Lower Salford residents oppose high-density housing
I write in response to Bob Keeler’s article published on August 3 titled, “Hearing begins on rezoning request.” I was in attendance at that hearing in Lower Salford Township(LST). At issue are rezoning requests by a developer which proposes to build 87 townhomes and 46 twin homes on two separate undeveloped parcels currently owned by Nationwide Insurance. An agreement of sale exists between Nationwide and the developer, but terms of the agreement are not known. Neither of the proposals is allowable under current zoning.
Though the combinations of potential uses presented by the developer as allowable were described in Keeler’s article, his wording fails to make clear that these scenarios are hypothetical and worst-case examples. The fact is no development plans along the lines of these scenarios currently exist or are under consideration. The developer’s perceived intention was to frighten residents into acceptance of a supposedly more benign proposal.
During the hearing, the developer noted that county and regional planning “... allows the areas with infrastructure, such as the Harleysville area, to accept new growth ..” Here’s what accepting new growth in the past has meant for me: my township and county taxes have risen 300 percent and my school taxes 250 percent during my 30 years of residence in Harleysville. Why? The answer lies in research called Cost of Community Services studies. One such study in 2006 by Timothy Kelsey, a professor of Agricultural Economics at Penn State, concludes that residential land generally contributes less in taxes than it costs for services provided such as schools, roads, and sewers. In contrast, commercial, industrial, farm and open lands help taxpayers by paying more than they require in services. The results of his Pennsylvania study are consistent with other Pennsylvania studies and with similar studies from across the U.S.
Asked whether the developer’s purchase of the properties was contingent upon approval of the rezoning, the developer’s attorney declined to reveal any terms of its agreement of sale with Nationwide. That lack of response opens the possibility that the developer could opt out of the agreement of sale should the rezoning be denied. What then? A local dairy farmer, Darryl Knechel, has raised crops on these parcels for many years under a lease agreement with Nationwide and its predecessor, Harleysville Insurance. I received an email on July 31 in response to a query I made to Nationwide about these properties. In the response, the Senior VP of Corporate Real Estate stated ... “Prior to listing the land for sale, we proactively reached out to Darryl Knechel who currently leases the land for farm use. Mr. Knechel indicated he was not interested in purchasing the property.” However, Knechel spoke during the hearing and, as quoted by Keeler, indicated telling Nationwide he was “... interested in buying the land... “but “... couldn’t match the price a developer would pay.” Perhaps negotiation between these parties would clear up this misunderstanding and result in a sale the community would heartily support. Should these negotiations fail, the benevolent act of donation typically results in substantial tax benefits to a corporation. Perhaps Nationwide should consider donation of these parcels to LST and enjoy the added benefit of gaining the lasting gratitude of its neighbors in this community.
Residents of LST are saying “no” to rezoning for high-density housing. Will our elected Board of Supervisors act on our wishes or those of a profiteering developer? The next public hearing is on Sept. 5, 2018. Jean Campbell Lower Salford, Pa