Friday, April 10, 2009

Phoenixville Library - Sell Second Avenue for $1.00?

Phoenixville Borough Council's monthly meeting agenda is posted below.

Highlighted in bold is the agenda item for the Community Development issue, the Phoenixville Public Library request to Council to vacate Second Avenue for the proposed expansion project.

Upon a motion by Council President Henry Wagner, and seconded by David Gill, the motion was forwarded to Council for approval and contains information of which I was previously unaware.

The Community Development Committe recommends selling the borough/taxpayer owned property on Second Avenue for $1.00!

1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
a. Consider Approval of Vacating Second Avenue and Sale of the Underlying Borough Owned Property to the Library Foundation for $1.00 Contingent Upon Meeting All Land Development, Zoning Conditions, and Approval by the Planning Commission (Approved in Committee by a Vote of 3 to 0)
2.

The taxpayers of Phoenixville have just been slapped.

This latest revelation, in my opinion, is particularly dismaying because it further reveals the depth of the obvious egocentrism among the parties involved in the library's proposal.

First and foremost, the property in question was deeded to the borough by the Reeves family, in essence, to the residents and taxpayers of Phoenixville.

Borough council cannot, by law, simply sell a portion of borough/taxpayer owned property without following the guidelines set up BY the law.

The selling of borough/taxpayer owned property is one of the few reasons under the Sunshine Law in which Council can utilize an executive session to discuss such a sale, and to my knowledge no such executive session has been held on the issue.

Once a borough/taxpayer owned property has been identified and approved for sale, a public bidding process is initiated.

Also to my knowledge no public bidding process has been initiated for the parcel of Second Avenue requested by the library board and school district administration.

Lastly, I believe the property must be sold to the highest bidder.

Public hearings are also required.

NOT FOR $1.00 can Second Avenue be sold.

Who's idea is this to GIVE AWAY borough/taxpayer property??

Personally, I am still astonished how this bizarre proposal, done with no reference to reality or common sense, has come as far as Council floor.

Enough.

Please plan to come to the Borough Council meeting on Tuesday evening, voice your concerns, and see our representatives deal with this issue.

*****

PHOENIXVILLE BOROUGH COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
7:00 PM

I. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance - Chair

II. Roll Call – Borough Secretary

III. Appointments/Public Resolutions

IV. Presentations: Phoenixville Public Library

V. Minutes of Previous Meetings: March 24, 2009

VI. Communications:
a. Consider Request of Holy Family School for a Waiver of Fees ($100)

VII. Public Participation – 30 minutes

VIII. Council Participation

IX. Resolutions

X. Public Hearings

a. Consider Adoption of Ordinance to Amend the Code of Ordinances of the Borough of Phoenixville for the Purpose of Repealing the Current Open Records Policy as Set Forth in Chapter 1 – Part 10 in Order to Enact an Updated Open Records Policy – Chapter 1 – Part 10 in Compliance with Recent Amendments to the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law
b. Consider Adoption of Ordinance Amending Chapter 15 “Motor Vehicles and Traffic”, Part 4, “General Parking Regulations” by Creating Loading and Unloading Zones, Parking at All Times in Certain Locations, and Parking Prohibited in Certain Locations, Certain Days, and Hours in the Borough of Phoenixville, Chester County, Pennsylvania
c. Consider Adoption of Ordinance Amending Chapter 27 “Zoning” Part 6, NCR-2, Section 27-603.B(1), Infill Development, of the Borough of Phoenixville Zoning Ordinance No. 1601, as amended, to Modify Certain Requirements under the Infill Development Provisions in Order to Better Accommodate and Encourage Infill Development that Conforms with Established Neighborhood Development Patterns and Streetscapes within the Borough of Phoenixville; and Such Other Related Amendments as May Be Required

XI. Reports of Committees, Boards, Commissions and Authorities
A. Planning Commission
B. Regional Planning Commission
C. Parking Authority
D. Historical Architectural Review Board
a. Consider Approval of the Application for 106-108 Bridge Street to Install a Sign
b. Consider Approval of the Application for 158 Bridge Street to Install a Sign
c. Consider Approval of the Application for 167 Bridge Street to Install a Sign
E. Council Action referred from Council Committees

1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
a. Consider Approval of Vacating Second Avenue and Sale of the Underlying Borough Owned Property to the Library Foundation for $1.00 Contingent Upon Meeting All Land Development, Zoning Conditions, and Approval by the Planning Commission (Approved in Committee by a Vote of 3 to 0)


2. FINANCE COMMITTEE
a. Consider Approval of the Prepaids in the Amount of $615,546.89 (Approved in Committee by a Vote of 3 to 0)
b. Consider Approval of the Budget Transfers in the Amount of $1,000.00 (Approved in Committee by a Vote of 3 to 0)
c. Consider Approval of the Fees for the Gingerbread House (Approved in Committee by a Vote of 3 to 0)
d. Consider Approval of the Rugby Charges (Approved in Committee by a Vote of 3 to 0)
e. Consider Approval of the Fee Schedule (Approved in Committee by a Vote of 3 to 0)

XII. Public Participation (con’t)

XIII. Executive Session

XIV. New Business

XV. Staff Reports
1. Manager’s Report
3. Code Enforcement Report
4. Public Works Director’s Report
5. Fire Chief’s Report
6. Finance Director’s Report
7. Mayor’s Report
Other Reports
1. CDC Monthly Report
2. Fire Liaison Report

XVI. Old Business

XVII. Adjournment

35 comments:

Karen said...

The following open letter was received via email and posted here with permission.

****

To: Phoenixville Borough Council

Mr. Henry Wagner, Council President (Middle Ward)
Mr. Michael Handwerk, Assistant Secretary (Middle Ward)
Mr. Carlos Ciruelos (East Ward)
Mr Michael Speck (East Ward)
Mr. Richard Kirkner, Vice President (North Ward)
Mr. Jeffrey Senley, (North Ward)
Mr. David Gill (West Ward)
Mr. Kendrick Buckwalter (West Ward)

As you prepare for your upcoming Borough Council meeting on Tuesday, April 14th, 2009, I am requesting that you find the wisdom and courage to vote neither yes nor no on the library’s request to close 2nd Avenue and build onto Reeves Park. Rather, I am asking that you show true leadership by tabling the discussion of this proposal altogether, and that you gather together library leadership, library employees and patrons, neighborhood residents, and any other interested parties to create a truly elegant solution that resolves the interests of everyone and damages no one.

It is not clear to me why the library expansion must be this structure in this location – there are so many options within Phoenixville Borough that would accommodate virtually every need of the library while maintaining, if not enhancing, the quality of the neighborhood. So much energy is being devoted to this issue by those who feel strongly, one way or the other. I would venture to say that most of those individuals are passionate supporters of both the library and the community. It would be wonderfully exciting if all of that energy were devoted to a common purpose. Unfortunately, sadly, the library’s win-lose approach to this issue is forcing many of us to take sides.

It is also not clear to me why Borough Council has not taken a more critical and challenging stance towards the library’s primary claims, to wit:

Where else could we put the new structure? There are currently properties for sale on Main Street in lots to the north and to the west of the Community Center. Either of these lots could accommodate the library’s proposed new structure. There is also a property on the east side of Main Street, between 4th and 5th Avenues, which appears to be vacant – the building, and parking, could be accommodated in that space.
If we put the structure in a remote location, we’ll have to hire new staff. Let’s be clear, the library will need to hire new staff for the proposed expansion, regardless of where it goes. The library’s argument here is a red herring. And, with all due respect, the added expense to the library of staff for an expansion is not the neighborhood’s problem.
We’ve done a traffic study, and it shows that there would be no adverse impact on traffic in the neighborhood if we close 2nd Avenue. The library paid for the traffic study – isn’t it the least bit suspicious to Borough Council that the study’s conclusions support the library’s aims? What was the methodology? Have any of the Borough Council members actually read the study or questioned its conclusions? I’ve done my own traffic study – I sat at Main Street and 2nd Avenue on Friday morning, March 20th, from 7:30AM to 7:55AM. I counted 55 cars entering or exiting 2nd Avenue on the east side of Main Street, 55 cars that would necessarily use an alternate route if 2nd Avenue were closed, 55 cars in only 25 minutes. Really, no impact on traffic in the neighborhood?

I am angry that the library is abusing its privileged position as a community institution to pursue its agenda, in many ways clearly a personal agenda on the part of library leadership, at the expense of this community. I am angry that the library, in its literature, on its website, and at the library itself, is deliberately misrepresenting its true intentions. I am appalled that the Borough Council appears to be rolling over and accommodating any whim and request of library leadership, without regard for the interests of Borough residents. I am disappointed that only two Borough Council members responded to the e-mail I sent prior to the Development Council meeting of March 25th; even more disappointing to me is that neither of those responses were from the representatives of my ward, the ward which will be most damaged by this proposed expansion and renovation.

It is not necessary to close 2nd Avenue and disrupt traffic patterns in the neighborhood in order to find more room for story time. It is not necessary to further diminish the beauty and historical legacy of the Carnegie Library, both inside and out, in order to increase office space. It is not necessary to build onto Reeves Park in order to have a larger section for computer resources. It is not necessary to impact property values in the area in order to have a dedicated teen reading room or to increase the volume of books and materials available. It is not necessary to have a café, period; Borders and Barnes and Noble can provide food and drink for those book lovers who cannot go more than an hour or two without sustenance.

In short, the expansion, as currently conceived, is not necessary – not because the needs of the library are unimportant, but because there are so many other options that would meet those needs without damaging the fabric of the neighborhood.

So, once again: I am asking Borough Council to table all discussion of the library’s request to close 2nd Avenue and build onto Reeves Park. I am asking Borough Council to show true leadership by working with library leadership, library employees and patrons, neighborhood residents, and any other interested parties to create a truly elegant solution that resolves the interests of everyone and damages no one.

I would be happy to speak with you personally about my feelings and suggestions on this issue, and I would be delighted to be a part of a fairer, more open, and ultimately more gratifying process.

Sincerely,

Michael Kammerdiener
Phoenixville Borough

Karen said...

Thank you, Michael!

Anonymous said...

The sad part is this is not a win/lose approach towards the resolution of the library expansion. Whether or not people think this is an "elegant" solution or design for the library is a matter of opinion. I happen to trust the Eustice design firm (that live on 2nd Ave), and have done a wonderful design to keep the historic nature of the library without destroying the look of the park. Again, this is not a win/lose approach but rather an understanding that not everyone will be 100% happy and onboard. That will never happen so please stop trying to mischaracterize this approach as somehow being jammed down everyone throats.

Karen said...

Anonymous 9:31 p.m., those who have presented alternative ideas or suggestions do so in recognition of the fact that the library is well used, and although an argument could be made that expansion does NOT HAVE to take place, they offer commentary in an attempt to help the library board, the school district, and ultimately Council to think outside the problematic box they have crafted.

Any minimizing of concerns or mischaracterization facts surrounding this issue lies soley with those who support the proposal.

For example, the closing of Second Avenue is defined on the website as being a "small" portion of the street.

Further, the expansion destroys the entire northwest corner of Reeves Park, which as currently depicted in the plan, does encroach on the park behind the Jaycees clock on the corner of the property.

Lastly, Anonymous, if you have followed the progress of this proposal, on this blog and elsewhere, you would be aware that it already is "somehow being jammed down everyone throats".

From the very first meeting, invited neighbors have tried to work for a win/win solution.

Now we shall see how Council deals with the situation.

Anonymous said...

Karen, thank you for letting me have my own opinion?
I'm sorry if it's not in line with yours. Wow!

You are right. And everyone else is wrong.

Karen said...

Anonymous 9:31, this is a blog, and as mentioned in the mission statement, it is a vehicle for communication.

Exchange of communication wherein we share opinions, ideas, and individually sort the wheat from the chaff.

We may expand our viewpoints, alter mindsets, and perhaps even help create the world we want to live in.

Thank you for being a part of that process.

Anonymous said...

There is a library hosted blog here.

gwen said...

The architect that you, Anonymous 09:31 mention so favorably is also the person who, at one point in a presentation informed an elderly resident of the street that the Borough was going to take her property away because the library needed it for the expansion. Not only was she being told a big building was going to block her access to Main Street because the sidewalks would be gone, but also that she was going to lose her property, and that she didn't really own it. They have since back-tracked on that idea because they met resistance. But it is indicative of the mind-set of the principals and the way the immediate neighbors have been treated throughout this process. Ignored, brushed off and treated as impediments to the plan. You would be pushing back too.

Karen said...

The following open letter was received via email and posted here with permission.

****

Mr. Mayor & Borough Council Members:

I'm not going to rehash the pros and cons in this e-mail. You've heard both sides by now.

But, the letter in today's (Saturday 4/11/09) "Phoenix" from Maureen Ash asked us to inform our Councilpersons of our opinions.

It would seem to me that the cons outweigh the pros. Perhaps adding two additional floors would do the trick if obtaining the property to the north is impossible.

I believe Council has had an opportunity to peruse the letter from Brad Peck regarding the deed restrictions and constraints of over 100 years ago when the Phoenix Iron Company & Mr. Reeves transferred the land and streets to the Mayor and Borough of Phoenixville.

Legal issues may be forthcoming. Is the Borough prepared to add these expenses into the budget?

And, are the citizens of Phoenixville prepared to see these costs raise their taxes?


--
Edgar A. Naratil

Anonymous said...

Sorry "Gwen", I've been to the library meetings and those words never passed through Tom's lips. You are wrong and are changing the context of his comments. The Eustice's are some of the finest people in Phoenixville and you are trying to paint them differently. I am highly disappointed that the moderator of this blog has let that implication pass on this blog. Its funny how someones agenda's obscure their normally friendly nature.

Karen said...

Thanks, Ed!

Karen said...

Anonymous 9:44 a.m., if you use the search engine at the top of the home page of this blog information on the library proposal is readily available.

Please check 03/18/08.

http://karenjohns4phoenixvilleboroughcouncil.blogspot.com/search?q=eminent+domain

Please conduct a search on "right-of-way", also.

I have to support "gwen" regarding the statement made to a neighbor on seizing the right-of-way on her property.

Her statement was based on fact, spoken publically and discussed openly. Not ever implied.

Many in attendance at the meeting were shocked by the fact that this neighborhood invasive project was proposed as a legitimate plan.

As the owner of this blog, I still maintain my "normally friendly" nature, but I admit to frustration at times when confronted by normally logical people who are blinded by an agenda or plan which, in my opinion, clearly indicates no commonsense or foresight.

"gwen" is right.

Anonymous said...

A public library - especially one in the hands of a school board - is much more than a building. What is the mission of the Regional library? What is the mission of the school board? This school board seems weirdly obsessed with buildings and placing them at rather odd places - all in the name of the children and the community? The borough council seems to be suffering from the same syndrome. Maybe that water which is being pumped from the old mine and ends up in the Schuylkill has some substance which effects the brain and ability to make reasoned decisions.

Anonymous said...

Karen, Gwen's comments were "at one point in a presentation informed an elderly resident of the street that the Borough was going to take her property away because the library needed it for the expansion. Not only was she being told a big building was going to block her access to Main Street because the sidewalks would be gone, but also that she was going to lose her property, and that she didn't really own it."

She made no mention at any time in that statement about taking the "right of way", which is completely and entirely different than taking away their property (aka house and land). That would is how it would read to someone not familiar with the specifics and that is how mis-information is spread. The meaning of those two statements are entirely different and like I said you let that conveniently pass on the thread without explanation or clarification (which you are usually so eager to do). So I am still very disappointed in how ones agenda can change our behavior.

Karen said...

There are those darn "Bill Clinton" semantics again.

As a observer of how people convey their thoughts, I would like to suggest that rather than criticize the manner in which someone characterizes an event or issue, one should (if their opinion differs) completely research the statement and then make their comment.

Analyze ALL the facts and know the subject matter before making blanket statements which can be easily refuted.

As for my part, because I am intimately familiar with the subject at hand, have and will continue to expand on the issue as warranted.

I own my "behavior", as you own your disappointment, and I saw no need to clarify the "gwen" comment until your attempt to brand her statement as false.

Thank you for helping me to set the public record on the fact that the library board originally did want to seize the right-of-way to our neighbor's home.

Anonymous said...

Seems like Anonymous 11:41 in an attempt to clarify terms has actually verified that some sort of issue regarding a neighbor's property actually was brought up.

Anonymous said...

There's that word again, "right of way". They are not one in the same Karen. You can call it Clinton-esque if you want, but the fact of the matter is the phrase was framed so that the assumption would be that there would be a property/house seizure. Right of way and taking over someone's house/property are not even remotely the same. Please clarify your points and stop with the Bush-isms of mis-information.

Anonymous said...

Look, Anonymous 4:21, Karen already has answered you. You pick a fight with the poster named gwen and now Karen. What you're doing now is baiting her for some reason. We know what your doing. No one said anything about seizing a property except you. Try to stay on subject! Do you think it's a good idea to sell taxpayer property for $1?

If Karen clarified her blog any more she would be able to see exactly who you are posting anonymously. She is right out in front with her name. What's yours and why are you hiding?

Anonymous said...

Property is not necessarily a house and land. You can own property without a house on it. If you own a vacant lot, that is still your property. If you own a house with a yard, the yard is your property.

Karen said...

I received this open letter via email along with permission to post it.

****

To: Phoenixville Borough Council Members

Phoenixville Public Library Management & Staff

Phoenixville Area School District Board



One of the library's main arguments for closing 2nd Avenue - one which seems to fascinate the Borough Council members - is the added cost of staffing a second facility, even if that facility is within a few blocks of the current Carnegie Library. If cost is one of Borough Council’s primary considerations in determining whether or not to close 2nd Avenue, I thought it would be helpful to do a true cost comparison of all the unique costs associated with each of the two options.


Option One - Closing 2nd Avenue:



* Conversion of Park Alley to a regularly used road

* New signage for the new traffic patterns

* Adjustments to underground water/sewer/electric utilities

* Reduced property values in the immediate neighborhood of the library expansion

* Reduced property values on those thoroughfares affected by increased traffic

* Reduced property values on those thoroughfares affected by increased parking issues

* Ongoing litigation with regard to closing 2nd Avenue, covering over the facade of the historic Carnegie Library, and building onto Reeves Park

* Additional staffing required for the expanded library facilities and services

* PR/fundraising consultants

* "Opportunity cost" - time and resources spent on this issue by all parties involved, time that might be better spent on other, more pressing concerns

* "Goodwill" - lost donations to the library's "Grow With Us!" campaign, lost business for corporate sponsors of the library's campaign (e.g. Iron Hill Brewery), diminished reputation of library and library leadership within community, rancor amongst neighbors.



Please note - the library has offered to assume the cost of installing speed bumps on the avenues most likely affected by closing 2nd Avenue, but I have not included that expense as one of the costs of Option One. Closing 2nd Avenue will not cause speeding on nearby thoroughfares; as Council President Wagner has admitted, speeding has been an issue for a long time. If speeding is already an issue, the Borough Council ought to be addressing it now, regardless of what the library proposes to do. So, while we appreciate the library's concern for the impact of closing 2nd Avenue on nearby thoroughfares, speeding is not one of those impacts, and therefore the cost of speed bumps to reduce speeding cannot be considered a cost of Option One.



Option Two - Annex Location (ideas including, but not limited to, Main Street property west of the Community Center, Main Street property north of the Community Center, Main Street property on east side of Main Street between 5th and 6th Avenues):



* Redrawing the "Master Plan Design Concept" - if using the same structure in a new location, this could be as simple as erasing what remains of the Carnegie Library and the Reeves Park clock from the current drawing

* Reprinting the library’s promotional material for the “Grow With Us!” campaign

* Additional staffing for the Annex Location MINUS cost of additional staffing for expanded library facilities and services if closing 2nd Avenue - this is the true cost of staffing an annex location



I must admit, I was quite good at math in school, but I don't believe it takes more than a modicum of basic math skills to determine that if cost is the deciding factor in determining whether or not to close 2nd Avenue, then closing 2nd Avenue doesn't make much sense.



I will also admit that there may well be other unique costs associated with either of these options - I'd be happy to have those costs added to the mix.



Finally, I must admit that I do not have specific numbers for each of these costs. However, I know that library leadership and Borough Council have been studying this issue for quite some time, so I assume that they would be able to make these figures readily available. I'd be happy if either the library leadership or the Borough Council could provide those numbers, and if they do so, I will publish a revised list with the new information.



Thanks again for your careful consideration in this matter.







Michael Kammerdiener

Phoenixville Borough Resident

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:45 - Anonymous is a person, just as you are. I don't see that as picking a fight but rather just asking for a point to be clarified for people not familiar with the proceedings. The point is much more clear than the broad strokes painted in this commentary.

Anonymous 3rd Ave

Anonymous said...

If my recollection is correct there were several meetings regarding the plans to expand the library for the community, and many of those meetings were sparsely attended. Many of those meetings were critical in the libraries progression of ideas. I was originally against the library expansion but as the meetings progressed I began to change my thought process because the arguments for the library made much more sense than my origianl thoughts. If there were rational and complete ideas against the expansion, I venture to guess I'd still have my original opinion.

The arguments against the expansion are never complete ideas, but rather, have that feel of throwing anything up against the wall to see if it sticks. They reek of desperation and using scare tactics to build their arguments, but are never based on constructive ideas. It is this reason, and my own exploration of the facts that led me to eventually support the library expansion.

Karen said...

Anonymous 9:22 a.m., please use the search engine on the home page of this blog.

Type in "library", read the various threads and numerous comments on the library expansion wherein you will find some of most "complete ideas" both pro and con.

Perhaps you will change your opinion once again.

Anonymous said...

The time and place to present ideas was at these critical initial meetings where attendance was minimal and ideas were sparse. A blog is not the time nor place to present ideas. I was at these meetings and voiced my displeasure in the expansion, but there was very little support on that side at the time. As the plan was presented and explained through questions and answers, I then came to my own, different conclusion. I feel it is an informed decision and a well thought out decision. Where was everyone then?

Anonymous said...

The meetings were not of the kind that are usually held for a project of this kind, in this day and age. They were "show and tell" not exchange of ideas, not pre-drawing meetings. No public input was requested. This is not the way it is done now. From day one,they had one idea, to get that library attached to the park. It is a bad idea for so many reasons. What are they thinking? And they wonder why those residents most directly affected by it are pushing back. I am beginning to question everything that has been presented, including the number of patrons they say visit the library, and the statements they are attributing to various people. I want them to provide the documentation for everything that is presented because they have proven by their own statements that they cannot be trusted.

Anonymous said...

The meetings were not of the kind that are usually held for a project of this kind, in this day and age. They were "show and tell" not exchange of ideas, not pre-drawing meetings. No public input was requested. This is not the way it is done now. From day one,they had one idea, to get that library attached to the park. It is a bad idea for so many reasons. What are they thinking? And they wonder why those residents most directly affected by it are pushing back. I am beginning to question everything that has been presented, including the number of patrons they say visit the library, and the statements they are attributing to various people. I want them to provide the documentation for everything that is presented because they have proven by their own statements that they cannot be trusted.

Anonymous said...

This is the exact point that a blog is not the place to present hard numbers or ideas. The anonymous poster above indicates that they don't believe the numbers presented in the discussions (which were numerous) and yet that same person seems willing to believe the numbers thrown out on a blog without any studies or documentation to prove their points. Like I said, where was everyone during the library meetings (that were posted) and hardly attended. Aside from Karen and a few others, I don't see the same support in the meetings, and yet everyone comes out in droves on a posted blog or newspaper article.

Karen said...

Anonymous 3:16 p.m., the evolution of news media since the advance of the internet era includes not only newspapers, radio, and newscasts, but also online sources of information such as blogs.

With usage of millions of computers in homes, one can search for news worthy items along with inumerable other items of interest on the internet.

Blogs are just as reliable as any other media of information. Many times information is available online well in advance of other sources.

Regards the meetings, the number of attendees was controlled BY the library as invitations were sent to residents in a defined area. In at least one incident, the residents learned of a subsequent meeting second-hand.

If your main contention is the number of people at the few public meetings, I suggest you contact the library board.

Trust and respect between individuals or parties is earned, as is the case in any relationship.

Personally, I did trust and respect many of those who hold a seat on the library board.

Currently, I no longer hold them in the same regard.

The library proposal is contentious, is divisive, and is wrong for a small neighborhood such as ours.

Rather than take this horrendous idea back to the drawing table and begin anew, the push has intensified to fliers, private invitation "coffees", petitions, and lobbying of officials and residents.

Because this proposal is fraught with many legal, zoning, safety, emergency response problems, and other issues, the board should have backed off the plan.

Instead of saving face, the upcoming request to vacate Second Avenue continues to appear to me as a desperate attempt to hook Council onto an plan which may endanger lives, destroy one neighborhood, shift problems to other neighborhoods, and create legal ramifications which are as yet to be discovered.

Anyone who claims they are in support of this project does not understand the full impact of this folly.

Anonymous said...

The meeting of the library board is scheduled for second Monday at 6:00 pm. That would make it April 13.

Anonymous said...

You are wrong. Blogs are not the same as any other media source such as newspapers or newscasts. The major reason is that these media sources (papers and newscasts) are normally done by "professionals" who should not have an opinion (one way or the other). You (and other bloggers) have an opinion and an agenda, therefor the blog and the information you give is a biased form of propaganda.

The previous meetings you are quick to dismiss were fairly advertised at the borough building and could have been attended by anyone wishing to speak their mind. Again, the people who are against the library expansion continue to use biased information and "scare tactics", as your statement about a dangerous proposal suggests. This is only YOUR opinion and is not based on any studies done by traffic engineers. Unless you are now assuming that responsibility along with all of your other "expertise".

Solofloyd said...

Put this on the ballot for the next school board and we will find out who truly is for and against this proposal. I suspect the proposal would pass 80-20%.

Karen said...

Anonymous 7:11, have you read the mission statement on the front page?

"As a child, I have distinct memories of my grandparents & parents in daily conversation with neighbors over our backyard fence. The sharing of the day's news over that old fence has now been replaced by the telephone & internet. I give my wistful acknowledgement & a tip of the hat to that long gone time, & open this blog for the neighbors of the Phoenixville area to communicate on just about any subject that comes to mind. Welcome to my backyard fence, where the gate is always open!"

Of course I have an opinion, and sometimes an agenda, as well!

This is my blog!

Meetings held by the library board were located AT the library, and we were told only certain neighborhood blocks were invited.

You now reference meetings held at borough hall which were advertised and well attended by those on both sides of this issue. Again, please contact the library board if you still have concerns about their meetings.

Anonymous, my opinions and those of others as well as most of the commentary are based on concern and commonsense.

How they are viewed is based on individual perceptions.

Please note that I don't have much disposable time to continue moderating your interactions with other posters, i.e., "gwen", others, and me on your side-bar issues.

The nature and manner of your posts is commonly refered to as "trolling". In other words, distracting posters from the subject at hand.

Please understand that these distractions are easily identifiable and add nothing to the discussion either pro or con.

Karen said...

Anonymous 8:26 p.m., I will not publish your comment.

Anonymous said...

I find it amazing that there are only 3 comments made regarding the expansion on the Library's Blog Page. The item for discussion has been open since March 11th and only 3 comments.

Here's a short url to the page:
http://tinyurl.com/c9jzte

Karen said...

Anonymous 04/10, 9:31 p.m., 10:56 p.m., 04/11, 9:44 a.m., 11:41 a.m., 4:21 p.m., 04/13, 9:22 a.m., 12:08 p.m., 3:16 p.m., 7:11 p.m., 8:26 p.m., 9:57 p.m., 10:00 p.m., I believe I've identified each of your posts on just this one thread.

As the poster for each of the above posts, not only are you trolling, you are now also spamming the board.