.
Feedback

3rd Street Parties to Submit Briefs on Feb 15

The parties involved with the Contempt of Court Petition filed in the 3rd Street Project are to submit final arguments to the judge.

A hearing was held this week regarding the 3rd Street Project's Contempt of Court Petition and Common Pleas Court Judge James Proud ordered the parties to submit their arguments by Feb. 15.

In September, Broomall's Lake Country Club filed a contempt of court petition stating that , violates the May 2011 three-way stipulation agreement between the borough, Delaware County and BLCC.

Delaware County has not joined in the filing of the contempt of court petition however is a party to the petition due to the three-way stipulation agreement.

In November, Proud requested the parties come to a common agreement. However, no agreement has been reached.

Eugene Bonner, attorney representing BLCC, said the borough and BLCC each have maintained positions.

Both parties will submit written briefs or arguments to Proud by Feb. 15 and Proud will make a ruling. It was unclear whether the county would submit an argument.

Bonner said BLCC attempted to negotiate a resolution with Media Borough but the borough was not open to negotiations. Bonner would not comment on what those negotiations entailed.

Media Borough Solicitor Robert Scott explained the Feb. 15 deadline further saying there is a 10 day rebuttal period after briefs are submitted where either side can dispute the other's argument.

Proud can make a decision at any time after the briefs are submitted, Scott said.

Scott would not comment when asked if the borough refused to negotiate with BLCC.

According to All Things Media, Pa. Blog, BLCC offered the borough a one-way roadway agreement in exchange for no longer being responsible for the maintenance of the bridge, which had been agreed upon in the three-way stipulation agreement.

At Thursday's Media Borough Council meeting, Media resident Terry Rumsey referenced the All Things Media Blog post and asked council if BLCC did in fact offer a one-lane option in exchange for BLCC to be released from its legal responsibilities previously agreed upon.

Media Borough Council President Brian Hall said council can not comment because of pending ligation. The discussion Proud instructed the parties to have were to be held in confidence, Hall said.

"We respect that the judge asked us to meet in confidence and not to discuss these matters outside the three parties," Hall said. "...If it is the case that one of the parties has chosen to discuss this in public, well I think that is a shame that that has happened."

Rumsey, who is in favor of the one-lane, one-way option, responded that if it is true, he is encouraged that BLCC is possibly open-minded to the compromise.

"However, as a taxpayer, I would hope that this council would never barter one-way, one-lane in exchange for saddling Media taxpayers with 100 years of legal and financial responsibility for a dam that only preserves a private lake," Rumsey said.

He also suggested that Delaware County may be interested in assuming the entire responsiblity of the dam, which it now shares with BLCC.

Rumsey and the Friends of Glen Providence Park also wrote a letter to Delaware County Council requesting its support of the one-lane compromise recently. It was shared with Media Patch here.

 

 

 

Cindy Miller January 18, 2013 at 02:12 pm
What makes my skin crawl is that nowhere in the signed stipulation did it say for the parties to come to a "comprise". It said restore the road! Again and again and again I say "If this were a perfect world I would not be typing this comment and you would not be reading it because the road would be functioning as it had for the 100 years prior to its closure now 17 years ago" It's not a perfect world and we all know it too well. All the above being said and more, (don't get me started!) myself, my husband and MANY of our neighbors both in UP and the borough, as well as MANY business owners in the borough are and forever will be strongly in favor of 2 way 2 lane.
Cindy Miller January 18, 2013 at 04:35 pm
Soooo sorry I misspelled COMPROMISE - hummm just realized part of the word is PROMISE!
Chickadee January 18, 2013 at 06:04 pm
Over 500 Media borough residents and over 300 UP residents signed a petition for a pedestrian greenway over 3rd Street. The CAC survey showed strongest support for removing Broomall's Dam and restoring the stream, among residents and businesses, and many, many people in the survey expressed support for a pedestrian greenway. Yes, many other people -- like you -- support a two lane road.
You made an impassioned plea for emergency vehicle access for your home and the 50 or so homes that have a slight proximity to 3rd Street as opposed to Orange Street or Baltimore Pike. Media Borough Council heard your voice and others, and decided to compromise. You got your emergency vehicle access, and now you want two lanes. Many of us have not gotten exactly what we want in this situation. Some of us want BLCC to fund their own lake restoration. Some of us want the park to be preserved, as well as the quiet environment around the park. Some of us want residential streets to stay residential and safer for kids and pedestrians. Some of us want really convenient car access. We are not all going to get exactly what we want. That's part of living in community. I think you need to concede that a large part of Media is not in agreement with you. Can you compromise as others have?
Chickadee January 18, 2013 at 06:11 pm
Finally, nowhere in the stipulation does it say that the road must be two lane. Nowhere in the stipulation does it say that the "vehicular traffic" must be cars. The stipulation explicitly says that only the wording of the stipulation is valid (meaning that "intent" doesn't hold any weight). What is happening now is that BLCC is unwilling to compromise, and they are holding up the project. However, it is Media Borough's legal right to decide how to designate their roads.
Mike M January 18, 2013 at 08:38 pm
And as a voter in Media Borough, I'll continue to support our council working towards an agreement that gives us the smallest vehicular and environmental impact.
KMC January 18, 2013 at 09:02 pm
Well, according to Kent Davidson, he doesn't care what Upper Providence residents have to say about the third street bridge....oh wait, maybe he meant he only cares about those UP residents on his side, but the rest don't matter. That's survey was flawed in so many ways it isn't even funny.
Jim Beam January 18, 2013 at 10:43 pm
Agree with you Mike M I will also support our council. I didn't see where Upper Providence was part of the stipulation agreement. They apparently have no financial obligation in this agreement.
Cindy Miller January 19, 2013 at 02:12 am
Financial obligation???? Maybe Not! But you in the borough have no problems asking for $$$500K from UP residents to support a DREAM library. We in UP and all the other neighboring townships support the borough from the time we drop a dime in any one of the boroughs meters and then continue to spend more money when we shop, dine, or purchase anything! I'm not saying the library is not important it absolutely is - what I'm saying is you and anyone else have major nerve to accuse us of nothing less than we have no right! We share the same zip code as the borough! Maybe you should read up on how 2 neighboring communities in mid state PA who DO NOT share a zip code and have far less social economic means built a funded bridge to connect the two communities over a RIVER - where several homes were demolished. One of the towns being the county seat aka borough of Mifflintown zip code 17059 and the other much smaller borough of Mifflin 17058. Both share the same school district which requires busing to the middle school and the high school.
Bottom line 17 years ago (1996) during one of the worst snow storms the area endured dumped tons of snow over the spillway and broke our dam/bridge. The borough had no place to go, or so the story goes, with snow from the streets. Guess where it ended up???? And guess where we are today. Many residents in the now immediate area did not live nor were their homes built at that time.
Chickadee January 20, 2013 at 03:29 pm
That library is called the Media-Upper Providence Library -- and it's a totally separate issue.
Cindy -- the point is that UP doesn't have as strong a voice as the other parties in the Broomall's Dam/Third Street issue because UP is not contributing a dime or a moment of time to the design, construction, maintenance, operation, emergency action plan or now-mounting legal fees. Things might be different if UP was involved, but I don't see them waving their hands asking to sign that stipulation and be tied to a high-hazard dam and bridge for the next 100 years.
Cindy Miller January 22, 2013 at 08:53 pm
My dear Chickadee I would have like to have seen the "petition" that you so mentioned above and the signatures of the 300 UP Residents. No one came knocking on our door or the doors of my immediate neighbors!! If you have access to that document I would very much like to see it. "Impassioned plea" yes you surely have that correct but 50 or so homes ummmmm not so much! There are 50 NEW homes alone in the Toll Brothers Woodlands development, then let's take into consideration the homes on Kirk, (up to Orange) Highland, all the cul-de-sacs off both, Ridley Creek and the homes on Rosemary, Hillendale,....
I'll repeat 'No where in the stipulation did it say for the 3 parties to come to a compromise'. As far as the park being preserved - overall indeed it will be and I'm gonna say that any work done at the the end of the park that touches Third Street can only enhance its appearance. Quiet environment??? Well goodness wouldn't we just all like that????? You are right on another level - one does not always get what one wants but when one or more are tasked with doing the best for an entire boro, acting as the county seat for Delaware County replete with offices, businesses, churches, etc it would clearly seem to me THEY would think outside the box and not cave to a small group of activists. And lastly I will not, now nor in the days to come, "concede". I do believe we agree to disagree.
Jonathan March 20, 2013 at 01:58 am
As a UP resident living off Highland, I would suggest removal. Save Borough funds, save considerable State tax dollars now and down the line. Seventeen years have proven that this roadway is not necessary to the Borough's good economic health and as far as I know proven that there is no real safety issue presented by lack of the bridge (be it one lane or two or a greenway).

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Media Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Tory Byrne June 2, 2013 at 12:12 am
I forgot to put a phone number down. Please call 856 235 9040 if you know anything. Thank you soRead More much!