|
Post by Everywoman on Oct 17, 2003 7:32:40 GMT -5
Thanks for the tip on the PennLive forum. The thread is number 299 for those of you interested in checking it out. Shows that people outside of the immediate area are unaware of the issues surrounding the South Middleton/Otto warehouses and the impetus for the No Monster Warehouse signs.
|
|
Jane
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by Jane on Dec 30, 2003 16:03:04 GMT -5
hello all,
I'm new to the area. I was wondering if people don't want the warehouses near their houses then where would you suggest putting them? There's only so many brownfields and city sites. Somewhere whose population can't raise $20,000 for legal fees?
As much as no one wants trucks around and no one wants big buildings around, unless they are there you won't get your products for as cheaply as you do or as quickly as you do. Are you willing to pay more for no trucks and no warehouses? Really?
I came from another area of rural PA (really really rural, not suburban like this area is)) who drove off development. It was going to be a haz waste incinerator, taking care of plastics wastes, medical wastes etc. No one wanted it around. But they did want hospitals and they did want plastic toys for their kids. If we don't take care of our own problems, why do we think we can just shove them off onto someone else?
|
|
|
Post by snack915 on Dec 30, 2003 23:19:04 GMT -5
I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Warehouses are a win win situation! Excelent tax base, which is desperatly needed to take some burden off the home owner. They don't polute or make noise. Provide jobs for the economy to grow. I feel the lesser of all evils is much better than what could be placed on the property. Have you ever seen a building hit a golf ball at your house?
Everyone has an opinion, some more fruitless than others!
|
|
|
Post by Susan on Jan 25, 2004 12:02:15 GMT -5
Snack, The warehouses themselve may not pollute or make noise, but the trucks going to and from and idling at the warehouse make LOTS of noise and pollution. The taxes are debatable, since they will probably need to be spent on keeping up the roads that will be destroyed by all the heavy trucks and for police and fire companies, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Susan on Jan 25, 2004 12:12:02 GMT -5
Jane, I don't dispute that trucks and warehouses are needed to help transport and distribute goods. What I am concerned about is the proliferation of warehouses into all areas around Carlisle. There are many warehouses over on Route 11 in Middlesex. Keep the warehouses over there where there is better infrastructure already in place for the trucks, such as exits and entrances on to the interstates and toll roads and plazas for gasoline, etc. The southeast side of Carlisle has been free of trucks and warehouses and people are buying and building nice homes. Let's keep this area a nice residential area. What is really needed is more cohesive county and regional land-use planning to designate certain areas as truck and warehouse free residential areas, and designate certain areas for the trucking industry, so everyone will know what is going to go where.
|
|
Jane
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by Jane on Jan 26, 2004 9:25:17 GMT -5
I do understand that people don't want warehouses popping up everywhere. However, you do understand that there is no more room along Rt.11 that hasn't already been built on and that no one has a problem with being made into a warehouse complex? And that those people along Rt. 11 probably don't want warehouses any more than you do? It still sounds like "as long as it's not near me, everyone else has to deal with it."
I do agree with you that there needs to be so much more land use planning. Warehouses aren't the only problem. People are allowed to put houses anywhere and then they complain about not having access to public services. I've recently heard about someone with a McMansion having tried to sue a local volunteer fire company because they didn't get to their home fast enough even though the house was on what was the "back forty" of an old farm's fields. And an acquaintance of mine is whining that in their housing development, now all the lots are being taken and what felt like a big lot when the one behind it was vacant is really only a 1/4 of an acre. So of course, they need more room and taking up more farmland for McMansions. Everyone should just live in the cities, realize that they don't "deserve" acres to live on, and leave the land for ag and recreation.
|
|
Champagne Gunternova
Guest
|
Post by Champagne Gunternova on Jan 28, 2004 23:08:04 GMT -5
Jane, so, let me understand your (*ahem*) logic.... because "truck warehouses HAVE to go somewhere" and because the unfortunate people along route 11 have to contend with these ridiculous monstrousities, the people of south middleton should just lie down and take it? -- sacrificing the quality of roads, the quality of air, the quality of life, their property values, the scenic beauty of the south middleton / boiling springs area, etc etc etc -- all so that we can have goods delivered cheaper and quicker? are you kidding? do you really believe that plopping down several more million feet of truck warehouse space along the I-81 corridor will somehow have one iota of an effect on either the expense or swiftness of goods delivery? and that justifies all the down-side the constituents would have to endure by having these not-only-eyesores-but-also-environmental-catastrophes in our backyard? even if, by some WILD stretch of imagination, it did have an effect on such things, would it truly be worth it?
believe me, it is truly unfortunate and regrettable that the folks along rt. 11 have to contend with a matrix of truck warehouses. however, if you think that situation can somehow be logically spun into your 'point' that 'truck warehouses have to go somewhere', that is sad. what is even more unfortunate is that, apparently, when the planning and development for those warehouses was in the works, they did not have either the organization or stamina to fight being raped by folks like keystone -- who don't LIVE in this community and sure as hell don't care what effect their development will HAVE on this community. i'm not saying it was any FAULT on the part of the folks around rt. 11 -- merely that 1) i wish they would have had an organized effort of concerned citizenry to stand up to these 'businessmen', and 2) i am truly glad that the folks of south middleton DO have an organized and concerned constituency that is willing to fight this ridiculous proposal that keystone has tried to force through. also, i'm glad the voters have the foresight to elect supervisors who have stated their desire to examine zoning ordinances on a regular basis, and to keep projects like these warehouses out of the community. now we can only hope they actually BACK UP what they say via the decisions they make.
your 'point' about mcmansions, medical waste, and plastic incinerators is short-sighted as well.
|
|
|
Post by Oldtimer on Jan 5, 2005 23:49:54 GMT -5
I can remember when the hot discussion was all the people moving to the Boiling Springs area, and the Real Estate Developers buying Farm Land and selling lots and building houses. We did not like it then and we do not like it now. You came in and forced us to raise taxes to pay for new schools, road, sewers and additional township staff. Now you complain when a Farmer wants to sell his land. Rather four warehouses that pay taxes and do not impose on our schools, sewers, etd. The road they will use are State Roads. This land will be sold someway. If it is another development with more outsiders, there go the taxes, schools, sewage and roads. How many kid driving to school or being driven by their parents are there now. Hello traffic grid lock.
|
|
|
Post by CONCER PERSON on Jan 6, 2005 6:56:00 GMT -5
I AGREE WITH THE OLDTIMER I LIVED IN BOILING SPRINGS ALL MY LIFE FOR OVER 50 YEARS. I SAW ALL THE FARM LAND BE TAKEN AWAY FOR ALL THE HOUSES. I REMEMBER WHEN WE DROVE UP FORGE ROAD TO CARLISLE AND ALL YOU WOULD SEE IS FARM LAND NOW ALL YOU SEE IS HOUSES. WE ARE PUTTING TO MANY HOUSES IN BOILING SPRINGS WHAT IS WRONG WITH A BUSINESS THAT WOULD HELP WITH TAXES . WE HAVE TO BUILD A NEW SCHOOL SOON IF WE KEEP PUTTING IN ALL THE HOUSES. REMEMBER THE GREAT TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS APPROVE WAREHOUSES AS LONG IF THERE ARE NOT CLOSE TO THERE HOUSES LOOK OUT ON THE WALNUT BOTTOM ROAD AND SEE HOW MANY THEY APPROVED OUT THERE AWAY FROM THERE HOMES. LOOK AT ALL THE DEVELOMENTS THAT ARE STILL GOING ON THAT ARE NOT FINISHED YET. THEN WE HAVE THE MENTZERS FARM YET THAT IS GOING TO HAVE HOW MANY HOUSES ON SPRINGVILLE ROAD. WHO IS GOING TO PAY TO WIDENED THAT ROAD OUR TAXES
|
|
|
Post by Susan on Jan 15, 2005 22:40:06 GMT -5
I have been wondering, Concerned Person, why you say the supervisors vote against warehouses that are near their homes? I only know of one supervisor that lives in the area near the Otto land - Tom Faley. Do the other supervisors live over near the Otto land also?
The reason the township supervisors are voting against the Prologis warehouses is because the warehouses violate the ordinances. The people in this area have organized themselves very well to make certain that the ordinances are upheld. The people in this area have invested their own money to research and document the actual violations the proposed plans have, and the potential and probable violations that the proposed warehouse development would have.
Perhaps the people along Walnut Bottom did nothing to organize themselves to fight against the warehouses along Walnut Bottom.
The township supervisors that are currently on the board are trying very hard to slow down the pace of development in this area. Many of the warehouses on Walnut Bottom apparently were approved by previous supervisors that did not think ahead like the current supervisors are.
The township has a committee studying the issues of farmland preservation to help try to address this problem of excessive development.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Benjey on Jan 16, 2005 17:45:13 GMT -5
Four of the five supervisors live between Boiling Springs and Carlisle. However, Bryan Gembusia lives near Mt. Holly far from the proposed Monster Warehouse but understands the issues well.
Pennsylvania municipalities are required by law to provide for all legal uses, so our supervisors and officials from neighboring municipalities zoned land for warehouses near the I-81 Plainfield exit. It can be argued that too much land was zoned for warehouses in that area, but some space had to be provided. If local officials knew then what they know now with regard to traffic, highway fatalities, job creation and air pollution, they would likely not have zoned so much space for warehouses.
Virtually all parcels in that industrial zone large enough for warehouses have warehouses built or approved. This includes projects of one and two million sq ft respectively. Supervisors would have to rezone land to allow more warehouses in the township. Given the problems warehouses create it is unlikely that additional space would be rezoned at this time. However, citizens must remain vigilant.
Recent newspaper articles about the possible request to have some of the Otto property rezoned from Light Industrial to something that allows a mix of commercial and residential uses mislead some readers. Some have the impression that we are faced with the choice of warehouses or residences on that property. Current zoning for that property allows neither use.
It seems highly unlikely that ProLogis would give up its option on the land if it had a prayer of a chance of winning its appeal. To put it in numbers, ProLogis indicated that they plan on spending something like $80M developing the property. If they only get a 5% return on investment, they would realize a $4M profit each year. I cannot imagine someone giving them enough for their option to make selling it worthwhile - if they had a snowball's chance in Hell of winning their case.
So, rezoning to allow residential uses in a zone in which it's currently prohibited is not necessary. If rezoned, school taxes could go up. Commercial uses are already allowed in the Light Industrial zone as evidenced by the Carlisle Crossing shopping center under construction nearby in that same zone.
|
|
|
Post by Susan on Jan 16, 2005 18:36:18 GMT -5
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the succinct explanation. What other uses are allowed in the Light Industrial Zone?
Susan
|
|
|
Post by vel on Jan 16, 2005 18:50:28 GMT -5
ah, now even a smaller warehouse isn't wanted. What if the land is sold for a high-density housing development? I'm sure you wouldnt' want that too. We don't want anyone bothering "us".
Nice and quiet is fine but there are problems. Bedroom communities can only survive so long. A residence uses around $1.30 for each $1 paid in taxes. A business uses way less. Soon, your taxes will have to go up or your services reduced. And after seeing a few years ago when someone with a McMansion in what was a farmer's field tried to sue the local volunteer fire company for not getting to them fast "enough" I'm sure that will go over well too.
If you want cheap goods, and easy access to them you'll have to deal with warehouses. And since people have to deal with the refineries that your car creates a need for, you surely have the responsiblity to withstand a little inconvenience yourselves. Ain't it a curious coincidence that the poorest of the poor have to live near the refineries and chemical plants?
|
|
|
Post by Tom Benjey on Jan 16, 2005 21:31:02 GMT -5
The light industrial district allows a number of uses including retail stores, hotels, businesses and light manufacturing activities. A complete list can be found at: www.smiddleton.com/ordinances/zoning/article13.pdf. Please note that residences are specifically excluded. Warehouses vs. residences is a false dichotomy as there are a number of uses allowed in the light industrial district that could be beneficial to township residents by providing good jobs and paying school taxes without creating large infrastructure costs or polluting our environment. Warehouses create few jobs per acre and non-family-sustaining ones at that. PennDOT anticipates spending something like $40M to improve Exit 44 to accomodate the truck traffic generated by the warehouses near that exit. It will take a very long time to recoup that infrastructure cost. Diesel exhaust from trucks bringing goods to and from the warehouses creates fine particulate pollution. The EPA has designated Cumberland County as being in non-attainment of it Ozone and Fine Particulate (PM2.5) standards. Draconian measures will likely be needed to clean up our air enough to attain EPA standards. Note that I did not say that the air would then be clean. That is because medical studies have found serious health consequences to fine particulate particulate pollution far below the EPA standards. Sadly, air quality in our area is similar to that of polluted third world countries. This will make attracting the kinds of businesses that create good jobs more difficult. Another type of business that generates more tax revenue than it creates in costs for services is agribusiness - farming. Keeping farms zoned as agricultural is good policy tax-wise. Us wanting or not wanting smaller warehouses is irrelevant. It appears that smaller (less than 1M sq ft) are not in great demand and may become obsolete in the not too distant future. Note all the empty warehouses in the area including new warehouses that have yet to be occupied. Allen Distribution recently ran a rail spur to its 500,000 sq ft warehouse to make it more competitive. When warehouses generate less revenue, their tax assessment s can re reduced resulting in lower tax revenues from them. It is no coincidence that poor people live in undesirable areas, such as those near refineries and chemical plants; it makes perfect sense. Property values for houses in undesirable locations are lower than elsewhere and people who can afford better typically choose to live in less polluted places. The same phenomenon is happening here. A number of long-term residents are quietly selling their houses here and relocating out of the township. Some people approaching retirement are plotting their escapes to other locales when they retire. Some younger people are already making general plans even though they are not yet in a position to plunk down any money for their retirement homes.
|
|
|
Post by concern person on Jan 18, 2005 6:35:01 GMT -5
THE REASON ALOT OF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING ELSEWHERE TO RETIRE FROM THIS AREA IS THE TAXES . THEY KEEP GOING UP BECAUSE ALL OF THE HOUSES THAT ARE BEING BUILT AND NO BUISNESS TO HELP OUT. LOOK YOU SAIND THAT THE SUPERVISORS WERE NOT IN THERE HOW LONG HAS MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD. THEY APPROVED THEM AND SOME OF THE WHAREHOUSES ALONG THE WALNUT BOTTOM ROAD. HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THIS AREA MR BENJY
|
|