Dear
Friends,
Good morning. “We’re reeling at this
point,” Pat Edwards, Executive Director of the Upper Bucks YMCA, exclaimed. She
had just learned that Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court had unanimously
overturned the Bucks County Common Pleas Court’s decision to permit Richland
Township to lease 15 acres of open space to the Y for $1 per year for 99 years.
The Commonwealth Court agreed with plaintiffs Jane,
Philip and Dorothy Steeley, plus Kenneth Hill, a fellow Richland Township
neighbor, that open space could not be used for a new $13 million Y facility.
Therefore, the 99-year lease with Richland was invalid. The Commonwealth
Court’s decision puts the Y’s expansion plans in limbo.
Richland has appealed. In a 2 to 1 verdict last
Monday night, supervisors Rick Orloff and Steve Tamburri voted to appeal. Mike
Zowniriw opposed.
“This [court
decision] came out of left field,” Tamburri began. “We were blind sided.”
“It was the proper decision,”
Richland Supervisor Mike Zowniriw countered. “It’s wrong to put buildings and
improvements on what has been dedicated to open space. The three judge panel
agreed with my interpretation of the ordinance,” Zowniriw continued. “I’ll
respect and support the their verdict. If a higher court ultimately says that
its OK for the Y [to occupy open space], I’d support building the best Y in the
land.”
Zowniriw praised Jane Steeley, the
spokeswoman for the plaintiffs. “Jane was a huge supporter of mine when I ran
[for supervisor] and continues to be.” Zowniriw took pains to emphasize that he
is not against the Y…a similar position, which Steeley takes. “I’ve worked for
the Y in other places where we’ve lived,” Zowniriw said. “I have a fond place
in my heat for the Y.”
Tamburri observed that Zowniriw
opposed Richland’s lease to the Y from the beginning. “His election campaign
was a tidal wave against developers,” Tamburri added.
“We never sued the Y,” Jane Steeley
told me. “The Y is a worthy cause. But they chose to be an interested party [in
the court cases] and spent their money. Richland gave the Y a great deal. The Y
had nothing to lose.
“We wanted to save open space,”
Steeley continued. She had served on Richland’s Planning Commission and the
Quakertown area regional planning committee for more than 10 years. “The open
space ordinances have been on the [Richland’s] books since 1975.
“Open space is not to have buildings
on the land,” she said. “The ordinance was never meant to allow public or
private facilities. The [court] victory was not for me but a victory for past
and present planning commissions.”
Still, the court of public opinion
lies ahead. Will area residents understand and agree with the four plaintiffs’
arguments for open space protection…or will the public view them unfavorably?
It will be interesting to see if the Y asks them for financial help.
In the meantime, the Y will have
critical choices to make. If the ruling holds, the Y will have to determine
whether to use funds it has already raised to buy land…and if so, where and at
what cost? Fortunately, the Y is debt free. It recently retired the mortgage,
put in place years ago, to buy the tennis facility on California Road and make
improvements to the building on Park Avenue in Quakertown.
Or, will the Y choose to continue to
limp along in two locations, waiting for a better day to dawn? Stay tuned.
Sincerely,
Charles Meredith