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:

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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!!!

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.

The Memo Fallacy and Precedence

While I addressed Larry Matteo's Memo in the Dear Residents letter, I believe it is worth repeating a few observations, as well as share a new observation.

To reiterate my prior response regarding Larry Matteo's claim that his office had been inundated with anonymous emails regarding commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods, the Memo was the first and only time he has ever acknowledged that he received any emails/inquiries into this Zoning violation. I did send more than one email to Larry Matteo regarding this issue. The first couple of emails were simple inquiries as to whether the initial vehicle was permitted pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance and why, when the initial resident called to inquire about the same, she was met with the indefensible and improper questioning by James Salanik. As Larry Matteo choose not to respond and our questions went unanswered, new questions arose, yet Larry Matteo never once answered these legitimate questions submitted to his Abington Township email address by a tax paying resident. He did not even take the time to even reply with a "no comment" or "please call to discuss". Instead he ignored every email sent to him and then turned around and pointed a finger at me for asking legitimate questions, as if I did something wrong or crazy.

Moreover, the emails he attached to his Memo did not indicate that the Township Manager had sent me an email stating that a letter had been sent to the owner of the vehicle to either park his vehicle in a proper structure or remove it which is exactly what the below Ordinance says must be done. In addition, Larry Matteo failed to share a similar email from Carol DiJoseph, the President of Board of Commissioners, in which she too wrote that a similar letter had been sent. If two letters were sent (two months apart) directing the owners to either park their commercial vehicles in an approve structure or remove them, how can Larry Matteo say these vehicles conform to the Ordinance? Why did it take over fours or five months to come to this conclusion after two letter were sent saying otherwise? Sounds like a rationalization of preferential treatment, doesn't it.

In the Memo, Larry Matteo says that "these vehicles" are not in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. However, I don't see where in the Zoning Ordinance that is says that owners with vehicles that contain business advertisements are permitted to "cover" the business advertisements. Again, here is the Zoning Ordinance:

"Commercial vehicles less than twenty-five (25) feet in length are not permitted to contain business advertisement unless parked in approved structures".

The ordinance does not say that vehicles may not "display" business advertisements, it states that vehicles "...are not permitted to "CONTAIN" business advertisements, unless parked in approved structures". More importantly, it DOES NOT state that vehicles are not permitted to CONTAIN business advertisements, unless covered. Display and contain are two distinctly different concepts, as is "approved structures" and "covering". More importantly, the Ordinance is a conditional ordinance. In other words, the conditional word is "unless", and the condition is that a vehicle that contains business advertisements is not permitted unless it is parked in approved structures. The mere fact that the business advertisements are covered does not meet the mandate and condition that they be parked in approved structures.

In addition, if this is allowed by the ordinance, then Larry Matteo would not have needed to qualify his position by saying "Both vehicle owners do cover-up the commercial advertising, which is permitted pursuant to the suggestion of our Township Solicitor". The suggestion???? Why does the Township Solicitor need to suggest to cover these vehicles? Does he not understand the conditional nature of this Ordinance, or that this Ordinance has been actively enforced up until the time that a "long-time" resident parks his commercial vehicles in a residential neighborhood?

As you know, this is a Zoning issue. When one wants to build or improve their property outside the scope of the Zoning Ordinance, a resident must apply for a variance, and neighbors are notified and given an opportunity to voice any concerns and objections to the variance application. It appears that a "VARIANCE" was granted in this instance without any such notification. Whether the Township realizes it or not, or whether they care to admit it, they have now established a precedent for obtaining a variance without the required notification of neighbors.

Township finalizing Old York Road study

Township finalizing Old York Road study
Published: Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Source - Montgomery News

By Kaitlyn Foti
Staff Writer

Abington is working on a facelift for the Old York Road corridor that could have a lasting impact on the rest of the township.

The township public affairs committee will be making a presentation at its Wednesday night meeting on the finalized Abington Township Old York Road Corridor Improvement Study.

The study, which has been going on for about a year, received half of its funding by a grant from the state. The other half was paid for by the township. Along with possibilities for better pedestrian walkways and creating more green space, the study details possible areas for planned redevelopment along the Abington section of the 611 corridor.

“As a township, we are 98 percent developed. We have to look at redeveloping and retrofitting our commercial districts to make them more viable. We’re trying to optimize what is already here,” said Township Manager Tom Conway.

According to Commissioner Steven Kline, chairman of the committee currently rewriting the comprehensive zoning plan, the focus for future redevelopment is mixed-use zoning. This would allow commercial districts to include residential housing.

“There’s a positive affect if you combine these things. When you have them in two separate places, it adds traffic as people drive from the residential areas to the commercial districts. We could reduce traffic, or at least not create additional traffic, with the combined use of these areas,” Kline said.

The improvement study homes in on four nodes — commercial areas that are viable for redevelopment— along Old York Road. The most prominent area for possible redevelopment is The Fairway. The commercial district surrounding Noble train station embodies the hopes of township officials to revitalize areas, simultaneously adding viability and green space.

Along The Fairway, there are plans for the age-restricted community Rydal Park to add independent cottages, with green trails leading to the stores, businesses and Noble Station. Kline’s committee is considering zoning adjustments that would aid developers in making additional age-restricted housing above and around this and other commercial districts.

“One of the biggest population shifts in the last census is the 55 and older age group. That demographic has dropped the greatest amount because there are not a lot of options for downsizing, to live somewhere that doesn’t need as much upkeep,” Kline said.Other areas that have been noted as priorities in the illustrative plans in the corridor improvement study include London Center, where the Target and Giant are currently located, and the intersection of Susquehanna and Old York roads.

“Susquehanna Road at that intersection is not a straight line; it veers off a little because of the cemetery on one side and buildings on the other. It’s unsightly and it’s dangerous,” said Carol DiJoseph, president of the board of commissioners.

The finalization of the study comes at an advantageous time for the committee that is rewriting the zoning ordinance, which hasn’t been updated since 1996.“Rewriting the zoning ordinance is something that would have to be done. We’re really lucky that this study happened at the same time, because it’s aiding other decisions that we will make while writing the ordinance,” said Larry Matteo, director of code enforcement.

Kline’s committee is using the corridor study to consider making similar zoning allowances for Easton Road, Township Line Road and Keswick Village. Working on the ordinance is an ongoing process. According to Kline, instead of introducing changes to the board of commissioners in a piecemeal fashion, they are waiting until all considerations have been made to introduce a comprehensive plan.

“We’re trying to create a vision. When developers come to us and ask what we have in mind for the township, we can answer them. We have to have a vision,” said DiJoseph.

The Abington Township Old York Road Corridor Improvement Study will be presented June 3 at the public affairs meeting at 7:30 p.m. at the Abington Township Municipal Building, 1176 Old York Road, Abington, and again at a town meeting July 8 at Abington Senior High School. There is no set schedule for the presentation of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.


Comments

Coming Soon...

Zoning Code Re-Writes

Old York Road Corridor Study

Board Meetings & "Misinformation"

Accountability - Improper Tax Bill

Switching topics for a moment. As many of you know, Abington Township residents were given the option to downsize their trash/recyclable bins last year. If you selected a smaller trash can like I and many other residents did, your refuse portion of your tax bill should have been reduced by an amount commensurate with the reduction in size.

However, when my tax bill arrived this spring, I was still being billed as if I still had the larger trash can. I called Abington Township to inquire about this and the Abington Township staff person acknowledged the mistake. More importantly, they acknowledged that most of the residents who downsized their trash cans were also likely being over-billed on their taxes. I was told that there was some sort of problem with recording who opted to receive smaller trash cans. I would be willing to bet that most residents paid the amount reflected on their tax bill without checking whether the refuse portion had been appropriately updated.

One would think that since Abington Township was aware of this problem that they would have notified the residents that their tax bills may be in error. Shouldn't Abington Township accept the responsibility of their errors and pro-actively make residents aware that some sort of problem exists in the township records of who selected to downsize their trash container?

Yes, in the grand scheme of things, this is a minor thing, but it does point to a bigger picture and problems.

WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?

Exhibit 3 - Letter to the Commissioners

This is a letter that was mailed to each of the Abington Township Board of Commissioners. To date, not one has responded. The attachments referenced below are the same as those previoulsy referenced in the Memo and posted at Exhibits A, B, C and that were included in the "Dear Residents" letter.

Dear Board of Commissioners:

In response to the attached Memo (the “Memo”) from Larry Matteo dated March 30, 2009, I believe it is imperative to provide to the Board of Commissioners (“Commissioners”) the proper context and a complete accounting of the course of events which preceded the Memo, since I am sure that many of you were not afforded that consideration. Accordingly, attached is a copy of a letter (Dear Residents), including attachments, recently sent to all the Residents in response to the Memo in order to present the facts of the unfortunate “handling” (or more appropriately, mishandling) of a simple inquiry of a clear Zoning Ordinance violation. I implore you to read and reflect upon it with an open mind and impartiality. Please do not assume that just because Larry Matteo says that the vehicles in question are in compliance that it is so. How many of you have read the actual Zoning Ordinance in question that clearly states what commercial vehicle owners must do with their commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods? I have attached the Code (Attachment A, #6) for your review. After reading the attached, there are two issues that I would like for you to consider: 1) the question of whether or not there is a Zoning Ordinance violation, and 2) the handling/mishandling of the initial and subsequent inquiries into a possible Zoning Ordinance violation, the arbitrary and capricious application of the Zoning Ordinance, and the preferential treatment provided by certain Township staff. I trust that at least a few will be surprised and disappointed by the mishandling of the initial inquiry and the non-response by the staff, as well as agree that there is no legal basis or foundation for the Solicitor’s suggestion to cover the vehicles, given the actual Code and the letters sent to vehicle owners.

Moreover, I hope that after reading the entire account the Commissioners will consider, look into and take action to correct both the Zoning Ordinance violations and the inappropriate conduct by of the Township staff. If not, I am afraid I will have no choice but to forward the attached materials to the Philadelphia Inquirer and other local papers and let them investigate and present an account of the facts and circumstances surrounding Abington Township’s failure to enforce its Zoning Ordinance, the preferential treatment provided to select residents by certain Township staff, including ignoring legitimate inquiries by residents, and the subsequent condoning of such actions by the Commissioners. In addition, as a long-time resident, I know many residents in nearly every Ward and have begun contacting them regarding these issues and they have pledged their support to contact other residents and their Commissioners if needed in order to get some accountability. Moreover, as a sanity check, I presented the situation to a group of neutral individuals from many different backgrounds, including the legal profession. I took the position of a commercial vehicle owner to plead a case for allowing the vehicles and gave each a copy of the Code. While many thought covering was a creative solution, they found that given the wording of the Code, specifically the clause “not permitted unless parked in an approved structure”, compels the owner (and the Township to uphold and enforce) to either park the vehicles in an approved structure or remove them. A couple said that even though the ads are now covered, the vehicles still “contain” business ads. If the Code said, “are not permitted to display business ads”, covering might be deemed permissible. Most importantly, the removal of the phrase “unless stored in an approved structure” would at least give room for other alternatives.

Can you honestly say that the spirit of the Memo’s “not permitted unless covered” is equivalent to the Code’s “not permitted unless parked in an approved structure”? Can someone please explain the Solicitor’s “interpretation”? I am confident that a court will have no trouble interpreting the Code and discerning a clear, distinct and actionable difference between these phrases. The original caller/inquirer and I are prepared to seek relief via a Mandamus action, if necessary. However, at the suggestion of legal counsel, I am first appealing to the Commissioners before taking any action, since these issues/actions should be of concern to each one of you as Commissioners and as residents of the Township. Accordingly, I hope the Board, which I believe is comprised of intelligent and ethical individuals, will quickly rectify the gross misapplication of the Code and conduct of certain staff members.

Exhibits A, B, C for the "Dear Resident" Letter

Below are Exhibits A, B, C for the "Dear Resident" Letter. You can click on each one for a larger, more readable version.

EXHIBIT A - COPY OF ZONING ORDINANCE

EXHIBIT B - EMAIL FROM COMMISSIONER CAROL DIJOSEPH IN WHICH SHE STATES A LETTER WAS SENT TO ENFORCE THE CODE

EXHIBIT C - EMAIL FROM TOWNSHIP MANAGER STATING A LETTER WAS SENT ENFORCING THE CODE

Exhibit 2 - Dear Residents

This is the letter I sent to the same group of Lycoming Avenue residents (that received Larry Matteo's Memo), in response to Larry Matteo's Memo, in order to present a full account of the events that took place, including the continued non-response by Larry Matteo regarding legitimate code enforcement questions. James Salanik is an Abington Township staff member who works with Larry Matteo in Property Management and Code Enforcement.

Dear Residents:

After reading Larry Matteo’s Memo dated March 30, 2009 (the “Memo”), which presented a gross misrepresentation and omission of the facts, I felt compelled to respond so that you may have a complete picture with which to make a reasonable and informed opinion. Although this all started out as a simple inquiry into a possible Zoning Ordinance violation, the inappropriate response and mishandling of the inquiry by certain officials of Abington Township (the “Township”) has unfortunately turned this into something quite different. I apologize for the length of this letter, but unlike the Memo, I wanted to start from the beginning and provide to each of you all the facts, including the actual Zoning Ordinance, so that you can judge for yourself whether the initial vehicle in question (or subsequent vehicles) conforms to the Zoning Ordinance, whether any real or perceived preferential treatment was afforded, and whether this situation has been handled in an appropriate, fair and professional manner representative of government officials.

Below is a summary of the events and facts:

1. As you may know, a neighbor moved into the Overlook neighborhood last fall and along with his personal vehicle, he also had a commercial vehicle.
   
   
2. He initially parked the commercial vehicle on the street.
   
   
3. Another resident (not me) called the Township to inquire about the permissibility of parking this commercial vehicle in a residential neighborhood per the Township’s Zoning Ordinance.
   
   
4. Township Zoning Ordinance - Section 301.4 (the “Code”) (see Attachment A) states the following in #5 and #6 below, of which #6 is relevant to this situation:
   
   
5. "Commercial and recreational vehicles and boats greater than twenty-five (25) feet in length are not permitted to be parked or stored in residential districts, except in approved structures. Trucks, tractors, trailers, and flat beds more than eighteen (IS) feet in length, eighty (SO) inches in width, or more than 8,200 pounds in gross vehicle weight shall not be permitted".
   
   
6. "Commercial vehicles less than twenty-five (25) feet in length are not permitted to contain business advertisement unless parked in approved structures".
   
   
7. The Memo suggests that the vehicles in question conform to the permitted size and scope contained in the Zoning Ordinance and that James Salanik removed any oversized vehicles. However, the resident’s inquiry had nothing to do with size of the vehicle. Item #6 above says that vehicles less than 25 feet are not permitted to contain business advertisements. The issue of (or restriction due to) size is addressed above in #5 of the Code, which is not relevant in this case. Again, the inquiry had nothing to do with the legality or conformity of any vehicles’ size. Instead, the issue is business advertisements, which is addressed in #6 above, and which undeniably says that if vehicles less than 25 feet in length contain business advertisements, as the vehicle(s) in question clearly does (do), then it must be parked in approved structures (or removed if not parked in structures). More on this issue to follow.
   
   
8. After some time had passed and the commercial vehicle was still parked on the street, the resident again called the Township and spoke with James Salanik. James Salanik told the resident that “the only thing wrong with this vehicle was the writing since it was not in violation due to its size”. Only thing!? The business advertisement was the sole reason (or “scope”, to use Larry Matteo’s word) for the inquiry. Moreover, commercial writing is the fundamental scope of #6 of Section 301.4 of the Code. I am not sure how much more clear the following words can be “…are not permitted to contain business advertisement unless parked in approved structures.” By James Salanik’s own admission to this resident, the writing was in violation. He clearly said to the resident that the writing was “the only thing wrong”. Imagine if a neighbor built an addition onto his home and the Township said the addition was up to Code except the “only” thing wrong was that it is over the property line, but let’s not enforce that “only” problem.
   
   
9. After the resident asked for my counsel and help, I wrote to the Township explaining the above and asked among other things the following - Is it standard procedure to enforce just part of a particular item contained in the Township Zoning Ordinance? For example, as James Salanik pointed out, the vehicle is legal in terms of its size; it is just the writing that is in violation, so let’s just ignore it?
   
   
10. During the same telephone conversation, James Salanik then asked the resident - "do you know who this person is", to which the resident responded “no”. James Salanik proceeded to explain to the resident that this individual was raised in and grew up in this neighborhood, a long-time resident, etc”. The resident was dumbfounded by this line of questioning, reasoning/explanation and seemingly preferential treatment by James Salanik. The resident’s reply should have been what I asked in one of my emails to the Township, which was - Since when does the length of residency give one the right to be above the Zoning Ordinance or receive preferential treatment at the expense of other residents? I ask all of you, whether you care about this issue or not, does this seem fair or ethical? Many of you are also long-time residents of the Township. In fact, I would reckon that many of you have been residents a lot longer than this individual has been alive. Does that entitle any of you to preferential consideration in Zoning Ordinance related matters? I surely hope not. One thing is indisputable. James Salanik’s questions (and deference) regarding the owner of this vehicle were inappropriate and indefensible.
    
    
11. There is an old saying that goes – “It is not what you know, but who you know, that matters”. In this case, a variant of that saying may be more appropriate, which is – “it is not who you know, but who knows you, that matters”.
    
    
12. The resident contacted me after the telephone conversation with James Salanik seeking my counsel, assistance, and advice. I began by sending an email to inquire as to the status of this situation. Every attempt to contact the Township officials went unanswered. More on this below in #15.
    
    
13. James Salanik’s response to the resident’s inquiry is troubling on two counts. First, his response demonstrates an arbitrary and capricious application and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. He and the Township have an obligation to uphold and enforce the Zoning Ordinance consistently and without regard to who is in violation. If this poses a problem, then he or others need to recuse themselves. Second, it would appear by James Salanik’s questioning of whether the resident knew whom this person was, that preferential consideration was afforded to the owner of this vehicle, which is alarming, unfair and unethical. Whether this preferential treatment is real or perceived is irrelevant. Perception is often as important as reality. There should not be any perception of preferential treatment or consideration under any circumstances. I hope that you as taxpayers expect more from those instilled in running our Township. We have all read or heard about the preferential dealings and treatment afforded others in the City of Philadelphia scandals.
    
    
14. James Salanik apparently thought the solution was to have the commercial vehicle moved from the street to the driveway, which was neither a solution nor an option per #6 of the Code. In fact, he told the resident during their conversation that he was going to stop by, talk to this individual and have them move the vehicle into the driveway. The suggestion of a visit appears a little out of the ordinary, especially since James Salanik has never responded to any inquiries by me. As cited above, the Code clearly states that vehicles with commercial advertisements are “not permitted unless parked in approved structures”. Driveways are not structures. Items #3 through #7 of Section 301.4 (See Attachment A) were enacted for a reason, specifically to maintain residential aesthetics and the amenity of the Township.
    
    
15. I tried contacting James Salanik, Larry Matteo, and James Ring (our Board of Commissioner for Ward 10) a number of times to no avail. When Larry Matteo says in his Memo that their office was inundated with anonymous emails, it is because they refused to respond to or acknowledge any of my legitimate email inquiries! I chose to send emails because I find it quicker than regular mail and an effective means to document a situation such as this. The Township website gives both telephone numbers and email addresses as way of contacting our Township officials. Perhaps I wrongly assumed that if one gives their email address, it is meant to be used and that one can expect a response. Why post both a telephone number and email address if you are not going to have the courtesy to respond? Isn’t that part of what Township officials are paid to do, respond to resident inquiries? I find the Memo very disingenuous when it says the Township office was inundated by emails. Had any of the individuals I emailed just once answered, responded to or even acknowledge the receipt of my correspondences, I am sure this issue could have been resolved more quickly. Instead, James Salanik, Larry Matteo, and James Ring choose to ignore repeated, legitimate questions and concerns regarding the Township’s Zoning Ordinance. The Township has adopted the Pennsylvania Right-To-Know Law regarding access to public records. The fact that my questions, whether anonymous or not (which is permitted under this law) go unanswered, is outrageous.
    
    
16. I then reached out via email to Carol DiJoseph, President of the Board of Commissioners. She immediately responded to my email and indicated that she would look into this matter. Shortly thereafter, Carol DiJoseph let me know that a letter was sent on January 7 to the owner of the vehicle and Carol DiJoseph stated that the letter said “He had until January 19 to either move the vehicle into a structure or get it out of the neighborhood.” [Please see Attachment B] When January 19 came and went, the vehicle was still in the driveway. I again wrote to Carol DiJoseph and Larry Matteo indicating that not only is this individual in violation of the Code but now he is also in violation of the letter of January 7 that Carol DiJospeh said was sent giving the owner the option to remove the vehicle or park it in a structure. I asked in that email why the directive of the January 7 letter had not been upheld and enforced. No answer.
    
    
17. Instead, the owner decided to cover the business advertisement with some sort of removable magnet coverings. In my email to Carol DiJoseph and Larry Matteo, I applauded his creativity, but said that I do not see anywhere in the Code where it gives one the alternative to cover the business advertisements on vehicles. This move was designed to circumvent the Code, as well as ignore the letter of January 7, which stated to either park the vehicle in a structure or remove it. Neither the Code nor the letter of January 7 makes any reference to covering the commercial advertisements as an option. The Code is quite clear that vehicles less than 25 feet in length are not permitted to contain commercial writing. If instead the Code said vehicles are not permitted to “display” business advertisements, then covering the business advertisements would seem to be a reasonable and permissible option. However, the Code says “contain” and stipulates what an owner must do with the vehicle if it “contains” writing. This may seem like a subtle difference, but it is a legally valid difference. Alternatively, if #6 did not include “…unless parked in approved structure”, I could also see maybe choosing to covering, but instead the Code directs what residents must do.
    
    
18. While I am not a contractor or one who owns a commercial vehicle, I do know of other people in the Township who were directed to either park their commercial vehicles in approved structures or forced to remove them. There is not an option in #6 of Section 301.4 of the Code to cover the commercial writing because if there were, I am sure that the Township would then have to address in its Zoning Ordinance what constitutes appropriate covering. The bottom line is that even if you put lipstick (covering the commercial writing) on a pig (the commercial vehicle), it is still a pig (commercial vehicle). Is the Township now going to go back to all those previously forced to remove their vehicles and let them know they can bring back their vehicles as long as they cover the writing?
    
    
19. I again contacted Ms. DiJoseph to inform her of the covering tactic and she said she was going to forward my email on to the appropriate people. After that email, she no longer responded to any further follow-up emails. I suspect those “appropriate” people were Larry Matteo and James Salanik, and maybe Jim Ring.
    
    
20. On February 15, 2009, I sent via regular mail, letters to
    Larry Matteo, James Ring and Tom Conway (Township Manager) which detailed many of the same points contained in this letter. Included with the Memo, Larry Matteo attached an email that was sent to Tom Conway by me. Not surprisingly, Larry Matteo did not send to you a key email from Tom Conway to me, dated March 24 (see Attachment C). As you will see, as recently as March 24 (six days before the Memo), Tom Conway indicated to me that a letter similar to the one sent on January 7 (see Attachment B email from Carol DiJoseph stating a letter was sent) was also sent to the owner of the Star Plumbing vehicle directing him to either remove his vehicle or park it in an appropriate structure. Why? Because according to the Code, this vehicle as well as the original vehicle is not permitted unless parked in a structure.
    
    
21. Then, according to the Memo, at the suggestion of the Solicitor, he said it is okay to ignore the established Zoning Ordinance and the two prior letters issued by Abington Township directing two separate owners that they either remove the illegal vehicles or park them in the appropriate structure. Whether you care about this issue or not, I find it hard to see where covering vehicles is permitted in scope pursuant to the Code. Moreover, why send out two letters, to two different individuals, two months apart if these vehicles are in fact permitted in “size and scope”? Seems a bit odd and contradictory.
    
    
22. Now that you have read the actual Code relating to this inquiry and the background information, I ask each of you, do you agree with the Memo when it says – “these vehicles do conform to the permitted size (although not the issue) and scope” as outlined in #5 of Section 301.4 of the Code? Do you think the Code, as currently written, permits the covering of business advertisements? Do you think it was relevant and revealing that James Salanik acknowledged that “the only thing wrong with the (original) vehicle is the writing”, yet he chose to ignore or downplay the main point/scope of #6? Do you think that James Salanik should have brought up the fact that the owner has a long history in the Township, etc? Is that really relevant or even ethical when considering a potential violation of this or any Zoning Ordinance? Why would the Township issue two separate letters about two months apart directing the owners to either park the vehicles in a structure or remove them if they conform to the Code? Do you think it is unreasonable to expect an acknowledgement, even a “no comment” reply or “call me to discuss” reply from our Township officials when emails are sent to their official email addresses? Is it disingenuous to claim that your office was inundated by emails when two Township employees (Larry Matteo and James Salanik) and one elected official (Jim Ring) failed to respond to any of the emails? Is anyone disturbed by the actions of the Township in this matter? I surely hope so.
    
    
23. To those who have sent me questions regarding the Memo, I hope this letter helps. To those who said they too wondered about the “conformity” or permissibility of the commercial vehicles, I thank you and encourage you to let the Township know of your concerns, either about the violations, the seemingly preferential and inconsistent treatment afforded in this matter, or the mishandling and refusal to answer any inquiries. To those of you who do not care about Zoning Ordinance violations or are indifferent one way or another, which is your prerogative, let me offer the following. As taxpayers and homeowners, it is in your best interest to care about zoning, other similar issues, and cases where Township officials act inappropriately, even when you assume it doesn’t affect you. There may come a time when you have to address something you truly care about, but find yourself in a similar situation. In addition, I know many of you take pride and put a lot of effort and time into the appearance of your property, and rightly so. Typically, your home makes up a large portion of your net worth. In the face of declining home values and rising taxes, the amenity of your neighborhood adds value to each of your homes. Given an option (and everything else being equal), which do you think potential homebuyers prefer or pay more for, a neighborhood or street free from commercial vehicles (or any of the items listed in Section 301.4 of the Code) or one interspersed with commercial vehicles? Call a realtor and ask them about their experiences in this regards. You cannot necessarily think in terms of your own likes of dislikes, but think about it in terms of when a buyer is considering spending their money purchasing a home. They will use any reason to discount the value of the home or neighborhood or alternatively choose to buy a home somewhere else. Google this issue and you will see for yourself that communities throughout have similar zoning ordinances.

I apologize for the length of this letter, but I wanted to make sure that everyone got a clear picture of all the pertinent facts and how this situation has been “handled”. Let me also be clear that neither I nor the resident who made the initial call have any animosity toward anyone with the vehicles in question. We don’t. This is not personal. The Township, or more appropriately, the officials entrusted to manage and protect our township (both elected individuals and paid employees), has (have) an obligation to the residents to uphold and enforce the Code in a consistent and impartial manner and without any preferential treatment (real or perceived). They also have a responsibility to acknowledge and answer legitimate inquiries regarding zoning issues and other issues rather than ignoring them and then having the audacity to reference any questions as some sort of inundation campaign. There is a good reason why the Township adopted Section 301.4 of the Code and until it is changed or amended to allow the covering of commercial writing on vehicles or parking of commercial vehicles within residential neighborhoods, then the officials of the Township have the duty and obligation to ensure that vehicles containing such writing are either parked in a structure or removed.

Exhibit 1 - The Memo

This is the actual Memo sent to select residents of Lycoming Avenue by Larry Matteo. Below the Memo are the attachments that he sent along with the Memo. Even thought the business advertisement is now covered, the vehicle still looks like a commercial vehicle, doesn't it? Please do not accept what Larry Matteo says in his Memo as fact or accurate until you read the posting that follows this one, Exhibit 2 - Dear Residents Letter, which is my reply to the Memo and where I present a full account of the entire course of events leading up to the Memo.

The Reason for this Blog

Thank you for taking the time to visit Abington Township Issues. I established this blog in an effort to reach as many Abington Township residents as possible in order to share information regarding issues facing the Township. While Abington Township has its own website, the Township does not do an effective job in disseminating critical or time sensitive information to the residents, nor does the Township provide the level of transparency or accountability one expects from those entrusted to run our Township. For example, it often takes weeks, sometimes months to see the minutes from the monthly Board of Commissioners’ meeting posted online.

My motivation for this endeavor began in the fall as a result of another Abington Township resident calling the Township to inquire about a possible Zoning Ordinance violation. This inquiry was met with a series of inappropriate questions, indefensible actions and misinterpretations of the Zoning Ordinance by Abington Township staff and the Board of Commissioners. It quickly became apparent to this resident and me that certain members of the Abington Township staff arbitrarily and capriciously apply the Zoning Ordinance and give preferential treatment to some residents because of “who they are”. More importantly, this behavior appears to be supported by the Board of Commissioners. My inquiries into this matter have been met with total silence, contradictory actions by Commissioners and the Township, and a complete distortion of the facts. While one can easily debate the merits or non-merits of having a Zoning Ordinance that is described in the following postings, there is little room for debate when an established ordinance, that has been actively enforced up until the incident I describe, is arbitrarily and capriciously applied based on who an individual is. In addition, there is little room for interpretation as to what the ordinance mandates an owner must do with commercial vehicles.

As a result of this experience, I want as many Abington Township residents as possible to be aware of the improper and unethical behavior exhibited by the Township throughout this incident. Moreover, I hope that with the support of the residents, this type of behavior will become a thing of the past. While my first five postings are related to the aforementioned Zoning Ordinance violation and the improper behavior by the Township, this will not be the sole focus of this site. Quite the contrary. One of the most pressing issues facing our Township that hardly anyone knows about is the re-writing of the zoning code for our Township. I intend to write quite a bit about this critical issue and its implications.

I hope that Abington Township Issues becomes an interactive forum with which to share ideas, information, concerns, problems, suggestions and hopefully solutions in order to make Abington Township a better place to live. One thing that has become clear is the need for more accountability of those running Abington Township, more transparency for all Abington Township meetings, consistent and fair treatment of all residents, and better dissemination of information (so as to avoid misinformation). With the help and assistance of the residents of Abington Township, these goals can be attained. However, this can only be obtained if the residents are informed and a take a more active role in the Township. Please let your neighbors know of this blog or issues facing the Township. I encourage you to contact your Commissioner or Abington Township about things you disagree with or agree with. Ask questions. Challenge assumptions.

I encourage your questions, comments, and suggestions either about what I have written or about what you would like to be addressed. My first five postings deal directly with Zoning Ordinance issue I made reference to above, which are as the follows:

1. Exhibit 1 - The Memo was prepared by Larry Matteo, Director of Planning and Code Enforcement of Abington Township, and mailed to a select group of residents of Lycoming Avenue. You can click on the Memo to get a larger version of it. In addition, I have also included the attachments he sent with the Memo.
   
   
2. Exhibit 2 - Dear Residents Letter is my reply to Larry Matteo's Memo (Exhibit 1) that I sent to the select group residents of Lycoming Avenue. While it is long, I wanted the residents (and visitors to Abington Township Issues) to have a full and complete understanding of all the facts and to see how disingenuous Larry Matteo's Memo is.
   
   
3. Exhibit A, B, C for the “Dear Residents” Letter are those exhibits referenced in the Dear Residents Letter. You can click on each one to get a larger and more readable version.
   
   
4. Exhibit 3 - Letter to the Commissioners is a letter sent via regular mail to each Abington Township Board of Commissioner, which also included the Memo, the Dear Residents Letter, along with attachments referenced in the Dear Residents letter.