Judge Asks 3rd St. Project Parties to Resolve Matter

A Common Pleas Court Judge has asked the three parties involved with the 3rd Street Project to come to a common agreement following a contempt of court filing.

Common Pleas Court Judge James Proud has asked the three parties involved with the 3rd Street Project—Media Borough, Delaware County and Broomall's Lake Country Club—to come to a common agreement following a contempt of court filing, according to the Delaware County Daily Times.

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, the 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.

According to the May 2011 stipulation agreement, the borough must, "re-establish the West Third Street roadway across the dam as an open thoroughfare for vehicular and pedestrian traffic." The word "re-establish" has been the recent point of disagreement regarding the project.

According to the Delco Times, Proud asked the three parties, in a closed conference, to come to a common agreement regarding the bridge design and how it should be re-established. No official ruling was handed down in the conference.

There was no time table put on the compromise seeking meetings however Media Borough Council President Brian Hall told the Delco Times that 30 days was mentioned but a January status update is more likely.

According to All Things Media Blog, another hearing is scheduled in December.

The at its November meeting.

The RTM board said a two-lane, two-way bridge would make transportation more direct and the district’s transportation costs would decrease.

However, at Media Borough's October meeting, several residents stated their support for the one-lane, one-way "compromise" at 3rd Street, stating that they were not "happy" with the decision, however they support the compromise.



Cindy Miller November 21, 2012 at 01:05 PM
Regarding the last paragraph there were also residents there who were not in favor of the comprise and just as strongly favored "restablishing" the road as it was for 100+ years - 2 way 2 lane.
Mike M November 22, 2012 at 05:51 PM
Cindy: As was reported in the Media Patch, the residents at that meeting who were in favor of a 2 way / 2 lane road were in the minority. Steve McDonald, Tedman O'Hara, and Michael Jordan don't count as anywhere close to "strong" support for the two way / two lane option.
Cindy Miller November 24, 2012 at 05:29 PM
Back up to the September meeting where Mrs Mason spoke on the signatures she & another neighbor received in polling their neighborhoods, albeit in the 11th hour, of those in favor of 2 lane 2 way. Followed by a comment that a similar petition had taken place at some point months before which included UP and favored quite the opposite. That being said and living in UP and advocating, since the closure, a 2 way 2 lane road I NEVER saw nor did I, or any of my immediate neighbors, hear of that petition. Which would leave me to believe it was passed to ONLY those who were of like thinking. IF Steve, Tedman and Michael "don't count" where does/do the RTMSD School Board, the councils of UP Twp and Middletown Twp ( AND Edgemont Twp as they too are part of the school district and real estate taxation for RTMSD) stand???? Let me tell you ~ "They have all sent letters to this present Borough Council in support of 2 way 2 lane." Yes the RTMSD School Board includes a Media Borough resident.
Mike M November 24, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Cindy: - I didn't say Steve, Tedman, and Michael "don't count" I said they don't count as strong support. They're three people and only three people. - Media Borough Council is beholden to the voters of Media Borough and only Media Borough. The Republican cabal of RTMSD School Board, Upper Providence Township Council, and Middletown Township Council can howl at the moon all they'd like on the bridge, but their opinion matters zero inside of Media Borough. You're entitled to your own opinion, but ultimately it isn't your bridge if you don't live in Media.
Cindy Miller November 25, 2012 at 01:11 AM
Mike. When did you last survey the entire bridge to ensure that is 100% in Media Borough including the approach to and from and while you're thinking about that - where do you propose the one way should start and stop????
Mike M November 25, 2012 at 01:11 PM
Cindy: Yes, a part of the bridge is in Upper Prov. My point is that Media Borough Council needs to adhere to the wishes of Media Borough voters when bringing plans to the table on the bridge. As Media Patch reported, the number of Media Borough residents who spoke in favor of a two lane / two way traffic solution were both minimal and in the minority. Why should the council pander to this?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something