Taking Care of Business

Nathan Schadler & David Maris

Surrounded by outdoor patio furniture, grills, fire pits, and umbrellas in the showroom of Salter’s Outdoor Oasis in Eagleville, 30 or so Lower Providence small business owners have begun to meet once a month to hammer out how their newly-formed organization, the Lower Providence Business Association, will operate and to fine-tune their plans to persuade Lower Providence Township officials to create a better environment for new and existing businesses in the Township.

Their outdoor surroundings were appropriate considering the reason this group of business owners have banded together. They feel like they’re on the outside looking in, subject to the mercy of the Township’s Board of Supervisors or the whims of code enforcement personnel, and what they view as conflicting, overly restrictive, and frequently arbitrary ordinances that make it more difficult and expensive to open and operate a business in LP. They’re hoping to find out if those throwaway statements on political campaign literature about wanting to attract, encourage and grow businesses in the Township have any substance to them, and find common ground with Township officials to make LP more business friendly.

Statistics provided by Lower Providence Township indicate that since at least 2010, the number of new businesses opening in the Township (as indicated by the number of business licenses initiated or renewed) has decreased every year since (with the exception of a small uptick of 4 businesses in the 2012-2013 time frame), from a high of 644 as of December 31, 2010 to 578 as of July 2017.

Certainly, there may be other factors at play, such as the state or national economy or conditions in specific industries, but this isn’t a positive trend.  Whether a business stays or goes depends on many things: besides the aforementioned economy or industry, factors such as whether they own their property or do they have a landlord, and if so, does the landlord end a lease or does the tenant find better/cheaper quarters, or if the owners are planning to retire soon. Often, the Township doesn’t even find out if a tenant is considering closing or moving until too late.  For example, a business may not want their landlord to know in case new arrangements fall through.

Part of the problem is local.  Over time, there have been some township supervisors who weren’t exactly business friendly. This manifested in several ways. One’s philosophy was that LP is a ‘bedroom community’ that shouldn’t have much business here at all (similar to Worcester Township). Others have helped run off attractive propositions deemed too close to his or her own residence. In addition, policies and ordinances implemented over the years that, either intentionally or otherwise, impose numerous hurdles and costs to operating here have had the effect of discouraging some potential businesses from coming here at all, or into giving up and moving elsewhere later on.

The LPBA aims to partner with the Township to help improve the climate for business in LP. One of two driving forces behind the LPBA is its president, David Maris, owner of Marco Motors in the Evansburg section of the Township. Dave’s dad retired recently and he and his brother took over the family  business. Maris, who’s been an active member of and ambassador for the Perkiomen Valley Chamber of Commerce since 2013, told me he’s ‘known for years’ the Township needed a group to engage the Township specifically on issues of importance to its local business owners.

Maris, named 2017 Perkiomen Valley Chamber of Commerce Member of the Year for his contributions to the chamber and the community at large, says he got the idea to get the LPBA kick-started after a Facebook discussion early this year about local businesses on the popular “Living in Lower Providence” page, and subsequently put out a feeler for how many would be interested in such an advocacy organization. He reports he got about 40 responses back with contact information almost immediately.  So far about 80 LP business entities have expressed interest in the group, although not all have been able to make each meeting.

Maris' affable, easy-going personality belies his tenacity. He says that he participated in LP’s prior attempts to address the concerns of Township businesses. A few years ago the Township formed a ‘business development committee’ and he was invited to participate. Meeting during the workday was often inconvenient, and when he attended there were 4-5 local banks represented, numerous realtors, 4-5 construction/development entities, and only 5 or 6 ‘brick and mortar’, customer-facing businesses. He recalls telling Bill Roth, Director of Special Projects and Technology for the Township, that representation of Township businesses ‘wasn’t really present’ and nothing really came of that group from an advocacy perspective.

Flash forward to November 2016, when a similar effort seemed to be launched by the Township.  Attended by ‘a few more bankers, and an attorney’, Maris said there seemed to be fewer participants overall.  He discovered that this effort was more focused around the ‘Team Montco’ initiative, an economic development partnership with the County, and their projects to promote the Vo Tech schools and offerings of help from the Temple School of Business and other similar resources. Maris felt it was nice to be connected to possible resources, but it wasn’t really an advocacy group specifically focused on the needs of local, Township–based businesses.

The other driving force is local attorney and former Montgomery County prosecutor Nathan Schadler of the firm Conway Schadler in Eagleville. Schadler, 38, serves as LPBA vice-president and, together with his law partner, Ken Conway, drafted and filed the corporate formation documents for the group.

  

Schadler, a former assistant Montgomery County district attorney who headed up the narcotics and firearms units in that office, also was cross-sworn and served as an assistant US attorney. Along with being a former D1 competitive swimmer (and now a triathlete), you get the sense from talking with him that he’s formidable and competitive, bristling with energy looking for an outlet. Schadler points in part to that swimming background for teaching him skills like perseverance, and learning to “put his head down, work hard and push through…that every day is not easy and you have to fight through the tough ones…it translates in terms of getting people through lulls, that if something slows down it’s not dead”.

He also credits his prosecutorial career for teaching him the values of collaboration, a high level of detailed planning, focus, and learning how to work with a variety of types of personalities and egos.

Upon his departure from the DA’s office in 2013, District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman praised Schadler for his work.  “Nate’s been a gladiator in the office for nearly a decade,” she said. “While I’m sorry to see him go, I wish him all the best in this next adventure, in his life and in his career and I can’t wait to see what he’ll do next.” 

Schadler and his partner decided to open their law practice in Eagleville after considering several options, and opened in early 2016. Subsequently, Schadler set up a meeting with Township supervisor Patrick Duffy to introduce himself and say ‘hey, we’re here, we’ve heard some things, we want to get along and do well in this community”.  He came away very inspired after speaking with Duffy and literally went right back to his office and wrote a letter and sent it to several hundred business owners in the Township, including Dave Maris, about the idea for a business association. Schadler says “Dave called me up, said ‘Can we meet, I’ve been trying to do something with this idea for awhile, and it petered out, how can we get something going?’ And it went from there.”

Both Dave and Nathan are inspirational and motivating speakers who are passionate about the LPBA, and the energy in the room when they speak is palpable. They have a genuine rapport and mutual respect; Schadler likes to joke that he refers to Maris as ‘the grand poobah of Lower Providence’ because he seems to know everybody. But even though the group is growing and they have ambitious ideas, they want to go slowly, preferring to ‘get it right’ rather than rushing just to say they got something accomplished.

Issues discussed at recent meetings included myriad concerns. Many in the group feel the Township, perhaps unintentionally, is more of an impediment than a help. Signs were a big one: 

• Many members have experienced signage issues. Schadler, who described the township sign ordinances as “nightmarishly convoluted” challenged the Township supervisors to actually read it and make sense of it, noted that they are conflicting and vary wildly depending on where a business is physically located.

The sign ordinances appear to have been done piecemeal over the years and not with an eye to a comprehensive township-wide view, and the group feels that, at a minimum, it needs to be simplified for clarity and consistency. For example, members cited a recent public flap over a sign message posted on the “Adult World” sign in Collegeville that some residents found offensive (and other residents found hilarious – the discussion thread on Facebook was funny but has since been deleted) and yet the Township apparently had no issue with the product advertised for sale. Across town, a tanning business wanted to use an image of a woman on their sign that showed a belly button, and the Township deemed it too offensive and wouldn’t approve it.

After researching the Township’s sign ordinance, Schadler found he could literally make a case for, or against, any sign anywhere in the Township, and that the Township had enough wiggle room that they could approve or deny a sign based on arbitrary preferences using criteria that had nothing to do with the actual ordinances.

• Along the same vein, members didn’t understand why the small yard signs promoting various nonprofits or upcoming events seem to be OK and are everywhere, but they are prohibited from even posting a sign that reflects a “Best of Montco” designation, which should be sources of pride and contribute to drawing new visitors to the Township.

 Code enforcement and ordinance clarity, as well as the inspection process, were additional concerns:

• Members say it seems as though they’re never ‘done’ with the process of opening a business or making changes. They cited an initial inspection for a use & occupancy permit or business license where issues are raised and resolved, only to result in additional items to address on subsequent visits (often when a different code inspector from the original one is involved), contributing to unnecessary delays and cost before they can even open their door. They’d like the process to be streamlined so all issues are identified at one time, instead of issues popping up that were never on the radar during prior inspections.

Their observation is that the ordinances/code needs to be simplified because nobody is sure what they are allowed to do. It needs to be more clear and flexible; as written now they believe the Township can prohibit just about everything if they are so inclined, and that it gives the Township too much power to make arbitrary decisions. And, the overcomplication tends to create inequities where some will fare better than others.   

A member wondered out loud if the Township makes money on this process. The answer is yes, to some degree: there is usually an application cost to bring requests for variances or other relief before the Zoning Hearing Board and/or the Board of Supervisors. That cost can be considerable as well as time-consuming. You’ll also incur attorneys’ fees if you hire counsel to represent you.

Another member stated that he has the impression that “the Board of Supervisors doesn’t understand the actual impacts of these ordinances on the business community” and asked what their backgrounds are. He asked “Are any of them business owners?” And back to the signage issue again: “I don’t understand why promoting my business is bad.”

The group wants the Township to understand that ‘short term gains in terms of the money made from seeking relief from overly restrictive ordinances costs them in long-term deficits if businesses close or move out of the Township.’ They want the Township to see that there is no benefit to the Township in antagonizing the business community and sustaining a reputation as being unfriendly to local businesses. As Schadler succinctly put it: “They need to understand that they might get a couple hundred dollars in fees but forego an eternity of goodwill”.

Bottom line, the LPBA wants to partner with the Township in good faith to solve problems, to know what to expect when opening or operating a business, to gain consistency in processes and decisions, and arrive at reasonable solutions. Schadler stressed that they want no special treatment or guarantees for specific results, but at least to get a fair shake and a seat at the table with an opportunity to be heard.

What kind of reception has LPBA gotten from the Township? Roth said that “With respect to LPBA, the supervisors are happy to speak with them and provide whatever help they need. They were initially a little wary, not sure of what their approach was going to be. The Township doesn’t want to be involved with running it in any way. They want it to grow organically. The supervisors know they have issues with signage and other things, but they see them as advocates for the virtues of Lower Providence, that it’s a positive place for businesses.”

Patrick Duffy, the supervisor several have pointed to as one of the catalysts for the creation of the LPBA, in that he initially helped bring Maris and Schadler together, said “It’s sort of strange that we didn’t already have a business association, but it’s paying dividends already. They’re getting involved in giving input into ordinance drafting, especially for sign ordinances that not only fit the aesthetics of the Township but also that meet their needs”.

He looks forward to working with them. “We have a good dynamic with them, the flow of information and ideas can readily be exchanged, they can bring new perspectives to what we’re trying to do. If we do our job and help keep existing businesses here, there won’t be such a need to fill empty buildings. Success begets success and attracts others when they see the businesses that are already here thriving.”

He continued, “Some business operators may not live in the Township so we don’t run into them at the gas or grocery store. It’s helpful to know what the burdens and barriers are to be successful here…so we can make sure code enforcement is business friendly”

Jason Sorgini, Board of Supervisors vice president and candidate for re-election in November, told me “The Board of Supervisors has shown in both word and deed that we are committed to supporting thoughtful business development in Lower Providence. We are excited to partner with the newly created Lower Providence Business Association to promote the businesses that already exist in our community and to show potential business owners that Lower Providence is a wonderful place to locate their commercial business. The leadership of the business association has been in continuous conversation with our Township Business Development Committee and has shared many positive aspects they find abuot doing business in Lower Providence, as well as some constructive feedback on how we as a Board can do more to promote our local businesses. We are looking forward to continuing t this awesome conversation and to doing all we can do as Supervisors to ensure the success of businesses in our Township.”

Board chairman Colleen Eckman stated in March: “We are thrilled at their interest and the things we can accomplish together. The successes of our businesses impact our residents, and that’s our mission here at the Township, to make sure things are running smoothly”.

Other attempts at similar organizations have been tried previously. The Park Pointe At Lower Providence Business Association, to have been made up of businesses in the corporate center between Egypt, Rittenhouse and South Trooper Road, never really took off.  It was originally intended to operate similarly to a Chamber of Commerce and be a business advocacy group. PJM Interconnection made their auditorium available and offered to help with other aspects. Roth said this group was comprised of primarily Monday-Friday, 8-5 type larger corporations rather than mom & pop shops who are more local and embedded in community. In addition, bigger corporations tend to be aligned with other groups that are more attendant to their specific concerns, such as the Greater Valley Forge Transportation Management Association, in order to address relevant issues such as commuter issues for their employees.  

Currently the LPBA is solidifying how the organization will operate, such as who will be eligible to become a member; how elections and terms for their officers and executive board will work; fundraising, promoting and marketing the LPBA itself and its member businesses; designing a logo, and setting up its website and content.  

A steering committee has been established to prioritize issues they want to address with the Township and to facilitate having Township officials speak at future meetings to educate and provide updates.  Chair Carol Foley, owner of Healthmarkets.com, along with committee members Gerry Warner of Security 5 (residential and commercial security systems), Joe Ferarro of FindANerd (computer repair) and Margaret Vechy, a realtor with Keller Williams, spearhead this effort.  

The LPBA introduced themselves to the Board of Supervisors at a March 2017 meeting and has already participated in one staff solicitor meeting with the Township thus far. Schadler reported it was very positive, that “a lot of the meeting appeared to be them feeling out our attitude toward the Township”, and that Township officials were very receptive to coming and speaking to the group. Going forward, their meetings will be the second Wednesday of each month starting at 6 pm; locations will rotate.

After attending several LPBA meetings, I believe they’ve got great energy and ideas, and I’m convinced they’re going to do great things to promote our business community and showcase the fine vendors and businesses located here in Lower Providence. 

Throwing the First Pitch

A universal part of the human experience is to experience loss, sorrow and grief. Often we cope by trying to make something positive come out of it.  We may establish some form of lasting tribute to memorialize the passing of someone who meant the world to us by making donations to worthy charitable organizations, or perhaps establish a scholarship fund.  It allows us to soothe our heartache, pay it forward in the name of someone special, and the fortunate recipients to benefit as well. But, no matter how we honor the deceased’s memory, we frequently wish we could do more.

Imagine if you will the ability to make such a gesture, but on a grander scale, benefiting an entire community – and imagine, too, what it might be like to have the good fortune to receive such an honor. 

Township officials might find themselves in that enviable 
position after they gathered last week together with officials from J.P. Mascaro, Inc. and their donor entity, MB Investments, in a public meeting to hear informal plans for the proposed construction of donated ball fields on a parcel of land long coveted by LPT as a potential acquisition for park space. 

Mascaro, a long-time community partner, just may have topped themselves with this proposal. They offered the generous donation, with an estimated completion cost to them of approximately $1 million ((excluding the value of the land itself, which would be leased to LPT for $1 per year), as their way of honoring the memory of late Mascaro family member Frank A. Mascaro, who passed away in 2013. J.P. Mascaro is headquartered in Lower Providence Township.

An audience of about 40 adjacent residents and community
members listened, along with township supervisors*, to the pitch detailing the conceptual plan made by William Fox, general counsel for the organization. Fox was joined by Pasquale “Pat” Mascaro, Jr and John Marsh, their in-house engineer, who provided specifics and answered questions about the plan.  

The parcel in question had been on LPT’s radar for some time. Back in 2003 Montco voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum for a $150 million tax increase dedicated to open space acquisition and conservation. Fresh on the heels of that action, in 2005 LPT revised its Open Space Plan – I chaired the Open Space Committee at the time and oversaw its compilation and development - to identify inventory, assess needs gaps and decide priorities for the acquisition, development and investment in open and park space within the Township.

Number 2 on the list of priority potential targets identified in 
the Open Space Plan was the 38-acre parcel at 2759 Woodland Avenue, not far from Woodland Elementary School and sandwiched between Miami and Lauman Avenues, also known as the “Downes property”.  This property is in Zone D of the Plan, an area of the Township recognized as having a deficit of usable open space, trails and park space compared to the rest of the municipality.  

While LPT was never able to realize the acquisition of the land themselves (the December 2009 sale price to Mascaro was $2.2 million, well out of the Township’s reach), they now can discuss the possibility of the next best thing: having the construction of usable ball fields and amenities fully accomplished at no cost to taxpayers and leased to the Township for the nominal fee of $1 per year, and having the land protected for a long period of time - all the while having the property remain on the tax rolls.  We will still be able to collect tax revenue on a public municipal use. Only about ten acres of the total 38 comprising the parcel would be used per the proposed plan. The remainder would be left as is and all existing structures would remain.

Per a May 7, 2015 letter to LPT, when the property was 
purchased in 2009 the Downes family and Mascaro mutually agreed to the placement of a 25-year deed restriction on the property mandating that it not be developed for “at least” that initial 25 years [see letter, here]. Athough six years into that moratorium as of 2015, the company indicated it would enter into a 20 to 25 year lease agreement with the Township when the facilities are complete so technically, the fields will be restricted for far longer. In addition,  Fox told me subsequent to the meeting, from a practical standpoint, the company has no interest in dishonoring Frank Mascaro’s name by not honoring those terms, tearing down the fields, or by trying to develop the property anytime soon, if ever. As Fox pointed out, the company owns numerous other properties in other locations and does not need to monetize this one. 

5/14 Childress field dedication/photo courtesy JP Mascaro

This project, being completed 
by essentially the same team who brought the handsome new Robert Childress Memorial Field to life at Methacton High School, is estimated to take 3-6 months to complete. 

According to supervisor Patrick Duffy, this project featuring 
three ball fields (one tournament-grade), will potentially provide for multi-player families in the Methacton Baseball league what those playing for Audubon Recreation Association (ARA) already have  – several fields in close proximity to each other. Currently, ARA has 7 fields in one location and with these fields, Methacton will have 5 fields within walking distance – 2 at Woodland and 3 here. Currently, Methacton baseball parents have to traverse 7 fields scattered between Eagleville and Woodland Elementary schools, and at Heebner Field in Worcester. Parents with more than one child playing baseball and softball at a time have to figure out how to bend the time-space continuum to attend more than one game for multiple offspring. 

The tournament field is planned to have lighting for night use to give teams more flexibility for games and practices, but Fox told me if the project is given the green light by the Township they will build the project whether or not lights are approved with it.

While technically as the lessee LPT would be responsible for maintenance of the property, as a practical matter LPT typically makes field maintenance a term of any lease agreement with any athletic organization that leases fields from the Township. In that scenario (which is done with all our various athletic leagues who use our fields today) the Township isn’t using its resources since sports organizations have a captive army of volunteers willing to help take care of the fields they play on.

Currently there are approximately 16 ball fields available within Township boundaries, 12 of which are either owned or leased by the Township, and as I can personally attest from the years my son and his friends played for ARA and other leagues, it was always very difficult for coaches to find available field for practices in particular – especially if we had a rainy spell – as makeup games piled up and occupied open, correctly sized fields.  It was not uncommon to have to trek up to Heebner Field in Worcester Township or use West Norriton facilities, if they were even available. With two very active and large baseball leagues here, ARA and Methacton Baseball Association, there is definitely a need for more baseball fields. This project would go a long way toward closing that gap.

However, comments from residents attending the presentation indicated that not all may view this as a positive for the community. 

From her backyard adjoining the planned facility, all that 
Lauman Avenue resident Lynette Leong could think about was how she’d purchased her property so she could see the constellations at night and wild animals during the day, and now primary among her concerns wondered whether Mascaro, in developing the plan, had considered the environmental impacts on things like well water, and that they are encroaching on wildlife habitat. 

Fox replied that as far as any environmental concerns, DEP sets the requirements and standards for this type of development and they have to comply. Whatever the standards are under the Township zoning ordinance for this type of project, they'd also have to comply. He added, "This might sound a little harsh to you, as it relates to your concern about development on the property, I can see that you would prefer the property to remain just as it is, but as the owner of the property, whether it’s a little league field by right or houses by right (and we’ve restricted that), the property owner also has certain rights to use his or her property in a manner that’s consistent with the Township’s zoning ordinance which, as a whole, is designed to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare, and not put uses next to you that are offensive or contrary to good planning.  I don’t know that anything I could say here could make you feel comfortable that that property’s going to remain the same because if this project is approved, it will not remain the same. I will say that we are going to try to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible and it will certainly be far, far less offensive than it could have been if there were other types of developments on this property which the zoning will allow. We are trying to be sensitive to all the neighbors’ concerns. We may not be able to address everyone’s concerns 100%..."

He pointed out that the Township’s zoning ordinance reflects 
this Board's and prior supervisors’ determination this is an appropriate use in a residential area. 

Other concerns expressed by residents in attendance included the typical: stormwater runoff, construction dust, buffering (much of the property already has a significant tree line buffer), noise, traffic, parking and potential impact on adjacent property values. Supervisor Duffy and Fox both indicated many of these practical concerns are, per the Municipalities Planning Code, addressed further along in the process after a formal plan is filed with the Township for review during the land development process.   Part of the process entails both the Township’s and the County’s planning commissions having the opportunity to review and comment on the plan, offering their feedback and suggestions for incorporation into the final approved plan. 

For things such as noise, lights, vandalism - there are ordinances in place that can be enforced as a matter of policing the area like we do in our other parks. In addition the Township can impose conditions on the use and any lights. 

When it comes to property values, I have lived adjacent to an LPT park (featuring  two ball parks, two tot lots, a basketball court, picnic pavilion and jogging trail) for many years,  and can relate that our experience has been that properties such as ours abutting the park command a higher asking price (and we are far less buffered than homeowners next to this parcel are / will be). Buyers appreciate the amenities and the fact that the land is protected and devoid of other neighbor’s backyards facing your own.  

And that experience is borne out elsewhere, according to local residential realtor Patti Tabor, who has moved many LP properties over the years. 

“Houses backing to a park or open 
space generally draw a higher sale price. The concerns for many are with the parking situation. Take Warrior Field for example. The parking is inadequate and creates an issue on Landis Mill Road. That does not help property values. The moral of the story is...If they're going to do it, do it right”.

Evidently, Supervisor Colleen Eckman recognized just this scenario, as one of her comments was that ‘it looks like we might need to add some parking beyond what’s noted on the plan". Ms. Eckman, a candidate for township supervisor this November on the Republican ballot, appeared to be opposed to the idea of lights for the tournament field judging by her other comments and questions.

The last resident to speak, John Larcinese from Hollywood Lane (and a Public Works employee of the Township who would likely wind up mowing this facility), mentioned how well the lit field at Redtail works in that neighborhood, that he supports the project even though it is very close to his home, and that he felt the approximately $4000 annual maintenance cost versus a state-of-the-art $1 million facility equaled a win/win for the community. 

Seems like a no-brainer for LPT and a fitting tribute for the Mascaro family as well. Hopefully, LPT will see fit to play ball.

*For informal 'staff solicitor' meetings, generally only 2 supervisors attend so as not to have a quorum. However, four of the supervisors attended this meeting - two in an official capacity and two who did not participate. Supervisor Jill Zimmerman was not present.

Tidbits and Updates

There are a lot of things going on, none of which I have time to write a full article about – and it IS summer, so I’d much rather be outside hiking, horseback riding, gardening or down the Shore than inside researching and writing.  In that vein, this mashup of bits & pieces will have to do for now:

·         I am told that the Methacton School Board is ready to move forward with hiring a new superintendent and that it is highly likely the announcement will come this Tuesday night, August 20 at the regularly scheduled school board meeting.  There’s a bit of drama surrounding the pick, so it might be worth your while to come out and get a feel for the reasoning behind the Board’s selection and what went into finding and interviewing him (or her).

 

·         Speaking of Methacton, recently departed superintendent Dr. Timothy Quinn and paramour Diane Barrie have both found gainful employment elsewhere. Quinn landed as an Area Partnership Manager for Provo, Utah-based Imagine Learning, a language and literacy software solution provider, and Barrie is the new curriculum coordinator for Kutztown Area School District. Best wishes to both in their new endeavors, and thanks to both for their educational contributions at Methacton.

·         As feared and predicted, Montgomery County did have to shut down the Arcola Road Bridge this past Friday afternoon and, as residents feared, they didn’t necessarily know about it until they were on their way home from work and stuck in traffic. However, I give our elected officials credit for doing a great job of notifying everyone as soon as possible. I heard from Rep. Mike Vereb within 15 minutes after the decision was made, and the County and municipalities of Lower Providence and Upper Providence were very quick to get phone and email blasts out within the hour.

·         Regarding the bridge, the meeting this past Monday was widely reported upon, so I don’t have much to add (and I already wrote back in July about what was likely to happen, here). I do know that as I floated among the Q & A groups, the primary beef residents had was with the detour routes and the length of time it will take to get the bridge built and reopened.  What wasn’t made exactly clear, judging from comments I’ve seen and heard, is that people don’t understand the bridge will be closed for approximately 3 YEARS. 15-18 months are needed  to get through design, easement acquisition and bidding the work, but it’s also going to take another 15-18 months to actually build the thing.  I think people heard the ’15-18 months’ thing twice but didn’t understand it applied to two DIFFERENT things, things that run consecutively, not concurrently. Bottom line, plan extra time accordingly when traveling between Upper Providence, Collegeville and Lower Providence.

·   *      In an odd bit of ill-timed and misguided political sideshow, the LP Dems decided to politicize the bridge meeting/issue, presumably to elevate their candidate for supervisor, Jim Donahue. The weekend before they had gone through several neighborhoods, dropping literature on residents’  mailboxes posing  questions that seemed to lead one to believe they thought closing the bridge was a bad idea, and posting signs near the bridge that were clearly against closing it (they also handed out fundraiser flyers in the literature bags and at the meeting itself).  I’m sure Democrat County Commissioners Josh Shapiro and Leslie Richards were utterly thrilled that their own party members were flaming up residents over something that is already a bit of a PR headache for them.  (And, not to be bitchy, but it IS illegal to place anything in or on mailboxes that is not actual US Mail...the fines for doing so can be substantial...get your message out by all means, but follow the law).

        Not only that, but really, Mr. Donahue, you are making being AGAINST  transportation safety improvements and the safety of our residents part of your platform? I bet that if the bridge had remained open and someone were injured or killed, you would be leading the charge to sue the County for wrongful death. Nice.

·         Regarding the same Mr. Donahue, there’s a fun bit of video out on YouTube where he’s attending a regional sewer authority meeting (LPVRSA) and calls out authority member Bob Fieo to ‘take it outside’ and presumably brawl over their disagreement on an issue. Donohue is clearly the instigator, yet the caption under the video posting attempts to make it appear as though Donohue were the victim and Fieo the instigator. Again, curious, since a picture is worth a thousand words. Watch it here at about 6 minutes in. Do we really want to elect a guy to the position of supervisor whose problem resolution skills rise to the level of a common bully??  

·     Regarding the ‘censored’ videotape I wrote about previously – I appealed LP’s denial of my Right to Know Request, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania agreed with my position (here). After asking for an extension of time to thoroughly research the issue, they ruled in my favor and ordered LP to release the unedited version of the video. I have a copy and in the deleted sections, Mr. Baird made some accusations about corruption, criminal activity and collusion. My opinion is that very likely, several individuals have grounds on which to sue for defamation if they so choose; evidently BOS was trying to protect him and themselves from any fallout resulting from Baird’s statements.

·         At the July 18, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting, Colleen Eckman mentioned that she wanted to revisit the issue of a proposed ordinance for rental property inspections and fees, last discussed in late 2012 (here). Several options regarding frequency and fees have been discussed, and an annual inspection versus just an inspection at the time a property is resold or rerented has been considered. 

 

        Supervisor Don Thomas, who earlier this year was an applicant before the Zoning Hearing Board attempting to get approval to build rental apartments behind his home (see here),  weighed in that he was fine with whatever was decided upon, as long as “the focus was on the health and welfare of the community, and not revenue generation”.  Given that he and his family are landlords of numerous rental units in LP, is this an issue that Don should even be able to vote on? Is his concern really anti-revenue generation, or is it really about keeping it less expensive for him and his family to do business? Seems like a conflict of interest to me since he and his family would directly be impacted by costs of paying for such rental inspections on properties he and his family hold, including the apartments Don is building right behind his house.

Enjoy these last few weeks of summer!