If not for their insight and leadership through a bi-partisan cooperative effort, there wouldn't have been a meeting last Thursday to vote on the repair of the bridge/dam. It wasn't until 2010 when Pete was elected to Council President and Monica Vice President, did any movement happen towards fixing and financing this problem that has plagued Media for the last 16 years.
Not only did they settled the lengthy lawsuit that started in 2006, but they also actively worked to get the funding for the design ($75,000) and assistance ($650,000) from the Commonwealth via Senator Pileggi. Settling the lawsuit would have been beyond expectation, but to secure financing in this day in age where state cuts are happening all over the place is truly remarkable. Whether the outcome was to you liking or not, these are the people who didn't just talk about it, but went out and got it done! What they accomplished in 1 year through bipartisanship , was more than what previous democratic majorities had done in 15.
Prior to being elected last November, Councilman Paul Robinson and President Brian Hall both held Vice President postions on prior Media Borough councils. Non only did the Third St. issue languish under their terms, but not once did they ever mention a "greenway." In fact, neither did the democratic majority who unanimously approved the settlement that was agreed upon with the stakeholders last Summer. If it was a vital issue, that would have been the time to plan a contingency for a "greenway," not after a signed court order. As for the Chair of the CAC who called to angrily complaining to the RTM schoolboard about a agenda item they were to discuss on Third St. (which was approved); further shows how badly this current council is handling their duties and mistreating those who they disagree with. The CAC should have been objectively soliciting input for Media on the bridge, not calling a school board telling them what they should and shouldn't discuss on their agenda! Unbelievable!
I've written about my displeasure with the CAC, but they did dedicate a lot of effort to the cause and I thank them for their time. There is one very important reason why more people didn't participate in the CAC, which was substantiated on Thursday night: With a court order in place outlining how the dam/bridge should be constructed, it made no sense to waste time on "planning/options." The harsh reality was that there was never any "open for interpretation" possibility regarding the court order. Whether that was "campaign" talk or just meant to placate a special interest is unknown. What is known, is that Media Borough council not setting the expectation of the court order led to Thursday night's fiasco. People who have been waiting for this vote for years were misled to believe through the CAC, surveys and petitions; that they had a very good position for a "greenway" and probably expected a vote supporting such. What they got was a 5-2 vote approving the design based on the court order. One person didn't take it well, assaulted at BLCC member after the vote and is now in jail.
At the end of the day Media will be getting the bridge and dam fixed. As interesting as this has all been, moving forward is now the next step.
Tedman
In 'resolving the issue' the prior council made major concessions to settle the lawsuit. This amounted to a taxpayer giveaway to a private organization and doesn't even resolve all the issues going forward.
ReplyDeleteThis left the current council with their hands tied. Even though the 'court order' was nothing more than a rubber stamp, BLCC has no motivation to renegotiate: the backroom deal gave them everything they wanted at zero cost.
Media has a choice between a 'we know what's good for you' Republican leadership, or a Democratic leadership that at least tries to gather feedback from the public and keep them informed about the complicated issues involved.
100% correct. I'm glad to see that cars will be able to access Media in a more direct manner, but that dam is a joke.
Delete1) Taxpayer dollars for a private lake closed to taxpayers is a joke and waste of $.
2) Any dam on a moving body of water creates environmental harm.
3) A bridge/dam combo will have a shorter life than a stand alone bridge. The "agreement" reached gives PA's taxpayers a bigger and nearer bill than otherwise could have been the case.
I'm glad this is over, but having a dam on that creek should not be the case.
That sound you hear . . . its not aplause. It's the sound of former Republican leadership patting themselves on the back.
ReplyDeleteWell, now that the bridge is done. The Dems can go back to scheduling street festivals, ignoring traffic issues, playing political games and pandering to their faithful followers. Hands tied? 16 years and they couldn't get a bridge fixed until someone stepped up and showed them how it was done.
ReplyDeleteWe as Democrats will also get back to winning seats on the bourough council and trying to settle issues with the community in mind.
DeleteI've heard that nonsense before. Can you at least cut out 'transparency' the next time?
DeleteTedman does it again. Writes another well thought out and balanced editoral. Plus the guy lets those who don't agree with him have their say. For hyperlocal news and opinion the guy to go to is Tedman O'Hara.
ReplyDeleteI'll agree with you here. Tedman isn't coming to many issues from the same direction I am, but this blog allows for a 360 degree set of comments. Tedman may be a Republican, but he's not practicing scam artist Fox News style journalism.
DeleteAt the end of the day, all PA taxpayers will have contributed to a high hazard dam shortcut through an environmentally sensitive corner of Media with the sole beneficiary being a secret, Republican controlled private social club.
ReplyDeleteShame on all those same Republicans who will support budget slashing for PA parks and bridge replacements which are REAL priorities.
They are the truest example of Not in My Backyard thinking.
Tedman - give three reasons other than a premature legal stipulation to support a dam.
Anonymous Please describe what you think should be done instead of the dam if a bridge is too much money. I am sure you have some very strong ideas so please express what is the best option .It is not a short cut but a road that should have been opened years ago.
DeleteThe bridge could be as much as 8xs more money to build and maintain. The only other option would be to destroy the dam and keep walkers, bikers and cars from entering Media at 3rd Street. That would keep both Ds and Rs not to mention Independents from being part of the community. Is that what you want? The club is not a Republican owned social club but rather a pool that is populated with your friends and neighbors so stop trying to villify anyone who does not share your view on things.If you feel so strong on your opinions why do you choose not to write your name?
ReplyDeleteJohn Q
DeleteI agree with your comments 100%. Anon 9:25 sounds alot like Terry R who adds comments to Media PA News website and also served on the CAC. Not sure if it is but sounds a whole lot like him.
It is comical because on this site, the moderator allows both sides to speak their mind. On Media Pa News site owned and run by Councilman Kent Davidson that is not the case. Kent did allow me one opportunity and posted my comment against his statements he made at the counil meeting. He then commented on my post but would not post my follow up. My spouse then posted a comment to Terry R's comment about a high hazard dam and what do you know, Kent decided not to post that as well...debate, transparency.....i think not.
Here is a cut and paste from media pa news webiste:
Provide concise, factual reporting of meetings and events within Media
Encourage debate and discussion of issues
Require accountability, honesty, and transparency among public officials (including myself)
None of the above are a part of Kent's website. Encourage debate, that is BS. He calls his website news and says he encourages debate. How can you state that but not post comments that are not in line with his views. Tedman calls his site a blog, which it is. I enjoy the debate and being able to hear from both sides, unfiltered. Media Pa News on the other hand is not news, it is not transparent, and does not allow for debate. If Kent runs his news site like he does his politics it is no wonder why he voted the way he did. Kent is too close to the issue. His house is accross the street from the bridge and his wife is a cofounder of Frogs. Terry R is in the same boat.
The speak of a high hazard dam is correct, but that is what it is now, a high hazard dam. What it will be replaced with is not a high hazard dam but a dam that was designed and built to todays engineering codes and principals that would make it safe.
I am not a club member, I am a member of the UP community that believes the road should be open for access to Media. A town where my children will go to school, a town where I spend my money at the businesses and a project that my tax money will be funding. I purchased in that area for accessibility to media. A road was there that connected Media to UP and a road that will once again connect the two thank you to the logical members of media borough council.
I just checked kent davidsons site, media pa news, and he removed his last post that had his third street vote speech and the comments that anon 10:45 noted above. I follow both as well and it was there yesterday........strange that the post would be removed.
DeleteScratch that last comment, it is posted on his site, sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteEveryone wants a road for cars except about 9 people who live near the dam and don't want extra traffic.
ReplyDeleteEnd of it.
Why can't anyone come out and just say that?
You're right - I live on Highland Ave and don't want the roadway opened due to concern of increased traffic along my street. I expect the (8 or so other) people who live on 3rd, West, Lemon, and Front Streets probably don't want extra traffic either; not to mention cars looking for parking.
DeleteI look at the map of our area and I just don't understand the dire need of an extra roadway here.
Also, there aren't any sidewalks on the U.P. side of the dam. My understanding is that PennDOT won't build sidewalks over the dam unless there are sidewalks on both sides. Has U.P. indicated whether sidewalks will be built along 3rd street? If so, will they also encroach on park grounds?
They're were never sidewalks when the road was open. It really stopped about zero people from jogging, bicycling, running, dog walking...........
DeleteYou look at a map and can't understand why people want to increase the bridges by 50%?