Critical Mass on University Boulevard

University Boulevard in Moon Township, looking south from the entrance to the Robert Morris University-owned Holiday Inn. Note the absence of a center turn lane and sidewalks, as well as the utility lines in close proximity to the roadway.                        Credit: Google Maps

In the course of growing up and working in the northwest suburbs of Pittsburgh, I learned to develop a love/hate relationship with a stretch of road in Moon Township now known as University Boulevard.

It's been known by that name since 2003, when the Moon Supervisors changed the name, in part, to "promote one of (Moon's) many assets and one of its largest employers, Robert Morris University", according to a Beaver County Times story.

Prior to that, the road went by two names - Narrows Run Road from Thorn Run Road up to the intersection with Brodhead Road, where it became Beers School Road to the end at what is now Business I-376.

Aside from any humor associated with Robert Morris changing from a "beer school" to a "university", the name change does make sense, even if the road itself largely fails to live up to its namesake. 10 years after the fact, there is still no dedicated left turn lane to access RMU's main entrance if coming from the east. This will be a recurring theme down the page.

We All Live in the (old) Yellow Submarine...

As RMU has grown, it has naturally sought more student housing. In late 2011 it acquired the struggling Holiday Inn Airport, where it houses some students and stated at the time of the purchase their eventual intent to turn the facility into a dorm in toto. Those of you who spent your formative adult years in this area may remember the hotel fondly for the Yellow Submarine nightclub in the basement.

RMU's stated 3-year plan to convert the building to a dorm is apparently being accelerated, with the announcement this past week that the hotel will close in preparation for full dormitory operations in August.

They need a zoning variance from Moon Township to accomplish this, and not everyone is pleased, for "varying" reasons. Moon Supervisors were quoted in the media expressing significant concerns over traffic flow on University - specifically with the current amount of cars traveling this state-maintained roadway, and the potential for more with the development of a new Walmart store at the site of the former West Hills Shopping Center. They also don't like the prospect of the property being largely taken off the tax rolls.

Township officials also cited the lack of pedestrian walkways, and the already established difficulty in turning left out of the facility onto University to head toward campus - one factor that an RMU Vice President dismissed by asserting that "students living at the Holiday Inn would not be driving to campus".

It made me wonder how exactly the school would go about accomplishing that - denying campus parking permits to residents of the proposed "Yorktown Hall"? Regardless, a shuttle service still has to make that left turn, and enterprising college students can indeed opt to walk or ride bicycles - just like their younger counterparts at Moon Area High School, right across the street.

That's right - the school complex, which includes Moon's stadium and athletic fields, also sits along this stretch of University, along with several other hotels and commercial establishments that sprung up from the 1960's through the 1980's, when the old Airport was located just a fraction of a mile away. This corridor abuts residential areas to the east as well.

Wait Just a Minute, Bobby U...

The Moon Supervisors held a public hearing on July 1, which they continued to this evening after taking testimony and conducting a lengthy executive session, which caused the meeting to extend past midnight.

Based on these media reports, it seems that RMU's timetable for closing the hotel, laying off 60 people, and readying the building for conversion into a dormitory in time for move-in day did not anticipate these regulatory difficulties. Eyewitness accounts from the meeting seemed to indicate that RMU representatives were surprised by the community push-back.

It sounds as if both the issues and stakeholder concerns are sufficiently complex as to warrant a closer look at...well, everything.

I am inclined to agree - The media reports seemed to indicate that discussions about traffic improvements only focused on sidewalks. While I'm not anything approaching a traffic engineer, I don't think it takes that background to see that it's a mess up there on many fronts, with the potential to only get worse with additional development and traffic loading.

University Boulevard seen south of Moon Clinton Road, with businesses and other facilities labeled.   Credit: Google Maps / John Linko

Things Can Only Get Better...uh, right?

As illustrated above, there are numerous commercial entrances and exits along the stretch of University south of Moon Clinton Road. Many of these entrances are not coordinated, and many parking lots are isolated from one another. The roadway itself is inadequate - it lacks a center turn lane, which would facilitate turn-offs into these local businesses, as well as provide for a smooth transition into left turn lanes at signaled intersections - like the one at the main RMU campus entrance.

Speaking of signaled intersections, there is half of one at Tiger Trail (the entrance to the school complex) that could be expanded into a 4-way intersection, to provide egress from the collective parking areas of the Holiday Inn, Doubletree Hotel, and Hampton Inn. The existing entry/exit points could be converted into entrances only, with the new intersection providing an additional entrance and a safe, signaled exit for the proposed dormitory and adjacent hotels. I've tried to rough this out in the illustration below.

Close-up of area at intersection of University and Tiger Trail, with illustration of how traffic could flow through the dormitory and hotels to a new 4-way intersection.            Credit: Google Maps / John Linko

New Kid on the Block

Among the numerous other things that would have to happen to make this feasible are connecting the proposed dormitory's parking areas to those of the Doubletree, and securing easements for the property between the two buildings, which is the former location of Betlyn Heating.

This is the property marked as DACOH /Covelli, which currently hosts a seemingly unoccupied house and outbuilding that likely pre-dates the surrounding development, along with numerous mature trees and a large grassy area in front of the Doubletree.

DACOH Holdings LLC is the new owner as of this past April, according to Allegheny County property records. DACOH is the real estate holdings arm of Covelli Enterprises, a Warren, Ohio-based company which describes itself as the "largest franchisee of Panera and O'Charley's" restaurants.

Does this mean that a Panera Bread or other establishment could be coming to this corridor in the near future as well? What does that portend for the traffic situation?

Moon Township Manager Jeanne Creese, contacted last week, stated that the township has received no development application from the new owners, and had no other information beyond knowing that the property was sold. Messages left for DACOH's Pennsylvania representative were not returned.

Fail to Plan...Plan to Fail

Ms. Creese also stated that PennDOT requires a traffic impact study from those desiring to make development changes that may affect roadway capacity. PennDOT District 11 spokesman Steve Cowan, responding to an e-mail inquiry, stated that a traffic study for the intersection at Business 376 was completed in 2009, and that "We are not aware of any other planned activities on University".

That study was executed for Moon Township's Transportation Authority, described on the Township website as "established in 1987 to promote economic and infrastructure development in Moon Township".

This authority was also in the news recently, as the Moon Area School Board voted July 15 to end its relationship with the authority, a move that find its resolution only in the courts. This appears to be a very shortsighted action on the part of the school district, given what seems to be an obvious need for cooperation to manage traffic literally at the doorstep of the district's core facilities.

Hopping Away 

When thinking about what happens when too many things are going on in one general area at the same time, the term critical mass pops into my head. There are several definitions for this, depending on the context in which it is being used. In physics, it defines "the smallest amount of fissile material needed for a sustained nuclear chain reaction". 

That's what this gradual ramping up of activity along University Boulevard feels like to me, along with the feeling that this traffic corridor is a pot full of water on a stove, and we commuters, consumers, students, and full-time residents are all frogs in that pot.
What happens when the heat starts to get turned up?

Without any improvements in traffic flow management, along with reasonable development controls and other coordination efforts, what will an autumn Saturday look like in the future, when it's quite possible that typical Saturday traffic in and out of Walmart and Giant Eagle will be complicated by a youth basketball tournament at Moon High School and an RMU home football game - all at the same time?

I know one thing - there will be a new Walmart in Economy Borough before there is one in Moon, and it will likely be a lot easier for me to get to.

Hope in Collaboration

There is, however, another definition of critical mass - one from the area of social dynamics: "A sufficient number of adopters of an innovation in a social system so that the rate of adoption becomes self-sustaining and creates further growth". This concept is illustrated, albeit simplistically, by the following:




I'm no theoretical mathematician or economist, but I can see the value of this thinking when it comes to reinventing University Boulevard. I'm wondering if some of the traditional attitudes that may stand in the way of making something unique happen represent the 'blonde' in the film clip - attitudes such as non-cooperation, profiteering, and NIMBY.

This extends not only to those engaged in private enterprise, but also to those governmental entities with a significant operational and financial stake that are saddled with the perception - and/or reality - that they are obstructionist and/or combative.

Included as well is a large, privately held, not-for-profit institution that attempts to frame itself as a benevolent community asset, when the reality leans further toward an enterprise engaged in aggressive growth for the fulfillment of its mission, that is used to getting its way.
That these institutions are both in the business of education brings to bear even further the need for innovative solutions, before the wrong kind of critical mass becomes a reality.

The level of cooperation required, and the multiple of layers of stakeholders involved - Local government, PennDOT, multiple above and below-ground utilities, private property owners - is potentially daunting if substantial yet necessary changes to this multi-purpose corridor are to occur.

But think of the advantages to all if everyone will work not only for themselves, but also for the group.

Best wishes to all stakeholders as the process continues to unfold and evolve.

High Times on Poorhouse Run

Examining the future of a relic. Revisiting a not-so-distant area from my childhood in words and pictures, one that stands to weather changes that may affect us all.

As an infant, my parents brought me home to an apartment above a garage behind my grandfather’s house, on Pleasant Drive in Center Township, Beaver County.  Before my brother was born the following year, our family moved to a house in the Plan 12 section of Aliquippa. 

A good portion of my childhood was spent in the company of relatives who lived on Pleasant Drive - I remember lots of grassy areas and woods, illegal fireworks on July 4th, and my grandfather's large garden. Target practice with a BB gun from my uncle's patio. A neighbor was a long-haul trucker and radio hobbyist, who helped fuel a passion for things wireless that lasts to this day. 

Topographic map of Poorhouse Run.
Horsehead plant and former Poorhouse site are in upper left.
Credit: USGS GNIS / Google Maps 



Poorhouse Run.

Pleasant Drive hasn’t always been known by that name. Until around 1945,  it was known as Poorhouse Run Road. As the road moves north from Center into Potter Township, it follows the general path of Poorhouse Run, a small stream that moves into underground piping at the road’s intersection with Frankfort Road, also known as Pa. Route 18.

Beaver County Home and Hospital (1853-1959), Potter Twp.
Photo circa 1921. Credit: J.A. Cole / Poorhousestory.com

Beaver County Home and Hospital (1853-1959), Potter Twp.
Rear of building - Credit:   JoAnn Bishop

Poorhouse Run empties into the Ohio River just downstream from the former Beaver County Home and Hospital, AKA "The Poor House". Originally constructed in 1853, with additions in 1876 and 1940, the facility was replaced in 1959 by the Beaver County Geriatric Center in Brighton Township, known today as Friendship Ridge.

Beaver County Home and Hospital (1853-1959), Potter Twp.
Main entryway - Credit:  JoAnn Bishop

Horsehead Zinc Smelting Plant, seen from the west.
Former poor house buildings are at the lower left corner.
I-376 Vanport Bridge is in the background.
Credit:  Horsehead Corporation  

The Poor House buildings still stand today on land owned by Horsehead Corporation, which operates one of the country's largest zinc smelting facilities there. This facility begins a concentration of industrial sites along the south shore of the Ohio River, to the West Virginia border. 



These facilities include a Nova Chemicals plant, formerly known as the Kobuta plant, which manufactured butadeine, a component of synthetic rubber, during World War II. 


One of my mother's earlier childhood memories is the smell that came over the hill from that plant. The plant was recently sold, but is expected to continue operations.


Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, Shippingport,
with church in foreground.

Further downstream are the FirstEnergy Bruce Mansfield power plant and Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station, built near the site of the country's first commercial reactor for power production, at Shippingport. 

Beaver Valley Power Station, seen from the north on the Shippingport Bridge.
 The small domed structures house the facility's two nuclear reactors.

                                  




                                      
These facilities may seem removed from the greater Sewickley area, but in reality are rather proximal. The Horsehead plant is just down the hill - and usually upwind - from the Beaver Valley Mall. The 10-mile emergency evacuation zone around the nuclear plant extends to just short of Leetsdale. Depending upon the type of hazard involved, this complex of industrial sites is truly just down the road, as the crow flies...

An ethane cracker facility.
Credit:   Borouge Illustration / Beaver County Times

This area has seen its fortunes wax and wane with changes in demand for the various products produced there, including energy. Those fortunes are now showing significant potential for improvement with the recent announcement that Shell has chosen the Horsehead site for the development of an ethane cracker plant. 


This facility, if constructed, will cost in the area of $ 1 Billion to build, and stands to infuse the area with thousands of jobs, and the associated residential and commercial development that accompanies such activity.


The potential positive impact on the local economy is being touted to the levels one would expect with such an announcement. Interest in real estate in the immediate area is expected to increase - speculative optimism may also fuel development and efforts at entrepreneurial activity as the process moves along. Municipalities and school districts may already be developing visions of new infrastructure and larger operations dancing in their heads.

Should the Shell project and all associated with it actually come to fruition, there stands to be significant change in both the landscape and nature of life and living in the small towns and open spaces that coexist with the industrial necessities of modern living.

Two such towns caught my eye while exploring this area. One is Hookstown, a small borough along Route 168, completely surrounded by Greene Township and home to  all things rural, in particular the annual fair.

Another is Georgetown, a seemingly isolated riverside community accessible by only two roads, both originating in Hookstown. The town has a robust history as a riverboat stop, but seems extremely quiet for a modern day small town. 

Hookstown.

Driving around, the town felt reminiscent of the mythical town of Spectre in Daniel Wallace's novel (and Tim Burton's film) Big Fish. This was despite both the lack of shoes flung over any overhanging utility lines, and the red pickup truck that followed me from 2 blocks away until I left town the way I came in. 

I'm wondering, as I'm sure many of the residents of these areas are, how the development, construction, staffing, and operation of a major new industrial facility will affect their quality of life. 

Along with these living examples of local history, I'm also concerned about the artifacts of the past that appear destined for the wrecking ball - especially the site of the former Poor House. 

Georgetown.

I recently spoke with Ali Alavi, Senior Vice President for Corporate Affairs at Horsehead Corporation, about the future of the Poor House site as it relates to making it available for those who wish to document the site's interior for historical purposes, similar to what was done at the former Dixmont State Hospital in Kilbuck Township, south of Sewickley.

Mr. Alavi stated that it was "too early in the process" to make a statement about what, if any access would be granted to historical societies or other groups prior to any planned demolition. He also stated that it was his impression that Beaver County and/or Potter Township had adequate photo documentation. 


Mr. Alavi added that the 1940 addition to the complex was used as corporate offices for a time, but have since been moved, and the entire facility fenced off, because the buildings are "unsafe" and in "severe disrepair". 

This past week I spoke with Mark Berton, Managing Editor at IN Community Magazines and author of the Arcadia Publishing book on Dixmont. He stated that he was unfamiliar with any effort to photograph the interior of the Beaver County site. 


Hopefully,  those involved in both historic preservation and the re-purposing of the Poor House site can find common ground on a way to properly document the building for perpetuity.  Parts of the structure are as old as Sewickley Borough itself. 

I have lived in an area of the western U.S. where the economic fortunes of an entire region have twice been shaken by the boom-and-bust volatility that is often the hallmark of large energy projects.

As much as the proposed ethane cracker facility brings the promise of improved economic conditions, the potential also exists for changes to the area that are not exclusively positive.

I encourage due diligence and a healthy skepticism on the part of our elected officials, and also encourage citizens to become active, involved, and elect leaders who espouse the above qualities in abundance. This includes a healthy respect for the past, and of the dangers of repeating previous mistakes. 

It's also incumbent upon us as citizens to recognize both the importance of places like the Poor House and whatever it is demolished to make way for, to remember not only our way of life (past and present), but the potential for disruption should we forget.

Thanks to the Beaver County Historical Research and Landmarks Foundation, and their Director, Brenda Applegate, for their assistance and referrals for locating information and photos. 

Have a good week ahead.

Property, Preservation, Parking = Community, Constituency, Communication

Where some alliterative arithmetic may help to illustrate the comparative connections between two building brouhahas.

Those who follow news in my local area on Sewickley Patch and other media outlets are undoubtedly aware of two disputes involving the planned re-purposing of property in two communities:

• The purchase of a historic Sewickley home by a local church, which had plans to tear it down and build a youth center that opponents believe will sully the perceived architectural and historical integrity of the neighborhood.                                             
• The purchase of residential property in Leetsdale by the local school district, with the apparent intent of acquiring additional adjacent residences, demolish them, and pave paradise and put up a parking lot, with traffic routing changes for the nearby high school. Residents of the neighborhood, bolstered by their municipal officials, are questioning the district's actions, justifications, and planning processes.

There are numerous area stakeholders who are taking a stand regarding these projects. Some are community leaders in business and other arenas, who live in or near the neighborhoods involved. Others are elected officials, whose properties are in the proverbial cross hairs.

One of these officials, District Justice Bob Ford, asserted during a recent Leetsdale Council meeting that "they" (unspecified) were trying to connect these disputes together, when they were in fact radically different.

From a legal standpoint, he's right - one involves a private property transaction, and the other the acquisition of property by a governmental entity, possibly by force if some of the rhetoric is to be believed.

However, there are other factors that seem to permeate these two disputes, providing insight not only into the likely root cause, but also the means by which the issues have been affected by cooperation, media coverage, and community activism.

Pink House Polemic 

Credit: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Rebecca Droke

When the Presbyterian Church of Sewickley purchased the nearby property from the descendants of Elliott and Carolyn Coyle earlier this year, is it possible that they could not have foreseen the outrage that their obtaining a demolition permit from Sewickley Borough could have brought toward their plans and their organization?

Were they fully aware of the potential for confrontation with neighbors and other property owners, upset with what they may see as an assault on the integrity of "The Village"?

Provided that the required funding can be secured, it sounds as if the Pink House will get its reprieve. Setting aside who was right or wrong, one thing is certain - those forces in the neighborhood did not like the apparent lack of communication, and leveraged knowledge and a few other resources to influence the project's current status. 

One big factor was the amount of media attention paid to the controversy - and not just local. In late March, the Post-Gazette published several stories by Homes Editor Kevin Kirkland - you can read them here, here, and here. The last is basically a short op-ed on how Mr. Kirkland thinks the house and grounds should be reconfigured for church uses. 

That's an extraordinary amount of column inches, not counting any photos. It made me wonder why. 

I spent some time growing up in this neighborhood, albeit a couple of blocks down Grant Street. When walking into the Village, I always went behind the church to access Duquesne Way (it's now fenced off), and walked down the alley, past the rear of the Coyle house, to Walnut Street.

On Thorn Street, behind the Pink House on the other side of the alley, the Hamill kids were growing up, too. One of them, Sean, is now one of the better reporters at the Post-Gazette.

In an excellent Saturday Diary post from last year, Mr. Hamill credits his neighbors, award-winning photographers Randy Olson and Melissa Farlow, for planting the idea that led to his choice of journalism as a career. That's the same Melissa Farlow who is one of the primary motivators behind Save the Pink House, and was featured in one of the Kirkland pieces.

Another question is whether or not the neighborhood was even entitled to a voice. The church is a landmark in and of itself, as well as a fixture of the neighborhood where it sits. Many neighbors are not as enthusiastic about the church's vibrant existence - they bemoan the lines of cars parked on Beaver Street during Sunday services, especially when driveways are blocked. Ironically, the project as planned would help to address some of that.

Still, I wonder if an attempt to proactively communicate with the neighbors  - whether entitled to know, be involved, or otherwise spectate - would have resulted in a more measured, reasonable beginning to this disagreement, and prevented some of the spectacle that transpired. 

At least one local resident finds fault with the Pink House 'movement' as perhaps anti-American. In a passionate letter to Sewickley Patch, Richard Zucckero of Glen Osborne accuses the  concerned citizens of looking at the Pink House "as if its sole purpose is to pose background to the broad-stroked painting of their own presence and property". He adds that this raises the spectre of a "co-op" mentality, something akin to the fascism practiced by many condominium associations and subdivision HOA's through restrictive covenants.

Wait a minute, though - there are zoning ordinances and other devices of government already shaping the use of property. In one of the Kevin Kirkland stories, it was reported that the efforts of St. Stephen's Church to demolish what is now Henning House were rebuffed by a borough architectural review committee - if that house was saved, why wouldn't the same process apply to the Coyle property? 

Henning House, part of the campus of St. Stephen's Church

.

Sewickley Borough manager Kevin Flannery was kind enough to spend a few minutes to explain that the Pink House does not fall within the boundaries of the three Historic Districts established by ordinance in the 1980's. St. Stephen's, and the cavernous old duplex next door that is now an impressive example of restorative architecture, are. 

Those commenting on the Patch letter also alluded to so many other things going on in the world, and the amount of comparative energy being expended on such a seemingly trivial cause. There's some irony here, as Ms. Farlow has likely seen much of the world as a photographer for National Geographic. I can sympathize a little, but can also see something positive coming from this.

Frank Lloyd Wright, while being a true creative genius, was also a narcissist, womanizer and spendthrift. He is rumored to have said of his own life, "So long as we had the luxuries, the necessities would pretty much take care of themselves". 

Perhaps in that context we can see the Pink House as a metaphor for the gradual decay of the middle class, civility, and compassion in this country. If this solid old structure can somehow be salvaged, and then populated with those intent on carrying out some of the true mission of Christ - ministering to the poor, caring for youth and those struggling to care for themselves - then maybe there is hope for the rest of Sewickley, and our fragile society as well.

Nah - we're doomed. Let's take the Lexus down to Azul for one last margarita before it's all over.

They'll probably park in front of the house again.

Politics, Purpose, and Planning

In contrast, the burgeoning dispute in Leetsdale between local residents and the Quaker Valley School District involves other factors on top of just property use. 

Leetsdale Borough officials, led by Council President Joe McGurk (whose property is also in the area of interest), have publicly questioned the school district's assertions that they have communicated with the borough over the years regarding traffic and parking issues at the high school. The district has countered that they have had "informal" discussions with the borough, although it's unclear exactly who with. 

Other borough officials and residents have openly questioned the district's stated emphasis on student safety, while criticizing a rendering of the proposed traffic solution as not in keeping with the varying accounts of safety solutions discussed with various officials over the years. 

Credit: Sewickley Herald - Kristina Serafini

The Sewickley Herald has focused the bulk of their coverage on the student safety issue, specifically the practice of stopping in front of the school entrance to drop off or pick up students, which is prohibited. Herald reporter Bobby Cherry documented vehicles stopping and dropping off students during both school hours and evening events, with no apparent presence by either police or school district officials. 

Missing from the two Herald stories was any comment from Leetsdale Police about the issue. When contacted in mid-April, Chief James Santucci stated that his department has been conducting targeted enforcement at the high school at least 2 days per week, and had issued about 40 citations for impeding the flow of traffic. 

Display at Leetsdale Borough Hall
on Primary Election Day, April 24.

Per Chief Santucci, this type of enforcement typically takes two officers to conduct safely. Chief Santucci added that his officers were "getting carpal tunnel" from writing parking tickets for those areas adjacent to the high school where parking is prohibited.

The parking issues around the high school have also been a long-standing issue, especially during after-hours events. Chief Santucci stated that the owners of Quaker Village Shopping Center, adjacent to the high school, have given him assurances that students and event attendees may park in their lot, so long as they use the spaces furthest from the stores. He also noted that available spaces at the high school athletic complex often go unused in favor of street parking (illegal and otherwise), because "no one wants to walk up 'cardiac hill'".

Draft plan of  proposed QVHS traffic control measures.
Quaker Village Shopping Center is in the upper left .
Credit: QVSD / Sewickley Patch

This brought up several questions regarding parking, and the proposed traffic plan, that I posed to Martha Smith, QV's Communications Director. She relayed the following answers from Superintendent Dr. Joseph Clapper:

Q: Has the district had any official communication with the owners and/or managers of Quaker Village Shopping Center regarding this project? If so, what have the results been? Does the district have any other agreements with the Center ownership or management?

A: The District has had no communication with the property owners at the Quaker Village Shopping Center.  I am not aware of any agreements that the District has with the owners of the Quaker Village Shopping Center.  

Q:  I have heard reservations..regarding the proposed parking and traffic solution, and its lack of at least egress into the rear of the shopping center. This would appear to be of paramount concern in an evacuation or other emergency scenario. Would the district consider approaching the shopping center to establish the kind of relationship necessary to provide for a traffic management plan that addresses these concerns?

A: The district might have some interest in this discussion especially because it relates to safety.  However, obviously, it is premature to conduct such a discussion.  The Board is giving serious consideration to conducting another traffic engineering study.  I'm sure the topic of emergency evacuation will be a part of this study including recommendations.

I greatly appreciate the district's willingness to respond to these queries, but I'm not sure about how establishing any form of dialogue with a long-standing, major commercial neighbor to their property could be considered "premature".

As of last week, the District is still considering another traffic engineering study. That's a good idea - the first one seems to betray some thinking for which I cannot think of better terms than "isolationist" and "counter-intuitive". I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to try and get my car out of that lower parking lot in an emergency, with only one way in and out. 


Conclusions

1. These two conflicts seem to have at their root a fundamental lack of communication caused by two different sets of circumstances. In the case of the Pink House, the neighborhood wasn't considered a vital stakeholder in the process because there wasn't any legal justification for it. There appear to be strong opinions on both sides of that argument. 

As a consequence, Sewickley Borough may be encouraged to evaluate those areas of the borough that are designated for historic review. It's been 25 years since the last historic district was codified as part of their ordinance, and it's hard to fathom how an area that showcases examples such as the Pink House could be left out.

2. In the case of Leetsdale, the school district appeared to engage in some insular thinking here. Judging from the reactions of several borough officials (some with expertise in these areas), the draft plan for "improving" traffic flow, combined with a seemingly inexplicable lack of communication with the Shopping Center, made the entire initial exercise seem ham-handed.

District administration and the school board also appeared to fail by not taking into account some political factors - two elected officials, including the President of Council, having their properties potentially targeted without an attempt at communicating proactively with them, and other property owners,  in advance.

It also didn't help when the President of the School Board mentioned the "nuclear option" of eminent domain so early in the debate - it seemed to betray some thinking on his part that they're the big, bad school district, and they'll "negotiate" from a position of strength.  Perhaps Quaker Valley could do itself and its constituents a favor by refocusing themselves on the fact that they are, first and foremost, public servants.

3. In the process of reading, listening, and asking questions, I've found that the reaction of Leetsdale Borough appears to be justified, but that they may have also contributed to their own indignation. There seemed to be a lack of continuity in determining what kind of information the borough had, when they had it, and who was responsible for conveying it to the remainder of borough government, as well as citizens, for substantive action and follow-up.

This bolsters my opinion, expressed last year, that the lack of a 'point person' to represent the borough on a daily basis, and coordinate the relationships between governmental entities and other stakeholders, hampers the borough's ability to operate credibly and efficiently.

4. The media seemed to play a decisive role in communicating facts and information, and may have even become part of the story a bit. From the possible leveraging of long-term relationships, to "investigations" of when things are enforced and when they're not, the reporting was nonetheless relevant and enjoyable. The online presentations and user commentary cemented the value of both hyperlocal news-gathering and regional specialty reporting.

5. At the end of it all, it seems that reasoned (if at times impassioned) discourse has triumphed in creating a pathway for which the two sides in each of these disputes can navigate their differences, and perhaps arrive at a solution that is in the best possible interest of everyone concerned.

This is perhaps an example of how America functions best - informed citizens engaged in civil debate to air and resolve differences, with respect as a solid foundational value, and a free press (including the Internet) to make sure that the facts are available to everyone.

Have a great week ahead.

File Under 'Cart Before the Horse'

The Post-Gazette reported Wednesday that State Sen. Lisa Baker (R-Luzerne Co.) got a bill through her Senate Veterans Affairs and Emergency Preparedness committee (an interesting combination there) that would require energy companies drilling in the Marcellus Shale to:

• Draft and file Emergency Operations Plans with local emergency response authorities
• Post this and other emergency information at drilling sites, so as to be easily referenced by personnel when needed
• Ascertain the Latitude/Longitude (GPS) coordinates of all drilling sites, and assure that wellsite personnel, responders, and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) are aware of them.
  

This is an excellent idea, although I'm wondering out loud how such a set of requirements did not exist previously via existing rulemaking or legislation. It's not as if drilling, mining, or other heavy industrial activities in rural areas haven't occurred here before. Something that Sen. Baker's office put in their press release may explain this a little better than I can:

"It is extremely important for the gas industry to coordinate emergency response plans with first responders and state and local officials," Baker said. "This issue is too important to leave up to voluntary compliance."

Is 'voluntary compliance' with rules and requirements that may change by municipality, the norm or the exception? Let's hope it's the latter, and that the full Senate, House, and Gov. Corbett will show the same enthusiasm for this bill. Something like this should have been in place before a single drill bit breached Pennsylvania soil in search of gas from the Marcellus Shale. It seems long overdue.

In a related matter, the Post-Gazette also committed much ink in this past Sunday's edition to the plight of rural Pennsylvanians without adequate mobile telephone service and broadband Internet connections.

The P-G's story focused on Sullivan County, where many components of public service delivery systems risk being overwhelmed with activity related to drilling, and things that 9-1-1 operators in many areas take for granted, such as GPS coordinates for calls received from mobile phones, are non-existent in the majority of circumstances.

The influx of personnel and capital from energy companies will likely help foment a more rapid deployment of these capabilities; the private sector seems more flexible and responsive to issues and opportunities than the public sector when it comes to these kinds of issues. That is the essence of capitalizing on what the Marcellus has to offer. However, without adequate safeguards and planning contingencies that Sen. Baker's legislation would likely help provide, what is the potential cost to the region's quality of life?

I should probably state here and now that I am not opposed to drilling - that is an unrealistic stance in a country, and a region, largely built on this type of activity. I am opposed to allowing it to proceed without a strong, responsive, efficient, and empowered system of checks, balances, and meaningful enforcement. These efforts too often seem to always be playing catch-up and politics with what is really going on in the field.

Speaking of what's going on in the field, Sewickley Patch reported yesterday that the drivers of at least two large trucks were cited recently for being overweight on municipal roadways. This may be just the beginning of a trend when there's frack water to be hauled to wellsites...

Let's hope that Senator Baker's bill is the first step in a better direction, and that those improvements in access to technology in rural areas that may be a consequence of energy development do not come at the price of the communities themselves.

Also, please remember those that have paid the ultimate price for our freedom while you're enjoying this Memorial Day weekend. I'll be working, but remembering as well, and not just about that.

Until next time...

Hey, My Kid Goes to CMU

Depending upon your life experience and/or geographical location, the title of this post can mean a lot of different things to different people. For me, last week's news of the Mesa State College Board of Trustees voting to change the name of the institution to Colorado Mesa University brought to me a decidedly mixed reaction, mainly because I focused on the new initials and associated them with the Pittsburgh institution that most readily came to mind. The resulting disconnect was kind of obvious.

Carnegie-Mellon University here in Pittsburgh already owns the "cmu.edu" Internet domain, and the recognition that comes with it. There is also Central Michigan University, but no others that pop up readily on a Google search.

Aside from the esoteric, yet overly-stressed-about-in-some-corners approach to this change, I seriously doubt that anyone will confuse the two institutions. One is a prestigious private university with many high-profile alumni. The other is part of the public higher education system in Colorado, with a reputation for a decent learning environment, recent significant growth in both size and coursework offered, and an administration with solid political connections.

My son goes to the "new" CMU in Colorado. He enjoys it there, and feels he is getting a very good education and access to other opportunities. As a parent, I can't help but be happy with that, no matter what they decide to plaster on the signs, business cards, and letterhead.

If one were going to compare Mesa State/Colorado Mesa to a college in the Pittsburgh area, a more appropriate choice would be Robert Morris University, across the Ohio River from us in Moon Township. RMU had it's own naming crisis, a dispute with similarly named institution in Chicago that seemed to be resolved in its favor.

As it happens, Leslie's daughter Gianna has been accepted to the Pennsylvania RMU, and plans to start in the fall.

As a child, I remember the suburban campus as Robert Morris Junior College, just as many in Grand Junction remember Mesa College as a 2-year institution. Both schools have experienced prodigious growth over recent years - while Robert Morris is a private school with a over 200 acres of land to grow on, Mesa State has used its status as an arm of the State of Colorado to grow where it can, as it is exempt from local zoning and development regulations, including fire codes as has been discussed here previously.

To be fair, Mesa State has been a willing partner with the City of Grand Junction in identifying areas for redevelopment. The City's recent efforts to gather public comment for a long-term blueprint of the North Avenue corridor echo this, but the one meeting I attended felt like the college was an 800-pound gorilla looming invisibly over the proceedings.

The Mesa State trustees' recent vote to expand west to Seventh Street emphasizes both the importance of a planning effort, and the City's otherwise anemic efforts at developing a plan without a binding agreement with the college as to how and where they will grow. Otherwise, this has the potential to be another example of development outstripping the City's ability to respond to it, especially when the culprit is an arm of the government, exempt from both local zoning and taxation.

Here's to a bright future for Colorado Mesa University, Robert Morris University, and my two favorite students. May they not grow too fast, too soon.

Have a great week ahead.

Citizenship At Work -Persigo Perspectives

This has been a fairly extraordinary week in terms of local citizens influencing government over and above the traditional method at the polls. These efforts ranged from grassroots activism and community organization to using the available tools to obtain relief from the actions of elected representatives. In the end, both seemed to echo the will of the people, or at least the will of a people determined to get their point across, and knowing how to do it.

I'll get into the first example today.

Monday's Grand Junction City Council meeting involved hearing the appeal by residents of the unincorporated 29 3/4 Road area on Orchard Mesa of the City's decision to allow the construction and operation of a gravel pit on annexed land at the end of the roadway.

Council's decision to overturn the Planning Commission approval is laudable. The residents of this area saw the problem, did their homework, worked the system, and put their arguments forward in a clear and forthright manner. They still got caught between a rock and the Persigo Agreement.

They then sought legal representation and put together an appeal (click on Attach 8) impressive in its scope and historical perspective, which now appears to have transcended the convoluted and unsteady alliance that is the manner in which the City and County have agreed to allow growth to occur.

I must give the City credit for the extraordinary availability of public records online. To be able to view City Council meetings live or via archived video is excellent in and of itself. Additionally, the perspective that can be obtained from these online records is also extremely interesting when comparing the past to the present. Consider the minutes of a joint County Commissioners / City Council meeting on October 13, 1998, the date that the Persigo Agreement was approved and signed by both bodies.

In these minutes, several of those testifying are documented as stating that they had just seen or just been made aware of the agreement's existence. This included then-State Representative Matt Smith.

One citizen brought up Section 42 of the Agreement:

"Any zoning or land use decision undertaken by the City whose persons who own property within the area of the City’s standard notification, and which is not within the City’s limits, shall be entitled to the same rights of appeal and participation in the land use review process as City residents."

This would appear to be what allowed the residents of the 29 3/4 Road neighborhood the ability to appeal the gravel pit decision. It would seem that Persigo giveth, not just taketh away.

Then-County Commission Chairman Jim Baughman, the only member of either body to cast a "no" vote on the agreement, also objected to the apparent haste with which the agreement was being considered, and was also prescient in his analysis of the impacts:

"(The) biggest disadvantage is that it continues and makes a bad situation worse. It continues the erratic, irregular municipal boundaries of the City of Grand Junction for decades. The hop-scotch method of delivering municipal services and defining the boundary of the City of Grand Junction and Mesa County will be inter-dispersed for years to come."

Contrast the above with minutes of the May 10, 2010 joint meeting of City Council and the County Commission, AKA "the Persigo Board", specifically to deal with Persigo-related issues. At this particular meeting, both of the applicants for inclusion into the 201 Sewer District withdrew their applications, leaving the most interesting part of the meeting; a discussion of the processes surrounding the Persigo Agreement in the wake of the adoption of the city's Comprehensive Plan.

The discussion as documented in the minutes illustrates what feels to me like a disconnect between the two governing bodies, as well as a validation of concerns that I've expressed here previously.

Here are some excerpts:

"Commission Chair (Craig) Meis said that he would like to see the lines better correlate with where growth is taking place and to reduce further checker board annexation that is now inside the 201 Boundary. The Persigo Boundary is causing the checker board annexation now inadvertently. There are disconnected service patterns because of the checker board annexation and it would be helpful to look at this to ensure that services are not being duplicated in adjacent areas.

Councilmember (Tom) Kenyon agreed with the checker board pattern description but said it is an operational issue. It is disjunctive and dysfunctional for the service providers and he would like to see that being made more efficient but it is a challenge because of the people who do not want to be annexed.

Council President (Teresa) Coons said that it does sound like a discussion on how to best provide service is necessary and they can put it on a future agenda to continue that discussion.

Commission Chair Meis said that they either need let it die and look at future amendments to the Boundary or make a request for information that would demonstrate the issues. Discussions on this have continued far too long.

(Former) County Administrator (Jon) Peacock said that what is unique with the Comprehensive Plan is that they planned significant urban areas that are outside the 201 Boundary. There is a lot of land planned for future urban development that will fall under the County’s land use jurisdiction and it would take a long time for appropriate infrastructure to get to those areas. That will likely result in property owners asking for development which may create situations where the landowner must wait for development to get to them. If it is left as business as usual, it sets up future decisions outside the Comprehensive Plan. They are also wrestling with the questions of annexation patterns and checkerboard annexation patterns and the confusion it creates with the public. The question is if there is a more rational way to step out with either annexation or service delivery."

So there is a sensitivity toward the effect of patchwork, or "checkerboard" annexations on service delivery efficiency and general public confusion as to who governs what. This is heartening to see. I miss Jon Peacock. I hope he enjoys Aspen.

So what is to be done? It doesn't seem that there's a great deal of consensus about that:

"Council President Coons agreed that it is frustrating to keep postponing discussion so she asked Staff if they have a suggestion on a better way to proceed.

County Administrator Peacock said that they have not spent time analyzing alternatives but there probably are a set of alternatives that could be developed if Staff is given direction to do so.

City Manager (Laurie) Kadrich said that Staff has brought forward what has been asked, no forced annexation, only if the property owner wants to be included. Options have not been discussed because they have not originated from the property owners.

Council President Coons said that it takes Staff time and resources to develop alternatives and asked if there is the capacity to do that.

County Administrator Peacock said from the County’s perspective, given the slow down, even with staffing reductions, there is no better time to do that with the current low level of development.

City Manager Kadrich stated she has a different perspective; the City Planning and Public Works Department has been reduced by 29 positions in the last nine months. They are looking at a different model of operation for implementing the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Development Code. Some of the wisdom is to leave the Comprehensive Plan alone for a period of time. The City is in a different spot as far as staffing and resources."

Up to this point, my concerns about the effects of annexation have centered on the effects of expanding City boundaries on existing public safety services. I've written and/or spoken to Council on the subject numerous times. Even in an economic slowdown when development is minimal, there should be a level of preparedness for the possibility of the resumption of development in response to improvement in the energy sector, for example.

It sounds as if the City has gutted those departments responsible for managing the process and impacts of development that isn't here right now. How do they expect to be ready when it comes back? The Grand Valley will again be in a reactive posture, and behind the curve.

This isn't to say that our elected officials aren't sensitive to some issues surrounding development. They proved as much with the reversal of the gravel pit approval. They do seem to have some differences in perspective that translate to frustration:

"Council President Coons said her concern with having rigid (annexation) guidelines. Although they are not seeing a lot of development right now, when economy changes that could result in requests being automatically denied.

Commissioner (Janet) Rowland said that the Board just needs to look at the guidelines, to see what there is now, and what should be changed.

Council President Coons said the guidelines can be distributed as they are written now and asked the Board if they want to set a date for a future discussion.

Commissioner Rowland stated that the Board always agrees to continue to say they will talk about it but they never talk about it."

Fellow blogger Gene Kinsey, who as a City Councilmember voted for the Persigo agreement, has written in the past that cooperation between city and county elected officials had been hard to come by before the agreement, to a point that a discussion like the one above may not have even been possible. He was critical of a post I wrote last year that placed most of the responsibility on City Council and not enough on the Commissioners to get things moving on Persigo revisions and annexation reform - before the next wave of growth is upon us. After reading these accounts of government in action, I'm in agreement with Gene - both sides have an equal responsibility to work together.

If you're interested, read the full text of the minutes of the two meetings that are summarized above. Our key elected officials have had 12 years to figure out that something is broken - one predicted it, and all appear to admit it now. What will it take to effect the kind of changes necessary to assure that responsible, efficient growth is the rule, and not the exception?

It feels to me that these officials are in an airplane set to automatic pilot, in level cruise flight east over the Grand Valley at around 9500 feet. The 10,000-foot Grand Mesa is looming in the cockpit window - but no one wants to change any of the controls.

Have a good weekend.