Monday, November 15, 2010

Does It Have Appeal?

We are off the races once again thanks to Ms. Feldman and her FOKP. The borough is looking to purchase a tract of land for $100,000 which it has been leasing since January at the cost of $400 per month for a new public works facility, leaf mulching site and a potential placement for the Minquas Fire Company. The land does contain some contaminants and the borough has a ballpark of what would be needed to clean it up along with the availability of grants, yet Ms. Feldman says the purchase would be premature due to the fact that she is now in litigation over the seven acre parcel of land in East Caln that the borough owns which is now used for composting. It seems as if Ms. Feldman can’t decide what she DOES want. That particular piece of land was not in the Orphan’s Court decision which is also now in appeal thanks to FOKP. Is there anything that will make these people happy? I seriously doubt it.

During the whole issue I have made it known that while I see quite a bit of potential if part of what is being called Kardon Park were to be developed, but my biggest problem is with what I see is a conflict of interest with Ms. Feldman holding a seat on borough council yet continually tying council up in litigation and not voting on issues which is what the voters put these people in office for. It has been said that Ms. Feldman won the election because a majority of residents were behind her Kardon Park litigation. Yet when the statistics are meted out it is found that Ms. Feldman only won her seat by 13 votes against Mr. Madiro. That is not a mandate; the mayoral election showed a vote count of 1270, therefore half of the town voted between Ms Feldman and Mr. Madiro and the other half were split in the other races for seats. Even in the election the Mayor’s position was only won by 48 votes: that’s not a mandate that is malaise and the same goes for the election of Ms. Feldman. I have been told that my thoughts about Ms. Feldman and the FOKP are disingenuous and denigrating? Really? So someone can tell me that Ms Feldman is not the only one who is appealing the East Caln tract of land sale and development? That Ms. Feldman herself has not said, “I can make a stink on Borough Council.” And that is not self serving?

Oh wait I am the one who is self serving I forgot. Yes it’s because I agreed that part of the park if it is to stay a “park” should have signage and people should be informed what is actually in that area before trekking through it. Also that I posted a picture of the forth pond at daybreak and then three shots of what I call the sludge pond right behind me, yet “Most people who use the park would never even see the silt pond you have featured so prominently, since its north of the forth lake. They would have to enter at the silt pond to see it and that entrance point leads nowhere.” Yet even on the FOKP website it was stated that, “These two parcels are also part of Kardon Park, have been historically and are currently used as parkland…” So which is it? Is the area part of the “park” or not? You can’t have it both ways.

I have also been accused of having posts that are “…..illogical, irrational, and disjointed, as well as misinformed.” Oh yeah and I apparently am scary too. In the interest of not having the reader fall asleep I had wanted to keep the posts short and to the point I was making at the time, but since I have been “called on it” here we go.

The site that is called Kardon Park as of right now contains concentrations exceeding the MSC for Non-Residential in Use Aquifers of benzo(a)pyrene, arsenic, iron, lead, mercury and vanadium all of which lead to various ailments such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, developmental delays and interruptions and even brain damage. Now I am not too sure about you but I don’t want to expose adults to these let alone children. So a secondary remedial action was proposed by the ACT 2 report and that was to maintain part of the site as parkland and allow the other portions to be used for development. I am not an expert in legalese but to me that means that the part of The Ponds area that is already parkland is to stay that way with many enhancements, but the area that is still very toxic is to be capped with a minimum of two feet of clean soil, stone or pavement if the presently suggested development were to go through. Now if Ms. Feldman wins her suit then according to the ACT 2 that part of the land needs to have restrictions according to the non-residential park use. If the taxpayers had to pay to cap this area it would be to the tune of $1.5 million dollars of a $6 million dollar budget for the Borough. That’s about 25% of one year’s budget. Right now in Downingtown our tax burden is 6.7 mills and $1.5 million equals to 4.2 mills……tax increase anyone?

Other arguments that come to light are the burdens to the school district, traffic, and a fiscal impact. First of all the homes are to be townhomes and garden level homes which are not as attractive to families as to first time buyers, investment properties, and empty nesters looking to downsize. Even so there is already a proposed middle school that is being built on the taxpayers’ backs when there has been no significant growth in school age children in the last year. Therefore, the housing would generate cash surplus to the district which would ease the tax burden the new school will cause. The traffic will be impacted very little as it will not add more than 40 more cars on the surrounding roads within an hour’s time, due to the proximity to the train and the proposed traffic lighting to ease congestion that now exists. The fiscal impact is the big one….our taxes have risen 48% since 2006 and it’s not something that is going to go away soon. However, the borough would receive cash proceeds from the sale of $8.1 million which could then be used to pay down some of the outstanding debt of $7.6 million which is about a 1/3 of the tax burden. In addition the borough would get approximately $130, 000 per year in surplus cash and Chester County would realize about $40,000 per year.

I have been called on my assessment of the decision of Judge Platt also. I honestly do not think that had she really had all the facts in front of her that she would have been swayed the way she ruled. Even within the ruling she says, “There is less substantial evidence of a dedication of the areas of the property which are not adjacent to the trails, ponds, and Victims Memorial, particularly those areas which are contaminated……….I am compelled to treat them as one parcel. [sic] The public has historically been given access to the entire property……” So what was her decision based on? Anecdotal evidence? Most likely, because if she really had seen what the contaminated areas are used for if at all I do not see her deciding the way she did, “based on law” as the other side would have you believe.

So to the detractor who “visits” here frequently…how’s that for informed? Never mind you will still try and spin it for FOKP.

I will get back to you on the whole Johnsontown issue when it comes to fruition, but for now we are putting ourselves out there for compromise and working with the individuals we need to. It does pay to use honey over vinegar, FOKP might want to try that…oh wait little too late for that.


  1. Now, I hate to have to be the one to rain on the "tirade", but there are some glaring errors and misrepresentations here.

    Let's start with the election and get that out of the way. The Borough is split in two wards, East and West.
    The East Ward race was between Mr. Madiro and Ms. Feldman. The West Ward could not vote on those candidates. Mr. Madiro was staunchly supporting the development proposal for the park, Ms. Feldman vehemently opposed it. Of the people who cared enough to vote, the majority elected Ms. Feldman. She is now on the council, Mr. Madiro, who was the sitting Council President and popular former mayor was defeated, and removed from the council. Ms. Feldman was identified primarily with the park issue, while Mr. Madiro had extensive experience on different boards, and positions in the Borough government. It is a fairly safe bet to say that it was the park issue that propelled Ms. Feldman into office. Absent that controversial issue, it would likely have been another victory for Mr. Madiro.

    We cannot know how that race would have developed if it had been a Borough-wide race, but we do know that Ms. Feldman won a majority of the votes cast in her ward, and is now in office. The mayoral race was a Borough-wide race featuring a staunchly pro-development candidate, Nick Winkler, and the other, now Mayor Maxwell was less committed to the development in his public statements. He was accused of waffling on the issue on the DLN blogs. This apparently worked to his advantage, as he won the majority of the votes, and is now Mayor.

    Now for someone who just editorialized at great length about the Republicans regaining the House as a mandate, and this representing the people speaking their minds, it is a bit disingenuous to state that the Borough Council President getting voted out, and the staunchly pro development Mayoral candidate being defeated is not indicative of the peoples' preferences.


  2. Now, as to the park, and what constitutes it, Resolution 2001-3 specifies which parcels are Kardon Park, and renames them. There are six parcels (approximately 47 acres), including the 7 acres now proposed for development in East Caln. The Golder Report also identifies the "site" known as Kardon Park as consisting of those parcels, which the Golder Report rounds off to 50 acres for some reason. The DEP report also lists those parcels.

    Don't take my word for it, and don't take the FOKP documents as proof. Lest you think I am presenting misleading documentation, go to the pro-development site site and read the parcels on the DEP order, which is based on the Golder Report. Or if you prefer, read the DEP order on the developer's site at You will see the six parcels listed there.

    Yes, the silt pond is in the park, as is the composting site, based on the documentation. But the silt pond is there not for the public's enjoyment, or to add beauty, but as a filter to prevent silt and debris from entering the three primary lakes, which are the bodies of water park users would see unless they ventured off the main trails. Simply put, the silt pond is there to collect crap, which it obviously has been doing, and has not been maintained, but rather neglected as is the rest of the park for very strategic reasons, by the Borough. The only way to get to that silt pond is to enter at the maintenance gate off Norwood Road. There is no signage indicating 'Welcome to Kardon Park" as there is at either end of the trail, which winds past the main lakes. Clearly your purpose in featuring the silt trap is to create a negative image of the park. Do you really think intelligent people cannot see through that? You could just as easily have taken pictures of the tires in the race, the car parts in the woods, the branches that have never been picked up or the massive piles of wood chips, or the abysmal state of the lawns if you wanted to portray a slanted impression of the park.

    No one is denying the Borough has failed to maintain the park properly. People have complained bitterly about it, so what precisely is your point? It is their intent to allow the park to decline as part of the strategy to sell it.


  3. Now regarding the contaminants buried at Kardon Park, you have again attempted to mislead by stating they exceed the 'non-residential' standard. On a previous thread it is stated they exceed the 'residential' standard. Both of these statements are true, which is why remediation would have to occur for either residential or non-residential (commercial) development. The exposure times would increase dramatically over the approved use in the Act 2 release by DEP for passive park use. Residential use presumes a 24/7 exposure, Non-Residential, commercial use 8 hours or more per day exposure.

    The earlier proposal for commercial development would have required a secondary remedial action to allow for the proposed commercial development, as would a secondary remedial action have been required for Ms. Peck's townhouse community. No one is denying either of those points. Simply put, if you want to change the use of the park to a non-park use, you have to do something else.

    Since the commercial development has never occurred, and it seems unlikely the current proposal can go forward, these issues are moot (unless Ms. Peck's appeal of the OC decision is ultimately successful) The ACT 2 clearance for park use for the entire 50 acres is based on the first remedial objective (see the Golder Report and the DEP order) to establish the site specific risk assessment criteria, and to meet it for park use.

    Again, see the developer's own web site or the KardonParkFacts site and read that description. The first remedial objective (remediation to obtain park clearance) was met, and the second action would have had to occur to build commercial development. It is misleading to state that the DEP order stated: (your words here) "secondary remedial action was proposed by the ACT 2 report and that was to maintain part of the site as parkland and allow the other portions to be used for development." DEP did not propose anything. They approved the commercial use as it was proposed to them, just as they approved the residential use proposed by Ms. Peck. Neither of those approvals negated the first remedial objective or nullified the Act 2 clearance for park use.

    If you have any documentation to support that claim, please publish the actual language of the document.

  4. What exactly does the Golder Report say about their evaluation of the contamination issues in the surface soils of the park for "park use"?

    "The estimation of [systemic] (I believe this addresses your concerns) and carcinogenic risk brings together all of the conservative assumptions used in developing toxicity factors, exposure factors, and exposure concentrations.
    The procedures used in the quantitative risk assessment are based on those used to calculate statewide Health Standards under Act 2. In its Qualified Endorsement of the Act 2 Proposed
    Regulations (June 12, 1996), the Cleanup Standards Scientific Advisory Board discussed the procedures used to develop these standards and stated that the procedures are "highly conservative." These same procedures are used to characterize risk for Kardon Park and as shown in Tables C-4
    and C-5, [no unacceptable human health risks have been identified for exposure to surface soil].

    In summary, the risk estimates developed herein conservatively compensate for inherent uncertainties and also provide an appropriate margin of safety in the use of the risk assessment results for making risk management decisions. It is very likely that the estimates calculated in this risk assessment overestimate the potential risks associated with the COPC's in surface soil at Kardon Park."

    So, now if the evaluations were highly conservative and likely overstated the risks to begin with, and it was still determined that the "systemic" and carcinogenic risks were well within the acceptable ranges, where does it state that park use should be restricted beyond the limitations specified in the DEP order (no active recreation facilities, water wells or residential development)?

    People keep saying DEP mandated restrictions for public access, or remediation, but have not supplied any documentation other than the DEP order which clearly defines what uses are residential or commercial uses without further remediation, and park use limited to passive recreation (i.e. no ball fields, etc. which again would increase exposure times and would require further remediation).

    I defy ANYONE to provide conclusive evidence that public access is to be denied (by DEP order) if commercial or residential development and remediation does not occur. You were correct when you said the DEP "allowed" commercial development, but veered off course when you said that meant it must be capped in the absence of development.

    Again, where is that written? The developer's own environmental consultant stated that no remediation is required if the development does not occur, and that he took his own children out into the park. (Hello???)

  5. cont'd

    The core flaw in all of these arguments is that even if the park needed further remediation to continue its present use, that invariably that means the park should be sold and developed. That is a logical disconnect. The park is safe for it intended and historic and current use, within the limitations of the DEP order. There is nothing preventing the continued use, nor is there any reason the park could not be converted to active recreation purposes, or for pavilions, etc. in the future, with proper remedial actions for those facilities. It is a colossal leap to say the park needs to be essentially scrapped because there are limitations on the types of uses, currently. The Lions trail sits atop historic fill, and everyone seems to think that is just fine. it is after all a cap, on top of the first remedial action. There is nothing preventing any further park use, with the proper procedures employed. The obstacle is money, which if it is not available, simply determines the park continue its present use, until it becomes available.

    It is well established that none of the contamination is to be removed by the proposed development, so it makes no sense to claim the Borough cannot afford to remove it either. It is a safe bet that the "historic fill" will always remain buried on that site.

    The argument to sell/develop is based on economic benefits, not inability to continue the park use. But that is the core problem, legally. Case law clearly indicates that a "balancing of benefits", a trade-off, if you will, of parkland for increased revenue or other perceived benefits is prohibited by state law. These laws exist to prevent exactly that from happening, and to protect parkland and other public spaces.

    Judge Platt ruled based on actual, not anecdotal evidence. There was a substantial amount of evidence on both the environmental issues and the economic benefits issues (which were pointless for the reasons just stated). She was compelled to consider the entire park because she is a judge in a court of law, and the parcels were acquired for and dedicated for park use, as she determined. She acknowledged that, yes some of those areas were less or even little used, but she had no authority to divide the park and allow the sale of part of it, if it met the criteria of the DDPA. Further, the DEP order was based on clearance for park use observed, which indicated less use on certain areas, and the testimony of Borough officials that there was very little foot traffic there, reinforced that the DEP order and clearance was essentially being complied with. The Borough would have been better off claiming a lot of people used those areas, and that this constituted a "change of use" so the DEP order was no longer valid. But they argued the opposite. Even one of the FOKP witnesses agreed that she saw few people use the areas to the west. So Judge Platt's ruling was consistent with the testimony and the DEP order. They are now claiming a change of use to justify restriction, but have offered no evidence, which if it did exist would contradict their sworn testimony.

    Both parcels facing Pennsylvania avenue were dedicated in a ceremony by Borough officials in October 1978. This is well documented. The Lions Trail which connects, four of the parcels is dedicated, and heavily used. The parking lot sits on one of the Kardon parcels. and is heavily used. The trails between the lakes are well used. The lakes themselves are well used. By virtue of the fact that these areas were either officially dedicated, or publicly accessible, the criteria for intent of dedication was met. The amount of use of any particular area was not determinative.

    I'll stop here and allow to to catch your breath, and reload...

    (check the spam filters)

  6. Oh, BTW, Mr. Sullins is on record (in an East Caln meeting)as stating the Borough did not originally want to see the composting site developed, because finding an alternate location for that would cost the taxpayers $60,000 a year.

    So it would seem that it is premature to buy another composting site until the matter of the seven acres is resolved.

  7. Good gravy do you have such a large ego that you have to be so long winded and high handed? I will look at this mess when I actually have time to read War and Peace, but in case you didn't notice I took info from the DEP report and various other sites INCLUDING the FOKP site and as evidenced by the beginning, of your what ever you want to call it, you did not read what I wrote you were just waiting to pounce with your own agenda.

  8. My ego has nothing to do with it. It is about setting the record straight, reacting to misrepresentation and doing that thoroughly. Stick to the facts, and my posts will be brief.


  9. Oh ok so the facts as YOU see them. Yeah ok that will work. WOW kinda hard to find other places for facts than oh I don't know the FOKP site to satisfy you. Oh wait I DID go there, well go figure. It just goes to show how supercilious the FOKP and their supporters can be.

  10. Ok first of all I will address the comments on the elections. TO begin with I SAID, if you had read the dang thing properly, that there were other elections for other seats as is shown by the fact that there are others such as Brenda Britton and Mr. Gazzaro who will not finish out their terms untl 2013. It was a slim win for Ms. Feldman as I said it being a 13 vote win. That is not something I would look to as a mandate. As far as the mayoral election happening like I said once again the 48 vote win was maliase nothing more. You cannot tell me that there are only 1270 people living in D'town that can vote. As for them being voted in when they were it was riding on the tide of "Hope and Change". So don't try and mix that up with what happened on November 2nd OF THIS YEAR! Talk about not getting facts right nor paying attention.

  11. As to the silt pond you explained nothing, not one single thing neither did you refute what I had quoted YOU and FOKP saying. As for walking through the area can you really be that dense to think that the Borough just let that stuff there? Some of that stuff has been there so long that it goes back to way before this litigation started so stop with the rhetoric that the borough does not care.

    I did NOT mislead about the NOn-residential standards it is right in the DEP report! Good gravy do you only read the parts you like? Wow I keep reading and all you are doing is making my point for me. If it needs remediation and the borough cannot afford it how about the FOKP pay for it. They certainly have not been paying for a lawyer and Ms. Feldman can donate her council earnings toward it. But it still needs to have signage unless the borough is willing to take the risk of having someone sue them for not "telling someone it's dangerous" and don't tell me that won't happen. Even Ms. Feldman's proponent Chip Gazzaro said it was a good idea....look at it this way Ms Feldman brought suit against the borough for this whole issue what is going to stop someone else bringing another frivolous and costly suit if they get sick?

  12. As I said, scary....

  13. Elaine, take a look at this excerpt from your post:

    " As for walking through the area can you really be that dense to think that the Borough just let that stuff there? Some of that stuff has been there so long that it goes back to way before this litigation started so stop with the rhetoric that the borough does not care."

    Does this not seem illogical and irrational to you?

    You're saying the stuff has been there forever, but that I must be dense to say the Borough is not picking the stuff up.'s there because they are not removing it, I think. If they were removing it, I suspect it would not be there. If they cared they would be removing it, not letting it there for you to go stomping around taking pictures of it. It is the Borough's responsibility to maintain the park, after all. Just how does stuff get left out there for years if they are maintaining it, and looking after it?

  14. "As for them being voted in when they were it was riding on the tide of "Hope and Change".

    Ahhh, so it is Obama's fault that Ann Feldman won the election, and it had nothing to do with her position on Kardon Park.

    How foolish of me.

    And the losers in elections have a mandate from the electorate?

    Well, bust my buttons. I've had this wrong for years.

  15. Wow you are really something else. Do you enjoy putting words in people's mouths? I DID not say that it was Obama's fault but the tide of feeling propelled her and Mr. Maxwell into office as she appears to be an evironmentalist and Mr. Maxwell is you get it now or do I have to break out the crayons and paper? As for the other crud what was meant is that the mess, crap ,trash whatever that has been in the park has been there for quite awhile and wasn't ignored JUST because of litigation. It seems that there were other considerations like building the Victim's Memorial and clearing out the area that is actually a park before getting to that area...imagine that.

  16. You know what is scary is not myself, but your continually ignoring the core of the whole situation. The fact being that the borough cannot afford to do all the pretty things that FOKP and yourself want to have done, but if we bring in development there will be a payoff for many not few. Businesses in D'town are failing, Milltown is half empty, taxes are going up 7%per year and yet we are to do nothing to attract people to come into D'town to help infuse the businesses that exist and to see the potential of others to come here. You all want that area as a park then you all need to pony up some money to give the borough some debt relief and help those of us who are looking at the big picture pay our taxes. Maybe then we would go quiietly into the good night.

  17. You can go quietly wherever you want to go, but I suggest you don't go into a court of law with such a twisted view of reality.

    It is illegal to sell public parks for private development in the state of Pennsylvania.

    Which part of that concept are you having trouble with. That's the "big picture" here.

    You want to focus on algae and tree branches in a silt pond, car fenders in the woods, and minor landscaping issues in the park, as well as environmental issues that have been addressed and cleared by DEP, but ignore the over-riding legal issues, and pretend you are looking at the "big" picture?

    The underlying issues of protecting public land go beyond the selling of Kardon Park, and affect all public land in Pennsylvania. If the Orphans Court decision were to be reversed, it would threaten every public park in Pennsylvania. Yes, even Johnsontown Park.

    Any potential economic benefit, or boost to the budget is irrelevant to the law (I thought I explained that already).

    The core of FOKP's lawsuit is that the park should be left alone, not that any great improvements need to be done to it (although it would be nice if they would clear the silt out of the race and get the water flowing again...which would fix the algae problem on the silt trap pond you like so much). A little routine upkeep, as used to occur, would also be appropriate and affordable, rather than ordering the park crews to NOT do their job.

    How's that "staying sane" thing workin' out for ya'?

    Dr. Phil

  18. Refer to the other blog again and insinuate that I am not quite sane and I WILL censor you. How's that being slanderous thing working for you?

  19. There's another blog? Where do I find it?

  20. Ok, I found it. I also see you changed the "about me" comment above to eliminate your phrase that bothers you.

    Now, since that is out of the way, is there anything else you want me to set the record straight on? Involving Kardon Park?

  21. Go gravy how dense are you? Really? I changed it because I was a bit tired of you insinuating that I was not quite sane which by your long tirades is questionable for you. The other blog is not germaine to Kardon Park, but even if it was you would certainly not understand any of the concepts within that one. There is nothing that you set anyone straight on. Those of us who really care about D'town and would like to see it revitalized will prevail one way or another. At least we are doing it the proper way and not like was done at the start of the whole Kardon Park mess that Ms. Feldman brought about. It's a bit hard to get out from under the space between a rock and a hard place when you were feeding everyone incorrcet information at the start and now know that you are wrong but can't stop the avalanche. You might want to ask your hero Ms. Feldman what she actually told people when she went door to door and got them fired up and thinking that the whole park would be developed and now she can't take back her mistake.

  22. Elaine, please list the incorrect information that FOKP foisted upon everyone.

    You will note that I keep asking you to post the language from your sources of information, and you keep sidestepping it.

    Posting claims without substantiating them from actual documents is a poor way to convince anybody of anything.

  23. BTW, had a link to this blog, but eliminated it. I wonder why?

    If the sale and development of Kardon Park is such a good idea, why do the proponents of it not want anybody to see opposing points of view and correction of their "facts"?

  24. If you will notice that the post that was done about Judge Platt's decision is still there. But I can imagine that they are as tired of your spew as I am. What language would you like me to post? I post direct quotes from your heroes and that is dismissed I post what is said in reports and that is dismissed but you on the other hand copy and paste and we are to take your opinion as gospel.

    It's nice to know though that I am so important in your world that you have to make sure exacly where I am at all times. However, be careful that might be miscontrued as stalking and that "my dear" could get you into a lot of trouble.

  25. Post your sources (cut and paste from the documents, if that makes it easier) or stop making unsupportable claims. Is that too much to ask?

    I don't have any idea of where you are, or even who you are...and frankly, the less I know about you personally, the better off I like it.

    This is a local political issue you have jumped into with both feet, so if you can't take legitimate criticism, get out the debate.

    You have posted three (of a total six) entries on this site in the past two months. A full 50% of your blog entries for that period are dedicated to posting unsupported and derogatory misinformation about Kardon Park, and the many people trying to save it, as well as a sitting Judge whose job it was to objectively rule on the evidence.

    To spend that much time on something and not even try to get it right, or document your information is counterproductive to what you are trying to do.

  26. It is interesting how some people are so critical, egotistical and ignorant of the facts. The fact is that Anne showed up last night at the council meeting to make what I guess was an appearance. She sat down just as the adjourned the meeting.

    I wonder as well why does an official for Downingtown waste our time; especially with a deficit budget, chasing lawsuits for other townships.

    Maybe should should run for office there and resign her post at Downingtown?

  27. Areas of Kardon Park are a dump and all the writing, posting, commenting and being critical won't change that an inch. Parts of it are an old industrial waste dump and of which the contents still remain.

    What will work for Downingtown is for these folks to expend their energies coming up with better, creative ways of making the budget solvent. In other words, instead of being critical be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

    Of course they would rather hide behind "anonymous" identities and only pop out to make fun of or insult people who are working to make a positive impact on Downingtown.

  28. Ok clay...I mean RCB...tell us the facts, and we'll go from there. And please post the document language to support your facts, or you are no more reliable a source than Elaine B.


  29. Elaine:

    Here is what I would like to see you post:

    Evidence, as [opposed to opinion] on your assertion that Ms. Feldman was elected beause of a "tide of feeling" rather than the issues she talked about during the campaign. Perhaps you could explain why this tide of feeling did not also sweep Curt Schroder or Jim Gerlach (Republicans) and other Republican council members out of office.

    The election results should be online so this should be fairly easy to do.

    For the umpteenth time would you (or somebody) post the DEP language that says the area to the west of the trail is (by order of DEP) to be off-limits, if the commercial development did not take place. If DEP orderd this, there should be a document stating it. If you have not seen the document, then how can you make the claim?

    You have repeatedly said that certain parts of the park are not part of the park.
    What is the source of this information? Judge Platt reviewed the evidence and stated the entire 40.5 acres that was subject to the lawsuits and petition are dedicated parkland.
    (Refer to Resolution 2001-3, DEP order, Golder report that all list 47 acres of park, as well as the deeds and Project 70 documents).

    When you do that I have other points I would like to see supported by evidence, not opinion, but I don't want to overwhelm you.

  30. I have copied and pasted it, but even then you refute the darn stuff. You are the biggest egotistical stalker there ever was. Judge Platt stated that she was going to consider them of the same parcel not that they WERE, because of the slim line between dedication and not.

    RCB you are completely right, Ms. Feldman showed up at the end of the meeting, which she knows usually lasts an hour, sat down and then acted surprised that it was being ajourned. She did not even bother to show up for one of the most important meetings....budget. D'town not only has a short fall we will have to pay another $83 per household in taxes this year. Some of that is coming fom what I see as incompetant accounting and partly because Ms. Feldman is keeping the borough from an important infusement of cash along with tax revenue in the future. But of course "last laugh" here will refute it all since Ms. Feldman has apparently hired him/her/it as one of her minions to disperse incorrect information or try and spin the biggest mistake she has ever made into something that she thinks the whole borough will swallow.

    Well gee see the thing is Curt and Jim have a bigger voting pool than the borough and not as many of those people are of the sheep herd. As for the other council members they were already serving their terms and if I remember correctly Ms. Britton ran's not rocket science.

  31. It took me a minute, but what are you talking about me jumping in with both feet on a local issue? I LIVE HERE!! In fact I live 5/8 of a mile from The Ponds so why shouldn't I be concerned with it! Besides who are you to tell who to be concerned about what? Get off your high horse it's a long way down when you fall on your face.

  32. Hey Anonymous; alias Chris, Elaine is right on point about Kardon Park. You can ridicule her points all day but the fact is she knows what she is talking about and you don't appear to come across as well.

    She grew up in Downingtown and I grew up in Philadelphia so we know what dumps are used for and we know why parts of Kardon are totally unacceptable to come close to being any sort of "park" because they were dumps. Industrial grade, smelly, quarter million cubic feet of nastiness right under your toe land fills! And those ponds! I would stay clear of them too because who knows what is stagnating in those pools of filth.

    But there is no point in getting long winded as a dump will always be a dump until such time as the dump materials are removed (cost too much and no budget to do) or they are mitigated according to DEP guidelines; meaning development to remedy the problem. And those ponds will likely attract more mosquitos and disease as they continue to fester.

    Unless of course you have some brilliant idea about how to mitigate that bad area and make the borough financially solvent at the same time.

    Read about the deficit in the upcoming budget report. That is the legacy of Anne Feldman! And every person who gets a tax increase can thank her for her "work" in ruining a budget surplus by turning it single-handedly into a deficit for years to come.

  33. Once again, lots of opinions, but nothing to back it up.

    Why don't y'all post your source documents?

    What are you people afraid of? Either you can back up your claims with data, documentation, authoritative sources, or you can't. It's that simple.

    Elaine...7000 people live within a mile or two of Kardon Park...the residents of Downingtown.

    Only a few of them have put up blogs. You have taken it upon yourself to create a political site and are using it to post misinformation about the Kardon Park controversy. If that is not jumping in with both feet, I don't know what is.

  34. Go back and read exactly the same things you posted from. The ACT 2 Clearance section D linked straight from

    Various quotes from the daily local if you do a search in the archives for Ms. Feldman and others along with an article linked to me from a friend about the $100,000 parcel of land.

    Information directly from the developers and some info from

    Conditions of approval and the Golder report. And finally the Judges decision from here

    Enough is enough. We get it you don't like the fact that I and apparently RCB would like to see D'town move forward...bring in new revenue, be able to pay down some of the debt help reduce the tax base and bring businesses back to life. But that is ok there are others of us and we will no longer be the silent majority.

    Also who the heck cares if I put up a blog about D'town and one of the issues happens to be Kardon Park. There were also thoughts on the original plan for the bridge from Boot Road into Johnsontown, a few political posts one giving EVERY candidates websites, one about Johnsontown's National Night Out, another about 9/11. It just so happens that right now Kardon Park is in the forefront. It may go to the background for a bit who knows, but what the heck do you care if I blog about it? I don't care that you post frequently on the Daily Local's site because really you take up so little space in my life.

  35. Now, you are posting general sources of information, but NOT the specific language you claim is there to back up your assertions.

    For example if you say the DEP order says the land to the west must be restricted if no development occurs, what specific sentence or paragraph (not taken out of context, of course), indicates that.

    If you are claiming interpretive election expertise, post the data, not some ridiculous half-cooked theory about a "tide of feeling" sweeping people in or out of office.

    You cited the Judge's statement, which only confirmed her decision was based on the law, but then loosely interpreted it to mean she had no clue what she had read.

    Here, Elaine, I'll give you an example of what I am looking for:

    I have said that DEP has never issued an order restricting park use, or limiting it to the trail or ponds. Now, I could just say that and hope it flies. But nobody with half a noodle would just take me at my word if I said "it's not in the Act 2 order.".

    So for example I would post the specific language from the order, so the reader could see on what I am basing my claim. Otherwise I am just blowing smoke.

    I could also just post what DEP officials have said, such as:

    "Walter Payne, DEP environmental group manager, said standards for building a commercial and residential development on the land would be more stringent than for use as a recreation area. He said the DEP had never ruled out its use as parkland."

    If you have ever written or even read a court decision, or even a term paper in high school, you may recall the concept of footnoting, where the author refers to the specific source of information.


  36. Are you reading impaired? Can you not go back to what I sited and do it yourself or do you need to be spoon fed? Believe it or not this is a BLOG, not a term paper, not something to be graded, not a court decision filled with superfluous language. If a person reads an article or a blog or anything else and they want the specific language used if it is not sited in the readings how hard is it in this day and age to go look it up themselves?!? If I were writing for a serious article or a reference book or a term paper then it would be necessary for me to have footnotes, a bibliography and such but since this is a BLOG I don't have to do that. Get a job because you obviuosly have way too much time on your hands.

  37. Fine, make it up as you go, but the issue here is your credibility. So far, without supporting your assertions, you have none.

  38. I was right...the moon IS made of green cheese.

    Says so on Look it up fer yerself.


  39. I am refusing to continue to participate in your chidlish behavior from here on in.

  40. From Section D of the DEP order document:

    A Human Health Risk Assessment for direct contact exposure to Site soils [the "Site" as described in Section B is the 50 acres known as Kardon Park] indicated that any risk to human health is WITHIN AN ACCEPTABLE RANGE, as set forth in the Act 2 regulations.

    Any questions?