September 14, 2000 Meeting
Sports in Maidencreek
Toward the end of the meeting Mr. Ken Shittler, co-chair (with Dave Snyder) of the Park & Rec. Board asked us if we would authorize the township solicitor's legal time for the creation of a Maidencreek Township Athletic Association. I asked if this proposed MTAA would be public or private. Mr. Shittler explained that he thought it would be a 501C3 (501C3 is a section of the IRS code for a charity, for example, Churches are 501C3 organizations).
Then comes the BIG question why is Park and Rec. asking for Taxpayer funded legal time to set up a private charity? Terry Rarick stated that this MTAA would, "Do a lot of good for the community." I pointed out that Trinity Bible Fellowship Church does a lot of good for the community, but none of us would have contemplated giving them taxpayer funded legal time to get them started. I recommended that they get the interested parents together, charge dues, and hire their own lawyer.
I believe the crux of this issue is control of the sports. Currently the sports are organized along school district lines. They are also organized by sport. There is one organization for baseball, another for soccer etc. People on Park & Rec. complain that when they were small Maidencreek residents were second class citizens in these organizations. My son played baseball in the Fleetwood organization for the summer of 1999. I saw no evidence of this. All kids were treated the well regardless of whether they were from Fleetwood, Maidencreek or Richmond.
If we were to form an MTAA it would build a wall at the township line. The kids would still integrate on school teams, but during the summer they would be separate. There would have to be a duplication of resources for the MTAA and the existing Fleetwood organizations. There would be competition for available fields between the MTAA and the existing organizations. The MTAA if it exists would certainly control the fields at the new park and perhaps the ball field at the firehouse.
Despite the duplication of effort, the most damaging thing a MTAA would do is centralize the coaching, and kids participation in sports. Under the existing conditions the people passionate about baseball coach baseball. The basketball lovers head up the basketball organization. The soccer affectionados are involved in the soccer organization. A MTAA would place all these people under the central control of a few. These few are no doubt passionate about athletics, but can we be assured that basketball will really get the same resources as soccer? Under the current system each sport raises its own money and has complete control of how those resources are used. I don't understand why we would segregate our kids from the rest of the school district, and place the coaches and resources for the various sports under central control. Several other people in the room expressed similar concerns, and for now the idea has gone nowhere.
Some quick thoughts on the noise ordinance and other zoning issues:
Noise Ordinance: The meeting was well attended with people eager to express their views on the noise ordinance. The owner of Shady Glen grove expressed his concern that he was being "targeted" by this ordinance. At one point in his comments he stated that in the worst case Shady Glen may be shut down as a picnic grove. This comment drew some applause from other property owners. Let me say that the desire of some of the residents to control the property of others (in this case Shady Glen) weakens their position of favoring a noise ordinance. The Glen pre-exists the developments. This man has a right to use his property in a lawful and expedient manner to support himself, his family and his employees. One resident expressed the sentiment that since the owner of the Glen doesn't live in the township he should have no property rights in the township. The same individual expressed the idea that the majority should rule in how the owner of the Glen is able to use his property. If you give it a little thought I think you'll agree with me that these ideas amount to mob rule and none of us would want to live in a place where these principles held sway. If you don't yet agree with me read The Lord of the Flies. It has become apparent to me that there are some people who never want to see another party at Shady Glen. These people need to pool their money and buy the Glen, because to exercise that level of control over the property they need to own it.
People do have legitimate concerns about the music at the Glen keeping them awake. We need to find a solution that allows the Glen to be profitable, and allows people to get some reasonable sleep. No action was taken on the proposed ordinance. It was generally thought to be unenforceable for the reasons I outlined in the 8/3/00 meeting.
I am leaning toward a curfew type ordinance. It has the advantage of being objective (no music after 12:00 is easy to enforce). The police don't need special calibrated equipment or special training. I'll be giving this one more thought. Let me know your ideas. email: Roy Timpe
Re-Zoning of Lot just North of A&D Outboard on 222: We also heard comment on the rezoning of a 10 acre lot with frontage on 222. The current owner wants to sell the lot. Apparently a buyer has agreed to purchase the lot if the Township will rezone the lot commercial. Many people pointed out that it is important to preserve agricultural land. It was also pointed out that this would create another driveway with the associated left turns and cross traffic on the already overburdened 222. I agree with these observations. It is also true that a farm, that is likely never to be developed, surrounds these 10 acres. If we rezoned this it would be a commercial island in the midst of a farm. Having said this, I am also not comfortable with using the coercive power of the government to preserve agricultural land at the expense of the existing legal landowner. Since the framers of our township and county land use plans are not omniscient, it follows that these plans may not be any better than the desires of the individual landowners. We all must remember that in October of 1917 an entire country took the planning function away from individuals and placed it in the hands of a few central planners. They had to build a wall to keep their people in. That wall came down less than 10 years ago. We should think long and hard before we use the coercive power of government to control another man's property. I'd like to see a solution that allows the existing owner to sell the land (since that what he seems to want), but still keep the land in agricultural use.
The Fire Company will have an open house October 9 through October 13.
Paid for by Roy Timpe