Westpikeland.org is a
diverse, non-partisan group,
founded in July 2006. We are dedicated to open communications and improved
government in West Pikeland Township. We provide information about the
Township, work to build community and offer new ideas to preserve the
quality of life enjoyed by our residents.
Updated
04 Jan 2009
Why the flip-flop on past viewpoints?
Friday, December 26, 2008 6:07 AM EST
This letter is in response to your unsigned NIMBY editorial of Dec. 22. In your previous editorials relating to the development of open spaces in Chester County, you have consistently (and correctly) championed planning. I have read numerous articles and editorials in your paper in favor of regional planning, cluster zoning, local planning and planned communities. Your philosophy is sound. When given an opportunity, let's create a living environment that is in harmony with nature and the historical roots of the community. Let's not overburden the environment with too much on site sewage discharge and endless traffic.
Now, it seems, you've changed your tune. You are supporting proposals that will radically change the West Pikeland countryside.
Do you really believe a temple with a total of 35,000 square feet is going to be occupied by 50-200 members? That's more than 13 feet by 13 feet per worshipper with a full house.
So the builders of the temple obviously have much larger plans for the structure that they're not sharing with us. A modest building of 5,000 square feet (as per the original proposal) would be more doable. A mega structure of that size in semi-rural West Pikeland is no more appropriate here than the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County or Trump's Taj Mahal would be.
As for your flip-flop on defending the over- burdened rural ecology, I can only assume that you've surrendered completely to political correctness.
Joseph E. Groff
Chester Springs
Residents challenge
proposal for temple
Monday, December 22,
2008 6:37 AM EST
By DANIELLE LYNCH, Staff
Writer
WEST PIKELAND —
Opponents of a proposed
Hindu temple in Chester
Springs say religious
denomination has nothing
to do with why they are
against the plan.
"The proposed temple
would not be in alliance
with the land I've
fought to preserve,"
said resident Larry
O'Donnell. "We have no
objection to the
religious activity."
A plan for a new
26,000-square-foot
temple and a
9,000-square-foot
auxiliary support
building has been
proposed by Sriram
Adhimoolam of Adhi
Parasakthi Charitable,
Medical, Educational and
Cultural Society of
North America. The
24.5-acre property is in
the 1400 block of Route
401.
In 2002, the township's
zoning hearing board
granted the applicant a
special exception to
conduct religious-based
activities on the
property. The society is
now seeking
conditional-use and
land-development
approval to construct a
new temple and auxiliary
building.
O'Donnell and his wife,
Sue, are being
represented by attorney
Fronefield Crawford.
They testified about why
they are against the
temple at a
conditional-use hearing
Thursday night.
"Frankly we don't care
about religious uses …
as long as it (the
temple) doesn't cause
health and safety issues
for the community,"
Larry O'Donnell said.
When Supervisors'
Chairman Bob Shemonsky
asked him to clarify
what he meant by health
and safety issues,
O'Donnell said he was
worried the temple would
increase traffic and
pollution.
During Sue O'Donnell's
testimony,
She drew comparisons
between the proposed
Hindu temple and St.
Elizabeth's Roman
Catholic Church in
neighboring Upper
Uwchlan. She said the
church is appropriate on
its property off Route
100 but would not fit
well at the proposed
temple site in West
Pikeland.
Sue O'Donnell said she'd
oppose any
35,000-square-foot
structure on the site
off Route 401 — whether
it was a church,
synagogue, circus or
Wal-Mart.
"We'd object to anything
of that size," she said.
Richard Lipow, the
attorney representing
the applicant, said the
O'Donnells' testimony
about the church and
temple was an
irrelevant, unfair
comparison.
"I view the comparison
inevitable and almost
anecdotal," said
township Solicitor Guy
Donatelli.
In addition to the size
of the temple, Sue
O'Donnell raised
concerns about how many
Hindus may migrate to
the area to use the
proposed facility.
At a previous hearing,
Adhimoolam explained
that unlike Christian
worship, there is no
scheduled time of
religious gathering. He
said the temple is open
to members generally
between 10 a.m. and 6
p.m. daily and the
length of visit is at
the member's discretion.
"The most likely time
for temple visits is
during a Saturday or
Sunday in late morning
or early afternoon, and
in 2001 ACMEC testified
before the township's
zoning hearing board
that on average no more
than five families visit
the site on typical
Saturdays or Sundays,"
the society's project
statement says.
According to the project
statement, the
congregation has about
200 members in North
America and about 20
members within a 50-mile
radius of the site.
"The majority of the
contributing members are
not Pennsylvania
residents, and many are
over 1,000 miles away
from it, some as far as
the West Coast," the
project statement says.
"The 20 local members
are expected to use the
facility most."
Sue O'Donnell said the
calculations of the
temple's membership were
ridiculous because it
would be the only temple
of its kind in North
America.
She said she was
concerned about the
project for
environmental reasons,
including its impact on
sewage, stormwater
runoff, wetlands, steep
slopes, tree buffer zone
and historic
preservation.
The appearance of the
temple is protected
under the Religious Land
Use and
Institutionalized
Person's Act of 2000,
according to Lipow. In
addition, it's protected
under the free exercise
clause of the First
Amendment and the equal
protection clause of the
14th Amendment.
Two additional hearings
have been tentatively
scheduled for 7 p.m. on
Jan. 8 and 15.
To contact staff writer
Danielle Lynch, send an
e-mail to
dlynch@dailylocal.com.
DNL
Editorial -- Monday, December 22, 2008 7:52 AM
EST
Faithism or placeism?
That was the central theme of the discussion at last
week's conditional-use hearing regarding the
proposed 26,000-square-foot Hindu temple and
9,000-square-foot auxiliary support building in
Chester Springs. Residents have made it clear they'd
prefer the building be constructed elsewhere and
delivered testimony saying as much.
Most of the testimony centered on the fact that it
wasn't the religious aspects of the temple that
bothered them, but the fact that it was being built
in West Pikeland, where it would stand out against
the background of the township's rootsy, rural
nature. Residents Larry and Sue O'Donnell testified
that it was not the religious activity that bothered
them, but the temple's proposed location — in the
1400 block of Route 401.
"Frankly we don't care about religious uses … as
long as it (the temple) doesn't cause health and
safety issues for the community," Larry O'Donnell
said, citing increased traffic and pollution in the
township as areas of concern. Sue O'Donnell added
that she'd be opposed to any 35,000-square-foot
structure on the site off Route 401 — whether it was
a church, synagogue, circus or Wal-Mart.
We'd be inclined to
agree with them, if we thought there was any merit
to their claims. It's true that West Pikeland is one
of the county's more scenic areas, and the temple
will likely stand out among its barns wooden fences.
But the fact of the matter is that the O'Donnells,
and residents like them, are suffering from an acute
case of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)-ism
In other words, it's OK to build it, just please
don't build it here. Sue O'Donnell basically said as
much, when she drew comparisons between the proposed
Hindu temple and St. Elizabeth's Roman Catholic
Church, located in neighboring Upper Uwchlan. She
said she believes the church is appropriate on its
property located off Route 100, but would not fit
well at the proposed temple site in West Pikeland.
Maybe because it's too close to her own home?
The idea that the temple would cause an increase in
traffic to the area is laughable. Sriram Adhimoolam,
a representative of Adhi Parasakthi Charitable,
Medical, Educational and Cultural Society of North
America (ACMEC), has previously testified that
AMCEC's congregation in North America is about 200
members. About 20 of them reside within 50 miles of
the site.
Unlike Christian worship, Adhimoolam has said, there
is no scheduled time of religious gathering. The
temple would be open to members generally between 10
a.m. and 6 p.m. every day and the length of visit
would be at the discretion of a member. Even if
every member of the church visited the temple at the
same exact time, an extremely unlikely scenario, the
impact on the area surrounding the proposed temple
would be minimal.
Would it seem out of place in West Pikeland?
Possibly. But is that a reason not to build it? In
our opinion, no.
In an E-Mail Monday November 11 the
LYA President announced a delay in the suspension of West Pikeland Kids
until June
Subject: LYA Board
approves postponement of West Pikeland suspension
Based on the progress
made thus far as it relates to the second regulation-size field, and the
response that West Pikeland Township officials received from the County
following their submission of the engineer's plans, last night the LYA
Board of Directors voted to approve postponing the suspension of West
Pikeland residents in LYA programs until the June 2009 registration for
Fall LYA programs. This decision recognizes the efforts made thus far
by West Pikeland Township officials, but does not change the fact that
continued efforts and progress need to be made.
The suspension will be
effective with the June 2009 registration for Fall LYA programs if the
second regulation-size field is not leveled, graded and seeded by
5/31/09.
We hope you welcome
this news and will continue to make the construction of this second
field by 5/31/09 a priority so the suspension for Fall 2009 programs
will not be necessary
Bill LaBarge
President
LYA
West Pikeland township manager leaves post
Supervisors announce departure of Jeri
Diesinger and begin accepting proposals from Keystone Municipal Services for
replacement
By
DANIELLE LYNCH
Staff
Writer Nov 8 2008
WEST
PIKELAND — Township Supervisors announced Jeri Diesinger is no longer
township manager or roadmaster.
But
beyond that, the officials said they would not comment. Under the state’s
Sunshine Act, personnel issues are a discussion matter allowed for
closed-door executive sessions.
Supervisors’ Chairman Bob Shemonsky said the township received two proposals
from Keystone Municipal Services, a firm that provides local government
services in southeastern and central Pennsylvania.
The
first proposal was that Keystone will provide interim management services.
The second was that Keystone will perform executive search services to fill
the positions of township manager and roadmaster. Supervisors approved these
proposals at a Nov. 3 meeting.
Stephen J. Ross, a management consultant from Keystone Municipal Services,
began the position of interim roadmaster and township manager on Nov. 4,
according to Shemonsky.
Ross,
an East Bradford resident, worked as township manager in West Whiteland
Township for 30 years until he retired from that job in 2005. He then began
work at Keystone Municipal Services. For the past 3œ years, he did interim
work for Franklin Township in southern Chester County.
The
township has contracted with Keystone to do the search, including
advertising, which is estimated to cost up to $8,500, according to
Shemonsky. The search is expected to take three to six months, he said.
Attempts to reach Diesinger for comment were unsuccessful. She began working
for the township in March 2007. When she began her job as manager, she wrote
a letter that was posted to the township’s Web site.
In
her introduction letter, she states she was a professional geologist who
spent 13 years as an environmental consultant. She worked for municipalities
since 1999, including a job as director of engineering services for Spring
Township in Berks County.
To
contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an e-mail to dlynch@dailylocal.com.
PRECINCT REPORT
UNOFFICIAL RESULTS
RUN DATE:11/05/08
GENERAL ELECTION, NOV 4,2008
RUN TIME:01:58 AM
CHESTER COUNTY, PA
0525 WEST
PIKELAND
VOTES PERCENT
REGISTERED
VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . . 2968
BALLOTS
CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . 2465
VOTER
TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . . 83.05
STRAIGHT
PARTY
(VOTE FOR
NOT MORE THAN ) 1
DEMOCRATIC
(DEM) . . . . . . . . . 323 32.33
REPUBLICAN
(REP) . . . . . . . . . 652 65.27
CONSTITUTION (CON) . . . . . . . . 0
INDEPENDENT
(IND). . . . . . . . . 23 2.30
LIBERTARIAN
(LIB). . . . . . . . . 1 .10
PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTORS
(VOTE FOR
NOT MORE THAN ) 1
BARACK
OBAMA (DEM) . . . . . . . . 1119 45.43
JOHN MCCAIN
(REP). . . . . . . . . 1317 53.47
RALPH NADER
(IND). . . . . . . . . 11 .45
BOB BARR
(LIB). . . . . . . . . . 6 .24
WRITE-IN.
. . . . . . . . . . . 10 .41
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
(VOTE FOR
NOT MORE THAN ) 1
JOHN M.
MORGANELLI (DEM) . . . . . . 720 30.41
TOM CORBETT
(REP). . . . . . . . . 1583 66.85
MARAKAY J.
ROGERS (LIB). . . . . . . 63 2.66
WRITE-IN.
. . . . . . . . . . . 2 .08
AUDITOR
GENERAL
(VOTE FOR
NOT MORE THAN ) 1
JACK WAGNER
(DEM). . . . . . . . . 866 37.25
CHET BEILER
(REP). . . . . . . . . 1357 58.37
BETSY
SUMMERS (LIB) . . . . . . . . 100 4.30
WRITE-IN.
. . . . . . . . . . . 2 .09
STATE
TREASURER
(VOTE FOR
NOT MORE THAN ) 1
ROBERT
MCCORD (DEM) . . . . . . . . 822 35.26
TOM ELLIS
(REP) . . . . . . . . . 1452 62.29
BERLIE
ETZEL (LIB) . . . . . . . . 54 2.32
WRITE-IN.
. . . . . . . . . . . 3 .13
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 6TH DISTRICT
(VOTE FOR
NOT MORE THAN ) 1
BOB ROGGIO
(DEM) . . . . . . . . . 699 29.05
JIM GERLACH
(REP). . . . . . . . . 1706 70.91
WRITE-IN.
. . . . . . . . . . . 1 .04
SENATOR IN
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 19TH DISTRICT
(VOTE FOR
NOT MORE THAN ) 1
ANDREW E.
DINNIMAN (DEM) . . . . . . 1172 49.22
STEVE
KANTROWITZ (REP) . . . . . . . 1207 50.69
WRITE-IN.
. . . . . . . . . . . 2 .08
REPRESENTATIVE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 155TH DISTRICT
(VOTE FOR
NOT MORE THAN ) 1
CURT
SCHRODER (REP) . . . . . . . . 1922 97.46
WRITE-IN.
. . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.54
WATER AND
WASTE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE REF
(VOTE FOR
NOT MORE THAN ) 1
YES . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 1231 54.91
NO. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 1011 45.09
WEST
PIKELAND HOME RULE CHARTER WEST PIKELAND TOWNSHIP
(VOTE FOR
NOT MORE THAN ) 1
YES . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 1057 44.49
NO. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 1319 55.51
West Pikeland rejects home-rule charter
Voters stay with previous form of local government, Second Class
Township Code
By Joe Langdon
Staff Writer
WEST PIKELAND — West Pikeland Township residents have rejected adopting
a home-rule charter by a vote of 1,319 to 1,057.
Under a home-rule charter, the municipality would have been governed by
a local constitution, amendable by township residents, instead of the
state’s Second Class Township Code.
The charter was drafted over 18 months by a seven-member volunteer
government study commission that was empowered by a 2006 ballot measure.
The charter would have changed the way the township adopts ordinances,
levies and raises taxes, and takes on debt. It would have also changed
the rules governing supervisors by establishing shorter terms, setting
term limits and prohibiting supervisors from serving on township
commissions.
The home-rule charter faced opposition from a citizens’ group, Vote No
HRC, that argued the new procedures would enlarge the government, make
it more cumbersome and result in higher legal costs for the township.
The organization was particularly concerned that a government organized
under the charter would offer further impediment to the construction of
fields for the township’s children who play for the Lionville Youth
Association.
Proponents of home rule said the new form of government would have made
officials more accountable to citizens.
To contact staff writer Joe Langdon, send an e-mail to langdon@dailylocal.com.
An Update from the Vice Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
Saturday November 1st
To all West Pikeland Township residents: playing field update/PSATS
clarification
Among others I have sent this
e-mail to
votenohrc@yahoo.com
requesting them to post this important e-mail on their site
immediately as well as to forward this e-mail to all township residents
on their e-mail list. I am also requesting (since no names or numbers
are listed on web site) someone from votenohrc to call me on my cell
Sunday at 610-513-3626 to confirm these important updates. Further, I am
asking other individuals and groups as well to give this the widest
possible dissemination. Hopefully Monday this will be posted on the
Township web site. I am sure we all agree that it is most important
that West Pikeland residents get the latest and most accurate
information. Everyone's help in doing so is appreciated.
Two days ago (Thursday) I spoke to Jeri, as
our township manager at the time, about the playing field and she
informed me significant progress had been made. The process of obtaining
the necessary permits was moving forward and certain approvals had been
granted. Further, she told me she had spoken with Dorothy Foster
(Administrative VP LYA) and that Dorothy understood and was pleased we
were making every effort to get construction underway soon. As some of
you may know Jeri is no longer assuming the duties of township
manager. Having noted this, the time table for constructing the field
will continue as planned. As soon as all the permits are received we can
move forward. We had discussed at the last BOS meeting that we would
meet in special session, if necessary, to award the contract to start
construction as soon as possible. Hopefully this clears things up and
puts to rest rumors of delays. More information concerning the township
manager's position will be given Monday night at the BOS meeting.
I also want to provide clarification on another rumor. Adopting Home
Rule Charter does not exclude the township from membership in PSATS.
Currently a number of townships with Home Rule Charter are members of
PSATS. Joan Mathews, township secretary, confirmed this and can
answer your questions about PSATS.
Thank you,
Richard Bright, Township Supervisor
Web Administrator Note: PSATS is the Pennsylvania Association of
Township Supervisors
Past history politics have impact
In West Pikeland Township our greatest strength is our residents who,
besides being passionate about our township, possess a broad range of
backgrounds and skills that are invaluable to the community. Currently
we are engaged in a very vigorous discussion concerning a Home Rule
Charter for West Pikeland, which will come up for vote on Nov. 4.
Debating pros and cons based on the actual document is a very healthy
thing. Unfortunately, what is not so healthy is that this discussion is
being adversely impacted by issues that have plagued the community for
some years now.
Because of past history in township politics, there has developed a
“Hatfields versus the McCoys” type of rivalry between certain factions
within the community. While I don’t want to overstate the situation, I
feel that these past conflicts are driving the debate on important
issues like Home Rule, pretty much to the point that “if they are for it
we need to be against it.”
So far there have been reported personal attacks on the character of
government study commissioners, widespread rumors containing
misinformation, employment of scare tactics, and stolen Home Rule
Charter signs. All of this is counter-productive and only serves to harm
the community as a whole. Home Rule Charter is a standalone issue that
should be judged solely on its own merits. It is unfortunate that past
history is being inappropriately injected into the situation by some
individuals.
I
personally support the Home Rule Charter for West Pikeland Township. For
myself, I have to look no further than what is currently happening on
the national level and in Washington to feel term limits, more
oversight, and strict financial accounting systems are good things.
Having said this, I urge all township residents to evaluate the Home
Rule Charter for themselves before deciding how they will vote.
Understandably, many township residents are not aware of the unrelated
but negative undercurrents that are influencing the dialogue in the
township. By reading the document for themselves and making their own
judgments, residents can avoid the political pitfalls that are out there
right now.
It is my hope, as we move forward as a township, that we can put the
past in the past and as a community take on important issues like Home
Rule Charter with a clean slate and open minds.
Richard Bright
West Pikeland Supervisor
Letter to the Editor DLN
Officials discuss parking, bids for new
field
Bids for field required for West Pikeland's
inclusion in LYA range from
$123,698 to $379,275
Friday, October 24, 2008 7:22 AM EDT
By DANIELLE LYNCH, Staff Writer
WEST PIKELAND — Township officials discussed
construction bids and parking for the new playing field at Pine Creek
Park on Monday night.
Township Manager Jeri Diesinger informed supervisors there were 13 bids
that ranged from $123,698 to $379,275.
Supervisors made a decision to delay the approval of the recommended
contractor and have township Solicitor Guy Donatelli review the contract
while they wait to receive feedback on the field plans from the county
and state. In addition, supervisors decided they will review the field
contract themselves. And supervisors will have a special meeting once
they receive comments from the county and state agencies.
The Lionville Youth Association set a Dec. 31 deadline for the new field
to be leveled, graded and seeded. If the new field is not prepared in
time and to the association's satisfaction, West Pikeland children will
be suspended from LYA effective Jan. 1.
In addition to bids, there was some discussion about parking spaces
needed at Pine Creek Park for the new playing field.
Joe Carreiro, chairman of the park and recreation board, said another
parking area has been located behind the park's barn that would
accommodate an additional 30 to 40 vehicles.
Supervisor Bob Barker suggested the board write a letter to LYA
officials on township letterhead to clarify what is needed in terms of
parking.
"LYA can give us guidelines, but ultimately it's our decision on how
many spaces we need," said Supervisor Harold Hallman III.
Hallman read a letter that was sent by LYA to township supervisors
earlier this month. The letter states LYA officials were approached by
two individual township supervisors: Barker and Richard Bright.
Among Barker's requests were that LYA unconditionally allow the
township's children to participate in LYA spring activities. The second
request was for LYA's board to participate in ongoing private meetings
with township officials. And Barker's last request was to have an LYA
board member be a contact point for him to put together a contingency
plan for township children in case of an LYA suspension.
Barker made all these requests at an LYA board meeting. He said Tuesday
his request for the LYA board to unconditionally allow the children
would show acknowledgement that progress is being made on the field. He
said it would also show good faith between LYA and the township.
The purpose of the proposal of private meetings, Barker said, was to
discuss concerns, plan for the future and improve the relationship
between the two entities.
LYA decided to unanimously reject requests made by the two supervisors.
"Please note the LYA Board will no longer respond to individual
supervisors," states LYA's letter. "We will only consider questions in
writing, on West Pikeland letterhead, sent on behalf of all five
supervisors."
In terms of parking, LYA Administrative Vice President Dorothy Foster
said Wednesday that every new field needs adequate parking and that
information should come from West Pikeland's engineer — not LYA.
To contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an e-mail to
dlynch@dailylocal.com.
Some cold,
hard truths
The people of West Pikeland need to know
some cold, hard truths. The last group of three supervisors conducted
the township business behind closed doors at another location other than
the township building. When challenged about this we were told that we
had no say in what was going on and that they had been elected and
therefore had all the say.
A group of concerned citizens banned
together and formed a group called westpikeland.org. This group was open
to anyone who wanted a say in what was happening in the township.
We were able to get five supervisors
instead of three and we were also able to get a commission to study Home
Rule and to come up with a charter that would better represent our
individual township instead of the general rules for all second-class
townships in the state.
Some of the items that were applicable were
kept in the new code but some have been changed to better our township.
Now a group has formed to “read between the
lines” of the new code. Everyone should be able to read the lines
themselves and see what they have to say. There is a comparison of the
differences on the government study commission Web site.
People do not have to make up things for
between the lines, as we will not be voting on between the lines but on
the lines themselves. This group is worried about losing the power to
run the township without our having a say.
We personally want to have a say in what
goes on in our township and hope that everyone will really study the
issue and not be swayed by those who are afraid of allowing the rest of
us to have a say.
Bill and Lila Smith
Chester Springs
DLN 10-24-2008
|
Work together for correct
solution |
| |
|
Is Home Rule the right decision for
West Pikeland?
Like most important decisions, there
are pros and cons to consider with the Home Rule ballot
question. While Home Rule can be a valid option for some
communities, West Pikeland is not one of them. Here are three
key reasons why it is not the right choice for our township:
The current government structure works
Home Rule increases the risk of abuse
of governmental power
Home Rule will increase the taxpayer
burden.
The fact is the current Second Class
Township Code governing West Pikeland has effectively served our
small community for generations. It is comforting to know that
under this code our elected officials can only act where
specifically authorized by state law and the vast majority of
townships in Pennsylvania successfully use this code.
By changing to Home Rule Charter this
responsibility switches from the state Legislature to the local
government. While this may offer greater flexibility at the
local level it also significantly increases the risk for abuse
and the need for oversight.
Adopting a Home Rule Charter will most
certainly increase the taxpayer burden. The following are just a
few examples: studies cost taxpayers money, permanent
commissions cost taxpayers money, committees cost taxpayers
money, additional supervisors cost taxpayers money, loss of
state support for legal and administrative expenses costs
taxpayers money, increased oversight costs taxpayers money and
most importantly bigger government costs taxpayers money.
Result: Home Rule will cost taxpayers more!
Please ask yourself the question: Is
the current government structure so broken that we need to
invite the added risk of abuse and greater taxpayer burden?
In my opinion the right solution is for
the supervisors and the community to work closely together to
find common-ground solutions we can all live with. Good
leadership with a healthy dose of cooperation and compromise is
the right answer.
Jack Conway
West Pikeland
Letter to the
Editor DLN |
Link to GSC Chart Referred to in this
article is
here
CHARTER FIGHT RILES TOWNSHIP
By
DANIELLE LYNCH, Staff Writer
WEST PIKELAND — Talk about a proposed new form of government has caused
a division among residents weeks prior to the upcoming election.
This new type of government, known as a home-rule charter, would
transfer municipal government under state law to a local constitution,
which is amended and adopted by voters.
In November 2006, West Pikeland voters approved a ballot question to
allow the government study commission to investigate the effectiveness
of the current municipal code, which is under the state's Second Class
Township Code. For 18 months, a seven-resident volunteer government
study commission investigated other forms of government and drafted the
township's 38-page, home-rule charter, which contains eight provisions.
On the upcoming Nov. 4 ballot, West Pikeland voters will be given the
chance to vote yes or no for the home-rule charter.
Recently, some residents formed a nonpartisan group in opposition of the
home-rule charter. The group, known as Vote No HRC, was established by
residents who say that if the charter is passed, it will lead to grave
problems in the township.
Residents Paula Hallenbeck and Cathy McLaughlin said they read the
home-rule charter and compared it to the current Second Class Township
Code. They said they felt compelled to educate township residents about
what they believe are the negative aspects of the home-rule charter.
"We saw firsthand how big government can stall important processes, such
as the installation of the LYA field at Pine Creek Park," Hallenbeck and
McLaughlin said in a written statement. "We believe that the proposed
mandated commissions in the home-rule charter will yield more of the
same bottlenecks as other issues arise."
But members of the Government Study Commission, who created the proposed
charter, see things differently.
"The issue of fields at Pine Creek Park has nothing to do with the
Government Study Commission," said Meg McGoldrick, the commission's vice
chairwoman. "We haven't spent any time thinking about the fields."
Under the charter, township supervisors will still make decisions on
issues, McGoldrick said. And it will allow for supervisors to have
better information on citizens' viewpoints, she said.
"Our sense was that people wanted a voice," McGoldrick said. "We are
providing a framework for involvement."
This past week, Vote No HRC distributed a newsletter highlighting some
of the reasons the group is against the new form of government. The
Government Study Commission then printed a chart stating its viewpoints.
Vote No HRC's newsletter states that the charter will translate into
bigger government through the establishment of three permanent
commissions.
"These unelected individuals will have a tremendous amount of influence
and authority in advising the board on important issues," says Vote No
HRC's newsletter. "It is certain that these permanent commissions will
act as another bottleneck in our township."
The Government Study Commission counteracted that point by stating that
the charter "will lead to better government because there will be more
opportunities for resident voices to be heard via three permanent
commissions: Parks and Recreation, Environmental and Financial
Planning."
"The purpose was to create permanent venues for citizen voice that could
not be disbanded by unresponsive supervisors," states the Government
Study Commission's chart. "Commissions represent the community and are
open to anyone in the community."
Vote No HRC also believes that the charter "will translate into out of
control referendums and initiatives that will be representing the
interests of a minority of residents."
On the contrary, the Government Study Commission replied that "the point
of citizen initiatives is to give voters the ability to influence
changes in their government when supervisors are unresponsive — everyone
has equal rights under the charter."
Vote No HRC believes the charter "provides for no cap on taxes and no
cap on accrued debt."
The Government Study Commission, however, stated that the new charter
would "require voters to approve tax increases and most debt." The
commission noted that "self-liquidating debt, such as sewer bonds, will
not require voter approval."
The last main sticking point between the two sides is the potential
increase of number of supervisors. Vote HRC's newsletter states that the
home-rule charter could allow the number of supervisors to increase
beyond a five-member board "to meet the needs of maintaining a majority
rule for the minority concerns."
The Government Study Commission, however, states that there is no
proposal in the home-rule charter to create more than five supervisors.
"Voters must approve any changes to the home-rule charter, which
includes the number of supervisors," states information from the
commission.
In addition to the newsletters and charts being distributed throughout
the township, signs saying "Vote No" and "Vote Yes" have been put up in
yards and along roads. The five township supervisors are also divided on
their viewpoints of the charter.
The three new supervisors: Bob Shemonsky, Richard Bright and Bob Barker
said they support the efforts in the home-rule charter.
"I'm surprised some citizens are against home rule because it really
benefits the people of the township," said Shemonsky.
Bright said the home-rule charter provides for more accountability and
greater voter participation.
"The committee worked hard to fit our township's needs," Bright said.
Supervisor Harold Hallman III said he supports the current Second Class
Township Code and the Pennsylvania State Association of Township
Supervisors. He said the home-rule charter is not a good thing for the
township because there are too many unknowns down the road, and the
township does not have the resources to handle them.
"It seems like whenever people don't like what's going on in the
township, they rewrite the rules," Hallman said.
Nearby municipalities such as Malvern and Tredyffrin have switched over
to a home-rule charter.
Even though home-rule charters have been around for decades, the vast
majority of townships do not use them, said Hallenbeck and McLaughlin.
They said the few townships that have passed home-rule charters are
largely different than West Pikeland, with more commercial interests,
different government structure, or much higher population, and so they
do not think it really isn't a reasonable comparison.
If the charter is approved in the upcoming election, it will become law
on Jan. 1.
Both the Government Study Commission and Vote No HRC have Web sites. To
read more about Vote No HRC's views, visit www.votenohrc.org. To read
more about the Government Study Commission's views, visit http://www.westpikeland-gsc.org/.
To contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an e-mail to
dlynch@dailylocal.com.
Link to GSC Chart Referred to in this
article is
here
See comparison
of current law and home rule here on
GSC Site
Setting the Record Straight
There is group of people making misleading statements about the proposed
Home Rule Charter, so we’ve created a fact-checker section of
this website to set the record straight. First up:
Myths and Facts About
West Pikeland’s Proposed Home Rule Charter.
If you hear what you think might be a misrepresentation, please do the
following:
-
Ask yourself: Why are these people
afraid of better government? Who stands to lose if citizens have
more voice in government? Who might benefit from continued
absence of ethical and financial controls on local government?
-
Contact us. We’ll see that you get a personal
reply to your question, and we’ll add the information to our
fact-checker page.
The West Pikeland Government Study Commission has spent the last two
years developing a better form of government for West Pikeland so that
good practices are the law and not the whim of elected officials.
Everything you might want to know about the proposed Home Rule Charter
can be found on
www.westpikeland-gsc.org.
LYA Rejects Township
Best Efforts and Cancels 2009 Seasons for WPT Kids Leaving them to seek
reliable alternative.
Township failed to meet its deadline, so Lionville Youth Association
says its residents may not participate next spring
|
By DANIELLE LYNCH
Staff Writer
WEST PIKELAND Lionville Youth Associations board
recently suspended participation of all West Pikeland residents,
effective Jan. 1, unless a new playing field can be prepared in
time and to the associations satisfaction.
In a Sept. 9 letter to township supervisors, LYA
officials indicated West Pikeland residents are suspended for
spring Little League baseball, softball, lacrosse and travel
teams, including Pride Baseball, Lionville Soccer Club and Girls
Softball.
Discussion over fields has been heated since last
September, when the LYA asked township officials to provide more
playing fields for nearly 300 West Pikeland children who play in
the organization.
The request is based on an LYA requirement of one
field for every 100 participants. Last year, the township
provided 1 playing fields at 72-acre Pine Creek Park.
Decisions over this issue were delayed when three
new township supervisors Bob Shemonsky, Bob Barker and Richard
Bright came into office last January.
The board approved another half-size field at
Pine Creek Park, and last month all five supervisors voted
unanimously to move forward with a second full-size field there.
LYA set an Aug. 31 deadline for the second regulation size field
to be leveled, graded and seeded.
This suspension is due to the failure of West
Pikeland to meet the communicated deadline relative to providing
an adequate number of playing fields to support participation of
its residents in LYA programs, states the letter to township
officials.
While the LYA board is encouraged by West
Pikelands recent decision to move forward with the design and
construction of the second regulation field, its failure to meet
the Aug. 31 deadline will result in this field not being
available for use until the spring of 2010, at best, assuming
that no other issues arise that cause further delay.
LYA officials wrote that the suspension is
subject to periodic review but will remain in effect until the
second regulation size field is leveled, graded and seeded,
along with providing safe and adequate parking and access for
program participants.
In addition, LYA officials recommended the
township include them in the design and approval process because
of their experience in park construction and field installation.
LYA directors also sent an open letter to West
Pikeland families on Sept. 10 to inform them of the decision.
The letter says this was a difficult decision for the LYA board
because it will negatively affect the children.
However, LYA has attempted to work with West
Pikeland officials for the past 15 years on this issue only to
be met with approval reversals, repeated delays and minimal
progress, the letter says.
The LYA board encourages West Pikeland families
to start attending their township meetings, volunteer and become
advocates of youth recreation, the letter says. Only you can
keep the construction of the second regulation field moving
forward.
Township Manager Jeri Diesinger said the planning
commission asked for modification of the current plans for the
second field at Pine Creek Park. This request was made because
part of the engineering plan encroached upon an area of trees,
she said. She said the township is adjusting the plan so it can
be brought back to the planning commission next month.
Some officials believe that this field will be
able to be leveled, graded and seeded before this winter, states
LYAs letter to West Pikeland parents. If it is completed to LYAs
satisfaction (with adequate parking), the suspension may never
come into effect.
Im very disappointed to see that because we moved
as quickly as we could, said Shemonsky of the suspension.
Shemonsky said the new board members wanted to be
fiscally responsible and receive input from the townships park
and recreation board. He said the three new supervisors have
been in office for only six months and have been hard-pressed to
make decisions on the field.
We were expecting LYA to be cooperative and to
work with us, Shemonsky said.
Barker said he is disappointed as well with the
LYA's suspension. He said West Pikeland intends to move forward
with the second field as quickly as possible.
We are completely supportive of the kids, Barker
said.
Barker said he plans to attend the LYA's next
board meeting to request a reversal of the suspension. And
secondly, Im hoping to better the relationship with LYA, he
said.
Bright said LYA's decision does not help the
situation. But he said he is hopeful this issue will be resolved
soon.
I feel we are moving ahead, Bright said. I hope
to continue to get the field in place and see us sit down with
LYA to work this out, he said.
Its a shame, said Supervisor Harold Hallman III,
noting the three former township supervisors were moving forward
with a field plan last fall.
Hallman said West Pikeland must come up with
fields for LYA because for years the township has used fields in
neighboring townships, such as Uwchlan.
I support LYA 100 percent, Hallman said.
Supervisor William Cracas said LYAs suspension
should be expected because of the delays. He said the voters
selected three new supervisors who are doing what they believe
must be done to do a good job and it should be expected that
there is a learning process.
This isn't about LYA this is about the youth of
West Pikeland Township, Cracas said.
To contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an
e-mail to
dlynch@dailylocal.com. |
Government Study
Commission Amends Home Rule Charter -- Available on Newly Updated
Website!
Since submitting the proposed West Pikeland
Home Rule Charter on April 5, 2008, the Government Study Commission has
continued to work, reviewing the charter with elected officials and
responding to questions from citizens. Feedback from these discussions
led the Commission to vote on July 15, 2008 to make several minor
changes to Home Rule Charter provisions regarding (1) debt, (2)
initiative petitions, (3) posting unapproved minutes, and (4) land
ownership disclosures. These changes are outlined in more detail in a
press release issued August 2, 2008. The
amended charter is now available online, along with easy-to-read
summaries and
excerpts.
The Commission also improved and updated its
website and added a new section,
Endorsements, that provides quotes from local residents about home
rule in West Pikeland. These are updated daily, so check back to see
what your friends and neighbors have to say!

Vote YES on November 4!
Land Trust Speaks Out
on Pine Creek and Windolph Knoll
The West Pikeland Land Trust Board
of Directors in a letter to the Board of Supervisors urges them to
follow the developed land use
plans. See News and Events on
http://www.wplandtrust.org/.
Westpikeland.org launches Blog
Monday, July 28, 2008
Westpikeland.org today launched a web Chat
facility – a Blog (from weB LOG) -- so residents of West Pikeland may
exchange event information, perspectives on issues, and have ready links
to sites of interest.
The Chat is a link on the left menu at
www.westpikeland.org and is available to anyone wishing to view it.
To Reply to an item or add a new subject
(internet speak, a “thread”) you must register on the site.
Registration is required to allow the filtering of spam. The only
criteria for adding information is that it is non-commercial and
suitable for all audiences. Registrations will be confirmed by the site
administrator so please include name and other contact information. The
Registration link is located on the right side under Actions. Mandatory
information include: a User Name, your First Name, Last Name, Nick Name,
and your E-Mail address. All other information is optional. The system
will E-Mail your password when you register.
You may also register for automatic
notification of new replies or postings by selecting in the Actions
Group and selecting Entries RSS or Comments RSS and subscribing to the
feeds.
LYA field issue resurfaces in West Pikeland
Youth association officials have given township an Aug. 31 deadline for
full-sized field to be graded and seeded
By
DANIELLE LYNCH
Staff Writer
WEST PIKELAND — A controversial issue since last September, recreation
fields for children sparked discussion again at a recent township
meeting.
Last fall, the Lionville Youth Association asked the township for more
fields because the township only had 1œ playing fields at Pine Creek
Park to serve nearly 300 West Pikeland children. The association
requires one field for every 100 players.
After several meetings, township supervisors approved another half-sized
field at the 72-acre park. And in May, the supervisors agreed to pursue
plans for another full-sized field there.
In
May and June, LYA officials informed township supervisors that the
second full-sized field must be graded and seeded by Aug. 31. The
association had previously set a May 31 deadline or the township would
have to pay $15,000 for continued eligibility.
Under a new agreement, West Pikeland paid $15,000 to the LYA, which in
turn donated the money back to a township-controlled escrow account that
will be used to pay for creating the new full-sized recreation field.
At
a July 21 meeting, Township Manager Jeri Diesinger discussed quotes she
had received from four engineering firms for the costs of field design.
The lowest estimate was $18,200 from Carroll Engineering.
(Administrator Note: According to Township officials,
engineering
costs are
$18,200 and construction of the field is estimated at
an additional
$75,000,
excluding any improvements to parking areas,
bridge, and the like)
Diesinger also alerted supervisors of the deadlines to get the new field
ready for play by spring 2009. She said the field must be graded and
seeded by September, and time is also needed to award the bid to Carroll
Engineering and to receive county permits to move the soil.
Supervisors also heard a report from Wayne Freese, chairman of the
township’s financial review committee.
“If a field is necessary, we believe there should be one, but we believe
it should be at Windolph Knoll,” Freese said.
Freese discussed projected costs for the Pine Creek Park field,
including the possible need for a stone parking lot and grandstands.
Supervisors’ Chairman Bob Shemonsky said the point the financial review
committee was trying to make was that the township can’t afford more
fields at Pine Creek Park.
Several residents then complained that the officials are apparently
backtracking about the fields.
“This board needs to stand by what you’ve put forth,” said resident
Paula Hallenbeck.
Supervisor William Cracas proposed hiring Carroll Engineering for field
design and was supported by Supervisor Harold Hallman III.
But Supervisor Bob Barker asked his colleagues to delay hiring an
engineering firm until after a work session with LYA officials.
After Shemonsky, Barker and Richard Bright voted for the delay, and
Hallman and Cracas dissented, some frustrated parents stormed out of the
township building.
After the meeting, Shemonsky said the supervisors must take the concerns
raised by the financial committee seriously.
The youth association has never asked for grandstands or a stone parking
lot at Pine Creek Park, according to LYA Administrative Vice President
Dorothy Foster, who said some recent West Pikeland actions seem like
delay tactics.
“LYA asked for a soccer field to support West Pikeland children,” Foster
said. “Support your kids with fields — it’s just that simple.”
Foster said if no progress is made, LYA will limit the number of West
Pikeland participants in LYA to 200.
To contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an e-mail to
dlynch@dailylocal.com.
Register and Voice your opinion about this issue on our new chat site --
see Chat
Officials back Pickering Creek quality upgrade
Watershed could be protected from damaging developments
By DANIELLE LYNCH
Staff Writer
A state senator and five townships in northern Chester County support
efforts for Pickering Creek’s reclassification.
State Sen. Andrew Dinniman, D-19th, of West Whiteland, supports the upgrade
of Pickering Creek designation from high quality to exceptional-value water.
The majority of officials of West Vincent, East Pikeland, West Pikeland,
Charlestown and Schuylkill support these efforts, too.
“Once all townships approved the plan, I was happy to give it further
weight,” said Dinniman.
Dinniman said he credits the Green Valleys Association of Southeastern
Pennsylvania for beginning this process.
In 2002, the Green Valleys Association started its work for the creek’s
reclassification and received 112 co-petitioners, according to Director of
Watershed Advocacy John Hoekstra. And on Jan. 26, 2005, the Green Valleys
Association submitted its petition to the state’s Environmental Quality
Board for the upgrade of the Pickering Creek Watershed and its associated
tributaries in the county.
Hoekstra also did an exceptional value campaign, which allowed for a lot of
public notification to individual businesses, landowners and townships, he
said. Exceptional value helps the common good because it ultimately becomes
drinking water, he said, noting that part of the reservoir feeds into Aqua
America Pennsylvania.
“(Exceptional value) does not stop development and it’s not intended to,”
Hoekstra said. “It allows for a strong foundation to argue against something
that may threaten the water quality.”
The state’s Department of Environmental Protection completed its own field
study of the waterway, according to spokeswoman Susan Rickens. The DEP’s
next step is to draft a report with a recommendation to the environmental
quality board, she said.
The DEP’s report will be put out for public review, too, according to
Rickens. Then the environmental quality board will ultimately approve or
reject the request for the watershed’s reclassification, she said.
“I would assume, if all goes well, either by winter or spring next year we
will have an answer,” said Dinniman.
Dinniman wrote a letter mid-May to the DEP in which he states his support
for the watershed classification upgrade. He said he plans to keep track of
the process and believes the water upgrade will be in the best interest of
the entire county.
To contact staff writer Danielle Lynch, send an e-mail to
dlynch@dailylocal.com.
West Pikeland officials approve playing field
By
DANIELLE LYNCH
Staff
Writer
WEST PIKELAND — After months of debate, township supervisors
approved another full-size playing field for Pine Creek Park.
In September, representatives of the Lionville Youth Association
asked the township to provide more playing fields. They said nearly 300
children involved in the association have only 1œ fields to use at Pine
Creek Park and this is a problem because the association requires one
playing field for every 100 children. They noted West Pikeland’s 1œ
soccer/lacrosse fields compare unfavorably to Uwchlan’s 17 soccer/lacrosse
fields and 13 baseball/softball fields.
The association set a deadline of May 30 for another field or a
$15,000 payment from West Pikeland.
The second full-size field will bring the number of fields in the
township to three because the township recently approved another half-size
field at Pine Creek Park.
Supervisors William Cracas and Harold Hallman III voted in favor
of the new field on Monday. Supervisors’ Chairman Bob Shemonsky was the
third to vote in favor of the plans. Supervisors Bob Barker and Richard
Bright voted against the field plans at the 72-acre park.
Barker said he disagreed with the township park and recreation
board’s recommendation. He said he’d rather see more fields built in other
areas of the township, such as Windolph Knoll.
Preliminary estimates from the township’s engineering firm show
grading and seeding for the new field will cost $15,000 to $20,000.
The park and recreation board also recommended the township
install trees and plants on the property of park neighbors who had been
adamantly opposed to more playing fields there.
Bright said he was worried about the timelines and costs and
whether the association would soon ask for more fields.
“They know the formula (for more fields), and they have been
notified that LYA would not ask them for more fields until it reaches 400
children. And if and when it gets to 400, they should consider forming their
own youth organization,” said Dorothy Foster, LYA administrative vice
president.
Foster said LYA is grateful that the majority of supervisors
voted for the