To my knowledge, no one has come back to the table to discuss that issue. Coming up with ideas for the bridge is one thing, renegotiating a settled lawsuit with two other parties will be a whole other matter and potentially costly for the Media taxpayers. I know it, and borough council does too. Unfortunately, 16 years went by which should have been plenty of time to discuss alternatives.
What's discussed at the CAC at tomorrow's meeting (Monday, 7pm Boro Hall) may all be a moot point, but I wanted to point out some issues I have with borough council and the committee.
- Who on Borough Council Signed the Friends of the Glen Providence Park Petition?
I'd like to know who on borough council signed the petition presented by Friends of the Glen Providence Park. I understand, Councilman Kent Davidson did, but it's important to know who else. The petition includes the following with item #3 being relevant.
- Maximize public participation in the design of the dam and bridge;
- Minimize the project’s damage to Glen Providence Park, especially plant and animal life;
- Create a pedestrian/bicycle greenway on the Third Street Bridge, open only to emergency motor vehicles;
- Enhance the beauty of the dam, bridge and surrounding area.
- Friends of Glen Providence Park Special Interest:
For the sake of transparency, I'd like to know who on the CAC is a representative of the Friends of the Glen Providence Park. At least two people have made public statements in Oct 2011, stating that they were. That being the case, using their group's lobbying influence to distribute literature and leaflets to peoples homes is not only a passive aggressive move to sway the decisions, but would also intimidate those on the CAC who may not agree or want to speak up against an organized movement. Would the community like it if so-and-so bridge builder came to town, put people on the CAC committee and then handed out flyers as to why a bridge was good? And then had elected borough officials sign their petition for a bridge?!? Truthfully, this scenario borders on outrage.
I tried at the last meeting to ask this question, but was harshly denied and ignored.
- Lack of Transparency:
One of the committee members resigned abruptly last week and apparently submitted a lengthy reasoning for his departure. I asked borough council for this and they sent me a one paragraph letter stating that this person did resign, not the letter as to why. If a letter was sent to borough council, it should be public domain and shared. I asked Councilman Paul Robinson about this and he went on to question "what" letter and what I knew about the letter. I have a lot of respect for Paul, but thought that should have been handled differently. - Is Borough Council withholding information?:
From what I've been told all of the emergency services (Police, Fire, Medical) have stated it's a "no brainer" to fix this bridge and open it to vehicular traffic. Neither the CAC or Borough council has released this information, and I'd like to know why.
Also, the children living in the new development at the top of 3rd St. (Kirk Ln) will be attending Media Elementary. What has been done by borough council to address the need of the adjoining community? - Media Business Authority Silent:
What's the Media Business Authority's position on the Third St. bridge and why hasn't this been discussed? - Media Democrats ask Republican Party for advice:
If the democratic controlled borough council is so sure they can change the agreed upon lawsuit, then why are they reaching out to the Chairman of the Delaware County Republicans for perspectives on the bridge? The Media Democrats who waste no opportunity to bash the "County" are now calling the Republicans for advice.
- The $650,000 Question:
The grant money provided by Senator Pileggi is not guaranteed forever, in fact there is a major concern that further delay or additional lawsuits may jeopardize these funds and that the state may decide to use it for other pressing needs. How will borough council address this issue and what are other financial alternatives if Media should not get the $650k?
Should the money fall through, Media and borough council will be left with one of the top 10 dangerous dams in the state and no easy way to pay for the repair. That would be a tragedy for everyone.
A survey will be sent out to residents and businesses in the coming days. Please take the time to fill it out and return it to the borough.
Tedman
I am missing an important question here: the real NEED for this bridge. Toll Brothers must have loved it: sell expensive new McMansions with a free new bridge to downtown Media.
ReplyDeleteWithout this bridge, how will you get to Nativity?
DeleteEXACTLY!!! I would LOVE to have members of the ousted coup who had contact with the builders to be required to make any and all communications between them public!!!
DeleteTedman, you sound like a bitter defeated politician and a tool for Toll brothers.
ReplyDeleteLack of transparency, Tedman you obviously know what was in the letter. You are a bitter defeated politician and political hack.
ReplyDeleteYeah, 55 new homes sold on the basis of a free new bridge to Media. They couldn't put it in the brochure of course, but it was secretly implied.
ReplyDeleteDon't poo-poo Friends of Glen Providence Park or call it NIMBY, petition signatures as of Oct 13:
ReplyDelete•526 residents from Media Borough
•310 residents from surrounding communities
Just because the dam/bridge/road repairs that the previous borough council tried to push through are "free", doesn't mean that the residents of Media and the surrounding area want them - or even need them. And don't forget - you always get what you pay for.
We are also tax paying residents of Pennsylvania, so please stop saying that these repairs are at no cost to the residents.
Cost of the bridge does not outweigh its benefits.
DeleteThe redesign's a cost, too, right? Afterall, a greenway means starting from scratch and paying for a redesign.
Deletewill this cost the townspeople another pint of beer as well?
The friends of glen providence park huh? Where were these folks when the Parks Edge houses were being built? Oh Yeah standing in line to buy them. That developement did more damage to the park then this bridge ever will. THis is a case of NIMBY hesterics from a few of 1%ers trying to pretend they are for the people.
DeleteThe outcome is so transparent that all is needed is the rubber stamp to be applied to the request for a greenway.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see what happens when the borough asks Broomals and County for permission to change design, to a Greenway, and they both agree on the condition that borough accepts total ownership of dam, what this council will do. After all, Brian "The trained problem solver" Hall, Eric "Know it All" Stein, Sonica Mimpson, Kent "My wife is member of FROG" Davidson and Paul "transparency" Robinson are all on record as vehemently opposing any ownership option for the borough but in support of Greenway.
anon(s) - congrats on the "McMansion" claims - now let's discuss the existing residences and communities on the other side of the bridge that have been sending children to Media Elementery for years without their normal roadway to do so, you know, because they exist as well despite your sheer ignorance to them. Years of bureaucratic nonsense have kept this roadway shut down. If the worst result of bringing a bridge BACK to 3rd St is a school bus every morning and afternoon and kids and families having a safer way of traveling between these residential neighborhoods, I think the community as a whole wins.
ReplyDelete"existing residences and communities on the other side of the bridge that have been sending children to Media Elementery for years without their normal roadway to do so,"
DeleteChildren BORN the day the bridge closed HAVE gotten to school haven't they? Then WHAT is the problem?!
There are more than 526 residents of the borough, I am sure just as many want the bridge.
ReplyDeleteI bet most against a roadway live directly in that part of town and are members of the exclusive pool club.
ReplyDeleteYou would lose.
DeleteI would like to see a one lane bridge for cars with a walkway/bike lane as well. I think it is a shame to have the access to Kirk/Ridley Creek cut off and it also seems unfair that a private country club gets to have a "lake" thanks to the dam but only members can use/enjoy it. It would be nice to restore that area to its natural state as much as possible while having a roadway open as well.
ReplyDeleteWell said media lover. Remove the dam and let the stream return to its natural beauty. The dam is only to preserve the lake for the "club". Build a bridge with low impact on the park that is accessible to emergency vehicles.
DeleteA one lane bridge with a light each way to control traffic flow would be great. It would get every car over there as needed, keep the foot/bike access safe, and allow for a smaller overall bridge.
DeleteThe "lake". even with a new dam is a time bomb. One cannot dam any moving body of water without taking a major chance of flooding from a failed dam. Nobody wants to take away the land from the Broomall's Lake folks, but they cannot be allowed to maintain a dam that threatens the public's park. The "lake" could be converted to a native meadow that lines a creek for a fraction of he cost that will be spent on making a new dam.
WIN-WIN! Safer for Media and better for the creek.
I'll take a two-lane bridge like we used to have, please. The last time we had these environmental whack-jobs indoctrinate themselves into the depths of a project, we were blessed with the good fortunes of the permanent bottleneck at the south end of I-476. Yes, a certain community or two was concerned about "smog" from an extra lane of cars in each direction - now they get it permanently thanks to idling engines!
DeleteProceeding without a dam is borderline Narcissistic: doing so destroys a lake with a 150-year history with this community; it would be akin to tearing down the theatre and the old borough hall with the expressed intent of returning the properties to their old farmland roots. In addition, the park in its present condition would cease to be as any type of flood, controlled or direct, will wipe out what we presently enjoy (Farewell pond). Finally, why discuss the dam if it's not the Borough's to handle?
Traffic lights would be embarrassing. The Media side is a residential area and the same goes for Upper Providence. We don't need or want traffic lights knee deep in residential areas.
Finally, a single lane bridge would do nightmares for both drivers and residents in the area. What to say queues of cars won't form on 3rd and/or West ave in similar fashion to on-ramps on 476 as drivers are forced to play hopscotch with the other side? What happens if an elderly couple is forced into an awkward situation of having to put their car in reverse halfway over the bridge due to some testosterone-overloaded jerk coming at them in a game of chicken? And what happens if some idiot who's DUI figures they can squeeze by someone else on that bridge? Are these crazy thoughts or are they more along the lines of the inevitable?
From what was presented at last nights session, the existing dam provides no flood control. What comes into the lake goes out the outfall structure at the same rate. Therefore, removing the dam will not increase the the threat of flooding. I'm not oposed to the two way roadway - the park has other points of pedestrian access.
DeleteIf we are not making concessions to adjoining residents for their traffic concerns, we should not be making concessions to preserve a man made lake that's only enjoyed by members of a private club.
Build the bridge and remove the dam.
Total BS the lady who gave the dam removal presentation was full of it. When it rains the lake can increase in volume anywhere from one to four feet depending on the severity of the storm (if not more). Times that by the width and depth and see how much water will be pouring into your precious park. go ahead and remove the dam it will decimate the park and you will all see how stupid you've become. It seems as if in MEDia a one eyed man is truly king. Better get you prescription checked Paul.
DeleteTo Steve:
Delete- Fair point on the lights jamming a traffic backup into the neighborhood.
-The dam being taken down would be done so in a controlled manner. There would be no flood.
- The Media Theater isn't going to destroy anything besides itself if it falls down. If that dam fails, a major flood would explode down stream. The 150 year old history of some country club isn't a fair trade off for a destructive and dangerous structure to continue to exist. The entire watershed would be more healthy if that dam didn't exist.
- With any type of bridge that could be built; it can be run over a free flowing creek that doesn't need that dam.
To the crabby commenter suggesting I get my glasses checked: Please don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is named"Paul". There are others in this town who are opposed to how quickly the bridge/dam project was pushed through during the brief reign of Republican Council. Please also understand that not all who are opposed to the bridge/dam live next to it. Finally, please know that those who are not ready to accept the preliminary bridge/dam design are also just as frustrated with how longthis has taken (16 long years!). The three way ownership is extremely complicated and given that each party has different interests, the delay is not surprising.
DeleteI can't believe the amount of hatred and ill will that is being directed at the swim club. The feelings seem to be that the members are evil "rich" people. The fact is that we are not rich but regular hard working people and we are your neighbors. I find it revealing that "progressive" people can have such hard feelings towards a group because of a perceived economic status. Can you imagine the outcry if people were talking negatively about a group in town because they are in a lower economic class? Hating someone because you think they have money is just as bad as hating someone because you think they do not.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead and hide behind your phony environmentalism but in my opinion the only reason breaching the dam was even brought up was to try and derail the process. If the NIMBY crowd get their way ,and the dam is breached, maybe it will cut the park in two as well so the few “ do gooders” who want to keep people from UP out can live in perfect hippy bliss.
My opinion was formulated from attending previous dam meetings, reading comments on blogs and talking to members of Friends of Glenn Riddle Park. It is unreasonalble to think that we should not move forward with a new dam that includes a roadway for either vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Further delays until the funding runs out is an unreasonable point of view.
Too many haters on here for any good dialogue to happen. Is it worth mentioning that a lot of the "hippys" are also "club members"? I'm a member and I say let the lake go. It's a remnant of when people actually used to swim in it. It's going to cost a crazy amount of money to dredge and I doubt the club can afford it. Without dredging, it will remain sediment-filled and relatively lifeless.
ReplyDeleteJeez, some of you people have a lot of pent up anger that seems to only come out when you have the mask of the web to hide behind.
Larry M, If the plan is to get rid of the dam and start from scratch how long do you think that will take? Is that even an option considering the already settled legal issues? What if by removing the lake and dam the pools become unstable? What does removing the dam do to the pond already in the park? If the dam is removed the lake is going to have to be dredged before anything can happen or the sediment will all go downstream, will Penn Dot pick up that bill? I really don't have an affection for the lake but rather to get things moving. Good for you that you are a hippy that also belongs to the pool. When people are vilifying the "Country Club" you are in that boat like it or not. As a rule if you leave your name on a post I don't see that as hiding behind a mask on the web. Feel free to to approach me for some good, friendly dialogue at the next meeting. I am always happy to talk to one of my neighbors and fellow member of the Media community.
DeleteThis whole thing seems fishy to me...seems like a lot of conflicts of interest going on. Id be willing to bet the mcmansion in foreclosure on Parks Edge lane will be bought by someone fighting against roadway...and probably already a member of the country club...perfect little oasis right here in Media.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that a compromise could exist? Perhaps the swim club and the county no longer want the responsibilty for dredging the lake or maintaining the dam. How about a covered bridge over the creek with an advertisement for "Broomall's Ice House" for historic purposes?
ReplyDeleteHow about a continuation of Hickory Hill Condominiums down to 3rd St. on both sides of the stream?
DeleteI am business owner in Media living in Upper Providence. For 16 years I have waited patiently for the bridge to reopen. Would be nice to get to Media without braving the left hand turn up the hill on Baltimore Pike from Ridley Creek road. Try it in the morning sometime. Open the bridge! By the way I pay significant taxes in Media including real estate, payroll and mercantile. The park will survive with a open public road just like it did before it was closed. This whole process exemplifie the failure of government. Only ones who have and continue to benefit are the lawyers who see endless billable hours.
ReplyDeleteHow about instead putting a stop sign or traffic light there?
DeleteHey Larry, what does the M stand for? Marx? How do you have a dialogue when one of the options is a "greenway"! A greenway?!?! Have you ever heard of something so silly as a greenway? I seriously can't help but giggle everytime I hear the word greenway.... Hey man, why don't we hit the greenway man. Yeah, the greenway is cool, right man. Let's hit the greenway man, ain't no cops there, they can't drive over the greenway. Yeah man!...Just admit it hippie, you like to say greenway, right man.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the Anonymous stand for, Fatima Grad? Yeah we can have giant hippy musical festivals right there on the GREENWAY. We'll ship patchouli oil in by the truck loads!
DeleteSteve McDonald is no clown on this issue. I aggree with him very much. He brings new thoughts and ideas to the discussion. No, he is not Ronald's brother.
ReplyDeleteRonald's taught me well!
DeleteOkay lets see if we can get the facts straight every single councilperson has voted unanimously to endorse the current dam design that was selected in 1998 including Brian Hall Paul Robinson, M Simpson, E Stein, Peter Williamson, Frank Daly Joan Hagen, Gail Whitiker, and Deb Krull. The hold up was the borough did not want ownership of the dam and for 16 years council has wrestled with a settlement with Broomalls and County. A settlement was reached that put ownership on Broomalls and County and the remaining funding ($650,000) was secured for the boroughs cost share. Not once during the last 16 years did one resident oppose the design until the settlement was reached. Now the "new" council including Hall, Robinson, and Krull want to change a design that they and their own TEAM supported for the last 16 years. Davidson claims to want transparency yet his wife is co-founder of FroG and he lives across street from project, he should recuse himself from all discussion and voting on the issue.
ReplyDeleteThis whole issue is a mess thanks to zero leadership by the new council. If your public safety officials tell you lives could be saved if the road was in place isn't that enough over the made up concerns of the NIMBYS who claim the oark will be "destroyed" by the dam? There is not one shred of evidence supporting this claim!
Facts
1. lawsuit over ownership -settled Broomalls/County
2. Funding secured- Media Borough
3. all environmental studies concluded- with no harm to native plants or animals
4. 1.1 acres to be diretly impacted of the 25 acre park.
Isn't it about time we stop the nonsense about changing a design selected in 1998 and build the dam before someone gets hurt?
Try walking THROUGH the park not around it.
Kent please recuse yourself you are totally conflicted as are Hall and Robinson who sighned that silly petition by the NIMBYs.
The only meeting in the future I want to attend is the one with the Parks Dept. and Broomall's Lake, and the Borough of Media. Thats not going to happen....
ReplyDelete