Monday, February 25, 2013

Breaking: Third St. Bridge Back to Square One - Judge Throws Out Stipulation

Mayor Bob McMahon and Media Borough to lose millions
Based on reports received this afternoon, Judge Proud has thrown out the court order stipulation agreed upon by (BLCC, Del. County and Media Borough) that would have allowed for the bridge to be repaired after 17 long and costly years.  No two-way, No one-way.........NO REPAIR On one of PA's top ten most Dangerous Dams. In all likely hood this will now revert back to court where it was 21 months ago to determine who owns the bridge.  A tremendous waste of time, money and effort by the community at the hands of Mayor Bob McMahon and Media Borough Council who fought for this obstruction.  It was Media Borough who explicitly asked in their briefs to have the stipulation nullified.

It should also be noted that BLCC in good faith to the community and taxpayers, offered to discuss a one-way option that Media Borough Council was telling the community was a compromise necessary to move forward.  Borough Council never even addressed the offer.  In fact, for months they wouldn't even discuss the bridge due to the "contempt of court" petition filed against them.  It may now potentially cost the borough, businesses and residents millions of dollars.

As this is shaping up, the money allocated by Penndot and a state grant totaling in the millions of dollars will be most likely be re-allocated for other projects in the state.  It's unclear where the money will come from to clean this 17 year mess up or how long it'll take, but today that now became the Media Taxpayer's problem.


82 comments:

  1. Yeah, I don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Judge Proud must own property on West Street or near the dam. Now it is going to be a greenway forever. Drain Bromall's Lake. Start building the townhouses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is just too hard to believe!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I blame BLCC more than anyone for the problem. Stop acting like BLCC was always acting in good faith. Their greed was a big part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The stipulation only came into being because the prior council capitulated and offered a massive taxpayer giveaway. By fighting the one-way option, BLCC took a massive gamble and lost.

      Now, there are three possible outcomes:

      1) Borough Council decides to use eminent domain to take control of the bridge. Because of all the repairs needed, BLCC's value is negligible. Result: BLCC receives nothing. Media gets a greenway.

      2) BLCC caves, and realizes that the one-way option is the best deal they're ever going to get. Result: BLCC gets what they own fixed for free. Media gets a one-way bridge.

      3) BLCC decides to negotiate some more. But they have no negotiating leverage. What possible deal could they possibly hope to achieve? Result: Option 1. BLCC receives nothing. Media gets a greenway.

      Delete
    2. There could be several possible outcomes, Anon 8:35, but these don't seem to be among them. Right now, the deal is off--Media is not doing ANYTHING on that site unless a future court order mandates that they do--and in that case, it will be the least expensive thing possible. Ditto for the County. And to be sure, "negotiating" is not Swim Club Style. A court will need to determine who owns the dam and the land it sits on; whoever owns it can do something with it--whatever they can raise funds for, get a DEP permit for, and win subsequent lawsuits for. All that makes a replacement dam look highly unlikely at this point--seems like we need to take another look at some kind of 'Plan B'.

      Delete
    3. 4) BLCC sells the land to developers who build low-cost housing/apts. BTW, what do you think one of those dwellings would go for? Perhaps six story high-rises would work there.

      Delete
    4. Why would they build low-income housing when they could build luxury duplexes? Enough with the fear-mongering already! Keep in mind that the uppity-ups at the club will still profit handsomely, one way or another. Golden parachute...still intact!

      Delete
    5. Borough council can just re-zone that possibility away. (Assuming it has not already done so.)

      Delete
  5. Michael Jordan, MediaFebruary 25, 2013 at 11:14 PM

    It is not over, no matter what Judge Proud says. This is an issue that affects econonic development and public safety for generations to come. Senator Pileggi doesn't give up that easily.
    He got the grant money from the state. He is an insider in Harrisburg. He knows Govenor Corbett. He is going to get it done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Senator Pileggi did us a favor by getting the grant and helping out his political friends. But they have since made a mess of this project, accompanied with a lot of noise. Senator Pileggi will soon redistrict Media out or his constituency (as he did last year before it was overturned by the Supreme Court), and Governor Corbett has tightened the reigns on RACP funding and will soon cut borrowing to finance it. Governor Corbett is going to be more concerned with getting reelected than worrying about how may lanes connect the two parts of the swim club on top of the dam that he was going to give them before they got greedy and screwed it up. Let's be real here!

      Delete
  6. The Stipulation was a good deal for the swim club...in fact, a gift. And overall, probably could have been a good solution. All that was needed to make it work was the one thing it required of the club: cooperation. The club agreed that the legal matter was, in the language (and case!) of the document, "hereby SETTLED, DISCONTINUED and ENDED". And then they wouldn't let it go. How many lawsuits more did the Club's Board of Directors think the Judge was going to put up with!? Maybe when they have to pay for the repairs themselves they'll be a little more realistic about how they go about doing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This sounds like one of the Three Stooges on council? Hall? Robinson? Davidson? Hey guys, who's going to pay for this now?

      Delete
    2. Swim Club maybe? Maybe a little? Or maybe we can economize a bit and do without a dam somehow.

      Delete
    3. Hint: Taxpayers were going to pay for it before. Taxpayers are going to pay for it after.

      BLCC just threw away their leverage. Greenway here we come!

      Delete
    4. Hey there "Third Street Dam". You sound pretty smart for a damn, but you know that the cheapest way for that dam swim club to get you repaired is to keep suing with their free attorney. Enough spit up against the wall and somethings got to dribble down. Even if your drain hole is clogged with rocks.

      Delete
  7. The fact that Council lied to the residents by asking the judge to throw out the stipulation when they never disclosed this to the public is typical of the underhanded way this COuncil President has lead since taking office last year. The residents should be outraged that council requested throwing out the stipulation without disclosing to public.
    Stop blaming Broomalls, there is only one party dealing from the bottom of the deck.....your elected officials. The Stipulation was good for all parties as the road was repaired/reopen, safety was restablished to residents and it was paid for without cost to residents.
    Stop blaming everyone else when the blame and lies fall squarely on Hall and Davidson what a joke they have made of this project. Yay for FROGS you get what you want a dangerous dam that will remain in limbo until something unfortunate happens. I'm sure the FROGs, Kent and his wife are thrilled with the decision they get their roadway to remain closed for many more years.
    One thing to remember, the Borough agreed to rebuild the dam in 1996 at their expense. No matter what happens they will always bo on the hook for repair or will have to pay the state back the funds already spent on the current design....so smart. I'm sure the Borough manager and solicitor are sick to their stomachs over this ruling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If BLCC weren't aware that the most likely outcome of their action was that the stipulation would be thrown out, then their lawyer has a malpractice suit on his hands.

      Delete
  8. This council is always quick to point the finger at someone else for their incompetence. If it's true that they didn't share the fact that their brief included a line item that would have killed the agreement, then they weren't holding the best interests of the community as it related to the funding.

    These people have been dishonest and arrogant with their selfishness costing us all.

    FURIOUS VOTER!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Swim Club....WINNING!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Now that the Swim Club and County are going to need to pay for a small part of this project, perhaps we consider a less expensive alternative to a massive dam for the Swim Club's "lake". A road would be an asset, but is it really worth $5-Mil or so, plus a lifetime of bickering?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Some men want to watch the world burn"

    I believe I stated before that what that Urban Terrorist group (FROGS) wanted all along was to prevent any progress concerning this issue from moving forward, keeping the road closed indefinately. Well, that inner cirle of over-entitled NIMBY's posing as a "Friends" group, penetrating local government with "transparent" councilpeople, got EXACTLY what they wanted. The Bridge doesn't get repaired, the two lanes are not restored, the dam remains in deplorable condition as it has since it was damaged in 1996 and once again, this town, and its future, have been failed by those who claim to serve us.

    I commend the prior council for doing their part in attempting to right a long-standing wrong in this community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm rubber, you're glue..."

      I'm sure the prior council appreciates your commendation, Steve.

      Delete
    2. This gives BLCC a chance to tell the taxpayers what their plans are BEFORE we pay for a new dam! Are they going to dredge their lake so it so it doesn't disappear? Are they going to drain it and sell the land to a developer? Who will pay to maintain a new dam? Maybe they should be asked to put that in writing.

      Delete
    3. The prior Council approved the agreement UNANIMOUSLY ... and they approved it knowing the agreement called for a 2-lane, 2-way road. And FOUR of the 7 who approved it are still on Council!

      Delete
    4. Why would BLCC put anything in writing? Council puts everything in writing and then changes on the fly.
      Media borough tax payers will end up paying for everything watch and wait to see your millage sky rocket. In two years residents will be begging for the original Stipulation Order but that money will be long gone. Kent get ready to "float that bond" you spoke of.

      Delete
    5. Steve McD is right on. His language is a little harsh, but he makes his point. I agree with him, and so do others. Keep commenting on this site, Steve.

      Delete
  12. Just build a cool footbridge :)

    http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/phpthumbnails/32/32650/32650_1_600.jpeg

    http://www.ldnews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=4849723

    http://0.tqn.com/d/goamsterdam/1/0/k/4/-/-/IMGP2223-1.JPG

    ReplyDelete
  13. If the bridge dam was not in need of repair or replacement. Cars would be travelling third St. Both directions and no one would care. But now greedy self serving nimbys want a gated community.I support democrats in evry election but this bunch is a disgrace...one lane? Greenway...gimme a break that is why it is called 3rd STREET!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right, Anon. 12:46 PM. Let'm know at election time.

      Delete
  14. Now that my "non-pecuniary" conflict of interest has suceeded, can I phone it in for the rest of my term? I'll Skype in from time to time for the rare piece of technology-related legislation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You certainly have succeeded in being a real pain in the Swim Club's fidouchiary asset, Dent.

      Delete
    2. Very weak Dent.

      Delete
  15. Swimclub WInning.............,,

    ReplyDelete
  16. Everyone, please just calm down and let me handle this...... F U DAVIDSON!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are a funny person, Anon. 8:20 PM, Wash your mouth out with soap, and talk with your minister. Help is on the way.

      Delete
  17. I thought only the Republicans were obstructionist. These Media Democrats are right up there with the fools we have in Washington. 17 years of nothing and now we are back to square #1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are back to square #1 because of the greedy fools at the swim club who think they own this Republican county and can get a judge to rubberstamp anything they want. Hubris!

      Delete
  18. When is the next election?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And when will Cindy Miller weigh in on this?

      Delete
    2. Maybe EMS couldn't reach her in time after she heard the news.

      Delete
  19. This decison will make the "Belive It Or Not" show.
    Who turns down free money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Free Money"!?

      Maybe just the "Believe It Not" Show...

      Delete
  20. I am sickened by all of this waste.......and by 17 years of inconvience. There should have never been any discussion about fixing an existing street in a Borough in the County of Delaware. Stop all of this put the street back to the way it was ....STOP THE MADNESS!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The REAL waste, anon 9:32, would be putting back this dam at all. $5-million smackeroos of state and local taxpayer dollars to preserve a polluted mudhole for a private developer? Honestly! Let's be glad the state is willing to pay to remove that dam, clean the swim club's dead lake up....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. $5-million smakeroos? Where did you pull that number out of?
      When did the state agree to remove the dam and clean up the "dead lake"? Is borough council keeping this from the residents?

      I've never heard the state is willing to pay to dismantle the dam and clean up the lake. Please post a link to this great news. Or stop spreading B.S.

      The REAL waste is reading posts like yours that are B.S. and confusing people.

      Delete
    2. http://www.firemediaborocouncil.com
      http://www.firemediaborocouncil.org
      http://www.firemediaborocouncil.edu
      http://www.firemediaborocouncil.tv

      Delete
  22. Media just threw away a very good solution in pursuit of the "perfect" solution from their selfish perspective. There is no doubt Media is a great town, but this is a function of its natural advantages. The local government does not nothing but hinder its progress.

    I guess somebody here "won" a narrow political victory, but boy is it going to be expensive to everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could not have been better stated.
      Democrats get a narrow political victory.......while it costs all of the residents more in the future. Democrats always chasing votes and support at the cost of progress and results. Some things never change.

      Delete
    2. I don't get it. How is it that Media supposedly threw this away when it was the swim club that sued them and got the whole thing tossed? And, wouldn't it be a legal victory, not political? And, if we don't have to build this expensive dam now, how is it going to cost more??

      Delete
    3. The big question worth asking is what are the Three Stooges (Hall, Davidson, Robinson) and Side-Show Bob McMahon going to mess up next.

      Delete
    4. You forgot the 4th Stooge, Dr frankenStein. The gang of FOUR.

      Delete
  23. Just wondering, if the dam were eliminated would the lake automatically dry up over time? If so, then it WOULD seem more efficient to let that happen. Then if there were no lake there would not be a need for a bridge (perhapes just a road with a culvert). Plus, it's not like it's a public amenity. Then they could build some expensive homes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The lake will just dry up if it's not dredged ($1 million)and will do so even with a new dam ($4 million). If the unsafe dam is dismantled and not replaced, the creek could be restored to the way it currently looks on either side of the lake - beautiful and functional.

      Delete
  24. Kent Davidson "float a bond." Hire a bankruptcy lawyer for the taxpayers. Time to move on.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cindy Miller is our heroine in Upper Providence. Cindy tells the truth and the Democrats in Media thinks she's giving them Hell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe Cindy should get after Upper Providence Council at one of their 15-minute meetings.

      Delete
    2. She can give the Democrats in Media all the Hell she wants; she cannot vote them in or out of office.

      Delete
  26. You wonder how these people in Media local government hold their jobs. They are not even likable in the least bit. What a terrible reflection on an otherwise pleasant area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Anon. 3:26 for pointing that out. It is amazing to me that when presented with any opinion(s) differing from theirs that the response is combative and arrogant - with the exception of the two women who bring clarity and integrity to the council.

      Delete
  27. Do I see 60 comments coming on this string? Perhaps an ATM record? Nothing like a disfunctional government to get people active.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or a dysfunctional deal.

      Delete
  28. What is the purpose of talking if you don't have something important to say. Tedman's blog: 56 comments and still counting; Kent Davidson's, O comments. Get him off the broadband, Phil.

    Kent Davidson censures his blog and should not be sponsored by the Daily Times. Not the spirit and goal of freedom of the press.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Daily Times featuring a link to Kent Davidson's blog (along with many other local blogs) is not equivalent to being "sponsored by the Daily Times". Also, it is "censor," which Tedman has been forced to do as well, since a lot of people cannot keep their comments in the realm of civil discourse.

      Delete
    2. What is the use of writing if you don't know what you're talking about. "Censures his blog"? Give me a break, o ye dictionaryless arbiter of the spirit and goal of freedom of the press.

      Delete
    3. People in Media are so uppity, "I know better than you" fools. Just look at yourselves! No wonder nothing gets done because the council is just as bad!

      Delete
    4. Grammar nazis tend to be educated derelicts. Get a job.

      Delete
  29. It's not just borough council who botched this up, it's the Friends of the Glen Providence Park (aka nimbys) who also sunk this deal. If Broomall Lake was part of the park, the FROGs would be doing back flips to save the "Vital Ecosystem"while posting heart-warming pictures on Facebook of creatures basking in the sun.

    Instead, they passive-aggressively vilify a swim club, led by hacks like Rumsey. Hypocrites! All this going on while Media Boro Council sits there and does nothing but defends this behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The unfortunate reality of this entire equation is the fact that students of RTM are caught in the crossfire - elementary kids forced to spend OVER AN HOUR A DAY on a school bus just to circumvent a viable transport route. The taxpayers in UPT, Middletown and Edgmont who are forced to absorb the additional transport costs but who are, for all intents and purposes, invisible to and ignored by specific members of Media Council - and horror of horrors - those folks who live(d) in the burned out remains of 1700 Ridley Creek Road who were not able to be aided by Media Fire in the most expedient way possible. This is what we, as a community but not municipality, were handed. All of you, PLEASE take note, and pass it on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please explain how a bridge out at Third between West Street and Kirk Lane impacts the Media Fire Department's travel time to a fire at 17XX Ridley Creek Road.

      Delete
    2. While having the bridge open would expedite emergency services response in many situations, Monday night wasn't one of them. There were five companies that responded to the first of two alarms. Stop using the misfortune of that family at 1700 Ridley Creek Road for your fear-mongering tactics.

      Delete
    3. If that was your house on 17xx Ridley Creek Road or let's say the new Woodlands development, or even the other side of Third St., I don't think you'd be so smug about the nature or reasoning of the explanation.

      You people in Media really just don't get. It's a shame.

      Delete
    4. Anon at 4:25pm not sure if you know where the house fire was, but it was on N. Ridley Creek Road, north of the intersection with Sycamore Mills Road. If Media Fire Company had to get there, they'd go west on 5th, North on Orange, then onto Rose Tree Rd, Sycamore Mills, and then to the scene of the fire. The unfortunate house fire Monday was not anywhere near The Woodlands.

      Logic, facts, and reason are seriously lacking among the commentariat on this blog.

      Delete
    5. Media Fire - out of Jackson, straight across 3rd to Kirk (if bridge was operable), left on Kirk to right on Ridley Creek and a straight shot down. Drive both in your car and then compare ease of navigation, distance, etc and shut your pie hole about logic, facts, and reason until you start understanding first responders.
      God forbid you ever need Rose Tree Fire at the corner of Third and West you 'commentariat'

      Delete
  31. These council people make the federal government look a model of operational efficiency. Who'd ever thought any thing could be worse than politicians in Washington? Well, leave it to good old Media, PA.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Just curious. Why does Kent's blog have 0 traffic. Seems to be a waste of broadband. If it was a question of ratings like cable TV, IT WOULD BE CANCELLED. Calling it a blog makes no sense. Nobody is blogging or commenting. WHAT GOES HERE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't Mr Davidson just post a "Gone Fishing" sign on his blog. Then we can come back later to see if it is active.

      Don't close his link down.

      Delete
  33. This council has done everything they could to destroy an agreement that settled ownership and enable securing balance of funding to get the project built. They have attacked the reputation of Broomalls Lake, while council members "Know it All" Stein and "Phone It In" Simpson changed votes that they once supported. They are "lead" by a "personal injury" attorney who never once promoted a Greenway or 1 way concept during his 4 previous uneventful years on council. They have sullied reputations, while hanging the change of direction on a ridiculus petition that they claim the public wants. We all know they are pandering to the elitists on Parks Edge, Rumsey, and the ultimate elitist "Conflicted" Davidson. All this happens while the mayor sleeps through meetings instead of displayng any leadership on an issue that falls under public safety. Instead the bored/disinterested council president allows Conflicted" Davidson and his pathetic band of selfish elistist to run this project into the ground under false reasons. Way to go Media residents you got exactly what you voted for.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Could not have stated it any better
    FACT Media Borough approached the County and the Swim Club to fix 3rd St in 2011
    FACT Media Borough agreed to get the funds to reopen 3rd St the way it always was (two ways)
    FACT The County and the Swim Club agreed to cover any ongoing costs to maintain the new dam.
    FACT Rumsey;Stephanie G.; Kent Davidson's wife and a handful of other NIMBY elitist decided they did not want cars to drive by near their houses.
    FACT they organized started FROGS and that got us where we are today along with a leaderless Borough Council.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Glen Providence Park is the worst kept park in the county. It is a sinkhole. I'd never bring my grandkids down there. Del Co Council should be ashamed of itself. So don't blame the FROGS OR THE DEMOCRATS.

    ReplyDelete