Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Breaking - Commonwealth Court of PA rules in Favor of BLCC on Third Street Bridge

Media Residents Keep Paying for Bad Council Leadership
This afternoon I was sent the ruling by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which favors BLCC in their appeal to re-instate the stipulation and contempt of court ruling over Third Street Bridge filed against Media Borough last year.  After 18 years, and more recently the last two years, of borough council not understanding the basic definition of "restore to what it once was," as applicable to vehicular traffic; they will now have to explain to the community the added costs of losing this ruling.  They essentially gambled on a bad bet that may require the community to pay for the entire multimillion dollar project.

It is an embarrassment that we have a borough council who has been accused of threats, stacked committees, pushed slanted surveys, insulted communities and was even found providing a website to a group that used it to manipulate a community park for their own agendas against the bridge. Transparency? Now it appears that Media's Borough Council has been found in contempt of court.  Seriously, I can't imagine how this situation could have been mismanaged any worse.

Two years ago this project was 100% financed and ready to begin.  Now it's anybody's guess if the money is still available, which is a tragedy in this day in age where infrastructure projects are not receiving the desperate funding they need.  This council even spoke up about the importance of financing these types of projects via the PA Transportation Bill when Septa threatened to close the Media/Elwyn Line due to lack of repair, yet they can't even figure out how to fix fully financed problems in our borough!

Here's document in its entirety


66 comments:

  1. Hey, council clowns, try using this next time: www.dictionary.com


    re·store
    [ri-stawr, -stohr] Show IPA
    verb (used with object), re·stored, re·stor·ing.
    1.
    to bring back into existence, use, or the like; reestablish: to restore order.
    2.
    to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting.
    3.
    to bring back to a state of health, soundness, or vigor.
    4.
    to put back to a former place, or to a former position, rank, etc.: to restore the king to his throne.
    5.
    to give back; make return or restitution of (anything taken away or lost).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Next look up the word "as", and take it from there, Shakespeare. When you restore something "as"something else, that NEGATES WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE. Kind of like when a warehouse is "restored as" condos.....

      Delete
    2. Actually, the court did not "rule", they sent it the case back to Judge Proud. I'm sure he'll be delighted! The DEP will knock that damn dam down before this gets out of court!

      Delete
    3. Hey Anonymous, pretty quick with your name calling aren't you? When something is restored, it is returned to its roots/original design and use and when that applies to vehicular traffic, it means 3rd Street has to be opened to two way motor vehicle traffic just "as" (like) it was before the bridge deteriorated. It does not refer to any alteration in use. No negation takes place here, only in your mind and in the rather limited mind of Borough Council.

      Delete
    4. ...and Judge Proud??

      Delete
    5. Is that like "restoring" the outside of the armory as an entrance to a popular grocery store? I think the community is fine with adaptive solutions and sound public policy.

      Delete
    6. I might agree IF the Borough Council were able to make reasonable "adaptive solutions" and made decisions based upon sound public policy...sadly, it ss and has been totally lacking in either skill. I guess you like the status quo or are one of the many who vote not on skill and ideas but on PARTY lines. So sad, as Media has potential but it looks as if it will never be reached and residents like Anonymous (if he/she is a resident) will be content in their mediocrity.
      As for the 'restored entrance" well, it looks as if that edifice will soon be empty again as TJ's looks to be leaving the Borough.

      Delete
    7. Since the alternative is "put it back the way it was", I think the current council shows promise. David, you haven't been clear about whether you support a new high hazard dam at tax payer expense. Maybe you could continue to move the conversation forward by also sharing your thoughts on the merits of the current design.

      Delete
  2. While PA taxpayers are apt to question public dollars for a private lake, County judges may also be asked about not allowing municipal authority on municipal road use.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's the full document "in its entirety": http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/477CD13_12-9-13.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  4. The swim club has behaved so irresponsibly with their control of the dam / lake level and all the lawsuits, getting a permit for this project is gonna be a hard sell with the DEP....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Uh- oh, does this mean it's time for the Borough to "float a bond "?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What most people don't know is the RACP "20%" $650K State funding is actually a reimbursement after the project is completed, and only if/when there are no lawsuits pending. That day is pretty hard to imagine, so yes, we better get 'floating'!

      Delete
    2. Calm down, what are y'all worried about? Media elected these FROGs, I mean, er, 'people' and they (channelling thru Mr. Davidson) clearly stated in the past that they are ready, willing and able to float a bond. Now I, as a taxpaying citizen who resoundly supported and voted for the Media First ticket (who, by the way, are lookin' pretty darn smart right about now) am madder than a hornet that over $100K was spent to 'special counsel' Guy Donatelli who does not live or practice in the borough. Now, I will have to fork over to the tune of oh, say 10% tax increase (or more) to cover said bond.
      Now, I ask all of you, can we sue Media Council in a civil matter? Spending our tax dollars frivolously and with malice? If this borough does not vote out, when applicable, the Moe, Larry and Curly left standing then you all deserve what you get.

      Delete
    3. I really hope you're kidding about the $100K cost to fight this non-sense by borough council. If that's even remotely close, this council needs to be fired.

      Delete
  6. WOOO HOOOO! Here's a big shout out to Pete Alyanakian, Jim Cunningham, Monika Rehoric and Dawn Roe!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I second that!!!

      Delete
    2. Yep, I couldn't agree more.

      Delete
    3. I fifth that! We owe it all to those guys!

      Delete
    4. The dream team!!

      Delete
  7. I'm alright with this dragging on. Residential Media / the Courthouse area doesn't need more traffic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Time to show up at Borough Council meeting in Council Chambers 1 week from today December 19th and see how "the Daryl's" handle comments during public forum on this one!!! Think they'll cop a "this matter is in litigation and we can not talk about it"????
      My faith in government has been restored with Sr Judge R Friedman!!!!

      Delete
    2. Residential Media / the Courthouse need more traffic??? HELLO!!! Media - the borough - is the county seat traffic is expected!!! You don't like the traffic move to Upper Providence, Middletown or Edgemont!! Try their tax structure! As I recall UP had no recourse with the increased traffic on Kirk when the Woodlands were built and Orange had and still has no recourse on the additional traffic it sustains since 3rd Street has been closed.

      Delete
  8. In reading the decision by judge Friedman, it appears that the ball is now in judge Proud's court to determine if the 2011 agreement compels the Borough to build the road in any one particular way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't trust Judge Proud with any decision. He is a lackey for the Democrats, a faux Republican. Takes his orders from Frank Daly.

      Delete
    2. MediaMike the 2011 agreement DOES compel Media borough to build the road in a particular way. The agreement plainly states that the Borough must construct the roadway and replace the dam along the lines of the 1998 Schnabel Engineer report.

      All Borough Council has done is delay this work at a cost to the residents as the cost of the work continues to go up year after year. And the stipulation agreement also contains a clause that states Media is responsible for the financing of the project EVEN IF THE GRANT MONEY GOES AWAY. loss of the money DOES NOT get Media off the hook to rebuild the Dam and Roadway.

      Delete
    3. The 1998 report does not specifically indicate two way traffic and was not intended to be a final design. Current Council (or any future Council) would be irresponsible to implement a 15 year old construction design which does not reflect changing community values regarding green space, as well as the unfair use of tax payer dollars for a private lake. The owner of that lake appears anything but concerned about the loss of the funding.

      Delete
    4. Anon 3:46 WRONG none of that matters what matters is the Stipulation Agreement states that the roadway and dam will be rebuilt FOLLOWING the Schnabel Engineer Report of 1998 that is what was agreed by all three parties (and in 1998 no one ever conceived some freak group would want it one way for self serving purposes) and that is what will have to happen. As the Appeals Court ruled Judge Proud did not have the authority to change the Stipulation Agreement and the Stipulation Agreement states that it "constitutes a full, final, and UNAPPEALABLE resolution to the facts and legal issues, thereby settling, ending and discontinuing the litigation." THE AGREEMENT CAN NOT BE CHANGED.
      Judge Proud now needs to rule on the INTENT of the three parties who entered into the Agreement and those three parties all INTENDED the roadway to be two lanes. AS page four of the Senior Judge's opinion states Borough Council members signed notarized statements that it was their understanding that the roadway would be two ways. Four Council members signed the statements thats a MAJORITY.

      Delete
    5. The S&O does not say "FOLLOWING" the 1998 Schnabel design alternatives letter, it cites "Design Standards" mentioned in that report. The agreement also says that what's on that paper constitutes the entire agreement and specifically excludes "...any other prior or contemporaneous understanding..." (in section 10). It might be a good idea to take a look at the document http://www.mediaborough.com/sites/default/files/fileattachments/stipulation_and_order_-_3rd_street_bridge_2.pdf . Notarized comments have no bearing on the case.

      The borough alone is soley responsible for the design of the project, subject only to the approval of the County Engineer. Read your agreement!

      Delete
    6. Not according to the Senior Judge's opinion the court ruled it was the intent of the three parties that matters. and the intent of the three parties was two way two lane traffic as stated in the notarized statements from council members; the testimony of BLCC and the County of Delaware.

      Delete
    7. Yes, it says that right there in section 6a, but what you don't get, anon 8:39, is that the swim club controls the project as a practical matter. They have the absolute right to sue the borough for anything they do or don't want on this project (and to appeal and re-appeal each one), and the borough is on the hook to pay for it. Swim club, under any circumstance, pays nothing. And anon 9;32 is correct that there will be no "20%" funding paid out until the project is done and every last lawsuit is settled--if it's still around by then.

      Delete
    8. A few observations:

      - The work must meet "design standards" (i.e. in terms of materials used, not the design itself) in the Schnabel report "or any amendments thereto". That report could still be amended to show a one-way road.

      - The part of the opinion that refers to the intent of the parties is in the concurring opinion, not the majority opinion, so it is not binding on Judge Proud. (The record is silent on whether the judge was aware that the stipulation explicitly prevents the 'intent of the parties' being considered.)

      - This ruling said that Judge Proud could not, of his own volition, throw out the stipulation. That does not stop him throwing out the agreement if either party makes such a request.

      - I have yet to see anyone criticize the republican-led council or BLCC for signing off on such a crappily-written stipulation. Had they taken the time to draft a more detailed agreement we wouldn't be having this conversation.

      Delete
    9. The mistake that council and the swim club made in signing this is that it allows council to do pretty much whatever they want with the project---and the club and republicans just figured that they would always be in control, as they were then. THAT tide changed before the ink was dry on the paper. Also, what they didn't realize was that our 'out-of-town' (and county) attorney was working in the interest of the borough, not the Republicans.....

      Delete
    10. Funny you should say that--- the out of town attorney Mr. Donatelli (sp) was Media Borough Councils attorney negotiating with the County and BLCC for the original Agreement that then became the Stipulation Order. So whose interest was he working for when the agreement was signed in 2011? He thought it was a good agreement then. Questions Questions Questions?

      Delete
  9. I can not say this is over due because that would be putting it mildly. All of this, for what???The only street in all of Delaware County and maybe all of PA that has had such a debate over weather to restore a street and a bridge. I am sure all of us agree on less traffic on our streets, but that ship has sailed. GET THIS STREET OPENED!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Simply the worst council Media has ever seen. Bring back Daly, who at least got things done and wasn't' an embarrassment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. many of us remember the Frank Daly drinking game: do a shot everytime he said "I" during council meetings

      Delete
    2. Bring back Frank Daly. Are you nuts? He's been holding up the Bridge repair for 18 years.

      Delete
  11. The Twit, Culprit and Misfit on council strike again. They may as well have just erected a 8' bronze sculpture of the middle finger and set it up facing the Upper Providence side of 3rd Street. It would have been cheaper than the lawsuits, which essentially did the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Everyone seems to be forgetting that it was BLCC that held this up in court! You can say all you want about borough council but is was really the BLCC that screwed the pooch in this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More like BLCC stood up to Council would not be bullied and now has been proven correct in court. Media has held this up for over 15 years. They should be embarassed.

      Delete
  13. A two year delay and cost run-ups that are stuck to us taxpayers. For what? UN F'N BELIEVABLE.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Media Patch has a decent rundown of what occurs next.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Old patterns of consumption, destruction and repeat (supported by the courts) will need to end. Media will continue its inexorable march towards urbanism in effect creating a city which defeats the charm of "everyones hometown". It's okay regardless Mother Earth will wipe out Frogs, republicans, citidwellars, and urban transplants alike without regard to their party affiliation...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typical FROG propaganda. It's loonies like you who have gotten the situation into the place it is right now - if Media had acted on the 2011 stipulation we'd probably be opening the darn road right now!

      Delete
  16. Well, Well, Well now how 'bout all the anonymous comments!! Must admit most of them say what I've thought and think. I've been a follower of ATM site for quite a while & I don't think there is a topic that commands more comments than the bridge debacle. What really amuses me is the graphic art in the right corner - $$$$$$$$$ swirling down a drain/toilet! What can we possibly see come January when new council members take the seats of those who understood the stipulation??? Again & again my mantra of the little bridge is "in a perfect world if it weren't broken no one would be sacrificing their time & efforts as in spite of how many residents in that area don't like it, it would be functioning as a 2 way, 2 lane. With Sr. Judge Friedman's ruling hopefully it will be restored as such.
    Kudos to Dave and MediaMike for using your names!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey FROGS, why do I see most of you, if not all, driving around in mini-vans, SUV's, living in $500,000 dollar homes that most likely burn fossil fuels as the primary heating source? Is your electricity currently being supplied by renewable energy or is mostly provided by coal/nuclear when the wind and sun isn't abundant? Are you currently living 100% off the land? Do you make your own clothes or are they purchased from big box stores? Do you read by candle light or is there an app for that on your MacBooks? Us, like you, are trying to pay our mortgages, send our kids to school and put food on the table, while we also do what we can to support the environment in a reasonable manner. The difference? We're not hypocrites!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't you know that green is the new black, anon 8:21? Media must be as idyllic as a scene in a Williams-Sonoma catalogue. How else then would a Median convey his country-chic and sophistication via a photo stream on Facebook?

      Delete
  18. Media Democrats - Able, Patient, Responsible. Yeah, Right!

    Able? They've done nothing but make matters worse!
    Patient? 17 years and still counting, what a JOKE!
    Responsible? Yes, for increasing costs, taxes and making Media the laughing stock of the county.

    Media Dems own this, now fix it!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't blame Media Borough Council. Didn't we vote then in again. The public is an ass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No dumber electorate than Media residents. I agree with Anonymous 10:13 AM.

      Delete
  20. Why is everyone complaining about borough taxpayers paying for a road/bridge/dam within the borough? The money coming from the state is not "free" money - it's coming from other taxpayers in other towns in the state that don't give a crap about a private swim club and whether the 3rd Street bridge is open or closed and whether it's 1 or 2 way. I'm sure they would just all appreciate that it be done as cost effectively as possible. Don't bitch about paying more for gas when you are willing to so friviously spend the state transporation money! This is where your $.28 gas tax increase is going - is it worth it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ anonymous 12/13 10:29 am HELL - OOO I agree with you - WE, no matter where WE live in the state are the TAXpayers paying for this - Hey Councilman Davidson where is the T I P (TIP) now and the funds that it so contained?????? I'm goin' anonymous on this just like everyone else!

      Delete
    2. oh and furthermore ... to 12/13 @ 10:29am I AM IN FAVOR OF THE 28 CENT INCREASE (which is over several years!) AND I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS ROAD 2 WAY 2 LANE!

      Delete
    3. OHH and another thing 12/13 @ 10:29 you realize that 28 cent increase you were talking about - well guess what you're going to be paying for bridge work in areas as far away as Erie, Williamsport, Gettysburg .... where YOU don't live! How about some of that funding coming right here in our own neighborhood!

      Delete
  21. Just a thought...suppose the road had never been closed? Would you fools who oppose two way, and carp about BLCC be complaining? Would it be just unnoticed? I know that Friends of GP would not exist. ..why would they? There would be no self serving reason..NIMBY phonies!

    ReplyDelete
  22. There was a period from 1980 to 1996 when the road was not closed. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection knew there was a serious problem with the deteriorated dam under the road and all three parties (the swim club, the Boro and the County) realized there was a mulit-million dollar ownership problem. The Friends of Glen Providence Park - FrOG- hope to influence the project design, but have also spent hundreds of volunteer hours inside the park. Check out their website.

    ReplyDelete
  23. How many people believe Council will not even discuss this issue at the meeting on Thursday.
    Waste money, play games, take votes, waste money, waste money, waste money. Media residents deserve better than this mickey Mouse Council and all the trained problem solvers and listeners that make it up.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Some body (bodies) please go to that dam(n) meeting tomorrow night in Chambers and ask during public comment times - before chair reports and after!!! what the Hell is going on

    ReplyDelete
  25. Just looked at the agenda for tonight's meeting (19th December 2013 / 8pm) not a dam(n) word about the bridge. Some one better ask them some dam(n) questions and see how much longer they're going to tinker away taxpayer monies. Let us all remember this is funded - Yep Councilmen Davidson, Robinson & Hall much to your chagrin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some one? Anonymous 2:55 AM. Why isn't that some one YOU? I'll be looking forward to your questions, if you can think of any. Duh.

      Delete
    2. No questions from residents during public comment. Brian Hall acknowledged complexity of issue and gave brief update of litigation. Borough has not been found in contempt, matter simply returned to County courts. Invited questions, none forthcoming.

      Delete
  26. Just checked Councilman Davidson's website - Last update on the bridge was April 24th! Come on - another conflict of interest??? Give us YOUR facts or are you gonna squirm around this???

    ReplyDelete
  27. Looks like they blacked out TV coverage tonight for those of us unable to attend.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Where was MediaMike last night? He should have been at Borough Council meeting, asking questions or making comments. What a coward, Mr. Know-It-All.

    ReplyDelete