Thursday, April 5, 2012

Third St. Bridge: CAC to present their recommendation on Third St Bridge to Borough Council Tonight!

The Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) will be presenting their findings and recommendation for the Thrid St. Bridge at tonight’s Borough Council Workshop meeting.  The workshop starts at 7:30pm in the large conference room at borough Hall.  Here's the agenda.
From the reports I’ve made on this blog and the later discoveries of how the CAC was assembled, and by who; it’ll be surprising if anything other than a “greenway” recommendation comes from this committee.

The next step after tonight will occur at this month’s borough council meeting.  Details to come.


  1. Is this from the dam survey results? :-)

  2. It is interesting that a community workshop and survey could sway Council to propose an alternative project that does not fit neatly into the Court order. Given that the previous Council and the present Council viewed this project so differently, it’s not surprising that political differences contributed heavily to the lengthy resolution.
    There is no doubt in my mind that the previous Council did what they thought was best for the Media and came up with a quick solution, with minimal strain to the tax payers of the Borough. There is also no doubt in my mind that the voters in this Borough saw things quite differently than the previous Council. Therefore, we now have a Council that speaks for the majority of voters. This is how democracy works, in theory. Those who do not agree with the majority have every right to voice their opinions. They should not be looked down upon, nor should those who support a greenway, who are viewed as a "special interest group". The term is used quite regularly around here. That's not a clever way to categorize those you do not agree with politically. If the homeowners who live closest to this project are too biased to have their voices heard, then I suggest the private Club's interests not be considered either. While we're at it, let’s also throw out the opinions of the local business owners. They are only in it for financial gain anyways.
    For the record, I support reconstructing the road and bridge for all traffic. I do not support reconstructing the dam. I voted in November and I found a way to get my hands on a survey because it served my own “special interests”. My interests are not for sale nor are they represented by lobbyists. My interests matter because I’m as a resident, tax payer and supporter of everything this community has to offer.

  3. Was anyone in attendance? If so, could you overview what the CAC proposed?

  4. I was not able to attend last night's meeting, but I will try to post an update over the weekend of what was presented by CAC.


  5. I was one of about 15 (+ or -) at the CAC meeting on March 26 @ Borough Hall where the committee went over literally page by page except Appendices(which were to include written comments from the heavily attented March 5th meeting)of their fact finding report. Where can I read the amended,corrected, and final printed copy of said report?

  6. I think the Borough Council should be commended for trying to resolve this issue through an informed, conscientious process; rather than just signing off on the decisions of their predecessors.

    Final Report:

    "The CAC was charged by Borough Council with completing the tasks listed above without consideration of the impact to the existing funding sources secured for the process or the ability of the three party stipulated legal agreement to be renegotiated for a particular

  7. I have just looked over the report, and I am very impressed and grateful for the work of the CAC. They obviously did an incredible amount of research and took great care to listen to all parties who have an interest in this project. You can see for yourself, they don't come to a firm, simple recommendation; rather, they charge Council with answering several very important unresolved issues before making any decisions. As you can also see, the survey results of both residents and business owners, users of the park and members of BLCC, show mixed preferences for the different options. There simply is no clear cut answer to this problem, and the CAC does not presume to make that case in this report.

    I hope that anyone who felt the CAC was biased or slanted in any way will read this report and reconsider their opinions.

    1. I agree with Anon 7:38. I was impressed with what was collected and presented. The report does not have a clear cut answer, rather recommondations and points of consideration.

      It was interesting to see the survey results regardless of dam replacement/removal:
      Those that strongly approved Auto/Bike/Ped were 220
      Those that Stongly approved Bike/ped only were 203

      Those that strongly disapproved of auto/bike/ped were 223
      Those that strongly disapproved of Bike/Ped only were 214.

      This tells us that there is no clear cut favorite. You do have to remember though this is the voice of media residents only. If Delaware county were to take into account the residents of Upper Providence I think you would see more people interested in having Auto access. Also, the results represented the responses of FROG's who organized themselves to ensure their interests were being represented. I commend them for organizing themselves but a small group of organized individuals is clearly not the majority. Many other residents probably do not have a say, either way and did not respond.
      Speaking of FROG's, they claimed they had a petion with over 500 names against repair/replacement of the dam and road. With only 223 people strongly disapproving of option 1A and 2A it seems those who signed the petition did not vote or return surveys conveying the same.

      Business owners clearly favored returning auto access over bike/ped only voting 67 in favor of returning auto access to 46 who voted to bike/ped only. These numbers represent only the "Strongly Approve" option only.

      No clear cut answer and the recommendations come down to what was discussed all along, the court order and cost to taxpayers. Borough has not been able to make a decision and I think, all though CAC did a good job presenting, leaves borough council in the same place they were before the creation of the CAC.

      Good luck Borough Council, maybe 17 more years of procrastination will solve the problem because we will all have flying cars.

    2. I just want to point out that Anon 9:18's interpretation of the numbers may be a little misleading. Please keep in mind that there were 651 surveys returned, and that respondents were allowed to indicate a preference for each of the options.

      For instance, the total number of indicated preferences, for and against each option, are: 1a = 387, 1b = 363, 2a = 376, 2b = 370. That's an average of 374 total votes per option, which is only 57% of the total number of survey's returned.

      I'd assume that this means that a lot of people only indicated a response for one option; rather than for each option, and that the numbers that Anon 9:18 is adding up aren't as indicative as they think.

      Also - does anyone know where the appendices are?

  8. I just read the report last night, and it's going to take a while to digest. I'm not sure that more questions was what borough council was looking for, but that's what they got--and it makes perfect sense. I'm just hoping that whatever we come up with is going to 'fit' Media, and be both beautiful and functional. At this point only one thing's for sure: whatever we do is going to be a lot better than what was laid out last August or, for that matter, in 1998.

    There can be many reasons for delay, and "procrastination" can be one of them. By any definition what is going on now is DEFINITELY NOT procrastination! Those who are looking for something that "fits neatly" into a court order are only looking for one now-debunked thing that the court-approved agreement is a weak foil for.

    1. what was laid out in August was fine, if not 17 years late.

  9. Today, more posted on the borough's website. Many more public comments there, you just have to scroll down a bit. Huge document!