Chalk one up for the little guy. By a 6-3 vote at their June 18 meeting, Northampton County Council tabled a $319,970 handout to wealth management specialist Michael Glovas in exchange for a "conservation easement" for the 72 acres surrounding his palatial estate at 590 Browns Drive in Williams Township. Previously, the Open Space Advisory Board voted had unanimously to support this handout, supposedly mostly because of its location in the Hexenkopf Slope and Rock area. Open Space Coordinator Bryan Cope told Council that it's about a half mile away, but a review of Google maps clearly places it more than a mile away. He wanted to preserve it because it is near other preserved land and the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission has given it high ratings in its natural resources plan. Fortunately,Council was no rubber stamp and had lots of questions. Cope did say that Glovas would allow access to the site even hunting, so long as permission was first obtained.
 |
| Ken Kraft saw through the giveaway. |
Vaughn asked Cope whether this land could be developed, and he replied that about 20-25 lots could be built there. Vaughn doubted whether this is really environmentally sensitive land.
Hayden Phillips, no fan of open space grants to begin with, complained that the public is spending $321,000 for an easement on property Glovas already has."I'll give somebody development rights to my front yard," echoed Mat Benol.
Phillips also noted that Williams Township has stopped collecting EIT for open space and now "Northampton County is running in." Though Williams Township is contributing nearly $48,000 to this deal, that's less than half of what is being sought from Northampton County. "It would be nice if Williams Township matched the grant," observed kraft, who also questioned how many lots could really be developed there.
"Find out how many lots are developable and we'll preserve those," suggested Kraft.
Lamont McClure then immediately moved to table the matter, and was supported by Kraft, Benol, Phillips, Vaughn and Glenn Geissinger.
I'm sure the Open Space Committee saw all kinds of pictures of rocks, bit I'll lay odds they never saw that mansion. This is a perversion of open space.
11 comments:
Council was right to ask questions. These are the questions that hopefully were asked by the agencies who recommended this in the first place, and have good answers. One would assume the Open Space board rated this project and it came through with flying colors. But that underlying information was not available last night.
Council was right, IMO, to table this, and not vote on it one way or the other. This could be a viable and justified project, but sufficient information was not provided. Credit Kraft for guessing at what the number and size of lots could be if it were developed, but he was just guessing.
Bernie - you should point out that this is under the environmentally sensitive portion of open space, and not the farmland preservation program. Two different programs, two different budgets and funding. The question is, is this environmentally sensitive land, or near environmentally sensitive land? If it is only in the proximity, what is the justification?
With farmland preservation, clustering is sought to make larger conserved regions. Is there a similar concept for sensitive areas? Maybe someone from the Open Space board needs to come and explain the philosophy and details of this proposal to the Council.
10:28, Council was well aware this is the funding for environmentally sensitive land. It does happen to be true that they like to cluster. So what? That's no excuse for preserving land that is not really environmentally sensitive. I will be checking all the lands around these parcels. Council was told this is next to land that has been preserved. I am going to find out if that is accurate.
Council got this one right. All preservation land should be checked. I agree that we need to preserve open space, but I think if public money is spent then the land should belong to the public.
Same argument I made-at first. But then I at least got the hunting rights, and based on rules, this actually was rated one of the best applications the County preservation folks ever saw. He can build as stated. There is property to the east of his home and behind it that also has frontage on a road. I agree with the writer, but if this is the program the public has been allowing, then this is the program. I fought but then I voted for the Glovas preservation because I had no choice. It is all a scam, and the whole thing started out as farmland preservation and then turned into welfare for the rich by going "open space." Factor in that he would have to pay 7 years roll back taxes and interest because he is on act 319 (90 % reduction in assessment) and you see that he gets paid many times over to not build. BUT THAT IS THE LAW. He will get millage freeze, too. Only two persons I know of have fought and changed any of the scam. Haldan Ballek and Vince Foglia. I get no public support.
Just don't blame me for my vote.
Vince Foglia
Supervisor Williams Township
Vince, I checked. One property contiguous to this is preserved. It's a 200-acre tract owned by John Horth that appears to be completely landlocked. I question whether that was a good decision. In this case, I know it is a bad decision. There is an existing Met Ed easement that hampers development. The existence of a mansion on the site tells me he would never develop the site and let the unwashed masses near him. Globas is something of a real estate speculator. I think he is looking to make a quick buck even though he already gets a substantial tax break.
Bernie,
The Horth tract is one of many bad preservation deals made. Property that could not be developed. I can tell you more. For a long time many got illegal millage freeze even on the exclusions including big homes like Glovas's. I was one of two taxpayers, who took many months to get that fixed, but then some "exclusions" got low assessments. Another issue involves illegal county tax breaks (millage freeze) given to over 240 preserved parcels in the county. I've been working to get this fixed for over a year. Mr. Brown's solicitor, Backenstoe has involved Council's lawyer, Lauer. Big stall. County Ordinance 452 requires all school districts and municipalities to have millage freeze before county can freeze assessments for county taxes, yet many of these taxing districts within the county have no such laws or resolutions. This preservation scam starts with a full time staff funded at $400,000 to distribute county preservation funds so they never see a bad deal, and they get the rest of the County organization to stretch rules in favor of the property owners at the expense of the rest of us to get more landowners into the scam. These folks are interested in preserving for sure-their own county jobs that is.
Vince Foglia
Taxpayer
Bernie,
Since we are into this millage freeze scam, here's one more. Wilson Area School District (that's my biggest tax bill) has applied millage freeze illegally on preserved parcels for many years. The law and the PA Constitution require all municipalities within the school district to have millage freeze ordinances (equitable taxation) for any school district to allow for such huge tax breaks. Officials in Wilson, Glendon and West Easton can confirm that they have no such ordinances, simply because they don't have preserved properties. Therefore, poor folks in these towns pay higher school taxes to subsidize the rich folks in Williams Township who got up to over $1 million in cash to preserve farmland and up to $800,000 on sometimes worthless "open space" I brought the "exclusions" issue to WASD 3 times and they ignored me, except to complain to my friend that I was too tough on them. As I said above, the county finally fixed part of that issue without WASD doing anything. I did not dare talk to them on the lack of legal authority, but others tell that they would. You see, preserved parcel millage freeze is so complicated that only 3 counties in state have tried, including Northampton and they did not do it legally. I can't speak for Bucks, but some say they have their own scams. They must have County jobs to preserve too.
Vince Foglia
Taxpayer
"Find out how many lots are developable and we'll preserve those/"
So now we're spending money to stop additional tax revenue and economic development? Brilliant.
Hi Bernie
Vince Foglia is right on all points. What he didn’t mention is just how pervasive the scam is in Williams Twp. Most of the Land Preservation Board members (current and past) have had their own properties preserved. Two members actually bought a piece of property together and then had it preserved. All of this is well documented. These properties were never going to be developed either and these people made a boat load of money. Of course when voting on preserving their own property for Open Space, they abstained and just let their friends vote. They returned the favor, of course.
These are the same people that admit there’s a couple of million dollars in the Open Space fund. Legally, it can’t be spent on anything else. No one, except Glovas, has come forth to request their property be preserved, so the Land Preservation Board can’t spend all the money that is there. Yet, these same people wanted the .25% tax to continue. The argument one made to me was: “We know there’s lots of money in the budget now, but if we suspend the tax and later find out we need more money it will be really difficult to get tax payers to vote the tax back in. It’s a matter of psychology.”
Now there’s a coherent argument…NOT. Let’s keep collecting a tax when we can’t spend the money we have just in case we need more in the future. My question is – what happens if we can’t spend the millions in the fund now? Will they return it to the tax payers or waste it on something else?
I hope you expose this scam for what it is Bernie!
Ps: You may want to look into which local contractor started this whole mess, became a Supervisor and then did work on the preserved properties.
Just one other thought. All but maybe two or three properties should have been preserved in Williams Twp; the rest don’t qualify due to steep slopes, land locked, etc. The Land Preservation board members consistently have taken the position that these parcels that can’t be developed or perhaps could result in 2 or fewer homes (example property preserved on Old Well Road…a travesty), must be preserved to PROTECT the environment, water shed, air, trees, rural character, etc. My question has consistently been, PROTECT from what?” Clearly the answer is development! Yet if the properties can’t be developed based on existing zoning restrictions, why should we spend open space funds on preserving it. All the Board can do is scowl and walk away; they never have an answer to that question. Perhaps they are trying to PROTECT those properties from Aliens???
Post a Comment