Forks Business Articles

Two interesting articles appear in today’s Express-Times. The first focuses on the still idle and empty Laneco/Giant store. While we are glad that this issue is being brought back to the public eye, we are sorry that the reporter did not mention how many other empty storefronts there are, and have been in Forks Township. One only needs to look on either side of the Giant Grocery Store to see what we are referring to.

Our readers might recall that this has been a hot issue for the leadership of Residents Who Care, long before RWC was formed and while we were still affiliated with another organization. Way back before the Board of Supervisors spent millions of dollars on our new Municipal Taj Mahal, we advocated converting the old Laneco into our new municipal offices. Great frontage to the main artery of our town, ADA compliant, tons of parking and the fact that it was behind the community park made this a logical move. Unfortunately ego and not fiscal common sense ruled.

As for the second article, we find it fascinating that with most of the retail operations being opened for less than a month at Towne Center at Sullivan Trail a business boom can be declared. Please do not misunderstand, we sincerely hope that these business succeed, especially as we can ill afford any more empty storefronts in the township, but we feel that it is a little bit early to declare this center “successful”. After all, were not the same words about the Giant Center at one point in time?

We also think that this quote (“Abrunzo said the bar was drawn to the location and its proximity to Lafayette College”) about the forthcoming Big Woody’s was very telling. Remember when this was billed as a “family establishment” and geared towards benefiting little league kids and their families during the liquor license proceeding? Pretty obvious by this quote who the real target audience is.

These issues illustrate even further why we believe the new township manager MUST have verifiable strong business development and retention experience skills as otherwise we will end up with even more empty commerical and industrial buildings.

Town Manager

So we read this morning that the Board of Supervisors is still proceeding with interviewing applicants for the town manager position. Our concerns remain the same.

1. We have gone through two town managers in five years. In both cases lucrative severance packages were provided. What processes are NOW in place to make certain that previous mistakes are not repeated which, proved very costly to the taxpayers of Forks Township?
2. Will this town manager be an actual resident of Forks Township? The last two were not and we believe this is crucial. Shouldn't our town manager be equally vested in our future success and/or failure? Currently there is no residency requirement.
3. Has an updated job description been written for this position? A big chunk of the last town manager's job description contained finance duties. Prior to her departure the Board hired a finance manager. Will the reduction of duties be correlated with a lower salary for the new position?
4. We feel that a big qualification of this position should be that the person has a proven track record of working with established businesses to keep them viable as well as success in attracting the right kind of business and industry for the township. After all, don't we already have enough empty buildings and store fronts?

Still seems to us like the Board of Supervisors continues to find ways to deflect work for themselves by hiring all this high priced management. Then again, by having a town manager in place, it becomes one more wall between themselves and their constituency.

The challenge formally begins

We wish to thank the 50+ people who attended last night’s Zoning Hearing Board meeting. Your interest in our zoning challenge as well as the current state of Forks Township is greatly appreciated.

The Express-Times and the Morning Call reported on the meeting, though there was not an online version of Joe Nixon’s piece, we are including a scanned version of the article from the paper below and we apologize for any difficulty in opening or viewing the piece.

Sadly, the current Board of Supervisors as well as recent administrations has made a mess of our community.

• We are heavily in debt
• Our roads are overcrowded and congested
• Citizens feel helpless and hopeless
• Many of our neighbors who never had water problems in the past are experiencing major floods after storms
• Our public schools are performing badly and struggling to keep pace with the growth that we have thrown at them
• And for anyone who has lived here at least three years, we have seen our quality of life erode significantly

Our challenge to 298 is very important. A side issue to all of this is our hope that the message of the people is heard by Supervisors David (“Dave”) Hoff, Donald (“Don”) Miller, C. David Howell and John Ackerman that the citizens demand more and that if they cannot deliver, step aside and let others lead who are willing to represent the people fairly and with respect.

While we remain highly confident that we will win this challenge, everyone must remain vigilant. The next hearing date is scheduled for Monday, November 20, 2006, 7:30pm at the Municipal Building and we urge you to attend.

Two got it right

It is not often that we agree with Supervisor C. David Howell but, he got it right last night.

Bethlehem-based developer KMRD, LP is proposing 182 homes on 435 acres on tracts near Richmond and Kuebler roads and Kesslersville and Uhler roads. This is the SECOND extension given for the King's Farm subdivision and considering that they have yet to even conduct the needed soil tests, we agree with Mr. Howell when he said "enough is enough."

Please keep in mind that this developer group (a.k.a. Zawarski) are also the same people who wish to build 3,000 new residential units (apartments, townhouses and mobile homes) in the Farmland Preservation District.

Kudos to Supervisor Howell as well to Supervisor Bonnie Nicholas for their vote opposing this extension. Even though Mr. Howell and Ms. Nicholas were thwarted by Supervisors David Hoff, John Ackerman and Donald ("Don") Miller, we applaud Nicholas and Howell for their efforts on behalf of the residents.

Keeping our eye on the ball

Monday, October 23, 2006, 7:30pm, at the Forks Municipal Building our challenge to Zoning Ordinance #298 will be heard by the Zoning Hearing Board.

Despite whatever rhetoric you may hear about this matter, the "issue" is simple; spot zoning.

We have a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances to guide and balance development within Forks Township. Making special allowances to suit one developer is wrong, and in our opinion will be the tipping point for other developers to request, and to be granted zoning exceptions to fit their specific needs and agendas.

Though it has been said 100 times before, we may indeed need another grocery store in Forks Township but we shouldn't upend our zoning ordinances and our comprehensive plan to do it.

We hope that our opponents don't turn Monday night into a circus and that they stick to the legal challenge presented; spot zoning.

We also hope that ALL Forks citizens attend this hearing as the outcome will surely affect every township resident for years to come.

We're taking your land!

So if we heard Solicitor Karl Kline at Thursday night's Planning Commission meeting correctly, if a certain land owner (John Yautz) in the township would not play ball, the township might condemn his land in order for a road to be put in. This is in regards to the Fort James III project.

Fortunately the Planning Commission did vote to take land from Tioga Pipe versus the land owner, John Yautz.

The Express-Times made no meanigful reference of this in their coverage, but thankfully the Morning Call did make some mention of it. Kudos to Supervisor John Ackerman for offering some other suggestions and special thanks to Dean Turner who was the lone voice on the Planning Commission to push for pursuing alternatives.

If you think that this is not that important, let's hope that the township doesn't decide to condemn your land. Between the ongoing favoritism shown to the developers versus the citizens, plus the matter of fact attitude by the Solicitor, as well as the lack of in-depth news coverage by the local media, you may be the last to know before a bulldozer shows up on your property.

Rascally rabbits

Wow, what a difference a few weeks makes!

At the last Planning Commission meeting Developer SamCar said that Weis Markets was NOT a definite for the Sullivan Trail/Uhler Road site. At this past Thursday's Planning Commission meeting Weis Markets said that they do plan to build on this site. Hmm, adding to the intrigue, SamCar also introduced alternate plans for a CVS just in case they lose the challenge to spot zoning ordinance 298.

Maybe, the real plan is to scale down the size of the Weis Markets in order to build BOTH a Weis Markets AND a CVS on this site if for some inexplicable reason we don't win the challenge to spot zoning ordinance 298. Wow, if this happens, talk about an even worse traffic nightmare than if we end up with one or the other! You gotta give SamCar credit, the PR/Spin battle is obviously gearing up big time.

What everyone MUST remember is this. We are NOT against another grocery store in Forks Township. We are however 100% against spot zoning.

We love a good mystery as much as anyone, but with our current Board of Supervisors, the story lines just seem to become more transparent as the days and developers roll on.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell-Forks style

We attended last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting and attempted to get answers to two questions.

1. Why did the township take time and resources to provide detailed information about our challenge to zoning ordinance change 298 on its “News” (General Info-News) page of the township website yet provide NO mention of the Zawarski-Maloney challenge to the Farmland Preservation zoning ordinance and the upcoming hearing dates?
2. We made inquiry to Hometown Press on Thursday, September 25, 2006 regarding advertising in the forthcoming township quarterly newsletter. We were we turned down immediately due to supposedly the publication being sold out. On Friday, September 26, 2006, other parties made inquiry to Hometown Press and there was NO mention of the publication being sold out of advertising space. Why did this happen?

Instead of getting answers from the Board, our spokesperson was treated rudely and with disrespect by Supervisor C. David Howell. Mr. Howell attempted to interrogate our spokesperson instead of answering valid questions raised by a township resident, why?

As for the ad, we understood that the township could decline any ad based on content however we were never given an opportunity to present our copy, why?

Lastly, we also took a moment to correct misinformation being distributed by groups like Forks Action Committee (FAC). On their website, regarding our challenge to zoning ordinance 298 they provided the following comment regarding the zoning appeal.

“For the grocery? Against it? You won't want to miss this hearing!”

This challenge has NOTHING to do with whether you favor or oppose a grocery store. This challenge is about spot zoning. We sincerely hope that in the future FAC will take steps to more accurately and responsibly report the facts than this piece of poor and inaccurate reporting did.

Developers Carte Blanche

If you have been concerned at what developers have done to our township over the last 10-15 years, you may not have seen anything yet!

According to this New York Times editorial, if Congress passes this bill, Developers will have an easier time to challenge local zoning decisions.

With 6 weeks left to the election, now is a great time to ask Senator Rick Santorum, Senate hopeful Bob Casey as well as Congressmen Charlie Dent and Congress hopeful Charles Dertinger where they stand on this crucial issue.