Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors Meeting, 2-8-10 . . . YouTube Video Part II: Christine Johnson

One of the most moving moments of the Board of Supervisors Meeting was when Mt. Pleasant resident Christine Johnson took her turn to speak.  Christine eloquently spoke of her community, Mt. Pleasant as not being a sidewalk to nowhere as is often referred to by Supervisor Olson.  Christine is a research librarian and she put hours in to research, providing copies of minutes from Board Meetings, Planning Commission meetings, STAP meetings, etc. Please watch Christine’s passionate delivery of information . . . and please watch as virtually no response is offered from Chairman Lamina. 

Please watch this video clip:  YouTube Video Part II: Christine Johnson

Advertisements

11 Responses

  1. The BOS decision to release the St. David’s escrow was wrong. However, people need to stop harping on the “sidewalks to nowhere.” At this point and for the foreseeable future the proposed St. David’s sidewalk connects to no other sidewalk. It is clear that many on this site are more concerned with gaining patrician leverage than addressing failure of the process and good governance.

    • I completely agree. The sidewalks are but a symbol; the problem is far greater. Policy and procedures as detailed in the Home Rule Charter were completely disregarded by 4 of our supervisors. Our elected officials are elected to serve all the residents of this community but the St. Davids vote clearly indicates a failure of Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter to provide that expected good governance. I don’t care how much they apologize — for me the only thing that will make it right, is that they ‘fix it’. They need to right the wrong and just follow the rules.

      • Pattye…

        This was an email I sent to Skip Brion, Chester County GOP Chair and Rob Brooks, Executive Director of the Chester County GOP:
        ———–
        http://www.youtube.com/user/TTCommunityMatters#p/a/u/1/OQbSKo6cXOo

        The good stuff begins at 2:00 in.

        I think you will find that the issues will not die off, go away or be forgotten about. Warren – insofoar as his quest for the 157th endorsement is concerned, while he may get it, it will be to some degree, a false victory. From a political standpoint, to endorse Kampf for higher office is to ratify and endorse bad government. It is to say to all of the volunteers and citizens that the rule of law means nothing and their hard work means nothing. And to that, Bob and Warren may simply cast all of this off as simply nothing more than personal attacks. In fact, these are actions Warren, Bob, Paul and EJ have taken in their capacity as elected officials. And for sure, you can bet the questions that come at the next meeting will be tougher. And while they got a free pass to some extent on things that were not actually subject to attorney client privilege at the last meeting, it will not happen at the upcoming meeting. Paul Olson will be back at the 2/22 meeting. Quite frankly, I have never seen a candidate do more to damage his candidacy. I have never seen a local government lose its credibility like Tredyffrin’s. At the end of the day, it will be the GOP that pays the big price for years to come.

        Skip…you have a great opportunity to absolve the party of all this. Simply have a primary between Warren and Ken. Better yet, give Ken the endorsement. Do that and the GOP’s chances at victory in November go up by 100%. Under the best of circumstances, I peg the GOP’s chances at victory at 1 in 3. The GOP’s chances at victory would actually be better with the previous candidate from 2008.

        Bottom line, I am a citizen who lives in the district. Like many, the thought of Warren Kampf going to the state house is unacceptable given the events of the past few years. The St. David’s decision was icing on the cake. And if that wasn’t bad enough, looking at the videos and the dismissive way Bob treated the citizens who asked questions, at the end of the day, is what GOP led government has become in Tredyffrin.

        On the other hand, a Kampf endorsement and primary victory gives the Democrats precisely the candidate they wanted (albeit a more weaker candidate). And…it will give me and a few others LOTS to write about. With social media what it is, Warren has already been defined BEFORE his opponent can define him. There is NO way for Kampf to recover from any of this. The Drucker camp, at times, had to go back 16 years with Guy. They won’t have to go back nearly that far with Kampf. And it really boggles the mind how somebody like Gwenne Alexander has to pull out of the 156th. because she may be too rich a target for the D’s. For the record, I agree with the reasoning. She is not electable in that district. But that said, wouldn’t the same logic apply to Kampf? In the latter case, we are not talking about ideology. Instead, we are talking about the perception of a dishonest government. People have had to resign from office for doing a lot less.

        Look…you may not like me…but objectively, you know I’m right…

        As it stands now, Drucker wins Phoenixville AND Tredyffrin. A – Drucker is an incumbent and B – Ciarrocchi didn’t have the negatives that Kampf has. And – I am quite confident that with a Kampf candidacy for the General, the PA House Democratic Committee will be as keen on keeping Kampf out as they were with Ciarrocchi.

        Skip… you guys in West Chester have an opportunity to clean up a mess that C.T. and company clearly made and cannot clean up. The irony is that neither Bob Lamina or Paul Olson are on the committee. Given the influence they have had over the TTRC, people would think otherwise.

        You have two choices in candidates… One is electable and the other is not. I don’t think it takes a political genius to figure out how to resolve the matter. You have other, more pressing matters in the county.

        Here’s hoping the correct decision is made. Again, the only skin in the game I have is as a citizen – who has and understanding of how the process works.

        Regards,

        John

    • But under that rubric, sidewalks would never get built in stages. And the fact is, people would walk to the college, through the college, and back around. There is efficacy.

      The real fact is, the phrase “Sidewalks to Nowhere”, is used by Lamina, Olson, etc. as an intellectual proxy. It echos of Sen. Ted Stevens’ bridges to nowhere in Alaska. That however, is completely inconsistent here. Sidewalks are an integral part of the master plan, a plan that Lamina praised two years ago, but now finds inconvenient. Lamina, Kampf and Olson are guilty of moral relativism. When Christine asked about the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood and their sidewalk requirements, instead of getting a consistent answer, instead, we were treated to the matter being the stuff of attorney client privilege. In fact, no such privilege exists in that context.

      Nobody really wants to say it..but as far as this group of supervisors are concerned, there is a bonafide difference between the St. David’s golf club and other groups…and I think we all know what those differences are.

      Here’s the deal folks, if this matter was truly on behalf of the citizens who complained about the sidewalks as Lamina, Kampf and Olson claim, then they would have struck a compromise. They would have told the club that they would not have to build the sidewalks, but they would have forfeited the escrow. I’m not saying that would have been right either, but it would have been better than simply allowing the club to walk away scot free. The only real winner here is the club. That’s how you know guys like Lamina, Kampf and Olson are being less than honest.

      Like Watergate….follow the $.

      I’m not sure what you mean by “gaining partisan leverage.”. If that offends you, then what happened re: the St. David’s Decision must also offend you. If not, you are being inconsistent in your reasoning.

      Not following the process and violations of the HRC/AC is a symptom of a bigger problem. We are in the hands of a corrupt government government. What allowed that to happen? A corrupt group of politicians…that’s who. And one of them is seeking a promotion to higher office as a state rep.

      There is something fundamentally wrong here…and the majority of citizens know it.

      I think the 2/8 meeting is going to look like playtime when compared to the 2/22 meeting.

    • Panhandle Moderate,

      Moderate? Really?

      An amusing slip of the tongue/fingers – implying that Democrats are more concerned with gaining”PATRICIAN leverage”…No that’s what those who influenced the St. David’s vote are seeking – special treatment for the “ruling class” at the golf club.

      But let’s talk about partisan leverage…..There are seven Republicans on the BOS – thankfully not all of the same mind – but three of them feel they can run this community for the benefit of themselves and their supporters – and the fourth is easily influenced..

      If you can’t see the arrogance that reigns and the degree of wrongdoing that has occurred, you’ve drunk the kool-aid. I guess that anything Republican is better than the non-PATRICIAN alternative., right?..

      Democrats are seeking partisan leverage? No, we’re just giving voice to what a lot of people are thinking right now.

      How ’bout supporting some fair and balanced, some open and transparent, some basic good government – regardless of your party affilication?

      • Kate, you may be jumping to a conclusion that may (or may not) be accurate. Panhandle Moderate did not say Democrats in his/her comments. Isn’t it possible that he/she could be speaking of Republicans (or Democrats or Independents) who comment on Community Matters, as attempting ‘Patrician leverage’. I thought the overriding intention of their comment was the failure of our goverment to follow policy and procedure.

        As an audience member at the February 8 meeting, it was clear that the many residents providing commentary, did so without any political bias. Their genuine concerns and questions were based entirely on what they viewed as the failings of certain elected officials to simply ‘follow the rules’. I hope that people watching the supervisors meeting at home or seeing the video clips will recognize the solidarity felt among the audience members.

        • Pattye,
          Maybe I did over-react to Panhandle Moderate, but I was offended by the suggestion that anyone is making more of the St. David’s debacle than is necessary – for partisan reasons.

          In this case, I don’t believe they are. I feel as you do – that the problems people have with the way the St. David’s vote was handled are based on the poor judgment of four supervisors – who happen to be Republican. Neither party is free of self-serving, dishonest and short-sighted politicians.

          In Tredyffrin, as anywhere else, we just don’t want them infecting our community…

      • Kate,

        If the shoe fits put it on.

        Olson deserves to be voted out because his argument against sidewalks is the street is too dangerous. Brilliant!

        Just don’t pretend that the sidewalk to nowhere comment was aimed at the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood. It was no more aimed there than at Box Hill Road or Fox Chapel or anywhere else. Trying to turn this into a “ruling class” vs. a particular neighborhood is not productive and is not good for our community. That was the only point.

  2. Panhandle Moderate
    I agree with your view of why some are harping on it, but I don’t agree that the sidewalk is not relevant for the “foreseeable future” — because I think the reasons to build sidewalks are to connect places…absent the St. Davids piece, the township has no incentive to build any part of the sidewalk to the library…which I can assure you would be a welcome addition to this township. NIMBY folks always resist change — look how long it took to build the Radnor Trail — and visit ti anytime and see how well used it is. The first STAP piece is funded largely by grants — and a green initiative will certainly reward sidewalk planning.

  3. Mr. Lamina’s response to Christine Johnson is unbelievable — the “comprehensive plan” he references as a visionary document…and he refers to St. Davids as “the applicant” — but I understand they did not ask for relief….so on what level can he refer to them as “an applicant.” Isn’t that the whole point — they were NOT applicants — they were beneficiaries of the aging leadershipwho want to live in 1950s Tredyffrin.

  4. To be honest, who cares one iota if the sidewalks connect one lace to another, if they dead-end, etc. By Supervisor Olson’s own admission, that section of Upper Gulph is a dangerous section with heavy volumes of traffic. This alone should be reasoning enough to put sidewalks in.

    This is a newspaper quote that someone definitely needs to call Supervisor Olson on at the next meeting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: