EIT MEETING TONIGHT!, parking fees, and protecting your constituency

As I speak with more and more of my neighbors about general politics in Mt. Gretna, I am beginning to see a stark division in attitudes, and the dividing line is very clearly defined. It is not based on political party, on gender, nor on familial status. Rather, it is based on age and length of time residing year-round in Mt. Gretna.

Now, let me begin by saying that I have the deepest respect for people older than myself. I dearly love my grandfather, whose own mother died in her nineties, at home, surrounded by her family. He now is in his eighties, living a vibrant live alone in Maine in a house that he laid the foundation to during his mother's impending death. I remember lugging cinder blocks to him and his recruits in those lazy summer afternoons that week, where the adults rested on the grass under the old maples and us kids would taunt them until plucked from our exurberance and tickled to the point of incapacitation. I also remember that each morning and each afternoon, different categories of family were rounded up and paraded into Great-Gram's line of vision. It was during these sessions that I learned my place in this family "tree"--who came before me, who came after me, who was responsible for me...and I learned about my grandfather's place in this tree.

In the two years that my grandmother lived after having a massive heart attack, he doted and cared for her in ways rarely seen today. Because of his care, courage, and love, my grandmother spent the last years of her life surrounded by the love of her family, in a home built by her and her husband's own hands and filled with decades of momentos and pictures, and died peacefully in her sleep, in her own bed. He helped the coroner carry her body from her bed. Those are lessons in dedication and love that can only be demonstrated by his generation, and the lessons are not lost on me.

So, coming back to the topic of my post today, I have found that here in Mt. Gretna, our oldest generations that have been here two, three decades or more seem to be still living--politically, at least, in an era when there was no testing of our drinking water, no Clean Air or Clean Water Acts, when it was not common for a woman to engage in politics in any way other than to cast a vote, and when combustible engines and amplified music were tools of necessity or of a trade and not found commonly around the house (and certainly these items were not used commonly around the house). And, it is this generation that is clinging dearly to the idea that our current elected officials are motivated and capable of continuing to protect us, as a constituency--to protect our health, safety, and welfare, as elected officials are elected to do.

However, with the utmost respect, I would ask that those persons rethink this notion and to consider my suggestions below. The facts simply do not support the idea that current leaders are capable or motivated to think of us as a constituency in the process of getting us out of our current financial issues. No one, not even current Borough Council and Chautauqua Board members can deny that these financial issues developed on their watch. Evidence of mismanagement or incompetence is suggested by the facts that:

1) Mt. Gretna Borough was overpaid for MANY years--possibly for twenty years and certainly for ten, and knew or should have known what our appropriate share should have been. [The entities receiving less than what they were owed during this time period had a good idea of what the amount was that was due to them and when they were not receiving that proper amount.];

2)the Borough treasurer and the Council president had oversight responsibility for Borough finances, and should have notified the appropriate authorities about any misallocation or management of funds--like the other receivers of EIT funds knew and made notifications regarding UNDERpayments;

3) no Borough Council member or Chautauqua Board member has indicated any remote interest in conducting an accounting for these misallocated or mismanaged funds and/or an inquiry into how our elected officials allegedly had so little substantive knowledge of and control over our municipality's LARGEST revenue source.

As a constituency, we are concerned about these things more so to ensure that this doesn't happen again (in whatever form financial mismanagement takes) than to find blame and to point fingers, and we are concerned about the serious drag this is going to have on our Borough budget. Again, EIT revenue is our Borough's largest source of revenue, and it has now been cut in half (by an average of $50,000/year).

However, because our Council and Board are not recognizing our expressed concerns, are not involving us in the process, and are showing more respect for the business activities that occur here (rather than for the actual residents), their consituency has no reason to believe that they are handling either of these concerns with protection of our health, safety, and welfare in mind. Thus, it seems as if we homeowner association shareholders are really Jiggershop shareholders and all Borough and Chautauqua decisions are made primarily to support the business activities occuring here rather than to protect the quality of life and property of the residents here.

This last conclusion is based on the following responses that were recently issued by the Council and the Chautauqua:

1) Borough Council president has stated that budget discussions are "privileged" and that we can't have access to them;

2) Council also tells us that the Borough is going to turn to the Chautauqua for assistance in getting the Borough out of this financial mess (creation of a "special assessment" passed on to shareholders is the undenied rumor) [This still won't prevent Borough's mismanagment of funds in the future and still doesn't deal with the impending budget crisis.];

3) The Chautauqua Board tells us that shareholders really have no substantive method to be heard or have access to Chautauqua meetings;

4) We are also told by the Borough Council to take our issue and concerns to the Chauatuaqua Board, and then the Board tells us we have no recourse (See number 3, above).

Well, there are more alternatives to this leadership style, and there are alternative resolutions to the current financial situation. But let's just explore the possible paths to resolving our financial issues.

First, we can replace the three Council members whose positions are up for election this Nov. 3. This would seem to take care of a bunch of the above issues for us, including fashioning efficient, fair, and responsive resolutions to our financial issues. And, it would do so in a timely fashion. I already have the names of at least 5 persons that many others have said that they would vote for as write in candidates. To make the change fair and impersonal, it may be best to just write in and vote for three persons, so that all three incumbents are replaced. No paperwork needs to be filed other than a list of expenses if the candidate spends more than $250. You can also notify the elections board of the names a write-in candidate will accept votes under.

Second, as shareholders, we can present and call for a vote on our own resolution. Although the Chautauqua delegated responsibility for the municipal works and grounds to the Borough, it still maintains ultimate authority over these areas, as is so stated in the Chautauqua rules. Further, in terms of what the substance of the resolution is, I understand that we are limited by our own imaginations. Thus, this is another avenue by which we can assert influence and address the financial issues via this route.

Third, we can recognize that most of our Borough monies are spent maintaining grounds that are really benefiting visitors, renters, and local businesses--not us residents, and more fairly allocate the burden for that expense. We really need to be brainstorming ideas--not huddling in secrecy, to increase our revenue and to curb our budget.

For example, at the last Council meeting, it was stated that we have to resod and do other infrastructure work to the grassy areas that turned to mud this season. Now, the borough manager tried to blame the rutted lawn on "poor soil" used last year by PennDOT, but then he also stated that we had over 24" of rain this season (very moist, indeed!), and we all know that the Borough continued to let the grassy areas be used as a parking lot even after many areas started showing signs of distress. We (meaning us taxpaying residents of Mt. Gretna) also pay for parking attendants all summer long. Is that to park us and our guests? Not hardly.

The fixing of these distressed areas is going to cost US thousands, but how is it exactly that we residents benefit from that glorified parking lot? It is painfully obvious that our current Council president, and his son, benefit greatly from the maintainence of that parking lot, while the rest of us residents really are burdened by the excessive traffic and the maintainence costs. A more fair distribution of that burden would be to charge for parking, wouldn't it? Something like this would allow the Borough to generate revenue (to repay the EIT overpayment and to pay for maintainence expenses), and to place the burden where it lies. This method also still supports the attendance, by residents, of the summer Chautauqua programs.

Fourth, impose and collect a sales tax on the business activity occuring in our homeowners' association...

Fifth, partner with various entities and purchase a mobile speed radar/ticketing van that can be loaned out to other small municipalities...There is ample grant money available for this purchase, and there are numerous success stories in towns just like ours. This would also increase pedestrian safety for those 165 THOUSAND visitors to our 204-home village each year. [Don't you find patronizing and self-serving our Council president's argument that traffic and traffic speed are NOT an important enough issues for him to respond to our concerns about such, yet are important enough for him to constantly place warning cones on a state road in front of his Chautauqua business?]

I am not going to list as "alternatives" the usual suspects, but I will mention them:

1) Borough determined and imposed increase in one or more of our taxes-- either the property tax or the earned income tax;

2) Borough and Chautauqua determined and imposed increase in any combination of our taxes, fees, and special assessment;

3) Borough created debt obligation;

4) Borough created "agreement" with the Leb. EIT entity to repay. (This is a vague route, given that it would really be the municipality assuming a debt obligation, and, therefore really is just Number 3 in disguise.)

Now, for those of you who find this post to rile your feathers, I would like to remind you that none of my alternatives suggested making the treasurer and Council president explain how this EIT snafu happened on their watch and to possibly draw from their bond(s) to repay some of this overpayment. Given that no one right now knows the exact extent of the mismanagment of the EIT funds, and that not all of the mismanaged funds have been found, the path to resolution of the issue for us Mt. Gretnan's could be a lot more perilous and contentious.

I will update this post later today with the relevant clips from the Borough meeting.

Does hypocrisy of the Chautauqua Board damage the unique character of our woodland retreat?

Our Chautauqua picnic is coming right up, and, because I hope to be able to attend this year, I look forward to seeing my neighbors gathered together.
So, even though my poll has not ended yet, I want to take this opportunity to present some "food for thought"--think of this post as my "uncovered dish" for the picnic.

In thinking about the many conversations I have had with neighbors, visitors, and Chautauqua Board/Mt. Gretna Borough elected representatives (I will collectively refer to them as "local reps"), I have discovered that, while we all seem to agree that Mt. Gretna/the Chautauqua has a unique character that is very important to us, we wildly differ on how that unique character is surviving and on how to maintain and protect it.

The Chautauqua Resident's Handbook succinctly describes our neighborhood as a "wooded retreat", and I think that is a apt description that each of us residents and shareholders can agree upon. However, it has become overwhelming clear to me that the ordinances, laws, borough codes and general ongoings of those we elected to govern us may be only selectively enforced, and that this selective enforcement may be largely designed to benefit those same "local reps", or even motorcycle-loving cops. It does not seem that our local reps, collectively, act with the intention of enforcing codes, ordinances, etc, with the intention to protect the health, safety, and welfare of us lowly residents, and certainly not to protect our peaceful use and enjoyment of our little slice of this woodland RETREAT. They have demonstrated the ability, however, to enforce them when it comes to benefitting themselves or one of their own family members, and for cops with motorcycle fetishes. Let me explain the facts upon which I have reached this conclusion.

A little clarifying background is needed before I continue. The Chautauqua is basically a homeowners' association that was incorporated over a hundred years ago. Our Borough-Chautauqua solicitor, Kilgore, essentially alleges that the incorporation documents include a paragraph--a covenant, designed to protect the "retreat" character of the Chautauqua, and that we shareholders are all bound by that covenant via a paragraph in our deeds that refer to and incorporate that covenant.

Further, the Chautauqua Resident's Handbook states that it has assigned the Borough the responsibility of enforcing ordinances and traffic laws. However, it also states that the Borough, as with the Mt. Gretna Water Authority, are "CHAUTAUQUA-based entities" for which it is the shareholders' collectively responsibility to support (via payment of shareholder fees, etc). It also highlights several ordinances, which include a noise ordinance and an "abandoned vehicle" on Chautauqua property ordinance.

Now, here are the reasons for my conclusion that our local reps, as a collective body, are failing to act in our community's best interests and to protect the unique character that we expected when we purchased property and commited to Mt. Gretna and the Chautauqua. We expected these existing entities to enforce codes, ordinances, and laws. We expected them to help maintain our property values and to create a quality of life associated with a "woodland retreat", of which there are only two in the entire country.

Residents and property owners have been complaining about the safety and quality of life issues for many years now--even years before I arrived here! I have discoverd documents that show that residents have been presenting these concerns to our local reps (and, yes, those reps have not changed much since then) for many years. I have been to three annual meetings and heard several other people make similar complaints. I have been to Borough meetings myself where the complaints have been made. My better-half has been to Board meetings where she made the complaint, and I myself have written to both the Board, to the Borough, and to the police, expressing deep concern over the potential tragedy presented by the lack of addressing our traffice and noise concerns, and especially by the lack of enforcement of speeding laws here. I also wrote and asked for an explanation of when the existing noise ordinance would be enforced.

1. I can not find any evidence suggesting that any of these complaints generated a substantive responsive from either entity. Thus, to my knowledge, neither the Chautauqua nor the Borough have ever responded to any "citizen" complaint, including my written ones, about these safety, quality of life, and peaceful use and enjoyment of our property issues. Instead, I do know that we are told to present the issue at a meeting (a meeting that we are shunned at and dismissed if we do go). We are told to write a letter (a letter that never gets responded to even when sent via certified mail and asking for a written response). The Chautauqua says it the Borough's responsibility, and the Borough says its not anything that they will take responsibility for...In fact, the Borough Council president himself responded by accusing us of "coming to the harm".

And just like that, our unique character, our woodland retreat, vanishes into the reality that we really just bought into a common suburb, with unfettered unmufflered combustible engine activity (whether from motorcycles, chainsaws, pressure washers, or leafblowers), neighboring industrial activity, gunshots at any hour of the day (whether from gunpowder, air, or springloaded guns), and neighbors we sue for stuff that we don't sue anyone else for. You can have that suburb, have it right here if you like-but I was duped into thinking that this was a "woodland RETREAT", and I am near the point where I begin asking for my money back if some enforcement actions don't start happening for me too.

Ironically, when a local rep made a complaint about noise this spring, the response was truly surprising and out of character. That resident got police response, as well as Borough and police-issued public statements that the police will enforce the codes and ordinances of our community. It was even discussed in the Borough's presentation at the Chautauqua annual meeting. After hearing that the police said that they will enforce ordinances, I sent a letter asking about enforcment of the codes and traffic laws and was told, in short, that it wouldn't happen.

Further, when the noise issue was brought up at a monthly shareholder meeting, it was revealed that the use of a non-mufflered combustible-engine leafblower was preferred by certain Board members, thus explaining to me why other citizens complaints will never generate a substantive collective response from our local reps. These engines, by the way, operate at decibel levels that cause permanent hearing loss for the operator and for anyone within a short distance from the engine, as well as pollute the air with fine particulates and toxins that don't settle out for days. At a minimum, an electric leaf-blower could be considered by the Board member, but why set the precedent of moving your personal priorities and preferences to a position below that of the citizens you represent?

Also, when a motorcycle-loving off-duty Middletown cop sees what he thinks is a dangerous condition on a Mt. Gretna roadway, he makes one call and gets the response of two police districts. In the meantime, he threatens to arrest two Mt. Gretna residents/property owners for a light lawn sprinkler that has been knocked over.

Quite the aggresive response, wouldn't you say? I dare say us lowly citizens would appreciate half that response to our "dangerous conditions" complaints! But, no. Again, we have to endure the obvious arrangment of importance, of status in this community and be forced to recognise that a motorcycle fanatic who is NOT a tax-paying, fees-paying resident of the community will be given a legitimacy that us citizens will not be given-even if that motorcycle fanatic is breaking our air pollution laws, our traffic laws, our vehicle safety equipment laws, and/or our community ordinances and are themselves creating dangerous situations.

2. Knowing that it has failed to respond to numerous and ongoing complaints that directly reflect the preservation of our community's unique character, the Chautauqua nevertheless is suing a Mt. Gretna resident essentially for his actions that allegedly do not conform with the character of the Chautauqua as a woodland retreat.

Funny how this litigation was not mentioned at the annual sharehholders' meeting even though it had to have been on the table at that time, given that it was filed close to the date of the meeting.

I think that the allegations made in this filing present a classic example of hypocrisy in government, and, more importantly for us as a community, may backfire in a huge way.

First, the action alleges conduct that neither the Chautauqua nor the Board has been willing to address (except for this one individual) in any community way--i.e. uniform, fair, or equitable that I can determine. In fact, both the Borough Council president and the Board president have told citizens presenting noise complaints that they can't regulate what persons do on their "private property." This position is egregiously erroneous for reasons I will cover in another post. But, for now, let's just ask ourselves how the Chautauqua can simultaneously maintain these two opposing postions and attempt to regulate this one guy for what he is doing on his "private" property while foregoing to regulate others' conduct.

A sample allegation in the complaint is the charge regarding the installation of signs marketing the resident's business, which apparently is a violation of the covenant that I mentioned earlier. However, this resident doesn't have any signs any different than any other "for rent" or "for sale" sign posted throughout our community, and the signs on his vehicles are smaller and less offensive than signs on other residents' vehicles.

Second, the action alleges that the resident is operating his business from a Chautauqua home, and that the covenant prohibits such a thing. Now, the covenant quoted does specifically prohibit lodging type businesses, inter alia, so this brings me to the question of how the rental and for sale signs are allowed. Is there a modification or exception to the covenant?

Further, this resident actually does NOT do his work in his home, but elsewhere, and brings his instrumentalities of work home with him--as MANY of us year-round residents do. What's even worse is the fact that many year round residents have a home-office--some of these offices belong to local reps themselves or even to their spouse. In fact, I know of other residents who use Chautauqua's common parking areas to park their work vehicles, sometimes for weeks at a time, and nothing is ever said to them. And why should it--if those common parking areas aren't for us to use, then they are only there to benefit the businesses within the Mt. Gretna yet being funded and maintained by us residents...

But here is why this action may backfire on them and cause us some real damage as property owners who rank the unique character of Mt. Gretna as "very important." Because all of this is common-knowledge and easily provable as a defense, this resident now has a great opportunity to get a legal judgment finding that the covenant has not been enforced and this non-enforcement has created a community with a character like that of any other suburb--that there is nothing unique about it anymore. And, that legal precedent will be very difficult to challenge, overturn, or erode, even if it is only a partial finding for this resident's defense.

How and why was this route chosen, and how and why was this one person targeted for enforcement of covenants, codes, etc when it seems as if no one else has been made to comply? Is this hypocrisy and pettiness the best use of our community resources? Given the Chautauqua's and the Borough's chronic reluctance to respond to our complaints and to conduct the enforcement of codes and laws that we are asking them to, I find this particular action of theirs to further erode the community character of the Chautauqua/Mt. Gretna.

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.