Rick Bunker strikes back

Just so Jenkintown residents understand the level of discourse that they can expect when voicing any opposition to the party line, I offer this screen grab. On January 2nd, at 1:43 in the morning, Rick Bunker posted this comment on our website. He apparently had second thoughts and removed it, reposting instead something more innocuous, but I suspect he didn’t realize that Disqus sent out this notification first.

Frankly, this is what we’ve now come to expect of our current president in Washington, but it saddens us to know that the Council’s vice president embodies much the same mentality, especially when it comes to those who question his authority. If Mr. Bunker can’t stand the heat, well…

Jenkintown Borough Council Meeting, 2-27-2017

This month’s Council meeting discussed among other things:

  • An upcoming hike in our trash disposal fee due to the awarding of a new contract with BFI
  • The outcome and further plans for the proposed Cedar Street park
  • The application for a matching grant ($20,000) for the gateway project.

Council is treating this park as a fait accompli. While we understand that there is a great deal of opposition to this idea, and one that we consider highly dubious and underhandedly administered, it didn’t show up at this meeting. Please show up at the committee hearings and make your voice heard.

Also, we know that the sound quality of these videos aren’t the best. If anyone can assist with this and perhaps donate a good directional microphone that works with an iPhone 7, that would be enormously helpful. We’re sure the community will thank you for it.

Jenkintown EAC Meeting to discuss a pocket park on Cedar Street

Last night’s meeting of Jenkintown’s Environmental Affairs Committee was described as a “visioning meeting,” which in simpler terms means brainstorming session. We’ve discussed these exercises in the past, specifically with regards to the Jenkintown 2035 project. We regard them as well-meaning, but largely ineffectual, feel-good events designed to apply a veneer of public input to something that will ultimately be decided by people who may or may not know better than us.

We apologize for the poor audio for the first fifteen minutes of this video, but during this process the facilitators established ground rules for the meeting, one of which precluded any discussion of cost.

Attendees then viewed examples on slides of other pocket parks. We should note at this point that except for two parks in Abington, every other example came from either Manhattan or Philadelphia — places that otherwise have very little greenspace. The areas around those parks had few if any residential back yarks or easy access to a very large school yard.

Also, the Borough continues to push a false narrative about the process of acquisition and the hit to the tax base this park will render. They keep saying $9,000, when in fact, it will be a minimum of $12,000 per year for just the first few years. The $9,000 number does not take into account the loss of tax revenue to the Borough, only the School District. This is a number that will only rise as time goes on (when was the last time your taxes went down?) This cost is only the start.

They also claimed that a developer that originally approached the owner planned to build five units of “dense” housing. We just want to point out something else here: The Borough’s continued pejorative use of the term “dense.” Like it or not, we live in a densely developed community, and in fact, that density contributes to the charm that we proudly cite when we describe our town.

Secondly, don’t assume that the Borough would rubber stamp the permits for such a development. We have planning boards for exactly this reason. If the developer did build five units, then that brings maybe another 15 people close to the commercial district. The Borough overlooks the number one priority of the Jenkintown 2035 plan: Our commercial district, which does not succeed without people, and the best method to ensure a viable commercial district is to treat it like a neighborhood.

The discussion did bring up a number of excellent points, however. For instance, lighting. In our previous post about this, we did not consider the cost of lighting and security for this park. Will this park have a fence and a secure gate to keep people out after dark? Who will take responsibility for locking things up? For maintaining the landscaping? Emptying the trash?

We can tell you from experience and observation that a park that no one uses will get used by people you rather didn’t. You follow? Parks and property not properly maintained quickly becomes a haven for those with bad intentions.

This video ends as the gathering broke off into smaller groups to decide by committee what will work best for our community. As we want to see these properties sold off and the profits distributed back to the tax base, we thought it best to leave.

Traffic Cameras for Jenkintown? Think again.

Sorry park fans: This is a dry well.

While Jenkintown Borough promulgates its disingenuous narrative about the Cedar Street acquisitions, some in favor of a proposed pocket park there have suggested that funds for this park might come from red light cameras mounted on Old York Road. What we learned last night shoots down that idea for good.

If you attended the Jenkintown 2035 Workshop last year, you might have heard Police Chief DiValentino tell the gathering that the state deemed Jenkintown ineligible for these cameras due to our size. PennDOT currently will only allow these cameras in communities with populations of 50,000 or greater.

At last night’s Public Safety Committee meeting, the Chief revisited this issue and reiterated the Commonwealth’s position. Council Members seemed intent on getting these cameras for Jenkintown, but the committee failed to ask the more salient questions: Do they really work and are they cost effective?

Apparently not. After Chairman Kieran Farrell adjourned the meeting, I posed these questions to the Chief. Does Abington collect enough traffic fines to cover the cost of their installation? In a word, no. “They’re more trouble than their worth,” the Chief told me. Do they make the intersections safer? Maybe, but so does greater police enforcement, and we already pay for that. Installation of such a system can cost about $100,000 according to the CDC. And that’s just the beginning.

Still, some Council members pressed the Chief to continue lobbying for the cameras on the Borough’s behalf, thinking that PennDOT will come around. Abington does have traffic light cameras installed at Old York and Susquehanna and at Old York and Welsh. I know this mostly because my Waze app tells me so every time I’m within a half mile of them. Thanks to those notifications, I don’t run red lights there. With more than 50 million Waze users worldwide, I suspect that others don’t either.

The Chief did cite some positive news that their current enforcement of the road’s speed limit has had the desired effect of slowing down traffic, especially later at night when lower volumes allow for higher speeds. Jenkintown police will park at the IHOP lot and elsewhere where a higher police profile does slow down drivers.

Does Jenkintown need the cameras? Probably not. Will help us fund anything? Definitely not.