not really

more school tax revenue for the school district, more income tax revenue, a higher tax base to ensure the scum of LMT get to not pay township real estate taxes. Would you be willing to pay real estate taxes to the township instead of the development? And the area was changed decades ago when the houses started to be built, if it was good enoguh back then, it is good enough now. No property taxes collected by the township even after a grandma stole millions of dollars from the township

Page can still be viewed if you aren't a member of FB.

They aren't. Quarry would have been much better choice. Residents were never given the choice Apples to Apples. Warehouses vs. Quarry. The residents were never allowed to weigh in. Warehouses are 24/7 operations that generate much more tractor trailer traffic 365 days a year then a quarry. (Drive through fogelsville, this is the future of Rt. 100) Further a quarry the size presented would have likely never have been built. Lower Milford has fought and successfuly stopped a quarry with a resident led effort supported by their elected officials who value quality of life. Our officials here in LMT, 4 of which still in office including Ryan Conrad, Ron Eichenberg and Roger Reis (all up for election) decided to fight the community instead of a developer. They decided unilaterally that warehouses were better. They decided that protecting 700 acres of regionally significant farmland wasn't worth it. Eventhough survey after survey after survey shows supermajority of residents value it. They decided to screw over neighboring townships and boroughs who are members of the southwestern comp plan. They decided unilaterally to enact a policy allowing the antithesis of smart growth. (outer rung greenfield growth on an area designated for protection by valley wide comp planning)

are you running for commissioner?

why dont you run yourself tough guy?

Yes Mr. trout. The one shot at these guys will be in the R primary and PA is a closed primary state. great question!

It matters if we have to vote in the primary, us independent voter are disenfranchised in PA, we have to declare a party.

actaully they are, trying to maintain no property taxes and get free police from the PSP is harder and harder to do, this development will bring in new revenue. Sad part is many of the people against the development came from other areas and live in homes that were once pristine farm land, just a bunch of NIMBYs

you really don;t have to

Thank you. This was a decision about the law. Stating that the court should be influenced by a few residents' signing a petition shows a gross misunderstandings of fundamental legal principles.

http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/

There is an issue locally with folks (esp seniors) falling prey to con artists via mail and phone schemes. I hope your smarter about that then you are about this.

Michael I tend to agree with you on the wards concept. It's something to consider. I think if the western portion of the township had direct representation by a commissioner looking out for their interests this whole debacle would have turned out much different. We are 30k and STILL GROWING. 24 square miles. We have the population of a city. Larger then Easton. To me, perhaps this concept is the next logical step after conversion to 1st class in continuing to improve our system of gov't here in the township. I hope this is a conversation we can have during the next election cycle. Lets talk about it. Lets see what the residents think about this.

JT you are correct about this being Commonwealth Court and thank you. The other part of what you said is nonsense. The fact that his was non-public negotions is important and indeed much of the root cause here. Also, you like to say this was all frivolous. That is an insult to jusge Varricchio and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying that. The decision was overturned. It was frivolous it would have never got this far. This entire thing should not have landed in court in the first place. Make an effort to actually engage the citizens in a zoning change of this size and all of this never happens. If you actually talk to a majority of the people who have followed this issue very few people are supportive of the way the MOU started. That includes those who support the MOU and or the present leadership in the Twsp. You may recall Bill Royer discussing the missed opportunities to invlolve the public as one example.

Mark let's keep it simple. You're wrong. What you call nonsense is what the judges call facts. The only ones insulting Varrichio are th commonwealth judges themselves. They put her in her place and were pretty blunt about it in the decision. What Varichio did was blatant judicial activism. She was put in her place for it. Ready to move on yet?

Both Zoning Hearing Board officials (Chairman Royer and Higgins) released statements that while they were bound legally in their decision that they both believe the BOC handled this wrong they both made public statements to that effect. The fundamental question of Quarry vs. Warehouses/strip mall/HD housing should have been presented to the public. It wasn't.

Sadly they can both probably expect to not be re-appointed when their terms are up since thats how this board operates "punishing" volunteers who who dare disagree with them public.

Can't support a BOC that didnt think holding a series of town hall meetings outlining and presenting the options of quarry vs. warehousing to the public was a bad idea.

Presenting these options to the public BEFORE confidentially negotiating a "memorandum of understanding" was all "friends" ever wanted. Fortunately we believe the actions were illegal which is why we supported the appellants. But before that, BEFORE the lawsuit even during the lawsuit we always made it clear. Stop the process and present the options. How can anyone argue against that?

That they think the public was too stupid to understand quarry vs. warehouses? I have no idea. Impossible to speculate what their reasoning to skip public discourse and jump right into confidential negotiations were.

Willet I read you comments on here often. I think your a respectful guy but I have to disagree with you that fundamental gov't transparancy is never a "dead horse".

This is muni gov't. Not representative gov't. Not like electing officials to go to washington to make decisions for you. Local gov't when done right should be a different animal. It allows for DIRECT participation by residents. Here was an opportunity for an excercise is true democracy. Present the pro's and cons of 1. fight the quarry. 2. accept a quarry. 3. negotiate a zoning change that would lead to warehousing... and then initiate public discourse and finally public polling.

How could they have gone wrong with that course of action?

JT fundamental question. Would it have been better for the BOC to BEFORE engaging in negotiating the MOU... (which didnt simply just outline a zoning change but also changed definitions, waived impact fees. ect. ect.) to have polled the public via Town Hall meetings, via op-eds, via perhaps even a referendum via workshops in other words "above and beyond"... To present the options A, B, C ect. Pros and cons of all...

Then to ask the question. Ok which do you prefer?

I and others who prefer the likely small quarry were never given an opportunity to weigh in on this choice BEFORE the MOU was ever negotiated. Yes, residents were against a quarry. But would they continue to be once the alternative of warehousing was presented? I and others, many others cause I ask this question often would have preferred the quarry.

So again JT. Would it have been better for the BOC to proceed in this fashion? I don't think I am, but maybe I would have been in the minority and folks would have indicated they prefer industrial warehouses/strip malls and more housing. I honest to god think most folks agree with me and prefer a quarry. Would the public have supported spending money on a legal battle to keep the land preserved Ag? To fight the size of a quarry? (As Lo Milford has successfully fought a developer) But regardless the question is.... presenting the options to the public. Would we be in this mess if this was done?

And... crickets.....

According to the courts the responsibility is on the resident to see the notification (interpret the legalese) come to the muni building.. read the ordinance full of legalese and interpret. Thats the bare minimum legal requirement. What I've advocated for, always advocated and always will is for the responsibility of elected officials to go above and beyond. You can't expect a resident with no legal background to be able to read an ordinance proposal and interpret it's affect on a community. We have a professional planner who should have been directed by elected officials to present the REAL WORLD ramifications of this ordinance to the public in laymans terms in a WELL ADVERTISED formal public town hall. Again. Here are options A. B. C. here are pros and cons (in everyday speak) here's how it will change the area. Here are potential issues.

What Ron (and I assume "Friends," since they are one and the same these days) proposes regarding advertising is illegal. I hope people remember your demands and errors when you inevitably run for the Board, since right now you show you lack qualifications. I think we're all aware that's your plan with all your posts everywhere we turn on Patch..

Townhall meetings are illegal? LOL...

I guess considering running I can expect "proxies" for the commissioners questioning my qualifications/motives instead of talking issues. Fine, it's silliness you have to deal with running for office. For the record I've been involved with local gov't everywhere I've lived for 15 years. I wrote LTE's about LMT and attended meetings starting 12 years ago. Always been a active and engaged and encouraged others to do so.

Some would argue commenting on every issue is bad 'campaigning'. That if I run I should leave my statements to vague soundbites like 'I support smart growth' or "I'm for lower taxes".. silly general statements that no one can really argue with. I won't do that. Won't play that game. Residents in LMT are smarter then that.

Back to the issues.. I ask you this 'Michele'. Simple question. Understanding the specifics are different (procedurally.. curative amendment vs. a zoning change) but the philosophy in question being the same. Do you think the residents in Lower Milford (supported by local officials) are wrong challenging a developers quarry? (and winning so far) Yup they've spent public money. But so far they've prevented the quarry and the land in question will remain as it is. They didn't roll over.

So again 'Michelle', simple question was that wrong?

Ugh....It's not always an us vs. them thing. People are so tired of politics as usual. I disagree with policy. Sometimes I agree. I've written positive blogs about policy and ones questioning. They are all on my blog. Every opinion I've had last 2 years. I just want solutions. Either way it's about issues. There are hundreds of ppl on friends mailing list and FB page. They have a right to say what they want. Name one thing that I'VE said thats an insult. I've said I don't think commercial greenfield realtors are the best choice for a township with growth issues. Thats a blanket statement nothing personal. If you want to talk about issues and solutions lets do that.

@Michelle, one last attempt. I'll try to make it easier for you to understand the question with a visual.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=184488904932407&set=a.184488891599075.40601.171403946240903&type=3&theater

Does this document outline:
A. A public process outlining for the public a choice between a quarry, fighting a quarry or an alternative plan of industrial warehouses, strip malls and housing, then inviting the public to participate in a discussion about that choice?
or
B. Does this outline a pre-determined outcome negotiated confidentially where bare minimum public participation required by law is observed?

Michael I think you would make a great arbitrator of that hypothetical discussion. An open forum with Mr. Jaindl would be a fantastic idea. I know for a fact 'Friends' would be open to that. It's the township that seems to prefer confidential negotiation.