Sunday, September 30, 2012

BREAKING NEWS: Delaware County Files Contempt of Court against Media Borough

Media Patch is reporting today that in addition to BLCC, Delaware County who has contributed funds to the Third St. Bridge design, is also filing a contempt of court complaint against the borough.  Two weeks ago Council President, Brian Hall, Monica Simpson, Eric Stein and Kent Davidson voted in favor of a one-way road across the bridge/dam, despite petitions and residents wanting a two-way.  Simpson and Stein were on council when the agreement was settled in 2011.  At that time there was no objection to a two-way roadway or even mention of a one-way.  

Brian Hall and Kent Davidson who lives 50' from the bridge both signed petitions for the Friends of Glen Providence Park while campaigning last year.  In fact, they and the Media Democratic party have outright applauded the group that has gone on to resist this project, which will now go back to court at taxpayer's expense.

Media Democratic Party Campaign Literature

Media Borough council's mismanagement of this entire project over the last 16 years while millions in financing hold in the balance, has many questioning their judgement and representation of this town.





35 comments:

  1. Govenor Corbett should take the whole project out of Media Borough's hands. Has their ever been a more Keystone Cops group in Media?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who is delaying the project? It's BLCC and it's been BLCC all along, trying to get other people to pay for their private improvement projects.

    Now, BLCC doesn't get a state-funded road just the way they want it and they go back to court. The sense of entitlement of that group is staggering.

    The prior Media Borough Council led by Republican Pete A. (a BLCC member and park board member) signed a terrible document, and now Media is left to build a private lake and now a road-to-order for BLCC? It's hard to believe that Republicans like Tedman support such fiscal irresponsibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BLCC wanted a greenway? BLCC wanted to prevent the entire community to have their two-way access to 3rd st restored? The BLCC wanted to defy a clear court settlement? The BLCC formed a bogus Friends group as a cover for a couple NIMBY houses?

      Give it up, cheerleader!

      Delete
    2. It would cost BLCC close to a million dollars to dredge their lake. They are getting a new dam and new lake for zero cost on their part. Their greed and sense of entitlement is amazing.

      Delete
    3. Anon 1137....if you are playing that game, Davidson is a council member and also belongs to BLCC

      Delete
    4. If it was just BLCC ONLY who could drive across the bridge, then you might have a point.

      But this is what borough council doesn't get: It's not that BLCC wants a two lane roadway......EVERYBODY DOES!

      Delete
    5. Anon 1:16 does the poll results posted on this pro BLCC and republican blog suggest everybody wants a two lane road?

      Delete
    6. I don't! And I live in the borough. It is all the people from Upper Providence that want a 2 lane road. Lets first go with one and see later. Maybe than we can decide 2 lanes. Let Upper Providence pay half instead and pay also for maintaining the road in the future.

      Delete
  3. Mismanaged?!?!?!!? How about intentionally misled?!?! This group couldn't manage a lemonade stand. Though they could probably create a mediocre website to assure us they could. Disgraceful sneaks!



    ReplyDelete
  4. I wish I had some popcorn...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, merely an anonymous bystander.

      Delete
  5. Anon1137 Pete A signed a terrible document? I guess you supported the strategy lead by your husband or the otehr dem coucil presidents who in 16 yrs of could not get a settlement or remaining funding done. In 9 months the Pete A lead council secured a settlement with all parties that had the Borough pay for dam replacement and County and BLCC agreed to pay for maintenance and repairs forever. The Pete A council then secured $75,000 from County to defray design costs and another $650,000 from state to pay for Media's cost share.
    I guess supporting this statement from current council president Hall makes sense for Addie W I mean Anon1137 "...Re-establish does not mean that things go back the same way," Hall said at the September meeting. "It just means that you bring something into being again."
    That is your democratic leadership at its finest.
    Lets recap, this council was handed a settlement and 100% funding to replace the dam closed for 16 yrs. Now somehow this nobody Davidson with zero experience in muncipal governemnt and Hall,who spent the previous term on council looking to F Daly before ever voting, know more that the professionals advising the Borough, including borough engineers, lawyers and staff. The constant heckling of BLCC by democrats is sad. F Daly never once tried to secure settlement as he never wanted dam built much like his protege Davidson. The back room nonsense conducted by this council far surpasses anything the last council was accused of by Davidson

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey Chickdee didn't your husband support the stipulation agreement when he was on council?
    Love how Monte Hall Dent Kavidson snuck the vote in without telling other members of council. Roe and Rehoric both understood the vote to be on width not on 1 or 2 lanes. Typical of Hall and Davidson to use whatever underhannded methods they could think of to sneek this stinker through with the help of Mimpson and Stein two of the most unprepared council members ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you really believe that Roe and Rehoric didn't know what the deal was? They both knew and are in on this. They pretend to not know for public consumption.

      Delete
    2. You are right Pete has come to his senses and realized that his puppet masters do not control his entire life. He still needs to kiss ass and grovel to keep his lifestyle.

      Delete
    3. Roe and Rehoric may be the most selfless and independent public servants this town's ever had. In lieu of following the leader on script, they vote in an independent manner, and their work on council will benefit this community in the long term.

      Delete
  7. I am one of the most anti GOP people in America,but the Media boro council is dead wrong on this.I have supported the Dems since 1978 but gimee a break friends of glen prov?if they started that group 15-20 yaers ago then they might have standing ..but now just phonies looking out for their traffic CONTROL via eco concerns..

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fact Check:
    Brian Hall previous tenure on council never once mentioned or advocated changing the design of dam and supported re-establishing roadway using current design.
    Paul Robinson wsa on council 16 yrs ago when that council stuck 100% of cost to replace dam on Borough taxpayers. The Borough received 80% funded by state grant. Never once did he ever advocte changing the design.
    FROGS did not exist before the stipulation was approved by all members of council. No resident ever complained about the design or re-establishment despite 16 yr of council briefings and various progress reports. The arguement that the design will damage 1 acre of park land therefore it should be closed to 2 way traffic is a baseless claim. They have mislead the public by claiming trees and wetlands will be lost forever when in fact any tree removal or wetlands impacted will be replaced by more trees and wetlands planted down stream closer to Ridley Creek which will help maintain high quality water rating.
    The Dept of Environmental Protection (DEP) is designing the dam based on the best design practices taking into account the sentive nature of the Ridley Creek watershed.
    CAC was an advisory not policy making committee.

    Simpson/Stein both voted in July 2011 to settle the lawsuit with BLCC and County and proceed to design and replace dam with current design.

    6 of 7 current council members have all voted for current design knowing 2 way was always intended as the re-established roadway. Not once at any public meetings did any council member ever advocate for another design citing environmental or neighborhood concerns of traffic or impact to park.

    If any ouncil member even tried to make a compelling reason for switching design I have not heard it. They have presented no crediable or viable data that there will be more traffic or damage to park. This effort is lead by Kent Davidson, who is so conflicted he should not be allowed to be involved in any official borough discussion of dam, and FROGS to stop the re-establishment of roadway plain and simple. They are selfish elitists using the baseless claim of environmental damage when in fact they know it is not the case.
    Shame on Hall, Davidson, Simpson and Stein for putting the borough and this project in legal limbo for the self interest of so few.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen, to Fact Check above. I agree completely.

      Delete
    2. Yep, me too! Time and $$$ wasted while our safety is compromised by borough council.

      Delete

  9. Speaking of time and money what has been the cost to Media taxpayers since this nonsense started in January? Now they will start spending money to get a judge to define the defintion of the word "re-establish".The word re-established is defined in law dictionaries as Re`es`tab´lish v. t. 1. To establish anew; to fix or confirm again; to restore; as, to reëstablish a covenant; to reëstablish health. I guess Hall's definition is better than one from a dictionary "...Re-establish does not mean that things go back the same way," Hall said at the September meeting. "It just means that you bring something into being again."
    Pathetic leadership leads to the under handed behavior that is the hallmark of this council.
    Hey Deb Krull since Hall won't tell us can you explain the following:

    How much in legal and consultant fees has the borough incurred related to 3rd st since January?
    How much time has it cost the borough staffers and consultants to work on 3rd St since January?
    How many hours of meetings have borough staffers had to attend since January?
    PennDot, DEP and professionals have all been charging Borough for their time what is that cost since January?
    Why is the borough bad mouting a private swim club when you, Hall, and Davidson are all members and have served on council?
    Will any responsible democrat ever speak up and defend the moves made by this council?

    ReplyDelete
  10. www.removekentdavidson.com

    www.removebrianhall.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. stupid, the whole thing is stupid. For want of just saving face, this council has their own sense of entitlement - entitlement to appease a select few, entitlement against County Council (you can't tell us what to do!) FORGET about BLCC sense of entitlement, all they want is to see this open as a passible 2 lane road like everyone else in all the surrounding communities. I am so sick of this 'take my ball and go home' stance by Media council it's disgusting. Why arent any of the other council persons advising Davidson to abstain from voting due to the clear conflict of interest with his property??
    One of the questions posed to him during a recent meeting was with regard to his FROG website - where President (or should I say Dictator) Hall said council people are prohibited from accepting anything that gives them financial gain....well, how about a swing vote to an issue that will clearly impact his property value? Is that not a conflict of interest?
    Can we vote these guys out in November?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hall and his "leadership by appeasement" has really gotten this town in a jam. One that has millions riding on the outcome of the latest court debacle all because no one wants feelings hurt over third st. Stand up to Davidson? He can't even stand up for himself.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Michael Jordan, MediaOctober 2, 2012 at 11:28 AM

    "Conflict of Interest" for Kent Davidson, probably NOT. But "Appearance of Conflict of Interest," definitely YES.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Councilwomen Roe has been the only councilmember to question why Davidson is allowed to partake in any 3rd St discussions. She is the only one holding Hall accountable but routinely ignored by the "trained problem solver" who talks about transparency but doesn't practice it. Hall and Davidson ran on platform of transparency and open government and have spent 9 months doing the exact opposite. Can anyone doubt the outcome since this crew got elected? They stacked the CAC with FROGs, ignore professional advice, thumb their nose at a stipulation agreement that was approved 7-0 by previous council with 4 of the voters still on council. They plan a non profit swim club for holding up the project when in fact they are changing the agreement. Shameful behaviors entrusted to make decisions in the best interests of ALL residents not friends and family. We can only hope there is another coup brewing as this council president is as pathetic as the last democratric president.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Councilwomen Dawn Roe for Bor Council president. Would be best choice since 1850. Bring some common sense back to Media Borough. Very smart lady.

      Delete
    2. Cound not agree more. And let us have M. Rehoric for vice-president. The men on Media Borough Council are a joke. A bad joke on all residents, "D" and "R".

      Delete
  15. You'd think the D's would address these allegations word by word,line by line. They haven't, because Krull and her gang have campaign promises to uphold.

    The cover-up is always worse than the crime.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And who is behind Debbi Krull, pulling all the strings of the puppets? The next door neighbor of Kent Davidson. Hint: Same last name is that political family in the Windy City. Guess?

    ReplyDelete
  17. A lot of this back room stuff started happening when Krull took over. Not sure if it's a coincidence, but atleast Bill Kreiger represented the town better and was well liked by both D's and R's. The decency of the party was a reflection of him.

    Daly or Patchel wouldn't want any part of this, their probably embarrassed as the rest of us.

    Nobody is even sure what the party even represents or stands for now.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Michael Jordan, MediaOctober 3, 2012 at 7:57 PM

    Who is "Anonymous"? And where does he/she live? Am I the only real name making comments? I like to see a real name. Steve McDonald
    is another real person.

    ReplyDelete