Candidates' positions

[Tom Benjey]

I want to see the supervisor candidates post their positions on current issues because they may well find themselves dealing with ramifications of those issues after inauguration. They can start with Witlinger Dam, Carlisle Crossing and the Exit 48-49 study. Add Neighborhood District redefinition to that list because Gannet-Fleming suggested that some land be rezoned to that designation last night.

[George Stapleton]

Thanks to Tom Benjey for his post.

Whitlinger Dam - Since the Township Supervisors have decided to remove the dam, I thought it might be more useful to address how I as a supervisor, would recommend future decisions of this magnitude be made at the township level and how they could be communicated with the public.

I would have preferred the township form a community fact-finding committee of township residents, representing all interested parties, to investigate and research the options. This committee could have used the 2003 consultants report “Removal or Restoration of the Whitlinger Dam Feasibility Analysis” and then made local recommendations with expected outcomes.

I’m constantly amazed at the wealth of knowledge and experience our residents have in these matters, and who I believe could ably serve on such as a committee. Also, by conferring with the public impacted by all the dam options (sorry couldn’t resist); township residents now become stakeholders in the decision-making process.

Finally, this committee presents that information at a Neighborhood/Township Summit (equivalent to 21st Century Town Meeting). This summit serves as a forum for issues that either target a specific area (like Boiling Springs) or has a far reaching impact on the entire township (like the financial costs related to removing or restoring the dam). If a second meeting is needed, the meeting utilizes small group discussions with individuals of varied viewpoints.

This forum allows the time for an issue to be discussed before it comes to the township for action. The committee (not the township) presents the logic behind all sides of the issues, allowing everyone the opportunity to voice their opinion. Residents leave the meeting with a greater understanding of the complexity of the issue and of differing viewpoints. I believe this is particularly important when you discuss highly charged or emotional issues (like cell towers, dams, etc.) with township residents. By understanding the pros and cons, everyone is better prepared to make an informed decision.

As far as the actions to remove the Whitlinger Dam, I do have concerns about removing the dam for historical (losing the race), environmental (loss of wetlands, biological impact, mud) and safety reasons (spraying, stagnant water). I would like to see every effort made to keep the race viable, but I’m just not sure that can be done once the dam is removed. Maybe we can use the forum presented above to address the issue of the race.

Also, my website (www.georgestapleton.com) speaks of ideas I have about improving communication between the township and the residents. For example, I wanted to educate myself on the five options proposed to the township, specifically the impacts of removing the dam, but I couldn’t access them. I checked the township website (found nothing), researched newspaper articles and found some but not enough information to really make an informed decision. Information of this sort needs to be posted on the township website. All future studies/documents should be provided in a PDF format for posting. Simply saying it’s at the township building is not enough. The township website is a simple and valuable communication tool in educating the public and improving information exchange.

With the techniques I’ve presented, I believe the public becomes an active participant and the decision-making process for the township is greatly enhanced.

Carlisle Crossings is just one of nine major developments either in progress or planned for South Middleton Township. The other projects include Keystone/Prologis warehouses, Center at Seven Gables (big-box retailer, supermarket, and theater), Limestone Creek housing development (South Spring Garden Street), Wheatstone and Netherby housing development (Lindsey & Springville Road), additional Forgedale housing phases (Forge Road), Walnut Bottom Grove Development, and the Church of God Life-Care Community.

What bothers me the most about the Carlisle Crossing project is the lack of discussion on the traffic it will generate. Since Carlisle Crossings is well under way, future supervisors will struggle with the impact of this and the six other projects that will access onto or near the York Road traffic corridor. This will have a huge impact on traffic patterns and congestion, to include taxing our current road infrastructure.

I’m overall concerned with road maintenance, stop lights, turn lanes and traffic congestion. As this area becomes a choke point, the public will also use alternate routes of travel (Petersburg Road, Fairview Street, Shughart Road, South Middlesex, etc) to avoid this area, thus overloading other roads in the township and increasing potential problems (traffic accidents) and expenses (red lights).

I also disagree with the proposed access to the intersection at York Road and Westminster Drive. I would have preferred that Forge Road simply curve down (as it does now) so it intersects at York Road to form a four-way intersection with the entrance to Carlisle Crossings. It’s my understanding that a new four way (red light) intersection will be created at Forge Road and Westminster Drive. To me, this additional intersection is just another potential traffic problem.

And we haven’t even begun to talk about the impact this Carlisle Crossings shopping complex, restaurant and bar will have on additional state police response. If you go by the comments of Sgt. Steve Junkin who stated in March 2005, "I've got guys who are running from thing to thing, but they're still getting out there and doing the job but the numbers show the task is becoming increasingly difficult”, or a Carlisle Sentinel article in August of 2004, which states “State police at Carlisle are so busy policing congested roads and cleaning up traffic accidents that Sgt. Steve Junkin has put detectives back on uniform patrol.”

If you take a look at the current duties of the Carlisle State Police Barracks who oversee half a dozen patrol zones including 30 miles of Interstate 81. Who serve as the only police force in 15 municipalities across Cumberland County, who back up municipal police and fill in when part-time police forces are off duty in Newville and Mt. Holly Springs boroughs. Who in 2004 handled 12,000 incidents, including 2,846 criminal offenses and 1,268 crashes. Who on a midnight shift have just one patrol car with two troopers on duty.

What’s it mean? It means any increased workload means a lack of available troopers and a lack of available troopers means longer response times. So as we add additional needs for police services, retail theft, shop lifting, traffic accidents, traffic control, and other incidents related to large shopping complexes, we must take into account the impact on state police that service the Township. I believe as we continue to grow, we will further tax the state police and response times are going to become a bigger issue.

Interstate 81 Exits 48 and 49 – I haven’t had the time to really study the options presented for the Interstate project, but on an initial review, the connector road between Interstate 81 exits 48 and 49 definitely has merit and seems to be a viable option to relieve traffic congestion in this area. The problem: there is no commitment or money to do such a project.

Originally I had perceived a full interchange at Exit 49 as the ideal solution. But full interchanges also act like “magnets” and will substantially increase traffic congestion and use of our existing roadways in and around that area. With the anticipated traffic congestion from the new and proposed projects on the York Road Corridor, I’m not sure this is now the best option.

However, I would also be supportive of discussions about rezoning of land around Carlisle Crossings and the proposed interstate projects to make the land more compatible with surrounding property and intended use. The township’s current comprehensive plan was last updated in 1999. One of the recommendations in the township’s plan is to “mandate an annual review of the comprehensive plan by the planning department and planning commission as to changes and validity to keep the plan current”. I believe this is long overdue. The use of my recommendation for a fact-finding committee could assist the township and the planning commission to make this annual review possible. As the comprehensive plan is being reviewed, I can certainly agree to look at any redefinition of the Neighborhood District and how that might impact the zoning in a particular area.

Thanks!
George Stapleton

[Tom Benjey]

Thanks, George. Could someone who knows Rick Reighard please let him know these questions have been posted so that he can post his positions. Thanks in advance.

I also want to know what the candidates' positions are on farmland preservation.

[George Stapleton]

Farmland Preservation

As part of my employment, I do farm inspections in Cumberland County, and as I speak to farmers, I hear a common theme, “it’s getting harder to make ends meet” or “do you know the value of my land as a farm compared to that same land as a commercial or housing development”? Many farmers say they would like to keep their farm in the family or sell it to another farmer when they retire. But in reality, many sell their land for development because family members or other farmers can not afford to buy the land.

So why should we be worried about farmland preservation? If we want to maintain the rural character of this township, we must look at ways to sustain farms as a local and regional economy, to protect our scenic views, to manage development, and to ensure the farmer’s quality of life, while preserving our community’s history, culture, and property values.

Farmland preservation is not only good for open space but also for our ecology. It provides habitat for wildlife, provides watershed protection, absorbs and filters storm water and assists in maintaining a good water quality.

Also, privately owned agricultural land generates more in tax revenue than it requires in related services. As the available farmland is developed, the community services for new residential developments increases emergency service protection (fire, emergency medical, police, etc.), roads, water, sewer and educational costs.

As a Township Supervisor…

I would actively pursue funding from federal, state, county, local and private agencies to assist in the preservation of farmland and the protection of our open space. Unfortunately, since the majority of options for farmland preservation require funding, we can’t solely rely on the government county programs to permanently protect our farmland (not enough money to go around). I would promote the continuation of what I call the Township’s ‘Open Space Preservation Fund”, the use of budgeted township monies to either purchase land development rights, the land itself or providing additional tax incentives to landowners.

I would refrain from spending those monies on farmland preservation until the township determines through a strategic planning process what priority township residents place on farmland preservation. Once known, this provides the supervisors the mandate to investigate appropriate options to find the right combination of monies through grants, donations, reserve accounts, increased township fees (on building permits), up to and including a voter referendum on a specific millage for farmland preservation. I strongly believe the township residents need to define the level on financial commitment they want in this endeavor.

I would propose an Agreement for Development Rights (ADR) and a Purchase for Development Rights (PDR) Ordinance. The ADR allows for a temporary restriction on the land between the township and the landowner, voluntarily entered into by a landowner, preserving their land for agriculture in exchange for certain tax benefits. The PDR is a permanent restriction (agricultural conservation easement) on the land between the township and a landowner, voluntarily entered into by a landowner, preserving their land for agriculture in exchange for a cash payment for those rights. These ordinances create the ability for the township to legally separate the development rights from the land and sell or restrict them without affecting the other rights that go with the land. The value for the purchase or agreement for the development rights is the difference between the fair market value and the agricultural use value of the land.

Basically, the land can be sold or transferred, but is restricted for any non-farm development. The only way the land can ever be developed is if the Township revokes the agreement or sells the development rights back to the person who owns the land. Another option is to set up option agreements to lock-in landowners’ intent to sell their development rights now, in lieu of payments in the future. Either way, the income derived from the sale of the land development rights or the tax benefits, allows the landowner to keep the farm viable, without losing the ability to farm the land or use is as they deem appropriate.

I would recommend educational materials be placed on the township website that provide township residents with available options for farmland preservation and how they can be accomplished. I believe education is an important requirement, especially if a voter referendum is decided. Then the website and the township newsletter would be a prime tool for communicating with the public.

I would propose a Township Summit with farmers, interested property owners, and the Cumberland County Agriculture Land Preservation Board to ensure all options for farmers are being investigated, like applying their farms for ‘Clean and Green’, ‘Agricultural Security Areas’, and even discussing the feasibility of the proposed ordinances I’ve listed within. Many of these programs offer financial incentives to include the Pennsylvania Agricultural Conservation Easement Purchase program (if sufficient land is available) to purchase conservation easements (also called development rights) from owners who meet the definition of quality farmland.

I would investigate other options such as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), which allows landowners to transfer the right to develop one parcel of land to a different parcel of land. It is supposed to shift development from agricultural areas to other areas that have the infrastructure to support increased development (water, sewer, roadways, etc.). The parcel is then protected with a permanent conservation easement. Unfortunately, the process is complicated to set up, requires a great deal of education, the values of the land transferred can be vastly different, and a market must exist for this use. I am aware of some limited success the township has had with developers using the TDR process.

Just a few more of my ideas, Thanks! George Stapleton

[Jen Graves Bandura]

I met George Stapleton last night and I am confident that he would make an excellent township supervisor. I share his philosophy of having more public communication and coordination of issues that face the township. He is interested in using the talent, education, and experience that township residents have to benefit our community. The experience that he has in public service, his great personality, and his love for this township would prove invaluable to all of us. I know that he will be someone that we can share our concerns with and he will be open to solutions rather than addressing his personal hidden agenda or making quick decisions like other supervisors. I hope you will vote with me to support George Stapleton for Township Supervisor! Good luck George!