It has been awhile since I lost wrote, and its not like there is not a lot to say given that those who run Abington Township are so detached from reality.
A resident has brought to my attention a new issue which I will be sharing with you shortly. I am first trying to gather all the facts and survey the situation myself. The problem is nothing exciting or "sexy", as it deals with illegal parking. If anything, more than the frustration caused by those who park illegally, is the greater frustration and sheer short-sightedness exhibited by the police department in choosing to say - "so what" that children, pedestrians, and other motorists are put at risk but the stupidity of those who choose to park their cars anywhere they see fit.
Stay tuned.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Friday, November 20, 2009
No Free Speech in Abington
The Abington Township Board of Commissioners are having a hearing December 10, 2009 on the proposed Ordinance 1990. What is Ordinance 1990? It is an ordinance regulating door-to-door solicitation. So far, so good, right? Who wants door-to-door solication? In fact, there is an existing ordinance which deals with door-to-door solication. It is Ordinanc No. 693; amended in its entirety 12-8-1988 by Ordinance No. 1645. (see Code Book, and search under the term "solicitation"). However, Ordinance 1990 is poorly written and intentionally vague, which I will explain below. Second, it adds a new restriction that appears to limit free speech, and as result, is very troublesome, and perhaps, unconstitutional.
Here is proposed Ordinance 1990:
Points to think about:
Here is proposed Ordinance 1990:
Points to think about:
Under this ordinance, residents will be required to place a "No Solicitation" sign outside of their residence in order to stop any unwanted solicitions. Shouldn't the default be that there is no solicitaion allowed unless a resident has a sign indicating that solicitation is okay or acceptable? I believe I will post a sign saying "No Solicitation", but please visit my commissioner, Jim Ring, who lives on Maplewood Avenue since he is in favor of this ordinance. Do you really want commercial solicitation coming to your door and interrupting your dinner, your relaxation time, your family time etc? Do you really want to allow potential threats into your neighborhood? How many of you have listed your telephone numbers on the federal "Do Not Call" list? Shouldn't we have the option to be placed on that type of list to keep people from coming to your door?
So let's see - now Abington Township is proposing to continue commerical enterprises coming to your doorstep. The Commissioners are considering making commercial transition zones that will come into residential areas within Abington Township. The Commissiors are looking to pass sweeping zoning ordinance changes that would set the stage for future commercialization of our Township. Finally, as I detailed in the beginning of this blog, they have already relaxed the rule of allowing commercial vehicles to be parked in residential neighborhoods. Is this what you as residents want? More commercialization of our neighborhoods and township. I hope not.
Finally, and most distubing is the provision which effectively will limit neighbors from going door-to-door to inform them of things going on in the neighborhood. Below is part 5 of the definition of Canvassers:
5) To conduct any similar work which, by its nature, involves door-to-door orplace-to-place activity, including distribution of circulars but not forcommercial activity of any kind.
For the purposes of section 5 only, a canvasser shall be considered a "solicitor."
However, while numbers 1-4 of the Canvassers definition would be okay, #5 would be classified as a Solicitor, which falls under "Door-to-Door Solicition" which requires a permit.
(a) The term "Door-to-Door Solicitation" when used in this Ordinance shall mean theactivity of going onto the premises of other persons, without prior arrangement withthe owner or occupant of such premises, for the principal purpose of the sale or takingorders for future sale of any type of tangible goods, including, but not limited to,books, magazines, or other periodicals, or to enter into any agreement for theprovision of services, or any combination of the sale of goods or provision ofservices, or the distribution of adverting circulars relating to the sale of goods orprovision of services.
So in order for me or any of you to go to your neighbors to alert them of this or any other ordinance, you would be required first to obtain a permit. Are you kidding me? Sounds absurd, unconstitutional even.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Eminent Domain - Kelo v. City of New London, Part 2
This was taken from an Online Wall Street Journal article on November 11, 2009. Here is the link and below is the article.
Pfizer and Kelo's Ghost Town -
Pfizer bugs out, long after the land grab
The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London stands as one of the worst in recent years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the name of economic development. Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo's land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.'s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut.
The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.
That's especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." So much for that.
Kelo's silver lining has been that it transformed eminent domain from an arcane government power into a major concern of voters who suddenly wonder if their own homes are at risk. According to the Institute for Justice, which represented Susette Kelo, 43 states have since passed laws that place limits and safeguards on eminent domain, giving property owners greater security in their homes. State courts have also held local development projects to a higher standard than what prevailed against the condemned neighborhood in New London.
If there is a lesson from Connecticut's misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth.
Here is another article on the same topic by the NY Times.
Pfizer and Kelo's Ghost Town -
Pfizer bugs out, long after the land grab
The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London stands as one of the worst in recent years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the name of economic development. Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo's land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.'s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut.
The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.
That's especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." So much for that.
Kelo's silver lining has been that it transformed eminent domain from an arcane government power into a major concern of voters who suddenly wonder if their own homes are at risk. According to the Institute for Justice, which represented Susette Kelo, 43 states have since passed laws that place limits and safeguards on eminent domain, giving property owners greater security in their homes. State courts have also held local development projects to a higher standard than what prevailed against the condemned neighborhood in New London.
If there is a lesson from Connecticut's misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth.
Here is another article on the same topic by the NY Times.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Help Defend Private Property Rights - Just Say No to Eminent Domain Theft
Here is very important information regarding another rally in support of defending private property rights in Abington Township from the
The Montgomery County Libertarian Party Meetup Group
The Montgomery County Libertarian Party Meetup Group
Thursday: Defend Private Property at the Abington Commissioners Meeting
Nov 12
Thu 7:00 PM
Location
Abington Township Building
1176 Old York Road
Abington, PA 19001
How to find us "The rally is in front of the mail entrance (behind the building, by the parking lot)."
The battle to prevent the theft of Mrs Patane's property continues. 7 PM on Thursday, November 12th Abington Township Building 1176 Old York Road, Abington PA. Please join a rally prior to the commissioner's meeting. Then, enter the meeting prepared with a 3 minute question/statement. We want as many different perspectives as possible on the issue. At the last meeting, everyone was allowed to speak for 3 minutes. If our group is large, they may decide that non-Abington residents will be silenced. However, we can still approach the microphone, one at a time. This will force them to publicly dismiss each of us on local TV. Millions of dollars of tax money is at stake, so we all have an interest in this.
We have some signs, but feel free to express yourself and bring your own.
This flyer has details about the land grab: Great Flyer
Nov 12
Thu 7:00 PM
Location
Abington Township Building
1176 Old York Road
Abington, PA 19001
How to find us "The rally is in front of the mail entrance (behind the building, by the parking lot)."
The battle to prevent the theft of Mrs Patane's property continues. 7 PM on Thursday, November 12th Abington Township Building 1176 Old York Road, Abington PA. Please join a rally prior to the commissioner's meeting. Then, enter the meeting prepared with a 3 minute question/statement. We want as many different perspectives as possible on the issue. At the last meeting, everyone was allowed to speak for 3 minutes. If our group is large, they may decide that non-Abington residents will be silenced. However, we can still approach the microphone, one at a time. This will force them to publicly dismiss each of us on local TV. Millions of dollars of tax money is at stake, so we all have an interest in this.
We have some signs, but feel free to express yourself and bring your own.
This flyer has details about the land grab: Great Flyer
The Patane's also offered to lease the property to Abington Township for 100 years, but not surprising, Abington Township turned that option down, opting instead to forcibly take the property.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Legal, but Morally Wrong? Are You Kidding Me?
As previously discussed, the Abington Township Commissioners have begun unjustified legal proceedings to seize the property of Elizabeth Patane, an 80-year-old widow, who has made it clear she will fight the taking to the last inch. A rally in support of Mrs. Patane's property rights was held on Saturday, October 17, 2009, featuring a march on the Abington Township building and certain Commissioners who support this action.
There are two videos that capture the rally, Part 1 and Part II. In the spirit full disclosure, I did not attend the rally, although I fully support the efforts of those who did.
Apparently, there was at least one other individual who did not attend the rally, but did watch the online videos. She is Marge Herrmann Sexton, an Abington Township Constable. She wrote on her blog, Unleashed, the following:
Letter in Times Chronicle - When freedom to assemble is abused
Yesterday I had the opportunity to view the YouTube video of the people who picketed certain Abington Commissioners on a recent October Saturday. I had heard about the pickets and was somewhat bemused but didn’t actually think that much of it.
Then yesterday someone suggested watching it. To be honest, the visual impact was horrifying: a group of angry (or joking among themselves about being angry) people shouting insults and threats outside of the homes of local elected officials, some of whom I know, all of whom I know of. For me, this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is a case of watching people who are our neighbors and elected representatives be the targets of hate-filled protest.
I personally know Mr. Krawchuk, who seemed to be the leader. He and I have always had a civil, even friendly rapport. It made me sick to see him happily leading this group of shouting people who were gathered in a menacing fashion outside of people’s homes.
I really do wonder what kind of people would do such a thing. I tried to imagine feeling safely at home and having people shouting, “We have you surrounded!” At other times there were references to guns. I could only imagine what the people in the houses of those streets must have experienced. Did it matter at all that there were other family members inside perhaps frightened children, grandchildren or animals? We know from recent events that those who gather at such places are likely to be pro-gun advocates and may well be carrying them to such protests.
Suddenly our very homes are no longer sacred places if elected officials cannot be at home on a rainy Saturday in their pajamas and feel safe. Neither can their neighbors feel safe from such angry, perhaps gun-toting people. Our country has a history of vigilante groups who assemble and whose anger gathered enough steam to result in loss of life at times and damage to personal property at other times.
The most absurd thing of all their shouting, “Come out here and talk to your constituents!” Who would ever set foot out their door and into the midst of such a hate-filled gathering? I am appalled that local citizens would treat their neighbors in such a menacing fashion. It may be legal to do so, but it certainly is morally wrong. Many things are legal in this country, but that doesn’t make them right.
Boards of Commissioners make many decisions. Over the years of living in Abington I have personally disagreed with many and presume I will continue to do so in the future. But to imagine myself showing up at someone’s home and treating those folks as though they deserve no respect at all is a vile form of human behavior. To stomp around and shout insults and threats shows no dignity, no class and certainly no intelligence.
It would be my hope that it would never work to the advantage of those protestors but would have quite the opposite effect.
Marge Herrmann Sexton
Abington Township Constable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I tried leaving a message on her blog in response to her above posting, but much to my surprise and dismay, she did not allow it to be displayed. Perhaps I shouldn't be all that surprised, given her obvious penchant for stifling of free speech. I on the other hand welcome all opinions, as I think having an open discussion is important.
Here is what I wrote to her in response to her posting:
While the tone of the picketers at times may appear to the non-informed a bit crude, it was nonetheless, non-violent, non-property damaging and I am sure, based in part from the frustration of dealing with the “Cheney-esque” attitude of the Abington Township Commissioners and staff. In fact, about two weeks ago, Burton T. Conway, Township Manager of Abington Township, was interviewed 1210AM-WPHT with Dom Giordano, and displayed such a disdain for the questions being asked and had a "so what" attitude when asked about property rights, alternative buildings, other options, eminent domain, etc. Anyone who knows the background of the underlying issue would certainly see how these picketers felt that they had no other option to make their voices heard. Our country was founded on the back of protest, a-la-the Boston Tea Party, as well as other protests throughout the history of our nation. Free speech, of which, protest if a form of, is a protected right.
One of the homes they picketed was that of Commissioner Jim Ring. Here is an example of a Commissioner who has totally ignored repeated questions regarding zoning ordinance violations and violations of ethics and improper behavior by Abington Township employees. In fact, all of the Commissioners have ignored such inquiries. Why do I say that? Well, you can read about his improper behavior in my prior postings. I am sure the picketers decided to take it to his and other Commissioners doorsteps since he and they have ignored legitimate questions and inquiries regarding the the stealing of Mrs. Patane's property.
Moreover, the uniting issue here is one of Eminent Domain and the taking of a property owned by an 80-year-old woman when other options are available. That is not what I expect from those instilled in running Abington Township, or for that matter, from any other local, state or federal agency. At the monthly Board meetings, the Commissioners limit public comment to three minutes, yet they seem okay with ranting, raving and rambling on far longer when residents question their decisions, considerations or challenge them. The Commissioners sit at these meetings and throw out false accusations and facts and then don’t have the courtesy to acknowledge when they are wrong. For example (this can be seen on a video during a recent meeting), Commissioner Lynott claimed that a resident was doing something he didn’t like, which was talking to residents about the proposed transitional zones, but after he ranted and tossed about false accusations about this individual, another person stepped forward to claim responsibility, yet Commissioner Lynott did not apologize or accept that he was wrong in pointing the finger at another resident.
It is no wonder people have decided to go to certain Commissioner’s homes to make their point. However, I think Marge Herrmann Sexton's stereotypical and rash generalization that picketers are known to carry firearms is absurd and demeans those non-violent picketers/demonstrators who have never brought or even contemplated bringing a gun to a protest, or for that matter, who don’t even own a gun. It is "morally" wrong, to use her word, to take property from someone, as Abington Township is proposing to do, particularly when the owner is not a tax delinquent, there are alternative properties available to purchase, an offer to lease the property to Abington Township was made, and the Commissioner in this Ward is up for re-election and is using this issue to bolster her chances of winning. Under Ms. Sexton's premise, one should worry anytime there is protest because of gun-toting people. Nice try deflecting the real issue by trying to instill unwarranted fear in people who might benefit from learning about the “wrong” and improper actions of our Commissioners and Township. How do you think the property owner and family feels? How about other residents, who now have to worry that because their property may not conform to the likes and whims of the Commmissioners, it can be seized under the veil of eminent domain?
Most importantly and most worrisome is, who is Marge Herrmann Sexton to say that, just because something is legal, it is morally wrong? Why is it morally wrong to protest, because she says it is? I can only imagine how many other legal and common activities that we take for granted and that are legally protected, that Ms. Sexton feels are morally wrong and should be halted. Obviously, the right to exercise free speech is one legal right she would like to limit. Please Ms. Sexton, don’t inflict your misguided “morals” and limitations of free speech on others, and while you are at it, please resign your position as Constable immediately. How many other legal rights does Ms. Sexton feel are wrong to pursue? Is she going push for censoring books, movies, and other forms of free speech when she disagrees with them? What makes you the arbiter of right and wrong when something is legally protected?
There are two videos that capture the rally, Part 1 and Part II. In the spirit full disclosure, I did not attend the rally, although I fully support the efforts of those who did.
Apparently, there was at least one other individual who did not attend the rally, but did watch the online videos. She is Marge Herrmann Sexton, an Abington Township Constable. She wrote on her blog, Unleashed, the following:
Letter in Times Chronicle - When freedom to assemble is abused
Yesterday I had the opportunity to view the YouTube video of the people who picketed certain Abington Commissioners on a recent October Saturday. I had heard about the pickets and was somewhat bemused but didn’t actually think that much of it.
Then yesterday someone suggested watching it. To be honest, the visual impact was horrifying: a group of angry (or joking among themselves about being angry) people shouting insults and threats outside of the homes of local elected officials, some of whom I know, all of whom I know of. For me, this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is a case of watching people who are our neighbors and elected representatives be the targets of hate-filled protest.
I personally know Mr. Krawchuk, who seemed to be the leader. He and I have always had a civil, even friendly rapport. It made me sick to see him happily leading this group of shouting people who were gathered in a menacing fashion outside of people’s homes.
I really do wonder what kind of people would do such a thing. I tried to imagine feeling safely at home and having people shouting, “We have you surrounded!” At other times there were references to guns. I could only imagine what the people in the houses of those streets must have experienced. Did it matter at all that there were other family members inside perhaps frightened children, grandchildren or animals? We know from recent events that those who gather at such places are likely to be pro-gun advocates and may well be carrying them to such protests.
Suddenly our very homes are no longer sacred places if elected officials cannot be at home on a rainy Saturday in their pajamas and feel safe. Neither can their neighbors feel safe from such angry, perhaps gun-toting people. Our country has a history of vigilante groups who assemble and whose anger gathered enough steam to result in loss of life at times and damage to personal property at other times.
The most absurd thing of all their shouting, “Come out here and talk to your constituents!” Who would ever set foot out their door and into the midst of such a hate-filled gathering? I am appalled that local citizens would treat their neighbors in such a menacing fashion. It may be legal to do so, but it certainly is morally wrong. Many things are legal in this country, but that doesn’t make them right.
Boards of Commissioners make many decisions. Over the years of living in Abington I have personally disagreed with many and presume I will continue to do so in the future. But to imagine myself showing up at someone’s home and treating those folks as though they deserve no respect at all is a vile form of human behavior. To stomp around and shout insults and threats shows no dignity, no class and certainly no intelligence.
It would be my hope that it would never work to the advantage of those protestors but would have quite the opposite effect.
Marge Herrmann Sexton
Abington Township Constable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I tried leaving a message on her blog in response to her above posting, but much to my surprise and dismay, she did not allow it to be displayed. Perhaps I shouldn't be all that surprised, given her obvious penchant for stifling of free speech. I on the other hand welcome all opinions, as I think having an open discussion is important.
Here is what I wrote to her in response to her posting:
While the tone of the picketers at times may appear to the non-informed a bit crude, it was nonetheless, non-violent, non-property damaging and I am sure, based in part from the frustration of dealing with the “Cheney-esque” attitude of the Abington Township Commissioners and staff. In fact, about two weeks ago, Burton T. Conway, Township Manager of Abington Township, was interviewed 1210AM-WPHT with Dom Giordano, and displayed such a disdain for the questions being asked and had a "so what" attitude when asked about property rights, alternative buildings, other options, eminent domain, etc. Anyone who knows the background of the underlying issue would certainly see how these picketers felt that they had no other option to make their voices heard. Our country was founded on the back of protest, a-la-the Boston Tea Party, as well as other protests throughout the history of our nation. Free speech, of which, protest if a form of, is a protected right.
One of the homes they picketed was that of Commissioner Jim Ring. Here is an example of a Commissioner who has totally ignored repeated questions regarding zoning ordinance violations and violations of ethics and improper behavior by Abington Township employees. In fact, all of the Commissioners have ignored such inquiries. Why do I say that? Well, you can read about his improper behavior in my prior postings. I am sure the picketers decided to take it to his and other Commissioners doorsteps since he and they have ignored legitimate questions and inquiries regarding the the stealing of Mrs. Patane's property.
Moreover, the uniting issue here is one of Eminent Domain and the taking of a property owned by an 80-year-old woman when other options are available. That is not what I expect from those instilled in running Abington Township, or for that matter, from any other local, state or federal agency. At the monthly Board meetings, the Commissioners limit public comment to three minutes, yet they seem okay with ranting, raving and rambling on far longer when residents question their decisions, considerations or challenge them. The Commissioners sit at these meetings and throw out false accusations and facts and then don’t have the courtesy to acknowledge when they are wrong. For example (this can be seen on a video during a recent meeting), Commissioner Lynott claimed that a resident was doing something he didn’t like, which was talking to residents about the proposed transitional zones, but after he ranted and tossed about false accusations about this individual, another person stepped forward to claim responsibility, yet Commissioner Lynott did not apologize or accept that he was wrong in pointing the finger at another resident.
It is no wonder people have decided to go to certain Commissioner’s homes to make their point. However, I think Marge Herrmann Sexton's stereotypical and rash generalization that picketers are known to carry firearms is absurd and demeans those non-violent picketers/demonstrators who have never brought or even contemplated bringing a gun to a protest, or for that matter, who don’t even own a gun. It is "morally" wrong, to use her word, to take property from someone, as Abington Township is proposing to do, particularly when the owner is not a tax delinquent, there are alternative properties available to purchase, an offer to lease the property to Abington Township was made, and the Commissioner in this Ward is up for re-election and is using this issue to bolster her chances of winning. Under Ms. Sexton's premise, one should worry anytime there is protest because of gun-toting people. Nice try deflecting the real issue by trying to instill unwarranted fear in people who might benefit from learning about the “wrong” and improper actions of our Commissioners and Township. How do you think the property owner and family feels? How about other residents, who now have to worry that because their property may not conform to the likes and whims of the Commmissioners, it can be seized under the veil of eminent domain?
Most importantly and most worrisome is, who is Marge Herrmann Sexton to say that, just because something is legal, it is morally wrong? Why is it morally wrong to protest, because she says it is? I can only imagine how many other legal and common activities that we take for granted and that are legally protected, that Ms. Sexton feels are morally wrong and should be halted. Obviously, the right to exercise free speech is one legal right she would like to limit. Please Ms. Sexton, don’t inflict your misguided “morals” and limitations of free speech on others, and while you are at it, please resign your position as Constable immediately. How many other legal rights does Ms. Sexton feel are wrong to pursue? Is she going push for censoring books, movies, and other forms of free speech when she disagrees with them? What makes you the arbiter of right and wrong when something is legally protected?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Voting & Ward 10
It is that time again to cast your vote for certain Abington Township Commissioners, in particular Ward 10. As you know, Abington Township is strongly considering sweeping changes to the Zoning Ordinance, particularly as it relates to the relaxing of the barriers between residential and commercial zones. One of the proposed re-writes of the Zoning Code includes transitional zones whereby rather than having clear cut residential areas and commercial zones, the new zoning ordinances would allow commercial infiltration into residential areas. Who among you would like to have a commercial establishment next door? Even if that possibility doesn't affect you, the possibility of that ever occuring in Abington Township should be of some concern. Is that what you, as homeowners, want?
The Commisoners have downplayed this by saying nothing has passed yet. However, the Zoning Commission seems to be spending a lot of time in their meetings whereby this topic encompasses the bulk of their discussion, including outlining which areas within the Township will have transition zones. The Commissioners also like deflect any comments or challeneges by ranting and raving about all the misinformation surrounding this and other similar issues, yet they have not proactively attemtped to assuage the concerns of residents by being open or forthcoming when questioned (in fact, they are very defensive) or sending out any type of information to residents. They feign an attempt of transparency by saying meetings are open to the public, but few residents know about these meetings, few have time to attend them (for example, the Zoning Re-Write Commission meets at 5:30), they get cancelled or moved with little or no notice, the minutes from these meetings take too long to be posted online, and the minutes to the Zoning Committee meetings are not available (online).
Yet, the Commissioners are tired of all the misinformation. Really? Why not do something about it? If the Commissioners are so tired of the misinformation, how about stop complaining and whinning about it and instead have each Commisioner send a mailing to their constituents??? How about asking each resident if they want to be on an email distribution list? Unfortunately for Ward 10, Jim Ring would rather ignore questions by residents.
Based on what I detailed in earlier posts, it appears that Jim Ring, Ward 10 Commissioner, is okay with relaxing the standards of our residential areas by allowing commercial vehicles to be parked in our neighborhood even though there is currently a Zoning Ordinance which clearly prohibits it. Jim Ring also supports the use of eminent domain to take a building from a private citizen even though there are other buildings available. Do not be fooled that they are offering fair market value to the owner of this property, because that is not true. Fair market value is a price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept for a property under reasonable and ordinary conditions. This definition assumes that neither the buyer nor seller is under any pressure to complete the transaction. In an eminent domain case, the seller is not willing and therefore, the amount being offered is not fair market value.
Most importantly, during the ordeal detailed in earlier posts, Jim Ring ignored inquiries into a commerical vehicle parking violation, even in the face of Township emplooyees giving preferential treatment and not responding to inquiries. I do not think that a Commissioner or employee under any circumstance should ignore questions by any Abington Township resident. It is bad enough that he appears to be playing favorites among residents and threatening the value of homes by allowing commerical vehicles into our neighborhoods, but to ignore legitimate questions and inquiries into Township issues is inexcusable. Toss in the consideration for re-writing the Zoning Ordinance to allow for more commericalization of our Township, and you see where is going.
Please think hard before supporting Jim Ring and the other Commissioners who have been party to this behavior. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE!!!
The Commisoners have downplayed this by saying nothing has passed yet. However, the Zoning Commission seems to be spending a lot of time in their meetings whereby this topic encompasses the bulk of their discussion, including outlining which areas within the Township will have transition zones. The Commissioners also like deflect any comments or challeneges by ranting and raving about all the misinformation surrounding this and other similar issues, yet they have not proactively attemtped to assuage the concerns of residents by being open or forthcoming when questioned (in fact, they are very defensive) or sending out any type of information to residents. They feign an attempt of transparency by saying meetings are open to the public, but few residents know about these meetings, few have time to attend them (for example, the Zoning Re-Write Commission meets at 5:30), they get cancelled or moved with little or no notice, the minutes from these meetings take too long to be posted online, and the minutes to the Zoning Committee meetings are not available (online).
Yet, the Commissioners are tired of all the misinformation. Really? Why not do something about it? If the Commissioners are so tired of the misinformation, how about stop complaining and whinning about it and instead have each Commisioner send a mailing to their constituents??? How about asking each resident if they want to be on an email distribution list? Unfortunately for Ward 10, Jim Ring would rather ignore questions by residents.
Based on what I detailed in earlier posts, it appears that Jim Ring, Ward 10 Commissioner, is okay with relaxing the standards of our residential areas by allowing commercial vehicles to be parked in our neighborhood even though there is currently a Zoning Ordinance which clearly prohibits it. Jim Ring also supports the use of eminent domain to take a building from a private citizen even though there are other buildings available. Do not be fooled that they are offering fair market value to the owner of this property, because that is not true. Fair market value is a price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept for a property under reasonable and ordinary conditions. This definition assumes that neither the buyer nor seller is under any pressure to complete the transaction. In an eminent domain case, the seller is not willing and therefore, the amount being offered is not fair market value.
Most importantly, during the ordeal detailed in earlier posts, Jim Ring ignored inquiries into a commerical vehicle parking violation, even in the face of Township emplooyees giving preferential treatment and not responding to inquiries. I do not think that a Commissioner or employee under any circumstance should ignore questions by any Abington Township resident. It is bad enough that he appears to be playing favorites among residents and threatening the value of homes by allowing commerical vehicles into our neighborhoods, but to ignore legitimate questions and inquiries into Township issues is inexcusable. Toss in the consideration for re-writing the Zoning Ordinance to allow for more commericalization of our Township, and you see where is going.
Please think hard before supporting Jim Ring and the other Commissioners who have been party to this behavior. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE!!!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Eminent Domain & Property Rights of an 80-Year-Old Widow
The Abington Township Commissioners have begun unjustified legal proceedings to seize the property of Elizabeth Patane, an 80-year-old widow, who has made it clear she will fight the taking to the last inch. A rally in support of Mrs. Patane's property rights was held on Saturday, October 17, 2009, featuring a march on the Abington Township building. (www.tinyurl.com/TheStolenProperty).
According to official minutes posted at http://www.abington.org/, by using eminent domain, the Abington Commissioners voted in February to seize Mrs. Patane's storefront property for use as a neighborhood library, even though the main township library is approximately one mile away and no other neighborhood has its own library. Further, there was another building already for sale across the street from Mrs. Patane's property which could have been purchased instead, and without litigation. Township officials have admitted that Mrs. Patane's taxes were current and that there were no code violations or safety concerns. Still, Commissioner Peacock is on record saying, "Taking it is the right thing to do." Initial outlays for the Patane property are anticipated to be almost $2 million (not counting litigation), but the Abington Commissioners have stated on record that they cannot say what the final cost might be, and that there is no fixed dollar amount or cost estimate for the project, nor any guarantee of success. The last high-profile taking in Abington ended up costing almost three times the property's value due to costs of litigation. In Coatesville, $7 million was squandered before the town finally admitted defeat.
Here is what another concerned citizen has to say. Also, here is another person has to say about Eminent Domain.
According to official minutes posted at http://www.abington.org/, by using eminent domain, the Abington Commissioners voted in February to seize Mrs. Patane's storefront property for use as a neighborhood library, even though the main township library is approximately one mile away and no other neighborhood has its own library. Further, there was another building already for sale across the street from Mrs. Patane's property which could have been purchased instead, and without litigation. Township officials have admitted that Mrs. Patane's taxes were current and that there were no code violations or safety concerns. Still, Commissioner Peacock is on record saying, "Taking it is the right thing to do." Initial outlays for the Patane property are anticipated to be almost $2 million (not counting litigation), but the Abington Commissioners have stated on record that they cannot say what the final cost might be, and that there is no fixed dollar amount or cost estimate for the project, nor any guarantee of success. The last high-profile taking in Abington ended up costing almost three times the property's value due to costs of litigation. In Coatesville, $7 million was squandered before the town finally admitted defeat.
Here is what another concerned citizen has to say. Also, here is another person has to say about Eminent Domain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
