Letters

You can e-mail letters for inclusion in the print version of the Local to: chlocalopinions@yahoo.com.

Lentz policy

Surely even the most casual of readers of the Local must notice that there is something different about this paper. It prints lots of letters, many most emphatic in expression. Letters, editorial comments, and statements of CHCA officers aren’t always in agreement. There don’t seem to be any sacred cows — unmentionable topics.

As one who has written both for and about the Local for a very long time, I should like to remind everyone again that this is no accident. The Local is different. Its difference comes from an editorial policy that sets it apart from — so far as I know — all other papers, anywhere. The Local prints — it must print — all the letters that come to it, except for a few thank you notes to editors. It gives to anyone the privilege of saying exactly what he thinks, so long as the expression of it is not libelous or obscene and so long as the writer is identified.

In fact, the Local has no voice of its own. The “editorials” are merely the expressions of the individuals who sign them, exactly the same as the letters. The Local does not speak for the Chestnut Hill Community Association, its publisher, though the CHCA is entitled to speak for itself in its columns, but only through someone especially authorized to do so by the board. It does not speak for a Local editorial or management board. All expressions of opinion are individual expressions only.

All this is no accident. Its founder, Lloyd Wells, defined the paper like this: The Local made of newsprint and ink, and circulated weekly by the Association as a public service, is the community forum as well as the community bulletin board.” For those who are interested, there is a long history of trials and errors and upheavals and reconciliations in the implementation of that policy — the Local has recounted them several times. Through much trial and error and some pretty stormy times, what the Local is and how it operates were set forth in an official formulation of the Local’s policy — the “Lentz policy,” so-called from the fact that the committee charged with drafting the policy was headed by Bernard Lentz, a former CHCA president. It includes all the special characteristics of the Local mentioned above. It has been challenged from time to time, and tested over and over again, but the board has always in the end confirmed the principles of free speech and editorial freedom. It is this policy that makes the Local, as Lloyd Wells again puts it, “a modern-day public forum, not made of marble but of newsprint, in which all may be heard. It is a marketplace where ideas can be evaluated, bought and sold.”

The result? The paper does not reflect just the opinions of the staff, or of its publisher, CHCA, or of any other community group. It reflects the entire community — it is, as the Philadelphia Inquirer described it some years ago, “the very manifestation of the community itself.”

Helen Moak
Chestnut Hill

The above editorial was written in December, 1996. Helen Moak, who passed away in 2004, was a journalist, long-time community activist, a member of the CHCA board of directors, a recipient of the Chestnut Hill Award, a member of the original editorial board, the community’s historian, and had written for the Local since 1958.

Editorial Integrity

It is much to my horror that the Chestnut Hill Local has lost two of its terrific, hard working, award-winning journalists, forced out over attempts by the leadership to unlawfully change the 48-year-old policy of a free and open press. The leadership has lost sight of the fact that they do not own the Local. The owners of the Local are the members of the Chestnut Hill Community Association and our bylaws demand that any proposal be brought to the membership for a vote.

Why are certain board members hell-bent on changing this policy? The policy of the Local has survived the wise and the foolish, the good and the bad of hundreds of volunteer, elected board members of the CHCA for almost 50 years. How humiliating to this association that at a time when we should be preparing to celebrate its 50th anniversary, certain board members are on overdrive to kill it.

I am proud of Jim Sturdivant, the past editor of the Chestnut Hill Local, and of Mike Mishak, associate editor, who resigned Friday, for saying no to the attempts to violate the existing policy. Both are exceptional young men and journalists who have too much integrity to be reduced to writers of a newsletter, bullied by the whims and egos of the CHCA leadership. Would anyone in the publishing business worth their salt work for this newspaper?

Are our employees viewed as simply collateral damage on the route to these board members’ lofty and, what seems to me, self-serving goals? Do they even know that most of our Local staff are our neighbors who work long and hard to get the paper out, who are raising their families here, who contribute to this community in many ways?

Standing up for their own integrity and the integrity of the Local will be costly to Jim and Mike. Thank you and good wishes to both for serving this community so well and making us proud of our paper and its hardworking employees.

Volunteer board members need to be reminded that they campaigned for this job on a platform published in the Local and the members of the CHCA have every right to know what board members are doing — with our money — both dues and donations.

I got my start as a board member by standing up for a free press and opposing a leadership out to stifle the journalistic integrity of the Local. Shame on the leadership of the CHCA who can’t deal with free press as the hundreds of other CHCA volunteers have for almost 50 years.

The secrecy, bullying, cronyism (Hiring your friends is called cronyism, isn’t it?) sounds like the embattled Bush administration, doesn’t it?

If you are concerned about keeping the Local an independent source of information, come to the meeting on Mon., Nov. 7 at 7 p.m. at the Chestnut Hill Library.

Marie Lachat
Chestnut Hill

How sad . . .

How sad to read in the Oct. 20 Local of the complete lack of comprehension of those in charge of the CHCA in re: the purpose of the Local.

I hope I am permitted, as a former editor, to enter the Forum before the bulldozers move in.

To me, the great and wonderful viability of the Local is its independence from the dictates of whoever happens to be in charge. It makes it truly an unusual vehicle that gives Chestnut Hill vitality, and why it has earned national awards. Turning the Local into a mere house organ will not win it fame.

I was editor for 12 formative years of the Local: 1960-1972, a period of upheaval in both Philadelphia and the nation at large. In those early years I stuck fairly consistently to Chestnut Hill news, and such news was always the primary focus, but the times demanded (for me) some participation beyond Stenton Avenue and the Wissahickon. I therefore wrote essays that some felt strongly were too controversial, words, for instance, against the mayor at the time, Frank Rizzo, for his actions in having teenagers beaten up and arrested who were demonstrating at the Art Museum. Civil rights issues came up frequently in those times. There was hostility on the Hill generated by those who supported the Where We Stand Committee which stood up against racial discrimination in housing and at local restaurants. When Martin Luther King was assassinated, I invited friends from Germantown to express their outrage. I attended and wrote about the great peace march in Washington against the Vietnam War, and other seminal events that impacted Chestnut Hill, however indirectly. (I believed then as I do now that Chestnut Hill cannot be an island unto itself. It is part of a greater whole, and to forget this is to do so at its own peril.)

Such editorials brought about, in 1968, the first examination of the role of the editor. Barny Lentz was president at the time. He was taking some heat on some of my positions. I was called in to talk to him and a few past presidents of the Association. From that meeting evolved what came to be known as the Lentz Policy, which is simply that editorials must be signed. That policy has stood the test of time for nearly 40 years.

A decade or so after my tenure, Marie Reinhardt Jones found herself similarly questions and won a major round for the freedom of the press, most especially freedom of the editor. The Lentz Policy was leaned on heavily in those fractious years. And now it’s James Sturdivant’s turn. Sturdivant has finely articulated the consequences to the community of turning the Local into a rubber-stamp for whatever the executive committee deems worthwhile. Sturdivant has a vision of the role and potential of the Local that is rare and wonderful.

And where, please, is adherence to the stated policy of the Local that has been a superb guideline for nearly 50 years? If the changes come about as outlined in Sturdivant’s editorial, let’s not allow hypocrisy to rule the day by continuing to run that policy as if it were true. I find it hard to believe, however, that the community is so indifferent to what’s going on in the CHCA offices that they won’t let this happen without standing up for freedom of the press … their press: the Chestnut Hill Local.

Ellen Wells
Falmouth, Maine

Out of the loop

On Wed., Oct. 12th, the day before the executive committee was to meet, a document surfaced which, among other things, created a new job entitled “Managing Editor” who would “oversee editorial process and department” and have “final say on content and layout” of the Chestnut Hill Local. The role of editor was re-described to that of an administration flunkie. On the “organization chart,” dated Oct. 2005, attached to this document the editor was shown to be subordinate to the community manager of the CHCA, the business manager of the Chestnut Hill Local, and the new position of “Managing Editor.”

We have been told this was a “work-in-progress” an “internal” matter (meaning secret?) that didn’t concern the board. Questions designed to ascertain who directed the listings editor to create these new job descriptions and new organizational chart have not been answered.

If this is, as has been asserted, “a work in progress” what is the line of progression? From what to what? From an independent editor, responsible to the membership of the association, who is “to keep the community informed, among other things, of religious, educational, environmental, social and political concerns and other issues that affect the community” (Article I.C.3) to one who will “promote fundraising events that benefit the CHCA” (excerpted from new job description).

In one sense, however, it is accurately described as a “work in progress” which began with the development of bylaw changes in the fall and winter of 2003 and which were presented for a vote at the end of the annual meeting in 2004 when most attendees had left the meeting. It was a voice vote. There is no way of knowing if those voting were even members. There was no way for those not attending the meeting to vote on these changes which reversed a 50-year tradition of editorial control of content and which was itself a violation of the Bylaws Article I.C.b. which states that the editor is “responsible for the editorial content of the Local.

It seems that the next step in this “progression” was to get the executive committee to approve this document at its meeting on Oct. 13. The work was definitely “internal.” The treasurer didn’t know of it. The so-called “Publisher’s Committee” had not discussed it. The board did not direct that it be done. Who did?

“The Board of Directors determines the number of duties, powers and compensation of the Association’s employees.” (Article VII. Employees, A. Number, Duties and Compensation I.)

Ann Ward Spaeth
Chestnut Hill

Behind closed doors

When did the listings editor become the Managing Editor (see page 4, Oct. 20 edition under policy statement) and what exactly does this mean for the editor, Jim Sturdivant?

It appears that things are occurring behind close doors; decisions are being made without the full disclosure to the membership.

Are we preparing for another fight to defend freedom of the press? The Local is the people’s voice and that voice should not be stifled. That is the heart of the Lentz Policy.

Kathleen M. Jones
Chestnut Hill

Ed. note: Letter date, Oct 22, 2005.

Omitted letter?

I find it fascinating that my first letter was not printed, so I am enclosing it again with this one.

I also would like to call the community’s attention to a quote by Grove who is working on “CHCA Growth Strategy” although her fee has not yet been determined but $90,000 has been budgeted (See page 1 and 10 of Oct. 20th edition). Grove said, “Help people understand that what happens behind closed doors doesn’t matter.”

Oh, but it does matter and contrary to Keintz’s statement that nothing is happening behind closed doors, the resignation of Sturdivant and other actions that have occurred are occurring behind closed doors. The administration of the CHCA continues to pay lip-service to a “free press” yet, it also wants to “control” the editorial freedom – this is not a free press. The administration is attempting to destroy the Chestnut Hill Local and democracy in Chestnut Hill.

Kathleen M. Jones
Chestnut Hill

Ed. note: Letter date, Oct 30, 2005.

The First Amendment

You were handed a gift at the Oct. 27 board meeting, a gift which would have trumped Walter Sullivan’s open invitation for “a full public accounting, written and oral from the three people who are the subject of that allegation.”

To have allowed for a motion (immediately following the resolution I read aloud) to be voiced on the issues of a truly independent press, widely acknowledged as the journalistic standard, internationally recognized in democratic societies, would have put the matter to rest for the sizeable number of those present who have been scandalized by the attempts to silence the editorial staff, contributors to the Readers’ Forum, and the neighboring public who were not looking for a witch hunt or the airing of dirty laundry.

Instead of the meeting resuming its regularly scheduled agenda, it turned ugly. In the long run, this will turn out to be widely humiliating once word spreads that Chestnut Hill, so proud of its reputation as the city’s cultural and intellectual pinnacle, is instead a place where The First Amendment has died and, with it, any hope of journalistic integrity. What a legacy!

And speaking of personal integrity, it would be good to advise Nancy Berger to desist in her groundless charges. At the Local’s staff meeting this week, when she turned to position herself to be able to face each of us, and to call us by name (Lawrence Walsh, Ed Feldman, and me) and in no uncertain terms accuse us of “breaking in” in regard to the oddly-named “draft” organizational chart/job descriptions, she crossed a line.

I herewith provide written permission to the Local staff, the Community Manager, and any member of the Board to dust the entire building for my prints. As a matter of public record, mine are on file with the FBI — any person of conscience during the Vietnam War would have felt somehow incomplete without this messy process. Naturally, you’ll find my prints on a blue plastic chair I moved in order to attend that staff meeting. I may have touched a door frame when I went up to collect my Green Book in July, all this in pursuit of “full disclosure.”

Ms. Berger and anyone else will be ill-advised to pursue this line of accusation, office gossip, or innuendo in public meetings. While you’re dusting, you might want to do Mike Mishack’s door which was jimmied one night last week, and to explain how access was gained to an article of his still in the computer system and not in any hard copy form.

Finally, a riddle. When is a “draft” not a draft?

When it became operational in the first week in Oct.

When the staff was notified in writing on Oct. 6, 2005 and the masthead on the website was changed to reflect the “restructuring” on-line at the very least by Oct. 15, 2005.

It’s sad on so many levels that the memo, if genuine, would have driven a stake through the heart of this red herring about a “work in progress.”

It did not find the light of day until the morning after the Board meeting.

Martha Haley
Chestnut Hill

Ed. note: Memo referenced states, “Effective Monday, Oct. 10, Nancy Berger will be the Managing Editor of the Local, with oversight of all of the Local's departments.”

Journalistic cowardice

As a longtime resident of Chestnut Hill and member of CHCA, I can’t help but notice a string of events leading up to the abrupt resignation of James Sturdivant, editor of the Chestnut Hill Local until Oct. 19. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

On Sept. 1, you publish a story about a businessman who has finally managed to lease space for his restaurant after more than a year of failed lease negotiations with Bowman Properties, whose managing partner is Richard Snowden.

On Sept. 15, you publish a letter from Christopher Lane, an owner of the Philadelphia Print Shop, strongly defending Snowden and attacking the Local for not telling Snowden’s side. Sturdivant defends the story in an editor’s note, saying that Snowden has a policy of not talking to the Local.

On Oct. 5, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Tom Ferrick reveals the existence of a letter he says was written by Snowden to Lane. In it, Snowden makes it clear that he’s had enough of the Local. Ferrick quotes the letter as saying that Snowden wants the Local to publish a front-page “atonement piece,” and wants it to remove negative stories about him from its online archives. “The Snowden letter is a big topic in the neighborhood,” Ferrick writes. At this point I can’t wait to see my next issue of the Local! As a longtime reporter and now a journalism professor, I’ve been discussing this controversy in class. I promise my students that, despite a growing list of Hillers who think the Local should write only positive news about the CHCA and local business people, the paper no doubt will confront these issues head-on and defend its First Amendment rights.

On Oct. 6 you publish a letter from several “SoHa” (South of Hartwell) business people who are Snowden tenants, praising their landlord. Now I really can’t wait for the Oct. 13 Local. Heck, I’ll get an entire class lecture out of this one.

Boy, was I wrong! The Oct. 13 Local arrives on my doorstep and contains no mention of Ferrick’s column or the Snowden letter. Instead, we are treated to a puff piece headlined “SoHa comes of age,” in which you describe a “Renaissance” in the 8100 block. And Snowden is given much of the credit.

Now comes the Oct. 27 issue of the Local, in which we learn that Sturdivant has resigned, little more than a year after accepting the job. In an opinion piece by a CHCA board member, we learn that, in his resignation letter, Sturdivant says he was advised by two Local staffers and the CHCA community manager not to publish an Oct. 20 editorial addressing the sometimes-tense relations between the newspaper and CHCA. (Sturdivant, to his credit, ignored the advice.)

If you expect the Local to have any credibility whatsoever, you owe your readers an explanation for why yet another editor has left the paper in the wake of pressure from powerful people. Otherwise, please consider this letter my resignation from the CHCA — and stop delivering the Local while you’re at it. I don’t need to show my students any more examples of journalistic cowardice.

Donna Shaw
Chestnut Hill

Pressured Out

I have heard many times from my mother, Ann Spaeth, who has been active in the CHCA for decades, that what happens in our local community is a mirror of what happens at every other level, up and down. Having been present at some recent meetings concerning our Chestnut Hill Local, which has just lost its editor amid what can at best be described as murky circumstances, I appreciate her observation even more than before.

I have not been a regular reader of the Local, and I re-subscribed only recently. But when I heard, this summer, what I assumed could only be rumors that the editor’s independence was being impinged upon, my ears went up and I went to the Aug. 16 meeting of the Publisher’s Committee.

At this meeting I heard it said by the chair of that committee that our editor had editorial independence, and that no one had the authority to tell him what to publish or not to publish. Nonetheless, the chair also warned the editor that he had better be careful about what fights he picked — this metaphor was used more than once — because his job could be on the line. To avoid any confusion, I should add that the power over the editor referred to by the chair was not his committee but rather the executive committee of the CHCA.

“Doesn’t anyone think this is a problem?” the editor asked, looking around, exasperated. Those few of us on the sidelines chimed in with “Hear, hear!”s and the like. But the warnings were reiterated — even strengthened, and were not recanted. I would like to emphasize that the language used in this regard was unmistakable.

I wondered, “Could an editor actually be pushed around behind the scenes in Chestnut Hill — maybe even pressured out?”

The answer is, of course, yes. This can happen anywhere, even among the best-intentioned people and even in Chestnut Hill. The inevitable vulnerability of an editor’s position is precisely why editorial independence is held sacrosanct and why institutions must hawkishly safeguard it.

The predicament of the Local in its editor-less aftermath was the subject of discussions at the Oct. 27 CHCA board meeting. Two important decisions were affirmed. Do we want the editor of our paper to have editorial independence? Yes! Will we ask our former editor to come back — now that it is established that the editor’s position is indeed to have the independence which he felt he did not have? This idea was met with resounding applause by the attending public and Local staff. Thirteen voted to ask him to return to his job as editor; 19 voted against asking him to come back; and one abstained.

Rather than scrutinize some alarming questions surrounding the former editor’s resignation and departure, the board has proposed a fresh start with a new editor. What I would like to know is why, since it was stated at this meeting that the Local’s editor has, in fact, always had editorial independence, we should expect anything to work out better with the next editor? Will he or she simply be more carefully picked for the job? How, given these events, can we hope to attract and retain serious, qualified editors and journalists? And how, as a member of the public, can I look otherwise than circumspectly at these events, at this Local?

Eric Spaeth
Chestnut Hill

Ed. note: Final count of roll call vote was 21 to 14 according to the records of CHCA Secretary, Jane Piotrowski.

Good Luck, Mr. S.

What a shock and disappointment to learn of the ejection of Chestnut Hill Local Editor James Sturdivant. Something is obviously broken within the engine of the CHCA machine. While I cannot speak to his broad performance as Editor, I can say that I have found all of Mr. Sturdivant’s editorials to be respectful, insightful and sharply on point. Without the clear air of his perspective, I fear the Local may choke from the CHCA’s own internal pollution.

I find myself wondering if Sturdivant’s departure and the feeble way that it was presented in the Oct. 27 edition of the Local foreshadow a grim future for this newspaper. Has good journalism already been sacrificed in favor of good PR? More newsworthy than any of the four front page articles, the resignation was only curtly announced in lieu of an editorial with some scathing details exposed in Walter Sullivan’s opinion piece. I had to read the Mt. Airy Times Express to learn Mr. Sturdivant’s resignation letter dated Oct. 19 proposed a Nov. 16 resignation date, only to be told on Oct. 20 that his “services were no longer needed.” Apparently, the newspapers’ website removed his name from their staff that same day. Should we assume the CHCA Board and/or President’s haste to drive Mr. Sturdivant away from his Editor’s desk reveals their chosen direction in “the Fork in the Road” as eloquently stated by Sturdivant’s controversial Oct. 20 editorial? If so, they have steered us down a certain dead-end.

Good Luck, Mr. Sturdivant, and thank you for all your contributions!

Eric M. Sternfels
Mt. Airy

A positive spin

The most talented people we have spent a lifetime praising have been criticized in the Chestnut Hill Local and found it painful. In 1986 the Chestnut Hill Community Association had a sum of money earmarked for the renovation of Pastorius Park which was looking neglected. Who to call on for the renovation but Frederick W. G. Peck, the famous landscape architect who brought Pastorius Park to its glory in the 1930s. Who to support Fred Peck but Fairmount Park Commissioner Ernesta Ballard, who had brought the Philadelphia Flower Show to its glory in the 1960s. They would be working with Pete Hoskins, the well thought of director of the Fairmount Park Commission. How could things go amiss with this team? No one questioned what they were planning for Pastorius Park’s renovation except a new near-neighbor to the park, John Schmitt.

On Christmas Eve of 1986, John Schmitt put flyers under the windshield wipers of our cars asking us if we knew that the grass of Pastorius Park would be covered with blacktopped paths and at night Pastorius Park would be illuminated by bright lights, according to the proposed renovation plan. Who cared? Marie Jones did. I went to Marie’s office. Even though I did not know her, I knew she had a reputation of integrity that people who believed they were being abused had come to depend upon.

John Schmitt and his wife Peggy and I had visited Fred Peck, Ernesta Ballard and Pete Hoskins, begging them to change the proposed plan. Ernesta told me if I did not like the plan I could move. (She had had to move from her house on Northwestern Avenue because it was near Forbidden Drive and park visitors had increased in numbers.) I told Marie Jones what Ernesta had said to me and she gave the story front page coverage in the Local.

A series of meetings concerning the proposed plan was held at the Water Tower Recreation Center. Ernesta Ballard was a compassionate lady about the situation. She attended the first meeting at the Water Tower and after the meeting she said the neighbors of Pastorius Park could form an organization and hire a landscape architect to draw up a new renovation plan, but the new plan had to be taken to all the committees of the Chestnut Hill Community Association and to the full board of the CHCA for approval. Ernesta wanted a park that the neighbors liked and therefore would support financially.

It was our good fortune that Ernesta Ballard, Fred Peck and Pete Hoskins were humble people. They were talented people who graciously gave us the park we wanted. They accepted the fact that blacktopped paths and bright lights were not appropriate for Pastorius Park. The words that appeared in the Local against Ernesta, Fred and Pete were painful for them to read, but they believed in the democratic process. I am grateful to these impressive people for instilling a spirit of cooperation between the Fairmount Park Commission and the people of Chestnut Hill. I am grateful that these people had faith in the Chestnut Hill Community Association and their ability to represent the people of Chestnut Hill. This was because the CHCA held open meetings and final decisions would be made by the CHCA board of directors with at least 60 people in attendance.

The Friends of Pastorius Park, Inc. was formed during this process. We were incorporated in 1986 and have worked with the Fairmount Park Commission ever since that date. Pastorius Park is not perfectly maintained, but it is beautiful. As a postscript, let us hope that there will always be a Fairmount Park Commission with voting rights. They could lose these rights in the proposed charter change appearing on the ballot in the May 2006 Primary Election.

Quita Horan
President, Friends of Pastorius Park

Intelligence

Why would an intelligent designer create a bird flu virus which, given what we know about evolution, can so readily mutate into a form that is lethal to human beings? On second thought, why would an intelligent designer create a bird flu virus in the first place?

William Will
Chestnut Hill

Paving impact

I am sorry that I did not send out a reply to Mr. Woods’ response any earlier than today. I wanted to make certain that my letter was very correct in structure and grammar because otherwise, the response would be that I cannot know what I am talking about if I cannot string together a correct sentence.

I am afraid that the paving of the “Green Ribbon Trail” is merely the start of the type of “just roll over the public” tactics which seems to prevail when it comes to public projects. This especially holds true for the Wissahickon.

I can cite three areas in the Wissahickon where paving the trails or areas adjacent to the trails have had a serious and profound impact on trail use. The trails either had to be reworked with the attendant huge amount of funds laid out by the Fairmount Park Commission or the trails have been essentially abandoned.

But what can I do or say. This “Green Ribbon Trail” is paved road and the deed is done.

Carmella Paulmier
Germantown

Sidewalk/road

Thank you for eliciting the answer from Mr. Woods regarding my concerns on the subject of the so-called “Green Ribbon Trail.” I am afraid his answer to you just adds another layer of complexity to what exactly is going on with this supposed trail.

This issue arose when the Philadelphia Parks Alliance offered a hike on the length of the proposed trail in early July. I was not able to attend but later looked up the information on the Montgomery County Park Web site. What I read there was appalling. The FAQ section related a question concerning the current dirt trail. The answer to the question was that the replacement “Green Ribbon Trail” would be 12 feet wide and paved to accommodate heavy utility and maintenance vehicles. A road paved to accommodate heavy vehicular traffic does not make for a multiuse trail. The fact that they are calling it a continuation of Forbidden Drive is a travesty.

Since I know a number of people who enjoy recreational riding, someone who has a fused ankle and people who have hip replacements and who enjoy using Forbidden Drive, I asked Mr. Woods about the surface of the road. In Pennsylvania, thanks to the Amish, horses are allowed on roads that have no minimum speed limit. Since this “trail” was essentially a paved road but still referred to as a multiuse trail, I asked Mr. Woods about the surface accommodation for horses on the “Green Ribbon Trail.” Mr. Woods replied that the surface would be an, “on road, paved pedestrian walkway” and as such, horses would not be allowed. There was no mention of cinders on the road at all.

Well, in Pennsylvania, bicycles are not allowed on sidewalks so I could only wonder if bicycles would be allowed on this “sidewalk/road.” In his answer to you, he said bicycles are allowed on the sidewalk they are calling a multi-use trail that is configured to allow heavy maintenance/utility vehicles but not horses. Why would they call this a multiuse trail if current users were not allowed? Will skateboarders, ATV’s and rollerblades be allowed on the sidewalk/road? The Perkiomen Trail has a few paved sections but is still multiuse. Why is there such discrepancy among the different trails in Montgomery County?

There is just too much ambiguity to understand exactly what is going on with this “trail.” I have spoken to people who are just as perplexed to see the current construction. They believed the heavy equipment was to be only temporary but see that the road is really 12 feet wide. What was the Depart. of Environmental Protection (DEP) thinking when they would allow a 12 foot wide paved road above the traffic road surface in such a flood prone area?

I am afraid that this road resurface will lead to more paving of trails to accommodate vehicles rather than multiuse pedestrian traffic.

Carmella Paulmier
Germantown

Don’t cave in

Faced with builders seeking to develop two large properties (Tecce and Boorse) well beyond applicable zoning, our Springfield Township Commissioners have been presented with a new zoning law drafted by the developers. This new zoning classification is currently under consideration by the commissioners who might vote to pass them without seeking review of the Planning Commission.

I urge our Township Commissioners not to cave in to pressure from developers and special interests. Our zoning laws are the result of extensive public input and fairly balance the rights of property owners with the greater public good. These laws should be respected.

Lisa M. Gemmill
Wyndmoor

A lion wags the tail

I am writing this letter to refute the erroneous conclusion expressed in the front page article [of the Local] dated Oct. 27, 2005, entitled “Neighbors Rally to Resolve Traffic Problem” and “Winston Road Neighbors Reach Compromise” written by Andrew Lazor.

The fact of the matter is that the 26 neighbors did in fact vote 26 to 4 in favor of the option to create a modified 90-degree turn at Winston Road and Germantown Ave. that would be regulated by a traffic light. This proposal also called for the SEPTA bus stop located on the northwest corner of Germantown Ave. to be shifted to the southwest corner. Supposedly to alleviate visibility problems, this proposal was okay for the 26 residents who supported it. However, it’s common knowledge that 26 un-elected neighbors cannot speak for the thousands of residents in this section of Chestnut Hill. The other side of the coin is that the thousands of residents can speak for themselves via petitioning their government leaders or through their elected representatives such as myself. In this case, the residents did both. They petitioned their government leaders and they authorized me to both voice and vote their individual and collective interests regarding this matter. This I have done to date.

I and several other at-large CHCA directors attended all of the community meetings indicated. The fact remains that the 26 votes that they did have was not enough to carry the day. Therefore, their proposal must be considered “a wish-list proposal” or “a minority position statement.” Whether a wish-list proposal or minority position statement, both suffered the same fate as the other proposals that could not cut the mustard and were subsequently scrapped!

“A tail does not wag the lion, but rather, the lion wags the tail.” So it is in this case. Allow me to explain. The lion here represents the 2,500 near neighbors who personally signed a petition directed to their government officials which read as follows: 1) Stop the proposed closing of Winston Road at Mermaid Lane and Germantown Ave.. (We un-alterably oppose the permanent closing of Winston Road at Mermaid Lane & Germantown Ave.; 2) Also oppose the narrowing of this street in any form, since its integrity as it present exists must be maintained. (We also vigorously oppose any narrowing of this roadway and espouse the position that its integrity, as is, must be maintained.) The petitioners are not averse to the placing of a traffic light at the intersection of Winston Road & Germantown Ave. in order to better regulate the flow of merging traffic. They are also in favor of thoroughly re-surfacing this total area with either cobblestones or asphalt.

Let the record clearly show and let it be perfectly understood that this is the official proposal that prevailed. It is the only one that was approved by the majority of the near neighbors of Winston Road, Mermaid Lane and Germantown Ave., including, but not limited to area residents, their supporters, people who live and work in this immediate area, and business people alike, in and around this eastern section of Chestnut Hill.

The powers that be, both elected and appointed, have been officially notified that this is the near neighbors’ official plan of action for this Germantown Ave. improvement project. They were also served with copies of the petitions from the near neighbors, etc., they being, Streets Commissioner Carlena Tolson, Councilman-at-Large, Frank Rizzo Jr., Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, the CHCA, CHBA and other interested parties.

I have expressed the will of the people here and I will continue to both voice and vote their interests, sentiments and convictions regarding this matter. I have put the respective government officials on official notice relative to the people’s wishes and I trust that they know that they will be held accountable for their actions or inactions.

To this end, I am putting on my general’s hat and asking my 2,500 petitioners all, to do the following, just in case I have to “call them to action” at some future time: 1) Join the Chestnut Hill Community Association; 2) Join the Chestnut Hill Business Association; and 3) Register the other members of your household to vote in whatever party, whether blue, green, brown or purple. Just register! This way we can speak softly and at the same time carry a big stick!

Mitch Melton
At-Large Director
Chestnut Hill Community Association

Cleaning up the Avenue

If you drove down Germantown Ave. in Mt. Airy last Saturday, you may have noticed a real difference in the cleanliness of the avenue. That is because of nearly 30 dedicated volunteers who came out in the spitting rain to clean the sidewalks and gutters of leaves, trash and debris.

Thank you to everyone who made the Germantown Ave. clean-up a success. Special thanks to the Rotary Club of Mt.Airy/Chestnut Hill, Mt. Airy USA and Trolley Car Diner for leading the way and to Teen Challenge and developer Stan Smith’s crew for going over and above. In all, we cleaned 12 out of the 14 blocks from Washington Lane to Cresheim Valley Road.

We now have a real challenge — keeping our sidewalks and gutters clean until we are able to establish a Mt. Airy Business Improvement District (BID) next year. Keeping our walks clean will only happen if business owners and institutions along the Avenue do their part by sweeping up every day! Several Germantown Ave. shop owners came out to help us clean last Saturday, but all need to help out if we are to maintain an attractive business district during the upcoming year.

We are in the process of lining up funding for a BID consultant to work with us to establish a permanent, mandatory program to beautify and maintain Germantown Ave.. Thus far, support for a BID in Mt. Airy, similar to the ones that already exist in Chestnut Hill and Germantown, has been overwhelmingly positive. We look forward to continuing with the BID process to make this happen.

We hope that the energy that existed on the Ave. last weekend will continue to keep the Mt. Airy business district clean until a permanent solution in the form of a BID can be established. Thanks again to all who helped make Mt. Airy a better place to live, work and enjoy!

Ken Weinstein, Mt. Airy
Cicely Peterson-Mangum, Mt. Airy
David Pierson, Mt. Airy