RSS Feeds
ASK SKIP: Strict Construction: Response to responders
One anonymous responder here said “I would find the Phoenix blogs more interesting if Skip or some of the council members would actually respond to the posters’ remarks. Most people post what everyone else is thinking or has heard on the street. Why no responses?”
You’re right. You’re absolutely right. Here are a few responses of my own to what’s been said so far:
• The comment “50 years would be a long time for Phoenixville to suffer yet another mistake” doesn’t address the problem. What do you think we should do to improve the parking situation?
• The similar comment “This is a mistake that will haunt us, our children and in some cases our children’s children” doesn’t tell me why it’s a mistake. What do you think we should do to improve the parking situation?
• “User charges” does not mean “parking permits.” So far, the discussion about an Authority has been about “metered parking” and “garage parking fees,” but even those early conversations have not been with or among those who will propose such strategies. I think it’s way too early to complain about a charge that has neither been considered, nor discussed, nor gone to public hearing, let alone enacted. What do you think we should do to improve the parking situation?
Now to the Chicken Project’s claim about the 1947 law. Yes, indeed, it was repealed. But while we are about telling the truth, as CP tells me I should always do, let’s tell the whole truth. The law did not disappear. It was recodified by the very legislation that repealed it.
The Act of June 5, 1947, P.L. 458, 53 P.S. 341-356, the “Parking Authority Law,” was repealed by Section 3 of Act 22 of June 19, 2001, P.L. 287, and recodified with amendments at 53 Pa. C.S. 5501-5517. Quoting Act 22: “The addition of 53 Pa. C.S. Ch. 55 is a continuation of the Act of June 5, 1947… known as the Parking Authority Law.” By my reading even the amendments made no substantive changes to the process of establishing an authority – and that’s the issue here – by us or by any other municipality save one: Philadelphia.
The whole truth and nothing but? CP didn’t tell you the really best part: Act 22 of 2001 also repealed the 1945 Municipal Authorities Act.
And recodified that, too. (Act 22 again: “The addition of 53 Pa. C.S. Ch. 56 is a continuation of the Act of May 2, 1945… known as the Municipal Authorities Act of 1945.” Elsewhere: “The provisions of 53 Pa.C.S. Ch. 56, so far as they are the same as those of existing laws, are intended as a continuation of such laws and not as new enactments.”)
Moral to the story: one shouldn’t be so quick to beat up the Solicitor.
Posted by G.E. “Skip” Lawrence
You can send you questions for Skip to
askskip@phoenixvillenews.com
You’re right. You’re absolutely right. Here are a few responses of my own to what’s been said so far:
• The comment “50 years would be a long time for Phoenixville to suffer yet another mistake” doesn’t address the problem. What do you think we should do to improve the parking situation?
• The similar comment “This is a mistake that will haunt us, our children and in some cases our children’s children” doesn’t tell me why it’s a mistake. What do you think we should do to improve the parking situation?
• “User charges” does not mean “parking permits.” So far, the discussion about an Authority has been about “metered parking” and “garage parking fees,” but even those early conversations have not been with or among those who will propose such strategies. I think it’s way too early to complain about a charge that has neither been considered, nor discussed, nor gone to public hearing, let alone enacted. What do you think we should do to improve the parking situation?
Now to the Chicken Project’s claim about the 1947 law. Yes, indeed, it was repealed. But while we are about telling the truth, as CP tells me I should always do, let’s tell the whole truth. The law did not disappear. It was recodified by the very legislation that repealed it.
The Act of June 5, 1947, P.L. 458, 53 P.S. 341-356, the “Parking Authority Law,” was repealed by Section 3 of Act 22 of June 19, 2001, P.L. 287, and recodified with amendments at 53 Pa. C.S. 5501-5517. Quoting Act 22: “The addition of 53 Pa. C.S. Ch. 55 is a continuation of the Act of June 5, 1947… known as the Parking Authority Law.” By my reading even the amendments made no substantive changes to the process of establishing an authority – and that’s the issue here – by us or by any other municipality save one: Philadelphia.
The whole truth and nothing but? CP didn’t tell you the really best part: Act 22 of 2001 also repealed the 1945 Municipal Authorities Act.
And recodified that, too. (Act 22 again: “The addition of 53 Pa. C.S. Ch. 56 is a continuation of the Act of May 2, 1945… known as the Municipal Authorities Act of 1945.” Elsewhere: “The provisions of 53 Pa.C.S. Ch. 56, so far as they are the same as those of existing laws, are intended as a continuation of such laws and not as new enactments.”)
Moral to the story: one shouldn’t be so quick to beat up the Solicitor.
Posted by G.E. “Skip” Lawrence
You can send you questions for Skip to
askskip@phoenixvillenews.com
posted by The Phoenix Files at
11:21 AM
7 Comments:
I am the author of the first question on the lack of responses from you, Skip, or the council members.
You have been covering council for some time now, and as evidenced by your opinion pieces, you have developed at least some carefully crafted assessments, but have not proffered YOUR honest opinion on subjects such as the proposal for the Barto tract or the parking situation.
Many have offered theirs at this blog and others.
I would like to read what YOU think about proposed improvements to "blighted areas", the parking problems, and other borough-wide situations, or items such as the lack of leadership on council, the cronyism, and marginalization of some members.
The comments of past successful reporters at the Phoenix were the forerunners to today's internet bloggers. They told the situations as they perceived them, made independent judgement on issues, and put council's collective feet to the fire. They forced self-scrutiny of that body of people, and held them accountable to the public for their actions.
I'm not asking that you morph into Woodward/Bernstein, I'm asking you to consciously recognize what I know you can be...a good investigative reporter with teeth.
The first time anyone takes on tptb or a controversial subject, it's hard. No doubt about it. I've been there.
It does get easier. As a reward of sorts, you just may make some people think. You may make some people change their minds. YOU may become a catalyst for change.
Thank you for responding to my post.
When the South Side Watchband was created, Barry Cassidy often talked about the need for permit parking and how he planned to push Council to enact it from the area from downtown Phoenixville to Washington Avenue.
The parking consultant hired by Borough Council last year said that the PPG property was a great resource and could be converted to gravel-based parking while waiting for the area to be developed -- this would give the town time to really decide whether or not a parking garage was needed.
Read the consultant's report -- a parking garage was the LAST, not the first option.
The problem as I see it is, if the project is viable, meaning it will make money, why are private developers not knocking down our doors to put up a garage? Why do we need to put tax payers’ dollars on the line, effect our credit rating and borrowing potential to back a project that cannot and most likely will not work? We do not face parking issues during the day, I am downtown every day, and there is always plenty of parking available. The problem comes at night, where the bars are the busiest. We are looking at attempting to set up a program that is the complete opposite of every format that is currently a success. We are looking to make free parking during the day and charge at night? That in and of itself will tell you that it is doomed.
The Steel Site will eventually work itself out in the end, (something the paper still refuses to respond too is the MacPuke statement that is posted on other blogs regarding his relationship with King John.). If they do not want to produce and present plans that fit into current zoning and work WITH the Planning Commission, we cannot force them to negotiate. Why is it that we need to bend over backwards for developers, any developer? We have zoning regulations for reasons, to provide diverse areas in which to live! If they wish to develop that area, such as the new twin towers, why not provide a reasonable plan that does not call for increased density and other such waivers? If the developer needs that type of density to make a profit, they need to adjust their costs elsewhere and not cause Planning Commission or Council to change zoning to fit their needs or should have figured it out prior to purchasing the property. He’s been around the block more than once as well as the rest of the family, let’s not play dumb now.
You state that you got your information from the CP, the person who is to make sure that HIS personal contact info is available to his constituents? That is missing from the paper and not being reported on. He is also to make sure that he council minutes are also on the web site? Yet not one meeting from this year has found it to post for the public record on the web site. Also not reported. So when you tell me that you want to take legal information from a layman and a solicitor that quotes from an outdated repealed law, yes I question the solicitor, I question the CP I also question whether you have enough neutrality to report on such issues!
So I guess the true moral is you can look up a cows butt to check a t-bone or you can just take the butchers word for it. Guess we know where your head is at.
Have a nice day!
Oh . . .My. . . God! I totally love when the media becomes apologists for people in public life. Like when Britney was going around showing her "Who-Ha" every night while her kids were with a nanny and ET makes excuses by saying that her nanny is the highest paid in LA. I wanted to hurl but my dad says that I should expect that from the media.
People just need to wake up from their post Patty's blackout and realize that you are not Superman and that Lex Luthor and the other merchants of evil will do whatever they want. They do have the power of mind control, you know. If Lex wants parking paid for by the good citizens of Phoenixville, all he has to do is give that pony tail a shake and it will get done (Oh wait, I think I confused superman with I Dream of Jeanie) I think you all get the drift. We are all just little bags of money. When the powers that be want money, the powers take money.
Now, do you still want to fight? Perhaps the problem is Lex Luthor and not the people he is controlling. Perhaps you need to rid the world of a true evil and not a perceived evil.
Phew!!!! Now that I did my thinking for the day, I am going back to PerezHilton.com for my Paris Hilton fill. Enjoy the rest of the day.
XXOO
Et tu Skip? Going tet de tat and no comment? Say it ain't so?!? Is any of comments made by 'and the truth' true? Is Council President Wagner's contact info not valid? What is this MacPuke document? Is it true that the paper is covering this information up? Is there more that is not being told to us?
to "loving being 14," maybe you have some insite the rest of us dont have--your right--the ponytail gets whatever the ponytail wants--i mean guess who he just went to the Bahamas with? She not talking. Cant imagine how he pulled that off--poor girl should have her head examined--and I hav to stop teasing her when I see her but Barry, dont you realize--whole different league maaaaan
He should have stay there.
Post a Comment
<< Home