Saturday, September 22, 2012

Media Residents and Business, We Can Do Better!

Better Representation , Better Transparency,
The political games and antics displayed at last Thursday's Borough Council over the Third Street Bridge were a total embarrassment and costly.  I'll get into it more next week, but essentially, Brian Hall has jeopardized the whole project by allowing and accepting a one-lane design for the Third Street Bridge.  The placating and favoritism he, Davidson and Robinson have shown to the group (Friends of Glen Providence) park, has not only revealed a political agenda, but a compromise of integrity and trust.  Can we assume Councilman Davidson will be seeding and supplying websites to other groups that align with his political interests towards the Super Wawa?  After this fiasco, I'd say it's a fair question.

Council President Hall never once explained the potential financial risks of going against the court order other than that he had a viable interpretation of "Re-establish" which was the language used in the settlement.  Seems the county and BLCC disagree and have been begun legal discussions.  That's very bad news.  But I think that's what this council wanted all along, which is to lose the funding.  I'll explain that later.

At September's Council Workshop, President Hall stated that the funding was not in jeopardy.  Ironically, he just jeopardized it.  Media Borough Council made a irresponsible bet on a dangerous dam, against a judge issued court order and two stakeholders who have different assertions.

And for what?  To appease a group of 10 people who demand a walkway/one-way at the expense of a multimillion dollar project that'll affect the rest of the town?  With the two-way design, Borough Council could have accepted it and moved forward. Show me another community that's given a fully funded Infrastructure project to address a serious safety concern, only to have its elected officials snub it.

These are the exact political games that have menaced this town for years.  At last week's meeting no one said anything in support of a one-way design, while most of the room spoke up and brought petitions supporting a two-way.  It's apparent, Media Borough Council is broken.

Residents have had enough and nothing has illustrated that more than this story!  I'm quite honored to be working with Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are cooperatively working to address this situation and the conduct of Media Borough Council.  Whether it be signs, petitions or raising awareness, it's refreshing to see TRUE  bi-partisan action at work.

Tedman

27 comments:

  1. As I said before it it wasn't for the Third Street issue Tedman would have very little traffic to his blog. His obsession with this is proof. Keep milking it for all it's worth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typical lib , put to shame those who seek to expose the truth! Congrats to this blog for making this government truly transparent!

      Delete
  2. Considering third street may be the single most expensive prodject this Boro has ever had I applaud Tedman for his dillegence on this matter. It is a shame a few council members have an agenda that may financially impact every resident of Media if the funding is lost or withdrawn. I for one would like the County to sell the park and develop it to put the Boro Council in its place for trying to pander to possibly twenty residents as opposed to the other 5,480 . It would boost the Boro tax base and allow many to move to Everybody's Hometown. How bout that idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How dare politicians have a political agenda!

      Delete
  3. Tedman

    How can people contact you?

    Thanks for the updates!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 8:47 You can contact Tedman by claiming you are not part of the %47. If he doesn't respond bring up the Third Street issue and he will beg you to post on his blog.

      Delete
  4. Court Order Stipulation and blantant Media council disreguard = Contempt of Court.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This blog is like conspiracy theory gone wild.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have to agree with anon 7:33 Tedman is milking this for his own benefit. (so this probably won't published) Just kidding Tedman.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon 10:27 = Contempt of intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The law fees alone will be crushing to fight this out in the courts. Does Hall really think he has a winnable case? Seems petty to fight over when a better deal is on the table by accepting the original design. Is there something I'm missing here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If BLCC want to spend thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to jeapordize their taxpayer giveaway then so be it - but it would be a foolish gamble. As things stand they don't have to pay a dime to fix what they own - they got a very sweet backroom deal and really shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

      Delete
  9. Anon 11:53 grow a set. You should have appeared in front of borough council but you seem to be content to argue on this blog for your case. You are missing what real men call balls.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I can be reached at: info@allthingsmediapa.com

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  11. Remember kids:

    When Jim Cunningham (R) fights for the people living by the proposed Hampton Inn, he's a hero for standing up for the minority of residents most impacted by the proposed development.

    When Kent Davidson (D) fights for the people living by the Third Street Bridge, he's pandering to a bunch of hippy NIMBYs whose opinions are irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's standing up for HIMSELF. The fact that he lives across the street from the long-missed bridge yet votes to screw our futures is yet another conflict of interest.

      It's not for the park, it's to protect inflated house values!

      Delete
    2. Only if you twist the definition of "conflict of interest" so much as to render it meaningless.

      Delete
    3. Kent Davidson should have excused himself from voting. No matter what he says, he has a conflict of interest as he lives right there. If frank daly were on council still, guarantee he would have abstained from voting because of where he lived. I watched the council meeting last week, and I cannot believe the shenanigans going on, what a disgrace.

      Delete
  12. I want two lanes and a hotel...people opposed to the hotel cried traffic!
    Same as park nimbys...perhaps hotel opponents could start a group friends of media clinic to advance their views.Have no prob with NiMBYS complainig traffic but not do it in the name of a group created (FROGS) to act like they care about park when it is obvious it is self interest...dont drive near MY house....

    ReplyDelete
  13. Will traffic be one way from Kirk to West st?or two way after you cross bridge on UP side?.will access to small lot adjacent to GP parks 3rd St lot only available coming in from UP?Will I have to Park on West st.to enter park if coming west bound on third? Or do I have to leave Media get back around to Kirk come down hill then park there..? Where will one way start and end.Maybe West st could be made one way?How about third st too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes, sir (or ma'am) you got it! Screw our UPT neighbors who come into this town to patronize our businesses, whose children go to school in the borough, whose elderly parents live RIGHT DOWN 3RD ST god forbid something happens.
      And yes, you will have to drive (or walk) all the way AROUND to get to park entrance at Kirk and 3rd. Next stop - RTM school board and show the price of gas per gallon and it's impact on one way traffic how it relates dollars and cents to school taxes to run the transportation department. Can we force this issue based on economic impact? Obviously that is something the short-sighted, NIMBY pandering council of Media have NOT considered..............

      Delete
  14. Media Councilman Kent Davidson wants to float a bond issue if by chance the free money disappears for the 3rd Street project. And it should after 16 years of nothing being done.
    Doesn't that mean the residents are obliged to pay it back? I say, Yes, it does. Poor Media residents. Glad I live in Upper Providence
    where our politicians are same. And the roads are open to all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stop the insanity, Media. I pay taxes and I'm one of the 47%. I live in Media Borough and I'm moving out if we loose the funding.

      Delete
    2. You have to expect crazy statements from the guy - he has his laptop open during meetings where, instead of focusing on matters important to the citizens, he spends his time blogging, surfing the web and maintaining the FROGS website!

      Delete
  15. The following link is an article that demonstrates how one community was able to involve all parties (including the public) to design a bridge within 10 weeks.

    Imagine that. A community working together.

    http://www.civilengineering-digital.com/civilengineering/201206?pg=49#pg49

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry if that link does not work for you. Try this instead.

      http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120519/NEWS02/120519010/lake-champlain-bridge-celebration

      Delete
  16. so what office are you aiming for next year Tedman? AH I mean Mr. Statesman!

    ReplyDelete