Last week's banner really stirred up the community with some feeling its association with Make America Great Again, was just too much bear and a very poor attempt at humor. While others thought it was a clever way of making a point: Get the Bridge fixed, Borough Council.
Not soon after it was attached to the fence on Third Street, the "Make 3rd Street Great Again" was removed, or stolen, or misplaced for a few hours. Either way, I got wind that the Media Police paid a visit to a resident on West Street and picked up the controversial banner, so that's strange. Not since the Great Media Art Heist has there been this much mystery. I'm told there is a police report, so maybe we'll request it.
We'll see how this evening's banner will be received and if it'll be removed or stolen or misplaced for a few hours, AGAIN. Whatever side of the "FENCE" you're on, it's way past due to get the bridge fixed. It's been well over 20 years and there's now more confusion over the status than during any other time.
For the many who inquired about "Make Third Street Great Again" bumperstickers, banners, lawn signs, t-shirts, cat collar and hot sauce; I'll ask about it.
Bring back the old sign and restore 3rd street to a two lane road
ReplyDeleteIt is a 2 lane road😂😂
DeleteThe old banner told it the way it is , this looks a banner that the Democrats have endorsed which is why the dam / bridge has not been fixed in over 20yrs.
ReplyDeleteThe original banner is a better choice
If media borough continues to obstruct this project by Rezoning BLCC property I would think i appropriate protocol to remove or
ReplyDeleteCover the media borough sign now posted at 3rd street
Good post. Not a partisan issue.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely a partisan issue Lisa johnson doesn't want the bridge opened but felt compelled to spend 50 k for cameras on Baltimore pike
DeleteTo be accurate, a bridge would connect neighbors and allow a small, natural stream to flow. No need for a dam and private, shallow lake no one will actually use. Paid for by tax dollars, not a private club.
ReplyDeleteTO BE ACCURATE the court order required the 'thoroughfare restored to original condition' which is a dam and a bridge.....who the f* are you to say who will and will not use a restored lake been there since the 19th century? Typical FROG nimby......
DeleteThe first banner was GENIUS. The new one is BLAH--no punch. So watered down. A censored DUD. Not worth stealing. And that is the kindest thing I can say.
ReplyDeleteIt would be more accurate to say "Build a Bridge on Top of a Wall" - since a dam is really a wall to keep water in. A real bridge would let the water flow underneath.
ReplyDeleteWow people are offended about making third street great again
ReplyDeleteThe sign should thanks for killing all the fish media borough you have diminished the biodiversity in this area and the frog population- a barometer of our environment
I'm not offended about having a street go through. I would VERY much like that. I am offended, however, that significant additional taxpayer dollars are having to provide for a dam that provides a PRIVATE entity with their own little pathetic, swampy, mosquito-infested lake.
ReplyDeleteMedia borough has spent significant tax dollars to date over a half million dollars trying to stop it because of the bias against a two lane roadway and dam. For another 300 k the project could have been funded years ago. Conventially our full time grant writer let the grant expire and now has to be reapplied for
DeleteSad how media politicians put the screws to all taxpayers
You are wrong and you know you are wrong. A bridge and no dam is up to 8 times more money on the front end and maintenance is much more expensive over the life of the structure. The dam is cheaper to build and maintain.
DeletePinky (above) is right. If you want to blow off steam about this, get your facts straight, first. The original stipulation, agreed to by ALL parties, was that the County was responsible for its half 1/2 of the dam, BLCC was responsible for the other half of the damn, and the Borough was responsible for the 2-way roadway atop the dam, which had been in use for over 100 years. After signing the stipulation, Democratic members of Borough Council decided to arbitrarily change the roadway to a 1-way road to appease their friends who live near there. After being ordered by the court to replace the roadway as it had always been (2-ways) the Borough has continued to refuse to comply with the court order, and has been in contempt of the court for 4 years, now. As the local municipality, it was the Borough that was responsible for applying for the $650,000 state grant to replace the bridge/dam, made possible by (then) Republican State Senator Dominic Pileggi. But they have consistently refused to apply for the funding by deliberately "missing" the application deadline each year. Through this deliberate, and illegal delaying tactic, the bridge/dam will likely now cost TRIPLE what it would have cost, had the Borough obeyed the court order and obtained the state funding for the rebuilding project. Look it up. Since the Borough has been in contempt of court for four years now, it seem that it should not only reimburse the school district for the additional $50,000 per year that the district spends to re-route school buses, but the Borough should also reimburse taxpayers who fund the school district, for probably $1 million dollars in unnecessary, additional transportation expenses. And, for the additional legal fees the Borough has paid for being in contempt of court for the past four years.
ReplyDeleteWhat did Brian Hall get paid for his legal fee's and was he really qualified to handle a legal issue like this. A personnel injury lawyer basically taking borough tax dollars to argue a case he doesn't have expertise in- bad business decision all the way around for Medua Borough - how is that we never hear a things from mayor Macmayon or the borough manager on this ? Who's decision was it to hire Brian Hall to represent Media Borough. What does the mayor and borough manager have to say about bring held in contempt of court ?
DeleteThe ill-considered stipulation did not serve the best interests of taxpayers. It committed public dollars to a private "lake" and did not solve the ownership of a a new dam. The economic benefit of green space in our community far outweighs the courthouse employees' short cut through a pedestrian friendly gateway to our historic park and our town. You are peddling a 20th century solution in the 21st century. Zzzzzzz.
Delete100 years of use seems like it would set a precident ZZzz
DeleteThe Borough of Media paving over an earthen dam creating the two lane roadway ZZzz another precident
Rezoning BLCC so they can't develop land and improve the club goes against another precident - that being taking the proceeds of developing townhouses hickory hill and building pools because media borough's storm water runoff polluted the lake where it wasn't safe to swim in the lake any longer looking forward to the lawsuit I hope our tax dollars aren't paying for the individual lawsuits filed against the mayor and borough council members
Anon9:56
ReplyDeleteIM offended that the boro did not honor the agreement they signed and disobeyed a judges order to satisfy the whimsof a few politicians..