Thursday, April 18, 2013

Media Knows the Issues, But Some Candidates Don't

Are issues like the  Third Street Bridge and the possibility of a new Wawa in Media important to you? To varying degrees I think they would be, along with what will happen to Media's hotel, future use of the Nativity school property, a new library, community/economic/business development and the empty lots throughout town.

Where do Media Candidates Stand?
When candidates walk around town and hand out literature purposely excluding issues that are important, it should be a concern for voters.  One set of candidates have defined the issues to the community and have presented their positions, while others have not and have literature so vague, it could be used by anybody in any town in the county.  It's not about their political party, all 8 candidates are running on the democratic ticket for four seats.  So this election will come down to the issues, not the party they are affiliated with.  With everything going on in this town, people have even complained that they are insulted to have received these handouts.  THERE ARE NO ISSUES LISTED!

Literature handed out by one group of candidates with no issues listed -  What about Wawa? Third St Brdg? Library? Hotel?.
The candidate handing out this literature, who I caught up with, was against Wawa and had no real plan to resolve Third Street Bridge.  He stated it was obstructed by former councilpeople and that the community needed to further discuss what to do with the project.  No wonder why he didn't have this on his literature, he couldn't explain it.

If candidates are unprepared to discuss or purposely omitting the issues vital to this town, than how can we expect them to show leadership towards these challenges if elected?  Being against something and blaming others is not what this town needs. That's not leadership. Media has been a victim of that mind-set for far too long. 

Residents have a right to know.   If you're concerned about Media and plan to vote for these candidates on May 21st, please ask them where they stand on the issues.





32 comments:

  1. No mention of hope, no mention of change, without these they really are being rather vauge on where they stand on the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, thank you.

    I'm going to listen to the MediaFirst team and vote for the people who aren't playing politics. I'm voting against the Republicans carpetbagging as Democrats. I want this idea to fail, and fail big, so we don't have to deal with it ever again.

    Discussion of the "issues" can wait until the Republicans get their second bite at the cherry in the fall.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Anon 7:43, your statement is a plethora of contradictions: voting for people who are NOT playing politics means supporting the entire Media First ticket, regardless of party affiliation. Why would you wish for the idea of a group of people who respect and treat each other's opinions fairly to 'fail big'?
    Taking a stand for or against 'Republicans carpetbagging as Democrats' means your interest is more partisan than not. You are a hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Carpetbaggers sprang up after the civil war..Friends of Glen Providence sprung up soon as the bridge was ready to move forward....they lived next to the park for years BUT NOW they want to be caretakers of the park.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Media Dems must be hiding something. I just read of someone reporting that they are deleting questions about the bridge from their facebook page and blocking people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also heard this. Who do the Media Dems really represent? Sad.

      Delete
  6. Wawa needs to promise to keep the 252 / Kirk and Monroe / Baltimore Pike locations open before I'd be in favor of adding a new Wawa in town that could become a traffic killer.

    Is the bridge that big of a deal to the majority of residents to give it a "solution" that might not be in the best interests of the residents of Media Borough?

    All 8 candidates are NOT Democrats, so why should we support wolves in sheep's clothing? I don't want faux Democrats winning seats on council, partnering with Republicans to form a majority, and taking orders from county, state, and national Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are an R or a D, you cannot be truly I.dependent. Regretfully, a true Independent cannot wi. in this town. Besides, Council is so large that an Independent voice would have little influence. Let's push for a Home Rule Charter and reduce the size of Council.

      Delete
    2. Yo Mike, that is a LOT of assumptions! First, the people of the Media First ticket are running on the Democratic ticket, they are not all registered Democrats, nor have they represented as such - they are 'tri-partisan': R's, D's and Independent. They are not 'faux democrats' and why should it matter? Are you that stringent in your belief that you MUST vote for someone who has an R or a D after their name? Why not look at the issues and ideas that individual people bring to the table instead of immediately going to the R or the D?
      As far as the bridge - yes, it is that big a deal. In terms of safety AND cost effective transport of our school children, say nothing about the inaccessibility to Upper Providence or the lost revenue that BLCC endures because of the non-access to their banquet facility. If I was BLCC (and I'm not) I'd be looking into some sort of FTC violation by Media Council - this could be construed as an attempt to block or make difficult their ability to generate revenue in a free market. The problem with this country as a whole are people who are so polarized in their political affiliations that the true nature of why we elect individuals is skewed altogether - let's look at 'people and not politics' for a refreshing change. Maybe Media can send Washington a message!

      Delete
    3. @ Frog Slayer:

      I think a lot of my feelings on the bridge come down to the fact that I've not been convinced of the benefit Media Borough would get from a full opening of the bridge to two lane traffic at all times. I haven't seen evidence of the negative impact of no bridge outweighing the potential problems that come with a full reopening of the bridge. I totally agree with the safety issues that arise from traffic, especially buses, having to turn left onto Baltimore Pike from Ridley Creek Road. And I think the discussion of allowing a one way road into town from the 3rd street bridge fix that. What I don't see is how a full two lane road benefits me as a resident of the borough. If I want to walk, walk my dog, jog, or bike through the bridge neighborhood, the extra traffic is a bother to me. And I don't even live in that part of the borough. If I want to drive to anywhere, except the immediate neighborhood on the Upper Providence side of the 3rd Street Bridge, I can take Baltimore Pike or Orange Street. I also don't see how the lack of an open road over the bridge is hurting BLCC's ability to have events. It isn't hard to take Baltimore Pike or Orange Street to get there.

      What has really turned me off to the bridge project is the blatantly partisan motives behind the writing against this council. I'm not painting you with that brush, but I think it is quite obvious that a few folks have an electoral axe to grind.

      I truly get your point on how excessive partisanship is hurting our country. I don't want to see the discussion devolve into a "they started it" type deal, but the attacks by state / national Republicans on what my grandparents and parents built leave me very locked into voting for Democratic Party candidates almost all of the time. With worker protections, schools, Social Security, Medicare, roads, parks, and just about every public item that benefits the middle class facing nasty cuts while income inequality grows; I'm left with little choice at the ballot box.

      In either case, thanks for the time and your measured reply to my comment.

      Delete
    4. Don't know media mike but couldn't agree more on all points

      Delete
    5. Media Mike what you describe is class war the haves vs the have nots. Which is what most Democrats rely on and I am fine with that. However several members of council both past and present want it both ways. They publicly bash BLCC as a private club with a private lake and then hide (you know the opposite of transparency) the fact that several of them are members of BLCC. Hall, member---Davidson, member---- Krull, member. At least Pete Alyankian let folks know he belonged to BLCC while he was on Council.
      Just like the majority of Democrats the crusade for the masses but behind closed doors aspire to be 1 per centers just like the faux democrats on Parks Edge Lane who are for the environment but as long as they can destroy woodlands long enough to build their homes. Then protect the park after they get theirs

      Delete
    6. That's a great post. I still believe Media and ,indeed, the country is ineffective with two opposing and divisive parties. There are great posts on this blog for both parties. I commend Tedman for allowing such great discussion but I'm not convinced he's the right candidate for me.

      Delete
    7. MediaMike,

      What are your feelings towards Paul Patchel the guy who runs the Media Democrats? Do his candidates even know who he is? If they did, they probably wouldn't want to walk on the same side of the street he did, let alone be associated with his campaign. HYPOCRITES!

      http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2211&dat=19880802&id=LEpAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WvUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3600,504787

      Delete
    8. @ Anon 9:51 AM:

      This guy Paul Patchel, from the new story, sounds like a total creep. I'll be sure not to vote for him at all. But I can't seem to find his name anywhere on a ballot, the Media Democrats web site, or on any Google search outside of the crime he committed.

      So I'm not sure what your point is.

      Delete
    9. MediaMike,

      As a democrat, I didn't know who this person was until one of the of the Media Dem candidates told me that he and Brian Hall (guy on council) were the ones who took a group photo of them and the mayor. Apparently, Patchel is the puppet master for the whole group.

      http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2211&dat=19880802&id=LEpAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WvUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3600,504787

      Delete
    10. Ha, looks like the Media Democrats have a lot of explaining to do. The article reads, "High Ranking Democrat" WOW, they really do get away with murder. What a proud day for Media, PA.

      Here's another article: http://http://articles.philly.com/1988-06-21/news/26265197_1_solicitor-accident-john-gallagher


      Delete
    11. Well, this Patchel guy isn't anybody on a ballot or listed as in charge of anything, so I think you folks are talking about 25 year old history at this point.

      Delete
    12. Also, he's about the sixth or seventh person I've seen named here as the person who runs the Media Dems.

      Delete
    13. Of course his name isn't listed publicly. For obvious reasons.

      Delete
  7. Anon 7:01 you do know the homes on Parks Edge were built when the man (Hans) who lived up the street that owned that land sold it to a developer. The people who bought those homes had no control over the environment the homes were already built they just bought them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yet they live in them and pass judgement on those who don't agree with them on the park. Park's Edge lane decimated 7 acres and that's okay, because tree's and wildlife can't tell difference between private and public land. And you wonder why people hate the Friends of Glen Providence Park. Frauds!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree, more or less.

      Delete
    2. Too bad there wasn't a FROGS group to stop the building of the FROGS own homes.

      Delete
  9. Anon 9:56 didn't you understand what anon9:34 said the people who live on Parks Edge had nothing to do with decimating anything. You sound like a dumb ass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disagree. Anon 956 is making a valid point or at least stating a valid opinion that the people living in homes built near open space who then argue against development that would negatively impact those open spaces... well anon 956 believes those people to be hypocrites. Anon 956 is entitled to that opinion. You are entitled to disagree, and you are entitled to say so. But using derogatory terms like dumb ass may be so discouraging to Anon 956 that he or shemay refrain from stating that opinion in the future. It is counter to the exchange of ideas, and is reminiscent of the way I've seen borough council run their meetings.

      Delete
  10. Let's try to get back to issues.

    How does the Media First Team respond to the question of spending public dollars for a private, shrinking lake? Can they support traffic calming measures near the entrance of two recreational sites? Do they acknowledge that this area has been enjoyed by pedestrians, including those walking into Media from Upper Providence? Will the candidates respond on their fellow candidate's blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The best way to get back to the issues is to realize that the mostly state dollars being spent are to rebuild a roadway that happens to be over a dam. Framing the issue as a giveaway to BLCC is not exactly accurate. Though some disagree, I think using tax $ to restore a perfectly useful road benefits the greatest amount of people. Under the Stipulation, BLCC agreed to split maintenance of the dam with the county which amounts to an overall savings of tax $. Without the dam, there is no reason for BLCC to assume such responsibility though I am not a BLCC member so I can't speak for them. Spending the same amount of money on a pedestrian walkway seems to me to be a more questionable use of State money and I can't imagine was what all those people who worked so hard to secure State funding had in mind.


      Dave Daniel

      Delete
    2. Dave Daniel finally the voice of reason. Frogs and council framed the issue to vilify BLCC.
      Replace the roadway the way it was. End of story.

      Delete
    3. Why do anything? Seriously, what is the health/safety/welfare problem that gets solved by doing anything? I don't like the game playing by council.... wish they would come clean... but I don't think thetes a demonstrated need to spend public dollars on this.

      Delete
    4. It's tme for those who want something for nothing to pay 100%. We are not talking poverty here... just reading this comment indicates that we are dealing with folks who want tax dollars to pay for their essentially private trail. Not the common good. Again, it is difficult to differentiate the Rs from the Ds.

      Delete
    5. Are you, Anon 8:43, suggesting that Park advocates will have a private trail?

      I'm certain BLCC is the private entity suing boro residents for a new dam/lake and two way traffic. Will BLCC allow all of us to access their lake if we taxpayers pay for the dam?

      Protecting the park and pedestrians is the common good.

      Delete