-founded FROGs and live at base of bridge on Third and West St.)
  2. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) - Political Agenda
    Two people currently appointed to the Citizens advisory Committee (CAC) have publicly made statements back in Oct 2011 that they represented FROGs.
  3. The CAC even thinks the CAC is slanted
    Co-Chair of CAC abruptly resigned over what he thought was a slanted, one-side motive of CAC. I attended the CAC meeting on Feb 27 asking about the resignation and further transparency on who on the committee represent FROGS.  I was talked over and ignored.   I was also questioned by a councilman about my knowledge of the resignation letter and what I knew about it.  I later met with the person who resigned to better understand the issues which he substantiated.

  4. Media Business Authority Gag Order?
    No statements have been formally made by the Media Business Authority about opening the bridge to traffic.  How could this be? The MBA receives their funding from Media Borough Council.  This week I casually asked and heard from MANY State St. businesses who enthusiastically support the bridge being opened.   With a pending town center to be developed in Middletown, another access point to Media could be crucial our town's small businesses and restaurants.
  5. Emergency Services
    Everyone who I talk to say the emergency services (Fire, Police, Medical) agree that fixing the bridge and allowing vehicular traffic is a "no brainer."  So why hasn't the CAC or Borough Council presented these vital statements?
  6. Democratic Councilman calls Chair of the County Republicans for "perspective."
    I followed up on this one and it was nothing more than the Media Borough Council quietly trying to gauge how serious the other parties were regarding the legal court order on the bridge.  If Media Borough Council is trying to cut a deal this late in the game, I question their position of how strong a case they really think they have.  I don't speak for the county or Broomall, but I've not heard any interest from either of them in considering any changes to the court order.
  7. The Legal Court Order
    I'm not a lawyer, but I read the court order and there is no misinterpretation to me of what needs to be done. In fact, it states it must follow the Schnable Engineering report created back in 1998. I believe if those on the CAC had a chance to read the order, they may have passed on being on the committee.  I did.

  8. The $650,000 question
    The grant money provided by Senator Pileggi is not guaranteed forever, in fact there is a major concern that further delay or additional lawsuits may jeopardize these funds and that the state may decide to use it for other pressing needs.  How will borough council address this issue and what are other financial alternatives if Media should not get the $650k?
So What Happens Now?

In light of these developments, I would ask everyone in the borough to please fill out and return survey's on third st bridge that were mailed to residents and businesses.  As of yesterday's mail, I have yet to receive my survey.  Please leave a comment if you haven't received yours.  

As for adjoining communities who also have concerns about these developments, I would encourage you to participate in upcoming meetings on Third St. Bridge.

Tedman



32 comments:

  1. I received a survey and at no point in there did it mention any costs. I returned it noting that any decisions made without considering the costs (or funding) is irresponsible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have not received a survey yet but keep hearing that I should have last week.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My wife a registered democrat received a survey, but most of the registered republicans have not. Put it on the ballot and let media residents vote. If they vote for, then let council get behind a greenway. If not, then no greenway.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Brian, Paul, Joan, Frank looks like you got some spraining to do.........oh yeah you too Debbie troll......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why? we are now in charge and if we want a greenway for our friends and family so be it. Being in charge has its privileges if you don't like it try to vote us out next time. Otherwise new regime new plan.

      Delete
    2. More like 'Old regime, old plan'!

      Delete
  5. Two registered Republicans here who haven't received surveys, but, my neighbor, who's a registered Democrat, has.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surveys were mailed to "Postal Customer" in a plain envelope with borough return address; each letter carrier got the exact number of letters that he has on his route but, as "bulk mail", they have some latitude as to when to deliver them. Check your 'junk mail' pile, and remember to tip your mailman during the holidays!!

      Delete
  6. I am a registered Republican on the west side and I received late last week.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Registered independent here. Got my survey last Wednesday. Is there somewhere where people can go pick up a survey if they have not received one yet?

    ReplyDelete
  8. We live on the south side and received our survey on Thursday. The clear answer in my mind is to remove the dam, which is a hazard that any repair currently on the table will only prolong. Then, once the dam is removed a full service bridge should be built that allows full access to all types of traffic, not just emergency vehicles. I would also like to see walking/biking lanes on the bridge, if that can be accommodated in the design. Developing only a green way does not serve the greater community and would not be in the best interest of media, its businesses or the surrounding community. I believe that anyone that thinks otherwise is viewing this issue through a very narrow, self serving lens. But above anything else the dam itself needs to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just got back from Florida, filled out the survey and going to hang around for a few more laughs till I head to the Jersey Shore. I just hope this council doesn't end up losing the funded repair monies or incur us taxpayers any more in legal fees than Media has already spent.

      Delete
    2. I just read this quote from the Daily Rag off The Friends of Glen Providence Park Facebook page. I sure hope the Media Council understands regardless of where they live.

      "State funding is expected to cover the majority of design and construction costs, but the borough must move forward on design and decision-making. Similarly, council will have the responsibility of solutions to legal issues that may arise relevant to a 2011 court order signed by the borough, Broomall’s Lake Country Club and Delaware County."

      Delete
  9. This is NOT a partisan issue. I really wish people would stop saying otherwise...the name-calling and bickering is really ugly. I know Reps and Dems who have varying opinions about the 3rd St. Dam issue. That being said, I DO think that there are people living/wanting to live in the area near the dam who do not want (more) through traffic in their neighborhoods. NIMBY strikes again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I call Bull - it absolutely is partisan. Did you not see who signed the frog petition?

      I guess we were due for the standard "this is not a partisan issue" speech!

      Delete
    2. The name-calling and bickering IS ugly, and bad for the community. But if you don't realize you can do things otherwise it's all you've got (you think), so you go with that. Hope we can do better.

      Delete
  10. As I write, a meeting of the CAC is in progress. Tonight's emphasis is on "Stakeholder Interviews"; swim Club representatives pulled out at the last minute, and are not even in attendance to observe. What gives!?!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Indorf,
      Broomall's Lake has an agreement along with Delaware County Parks Dept. and Media Brough. It is in the form of a Court Order so I understand Broomall's not wasting their time.

      Delete
    2. They went home to defend their properties from doggy-bag flinging vigilantes.

      Delete
    3. I was there tonight and the guy who owns the tiny covered bridge at the end of the park cracked me up with his concerns.

      Delete
    4. Stakeholders huh? Who is representing the county of Delaware?

      Delete
    5. Who is representing the county? You really can't be serious.

      Delete
    6. Yes I'm serious if Media boro, the county and Broomalls are the parties that agreed to a court order i would think they are the stakeholders. So who represented each group and how were they selected?

      Delete
    7. County has made it clear that the borough is free to pursue any options it sees fit; the swim club refused to participate, stating that they have an agreement. CAC proceeded to interview adjacent and non-adjacent property owners, media business people, park users, Upper Providence people, etc. Chosen by concensus of the CAC--7 different people.

      Delete
  11. As important as the court order is, why must the discussion always end there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After 15 years of discussion and legalities some new peeps in the 3rd street neighborhood show up for change. There was still time to get involved even though they did not live there when the road was open but still time to get involved(before the court order) So hence the discussion ends with the court order

      Delete
    2. ...because that's the swim club's only leg to stand on.

      Delete
    3. It doesn't have to. But the current agreement is unacceptable and unexecutable, and so needs to be readdressed. If the Swim Club thinks they can 'win' in court, they are sorely mistaken. The Judge will 'split the baby in half' (he approved the order, but did not 'make'it). Then the borough will "own" the dam, once and for all, and will do what they choose with it. Wake up, swim club...or more accurately, wake up your leadership!

      Delete
  12. If the court order is so final and binding why are all you R's whining and crying? Could it be that maybe it is not as final as you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ano 7:23,

      First off, all those whining and crying are not all republicans. After 17 years of this issue do you think that people care who voted for what. It is a quality of life issue for those that live close to this bridge. It is those who want access and those who do not want access.

      Let me guess where you live, within 2 blocks of the bridge in the borough? Tell me why is having this bridge/road closed is so important to you?

      Delete
  13. I'll tell you why....

    It's about what kind of community Media is. I don't give a rat's ass about a hundred yards of park land....but I do care a lot about what it looks like, and what it says about our community.

    'nuff said here, I'd hope....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't care about the FROGS or NIMBYs however I do care about what this proposed abortion might look like. The CLUB wants us (taxpayers) to pay for their dredging of their little lake so they can continue to exist as the elitist club that they are. The writing is on the wall the Club is going to cease to exist. Deal with it McDonald and you other R operatives. Let the stream breathe.

      Delete