Reminder: Board of Supervisors Meeting Tonight . . . St. Davids Golf Club on the Agenda, Public Hearing Continuance for Patriots Path Plan

Reminder:

Tonight is Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors Meeting, 7:30 PM at the Township Building, Keene Hall.  The St. Davids Golf Club issue is on tonight’s agenda.  I am looking forward to the continuing, thoughtful discussion from the residents  and to an appropriate resolution of this matter. If you are unable to attend the meeting, it will be shown on cable TV.  Check township website for details, www.tredyffrin.org

Following the regular BOS meeting, there will be a continuance of a Public Hearing for the ” . . .  consideration and possible adoption, via resolution, of the ‘Patriots Path Plan’, as an amendment to Tredyffrin Township’s Comprehensive Plan”.

Advertisements

24 Responses

  1. It will get fixed tonight, but no one should be thanking them for it. LORK screwed up and should resign.

  2. I am intrigued by what an “appropriate resolution” is for the various parties who have been commenting here. It seems most, like me, objected to the process. A few, like Ms. Johnson, are more concerned about the sidewalk.

    For those of us who are concerned about the process, what if the following takes place? They have a letter from SDCC requesting the release. They have a review of the site by the Township Engineer. They have an opinion from the Solicitor that they can release the escrow. Mr. Olson makes his same motion. It is seconded by Mr. Lamina. The vote is the same as it was originally.

    Is that an “appropriate resolution” for all of those (me included) who are concerned about the process?

    This thought came to me as I have been trying to figure out what the Cardboard Check moment might be for this.

    I suppose you could add in that Mr Lamina, Kampf and Olson have also found someone to grant or donate the money to complete the sidewalk, that would “satisfy” those concerned with the sidewalk vs. the process. But, I am really more interested in the thoughts of those concerned about the process.

    • This is an interesting scenario…..

    • TBO

      It was not my intention and unfortunate for me, if I gave the impression that I care more about sidewalks than I do about following rules and proper procedure. If you take a look at some of my postings on Pattye’s Blog, you will see that not one is related to Tredyffrin’s sidewalk ordinance.

      I stated that I felt discriminated against because this item was not on the agenda and therefore I did not attend this particular meeting. I stated my concern with the precedent this sets for other development projects. I stated my concern that the BOS chose to over-ride the recommendations of various boards and committees to enforce and uphold their decisions regarding St. David’s obligation. I suggested that perhaps we would like to adopt a Code of Ethics. I suggested that perhaps we should amend our Home Rule Charter in order to limit the power of the BOS and allow citizens to participate more fully in their local government.

      I’ve learned over the past year not to expect folks in the Twp. to adhere to anything. Everything appears to be selectively enforced. It was Mt. Pleasant that brought me lately to the table and so…

      The fact is that “someone” out there felt so strongly about relieving St. David’s of their sidewalk requirement that they were willing to forego all reason and logic, essentially destroying any trust that existed between our elected officials and the residents of Tredyffrin Township.

      And Honestly, I don’t understand what we hope to accomplish by asking these guys to overturn their decision. Hasn’t the damage been done? Yeah, “maybe” St. David’s will have to build their sidewalk and other developers “might” have to abide by their agreed upon plans…

      THE SYSTEM AND THE PEOPLE THAT ALLOWED THIS MOTION TO PASS HAVE NOT CHANGED AND THE POTENTIALITY/PROBABILITY FOR ADDITIONAL IMPROPRIETY REMAINS.

  3. I agree that there must be a reversal on the St. Davids decision tonight, to take it back to before the January BOS vote. Unless the BOS received a request from St. Davids there is no further action. If, (and I mean IF) St. Davids GC sent a request in, I don’t see how it can be honored because we are back to the same problem of setting precedent for other developers. Plus, the Home Rule Charter is clear that the township engineer would have to check the work before releasing the escrow. Since there have been no sidewalks built, as far as I am concerned, unless they want to have another community uprising over ‘setting precedent’ — this should be dead issue (once the reversal on the vote is made).

    More curious to me will be who actually makes the motion tonight and which supervisors will vote in favor of reversing the decision. I don’t see Paul Olson changing his mind, but will the vote be 6-1 (or will Ms. Richter follow Olson). To me that will be the interesting part of the evening, who changes their mind and who doesn’t.

  4. I have been disappointed in Warren Kampf lately so I will be watching him very carefully tonight! How many more mistakes does he get to make and still think that he has a chance at the State House!

  5. Personally, I find it offensive that all of this energy had to get expended to make at least one of the block of 4 to side with JD, Phil and Michelle (assuming this happens).

    If this gets reversed tonight, it is a direct admission that what the rest of us have been saying for the past several weeks and what I averred in my complaint. Lamina and Kampf in particular, have to answer for the way they attacked me as a way of deflecting attention from the real issue. That – they will have to answer for tonight. After all, if they can do it to me, they can do it to anybody. Government has to be better than that.

    The real question for me is what Olson and/or Richter will do. I don’t see Olson changing his mind. Richter on the other hand could go either way. I don’t see how she votes no to reverse. To vote no to reverse says you are on the side of bad government.

    • Don’t be offended. Unless I am mistaken, it took showing up at one meeting and letting them know they did the wrong thing.

      • With respect, I believe you greatly understate the effort that has gone into seeking a reversal of the board decision. It has been many people not only showing up but speaking up at that meeting, numerous letters to the newspaper, many email alerts, a threatened lawsuit, and countless lines of commentary on Pattye’s forum to get to this point.

        I have not seen this level of motivation and dissatisfaction with the board since the ill-advised effort to move the Tredyffrin Library to Chesterbrook in 2002.

        • Thanks for your comment Ted.

          In approximately 3 months, I have written 300 posts, uploaded 2,000+ comments and had 56,000 visitors to Community Matters. I can honestly say that the majority of my posts and activity were somehow all related to: BAWG’s suggested offer of $50K from St. Davids Golf Club, St. Davids sidewalks, or the Supervisors vote to return escrow to St. Davids GC. An amazing effort from many in this community to just get to this point tonight, and regardless of how it turns out, I am pleased to see so many people involved in the process!

          It is my sincere hope that the supervisors will go back to following the rules of the Home Rule Charter and restore policy and procedures to our local government as it pertains to the St. Davids Golf Club issue.

        • No doubt people have expended a lot of energy. I just know the ball has been rolling to right the wrong since before the last BOS meeting. There is only one person who felt strongly about releasing the escrow. The rest screwed up and seem to have wanted to remedy the situation as soon as possible.

  6. I don’t see how Richter can vote — she didn’t understand to begin with, and her apology illustrated a further lack of understanding (how could she have researched it, decided it was a tough economy….and not wondered why it wasn’t on the agenda). I agree that the cardboard check moment — a request to be relieved from the escrow — not a release of the escrow — coming from St. Davids is what I would expect will be the topic. Distinction with a difference.

    • Remember EJ offered her apology without Paul Olson at her side. Will Richter ‘Stand By Her Man’ tonight, and vote with Olson?

  7. TBO, on February 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM Said:
    “For those of us who are concerned about the process, what if the following takes place? …[snip]. The vote is the same as it was originally. Is that an “appropriate resolution” for all of those (me included) who are concerned about the process?”

    Good question.
    I would be disappointed if only process was corrected. I don’t think the 4 supervisors should be allowed to justify their vote on the sidewalk with the rationale that they presented at the Jan. 25 and Feb. 8 meetings and in newspaper articles.
    I encourage you to look at this paper criticizing the reasons they offered:
    http://www.ttdems.com/pdf/StDavidsRationaleRefuted.pdf
    Yes, Tredyffrin Democrats are the source for this analysis, but who is adhering closer to fact? –The 4 supervisors or TTDems?
    Not just the process should be challenged.
    The BOS has more to correct than just the process.

  8. Hoping someone will switch sides presumes a motion will be made and the other 3 will have a side to switch to. I’m not sure that’s likely? The escrow was released — the club has paperwork from the township releasing them. Not sure a “do over” would fix anything. After all — I’m pretty sure many of the SDGC membership do not live in Tredyffrin. Is there a provision to reversing a release ?

  9. I will be watching with a big bucket of popcorn. Watching these supervisors meetings are more entertaining than watching “The Jersey shore” reality show. Hey, we got a situation : )

  10. Remember that tonight’s BOS meeting will also feature Part II Public Hearing for the Patriot’s Path Plan, an important project for our Township.

    • Here’s the problem with that “hearing” — it’s a farce. Lamina very specifically said the Comprehensive Plan was visionary and not binding — so why should anyone stand around and listen / testify on behalf of something that turns out our governing body views as nothing more than an “idea.”

      • I agree we all feel a sense of futility right now…but please don’t abandon the Patriot’s Path and throw the baby out with the bath water! Citizens need to work together advance that project, it could be a wonderful amenity for our community. The current BOS won’t be in office forever. As you know, it’s tougher to resurrect a dead issue in the future than it is to continue to apply pressure to advance an issue that still has promise. Carpe diem!

  11. Reversal would only resolve one of the issues. If the escrowgate decision is reversed then wouldn’t the golf club be back in default for failure to build the sidewalks? How does this get addressed? If the default issue isn’t properly addressed isn’t the golf club still receiving favorable treatment? Shouldn’t the escrow be forfeited at this point?

    SDGC needs to build the sidewalks immediately and should be penalized for their failure to comply.

    LOK need to resign.

    • Malvern Republican –

      Why only LOK to resign — what about Richter, she voted with them.

    • On what basis does anything think this will be “reversed?” SDGC had a letter of credit as their escrow pledge. The township notified the escrow manager and the bank released SDGC — there i no longer a letter of credit, we hold no escrow…. so WHAT motion do we think can happen. I agree with Ms. Johnson — there is NO reason to believe anything that happens, becasue the BOS are still the Emperors of Tredyffrin, and bringing clothes for them to wear doesn’t mean they can’t get naked when we leave. And I think we should all walk out before any “hearing” on the Patriot Path — since Lamina specifically has said the Comprehensive Plan is not binding. Ms. Johnson is right — one process means nothing. These guys showed us they absolutely have no higher power to answer to. Lawsuit aside — what motion could they make that would have any affect? I seriuosly don’t think they can do a “take back” from a private entity like SDGC.

  12. I just watched it -and I am appalled. JP — I hope you go forward with your lawsuit to the extent that this BOS has clearly violated the spirit and I am betting the letter of the Sunshine Law. This being one motion — and a refusal to back off that — explained by Mr. Kampf as “compromise” means that this group deliberated this motion in advance. When the woman in the audience asked why — explained that the board wasn’t trusted — and then when Mr. Kampf insulted the other woman who asked quietly why they could not be separated (why didn’t anyone answer this beyond a 3 year old’s answer: I wrote it this way….because) woman and suggested that this compromise was necessary — it means there was a DEAL. The deal is “we will back down on the St. Davids vote, but only if we are promised that we can throw open the question of sidewalks.” All that crap about revenue, and funding…this is a quiet effort to take back any control/input from the Planning Commission — just as Lamina threatened/promised when challenged about the SDGC vote. So why not admit that — or better yet — here’s a novel thought — why not DELIBERATE it — as opposed to having Ms. Kickline and Mr. DeB say they wanted to support it. They really have no choice. With this 4-3 voting bloc, the 3 on the outside are basically at the mercy of THE CHAIR….do what he says with a smile or find yourself picking up trash on 202 as your board job.

    I would sell my house tomorrow if I thought I could — this terrifies me how much crap this just exposed. Pattye — good job — your comment was good, but I think when you watch it, you will see you let him off the hook. You should have asked WHY they would not separate it — and not settled for “because I wrote it this way.” Next question: WHOSE VOTE will you lose if you separate it? Since Paul Olson told the newspapers you don’t need to treat eveyrone the same…..unbelievalbe CRAP.

  13. Tredyffrin gets 1/3 of its money from taxes (stealing our money) and 2/3 from investments that are listed off-budget, in their Annual Financial Report (AFR), usually called a Comprehensive AFR (CAFR).
    A plan to end taxation for ever, using the funds in the (C)AFR
    can be found at http://www.CAFR1.com.
    Here is some related information: actuaries take note:
    CAFR1 NATIONAL POST

    The following was just posted by Walter Burien – CAFR1 as an idea recommendation at a website run by the President of the United States Office called: OpenGov.ideascales.com

    If you get a chance please go to the idea post submitted by CAFR1 as linked below and vote for a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you may choose for the idea.

    Per open government, let’s see if they leave the idea or delete it as a determining factor of “how open” our government truly is.. One way or the other the following is a copy of what was submitted just in case the post linked here is deleted from their site.

    WJB

    « Back To Open Government Brainstorm

    Category listing – http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/ideafactory.do?discussionID=2247

    IDEA LOCATION – http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6882-4049

    Title/Subject:

    A Complete Audit of all Local and Federal Off-Shore Investment Holdings and International Debt Intrument Investments
    walterburien 3 hours ago

    Always remember: In derivatives for every dollar lost in one account a dollar is credited to another account. Here we are talking at the end of 2008 at least 15 to 20 trillion dollars was sucked out from one side (the private sector) into the other.

    Yes, government took a loss on their physical equities holdings but then the derivative market was expanded to 600 trillion dollars come 2008 and with derivatives with every loss on one side a credit is made to the other side of the transaction. Government off-shore management funds and a few domestic operations were primarily that “other” side for the credit. The public was the big looser.

    What is being promoted since the 2008 turmoil is the loss side with not a peep, total vacuum, and intentional void maintained on the other side of the take. And gee, the public thinks they are printing all that money as new money. My position is they are spending primarily old money recently liberated from all the rest of us as government covertly consolidates take-over and control.

    And, in line with the last 30 years, government promotes debt at the front door and funds it through the back door with and using their own investment funds locking the public into repayment whereby guaranteeing themselves a non-tax income return on their investments with the lion’s share manage primarily off-shore now. All government need do is create a situation to further justify greater debt to the people and thus a larger power base through debt based investments is created or expanded on for themselves..

    Government’s income from investment return is now substantially greater than all taxation collected with much of that return coming in from debt instruments secured by government through investment.. Get it? And just like the organized crime boys of the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s those massive government funds are hiding a good chunk of their wealth off-shore out of sight and out of mind to the public at large..

    Auditing the 136,000 Local Government CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) of AFR (Annual Financial Report)for collective totals would be a good place to start.

    To view and download some CAFRs – http://cafr1.com/STATES/

    Why Is This Idea Important?

    “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Currently there is a total vacuum and void maintained as to “collective” government’s ownership in the worldwide equity markets, derivative trading, and debt instrument markets. It is apparent this is so due to the massive money involved and to hinder the fact that government since the end of the 90’s “Owns it all by investment” whereby collective local and federal government’s domestic and international investment return based on overall gross income is now greater than all taxation collected in the USA. Qualifying this issue in definitive terms per scope and degree is probably the most significant information every American should be aware of. The implications of this circumstance requires immediate oversight from the public perspective.. I will note that as quoted in the Wall Street Journ! al in 2000, Alan Greenspan was concerned about the 80 trillion dollar derivatives market. Well come 2008 that market was expanded to 600 trillion dollars with US collective governments participating in over 50% of the activity generated therefrom. A recent report from March of 2008 on bank derivative holdings in the table section two-thirds down in the report showed JP Morgan CHASE Bank holding 90 trillion dollars in derivatives. That is greater than the world derivatives market in 2000 as quoted by former Treasury Secretary Greenspan. This report can be viewed here – http://cafr1.com/STATES/US-TreasuryReports/BankDerivativesMarch08.pdf It is essential to know in this one example ! of many that can be given, how much of that 90 trillion dollar! s in derivative holdings was being cleared by JP Morgan CHASE as clearing agent for its government held accounts? A complete and accurate audit of all government holdings would answer the CHASE Bank activity question as well as thousands of other relevant disclosure in getting a clear view of collective US Government’s degree and scope of ownership, control, and ability to manipulate in and from the financial market place worldwide. Is taxation truly needed? No it is not. Government can currently operate it’s functions from investment return upon administrative modification. One website was launched in November of 2008 to accomplish just that end. It can be viewed here – http://TaxRetirement.com

    Sent FYI from and truly yours,

    Walter Burien – CAFR1.com and TaxRetirement.com

    PS: Make the investment wealth of government directly benifit the people and taxation be gone! TRF now!

    —————————————–
    Any local government can be restructured to meet their annual budget needs “Without” taxes. TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) paying for every City, County, State’s annual budgetary needs!
    ————————

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: