Media - Patch - 7-16-11 - Dialogue

Reply Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
9:34am on Saturday, July 16, 2011
ANNOTATED RESPONSES TO PEACOCK LETTER - #30 I feel compelled to ensure that there is no ambiguity as to my current plans. Regarding the Procedural Challenge, a hearing was held before Judge Moore because Brandolini is [again] challenging my standing to file a court-challenge. If this effort to dislodge me fails, they plan to request that I post a multi-million-dollar-bond. Regarding the Substantive Challenge, the next-scheduled event is to be held on 8/24/2011. In the interim, I will submit documents to the Township. It would be highly-desirable were the four Commissioner candidates [#1 and #7, R and D] to comment on each of the points made in this rejoinder to Mr. Peacock's letter-tothe-editor. If invited to do so, I will submit a parallel "letter to the editor" that lays out what has transpired in a fashion that captures the import of my effort...rather than merely offsets dissemination of erroneous assertions. It will show how the FTD violates the spirit/letter of the Study, the Plan, and the input of the two [MontCo and Abington] Planning Commissions. And it will reflect why it would be desirable for the RydalMeadowbrook Civic Association to remove its head from the sand; it is patently absurd to delay adopting an affirmative stance "until the legal forces have played-out." The stakes are indeed high....
Reply
Top of Form
Flag as inappropriate
Bottom of Form
Bob Guzzardi
If I am reading Comm. Peacock's position correctly, he seems to be arguing that that the Baederwood rezoning, actually, reduced density. This does not seem to be accurate. It is clear and admitted by all that this rezoning was not motivated by any interest in rezoning this particular tract, and this tract alone, to better comply with findings of the
Township's very detailed and expensive reports but, in fact, admitted by all to accommodate Brandolini/Baederwood's narrow self-interest in expanding. The adverse infrastructure impact of the increase in density by the Baederwood Rezoning is the gravamen of the challenge, as I see it and the case is made by the Township's two 2007 studies which, as I read them, demonstrate, factually, that Abington Old York Road infrastructure is stressed to the maximum. For the Township Board of Commissioners, now, to ignore the facts found in their own two reports, which they have affirmed repeatedly. is inherently arbitrary and unreasonable. Ignoring what one knows to be factually accurate is not reasonable.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Bob Guzzardi
Comm. Peacocks position on substantive validity challenge" of Brandolini/Baederwood is a legal conclusion offered without any analysis or argument and contrary to my reading of Realen. We will not know how the special counsel Jonas reached this conclusion until we see his memorandum of law.
Reply
Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

3:37pm on Saturday, July 16, 2011
Readers of this article may also be interested in an earlier essay: http://abington.patch.com/articles/montco-judge-remands-ftd-ordinance-to-zoninghearing-board

Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Brendan J Kirk
Mr Peacock , in my opinion 98 per cent of the people in Abington appreciate all your hard work, best of luck ! don,t let the negative people get you down.
Reply

Mr. Kirk irresponsibly endorses Mr. Peacock uncritically, totally ignoring all the aforementioned data; this anti-intellectual approach to assessing his duty to perform in the public interest is inexcusable. For documentation, note "ANNOTATED RESPONSES TO PEACOCK LETTER - #21/#22." Now, Mr. Kirk, RSVP to this devastating datum, or rescind your expression of appreciation for Mr. Peacock's [mis]representation of the facts...and of his constituents. Specifically, Mr. Kirk is invited to refute any/all of the points detailed in my 30-section dissection of Mr. Peacock's Letter-to-the-Editor. If he cannot, then he should not blindly/publicly endorse the activities of a public servant who has been documented--again--to have lied about the smoking-gun memo. Specifically, he claimed, for example, that the MontCo Planning Commission had endorsed the FTD-Ordinance, despite the fact that it had tethered support to the need to amend the document; that its corrections were not even addressed [and, instead, were misrepresented] constitutes a dastardly-act.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Bob Guzzardi
The Montgomery County report, which was prepared for Abington Township, at its own request with respect to this particular ordinance, is clearly and unequivocally a conditional approval by Montgomery County Planning Commission. Comm. Peacock misrepresents the report (#5) as approving the rezoning ordinance when, in fact, it says, in pertinent part, says T-CO: The MontCo Planning Commission
recommends approval of the proposed zoning map and text amendments, provided the changes suggested are made.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Victor B. Krievins
98 percent? What has Mr. Kirk been smoking? Bath salts? You can fool some of the people some of the time but never all of them all of the time. We would require an accurate poll to validate these findings. The people of Abington are not stupid.
Reply

Why am I not surprised that Mr. Kirk [67mgb@comcast.net] is a Democratic Party Committeeman in Precinct 6-2? http://www.abingtondemocrats.com/pdf/ARDC_CommitteepersonMasterList.pdf As per the follow-up points of my esteemed colleagues, Messrs. Guzzardi and Krievins, Mr. Kirk is cordially invited to explain himself.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Brendan J Kirk
5:54pm on Monday, July 18, 2011
mr sklaroff, in my previous post I clearly stated { in my opinion 98 per cent of the people in Abington appreciate all of MR Peacocks hard work } That was my OPINION then and NOW! I think you should reflect on how many people are really in your corner.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Bob Guzzardi
Brendan This isn't a popularity contest. The validity of the ordinance adopted by the ABOC is contradicted by myriad facts set out in two studies commissioned by and paid for by Abington, in part, motivated by the request for rezoning. Inexplicably the ABOC ignored its own uncontradicted and unchallenged factual record. We do not vote on facts.
Reply

Guzzardi reminds us of the "facts" regarding Baederwood; I suggested Kirk's "opinion" was politically-motivated. Perhaps Kirk would delve into the facts and, perhaps, he would be able to alter his opinion accordingly.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Victor B. Krievins
Brendan Kirk? What are you smoking? 98 percent? We find that you are 100 percent delusional. Perhaps the bath salts have had their effect. Might you consider rehab? Something is amiss.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Brendan J Kirk
6:07am on Tuesday, July 19, 2011
victor krievins ,because are opinions are different you ask{what am I smoking, perhaps bath salts] i find this response immature, I suggest you don't abuse the post here with your childish response it leaves me to wonder about your mental stability.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Brendan J Kirk
dr you suggest my OPINION is politically-motivated? I am proud to be a committee person for the democrats. I would not embarrass the republicans by suggesting that your agenda is tied to them, since you are a REPUBLICAN committee person.
Reply

The fact that I am suing the GOP-controlled Board of Commissioners regarding its having abrogated my "freedom-of-speech" rights should disabuse the unbiased reader from the view that my approach is politically-motivated. Whether the position of Mr. Kirk can be validated in like-fashion, however, will only be determined if/when he elects to confront the point-by-point refutation of the assertions of his D-colleague, Mr. Peacock, provided exhaustively by yours-truly. Although Victor's approach may contrast with that of The Bob ["dr. bob and Guzzardi"], he reflects a visceral response to the assertion of an outlandish self-congratulatory "opinion" instead of the more serious need to confront key-issues. Mr. Kirk has waded-into this issue and, thus, it is incumbent upon him to assess the database thereof...and to articulate his bottom-line perceptions [both facts and opinions]. Absent any effort to exert this level of seriousness to a cogent discussion of how Abington's future should be formulated, Mr. Kirk should simply admit that his partisanship has constituted his driving-force when blogging on this site.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Victor B. Krievins
Mr Kirk Your statements cause grave concern! You must be smoking something. I have seen people of your ilk come and go. Your illusions are or great concern. Your motives are
certainly obvious and of great concern. You really need to go back to your hole in the ground and stay there. You are making every attempt to mislead the good people of Abington.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Bob Guzzardi
Mr. Kirk does not offer a scintilla of evidence to support a totally unsubstantiated opinion. This is not opinion; it is a magical fantasy.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Bob Guzzardi
We note that Comm. Kline, one the primary proponents of Baederwood instigated rezoning has not commented. His fronts have. All Commissioner candidates need to give an opinion on the Baederwood rezoning and explain who will pay for the cost of the massive infrastructure impact, the developer or The Forgotten Taxpayer. Impact fees are reasonable and justified by free market theory as well as common sense.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
John Farrow
Wow, I have never seen such blatant disrespect. Everyone's arguments are trite and filled with the same things they have said in previous posts. Just because someone skipped your 30 response sentence-by-sentence deconstruction of this letter to the editor does not mean you should cry foul. I am one of the mentioned supporters of this
and take offense to the trio who have taken this over repeatedly claiming people must be smoking bath salts (really? you couldn't have thought of something funnier?) just because they support the rezoning. Maybe I have not looked into previous studies as you gentlemen have, but as far as I can tell by my own observations (admittedly nonscientific or systematic) this plan will do very little to harm me or other "forgotten taxpayers" (seriously, come up with a new slogan for the working stiff in Abington). I will also say right now to Dr. Skarloff, no, I will not read your absurdly long response to this letter. I did try, but it is filled with things like this Traffic in the area will be negatively impacted. YES, WHEN A PROBLEM EXISTS, ONE SHOULD NOT EXACERBATE IT. " This is just annoying and not worth reading. I, for one just want something built there. I miss all of the shops and the movie theater that once occupied this space. In the end, however, just build something. I don't care what that is. I just know it is an eyesore right now and this delay just seems to be about people wanting to whine.
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Bob Guzzardi
This ad hominem rant points to no facts that support the increased density of the Baederwood Ordinance. In fact, the writer admits he has not looked at the two very detailed and fact intensive, very expensive studies commissioned by and paid for by The Forgotten Taxpayers of Abington and only to have the facts ignored. Montgomery County Planning Commission, at the request of Abington Township, presented an expert opinion pointing out objections to the Baederwood ordinance. Commissioners Kline and Peacock, like the reader, ignore the facts that is unreasonable, arbitrary and a disservice to the community.
Reply

PART I
Denuding the above of its rhetorical tangents, one emerges with the following problems: 1. " I have never seen such blatant disrespect." Yes, I would agree that there is fundamental disregard for facts, compounded by ad-hominem attacks. You join the guilty prior posters [Peacock/Kirk] in this regard, because... 2. "[S]omeone skipped your 30 response sentence-by-sentence deconstruction of this letter to the editor does not mean you should cry foul...[and] I am one of the mentioned supporters of this." OK, "outed" as a supporter, I do cry "foul" when you-three fail to deal with the lies/deceit that I have painstakingly documented. 3. "[I] take offense to the trio who have taken this over repeatedly claiming people must be smoking bath salts." Be precise, for you are referring only to Mr. Krievins' response to reading repeatedly of Mr. Kirk's undocumented opinion; The Bob ["dr. bob and Guzzardi"] have provided opinions buttressed by facts that complement Victor's expression of an emotional response, and it is incumbent upon you to respond to the facts accordingly. [--to be continued--]
Reply

PART II 4. "I have not looked into previous studies as you gentlemen have, but as far as I can tell by my own observations (admittedly non-scientific or systematic) this plan will do very little to harm me or other 'forgotten taxpayers' (seriously, come up with a new slogan for the working stiff in Abington)." Well, after having confessed ignorance, it is not surprising that you have come-up dry. Furthermore, if you have no suggestion as to what might supplant the phrase "The Forgotten Taxpayer," you are not in a position to suggest what might characterize the emotional response of the "silent majority" of disgusted residents. Remember that Abington has now racked-up an enormous level of discretionary spending that is both wasteful and unnecessary, as I have noted repeatedly since 3/2009 @ Board of Commissioners Meetings.
The cost of the Roslyn Branch Library Debacle is projected to be $225K, the experts who provided fatally-flawed input regarding the Baederwood/Brandolini Ordinance have cost upwards of $40K, the Billboard Litigation promises to exceed $100K, etc. Thus, you are required--if you wish to be taken seriously--to address [RSVP] the claim that demonstrably exacerbating traffic-flow through a choke-point "T"-Intersection does, indeed, enhance the threat to the health/safety of the citizenry, inasmuch as emergency vehicles would be forced to wend-through this recognized [over the decades] congestion/density. [--to be continued--]
Reply

PART III 5. "I will also say right now to Dr. Skarloff, no, I will not read your absurdly long response to this letter...[because] This is just annoying and not worth reading." First of all, you mis-spelled my name. Second of all, you are advised not to be put-off by the length of my reply [to a lengthy letter-to-the-editor] because you would best be prepared to address any of its contents. Third of all, it is difficult to take a comment seriously when an individual blindly decides that something isn't "worth reading." 6. "[Dr. Sklaroff's 30-part letter] is filled with things like this 'Traffic in the area will be negatively impacted.' YES, WHEN A PROBLEM EXISTS, ONE SHOULD NOT EXACERBATE IT.' " OK, so let's assume there is an agreed-consensus that the traffic congestion problem (a)--is, potentially, both specific and profound; (b)--exists, and (c)--would be worsened by the addition of ~300 nearby-units. How could you possibly maintain a dismissive posture under such circumstances? [--to be continued--]
Reply

PART IV
7. "I, for one just want something built there. I miss all of the shops and the movie theater that once occupied this space. In the end, however, just build something. I don't care what that is. I just know it is an eyesore right now and this delay just seems to be about people wanting to whine." You impugn my motives ignorant of their content. I also want planned/safe/legal development, but I also recoil against the game of allowing it to deteriorate [and threatening this perpetuation]. Indeed, it is your expression of anguish that is shared throughout the community, but the key-issue is what should be done about it. Your perception that my motive [and, you may recall, that of ~300 signatories of a 2009 petition] is to "whine"; this is incorrect. Furthermore, if you were to read what I have filed, you would note that I had proposed a low-cost widening of the roadways approaching the Rydal RR-bridge and had discussed it with Penn-DOT in the winter/spring of 2010. Thus, I have proffered a potential resolution of the problem [only to be subjected to the scorn of Peacock/Kline] that serves to undermine any attack on my credibility. So, my friend, there you have it. If you choose to remain on the side of people such as Peacock/Kirk--merely "attacking the messenger"--so be it. But if you wish to tackle the issues assertively--as is your responsibility as an outspoken citizen--then let's see where such inquiry leads you.... [--30--]
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Bob Guzzardi
The Forgotten Taxpayer is not only the "working stiff" but all productive people and all who save and invest in job creating productive businesses. I did not reference The Forgotten Taxpayer in these posts. Are you reading The Liberty Blogwww.thelibertyblog.org ?
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Victor B. Krievins
The Baederwood issue just like the Roslyn Library Issue is clearly political in nature and always has been. It is about time that the taxpayer is no longer forgotten. There are those of us who are concerned with the rampant spending and waste of our hard earned money. I am very confident that Justice will prevail!
Reply

And, when accounting the wasteful spending that has been promulgated in Abington, one must also include awareness of the proposed Human Rights Commission. Has there been due-diligence regarding whether it's needed? Has anyone decided what it would cost annually? Has any advocate depicted a metric that would ensure the results thereof might include the effects of false-accusations [in terms both of reputational damage and the requirement to devote resources towards mounting a responsible defense]? Look at the listing [library, billboards, brandolini, GLBT-protection] and allow the aggregate to sink-in....
Reply
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Bob Guzzardi
Democratic Comm. Lori Schreiber cost Abington $225,000 as a result of Roslyn/Patane misguided policy. Democrats cannot be trusted with money.

Media - Patch - 7-16-11 - Dialogue

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Media - Patch - 7-16-11 - Dialogue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reply Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

9:34am on Saturday, July 16, 2011

Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Readers of this article may also be interested in an earlier essay: http://abington.patch.com/articles/montco-judge-remands-ftd-ordinance-to-zoninghearing-board

8:17pm on Saturday, July 16, 2011

Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Delete Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

You might also like