1-Lane, 1-Way Road Approved for Media's 3rd Street Project
Media Borough Council voted Thursday 4-3 in favor of a 28-foot wide roadway with one lane of traffic, one-way into the borough over the 3rd Street dam.
Following a heated discussion and confusion over how the 3rd Street Project was to immediately move forward Media Borough Council approved 4-3 a one-lane, one-way roadway across the 3rd Street dam.
Council members Dawn Roe, Monika Rehoric and Paul Robinson voted against the motion after another motion to table the issue was also voted down.
Council voted to communicate its design parameters to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation of a 28-foot wide, one-lane roadway, going one-way into the borough, with shoulders on both sides, a buffer and a landscape architect to be engaged.
Roe and Rehoric seemed shocked that the proposal of a one-lane, one-way roadway was made at Thursday's council meeting saying they were both under the impression that Thursday's motion would only be on the width of the roadway, which the majority of council was in agreement was to be 28-feet.
Robinson said it was still unclear what a 28-foot wide roadway could accommodate as far as the number of lanes and wanted clarification on that question, which could not be answered by the borough engineer, before moving forward.
Rehoric and Roe both questioned why they were voting on the number of lanes now when at the council workshop meeting it was determined they would be moving forward with the width of the roadway only. PennDOT needs the roadway width at this time in order to move forward but did not need the use of the roadway to be determined at this time, Rehoric said.
"We never discussed, one-lane, one way, we only discussed the width of the roadway and we were going to consider, at a later time, what the use would be," Rehoric said. "I never would have supported one-lane, one-way."
Roe said a lot of discussion was still needed, from the public and council, on the use of the roadway.
Roe called the vote "insanely irresponsible" and defiant to the three-way stipulation agreement that is in place with Delaware County and Broomall's Lake. She said the spirit of that agreement was nothing other than a two-lane, two-way roadway.
"I think this motion is insanely irresponsible. I think it makes us irresponsible neighbors. I think it makes us irresponsible leaders. ...It is defiant and obnoxious. It's just insane to me that we're voting on this right now," Roe said.
Council President Brian Hall and Councilman Kent Davidson disagreed with Roe and Rehoric saying the one-lane, one-way was discussed at the workshop meeting (whether it was discussed at July or August's workshop meeting was unclear).
At the July workshop meeting, which Media Patch attended, council did decide that the engineer was to determine the desired width of the roadway. The number of lanes on the roadway was part of the discussion but was not decided at the July workshop meeting. According to the Delaware County Daily Times, at the August workshop meeting, council determined that they would move on the 28-foot width at Thursday's legislative meeting.
Councilman Dr. Eric Stein said he wants the project to move forward and disagreed that the three-way stipulation states what "type" of roadway needs to go across the dam.
Hall agreed with Stein saying the stipulation states the roadway needs to be "re-established" as an open thoroughfare for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
"...Re-establish does not mean that things go back the same way," Hall said. "It just means that you bring something into being again."
Hall said he is interpreting the stipulation document as best he can and it does not state how many lanes of traffic the roadway must be or if it should be one or two way.
Prior to council's discussion, a few residents spoke in favor of a two-lane, two-way roadway.
Media resident Tina Mason said she and several other borough residents were not aware that the number of lanes was still a discussion, believing that council's vote in May to replace the dam also determined the roadway would be two lanes.
Mason said she created a petition asking for two lanes of traffic and said she and many residents have been "silent too long."
The petition had about 40 signatures, she said, after she and another resident knocked on doors for just two days. All Things Media, Pa Blog also announced the petition Wednesday.
Representatives of the Friends of Glen Providence Park, who are in favor of a minimal impact to the park, were in attendance at the Thursday's meeting but did not speak on the matter.
Pam
9:47 am on Friday, September 21, 2012
You have got to be kidding me! After 16 years and this is your solution?! I agree with Roe - completely irresponsible and an embarrassment to the community after all these years.
Michael Jordan
10:56 am on Friday, September 21, 2012
Great reporting, Courtney. You told both sides. That's all the public can expect.
Courtney Elko
11:58 am on Friday, September 21, 2012
Thanks for the kind words, Michael.
Jim Beam
12:50 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012
I think this is a fair resolution to the 3rd Street Project. BLCC gets a new lake and dam. The road is open and will allow emergency vehicle traffic to pass to Upper Providence. Residents of the developments off of Kirk Lane will not have to make the dangerous left turn onto Baltimore Pike to enter Media and residents near the dam will not be overwhelmed with vehicular traffic.
matt
8:43 pm on Sunday, September 23, 2012
define overwhelmed?
Mary Ferrell
3:22 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012
I agree that this is a compromise that is fair to all concerned. Some may want two lanes two ways but a majority of Media residents wanted to have no lanes of traffic except for emergency vehicles. One lane is a compromise between the two opinions.
matt
8:46 pm on Sunday, September 23, 2012
Majority..? I doubt that, and the motivation behind the one lane..proximity to road and as stated earlier..we dont want traffic going by "my house"..its called an easement..what is traffic on UP side going to be?one lane also?
Jim Cunningham
11:49 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Let's stop the phony spin right now! The majority, the majority of Media residents and taxpayers want exactly what the county court order calls for, a two way two lane road open for vehicular traffic. I have campaigned all over Media the last four years, know more people from all walks of life here and have lived in this town longer than any self-appointed member of the so called Friends of Glen Providence Park and know what most Media citizens want. Not only are the four councilman who voted for this travesty guilty of nonfeasance and malfeasance in office but are violating the public trust by being in open collusion with those self-interested few who act in their own personal interest at the expense of the entire community.
Pam
7:51 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
I agree with Jim!
Kent Davidson
12:36 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Don't blow a gasket, Jim. How about basing your opinion on a few facts?
Signatures from Media residents on a petition delivered to Borough Council requesting a "greenway" (e.g. no traffic) across the 3rd Street Dam in 2011: 535
Signatures from Media residents on a petition delivered to Borough Council requesting 2-lanes across the 3rd Street Dam in 2012: 18
If the support is there as you say it is, perhaps you should start a petition to find these mystery residents who wish for a 2-lane road. Otherwise, I think the compromise more than addresses both sides of the issue.
KMC
9:48 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Oh Mr. Davidson, I cannot take anything you have to say seriously, as you did not even have the decency to recuse yourself from voting. You and Mr. Hall have got to be two of the most arrogant men I have ever come across. I watch every council meeting and the way you talk t others who have a differing opinion than yours is disgraceful. I am pretty sure those 18 signatures you speak of were obtained right before the meeting where council decided to go against a court order and vote for a one way road. I am sure if given time, more signatures would have been obtained. However, I think that most of us who want the two lanes restored believed that our concil would stop wasting tax dollars and do what was already agreed upon last year. It's a shame that this current council has created such a mess and divided what was once a great place to live.
Kent Davidson
5:58 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
@KMC. I'm sorry, but I don't believe we've ever met - you are anonymous and unfortunately I have a hard time addressing anonymous voices. I would strongly encourage you to come to a meeting and speak with myself and/or Mr. Hall directly, and let me know you are "KMC" on this site. Otherwise, you haven't really addressed the facts that I brought up, nor presented any sort of facts yourself. You are entitled to your opinion, but hopefully residents hold their own opinions based on facts and not your opinion.
KMC
8:19 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Mr. Davidson, we have met, and unfortunately I am not paying a babysitter to attend the council meetings. That would be why I watch them on cable. I have lived in media my whole life, and have to say, it is embarrassing the way our town has been made a mockery because of the antics if current council. Case in point, article in the daily times yesterday. The longer you drag things out, the more my taxes are going to go up. And yes, there was no tax increase for this year....are you going t be able to say the same for next year? And also, you always dance around the question in hand, why have you not recused yourself from voting on third street bridge matters? Brian hall had the common sense to do so about library matters because his daughter has a part time job there. Why haven't you admitted that you may have a conflict of interest because of where your house is? Pretty sure Frank Daly would have had the morals to abstain from voting. And all of my opinions are based on facts, thanks. Again, your response just sows your arrogance...as it does every time you respond during council meetings to anyone who has a different opinion than you.
Kent Davidson
8:39 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
@KMC: Then please introduce yourself here so I know whom I'm addressing, or even better, fill out your profile as I have so you have a real-world identity. To answer your request: Pennsylvania Law requires a public official to recuse themselves from voting when they receive a direct pecuniary benefit (e.g. money) from an issue at hand. Similarly, Pennsylvania law also says that officials MUST VOTE if there is no pecuniary benefit. e.g. you can't abstain simply because you want to, or think you "should." I have spoken with our solicitor who has indicated that since I receive no money directly or indirectly from the dam project, then I MUST vote on that issue. Speculating that my personal property value goes up or down based on our decisions is insufficient evidence to abstain. To quote Paul Robinson, "In a town with an area of 3/4 of a mile, we are always going to have projects which are near our homes." Finally, I stated in the March meeting which I assume you saw televised that I would vote with the will of Media residents. More than 500 Media residents signed a petition in 2011 saying they wanted a greenway, and we surveyed residents in 2012 who favored dam removal and minimizing the impact on the park. I voted based on the majority or residents' desires. It's obvious you disagree, but as a representative, it's my duty to uphold the desires of the majority of residents, not a vocal minority.
KMC
12:57 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
1) The will of the residents was tainted. Nothing in that survey mentioned costs by any stretch. In addition, many complained about not receiving the survey, which apparently didn't reach everyone as intended. (accidental, intentional? I'll let others decide)
2) The survey was moot since the stipulation, in the eyes of many residents and stakeholders, was clear and complete. As stated before your conflicted self was sworn in, the CAC committee's was meant more for the finishes/look of the completed bridge, not to be a several-months long joke.
KMC
12:59 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
3) The fact that you purchased the FROGs website, meanwhile keeping it on the hush while promoting a "transparent government" in the 2011 election shows you could care less for the true will of the people of the Borough of Media as opposed to you and your circle of neighbors (oops, FROGS) own personal interests. Also, pretty sure your wife is one of the leaders of the FROGS...conflict much? Add this in ALONE to this $3-4 Million bridge fiasco and it's is enough material to go before a state ethics board. So maybe it isn't state law that you recuse yourself from voting (which I am not convinced that you havent just twisted the law to make it benefit yourself), but it certainly makes me question your ethics and morality. Again, you and Mr. Robinson can keep spinning things as you see fit (ie, "In a town with an area of 3/4 of a mile, we are always going to have projects which are near our homes." ) but because of the ticket you ran on, websites you have funded, you most definately have a conflict of interest in the third st bridge fiasco. Are you planning to just drag out the bridge mess long enough for you to put your house on the market and move somehere else in town? I think at this point council needs to start doing some damage control in the press, because Media is starting to looking like a place no one will want to come to.
Kent Davidson
1:15 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
@KMC: I have disclosed who I am. In the interest of transparency, how about you disclose who you are? Otherwise I'm talking to a Sockpuppet. You are sadly, egregiously wrong in your accusations of ethical misconduct. Ethics laws prohibit the receipt of funds by a public official for voting on a matter at hand. It does not prohibit me from donating money to local causes I believe in, or from prohibiting a family member from participating in local organizations. I also donate money to the Fair Trade Committee, the Media Arts Council, CRC Watersheds, Media Rotary Foundation, the Media Upper Providence Free Library, the Media EMS and Fire Company, and yes, Friends of Glen Providence Park to name a few. I'm also a non-voting member of Broomall's Lake Country Club. This is not unethical - it shows where I place my priorities and values. I will halt this "discussion" (if you can call it that) because regardless of what I say, you will twist it around to skew opinion against my actions and introduce doubt as much as you can. If your accusations are more than "hot air", then I dare you to not only disclose your identity, but to come to a meeting and confront me personally on these issues so we can discuss them rationally. Otherwise, I'll assume you are simply an anonymous coward with zero evidence and nothing but empty accusations.
KMC
4:30 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Mr. Davidson, you can call me whatever you want, that is the beauty of the country we live in. However, I will say, I expect more out of elected officials....for you to stoop to name calling is pretty low for someone in our position. I will not come t any meeting and stand before you because I have seen how you engage in arguments with others who do not have your same beliefs (Cindy miller, dawn roe, monica r) You like to talk over people and put them down. Maybe you should grow a thicker skin and not let what others think cloud your judgment. And I end with this....did some research about council code, and according to what I found, spin things how you may, I still find you voting on 3rd st matters a conflict..."sections 12-7 of the Borough Code of Ethics and Section 12-8 clearly indicate that an elected official cannot render services for any private agency or entity when that service would tend to impair his judgment and independence in the performance of his borough duties or grant any special considerations to any person or entity beyond what is available to every other person or individual." That is pretty clear to me that you have a conflict
KMC
4:32 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
And while we are at it, since you like to donate money, maybe you could donate some to get the 3rd st project completed!
Mary Ferrell
6:50 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Jim, My understanding of the majority of Media residents wanting less than 2 lanes, 2 ways is based on the recent survey sent out to residents, and the response at the many meetings held just prior to the decision of dam vs. bridge, and traffic vs. bike lane. Didn't a majority vote for bike lane and dam removal?
KMC
7:59 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Mary, a majority of Media residents did not get the so called survey! So I hardly believe that the results are unbiased.
Andrea
3:52 pm on Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The majority of residents voted in the council members who campaigned on getting residents' input on the dam/bridge. The previous council did not seek such input when the dam was designed or when the court agreement was obtained. While I agree that the survey was not well-distributed (the fault of the post office, not the CAC), the current decision is a more-than-fair compromise to all concerned: BLCC get their taxpayer funded dam and local residents get vehicular access. Restricting traffic is sensible given the amount of recent housing development in the immediate area--it's not serving the same neighborhood it was at the time of the dam closure. If it was going by my house, you bet I'd be concerned about traffic, my young children would be at risk with a huge amount of traffic coming through there.