Friday, September 28, 2012

BREAKING NEWS: Contempt of Court Complaint Filed against Media Borough over Third St. Bridge.

Last Thursday, Council President, Brian Hall, Monica Simpson, Eric Stein and Kent Davidson voted in favor of a one-way bridge design during the September 20th Council meeting.  During that time, they never once explained the consequences to the community of going against a pre-determined court order and an agreement that council previously settled with the two stakeholders: (BLCC and Delaware County).  This after Monica Simpson and Eric Stein, both of which agreed to the original settlement in 2011.

Their justification for a one-way road was based on what they thought the term “reestablish” meant.  Anyone for a greenway seems to think that means something different than what the rest of the town believes, and that is a two way roadway.  Before the bridge closed it was two way, to reestablish would mean to return it to such.   Petitions and the majority of attendees at September council meetings asserted this, yet the democratic council, mired by well noted controversy, held to their implied definition.  Subsequently they also stated they were persuaded by a survey created by Third St. Bridge CAC committee. The same CAC that Borough council not only appointed FROG officers to, but also created a survey that never included or weighed costs associated with each option.  

For the safety of this town that is threatened by one of the state’s top ten dangerous dams, this council should have made safety a priority and began this project months ago. It was paid for, it was ready!  They also should have taken into consideration their fiduciary responsibilities to taxpayers that includes the state financing that will cover 100% of the cost. An amount that totals $3.4 million.  Unfortunately, they chose to ignore both and the consequences could be dire.

It now looks like they will now have to fight it further at the expense of taxpayers.  I received a call today that BLCC has filed a contempt of court complaint against Media Borough and I’m hearing the county is expected to  follow suit.  For those in this town who didn’t think the bridge would effect you by either travel or taxes, you may now want to pay attention.  The borough has a deadline to provide an answer to Penndot that regards the funding for this project.  How is this going to happen if it’s in court?  


I'll will be contacting Media borough today for a statement on this matter and what implications this has for the funding of this project.

Tedman

36 comments:

  1. "Some men just want to watch the world burn."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I simply can't believe this is happening!


    Who am I kidding, this is Media Borough! It's to be expected!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Calm down, people. This is a minor issue that can be easily resolved by floating a bond.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If this financing goes, so will this council! I'll be interested to hear what they have to say about this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh stop your complaining you two-way cowards, all aboard the WAAHmbulance...


    ..if there was a bridge for it to drive over!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I blame the last council for trying to get things done.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Goodbye personal savings, hello Borough oversight tax...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Are these people petty enough to jeopardize the whole project over one lane.....ONE LANE!!!! Something is not adding up here.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Some clarity from Judge Proud is definitely needed at this point, and will be helpful as we move forward. Nobody likes going back to court, but the details need to be worked out; if we can't 'play nicely' with each other, the court will advise us how we can (and cannot)proceed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Probably Bush's fault.

    No, definitely Bush's fault.

    Seriously though, these people will be reelected even if it costs the town a $20m bond. The power of the D next to your name in this town.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this town, you could be a convicted felon, a murderer or the webmaster for a NIMBY group's website and you'd get elected here as long as you have the correct letter after your name! Voters in this town remind me of the nation as a whole - they're a bunch of dopes! When you vote for Letters over people and then are furious over the results, this is what you get.

      Delete
    2. Debbie K. and Frank Daly are still calling the shots out of Frank's office on Front Street. The "D" puppets obey. Now the taxpayers pay.

      Delete
    3. Hey Steve - put your time where your mouth is - why don't you run next year?

      Delete
    4. Find me a blatant conflict of interest to get involved in and I'm on my way

      Delete
    5. yOU'VE GOT my vote, Steve.

      Delete
  11. I suspect a bit of elitism in this decisions..this gang is similar to citizens/pols who insist on erecting signs that say.."local traffic only" an unenforcable sign, yet done to placate those who have a PUBLIC easement in front of their home and think you can not pass.Only they are using a one way sign.
    I want to make a new monopoly game for media..land on Davidsons will be" do not pass Broomalls do not collect 400 million dollars."..land on West st float a bond to buy property...land onGP park land? Collect one web site..

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kent davidson lives on the corner of third and west street (which is public knowledge since he is an elected official). The dam in question is located on, oh wow what a surprise - third and west street. The guy lives 100 feet from the dam! Of course he is holding this thing up. He doesn't want it opened to traffic. How can he read in his hammock if cars are going by. What joke and serious conflict of interest. I can't believe no one is talking about this.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Best bad news I've heard in a while - please teach these idiots how the real, in insulated world works!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Let's put another scenario to a test: I understand the neighbors at Front and Monroe are enjoying more parking spaces, no school buses, less traffic and noise all around. So, it stands to reason, from a Boro Council standpoint, they will be voting to leave Media School closed for 16 years!!!!
    But, wait! I forgot they need to take a survey................

    ReplyDelete
  15. With any luck, they County and Broomalls will prevail in court and a 2 lane road will be restored as intended. Amazing it took 9 months for the previous council to settle a 16 yr old dispute and get remaining funding for the dam only to have this bunch of no nothings destroy that work in 9 months. The fact tha Hall allows Davidson to vote or attend executive session meetings on 3rd St is a disgrace and major conflict of interest. Yes there is no financial gain but he is conflicted as anyone who has ever served on council on any issue. It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so fake during the campaign about claiming transparency is upmost importance when dealing with public. Davidson and Hall have been dealing from the bottom of the deck since january and hurting the tax payers ever since. Steon and Simpson are the biggest jokes. They knew full well they voted to replace the dam in its current state not to make it 1 lane. Simpson should try and make a meeting once in a while then maybe she would remeber which way she voted. Maybe the County and Broomalls will sue to rcover their legal fees from Borough as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Broomall's isn't paying their attorney, Anonymous...and Mickey misspells his name on the Club's tax returns. What the hell...sue away! It's anonymous!

      Delete
  16. Well said Anon 551! Davidson should have enough decency to excuse himself from voting. Any other respectable council person would have done so. Frank Daly wold have abstained himself from voting because he lives on west st as well. He abstains an time there even the remotest of interest! Such a conflict of interest no matter how hall and Davidson try to spin it, and how stein got voted in is a mystery to me, he is a horrible speaker and doesn't even know what is going n during the meetings half the time, always needs someone to restate what they just said! But wait....he has a D

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'd still like to know wny my tax dollars are paying for dam that is:

    a) holding up a lake not open to the public
    b) bad for the ecosystem
    c) going to destroy an acre of public parkland and trees

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your tax dollars are paying for a road. However to establish the roadway the state must first replace the dam that was damaged by the original roadway. As far as damage to the ecosystem at the August meeting the man from DEP stated that if the dam is breached the silt from the lake would blanket everything downstream and suffocate it since oxegyn can not get thru silt.

      Delete
    2. D) how a council can stick its middle finger up to an agreed upon court settlement putting my wallet in danger.

      Delete
    3. Steve Mcdonald is no clown. Not realy related to Ronald. And he is 100% Right on the 3rd Street Bridge issue. All our wallets are in danger with the real clown Kent Davidson on Council.

      Delete
  18. This blog is an embarrassment. The lies, hate and misinformation spewed by its owner and most of the people commenting does not make ANYONE look good, especially republicans (since most seem to be self-proclaimed republicans hating on the democrats).

    One thing I do not understand is how ANYONE who considers themself a republican, who go on and on about how democrats love big government and spending money, could be behind this project. First of all, talk about "special interest groups": BLCC is a PRIVATELY OWNED club and will be benefitting from the tax dollars being spent to replace the dam which creates their private lake. They don't even have enough capital to maintain the existing lake, so most likely what they'll do is let it sit and fill with silt until it becomes a crisis down the road.

    Personally I think the dam should be removed, and a 2 lane bridge with pedestrian access should be rebuilt.

    I find it interesting that the focus has shifted away from dam or no dam. And, that the people name-calling and finger pointing all seem to be proud to call themselves republicans who don't like government paying for things...so how does BLCC explain that?? Perhaps if they'd open their grounds to borough residents and make membership more affordable/accessible they wouldn't look like the entitled ones here.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Media Maven,

    You seem to have become what you most hate. Look at yourself! Here you are on some stupid blog hating, finger pointing and spewing mis-information like all the rest.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not hating, just pointing out what I see all over this blog...which I used to come to for another perspective on things when Tedman was touting his "bi-partisan" message. But, once he lost the election (and yes, I voted for him!) it seemed to quickly go downhill to a republican hate-fest. Nothing bi-partisan about it!

      I am not finger pointing...not name calling or blaming any one person OR party for any of Media's issues or disagreements.

      I am not spewing mis-information. If you think I am, please explain...

      Delete
  20. Media Maven you are as misinformed as the council people you defend. Council decided 16 yrs ago to replace the dam with 2 way road, not BLCC. In fact, 16 yrs ago no one even mentioned BLCC as a responsible party. Yes, your Media Council with all "Ds"on council committed the borough to paying for 100% of design and re-establishment of the dam. BLCC had nothing to do with that agreement. Yes they get a benefit by having a new dam but they have to pay to maintain and inspect it forever, is that wrong? Should they be responsible for the silt build up because of developments in Media and UP that allowed silt to build up in their lake? I'm sure Parks Edge Lane caused most of the silt build up but you advocate BLCC dredging the lake for what purpose?
    Did you write to Davidson's blog when he was personally attacking the previous council by calling them "Sneaky" or mocking them for not being true democrats? No didn't think so, go read another blog that supports the woeful decisions by this current council and continue to bad mouth a private club that is willing to pay to maintain and replace a structure that media is building. You are as misinformed as the council members you supprot. Shameful how you scold people on a blog without knowing 1 fact. FYI removing the dam is/was not an option. It was decided 16 yrs ago to re-establish. All the info is out there to read if you want facts. Go to Davidson's site to be cheerleader.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing but smoke and mirrors. You do not know who I support, how I am registered to vote, who I vote for or what I know about the history of this issue. And you do not know whether or not I am a member of BLCC.

      One fact is indisputable though: BLCC owns the lake that the dam creates. And BLCC is private property (for members only). As a taxpayer I do not feel that I should pay for a private club's lake to exist.

      PS: I hope you realize how when you attack the "Ds" on council you are generalizing, even though council is made up of several individuals...2 of whom ran as democrats but are clearly acting as if they are allied with republicans who have acted with much hostility towards all democrats.

      Delete
    2. You may not agree with the dam, but the courts did.

      Delete
    3. The court merely rubber-stamped a negotiated settlement agreement. It didn't make any judgment on the merits.

      Delete
  21. so will it be one lane by bromalls then two lane on the UP side?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't imagine anyone wants to force the UP 3rd St residents to drive through the borough to go West.

      I guess they intend to put a sidewalk on the South side of the dam; so the eastbound lane would have to shift from the South side of 3rd street to the North side of the dam, and then the Media portion of 3rd St would only be one way up to the West St. intersection?

      Council should have just closed the roadway all together, and made 3rd St into a picnic garden. Vote Obama

      Delete