Sunday, May 13, 2012

Third St Bridge: You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes

Last Thursday's "public comment" meeting on Third St. Bridge didn't  produce anything ground breaking in terms of new ideas.  The purpose was to get a fresh perspective on any new options that haven't been heard before by borough council, but there weren't any.   Instead, the audience was given the floor to speak on what should be done about the situation.  It included discussion on the well known opinions: road with traffic, green way, breaching.  In fact, it felt like the exact same meeting that was scheduled six months ago to discuss the very same topic.  It was well attended but equally divided between those who wanted a road with traffic, against those who wanted anything but.

Perhaps former councilman Jim Cunningham said it best by telling the group and borough council that they should do the best they can, for the the greatest amount of people for the longest amount of time.  And that included accepting the court order for vehicular traffic across the bridge.  With an approved agreement from the three stakeholders and a fully completed design in place that's 100% financed, Media is on the brink of a community disaster should council not accept and move forward with this plan.  It's not just Media, but a ground swell of people including Middletown and Upper Providence who are standing behind opening this bridge to traffic.  The RTM school board emphasized the importance as well, but passing a resolution in support of the bridge last week.

Media Dem. Party at work for a greenway.
Unfortunately, it's now apparent that a select few on Media Borough council wanted the "deck stacked" in a green way all along.  After all that I've reported about the one sided CAC, lost surveys, lack of a report from the Media businesses, no presentation from first responders, current councilmen who as candidates signed petitions for a green way, and on and on; there is one last piece that residents should know about Media's leadership. 

Last week I was contact about a call made by a member of Media borough council to the school board about the agenda item they were to discuss at last Tuesday's meeting.  From what I learned, this councilperson called up angrily complaining that the school board had no business meddling in Media affairs over the third street bridge.  If borough council was objective and fair about the process for 3rd Street Bridge, these types of calls wouldn't be made. However, when you're providing a kick-back vote to a group whose petition you signed, I suppose anything is possible here in Media.

The school board went on to pass the resolution to open the third street bridge unanimously. However, this just illustrates my point of the disingenuous representation of this town and the political agendas by the Media Democratic Party that CONTINUE to take a toll on the tax payer and residents of Media. Here we are believing that our Media elected officials are looking out for our best interest, when in fact they are trying to use political sway and hard-line tactics against entities that disagree with their own interests.  That's not government, that's an embarrassment for all Media or republican.

Transparency?  I suppose someone on Borough Council last Thursday forgot to mention that side conversation with the school board to the audience.  Leadership you can trust?  The actions speak for themselves.

Don't let political agendas win.  The vote on what will happen to this bridge is Thursday, May 17th 8pm. 


  1. The three newest members of council are more transparent than you think. They pandered to the NIMBY-whoops-FROGS group in last year's election and one of them lives literally across the street from the site of the bridge. Their opinion on what to do with the bridge was crystal clear in their election propaganda. The CAC survey could have come back with 90%+ in favor of bringing back the full bridge and I'm convinced they wouldn't have been swayed due to the committment to their constituents. Personally, I think the one by the bridge should recuse himself from voting due to the glaring conflict of interest, but who in this town really takes ethics seriously?

    The real questions to ask at this point are as follows:

    1) How do the other four members of council vote this coming Thursday, and

    2) WHEN we are forced to go back to court for disobeying the sealed order thanks to the wise decisions by our 'dear leaders', who's flipping the bill for 1) legal fees 2) redesign costs 3) review fees 4) annual maintenance if and when we're forced to own the whole thing and 5) higher construction costs which are inevitable with further delay of the physical work?

    The whole situation gives off an undeniable stench of utter incompetence and failure, reminds me of predicting a car crash before it happens. We can see what's going to happen, but no one's doing anything to prevent the inevitable. Sad.

    1. Matt, I agree 100%. Councilman "X" (you know who you are) should absolutely recuse from voting because he has a vested interest in the outcome. Even if there is a legal or procedural "loophole" for his vote to count, the mere appearance of the conflict of interest should be enough to make him bow out.
      I also love the info about the call to the RTM school board: if the 'caller' has any insight into the yearly budget of the RTM district, they would know that transportation costs are one of the most significant line items in the budget. It therefore stands to reason, that any excuse to improve costs and efficiencies surrounding that line item makes it well within the board's operation to take a stand on the outcome. To that end, all those who say it is NOT within the right of the surrounding communities (Upper Prov., Middletown and the ever silent Edgmont) to 'get involved' is just as jaded as Media Council - ALL those communities encompass the RTM schoold district and should have a say towards improving transportation efficiencies.
      After all this attention, should Media council vote to incur the certain legal costs that will follow should they not proceed with opening the bridge, the citizens of Media should have their heads examined for voting in these "leaders". REAL leaders see a problem (Funding) and execute an appropriate way to solve it (secure the funding). Too bad these 'real leaders' were thrown under the bus after the fact.

  2. I don't understand why it isn't getting built. It's financed, everyone has approved it. Why does the borough cancel have to vote...again. You would think Media would love to have this bridge opened. It would bring in a lot more business into Media; especially with 50 new house built and already sold right

  3. As I was saying...those 50 new houses and hundreds of other houses at the end of 3rd street would bring in $$$$$$. Doesn't Media want to bring more business to West State Street? I try to keep up with this BS, but now it is becoming more political than about rebuilding a bridge and and welcoming everyone to "Everyone's Gometown"

  4. I meant Hometown. In conclusion, either shit or get off the pot. So much tax money has been wasted over the last 16 years and seems there is no end in sight. It honestly disgusts me. I'm planning on moving back to Media next year or so, but all this political BS is a turn off. Sadly, back room politics happens everywhere (St. John's Vs. Nativity) who would think you would have to "sell" your vote to get a bridge built to make your town better. The more I wrote and the more I read about this only gets me more aggravated.

  5. Years from now, they'll be talking about the 'know-nothing' era of council and the wasted opportunity.

  6. Unbelievable how this opportunity to improve our infrastructure could be wasted.

    If this council were smart, or should I say tactful, they would move forward with the current plan as designed. There is time to modify that plan once constuction begins if it were decided that a greenway was the best option. If you design it to be a road, you always have the choice to then turn it into a road as that is what it is designed for. If it is only designed as a greenway and 10 years in the future we want to turn it into a road you now do not have that option unless you want to have to rebuild.

    Why would you not build it to allow you the most options possible? I am dumb founded how 16 years have gone by and we are still nothing.

  7. Good point, Media Council and the closing of transparency at all. Sounds like bell is running Media as well.