Petitions and voter registration forms will be available at the meeting. (So far, 915 signatures have been collected on petitions.)
All concerned citizens should attend and make their voices heard.
(Light refreshments will be served.)
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Calling all citizens! Public meeting this Sunday to discuss tax hike repeal and other issues
Petitions and voter registration forms will be available at the meeting. (So far, 915 signatures have been collected on petitions.)
All concerned citizens should attend and make their voices heard.
(Light refreshments will be served.)
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Columbia Spy's Predictions for 2019
• Assistant Borough Manager Georgianna Schreck will retire/resign.
• New Finance Manager Kyle Watts will move to another position within the borough.
• Four councillors up for election this fall will be swept out of office.
• Borough Manager Rebecca Denlinger will resign.
• Full-time Property Inspector Jay Frerichs will be promoted.
2018 Wrap-up: Citizens attacked for speaking out
"I would first like to address a concern that was raised following the last meeting. It was brought to my attention that a member of the public who spoke before this board voicing his concerns regarding the KOEZ was approached following the meeting and treated harshly. I'd encourage any member of the public wishing to speak before this board to do so without fear of being verbally attacked following our meetings. I'd appreciate it if members of the public resolved their concerns or disagreements at the podium and act with civility towards each other while you're on school grounds or here at the DAC."
- Columbia School Board President Keith Combs at December 18, 2018 Special School Board Meeting
The quote above is in response to an incident that allegedly occurred after the December 13th special school board meeting at the District Administration Center.
After Combs read the statement at the December 18 meeting, the citizen reported the second incident to those in attendance and later contacted police. According to the citizen, he is currently in the process of contacting a lawyer.
Columbia Spy has also experienced similar, but less threatening, verbal attacks on borough streets and businesses from the perpetrator of the second incident described above. In response police were contacted, and legal remedies are being sought.
The incidents described above are examples of bullying, harassment and attempted intimidation. Such behavior can lead to arrest and be addressed through legal means. Columbia News, Views & Reviews has also published an article on the incident(s), as well as information on bullying and harassment HERE.
The quote above is in response to an incident that allegedly occurred after the December 13th special school board meeting at the District Administration Center.
Attendees at December 13, 2018 school board meeting
It was reported by a citizen who had spoken at the meeting that he was verbally accosted with insults and profanity by members of another party afterwards. The attack was reportedly in response to his remarks opposing aspects of the KOEZ tax abatement program. Immediately after the incident, the citizen called Columbia Spy who subsequently contacted School Superintendent Tom Strickler, and later, School Board President Keith Combs. On December 18, the citizen was verbally attacked again by a person affiliated with the same party - this time at Stover's News Agency, with witnesses present.After Combs read the statement at the December 18 meeting, the citizen reported the second incident to those in attendance and later contacted police. According to the citizen, he is currently in the process of contacting a lawyer.
Columbia Spy has also experienced similar, but less threatening, verbal attacks on borough streets and businesses from the perpetrator of the second incident described above. In response police were contacted, and legal remedies are being sought.
The incidents described above are examples of bullying, harassment and attempted intimidation. Such behavior can lead to arrest and be addressed through legal means. Columbia News, Views & Reviews has also published an article on the incident(s), as well as information on bullying and harassment HERE.
2018 Wrap-up: What "lies" behind the fence . . .
Since it's now officially 2019, it's a good time to take a look back at some of issues and events of 2018. Here's one:
We previously speculated that the $32,000 "security fence" erected along Heritage Drive about a year ago was a taxpayer funded giveaway. Information recently obtained by Columbia Spy more-or-less verifies that it was and suggests that a pattern of "alternative facts" was provided to the public by borough officials.
At the November 2017 public works meeting, officials said the improvements were needed for privacy and aesthetics, and to resolve trespassing issues. Public Works Director Ron Miller said cottage owners told him that, due to the increased number of visitors to Columbia River Park, people are entering Riverfront Drive, a private road that runs through the tract. He said the new fence was a way to make a boundary. Mayor Leo Lutz added that the fence will also prevent encroachment on Heritage Drive by the cottage owners. “By putting the fence there, that's stopping that encroachment,” he said.
“They [cottage owners] thought they needed a fence for some privacy or some delineation between the property and the park,” Miller said.
Miller said the original plan for a fence on the boundary between Heritage Drive and the railroad tracks was nixed because Norfolk Southern, which owns the railroad, didn't want a fence that was only 25 feet from the center line of the tracks. Consequently, the fence was moved to other side of the road, toward the cottages. Officials are pleased that the borough and the railroad have been able to reach common ground on several projects, including this one. “Norfolk Southern is happy with the relationship we now are developing,” Lutz said.
At the September 2018 borough council meeting, however, other explanations were given. At the meeting, a resident asked what the purpose of the fence is. He noted that there are openings in the fence along the road (seven by our count, some several vehicles wide). The mayor explained that the fence was required by Norfolk Southern for “the sale of the property.” He said the company "apparently approved" the fence. "I think they're more concerned about people going out through the yards than they are going over the tracks," he said.
Columbia Spy subsequently contacted Norfolk Southern directly, and this is the text of an email response we received from the company on September 19, 2018:
"I have reached out to Norfolk Southern employees in our government relations and track engineering departments regarding your questions about the fence. As far as they know, Norfolk Southern did not have any conversations with Columbia officials about the wrought iron fence on the southern end of Heritage Drive and was not involved in its approval.
From Norfolk Southern’s perspective, if the fence was intended to protect railroad property, it would have been placed on the other side of the road, closer to the tracks, to try to deter people from trespassing onto the railroad right of way.
Over the past 10 to 15 years, Norfolk Southern has conveyed several parcels of property to the town. One of those parcels, I think, is pictured on the Columbia Spy website, the one that shows a chain link fence along an unpaved section of Heritage Drive, an area that I understand is used as a walking trail. Norfolk Southern did convey property to the town in this area near the COLA tower with a condition that the town install and maintain a fence to separate the trail area from the railroad tracks.
You could check local property records to see if Norfolk Southern previously owned the parcel along the southern end of Heritage Drive where the wrought iron fence was installed. If so, and if the railroad conveyed or sold the property to the town, the town should have those records, which presumably would include written documentation of any conditions that NS might have required as part of conveyance."
Since the railroad company suggested that we check local records, we did, and here are the results from a right-to-know request. (The email is dated October 2, 2018.)
"Thank you for writing to the Borough of Columbia with your request for information pursuant to the Pennsylvania Right-To-Know law regarding the contract and any other documents stipulating or relating to an agreement between Columbia Borough and Norfolk Southern regarding the fence installed along Heritage Drive and bordering the tract of land owned/managed by the Columbia Heritage River Cottage Association.
There is no contract stipulating or relating to an agreement between Columbia Borough and Norfolk Southern regarding the fence along Heritage Drive."
To summarize . . .
Borough officials have offered an array of reasons "justifying" the need for the fence, having said it was installed:
However, the information obtained by Columbia Spy refutes statements that Norfolk Southern had any involvement in the fence project:
The remaining "justifications" (privacy, aesthetics, trespassing) suggest the fence was installed by Columbia Borough to appease property owners on the small tract of riverfront land bordering Heritage Drive.
At the November 2017 public works meeting, officials said the improvements were needed for privacy and aesthetics, and to resolve trespassing issues. Public Works Director Ron Miller said cottage owners told him that, due to the increased number of visitors to Columbia River Park, people are entering Riverfront Drive, a private road that runs through the tract. He said the new fence was a way to make a boundary. Mayor Leo Lutz added that the fence will also prevent encroachment on Heritage Drive by the cottage owners. “By putting the fence there, that's stopping that encroachment,” he said.
“They [cottage owners] thought they needed a fence for some privacy or some delineation between the property and the park,” Miller said.
Miller said the original plan for a fence on the boundary between Heritage Drive and the railroad tracks was nixed because Norfolk Southern, which owns the railroad, didn't want a fence that was only 25 feet from the center line of the tracks. Consequently, the fence was moved to other side of the road, toward the cottages. Officials are pleased that the borough and the railroad have been able to reach common ground on several projects, including this one. “Norfolk Southern is happy with the relationship we now are developing,” Lutz said.
At the September 2018 borough council meeting, however, other explanations were given. At the meeting, a resident asked what the purpose of the fence is. He noted that there are openings in the fence along the road (seven by our count, some several vehicles wide). The mayor explained that the fence was required by Norfolk Southern for “the sale of the property.” He said the company "apparently approved" the fence. "I think they're more concerned about people going out through the yards than they are going over the tracks," he said.
"I have reached out to Norfolk Southern employees in our government relations and track engineering departments regarding your questions about the fence. As far as they know, Norfolk Southern did not have any conversations with Columbia officials about the wrought iron fence on the southern end of Heritage Drive and was not involved in its approval.
From Norfolk Southern’s perspective, if the fence was intended to protect railroad property, it would have been placed on the other side of the road, closer to the tracks, to try to deter people from trespassing onto the railroad right of way.
Over the past 10 to 15 years, Norfolk Southern has conveyed several parcels of property to the town. One of those parcels, I think, is pictured on the Columbia Spy website, the one that shows a chain link fence along an unpaved section of Heritage Drive, an area that I understand is used as a walking trail. Norfolk Southern did convey property to the town in this area near the COLA tower with a condition that the town install and maintain a fence to separate the trail area from the railroad tracks.
You could check local property records to see if Norfolk Southern previously owned the parcel along the southern end of Heritage Drive where the wrought iron fence was installed. If so, and if the railroad conveyed or sold the property to the town, the town should have those records, which presumably would include written documentation of any conditions that NS might have required as part of conveyance."
Since the railroad company suggested that we check local records, we did, and here are the results from a right-to-know request. (The email is dated October 2, 2018.)
"Thank you for writing to the Borough of Columbia with your request for information pursuant to the Pennsylvania Right-To-Know law regarding the contract and any other documents stipulating or relating to an agreement between Columbia Borough and Norfolk Southern regarding the fence installed along Heritage Drive and bordering the tract of land owned/managed by the Columbia Heritage River Cottage Association.
There is no contract stipulating or relating to an agreement between Columbia Borough and Norfolk Southern regarding the fence along Heritage Drive."
To summarize . . .
Borough officials have offered an array of reasons "justifying" the need for the fence, having said it was installed:
- for privacy
- for aesthetics
- to prevent trespassing onto cottage owners' properties
- because Norfolk Southern objected to a fence only 25 feet from the center line of the railroad tracks
- because it was required by Norfolk Southern for sale of the property
- to stop encroachment by cottage owners onto Heritage Drive.
However, the information obtained by Columbia Spy refutes statements that Norfolk Southern had any involvement in the fence project:
- Norfolk Southern said it had no conversations with Columbia officials about the fence and was not involved in its approval.
- From Norfolk Southern’s perspective, if the fence was intended to protect railroad property, it would have been placed on the other side of the road, closer to the tracks, to try to deter people from trespassing onto the railroad right of way.
- According to right-to-know information: "There is no contract stipulating or relating to an agreement between Columbia Borough and Norfolk Southern regarding the fence along Heritage Drive."
The remaining "justifications" (privacy, aesthetics, trespassing) suggest the fence was installed by Columbia Borough to appease property owners on the small tract of riverfront land bordering Heritage Drive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)