Bucks County Herald  - October 20, 2010

Rouse Conservation Easement, Tinicum Artists, Teen Driving, Catholic Lobby

 

Dear Friends,

 

            Good morning. Before I get to the reason why 50 state legislatures and the U.S. Congress have outlived their usefulness, let me turn to several positive items about Tinicum Township.

            A few days ago, one of my rowing friends put the finishing touches to a conservation easement on his 36-acre farm in Tinicum Township. With the exception of three acres reserved for residential use, his (I’ll call him “Andy”) property will be preserved forever. Several years ago, He placed a conservation easement on another Tinicum property.

            Tinicum Township, the Heritage Conservancy and the Bucks County government participated in making this dream come true. The public record shows that Andy received 50 percent of his farm’s value…about $185,000, which equates to $5,100 per acre.

            Every imagined constituency wins with a conservation easement. Floura and fauna need no municipal services. Preserved land requires no schools, water and sewer lines or roads to be built. Residents are happy because taxes shouldn’t escalate. And real estate values increase.

Why?

Realtors tell me that most new buyers want to live next to land, which is protected from development. And while a property owner receives only half of the land’s value, he not only receives income tax advantages, but history shows that land with a conservation easement quickly appreciates to its original value. I’ll bet that Andy will be able to sell his 36 acres for more than $10,000 per acre some day…precisely because the land has a conservation easement on it.

            It’s a win, win for everyone! I hope you readers who have land that you want future generations to enjoy will consider conservation easements.

            The second news item also involves Tinicum. By a vote of 2 to 1, Tinicum Superviors will send revisions to a proposed ordinance regulating artists who work and sell their craft from their home studios to the Bucks County Planning Commission for review.

Supervisor Boyce Budd told me that the proposed ordinance will allow artists to perform their work in outbuildings or outside as long as they comply with all township regulations; allow artists to hire up to two paid employees to work on their premises; and allow for limited outdoor storage of materials subject to setbacks and buffering by trees, buildings or fencing.

Budd said that the proposed ordinance will not exempt anyone from regulations relating to noise, fumes, gas, heat, odor, glare, vibrations, storage or waste disposal; will not permit any show windows, display or signage other than what the current zoning permits; and not allow expansion of any commercial rights.

            The supervisors want to protect the rustic and non-commercial look of Tinicum, while protecting the rights of its growing artist presence. “We’re trying to protect our people,” Supervisor Boyce Budd said. “I’m essentially very leery of law that intrudes into people’s property besides issues of health, safety, and so forth.”

            We need politicians like Boyce Budd.

 

            Item.

            You could build a case for throwing 50 state legislatures and the congress to the wolves. We’re two weeks from the midterm elections as well as Pennsylvania’s governor and state legislature. In a minute, I’ll get to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s belief that a Third Party is needed. Let me give two reasons why the Pennsylvania legislature has become irrelevant.

            First, would you take a guess why the legislature refuses to change the statute of limitations and allow past sex abuse cases to see the light of day? I can think of two powerful lobbies that don’t want the past to be revisited…the public schools and the Catholic Church. (There are tons of cases where teachers sexually abused children.) But neither public schools, the Catholic Church nor insurers want old sex abuse cases to resurface. It’s all about protecting assets rather than children, and the legislature’s turned a blind eye to righting the wrong.

            Second example, teen driving.

            Every state legislator knows that a 16 year-old driver is more dangerous when he’s carrying teen passengers. A teen driving with one teen passenger doubles the risk of a crash. Two or more teen passengers create four to five times the risk as compared with driving alone. A Johns Hopkins University study shows that the odds of a 16 year old dying in a car with a teen driver increases to 182 percent with three or more teen passengers. In 2008, more than 8,000 motor vehicle crashes in Pennsylvania involved a 16 or 17-year-old driver.

            But the Pennsylvania legislature does nothing about it. Why? Because the Democratic and Republican leadership in both houses won’t permit bills to get out of committee. The legislators are like sheep…they won’t oppose their party’s leadership.

            Theresa Podguski leads public affairs for AAA in the East Penn Region, which comprises Upper Bucks and Montgomery Counties and most of the Lehigh Valley. I asked her what could be done when the legislature won’t restrict teen drivers?

            “Without more restrictive legislation, parents can be stricter than the law,” she answered. “Parents need to be parents,” Podguski continued. “Parental involvement is critical in developing safe and prepared teen drivers.”

            Isn’t it ironic that this week is National Teen Driver Safety Week?

            If you’re as frustrated with the legislature as I am, why not contact your representatives? Ask them whether they’re willing to buck their legislative leadership and force action on these bills? Send them an email if you don’t want to use the phone.

           

Final item…Thomas Friedman’s case for a third party.

            “There’s a level of disgust with Washington, D.C., and our two-party system- so much so that I am ready to hazard a prediction: Barring a transformation of the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is going to be a serious third party candidate in 2012, with a serious political movement behind him or her,” Friedman wrote for the New York Times (Oct. 3).

Friedman’s frustrated with our stagnating two-party duopoly that has presided over America’s steady incremental decline. I’m with him.

            “We simply will not be able to do the things we need to do as a country to move forward with all the vested interests that have accrued around these two parties,” Friedman continued.

            “We need a third party that will talk about education reform, without worrying about offending unions; financial reform, without worrying about losing donations from Wall Street; corporate tax reductions to stimulate jobs, without worrying about offending the far left; energy and climate reform, without worrying about offending the far right and coal-state Democrats; and proper health care reform, without worrying about offending insurers and drug companies,” Friedman added.

            “These two parties are lying to you,” he concluded. “They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests.”

            A-men, brother.

            Sincerely,

            Charles Meredith