.
This petition was forwarded to Sally Hixson, Chair and Supervisors at Williams Township December 12, 2007:
Dear Chairperson Hixson and Supervisors,
We, the undersigned, presented you some 22 [now 24] months ago with a petition urging you to allow a fellow resident (three-time flood victim) to complete flood reparations that she gained permitting and approval from, as of August 2005. We have come to understand that you have still not allowed her to move forward - some 22 months later, and now three years after IVAN caused her the initial damage.
We are also aware that you have received numerous gestures of support in her behalf in the form of letters, phone contact and documentation from all levels of government; including the DEP, Fish and Boat Commission, the Governor's Center for Local Government Services, the Wildlands Conservancy, State Representatives - indeed, even the Governor's Office itself - as well as the office of former President Bill Clinton, urging that the Township stop delaying her.
We understand that representatives from four of these agencies, including the Governor's Office, took time to travel here to a meeting in her bahalf in April 2006 (four months after our petition was presented to you), in order to give the Township the opportunity to state its final demands. We are aware that letters have recently come to your offices (in late June) stating that - as of December 2006 - she had met the conditions that you, the Township, requested at that meeting, and you have still not honored this agreement made with the State representative agencies.
We understand that DEP Director of Waterways Engineering contacted Supervisor Robert Doerr in December 2006, who then reassured him the Township was only interested in ensuring adjacent landowners were aware of her ownership. Oddly, the Township Solicitor was then instructed to contact these neighbors out-of-state to determine if they had any interest in objecting to her ownership. They didn't. And, apparently, also made it clear they wanted the Township to allow her to go forward.
What is the Township DOING? We are baffled as to why the Township would have gone so far as to insert themselves in a private boundary issue, in an apparent attempt to delay her even further. Then continually change the terms of the 'needs' that would allow her to move forward, even after this final agreement was reached. This strikes us as bad faith agreement.
AND we are now wondering as to the amount of time and taxpayers' funds you have spent over the laswt two years doing so. It is of concern to us that the Township has 1) continually tried to delay this resident in the wake of three floods, after she was able to save the Township taxpayers money by initially raising State and federal funds for the repair; 2) disregarded the urgency of her situation and continued erosion at this location for three years; 3) disregarded our petition as of 22 months ago; and finally 4) has disregarded not only the better judgment of experienced State agencies primarily involved in this very type of situation regularly, but disregarded an agreement reached after these agencies invested time to travel to a meeting called to cater to the final requests of the Township in April 2006.
We are also aware that, during the course of this delay, there has been much time and money spent to: 1) instruct the Township engineer to do a survey of her property without her knowledge; 2) contact neighbors out-of-state to see if they had interest in overturning her legal ownership of the areas where repairs need to be done; and 3) attempt to disprove her legal ownership of areas where the damage occurred (after repeatedly making it clear, when asked for help initially, this was her "private property, not the Township's responsibility").
We also understand that, during the course of this continuous dealy, the Township Manager took it upon herself to photocopy and distribute her personal financial information as she saw fit. This level of self-imposed authority strikes us as beyond the scope of justifiable need for an employee of the Township in public service.
It concerns us that the Township has taken it upon itself to expend unnecessary time and monies in what now appears to be selective harassment. Who has initiated and approved this? Has this been initiated by the Supervisors? Are there others making decisions without fully information you? And if so, how are they permitted to do so freely?
In our view, it appears that this resident has done everything possible to not only meet the Township's continuous demands, but has - to date - avoided engaging the Township in a lengthy legal battle, which would cost Township residents even more tax dollars.
Why has the Township continued to press this matter and not honor their own agreements, nor their own continuous demands, once she has met them? You have ignored strong advice from experienced State agencies and Offices with professional expertise in this area; you have ignored the voice of your own residents. Mostly, you have ignored the safety of a fellow resident.
You have reached out for our support during this election season. And yet, we have voiced our concerns over the last 22 months, and they have been ignored. As representatives chosen, based on our perception of how you meet the needs of the residents, both as a community and individually, we are again imploring you, as Chairperson and Supervisor, to cease this pointless harassment of a fellow resident and stop spending our Tax Dollars to what clearly now appears to be more harassment, than policy. This is not in her best interest as a flood victim, nor is it in our best interest as a community.
We do not support any additional expenditure of our tax monies in this continued endeavor.
It remains to be seen whether the Township will ignore, once again, the voice of those who are paying its bills.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Friday, August 31, 2007
Watch a Video of Racing Water Threatening Flood-Damaged Property
.
This is a video taken in October 2005, just weeks after the Township halted this resident's DEP-sanctioned and permitted flood-repair with a "Cease and Desist Order". **
Since this video was taken, there have been two subsequent floods where this home was flooded.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9080075195951950886&pr=goog-sl
After seeing this video at a meeting in December 2005, the Board of Supervisors were visibly shaken by the sheer volume and velocity of the water coming down the mountain from the developments upstream. They stated they, "Wished to see this flood repair move forward".
But, there was a caveat; they refused to allow her to move forward until she signed a Liability Release.
The Liability Release was couched in a manner to be simply a release of the Township for the structure of the Stream Bank Wall. Though it seemed odd that any Township would require a "liability release" for any work to be done on a property, prior to repairing flood work, the owner was agreeable.
Unfortunately, concern was warranted: much like an earlier land easement volley, whereby the Township caused a precious three-month delay in the original project (see below) - when the "Liability Release" arrived, it did not resemble anything the landowner had agreed to. It had been drawn up (by the Township Solicitor) to include a complete and total release of liability to the Township, not only for the structure of the wall, but for any actions prior to, during and subsequent to the construction of the wall.
In simple layman's terms: a complete Carte Blanche and liability release for their behavior, delays and how they had treated this resident through two years of delays, side-stepping, harassment, and violations of Municipal Planning Codes.
What this then does, is empower them to continue to selectively harass and treat residents separately as they wish, then force them to release them from repercussions, with absolutely no accountability for their egregious acts.
The owner was advised not to sign. The agencies supporting her at the State level reiterated that it was an unusual request of a Township - particularly in a standard flood reparation situation. The Township has refused to allow her to move forward.
Now the Township is violating an agreement made at a meeting held with all the State agencies present - a meeting initiated specifically to allow the Township to state its requirements with all present, to avert any further 'bait and switch' delays. Instead - in a classic continuation of the same behavior they've exhibited for two years - the Township has now chosen to undermine her legal title to the area where repairs must be done.
Her safety is now a worsening issue.
Integrity. Clearly not a criterion for local governance.
**see below for early commentary on the Cease and Desist order by DEP and the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) below. [The DCED is the state-organization chartered with - among other things - actually writing the boilerplate Zoning Ordinances that municipalities use across the State. ...in other words, they know the zoning ordinances inside and out.]
This is a video taken in October 2005, just weeks after the Township halted this resident's DEP-sanctioned and permitted flood-repair with a "Cease and Desist Order". **
Since this video was taken, there have been two subsequent floods where this home was flooded.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9080075195951950886&pr=goog-sl
After seeing this video at a meeting in December 2005, the Board of Supervisors were visibly shaken by the sheer volume and velocity of the water coming down the mountain from the developments upstream. They stated they, "Wished to see this flood repair move forward".
But, there was a caveat; they refused to allow her to move forward until she signed a Liability Release.
The Liability Release was couched in a manner to be simply a release of the Township for the structure of the Stream Bank Wall. Though it seemed odd that any Township would require a "liability release" for any work to be done on a property, prior to repairing flood work, the owner was agreeable.
Unfortunately, concern was warranted: much like an earlier land easement volley, whereby the Township caused a precious three-month delay in the original project (see below) - when the "Liability Release" arrived, it did not resemble anything the landowner had agreed to. It had been drawn up (by the Township Solicitor) to include a complete and total release of liability to the Township, not only for the structure of the wall, but for any actions prior to, during and subsequent to the construction of the wall.
In simple layman's terms: a complete Carte Blanche and liability release for their behavior, delays and how they had treated this resident through two years of delays, side-stepping, harassment, and violations of Municipal Planning Codes.
What this then does, is empower them to continue to selectively harass and treat residents separately as they wish, then force them to release them from repercussions, with absolutely no accountability for their egregious acts.
The owner was advised not to sign. The agencies supporting her at the State level reiterated that it was an unusual request of a Township - particularly in a standard flood reparation situation. The Township has refused to allow her to move forward.
Now the Township is violating an agreement made at a meeting held with all the State agencies present - a meeting initiated specifically to allow the Township to state its requirements with all present, to avert any further 'bait and switch' delays. Instead - in a classic continuation of the same behavior they've exhibited for two years - the Township has now chosen to undermine her legal title to the area where repairs must be done.
Her safety is now a worsening issue.
Integrity. Clearly not a criterion for local governance.
**see below for early commentary on the Cease and Desist order by DEP and the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) below. [The DCED is the state-organization chartered with - among other things - actually writing the boilerplate Zoning Ordinances that municipalities use across the State. ...in other words, they know the zoning ordinances inside and out.]
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The Story
.
This article appeared in the Elucidator, Spring 2007.
Something rotten in the township
Spring 2007
"There are few situations where a local township's antics can be pegged as brutal. Bureaucratic, maybe; lackadaisical, possibly; passive, even; yet rarely so blatant as to be seen as vindictive. But, _____Township's treatment of one of their residents is just that - brutal to the point of irresponsible. And apparently, more than a handful of State agencies feel the same.
The Morning Call recently ran the second of two well-deserved columns about a situation in Williams Township concerning a resident trying desperately to get back on her feet after enduring all three floods along the Delaware Corridor. Ivan is what did the most damage in September 2004; her home is at the bottom of a hill where runoff from the entire Stout's valley (increased with 5 new developments since 1999) tore out a stream bank wall, including her drive and access to her home, leaving her home exposed.
After approaching the Township for help following Ivan, and being turned away, this resident turned to the state and federal government and was key in unleashing close to $200,000 in state/federal funds to help repair her own and her neighbor's property. It took more than six months of almost full-time work, but the owners and state agencies, including DEP, worked together putting the plans and designs in place.
To hear the Township's version, one would think they went out of their way to [hold the world's biggest bake sale and ] cull $200,000 from their coffers and mobilize all their resources to help their residents in need and were rebuffed. Instead, it appears they were adamant, initially: it was private property, so not their responsibility. But, they jumped on board once landowners worked to put funding and plans in place.
And take over they did; apparently, the first order of business was for the Township engineer to pounce on and denounce the DEP design - before they ever officially came on board. Hard to believe, but true. Perhaps the Township felt the Department of Waterways Engineering at DEP had some questionable experience when it came to engineering stream bank walls in waterways? When the landowners gently reminded the Township they were effectively past this point, that the DEP designed these projects as a matter of course, and that time was of the essence, a township supervisor angrily berated them.
Eventually, when the Township couldn't convince this resident to sign on for an optional 10-year easement for control/maintenance of the structure, the Township engineer directed a survey be done of her property without her knowledge, in an effort to bypass her decision not to sign on for the easement, to build on those areas they believed didn't belong to her. They forwarded their plans to the DEP, but the DEP didn't go for them. Apparently, not only was it a backhanded attempt to gain control of her property, but according to DEP this plan would have caused her even more severe erosion problems. [motivation?]
Not surprisingly, this is when she chose to step away from the project, and turned the remaining funding over to the landowners on the opposite side. Her portion of the funding went back into the pot for other PA residents in need. Meanwhile, the township had other plans.
Once she stepped out of the program and tried to get her bank repaired privately, with the blessing and permits of all other agencies - now a year after IVAN - the Township slapped a Cease and Desist order on her, claiming Zoning Violations. Interestingly, not only were these supposed violations considered an undo burden, but also inappropriate to her situation by both DEP and the very organization that writes the boilerplate Zoning Ordinances for municipalities across the state.
The Township has since hit her with a litany of other [constantly changing] demands. She has met them all. Most importantly, she has met the final criteria set at a final meeting last April [2006] with all the State agencies in attendance. The latest? She had to incur the cost and time of ensuring clear title to her property by getting a Court Order clarifying ownership of areas she'd be working on, even though she and the previous owner kept, maintained and paid taxes on it for 60 years combined. Now the Township is trying to undermine her legal title to her own property!
What is wrong with these people? If this isn't harassment, I don't know what is. And even more disturbing: they're spending tax dollars doing it!
All the State agencies involved are in support of her and have not been shy in admitting their disgust with the Township's antics. While the Township seems to want to play King of the Hill, her house is exposed, erosion is accelerating, more of her property is being lost, and she is a sitting duck for further damage from stormwater runoff in the stream, not to mention someone actually getting hurt on the property as it sits now. The Township recently tried to get her to sign off on a a "liability release" to release them from any and all liability, one would guess, from their delays, yet they still continue to blatantly ignore the strongest urgings of all these professional agencies!
Somewhere along the line, these public servants have lost sight of the fact that local government, just like state and federal, is there to protect the people, not to maintain the sanctity of power of those employed behind the walls of a Township building. I believe we call it a democracy. Does this mean that anyone, for no reason whatsoever short of irritating the powers that be, can be the target of this kind of absurd abuse of power?
Holy Fiefdom, Batman! Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this why we left the Queen behind over 200 years ago? Even at a Federal level, overstepping authority is not tolerated for long. A system of checks and balances is in place to ensure arrogant abuse of power does not reign supreme. Unfortunately, local "politicians" seem to feel they are not held under the same microscope as heads of state.
It's up to us to let them know we are watching. And we don't like what we see.
I would wager to say it is time for some housecleaning: methinks there is something rotten in the Township of William."
- Elucidator, Spring 2007.
This article appeared in the Elucidator, Spring 2007.
Something rotten in the township
Spring 2007
"There are few situations where a local township's antics can be pegged as brutal. Bureaucratic, maybe; lackadaisical, possibly; passive, even; yet rarely so blatant as to be seen as vindictive. But, _____Township's treatment of one of their residents is just that - brutal to the point of irresponsible. And apparently, more than a handful of State agencies feel the same.
The Morning Call recently ran the second of two well-deserved columns about a situation in Williams Township concerning a resident trying desperately to get back on her feet after enduring all three floods along the Delaware Corridor. Ivan is what did the most damage in September 2004; her home is at the bottom of a hill where runoff from the entire Stout's valley (increased with 5 new developments since 1999) tore out a stream bank wall, including her drive and access to her home, leaving her home exposed.
After approaching the Township for help following Ivan, and being turned away, this resident turned to the state and federal government and was key in unleashing close to $200,000 in state/federal funds to help repair her own and her neighbor's property. It took more than six months of almost full-time work, but the owners and state agencies, including DEP, worked together putting the plans and designs in place.
To hear the Township's version, one would think they went out of their way to [hold the world's biggest bake sale and ] cull $200,000 from their coffers and mobilize all their resources to help their residents in need and were rebuffed. Instead, it appears they were adamant, initially: it was private property, so not their responsibility. But, they jumped on board once landowners worked to put funding and plans in place.
And take over they did; apparently, the first order of business was for the Township engineer to pounce on and denounce the DEP design - before they ever officially came on board. Hard to believe, but true. Perhaps the Township felt the Department of Waterways Engineering at DEP had some questionable experience when it came to engineering stream bank walls in waterways? When the landowners gently reminded the Township they were effectively past this point, that the DEP designed these projects as a matter of course, and that time was of the essence, a township supervisor angrily berated them.
Eventually, when the Township couldn't convince this resident to sign on for an optional 10-year easement for control/maintenance of the structure, the Township engineer directed a survey be done of her property without her knowledge, in an effort to bypass her decision not to sign on for the easement, to build on those areas they believed didn't belong to her. They forwarded their plans to the DEP, but the DEP didn't go for them. Apparently, not only was it a backhanded attempt to gain control of her property, but according to DEP this plan would have caused her even more severe erosion problems. [motivation?]
Not surprisingly, this is when she chose to step away from the project, and turned the remaining funding over to the landowners on the opposite side. Her portion of the funding went back into the pot for other PA residents in need. Meanwhile, the township had other plans.
Once she stepped out of the program and tried to get her bank repaired privately, with the blessing and permits of all other agencies - now a year after IVAN - the Township slapped a Cease and Desist order on her, claiming Zoning Violations. Interestingly, not only were these supposed violations considered an undo burden, but also inappropriate to her situation by both DEP and the very organization that writes the boilerplate Zoning Ordinances for municipalities across the state.
The Township has since hit her with a litany of other [constantly changing] demands. She has met them all. Most importantly, she has met the final criteria set at a final meeting last April [2006] with all the State agencies in attendance. The latest? She had to incur the cost and time of ensuring clear title to her property by getting a Court Order clarifying ownership of areas she'd be working on, even though she and the previous owner kept, maintained and paid taxes on it for 60 years combined. Now the Township is trying to undermine her legal title to her own property!
What is wrong with these people? If this isn't harassment, I don't know what is. And even more disturbing: they're spending tax dollars doing it!
All the State agencies involved are in support of her and have not been shy in admitting their disgust with the Township's antics. While the Township seems to want to play King of the Hill, her house is exposed, erosion is accelerating, more of her property is being lost, and she is a sitting duck for further damage from stormwater runoff in the stream, not to mention someone actually getting hurt on the property as it sits now. The Township recently tried to get her to sign off on a a "liability release" to release them from any and all liability, one would guess, from their delays, yet they still continue to blatantly ignore the strongest urgings of all these professional agencies!
Somewhere along the line, these public servants have lost sight of the fact that local government, just like state and federal, is there to protect the people, not to maintain the sanctity of power of those employed behind the walls of a Township building. I believe we call it a democracy. Does this mean that anyone, for no reason whatsoever short of irritating the powers that be, can be the target of this kind of absurd abuse of power?
Holy Fiefdom, Batman! Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this why we left the Queen behind over 200 years ago? Even at a Federal level, overstepping authority is not tolerated for long. A system of checks and balances is in place to ensure arrogant abuse of power does not reign supreme. Unfortunately, local "politicians" seem to feel they are not held under the same microscope as heads of state.
It's up to us to let them know we are watching. And we don't like what we see.
I would wager to say it is time for some housecleaning: methinks there is something rotten in the Township of William."
- Elucidator, Spring 2007.
A Sampling from Letters of Support
There has been nothing but non-stop, continuous support from all agencies since September 2005:
The Fish and Boat Commission: "There is an obvious need to protect your property and residence from potential damage." Mgr, Bureau of Law Enforcement.
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) - Director of Waterways Engineering, who has reviewed, prepared, and blessed this resident's plans, wrote several letters to the Township and emphasized: "[This resident] is just replacing the stone wall that washed out [during] IVAN...that protects [her] home and driveway..[She has] secured all the required state and federal authorizations..required...I have been frustrated by the lack of cooperation and understanding shown...You..can make a resident go through a long and arduous process if you so choose. This project has not followed an easy path...Too much unnecessary time, money and effort has already been expended here by all of us, for the complexity of the project to be built."
Former President Bill Clinton's office (which still focuses enormous effort on flood victims), correspondence to the Governor stated: "[This resident] wishes to take measure to protect her home and property from further erosion from water runoff, but has been prevented from doing so by her local bureaucracy. I hope you will consider assisting [her] with her situation."
Natural Resources Conservation Services - Director/Administrator of NRCS Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) (source of original $200,000): Even though she is no longer part of the project, NRCS attended a meeting in her behalf and has continued to implore the township to stop the delay and allow her to complete her project. In a letter written in response to several misstatements by the Township Attorney, he states: "[The Township Solicitor's comments] ...are irrelevant and misleading... This section of stream bank sits as a hazard to property and a source of soil erosion and sedimentation into [the stream] and downstream areas...Hurricane IVAN occurred September 17-19, 2004...It appears it is more difficult for an individual to gain approval to install stream bank and property protection locally, than it is for federal and state governments to accomplish similar work!..." [addresses the continuous penchant these folks have for 'bending' the truth to their benefit.]
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), Governor's Center for Local Government Services, which oversees the zoning issues in municipalities, stated: "This case should..be determined by the township [as] an emergency situation where the permit is waived and project proceeds" ..[Your private project] is basically a replacement or restoration of a preexisting bank...Any further delay [of your private project] will only exacerbate the problem and [is leaving] you exposed ...We strongly urge full [township] cooperation in [your] project ..to avoid further harm to [this resident] and her residence."
...in response to the Township's halting her until she signed a "liability release":
The DEP responded: "As a practical matter, I do question the need for a Release... It seems to me that the Township's concern ...should not be what might happen if the wall is built. Rather, I would be concerned about her legal options if the wall is not allowed to be built, and her home is damaged in a future high water event." - Director of Waterways Engineering, DEP.
"..It is indeed disappointing that this matter has taken this long to resolve, especially ...after a gentleman's agreement [with all State agencies and the Township] was reached last April [2006]...The issue of a liability release [was not] an agreed upon criteria or condition for moving this project forward. " - DCED
..the DCED (above) together with the Governor's Office, in response to them trying to undercut the ownership issue as yet another delay tactic:
"Any further debate concerning ownership [of areas where her work is to commence] is extraneous and serves to run counter to the objective or our collective goal...to ensure her personal safety and avert further damages. This has only become more urgent [with passage of time]...As in previous correspondence, we strongly urge the Township acknowledge this agreement between all parties attending the April 6, 2006 meeting. To do otherwise constitutes separate treatment of residents (violation of MPC), and demonstrates disregard for good faith agreement of all parties. [The Center], the Governor's Office, and [other] agencies represented at the meeting, are extremely concerned about the seriousness of [this resident's] current situation and the Township's delay."
Doesn't get more straightforward than this!
She's got letters of support from everyone from Congressmen to the Governor's office to former president Bill Clinton. No small feat, that kind of bi-partisan support!!
The Fish and Boat Commission: "There is an obvious need to protect your property and residence from potential damage." Mgr, Bureau of Law Enforcement.
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) - Director of Waterways Engineering, who has reviewed, prepared, and blessed this resident's plans, wrote several letters to the Township and emphasized: "[This resident] is just replacing the stone wall that washed out [during] IVAN...that protects [her] home and driveway..[She has] secured all the required state and federal authorizations..required...I have been frustrated by the lack of cooperation and understanding shown...You..can make a resident go through a long and arduous process if you so choose. This project has not followed an easy path...Too much unnecessary time, money and effort has already been expended here by all of us, for the complexity of the project to be built."
Former President Bill Clinton's office (which still focuses enormous effort on flood victims), correspondence to the Governor stated: "[This resident] wishes to take measure to protect her home and property from further erosion from water runoff, but has been prevented from doing so by her local bureaucracy. I hope you will consider assisting [her] with her situation."
Natural Resources Conservation Services - Director/Administrator of NRCS Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) (source of original $200,000): Even though she is no longer part of the project, NRCS attended a meeting in her behalf and has continued to implore the township to stop the delay and allow her to complete her project. In a letter written in response to several misstatements by the Township Attorney, he states: "[The Township Solicitor's comments] ...are irrelevant and misleading... This section of stream bank sits as a hazard to property and a source of soil erosion and sedimentation into [the stream] and downstream areas...Hurricane IVAN occurred September 17-19, 2004...It appears it is more difficult for an individual to gain approval to install stream bank and property protection locally, than it is for federal and state governments to accomplish similar work!..." [addresses the continuous penchant these folks have for 'bending' the truth to their benefit.]
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), Governor's Center for Local Government Services, which oversees the zoning issues in municipalities, stated: "This case should..be determined by the township [as] an emergency situation where the permit is waived and project proceeds" ..[Your private project] is basically a replacement or restoration of a preexisting bank...Any further delay [of your private project] will only exacerbate the problem and [is leaving] you exposed ...We strongly urge full [township] cooperation in [your] project ..to avoid further harm to [this resident] and her residence."
...in response to the Township's halting her until she signed a "liability release":
The DEP responded: "As a practical matter, I do question the need for a Release... It seems to me that the Township's concern ...should not be what might happen if the wall is built. Rather, I would be concerned about her legal options if the wall is not allowed to be built, and her home is damaged in a future high water event." - Director of Waterways Engineering, DEP.
"..It is indeed disappointing that this matter has taken this long to resolve, especially ...after a gentleman's agreement [with all State agencies and the Township] was reached last April [2006]...The issue of a liability release [was not] an agreed upon criteria or condition for moving this project forward. " - DCED
..the DCED (above) together with the Governor's Office, in response to them trying to undercut the ownership issue as yet another delay tactic:
"Any further debate concerning ownership [of areas where her work is to commence] is extraneous and serves to run counter to the objective or our collective goal...to ensure her personal safety and avert further damages. This has only become more urgent [with passage of time]...As in previous correspondence, we strongly urge the Township acknowledge this agreement between all parties attending the April 6, 2006 meeting. To do otherwise constitutes separate treatment of residents (violation of MPC), and demonstrates disregard for good faith agreement of all parties. [The Center], the Governor's Office, and [other] agencies represented at the meeting, are extremely concerned about the seriousness of [this resident's] current situation and the Township's delay."
Doesn't get more straightforward than this!
She's got letters of support from everyone from Congressmen to the Governor's office to former president Bill Clinton. No small feat, that kind of bi-partisan support!!
Township Ignores Petition by Residents
.
This petition was signed by Township residents and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors on December 12, 2005 (3 months after her permitted project was halted):
A PETITION TO REQUEST TIMELY RESPONSE TO ALLOW FELLOW RESIDENT AND FLOOD VICTIM TO REPAIR AND PROTECT PROPERTY
We, the undersigned, do hereby request a waiver of Cease and Desist Order given fellow resident and victim of extensive flooding from Hurricane Ivan in September 2004 and again in April (2005) [again in June 2006]* to repair an existing stream bank.
We feel the Zoning Ordinances referred to in the Cease and Desist are excessively burdensome and inapplicable to the exact nature of the reparation needed.
Many of us who have experienced the devastating effects of both Hurricane Ivan and the flooding of April 3, 2005, and who live in constant state of alert with each report of persistent rain and storms and how it will again affect our homes and lives, understand both the immediate and long-term physical, emotional and financial burden that these storms have brought upon our lives. We also understand that a Cease and Desist Order has been placed upon a fellow township resident and victim of these floods..who is attempting to repair her property [replace what was washed away], which has been in a state of devastation since September of 2004.
This resident has not only lived without access to her home for over a year, throughout the winter months and storms, but has lost time, money and has had life disrupted in a long-term effort to repair her property, being primarily involved in a long-term fundraising... In addition, the nature of her damage, with no access to her home, has made it impossible to remove large debris and ruined belongings from her home that still remain from September 2004, and in effect, she has not yet been able to get back to a normal life. As so many of us who were affected by the floods have - in some way - begun to see progress, this particular resident has spent an enormous amount of additional time and effort in fundraising for an [adjacent] township project. Now, of her own accord, costs and initiatives, she is prepared to repair her property having received permitting by all other primary agencies (that deal primarily with these issues), their blessings, and a nod to the urgency of the situation. She is now in the midst of yet another storm season, and heading directly into winter without protection.
Not only do we feel that [the township's actions] are ...adding further undo burden to a fellow resident who has undergone an already abundant stressful and debilitating time, but it reflects an insensitivity on the part of the township to what township residents have experienced over the last year, including the continuous ..concern with each persistent rainfall lasting more than several hours, and is leaving her vulnerable to more severe damage. In the last several weeks alone, we have all watched with anxiousness as continuous rains on two consecutive weekends have brought the levels of water to within comparable limits to Ivan. In our opinion, it is unconscionable to turn a blind eye to the urgency of this situation. Flooding is a very serious issue - statewide and nationwide; not something to be taken lightly. It has disrupted lives, destroyed property, and caused immeasurable stress and burden on so many of our residents. Under the circumstances, it would seem that the township would do everything possible to facilitate, not hinder, a timely repair that a resident is willing to take on her own (with no government funds) in order to protect her home and safety.
In the spirit of the Township Mission Statement: "..to prevent the loss of life and property, to prevent the creation of health and safety hazards, and to prevent the extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure of public funds for flood protection and relief..." it seems inconsistent, counterproductive and harmful.. under the circumstances. We would hope the township would act in a manner that recognizes this resident is doing everything possible to protect herself and move on with her life. As our elected representatives, we - as a representative group of voting residents - expect that you would act in a manner consistent with the township statement.. and respectfully request that you ..waive the Cease & Desist order and enable [her] to begin to protect her home and safety. It is of utmost importance to us as residents to feel that you, as our elected representatives, are responsive to our plight, individually as well as a whole, as we see it as a reflection of the level of sensitivity on the part of the township to residents' needs."
This petition has been subsequently ignored.
This petition was signed by Township residents and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors on December 12, 2005 (3 months after her permitted project was halted):
A PETITION TO REQUEST TIMELY RESPONSE TO ALLOW FELLOW RESIDENT AND FLOOD VICTIM TO REPAIR AND PROTECT PROPERTY
We, the undersigned, do hereby request a waiver of Cease and Desist Order given fellow resident and victim of extensive flooding from Hurricane Ivan in September 2004 and again in April (2005) [again in June 2006]* to repair an existing stream bank.
We feel the Zoning Ordinances referred to in the Cease and Desist are excessively burdensome and inapplicable to the exact nature of the reparation needed.
Many of us who have experienced the devastating effects of both Hurricane Ivan and the flooding of April 3, 2005, and who live in constant state of alert with each report of persistent rain and storms and how it will again affect our homes and lives, understand both the immediate and long-term physical, emotional and financial burden that these storms have brought upon our lives. We also understand that a Cease and Desist Order has been placed upon a fellow township resident and victim of these floods..who is attempting to repair her property [replace what was washed away], which has been in a state of devastation since September of 2004.
This resident has not only lived without access to her home for over a year, throughout the winter months and storms, but has lost time, money and has had life disrupted in a long-term effort to repair her property, being primarily involved in a long-term fundraising... In addition, the nature of her damage, with no access to her home, has made it impossible to remove large debris and ruined belongings from her home that still remain from September 2004, and in effect, she has not yet been able to get back to a normal life. As so many of us who were affected by the floods have - in some way - begun to see progress, this particular resident has spent an enormous amount of additional time and effort in fundraising for an [adjacent] township project. Now, of her own accord, costs and initiatives, she is prepared to repair her property having received permitting by all other primary agencies (that deal primarily with these issues), their blessings, and a nod to the urgency of the situation. She is now in the midst of yet another storm season, and heading directly into winter without protection.
Not only do we feel that [the township's actions] are ...adding further undo burden to a fellow resident who has undergone an already abundant stressful and debilitating time, but it reflects an insensitivity on the part of the township to what township residents have experienced over the last year, including the continuous ..concern with each persistent rainfall lasting more than several hours, and is leaving her vulnerable to more severe damage. In the last several weeks alone, we have all watched with anxiousness as continuous rains on two consecutive weekends have brought the levels of water to within comparable limits to Ivan. In our opinion, it is unconscionable to turn a blind eye to the urgency of this situation. Flooding is a very serious issue - statewide and nationwide; not something to be taken lightly. It has disrupted lives, destroyed property, and caused immeasurable stress and burden on so many of our residents. Under the circumstances, it would seem that the township would do everything possible to facilitate, not hinder, a timely repair that a resident is willing to take on her own (with no government funds) in order to protect her home and safety.
In the spirit of the Township Mission Statement: "..to prevent the loss of life and property, to prevent the creation of health and safety hazards, and to prevent the extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure of public funds for flood protection and relief..." it seems inconsistent, counterproductive and harmful.. under the circumstances. We would hope the township would act in a manner that recognizes this resident is doing everything possible to protect herself and move on with her life. As our elected representatives, we - as a representative group of voting residents - expect that you would act in a manner consistent with the township statement.. and respectfully request that you ..waive the Cease & Desist order and enable [her] to begin to protect her home and safety. It is of utmost importance to us as residents to feel that you, as our elected representatives, are responsive to our plight, individually as well as a whole, as we see it as a reflection of the level of sensitivity on the part of the township to residents' needs."
This petition has been subsequently ignored.
Monday, November 20, 2006
The "Garbage Chronicles" and Learning a Lesson!
.
To better understand the source of this type of chosen method of action, it is helpful to get a sense of the perspective on authority that seems to be permeating the Township offices, aka: management on a daily basis. The following is a candid snapshot, if you will, of the Township's approach to dealings with the taxpaying residents.
Several weeks after having stopped this resident from moving forward with her DEP-approved flood repair [all agency permits and permissions in order], the Township Manager forwarded this letter to the resident:
"RE: Trash Disposal at Public Works Facility's Recycling Area"
Dear Ms. [Resident]:
On November ____, the Public Works Department advised me that personal trash was left at the Recycling Area. Public Works employees are required to sort each bag that is placed there.
Please be advised that the Recycling Area is only for products that are recyclable. We have had problems in the past with other residents dumping their trash there as well. This correspondence is to inform you that trash dumping is not permitted at the Recycling Area. Enclosed you will see checks that were found in the trash bag. With the risks of identify theft, personal documents like this should be shredded or torn up.
At this point, we have no choice but to give a warnign for first time offenders and fines thereafter.
Should you have any questions or comments, or need further information, please do no hesitate to contact this office immediately.
Sincerely yours,
Township Manager
cc: Board of Supervisors (w/encl)"
Upon further review, it was discovered that, in fact, the original checks had not been returned, but that the Township Manager had made photocopies of them instead, and apparently distributed them.
Return letter to Township:
"RE: Trash 'Disposal" at Recycling Area
Dear [Township Manager],
Thank you for your correspondence re: trash bag left at the recycling 'center'.
Please be advised that this was not an intentional 'garbage drop'. I had my nephew drop off recycling and, apparently, he needed to remove the garbage bag from the back of the van to get to the recycling materials. Once disposing of the recycling in the proper bins, he apparently left the bag at the site [at night]; which someone must have moved from the center of the parking area where he said he left it.
What I am more concerned with, and a little perplexed, is the fact that the 'checks' you found while sorting through the garbage bag, and supposedly returned to me with your accompanying letter [and admonitions of identity theft], are not the checks at all - but a xeroxed copy of the checks. I have two questions:
1) Where are the actual checks with my personal information on them; and
2) Why would a xeroxed copy of my personal checks have been made to begin with?
If you would please return these as soon as possible, I would appreciate it - including any additional copies that may have been made. I would also be interested to have the name of the actual township employee that found the bag of trash as well as the one who made the xerox copies of the documents.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
[Resident]
cc: attorneys"
At this point, the resident's attorney contacted the Township Manager to inquire as to her substantiation for photocopying and distributing the financial documents. This was the response:
"Dear [Resident],
I received your [correpondence].. with regard to the trash left at our Recycling Center.
In response to your questions, first the checks were shredded in my office and there were no other copies made other than to you.* It may have been my mistake in xeroxing your checks instead of forwarding to you the originals, of which I do apologize, but the point is we are not here to collect garbage, nor are we keeping any evidence of garbage left at the Recycling Center. We get rid of any garbage as soon as possible. As you stated in your letter, it was a mistake that the bag was left at the Recycling Center.
The letter was sent as a courtesy to you. This is an experience we can both learn from.** [sic]
I thank you for your response. Please contact me should you have any other questions.
Signed,
Township Manager"
*note encl. above
** :scratcheshead: in confusion over moral role (in life 'lessons') of a township manager.
To better understand the source of this type of chosen method of action, it is helpful to get a sense of the perspective on authority that seems to be permeating the Township offices, aka: management on a daily basis. The following is a candid snapshot, if you will, of the Township's approach to dealings with the taxpaying residents.
Several weeks after having stopped this resident from moving forward with her DEP-approved flood repair [all agency permits and permissions in order], the Township Manager forwarded this letter to the resident:
"RE: Trash Disposal at Public Works Facility's Recycling Area"
Dear Ms. [Resident]:
On November ____, the Public Works Department advised me that personal trash was left at the Recycling Area. Public Works employees are required to sort each bag that is placed there.
Please be advised that the Recycling Area is only for products that are recyclable. We have had problems in the past with other residents dumping their trash there as well. This correspondence is to inform you that trash dumping is not permitted at the Recycling Area. Enclosed you will see checks that were found in the trash bag. With the risks of identify theft, personal documents like this should be shredded or torn up.
At this point, we have no choice but to give a warnign for first time offenders and fines thereafter.
Should you have any questions or comments, or need further information, please do no hesitate to contact this office immediately.
Sincerely yours,
Township Manager
cc: Board of Supervisors (w/encl)"
Upon further review, it was discovered that, in fact, the original checks had not been returned, but that the Township Manager had made photocopies of them instead, and apparently distributed them.
Return letter to Township:
"RE: Trash 'Disposal" at Recycling Area
Dear [Township Manager],
Thank you for your correspondence re: trash bag left at the recycling 'center'.
Please be advised that this was not an intentional 'garbage drop'. I had my nephew drop off recycling and, apparently, he needed to remove the garbage bag from the back of the van to get to the recycling materials. Once disposing of the recycling in the proper bins, he apparently left the bag at the site [at night]; which someone must have moved from the center of the parking area where he said he left it.
What I am more concerned with, and a little perplexed, is the fact that the 'checks' you found while sorting through the garbage bag, and supposedly returned to me with your accompanying letter [and admonitions of identity theft], are not the checks at all - but a xeroxed copy of the checks. I have two questions:
1) Where are the actual checks with my personal information on them; and
2) Why would a xeroxed copy of my personal checks have been made to begin with?
If you would please return these as soon as possible, I would appreciate it - including any additional copies that may have been made. I would also be interested to have the name of the actual township employee that found the bag of trash as well as the one who made the xerox copies of the documents.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
[Resident]
cc: attorneys"
At this point, the resident's attorney contacted the Township Manager to inquire as to her substantiation for photocopying and distributing the financial documents. This was the response:
"Dear [Resident],
I received your [correpondence].. with regard to the trash left at our Recycling Center.
In response to your questions, first the checks were shredded in my office and there were no other copies made other than to you.* It may have been my mistake in xeroxing your checks instead of forwarding to you the originals, of which I do apologize, but the point is we are not here to collect garbage, nor are we keeping any evidence of garbage left at the Recycling Center. We get rid of any garbage as soon as possible. As you stated in your letter, it was a mistake that the bag was left at the Recycling Center.
The letter was sent as a courtesy to you. This is an experience we can both learn from.** [sic]
I thank you for your response. Please contact me should you have any other questions.
Signed,
Township Manager"
*note encl. above
** :scratcheshead: in confusion over moral role (in life 'lessons') of a township manager.
Monday, November 21, 2005
"Returned for Collection"
The Township, upon much complaint from its fellow residents, has long since done away with its Per Capita ($5) Tax, as of January 2006. It was considered an unreasonable nuisance tax.
This resident - while sitting with an ill friend and his wife throughout the holiday - returned early January to forward a check for $5.00 that had been sitting on the desk. It was mailed January 4, 2006 - the day after the death of her friend.
One week later, the check was returned with this note:
"This ($5.00) tax was due in December 2005. This has been forwarded to [collection firm] for collections."
This resident - while sitting with an ill friend and his wife throughout the holiday - returned early January to forward a check for $5.00 that had been sitting on the desk. It was mailed January 4, 2006 - the day after the death of her friend.
One week later, the check was returned with this note:
"This ($5.00) tax was due in December 2005. This has been forwarded to [collection firm] for collections."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)