Thursday, March 1, 2012

Media Mayor uses Emergency Notification system for announcement of 3rd St. Dam Meeting

If you live in Media borough and you received a call from 555-555-5555 at around 6:05pm EST tonight, well that's the borough calling to inform you that there will be a meeting to discuss the Third St. Bridge issue on Monday, March 5th.  The pre-recorded message was sent via the borough Emergency Notification system. 

There will also be a survey sent to residents and business this week to solicit input on recommendations for the repair.  If you aren't on the emergency notification list, you can sign up at the Media Borough website.

For those who missed the message, you can listen to it in it's entirety here.


  1. Is your post providing insight that maybe the use of the emergency system has been abused? Just wondering...I love to stir the pot!

  2. Bottom line is that the bridge needs to be accessible in some form. People use it as their life line to get into town to spend their money and be part of the community. I live at the top of the hill on Kirk and moved to that location so we could walk to State Street. A one lane bridge or a green-way both make sense and would be acceptable I think. What would not work is to breach the dam for the sake of the park. As a matter of fact it is one of the most selfish things I have ever heard. I love the park as much as anyone and spend loads of time in it with my daughter but I just don't see how breaching the structure and draining the lake would benefit anyone. People who are for this option may hide behind their love of the "critters" that may be affected during construction but in my opinion it is a case of simply not wanting any unsightly construction going on near their homes. Even if it will be beneficial in the long run. For people who are worried about the environmental impact of fixing the bridge what can be gained by eliminating any way of walking into town or by forcing hundreds of people to drive further to get to Media? If this area is truly a community and "Everyone's Hometown" please do not cut us of from being a part of it.

    1. Two different issues.

      #1) Bringing back the bridge. Some type of bridge should be back. Cars, foot traffic, bikes, some combo, etc. I agree that people on your side of town should be able to keep access to downtown Media.

      #2) The dam. It needs to go and the lake needs to be drained. Any dam on a moving body of water only lasts so long. The dam, as it currently exisits, is an accident waiting to happen. With no due respect to the Broomall's Lake gang, I don't care to see Baltimore Pike washed out for a long period of time if that dam breaks and sends all of that water crashing downstream. As PA residents we should all look back to that the country club types did to Johnstown with their dam.

      Bottom line: Get a new bridge built, choose what type of bridge (feet vs. cars), and elevate it over a restored natural flow of that creek.

    2. There is more water in Broomall's Pool than in the lake.

    3. There's more historic value in Broomall's lake than the pond in the park. Ridding this town of Broomall's lake would be a tragedy.

    4. Nobody wants to "rid this town town of Broomall's lake". But the club can't afford to maintain it. We can help do something beautiful with the area that doesn't carry with it the liability of maintenance or the risk of a "high-hazard dam".

  3. Well said John!

  4. Media hasn't been "Everyone's Hometown" in quite some time.

    1. I tend to avoid banter, especially knowing it will likely go upon one with deaf ears... but in this instance, I must react due to the comment and your staying "anonymous". I sense you have moved or haven't walked State street or the side streets in some time... let alone enjoyed the restaurants, theatre, arts, small (thriving) businesses/salons... if you say it hasn't been "Everyone's Hometown" in quite some time, I believe that could be because you are not proud of Media being the first fair trade town. The list could go on, but saving my energy and going to sleep... stating fair trade town sums up how I feel about your cowardly assessment. I encourage you to return to town, eyes open and enjoy the thriving atmosphere, breakfast at Koffee Korner, shop at Local Home Goods, lunch at Seven Stones Cafe - etc etc... Not looking for a response/likely won't check for one, but realize how far Media has come on so many levels. Be well.

  5. Facts:
    1. dam has been closed since 1994 due to unsafe conditions and continues to fall into further decay and unsafe conditions.
    2. every council member since 1994 has been in favor of rebuilding the dam using current design with cars traveling over dam.
    3. The dam has received 100% funding!!!!!!!
    4. The state Dept of Enviromental Protection is leading the design efforts ensuring minimal impact to park.
    4. The environmental impact studies have been completed and no wildlife or plant life will be harmed.
    5. Every single emergency agency (fire/Police) wants the road opened to ensure public safety
    6. The Friends of GP Park claim the park will be "destroyed" which is a lie and misleading with no facts to support their claim.
    7. The Friends of GP are leading the CAC group.... how transparent is that!!
    7. Broomalls Lake continues to be made out as the bad guys in this debate but are only 1 of 3 decision makers.
    8. There is a legal order signed by Broomalls, Media Borough and the County that stipulates a dam with roadway will be built that took 14 yrs to negoitate and settle.
    9. 6 out of 7 council members have supported the current design
    10. If borough wants to change design both Broomalls and County must agree.
    11. Where was the outcry for a pedestrian crossing only over the last 16yrs?
    12. What happens if the borough loses the grant funding? The borough will have to pay for the repair itself!!!
    13. No surprise that this new council is being jerked around by so few who are your typical NIMBY types.
    14. The new president is a lawyer yet claims the stipulation agreement does not determine ownership which it clearly does not out on the Borough.

    Good luck trying to get County and Broomalls to agree to change legal order without requiring Borough into accepting full ownership, which they fought for 16 yrs to avoid. Biggest bunch of misinformed elected officils ever on this new council. Hopefully no breach will happen that will cause loss of life or property while these morons try to undo what was just settled in July 2011.

    1. Who will finance a new lawsuit to change the July 2011 court order? Hopefully not the same taxpayers that paid for the emergency system notifications of CAC meeting and their 3rd street project survey mailing.

    2. Anon 5:38 do you feel better now? The old court decision can easily be reversed. Things have changed deal with it.

    3. Lou, you need to find some meaning in your life. Move to Florida with all the other old people.

    4. Anon @ 2:21pm's motto:

      "Arrogance: Its an acquired taste."

    5. Regarding "Facts", by anon@05:38:

      1) True.
      2) False. And of those who did, it was likely because no other option was on the table, and because they were under the incorrect impression that PennDOT would require the road and dam replacement.
      3) Not exactly. The largest part of the project will be 80% funded by PennDOT; we also have a grant in the amount of $650K from the State Legislature. Other funding may also be available. If costs get out of hand and/or PennDOT chooses not to fund certain features, Media is 'on the hook' for it. In any case, we have a responsibility to spend those funds wisely and in ways that benefit the borough, not the swim club or anyone else.
      4)Not at all. DEP has nothing to do with design. They have vetted the area for rare and/or endangered species, and wetland delineation. While impact studies have passed State law requirements, it is clear that a restored stream bed and reforestation would be environmentally beneficial; DEP supports this.
      5)False. And, if they had wanted that, the heavy barricades on the bridge would have been replaced with movable ones long ago.
      6)False. FrOG claims that 1.1 acre of park land would be destroyed; this is accurate.
      7)True. Swim Club reps call it "demonized". The other two parties are open to all the options; Swim Club wants their dam replaced at taxpayers' expense exactly as first conceived in one option presented in 1998, including a road and a separate, private walkway to connect their property on the South (clubhouse) side. Fence, too.
      8)True, and False. There is a legal agreement, but it was a standoff for 13 years; then the Swim Club was given everything they ever wanted in less than one year of their representative taking control of Borough Council, at no cost or risk to them.
      9) False. Also, in the past there never were any alternatives. At this point, 5 out of 7 support looking at the options.
      10)Not exactly. The borough is in charge of the design, per the Court Order; their engineer and the County's need to concur on the design. If they cannot agree, a third engineer will be selected by them to decide on design. The Order refers only to "design standards" and "vehicular traffic". Swim Club has no input on design per the order. If the borough wants to not replace the dam, that would require an agreement OR a subsequent court order.
      11) Bridge has been open to pedestrian traffic the whole while; no serious discussion of design has been taken up "over the last 16 years".
      12)The borough would need to pay the 20+% for whatever is not covered by PennDOT. See item 3.
      13) False. Council is now made up of a solid majority, three of whom were elected by a 2-1 majority in an election in which this was a major issue that they made their views clear on. The two members who oppose revisiting the project are those who were instrumental in ushering it in, and will likely be voted out by a similar majority in 2013. Three council members live within several blocks of the project; at least two of them support the road option.
      14 True. The Council President is an attorney, and the Order does not determine ownership. The order determines "responsibilities", and neither the Swim Club nor The County have any until after the project is completed.

      Talk about misinformed!! If The Borough takes ownership of the Dam, it will be removed. What has been avoided for 16 years has been taking ownership along with the responsibility to replace the dam; that's not going to change, and for good reason.

      Hope this helps clear a few things up. It's important to distinguish fact from fiction and opinion.

  6. Why is everything on the Friends of Glen Providence Park website, down to maps, dated 2011? Did they not exist prior to 2011? Or was a "friends" group formed with an agenda in mind?

    1. If the Friends of Glen Providence Park were around before 2011 half of them would not be living on Parks Edge Lane because it would have never been developed. They are a fraud self centered special interest group.

  7. Yes...if they were around at the time, they would have fought it--and lost. Parks Edge Lane was developed on private property, and was well within code--it's a private property owner's right to develop their own property in whatever way they see fit, within the law.

    The swim club is private property, too. If they can maintain their lake, God bless them! But if they can't, how are they going to be able to honor their commitment to maintain the dam? And, what happens when the lake is all, instead of half, marsh?