-
Dear Associates of CCoET,
The comments below are in response to the numerous false and/or misleading statements being made by members of the Exeter Township School Board concerning the ongoing attempt by the school district to take land on the outskirts of town in order to construct schools. As you are aware, CCoET had successfully challenged the Exeter Township Supervisors' approval for conditional use on the 110 acre Bausher farm on Ritters Road. The School District continued to waste taxpayer money by appealing the decision in the Commonwealth Courts of Appeals where the three judges upheld the decision made by the Honorable Judge Lash. Now the School Board has chosen to continue wasting taxpayer money and further delaying the construction of the much needed extra classroom space. The school board also continues to make statements that, in the opinion of the CCoET Executive Committee, are at the very least, misleading and at the very worst, untruthful. The letter below highlights some of those recent statements made by school board members, as reported in local newspapers. CCoET's response to those comments are listed below each. Review the letter to better understand the Reality of this issue, not just what the School Board wants you to know.
-
- Please, tell your friends and neighbors about this.
-
- Thank you
-
-
Andrew Yawger
- President/Chairman
-
CCoET, Inc.
*******************************************************************************************************
As reported in the News of Southern Berks:
- The school board now wants a larger panel of state judges to hear the issue. "I feel we have no other option, " stated [school board member]
Reality: A larger panel of judges DID hear the issue and sided with the decision made by Judge Lash. 3 judges from the Commonwealth Court of Appeals heard the case in July 2007 and found that Judge Lash made the correct decision.
- "We are reacting to the actions of a small minority." [school board member] added, insisting that the CCET is not considering the financial and educational needs of the community.
Reality: 5 times more citizens of this township signed a petition to keep the AP zoning that did not allow schools and other structures than those who were in favor of it. Public outcry at meetings and hearings led to the reversal of the zoning change to AP before CCoET was even formed. The school district already owns 189 acres of land and the cheapest alternative is to build on the 40.5 acres (M. L. Lausch Site). This would be a $4M reduction of costs to the taxpayers. Also, proper planning for additions and future construction on lands already owned by the district would prevent the need to purchase other land. As for the accusation about CCoET not considering the educational needs of the community, the group had given the school board many alternatives, many of which were suggested by the Township Planning Commission and by the Board of Supervisors, yet the school board, wanting to build Taj Mahal's and have 90 acres left over for ball fields, made the decision to delay construction of a school on lands already owned. The School Board is guilty of not considering the needs of the community and the education of our children.
- [school board member] noted that the Bausher property is a central location that would accommodate the district's future needs. Large enough for three schools, he said it would likely be the last land the district would ever need to buy.
Reality: The Bausher property is on the outskirts of our developed township. It is NOT centrally located and would require upgrades in services such as sewers, roads, emergency service plans, and it would also be placing a larger traffic burden in an area that cannot support it (based on actual traffic studies). The area also has many severe accidents already and adding more traffic will only increase the hazard and lead to the injuries and deaths of many others.
- [school board member] said, “That (the statement above) could save the taxpayers millions of dollars in the long run, he said. Now, the battle over the land is costing money and increasing the length of time students will be in relocatable classrooms.”
Reality: The battle over the land is one entirely chosen by the school board and is a burden on the community only due to the decisions made by the school board.
- [school board member] said, “While the CCET is celebrating its win in court because it would preserve farmland, the court did not overturn the township's decision for that reason.”
Reality: The judges overturned the decision based on the School District's submission of a plan that was in violation of many articles of the Exeter Township Zoning Ordinance and the Municipalities Planning Code. In other words, what the school district was proposing was ILLEGAL. Judge Lash reviewed the matter and realized it was illegal and reversed the decision. The school board wasted the taxpayers' money still attempting to push through their illegal plan and 3 State Judges decided that Judge Lash was correct that the submission was illegal. Many aspects of this decision are worth rejoicing including: protection of farmland, preventing a $4M cost to the taxpayers', preventing much more cost to the taxpayers since road improvements and other service improvements would not be needed, and not adversely impacting the safety and well being of the residents.
- The judge invalidated the conditional use approval for what [school board member] deemed minor issues that the district would have complied with later.
Reality: The concept of complying later is ILLEGAL. This is not allowed under the ordinances and codes. The School Board's Solicitor failed to ensure compliance with the law and the school board backed the submission of ILLEGAL plans.
- The district's application didn't mark out which land would be used for schools and which would be retained by the Baushers, and it didn't designate sufficient handicapped parking. Also, one of the proposed access drives to the new school wouldn't meet PennDOT requirements. [school board member] equated it to a crime suspect being set free on a technicality.
Reality: The school board, by making the above comment, trivializes the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. These requirements are set forth for the safety and well-being of the residents of this community and follow not only local but also county and state regulations. The 18 page decision by Judge Lash was very explicit about the various violations and non-compliance issues with the school board's submission. The 3 judges in the State Court made other observations about the ILLEGALITY of the school board's submission and incorporated them in their 22 page decision.
|
