Thoughts on Middletown’s Sleighton referendum
The following is an open letter to Middletown Council Chairman Mark Kirchgasser concerning the proposal to buy a tract of land on Sleighton Farm:
I have read through the appraisal and the contract to purchase and have the following questions and comments.
First, I would like to state that my wife and I have been residents of the Township since 1978. We fully supported the original purchase of the open space and have been active users of the Darlington/Valley/Old Forge roads trails since their purchase.
It appears to me this proposed purchase is anything but transparent.
My reasons are as follows:
I requested via an RTK to determine how this situation was even proposed. Your township manager answered that all preliminary proceedings of this potential transaction were done in executive session. I realize land purchases are covered in Pa. law under the executive session rules; but these actions reek of underhandedness.
Looking in from the outside I would have thought that Elwyn would have come to the township soliciting to determine if there was an interest in the property and to submit a price. Typically, the seller proposes a sale price and the buyer accepts or counters with a price. In this case, the township engaged their attorney to hire an appraiser (I find this unusual) and the appraisal was based on the best use (residential).
There are many troubling references in the appraisal. First on page A-3 the appraiser references eight dilapidated buildings, saying they add no value to the subject land. The appraiser also states on page G-1 that there are no plans or costs available regarding development. Yet in your preservation referendum handout you reference preserving the buildings (the two buildings near the road look like better candidates for demolition than rehabilitation). Also, in your handout you state how much the taxes would increase, yet there is no mention of a budget increase for maintenance or the “proposed bridge” crossing Valley Road.
The appraiser raises concerns regarding environmental issues, the land along Valley Road has the pipeline easement. I would think this would be an environmental issue that would affect the value of the property.
The appraiser references fuel tanks. Appraiser goes on to say that no information was provided regarding the fuel tanks. No mention of how many fuel tanks there are. Disposing of any contents and remediation of the area where the tanks are is very expensive and not having investigated this situation is negligent.
The appraiser states “only persons with expert qualifications in the various fields of analysis can attest with certainty to the absence or presence of an environmental issue. If such concerns exist, the appropriate expert or experts should be engaged to evaluate the subject.”
The appraiser obviously has these concerns, or the appraiser would not have included this statement.
The appraiser references that a potential developer could approach the township zoning board for a variance. Of course, this is a possibility, but I believe it is unlikely because of the pipeline. The proposed development from years ago was dropped and never followed up on.
Earlier, I mentioned a budget for increased costs/maintenance of the proposed purchase. From my perspective, the maintenance on the existing trails has deteriorated the past several years. Many times, in the past I called the former township manager regarding improper behavior on the trail (campfires, alcohol consumption, drug paraphernalia, graffiti, etc.). The part of the Darlington Trail I am referencing is much more remote than what you are proposing. I think the easy access from Valley Road will make this open space a public nuisance very quickly and will result in the opposite of the good intention it should serve.
The township has been a poor steward of its current open space and were silent witnesses as the buildings owned by Elwyn/Sleighton Farms deteriorated in plain sight.
Now you and council would like to reward Elwyn/Sleighton for being bad neighbors by overcompensating them for the land and send many jobs to New Jersey (has the reduction of LST collections on Elwyn’s payroll been factored into your proposed financial forecasts (if any were done)?
Since, I mentioned maintenance in a prior paragraph, the Darlington trail (upper part) has been cut less frequently than in prior years.
As you know as a follow up to my original Right to Know request, I requested two additional items referenced in the appraisal (Due Diligence Report and a Phase I Environmental Report). They were both denied by your Right to Know officer. I did not take the time to look up the legal reference ascribed to the denial. But my question is why the denial? It appears you and council are attempting to hide something.
I would think you and your fellow council members would be less secretive after your dismal performance with the pipeline. Some other issues I have:
Why is there a bond issue needed? If the electorate approved the acquisition of the open space it would be much less expensive for Elwyn/Sleighton to merely hold a mortgage on the property. All the associated costs as outlined in your Preservation Referendum brochure would not be incurred.
In calculating the price, no allowance is calculated for the reduced marketability since the proposed parcel is invaded by the pipeline; also including in the price is an amount calculated for 1.581 acres for the road rights of way as described on page D-1 which are basically unusable (especially valued at the highest price).