In an April 21 post on the Lebo Citizens blog (www.lebocitizens.blogspot.com), Mt. Lebanon solicitor Philip Weis explained to a resident who had contacted him that the township was in the process of determining what Scott's park rules are and whether they would apply to Mt. Lebanon.
Scott has its own work cut out for itself, after it was discovered recently that a maintenance and police/fire protection agreement drafted in August 1994 for Twin Hills had not been executed, even though the planning commission and its commissioners had approved the land's purchase.
"It just fell through the cracks," surmised board president Tom Castello, who was not a commissioner when the sales agreement was made.
Scott officials are checking to see how their ordinance differs from Mt. Lebanon's. A 1971 Scott ordinance does not allow dogs in its parks. The agenda for the original purchase is here. The meeting minutes can be found here.
11 comments:
I remember every aspect of the Twin Hills purchase, and many of the details were and are questionable even today.
But I do recall very clearly that at the time of the purchase that Mt. Lebanon acknowledged to its citizens in public full responsibility for property maintenance and public safety coverage. Mt. Lebanon fire and police officials were quite concerned about such added responsibility because there was no budgetary increases for the added geography, as well as concerns about its uses, topography and its relative inaccessibility.
I had walked the entire 25 acres just prior to the purchase and found numerous tree stands for deer hunting, developed partying areas containing furniture, fire pits, empty liquor & beer bottles, etc. plus a well developed bicycle motocross track or trail through the woods which contained a large amount of invasive species. The property is mostly sloped, with a significant percentage being up to 40 degrees. There was a dangerous underground stream outlet forming a pond on the bottom backside facing Carriage Park apartments, and the flat perhaps 2 acre portion at the end of what was then Chatham Park Dr. was a dump ground of construction waste by the Chatham Park developer/property owner H. Gordon Matthews. This was the area that was very quietly to be developed into a ballfield by Lebo.
Twin Hills was in fact not developable because of the steep slopes - Scott had an ordinance that prohibited development on any property within the Township with slopes exceeding 25 degrees. If it had been developable, Gordy Matthews would have developed it. However, Mt. Lebanon "justified" the $1 million purchase price that had been agreed to prior to appraisal with two appraisals that claimed the property was worth $1 million because it was suitable for "high density, multifamily residential apartments". The appraisers must not have checked out the Scott ordinances carefully. They happened to be, just by coincidence, personal friends of a couple of our Commissioners at the time.
The justification for the purchase made to the public was by the Commissioner for that Ward, John Fernsler, who said his Ward did not have a public Park and deserved one. The Commissioner who apparently arranged the appraisals was also a good personal friend of Gordy Matthews. So everything came neatly together, signed, sealed and delivered....except for the unsigned Agreement it seems.
Bill Lewis
As usual, Mr. Lewis is right on with his remarks.
I had heard that this deal was pressed by Mr. Fernsler on behalf of some residents who were complaining about kids and their activities in the park. To me, it seems an exorbitant amount of taxpayers' money to be spent for some peoples' "privacy".
It's also a lot of money for an area that has little development potential (Scott still has its steep slope ordinance), as well as access issues. Our firemen know that their trucks cannot get into the site. So, the firemen will have to carry hoses in up steep hills and then call for the water to be turned on. Doesn't sound like fun at all.
For a community that's supposed to be "smart", this was a poor and far too costly decision.
Mr. Lewis:
An excellent post!
In reading Scott Township's minutes I can understand why our fire and police officials were concerned about the added responsibility, especially since we indemnified Scott against any liability caused by anyone other than their own employees.
Please clarify or comment on the following: If the conditional use per terms of the sale called for "no improvements," how did Mt. Lebanon expect to get around developing a slice of the land for use as a baseball (or other sport) field? I would think that a ball field comes under the heading of "improvement."
When one looks at Twin Hills, McNeilly Park, and the aggrandizing high school monument, I can't help but think of President James Madison's pity comment: "All men having power should be distrusted to a certain degree."
Thanks,
RG
How 'bout the 2 "appraisers", Dan McKown & Glenn Williams, who stated in his cover letter he was not a bona fide appraiser. He was a Realtor.
The Mt. Lebanon Nature Conservancy is paying for "pooper-scooper" doggie bags for dog owners. This is no better use of charitable dollars than the tax dollars squandered on the purchase of the park.
To Mr. Gideon's remark, I would sadly point out the adage that absolute power corrupts. Keep it in mind at the polls, folks.
RG AT 3:36 PM...the apparent real, underlying and undisclosed reason for the purchase of Twin Hills : THE PROSPECT FOR A SMALL ATHLETIC FIELD.
The scheme was put into motion and concluded by a succession of public officials that failed to conduct even basic due diligence or follow due process. And nothing seems to have been learned because Terrace Park and McNeilly followed.
There's more to this, but enough said.
Bill Lewis
For those don't know, don't care folks and the others that have no time to get involved in community politics, if you're hoping for two turfed and lighted soccer/lacrosse fields the money spent on Twin Hills and McNeilly would've covered the cost of turfing Mellon and Jefferson fields.
But no, we have people that hang on every word and support any cockamamie scheme that comes down the pike.
It is not hard to figure out who was behind the Twin Hills & McNielly purchases. Both individuals are no longer involved in recreation/athletics. One was a paid employee of our township and knew nothing about athletics.
These two individuals pushed and pushed for these useless tracts of land and had no idea or plan for who would pay and for what!
They turned tail and ran when they got questioned about it didn't they! Thanks Bill L for your always insightful and extremely accurate history lesson. You and I know the real story behind the McNielly purchase. What a sad story that is and what a waste of time, effort and money.
Unfortunately, regardless of of who the individuals were, the money was still spent to purchase overpriced and useless land.
That $2 million could have gone to road paving, pool improvements, sewer repairs... almost anything that would've served more residents.
It's too bad this community thinks it has money to burn.
Charles Betters purchased parcel 31-G-200 the area known as Hays Woods, a 635+ acre woodland, the largest undeveloped tract of land in the city of Pittsburgh (larger even than Frick Park).
He paid $1,000,000 for it in 2003.
How do the Mt. Lebanon purchases of Twin Hills and McNeilly compare to Hays Woods?
Post a Comment