In the minutes of the last Borough meeting, I read that the Borough plans on removing our Christmas Tree that is the excuse for our annual get-together, sing-along, buffet-feasting tree lighting festivities graciously held each year by Walter and Peter. That one event is probably the single event that a majority of us over-wintering Mt. Gretnans attend, and its been going on for nearly twenty years now.
The tree, which is located at the front of their home, apparently must be removed to install a sidewalk on that little peninsula between the Campmeeting entrance and the post office.
While it is always disconcerning when a municipality's new construction takes a portion of a person's private property, I think it is safe to say that we all will miss the tree lighting ceremony, as it is another of those treasured symbols of the unique and neighborly character of Mt. Gretna.
(The meeting minutes are posted at http://www.mtgretna.com/Borough/BoroughMinutes/tabid/1191/Default.aspx
and are the minutes of the July 23, 2009 meeting.)
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
There is a fungus among us
Look what popped up at the theater. Its well over a foot across, in all dimensions!
I suspect that this is a Laetiporus sulphureus, and, if it is, all research indicates that it is not poisonous and that it is a grand mushroom of the forest. Can anyone confirm this?
I suspect that this is a Laetiporus sulphureus, and, if it is, all research indicates that it is not poisonous and that it is a grand mushroom of the forest. Can anyone confirm this?
Monday, August 24, 2009
More non-enforcement of PA GC timber contract
What is the Game Commission doing on that land behind us!?
On the blocks that were harvested recently on our neighboring game lands, over 800 trees were to be spared from harvesting, according to the harvest contract. These trees were marked with red paint at eye level on the up and downhill side of the tree, and at the base. In the contract, these trees are called "reserved trees."
However, as you can see just by driving by some of these harvested blocks, there is NOT any number close to 800 trees left on these blocks. On the two blocks that follow Pinch Road, there are supposed to be 360 of these reserved trees. What do you think there really is there now?
In case you would like to check this for yourself, I have included a map of the blocks for this harvest, and the numbers of reserved trees that should be still standing. I broke the numbers down by block.
On the blocks that were harvested recently on our neighboring game lands, over 800 trees were to be spared from harvesting, according to the harvest contract. These trees were marked with red paint at eye level on the up and downhill side of the tree, and at the base. In the contract, these trees are called "reserved trees."
However, as you can see just by driving by some of these harvested blocks, there is NOT any number close to 800 trees left on these blocks. On the two blocks that follow Pinch Road, there are supposed to be 360 of these reserved trees. What do you think there really is there now?
In case you would like to check this for yourself, I have included a map of the blocks for this harvest, and the numbers of reserved trees that should be still standing. I broke the numbers down by block.
Block 1 should have 114 reserved trees, marked with red paint. That is the block right behind us that has all the large woody debris left behind.
Block 2 should have 153 reserved trees, marked with red paint.
Block 3 --197
Block 4--144 This block is across from the smashed port-a-potty on Pinch Road.
Block 5--215 This block is the next harvested block on Pinch Road, and abuts Block 4.
Let me end this post with the reminder that the PA GC holds those lands in public trust FOR US and in the pursuit of its assigned responsibility: providing game and wildlife habitat.
If anyone wants a copy of the contracts for this harvest, just email me at viragogretna@gmail.com. Also, I will be walking the blocks to take an inventory this week. Let me know if you would like to join me-I would love the company.
It also appears as if our neighbor Weaber, Inc. was the contracted harvester for this mess. Also, I have visited some other game lands recently harvested by other contractors, and they look like the contractor actually did use forestry's best practice standards and complied with the terms of the contract.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Earned Income Tax Misallocations: The Issue Explained
If any of you who attended the Annual Chautauqua meeting this year still have some questions about the recently confirmed Earned Income Tax misallocation issue, I did a little research and have more details for us. I requested from the EIT Bureau Board, and promptly received, a rather detailed presentation of the issue, including its history and a breakdown of the "financials" from 2004 to 2006 and by municipalities involved. This included numbers for Mt. Gretna Borough, which, by the way only has 207 registered voters.
The short story on how this came to light is that certain recipients of Lebanon County's EIT revenues were receiving what they thought to be significantly smaller amounts of monies than they knew they were owed, so they started making complaints, which led to an investigation/audit.
According to the attendees at last night's EIT Board meeting, the formula for determing what amount of the total EIT Revenue that a municipality is allocated in a given year is directly proportional to its contribution to that pot. Here is an example: Say the total EIT revenue for the year 2020 was $100 and Mt. Gretna Borough residents contributed $10 to that total. So, the result of the formula applied here is that half of Mt. Gretna's residents' contributions are given to the school district, and half of that contribution is given to Mt. Gretna Borough. So, in my example, for the year 2020, Mt. Gretna Borough would receive $5 from the EIT revenue (give or take a little for nominal fees/adjustments charged to the $5).
Sticking to only the numbers as they pertain the Mount Gretna Borough, it was found that, for the years 2004 through 2007:
Total Earned Income reported to the Dept. of Revenue $ 6,349,685,057
Total Mt. Gretna Borough residents' earned income $ 18,005,380
Total EI Tax reported to the DOR $ 97,673,527
Total Mt. Gretna Borough residents' EI Tax contribution $ 123,370
Applying the formula for distribution of that revenue, for the years 2004 through 2006, Mt. Gretna Borough should have received about half of its EIT contribution, so about
$ 61,000
Instead, Mt. Gretna actually received $ 256,642
This is an overpayment of $ 195,642
Now, the auditing firm's research included more years than I have included here, which is why we are told that the amount we were overpaid was really around $244,000.
The EIT Bureau Board seems to be on the right track in pursuing a fair resolution to this problem. It has moved forward from Day 1 adhering to the principals of transparency and collaboration, rather than with paternalism and heavy-handedness. The Board seems to consider communicating with the taxpaying public as an essential that is preferred over just relying on city solicitors' participation negotiating municipal agreements for "re-direction" of overpayments, and encourages us to attend their monthly meetings, held every third Wednesday, at 6:30pm at the Lebanon School District Office (just go in the door and turn to the left).
However, the next two meetings will be held at the Municipal Building's auditorium, as we have some very important voting to participate in in Sept. and Oct. They will also be publishing a new website and designating a Right-to-Know officer soon. I will keep you posted on those accomplishments as they happen.
Before I hit the publish button on this post, I want to bring up two points for thought that this tax stuff generates.
First, via a phone conversation with our Borough Office, I learned this morning that Mt. Gretna Borough does not have an "official Municipal Representative" to the tax board. While we may "manage to get someone, including our solicitor (Kilgore) to attend the important stuff", we need to have an official municipal representative. Why? Well, because this is how a taxing body establishes its constitutionality for taxing us--remember that whole "taxation without representation" thing?
And, don't we, as Borough residents, get the opportunity to vote on the issue of the Borough aqcuiring long-term debt obligations? Again, the process pursued here is not settlement negotiations in some legal action--it is the development of a contractual financial obligation, the assumption of a debt obligation. So, why aren't we being informed and brought in on this whole process? Look, I have faith that my neighbors will do the right thing when presented with factual information, so I honestly don't think that returning overpayments is something that we would avoid.
However, the scenario presented to us at the annual meeting suggests that our solicitor is making all the decisions and entering the Borough into these long-term commitments. This situation is confirmed by the Board's statements last night that they do not know who our official Municipal Representative is, but that they pass on all such communications to Bill [Care] and by the Borough administration denying that we even have an "official Municipal representative."
So, who is committing the Borough taxpayers to this debt obligation? Because this isn't a legal action, Kilgore's real role here is to profer to his or her client a legal review of an agreement's terms--it is not to act as executive officer for a municipality.
While our Borough administrators may defer to him and think that Kilgore "is really one of us", he REALLY is not, and I would not, by a long shot, be the only Mt. Gretna resident to make that assertion. And, if the response to that fact is that he "has been here long enough" or longer than I have, so that justifies placing a restriction or qualification on my requests for proper representation, or for enforcement of Borough Ordinances or state laws, then I respectfully request a pro-rated reduction on my tax burdens and Chautauqua fees. The reality is that each of us is a full-fledged resident, with attendant rights and obligations. Period. Any other heirarchy or "classification" of residents is parternalistic, and unethical.
The second point of concern is that there doesn't seem to be a "zealous representation" by our solicitor of our interests in the resolution of this Over-Under EIT issue. Kilgore himself said at the annual meeting that he was negotiating a longer payment term for us, but he made no reference to or informed us as to our alternative of challenging the total amount, especially in terms of using new residents' tax payments to pay for another person's criminal misconduct, or of using any resident's Borough contributions to pay for another person's criminal misconduct.
Arguments like that are legitimate to make on behalf of your client, and do not need to be made or pursued in a way that is adversarial or that erodes your respect for the real issue at hand: that some municipalities or school districts were underpaid and need the money. At the end of the day, we all go home to each other as neighbors, so we all have a vested interest in the health and success of our neighboring municipalities and school districts. But just as the underpaid entities seek fairness in the resolution of this issue, the overpaid entities have a right to fairness as well, and to "zealous representation" by whatever legal representative they hire. And, for us, Kilgore has assumed that job.
One thing that I learned from growing up in a rural community is that these little nuanced failings, like the ones that I have described in these last few paragraphs, will be remembered--they get talked about over card tables, over tailgates, and on porches for years, if not generations, and they contribute to aging your legacy into either wine, or into vinegar.
The short story on how this came to light is that certain recipients of Lebanon County's EIT revenues were receiving what they thought to be significantly smaller amounts of monies than they knew they were owed, so they started making complaints, which led to an investigation/audit.
According to the attendees at last night's EIT Board meeting, the formula for determing what amount of the total EIT Revenue that a municipality is allocated in a given year is directly proportional to its contribution to that pot. Here is an example: Say the total EIT revenue for the year 2020 was $100 and Mt. Gretna Borough residents contributed $10 to that total. So, the result of the formula applied here is that half of Mt. Gretna's residents' contributions are given to the school district, and half of that contribution is given to Mt. Gretna Borough. So, in my example, for the year 2020, Mt. Gretna Borough would receive $5 from the EIT revenue (give or take a little for nominal fees/adjustments charged to the $5).
Sticking to only the numbers as they pertain the Mount Gretna Borough, it was found that, for the years 2004 through 2007:
Total Earned Income reported to the Dept. of Revenue $ 6,349,685,057
Total Mt. Gretna Borough residents' earned income $ 18,005,380
Total EI Tax reported to the DOR $ 97,673,527
Total Mt. Gretna Borough residents' EI Tax contribution $ 123,370
Applying the formula for distribution of that revenue, for the years 2004 through 2006, Mt. Gretna Borough should have received about half of its EIT contribution, so about
$ 61,000
Instead, Mt. Gretna actually received $ 256,642
This is an overpayment of $ 195,642
Now, the auditing firm's research included more years than I have included here, which is why we are told that the amount we were overpaid was really around $244,000.
The EIT Bureau Board seems to be on the right track in pursuing a fair resolution to this problem. It has moved forward from Day 1 adhering to the principals of transparency and collaboration, rather than with paternalism and heavy-handedness. The Board seems to consider communicating with the taxpaying public as an essential that is preferred over just relying on city solicitors' participation negotiating municipal agreements for "re-direction" of overpayments, and encourages us to attend their monthly meetings, held every third Wednesday, at 6:30pm at the Lebanon School District Office (just go in the door and turn to the left).
However, the next two meetings will be held at the Municipal Building's auditorium, as we have some very important voting to participate in in Sept. and Oct. They will also be publishing a new website and designating a Right-to-Know officer soon. I will keep you posted on those accomplishments as they happen.
Before I hit the publish button on this post, I want to bring up two points for thought that this tax stuff generates.
First, via a phone conversation with our Borough Office, I learned this morning that Mt. Gretna Borough does not have an "official Municipal Representative" to the tax board. While we may "manage to get someone, including our solicitor (Kilgore) to attend the important stuff", we need to have an official municipal representative. Why? Well, because this is how a taxing body establishes its constitutionality for taxing us--remember that whole "taxation without representation" thing?
And, don't we, as Borough residents, get the opportunity to vote on the issue of the Borough aqcuiring long-term debt obligations? Again, the process pursued here is not settlement negotiations in some legal action--it is the development of a contractual financial obligation, the assumption of a debt obligation. So, why aren't we being informed and brought in on this whole process? Look, I have faith that my neighbors will do the right thing when presented with factual information, so I honestly don't think that returning overpayments is something that we would avoid.
However, the scenario presented to us at the annual meeting suggests that our solicitor is making all the decisions and entering the Borough into these long-term commitments. This situation is confirmed by the Board's statements last night that they do not know who our official Municipal Representative is, but that they pass on all such communications to Bill [Care] and by the Borough administration denying that we even have an "official Municipal representative."
So, who is committing the Borough taxpayers to this debt obligation? Because this isn't a legal action, Kilgore's real role here is to profer to his or her client a legal review of an agreement's terms--it is not to act as executive officer for a municipality.
While our Borough administrators may defer to him and think that Kilgore "is really one of us", he REALLY is not, and I would not, by a long shot, be the only Mt. Gretna resident to make that assertion. And, if the response to that fact is that he "has been here long enough" or longer than I have, so that justifies placing a restriction or qualification on my requests for proper representation, or for enforcement of Borough Ordinances or state laws, then I respectfully request a pro-rated reduction on my tax burdens and Chautauqua fees. The reality is that each of us is a full-fledged resident, with attendant rights and obligations. Period. Any other heirarchy or "classification" of residents is parternalistic, and unethical.
The second point of concern is that there doesn't seem to be a "zealous representation" by our solicitor of our interests in the resolution of this Over-Under EIT issue. Kilgore himself said at the annual meeting that he was negotiating a longer payment term for us, but he made no reference to or informed us as to our alternative of challenging the total amount, especially in terms of using new residents' tax payments to pay for another person's criminal misconduct, or of using any resident's Borough contributions to pay for another person's criminal misconduct.
Arguments like that are legitimate to make on behalf of your client, and do not need to be made or pursued in a way that is adversarial or that erodes your respect for the real issue at hand: that some municipalities or school districts were underpaid and need the money. At the end of the day, we all go home to each other as neighbors, so we all have a vested interest in the health and success of our neighboring municipalities and school districts. But just as the underpaid entities seek fairness in the resolution of this issue, the overpaid entities have a right to fairness as well, and to "zealous representation" by whatever legal representative they hire. And, for us, Kilgore has assumed that job.
One thing that I learned from growing up in a rural community is that these little nuanced failings, like the ones that I have described in these last few paragraphs, will be remembered--they get talked about over card tables, over tailgates, and on porches for years, if not generations, and they contribute to aging your legacy into either wine, or into vinegar.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Forest fires can't be prevented, expert says!
I recently read this interesting presentation given by a federal forester on the potential for forest fires causing damage to homes. The author, Jack Cohen, drives the point that a home's "ignitability" is a very serious factor in the amount of damage any forest fire causes to a home. He shows that even if the home is "buffered" from any type of forest fire, whether a low-intensity or high-intensity fire, a home with a high-ignitability score will likely become a part of the combustion.
Cohen also states that;
"If no wildfires or prescribed fires occurred, the wildland fire threat to residential development would not exist. However, our understanding of the fire ecology for most of North America indicates that fire exclusion is neither possible nor desirable."
Now, that statement seems to me like a truism, or a fairly common-sense kind of assumption--that we can't possible prevent all forest fires. So, the risk of such fire is always present.
And, given that I have sat in on many community conversations where we all admit that the age and design of our homes here cause us to worry about their susceptibility to fire damage, I just don't understand why local leaders are being so dismissive and in public denial of this situation!
I invite Chuck, Peggy, or Dave Henry to provide us with the evidence--documentary support from knowledgable and neutral experts, that the conditions of that block do not increase our risk of loss due to fire. Please, do you know something that you are not telling us? Why can't that contractor just come back and remove a large portion of that debris? Why is that such a hard action to take?
Here is the url for the presentation:
http://www.firewise.org/resources/files/WUI_HIR/Wildlandfirethreat.pdf
Cohen also states that;
"If no wildfires or prescribed fires occurred, the wildland fire threat to residential development would not exist. However, our understanding of the fire ecology for most of North America indicates that fire exclusion is neither possible nor desirable."
Now, that statement seems to me like a truism, or a fairly common-sense kind of assumption--that we can't possible prevent all forest fires. So, the risk of such fire is always present.
And, given that I have sat in on many community conversations where we all admit that the age and design of our homes here cause us to worry about their susceptibility to fire damage, I just don't understand why local leaders are being so dismissive and in public denial of this situation!
I invite Chuck, Peggy, or Dave Henry to provide us with the evidence--documentary support from knowledgable and neutral experts, that the conditions of that block do not increase our risk of loss due to fire. Please, do you know something that you are not telling us? Why can't that contractor just come back and remove a large portion of that debris? Why is that such a hard action to take?
Here is the url for the presentation:
http://www.firewise.org/resources/files/WUI_HIR/Wildlandfirethreat.pdf
Sedrick the cat is HOME!
Last Thursday we got a call from Sedrick's "mom", letting us know that her prodigal boy was finally home from his wanderings.
Someone saw him up on Harvard Ave. and he was scooped up and back in the family unit shortly after that.
GOOD WORK, NEIGHBORS!
However, we still have a Sedrick look-a-like (or two) that would love a new family, now that we can't pass them off as Sedrick...
Someone saw him up on Harvard Ave. and he was scooped up and back in the family unit shortly after that.
GOOD WORK, NEIGHBORS!
However, we still have a Sedrick look-a-like (or two) that would love a new family, now that we can't pass them off as Sedrick...
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Tornado?
Thanks to my photo shoot assistants!
It got dark pretty fast afterward, but I managed to get a few pictures.
This is the tree that fell on Pinch Road, crushing the Port-a-Potty there.
The next two pictures suggest that the trees were twisted via some massive forces, as this type of splinter is usually caused by the tree canopies being literally twisted/rocked from their trunks by massive wind force. Yes, lightning can also cause splintering. But, when it is lightning that causes a tree to splinter, usually the damage is isolated to that one tree, and the splintering looks more like a explosion. And, if the trees just snapped in the wind, there would be more of a fracture type of break. It also looks as if this type of wood structure lends itself to splintering, when pushed to an extreme.
Where were you when we experienced our "wind damage event"?
If you were in Mount Gretna today, you know that we literally had just a few minutes after the emergency weather broadcast to secure our things and persons before the 70+ mile an hour winds raced through here. Huge, healthy trees were twisted where they stood, and ripped out of the ground like they were little toothpicks in a fluffy cake. Whole root balls, some with huge boulders incorporated in them, were plowed over like beach balls under a snow plow.
But, the most phenomenal expression of nature's free spirit can be seen in the pattern of this destruction. It literally took a straight path through Mt. Gretna, with the worst damage concentrated in a 10 or 15 foot wide path! Apparently, this type of damage is called "Microburst (or "straight line") Wind Damage"
Just go to the pond at the back of the Campmeeting, and look up hill towards Pinch Road, and you can see the path--it came through Campmeeting, over the little pond and up the hill, and crossed Pinch Road and snapped a path through the few remaining trees in those lots.
But, if you go into the woods now, please be very careful as this wind damage has uprooted or snapped many trees and a number of them are precariously perched over footpaths and elsewhere, hidden out of the view unless you make a habit of looking up, sometimes WAY up.
It got dark pretty fast afterward, but I managed to get a few pictures.
This is the tree that fell on Pinch Road, crushing the Port-a-Potty there.
Here is where that tree's root ball used to live. You can see that it didn't just fall over, leaving one side of its root ball looking like a hinge. It literally was raised up and dropped about two or three feet off center from its hole! That whole is pretty deep, like a cave...
The next two pictures suggest that the trees were twisted via some massive forces, as this type of splinter is usually caused by the tree canopies being literally twisted/rocked from their trunks by massive wind force. Yes, lightning can also cause splintering. But, when it is lightning that causes a tree to splinter, usually the damage is isolated to that one tree, and the splintering looks more like a explosion. And, if the trees just snapped in the wind, there would be more of a fracture type of break. It also looks as if this type of wood structure lends itself to splintering, when pushed to an extreme.The real Sedrik
Well, I got criticism from using my own cat's picture. So let me show you why I did that. Here is the only picture that I have of the real Sedrik:
You can see that Sedrik has more white fur and his fur is longer.
You can see that Sedrik has more white fur and his fur is longer.
Sedrick the cat is missing
He jumped out of his companions' car on Pinch Road sometime in late July, and was seen in Mt. Gretna (by the tennis courts) on Aug 6 (Thursday). Please call his "mom" at 717-566-1439 if you see him. If you like, scoop him up and call for mom. Or, scoop him up and call us at 964-3089 and we will help reunite him with his family.
Now, the picture his NOT him, but it gives you a good idea of what he looks like-just add a year and a red collar.
See, we were scooping up our fiesty little Philly strays that escaped from our abode last Thursday, and found what we thought to be our little Pluck down by 202 Pennsylvania Ave. However, upon moving in for the scoop, it was determined that this cat had on a collar, which is a device our cats find to be a very easy contraption to break free of. We did not see the "missing" posters until the next day, but, suffice it to say, that our boys look a lot like Sedrick. A lot.
So the picture is our guy from a year ago, when he was still a kitten and would visit the Gretna theater during intermission to be fondled by his adoring fans.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Another Forestry Practices lesson
Because I am sure that our local (and maybe even state) game commission officials may use these terms in any of their statements to the public, I want to share with you some information on the difference between slash and coarse woody debris.
Both types of woody debris are found naturally in forests and are created via humans' timbering operations. Both terms are used in the forestry/woodlot management industry and, more importantly, both types of debris provide benefits to the ecosystem--if used appropriately.
Slash is typically woody debris with a three inch diameter, or smaller.
Coarse woody debris is debris that is larger than three inches in diameter.
Decomposition of both, but especially slash, is important in returning nutrients (especially nitrogen) back to the soil. And, coarse woody debris is important habitat for the smaller creatures of the ecosystem.
Too much slash in an area of course increases the chances of the ignition and continued burning of a fire. Too much coarse woody debris, not enough variety in the diameter and length of the logs, and irresponsible placement of this debris (for example, in piles rather than scattered across the site) also causes problems, like the attraction of pests, soil compaction, and the mechanical blockage of regeneration. It can, of course, also contribute fuel to a fire.
So, in another visit to our favorite block, it is easy to see the presence of both slash and coarse woody debris. The argument the Game Commission will likely use is that they were left intentionally to create habitat. The response is that the condition of the block and the physical evidence left there are wholly unsupportive of their claim.
Raising revenue and protecting Gretna's character
Here's a story on NPR this morning about how a small town in Ohio addressed its traffic violation issues AND raised a boatload of money:
"One municipal government seems to have solved some of its budget problems by writing extra traffic tickets. In the small town of Heath, Ohio, the local police typically issue about 100 tickets per month. Then they put in some traffic cameras. Suddenly, in the first month, the police issued 10,000 tickets."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111527478
That's a million bucks for them! What a great idea for Mt. Gretna--instead of paying a police officer to patrol one road and rarely, if ever, issuing tickets, why don't we install ticket-issuing cameras. Then we can pay Cornwall by the incident response.
Now, I have in mind to go to the Borough office and read through all our Borough meeting minutes to read the Cornwall Police reports. Why? Well, because, at each meeting, they are supposed to submit a report of their services and activities in their 10 (or 15) hours of providing police services to us. And, never, in any of the police reports to the Borough, have I seen them state that they gave out ANY speeding tickets or tickets for other traffic violations. So, I figure I can estimate their ticket issuance at, oh, NONE. But, in fairness, I will check the record and get back to y'all on the findings.
Even if the number is greateer than one, I think we can all agree that the actual number is going to be extremely small, and here are some reasons that I think that situation will never change. First, Cornwall PD has a very limited contract with us in terms of provision of actual services. If they write a ticket that is contested, that police officer will have to spend many hours in court. Our contract with them doesn't seem to include that. Second, why issue the ticket in Mt. Gretna and not 100ft. away, in Cornwall. Cornwall won't see the revenue generated from the fines if the ticket is issued in another jurisdiction.
So, it seems to me that we really need to reconsider what we are paying for, especially since responsibility for police services will default to the state police if we do not have a contract with another police department. Yes, response time may increase, but we have to ask ourselves what services we really use here. Our emergency responders service (fire, ambulance) would not change, and why is a quicker response to, say, a couple of noise complaints a year, worth tens of thousands of dollars--especially when we are suffering a budget shortfall, have a poor capital improvements "bank" right now, and the overall economy is in the pits.
Shouldn't we at least consider using those funds to purchase "service" that better addresses our community's real issues AND is a revenue generator, instead of a revenue burden.
"One municipal government seems to have solved some of its budget problems by writing extra traffic tickets. In the small town of Heath, Ohio, the local police typically issue about 100 tickets per month. Then they put in some traffic cameras. Suddenly, in the first month, the police issued 10,000 tickets."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111527478
That's a million bucks for them! What a great idea for Mt. Gretna--instead of paying a police officer to patrol one road and rarely, if ever, issuing tickets, why don't we install ticket-issuing cameras. Then we can pay Cornwall by the incident response.
Now, I have in mind to go to the Borough office and read through all our Borough meeting minutes to read the Cornwall Police reports. Why? Well, because, at each meeting, they are supposed to submit a report of their services and activities in their 10 (or 15) hours of providing police services to us. And, never, in any of the police reports to the Borough, have I seen them state that they gave out ANY speeding tickets or tickets for other traffic violations. So, I figure I can estimate their ticket issuance at, oh, NONE. But, in fairness, I will check the record and get back to y'all on the findings.
Even if the number is greateer than one, I think we can all agree that the actual number is going to be extremely small, and here are some reasons that I think that situation will never change. First, Cornwall PD has a very limited contract with us in terms of provision of actual services. If they write a ticket that is contested, that police officer will have to spend many hours in court. Our contract with them doesn't seem to include that. Second, why issue the ticket in Mt. Gretna and not 100ft. away, in Cornwall. Cornwall won't see the revenue generated from the fines if the ticket is issued in another jurisdiction.
So, it seems to me that we really need to reconsider what we are paying for, especially since responsibility for police services will default to the state police if we do not have a contract with another police department. Yes, response time may increase, but we have to ask ourselves what services we really use here. Our emergency responders service (fire, ambulance) would not change, and why is a quicker response to, say, a couple of noise complaints a year, worth tens of thousands of dollars--especially when we are suffering a budget shortfall, have a poor capital improvements "bank" right now, and the overall economy is in the pits.
Shouldn't we at least consider using those funds to purchase "service" that better addresses our community's real issues AND is a revenue generator, instead of a revenue burden.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Letter to local conservation office
Has anyone gotten any real data on the amount of regeneration occurring in that block?
Pasted below is a copy of my recent letter to our local conservation agency.
My two basic contentions in my response are that:
1. Government officials responding to our concerns have acknowledged a fire hazard risk on that block. But by denying the new presence of large amounts of fuel, they are unilaterally assigning us the burden of the increased risk of catastrophic loss.
2. The Game Commission has a limited mission in its service to the residents of the Commonwealth, and, via their enforcement of these timber harvesting contracts, they are either failing or are acting outside their mission of providing game and habitat.
Here's my actual letter:
Hello,
Thank you for following up on my initial contact with you.
I find Henry's response to be incredulous and non-responsive. Given the size of the logs left behind, I ask Henry to provide a 3rd party inventory and measurement data on the regeneration that is occurring in that block--as I suggest that the actual numbers will be egregiously low given the diameter and numbers of large logs and such piles.
Further, I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that the actual regeneration occuring there, as minimal as it may be, conforms with their regeneration plan for that area. Maybe you have an email address for him, and you will forward him my response?
More importantly, is it your response or Henry's that the risk of fire is low because of the wet summer that we have experienced? Please allow me to point out that that government official's response acknowledges the present risk of fire hazard, yet attempts to mitigate it by using mother nature's graceful provision of much rain this summer.
The response further acknowledges that there is a risk of lightning strike in that area, but mitigates the risk by suggesting that historical strikes have never produced a known fire. Please understand that that is our point as well--except that our concern acknowledges the new presence of large amounts of fuel. Your (or Henry's) response does not. Why is it, that in all of the government generated responses to our concern, nobody has acknowledged the actual slash on that block, and nobody has provided data to show that the actual amount there conforms with industry practices, organizational practices, or with the timber contract and enforcement practices? Could it be because the actual amount does NOT conform?
Let's be clear about our assumptions: "risk" is an affirmative number suggesting the likelihood of an event occurring--AN AFFIRMATIVE NUMBER. By definition, it precludes the possibility of forever eliminating the occurence of the event.
Here, it is apparent that we all agree that a risk of fire exists on the block and that the weather has been particularly helpful to us in reducing that risk. We also all may agree that we DISAGREE as to the level of risk--Mt. Gretna property owners acknowledge the new presence of large amounts of fuel, while no one from our local or state governments has acknowledged the significantly increased risk of catastrophic fire presented by the actual slash on that block. This is very disturbing to many of us.
So, it seems that local government officials want us to believe that large diameter slash presents no increased risk of catastrophic fire. However, I dare say that there is no licensed forester, probably throughout the U.S., that will deny the increased and enduring risk of catastrophic fire when the slash of this size and amount is left after a harvest operation in this type of forest. So why is a government organization allowed to put us in that kind of risk--at an increased risk of a catastrophic fire? Does Henry have arrangments for moist weather with mother nature for next year? or the year after? or the decade after?
And, given Henry's passive denial about this "catastrophic fire" fuel, how does he explain the existence of that thing called a "fire watch tower" just across Pinch Road from this block of forest? I am sure our previous generations would have experienced no comfort, as we aren't, from his responses.
Another assumption is that the Game Commission is an entity that was "born" to serve the residents of the Commonwealth, as the local conservation office was created to serve county residents. As such, the Commission's responsibility is solely to us. By its own failures on this block, it is extremely difficult to see how the Commission is fulfilling its mission of providing game and habit for us. No animals of any significant size can even traverse the block it is so obstructed with harvest debris!
The reality is that this government organization is acting with the brazen attitude of a Chevron in some South American country, extracting the profit from our common resources, leaving behind an ecosystem significantly damaged by human intervention, and leaving the locals at increased risk of certain life-threatening and property damaging catastrophies. Just what point is the game commission trying to make to its abutting property owners when it allows one contractor to leave the un-merchantable large diameter "fuel" slash, and enforces the timber contract and best practice standards on all other nearby contractors EXCEPT the one abutting Mt. Gretna homes?
It is of no relief to abutting property owners that it appears to be a relatively small area impacted by this slash. And, absolutely no hard evidence has been given to us to support the repeated statements of government officials that "there is nothing to worry about." In fact, the physical evidence on that block contradicts these "official" representations of the conditions of that block. Thus, local residents are growing increasingly frustrated by these "vaporous" statements being thrown back at us.
Show us the unbiased data, and maybe from there our conversation can reach mutual agreement as to the risk and who is assigned that risk.
Further, in reference to your response, as should be apparent, it is not the large logs "starting" a fire that we are worried about, as your response suggests. It is their contribution as large amounts of fuel to a fire that may get started in a whole myriad of ways. There is still an abundance of other ignitable material on that block (as with the other blocks). And, fire-suppressing regeneration will be egregiously hampered on that block as the large piles of large logs will remain present for years to come. Further, as regeneration is hampered, limited presence of new root structures will contribute to soil erosion on that block.
Lastly, what possible regeneration plan and site preparation technique are actually being used here? The Game Commission made a lot of assertions about its plan and techniques on this block (and the others nearby). Yet, the Commission has provided NO physical evidence of actual engagement in their own stated plan or methods. In fact, the pictures of this block again provide evidence CONTRADICTING their asserted "plan." And, as the local conservation agency, why is this not a concern of your organization?
END
Pasted below is a copy of my recent letter to our local conservation agency.
My two basic contentions in my response are that:
1. Government officials responding to our concerns have acknowledged a fire hazard risk on that block. But by denying the new presence of large amounts of fuel, they are unilaterally assigning us the burden of the increased risk of catastrophic loss.
2. The Game Commission has a limited mission in its service to the residents of the Commonwealth, and, via their enforcement of these timber harvesting contracts, they are either failing or are acting outside their mission of providing game and habitat.
Here's my actual letter:
Hello,
Thank you for following up on my initial contact with you.
I find Henry's response to be incredulous and non-responsive. Given the size of the logs left behind, I ask Henry to provide a 3rd party inventory and measurement data on the regeneration that is occurring in that block--as I suggest that the actual numbers will be egregiously low given the diameter and numbers of large logs and such piles.
Further, I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that the actual regeneration occuring there, as minimal as it may be, conforms with their regeneration plan for that area. Maybe you have an email address for him, and you will forward him my response?
More importantly, is it your response or Henry's that the risk of fire is low because of the wet summer that we have experienced? Please allow me to point out that that government official's response acknowledges the present risk of fire hazard, yet attempts to mitigate it by using mother nature's graceful provision of much rain this summer.
The response further acknowledges that there is a risk of lightning strike in that area, but mitigates the risk by suggesting that historical strikes have never produced a known fire. Please understand that that is our point as well--except that our concern acknowledges the new presence of large amounts of fuel. Your (or Henry's) response does not. Why is it, that in all of the government generated responses to our concern, nobody has acknowledged the actual slash on that block, and nobody has provided data to show that the actual amount there conforms with industry practices, organizational practices, or with the timber contract and enforcement practices? Could it be because the actual amount does NOT conform?
Let's be clear about our assumptions: "risk" is an affirmative number suggesting the likelihood of an event occurring--AN AFFIRMATIVE NUMBER. By definition, it precludes the possibility of forever eliminating the occurence of the event.
Here, it is apparent that we all agree that a risk of fire exists on the block and that the weather has been particularly helpful to us in reducing that risk. We also all may agree that we DISAGREE as to the level of risk--Mt. Gretna property owners acknowledge the new presence of large amounts of fuel, while no one from our local or state governments has acknowledged the significantly increased risk of catastrophic fire presented by the actual slash on that block. This is very disturbing to many of us.
So, it seems that local government officials want us to believe that large diameter slash presents no increased risk of catastrophic fire. However, I dare say that there is no licensed forester, probably throughout the U.S., that will deny the increased and enduring risk of catastrophic fire when the slash of this size and amount is left after a harvest operation in this type of forest. So why is a government organization allowed to put us in that kind of risk--at an increased risk of a catastrophic fire? Does Henry have arrangments for moist weather with mother nature for next year? or the year after? or the decade after?
And, given Henry's passive denial about this "catastrophic fire" fuel, how does he explain the existence of that thing called a "fire watch tower" just across Pinch Road from this block of forest? I am sure our previous generations would have experienced no comfort, as we aren't, from his responses.
Another assumption is that the Game Commission is an entity that was "born" to serve the residents of the Commonwealth, as the local conservation office was created to serve county residents. As such, the Commission's responsibility is solely to us. By its own failures on this block, it is extremely difficult to see how the Commission is fulfilling its mission of providing game and habit for us. No animals of any significant size can even traverse the block it is so obstructed with harvest debris!
The reality is that this government organization is acting with the brazen attitude of a Chevron in some South American country, extracting the profit from our common resources, leaving behind an ecosystem significantly damaged by human intervention, and leaving the locals at increased risk of certain life-threatening and property damaging catastrophies. Just what point is the game commission trying to make to its abutting property owners when it allows one contractor to leave the un-merchantable large diameter "fuel" slash, and enforces the timber contract and best practice standards on all other nearby contractors EXCEPT the one abutting Mt. Gretna homes?
It is of no relief to abutting property owners that it appears to be a relatively small area impacted by this slash. And, absolutely no hard evidence has been given to us to support the repeated statements of government officials that "there is nothing to worry about." In fact, the physical evidence on that block contradicts these "official" representations of the conditions of that block. Thus, local residents are growing increasingly frustrated by these "vaporous" statements being thrown back at us.
Show us the unbiased data, and maybe from there our conversation can reach mutual agreement as to the risk and who is assigned that risk.
Further, in reference to your response, as should be apparent, it is not the large logs "starting" a fire that we are worried about, as your response suggests. It is their contribution as large amounts of fuel to a fire that may get started in a whole myriad of ways. There is still an abundance of other ignitable material on that block (as with the other blocks). And, fire-suppressing regeneration will be egregiously hampered on that block as the large piles of large logs will remain present for years to come. Further, as regeneration is hampered, limited presence of new root structures will contribute to soil erosion on that block.
Lastly, what possible regeneration plan and site preparation technique are actually being used here? The Game Commission made a lot of assertions about its plan and techniques on this block (and the others nearby). Yet, the Commission has provided NO physical evidence of actual engagement in their own stated plan or methods. In fact, the pictures of this block again provide evidence CONTRADICTING their asserted "plan." And, as the local conservation agency, why is this not a concern of your organization?
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
