|
|
Post by Venter on Dec 14, 2013 11:26:30 GMT -5
I've probably gone off on this several times before, but it's always worth refreshing it in our memories. Moose, brought up this Article by Solicitor John Hartzell that appeared in an online publication at Villanova: John M. Hartzell, Agricultural and Rural Zoning in Pennsylvania: Can You Get There from Here, 10 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 245 (1999)It just reinforces the "power" of the Local Solicitors when they meddle in the Operations of our Communities. Hartzell, and his counterpart Walton Davis, have taken the opportunities to use their positions to affect policy, in whatever ways they see fit. It seems obvious to me, that they both like to Legislate from the Bar. Using the Legal System to enable them to basically WRITE the Laws, in order to further their own personal views and agendas. Normally, a person would need to be ELECTED in order to enact change, but in the case of these guys, they just need to convince THOSE WHOM WE ACTUALLY HAVE ELECTED, to do their bidding. I'm not so sure whether our Elected Officials are just Marionettes, or if they willingly allow themselves to be used. Surely an Attorney/Solicitor is much wiser than we are, and we therefor bow to their expertise. But, I think it's time that we make our Elected Officials accountable for their participation. In many cases, I don't think it's necessarily due to their ignorance, or lack of education - I think it's just Basically Laziness. Let the Solicitor do the homework for you, and then just sign it. If we want things to become "more normal" in Adams County, and the Region, then we need to Vote these Solicitors out of Office. Oh, that's right, THEY WERE NEVER ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!  |
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Dec 14, 2013 11:42:11 GMT -5
I've probably gone off on this several times before, but it's always worth refreshing it in our memories. Moose, brought up this Article by Solicitor John Hartzell that appeared in an online publication at Villanova: John M. Hartzell, Agricultural and Rural Zoning in Pennsylvania: Can You Get There from Here, 10 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 245 (1999)It just reinforces the "power" of the Local Solicitors when they meddle in the Operations of our Communities. Hartzell, and his counterpart Walton Davis, have taken the opportunities to use their positions to affect policy, in whatever ways they see fit. It seems obvious to me, that they both like to Legislate from the Bar. Using the Legal System to enable them to basically WRITE the Laws, in order to further their own personal views and agendas. Normally, a person would need to be ELECTED in order to enact change, but in the case of these guys, they just need to convince THOSE WHOM WE ACTUALLY HAVE ELECTED, to do their bidding. I'm not so sure whether our Elected Officials are just Marionettes, or if they willingly allow themselves to be used. Surely an Attorney/Solicitor is much wiser than we are, and we therefor bow to their expertise. But, I think it's time that we make our Elected Officials accountable for their participation. In many cases, I don't think it's necessarily due to their ignorance, or lack of education - I think it's just Basically Laziness. Let the Solicitor do the homework for you, and then just sign it. If we want things to become "more normal" in Adams County, and the Region, then we need to Vote these Solicitors out of Office. Oh, that's right, THEY WERE NEVER ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! |
|
|
|
Post by buckeye on Dec 15, 2013 9:07:53 GMT -5
The article by Hartzell, although somewhat dated, is enlightening. I wasn't aware he was so opposed to development. Walton Davis on the other hand has made it known for sometime he too is opposed to just about all development. It appears he is the main opponent to the proposed development at routes 15 and 30. It is amazing how much influence these guys appear to have with the elected officials. Speaking of development, a couple of weeks ago there was an article in the Times concerning the Straban Township supervisor's meeting. Most of the article concerned discussions about taxes, but under "other business" there was a small blurb about a 90-day extension granted for "Gettysburg Crossing" on the south side of York Road between the Giant and Peebles shopping centers. That's where a Target was rumored to be built several years ago, and then nothing. The "For Sale/Lease" signs are gone from the property. If there is something being planned for that site (an ideal location to be sure) it is in STRABAN township so it will probably be years, if ever, before dirt is actually moved.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Dec 16, 2013 8:19:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Blonde on Dec 16, 2013 8:30:01 GMT -5
The article by Hartzell, although somewhat dated, is enlightening. I wasn't aware he was so opposed to development. Walton Davis on the other hand has made it known for sometime he too is opposed to just about all development. It appears he is the main opponent to the proposed development at routes 15 and 30. It is amazing how much influence these guys appear to have with the elected officials. Speaking of development, a couple of weeks ago there was an article in the Times concerning the Straban Township supervisor's meeting. Most of the article concerned discussions about taxes, but under "other business" there was a small blurb about a 90-day extension granted for "Gettysburg Crossing" on the south side of York Road between the Giant and Peebles shopping centers. That's where a Target was rumored to be built several years ago, and then nothing. The "For Sale/Lease" signs are gone from the property. If there is something being planned for that site (an ideal location to be sure) it is in STRABAN township so it will probably be years, if ever, before dirt is actually moved. Plans are already in the works. Do a search for commercial real estate in Gettysburg and see what you find. |
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Dec 16, 2013 9:24:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Dec 16, 2013 10:13:32 GMT -5
I can't access the article quickly but I do remember it vividly. While it made great fodder for gossiping, I'm sure, it really has no bearing on current events of today. I'm sure long timers in Gettysburg will also remember it, but I think it's sad that people will remember this, and not keep current on local township matters where they have an opportunity to be heard and make a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Dec 16, 2013 10:15:52 GMT -5
Still haven't had time to review the minutes, but I think, moose, that you should change your moniker from "watchdogger" to "whistle blower". There are definitely things amiss in our county.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Dec 16, 2013 10:24:59 GMT -5
I can't access the article quickly but I do remember it vividly. While it made great fodder for gossiping, I'm sure, it really has no bearing on current events of today. I'm sure long timers in Gettysburg will also remember it, but I think it's sad that people will remember this, and not keep current on local township matters where they have an opportunity to be heard and make a difference. Right. This is a discussion forum and not a court of law, though. I agree that something like the above is not appropriate for court proceedings or township meetings. Discussion forums aren't exactly the same thing, and I haven't gotten the sense that this forum is meeting minutes format. As far as being gossip, at this point it's not really any such thing, it's just a news story in the past. Strange thing is I lived in Gettysburg for 20 years, and aside from the craig rice murder trial and the Dickinson trial (I think the latter may have happened after I left), I don't ever remember any of these things. For those of us who have moved and who never noticed any of this stuff, hearing what other people remember is almost like archival stuff. Strange, though, people who live in the township have no idea who the solicitor is (just as they have no clue why some development is held up and some is not) and then when the solicitor is mentioned, they remember a news story - because it gets more press (just as it does on the radio and on TV). |
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Dec 16, 2013 10:40:29 GMT -5
I can't access the article quickly but I do remember it vividly. While it made great fodder for gossiping, I'm sure, it really has no bearing on current events of today. I'm sure long timers in Gettysburg will also remember it, but I think it's sad that people will remember this, and not keep current on local township matters where they have an opportunity to be heard and make a difference. Right. This is a discussion forum and not a court of law, though. I agree that something like the above is not appropriate for court proceedings or township meetings. Discussion forums aren't exactly the same thing, and I haven't gotten the sense that this forum is meeting minutes format. As far as being gossip, at this point it's not really any such thing, it's just a news story in the past. Strange thing is I lived in Gettysburg for 20 years, and aside from the craig rice murder trial and the Dickinson trial (I think the latter may have happened after I left), I don't ever remember any of these things. For those of us who have moved and who never noticed any of this stuff, hearing what other people remember is almost like archival stuff. Strange, though, people who live in the township have no idea who the solicitor is (just as they have no clue why some development is held up and some is not) and then when the solicitor is mentioned, they remember a news story - because it gets more press (just as it does on the radio and on TV). Agree, davew, I meant no disrespect for you, or your dad. It was big news at the time, maybe more so for me because of some personal connections related to those involved with the incident. |
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Dec 16, 2013 12:25:37 GMT -5
Aside from this whole sidetrack archival news stories, thank goodness for folks like Moose who are going out and actually doing something about setting up procedure and checks. I don't remember the court case type stuff from above, but I do remember people getting big easements when I still lived there and other people getting upset about all kinds of similar rule violations, but nobody ever did anything about it other than complain.
My dad would be in the group of people who doesn't know and doesn't complain, though. He just takes whatever comes along and never seems to be bothered by anything.
I do have a relative who is in clean and green, or was, and followed it to the letter with near religious fervor, more or less because they were brought up to do things honestly. I would imagine that most of the folks who are in it do that already and would rather have someone digging through the program to weed out abusers.
|
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Dec 16, 2013 15:47:41 GMT -5
I do have a relative who is in clean and green, or was, and followed it to the letter with near religious fervor, more or less because they were brought up to do things honestly. I would imagine that most of the folks who are in it do that already and would rather have someone digging through the program to weed out abusers. My dad's farm was in C&G as well. When we built our house we carved out a couple of acres on one of the ten acre plots that was in C&G. He removed that plot from the C&G program because it did not meet the ten acre requirement. I agree that the focus should be on those that abuse the program. |
|
Dexter
Supreme Poster
Posts: 261
|
Post by Dexter on Dec 17, 2013 22:24:14 GMT -5
I do know that one of the property owners you would call an abuser that Moose pointed out on his website said that he simply did what the county office told him to do and filled stuff out exactly as he was directed to do.
|
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Dec 18, 2013 5:04:04 GMT -5
I do know that one of the property owners you would call an abuser that Moose pointed out on his website said that he simply did what the county office told him to do and filled stuff out exactly as he was directed to do. That's because the County doesn't care if they meet the basic eligibility, they want the land in the program, no matter the cost to other taxpayers. Consider that the law REQUIRES that they apply a "strict construction of the law" to preferentially assessed properties [1 Pa. C.S. ยง 1928(b)(5) Rule of Strict And Liberal Construction]. Consider that they require no documentation to prove that ag-use land was engaged in agricultural production for the preceding three years. How does one determine that, without documentation? [RTK Request] Consider that they don't have a list of a compilation of the parcels in the program, yet they say they visited ALL of them this year. How did they visit them if they didn't have a list of them [RTK Request]? Did they just wander around and if it looked like a farm, they stopped? How did they compile their statistics for reporting how many parcels are in the program? Did they print out each application and count them by hand? Consider that even IF they mis-represented their land use and save thousands of $ / annually, if caught (and who's going to bother in Adams?) the fine is only $100 (that's the law, not an Adams County thing). The law doesn't dole out stiff penalties, presumably because most taxing bodies guard their tax base vigilantly and would apply a strict construction of the law as mandated from the get-go. Consider that Adams only requires one land-use per parcel which grants forest-reserve to land without a tree. It goes on and on... I have new RTK Requests for their new visits this past year requesting basic documentation proving eligibility. They SAID they confirmed land use...so we'll see. If the participants took the agricultural commodities to market as the law requires, they should have claimed the income on their Schedule F's, and/or have receipts. I also requested the "notes" the county land inspectors took at each of the requested properties I designated. BTW, non-producing land is ag-reserve and open to the public. Dexter, I don't doubt your statement for a minute. |
|
Dexter
Supreme Poster
Posts: 261
|
Post by Dexter on Dec 18, 2013 7:22:25 GMT -5
So Moose, this issue isn't an issue of the commishes because this has been going on for a few administrations. Where does this start? Who is the person that wants land in this program and why does this person want land in this program? What is this person's agenda? Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT defending anything being done by the county, I don't know enough to have an opinion. If things are working like you say, what is the motive?
|
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Dec 18, 2013 9:13:04 GMT -5
Dexter, I would assume that it is like any other Government Program. If the Feds or State or County offer a break for a certain segment of the population, then: - Some people will be aware of the offer, and use it...
- Some people will not...
- And some people will take advantage of the offer, and abuse it!
If the Programs were AUTOMATIC, triggered by a certain threshold, and rescinded whenever that threshold no longer applies - then all would be fair.
But, the Government depends on us as Honest American Tax Payers, to report our Income, etc. And WE the People expect that the Government Electees and Employees in charge of these programs are also honest. If your friend, or anyone else, is accepted into a program, by honestly filling out the applications - then they can only assume that they Qualified. If the Government Entity that allowed them into a program, did so by mistake, then that is inefficiency. If either ONE of them entered into the Program by Willingly "Misrepresenting" their Qualifications, or if the Employee allowed someone to "Slide" - then that is most definitely FRAUD. And THAT is why there are Watchdogs  A Stop Sign represents a LAW, and it doesn't differentiate between letting a friend slide through it instead of Stopping. |
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Dec 18, 2013 10:22:40 GMT -5
So Moose, this issue isn't an issue of the commishes because this has been going on for a few administrations. Where does this start? Who is the person that wants land in this program and why does this person want land in this program? What is this person's agenda? Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT defending anything being done by the county, I don't know enough to have an opinion. If things are working like you say, what is the motive? Venter generalized it very well. Specifically the motive is land preservation. The Solicitor has been influencing county matters since 2000. He is very biased as noted in his scholary work called "Can you get there from here"? (Link above in this thread) If the Solicitor were suddenly whisked away and was made to live in Montgomery County, Md, he would probably spaz out and need to be committed to a psycho ward somewhere. The law is rather complex and takes a while to understand. It is not written very well for the layman. New county execs take awhile to settle in, then they're gone. This assessment business went unnoticed for decades, because there was no reassessment for decades. Nobody thought to look at it until they couldn't afford NOT to look at it. Land preservation is a noble cause...but you cannot quietly tax one group of people more than another just to finance and further the agenda. There are laws to follow! |
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Dec 18, 2013 11:45:56 GMT -5
Selective Inclusion and Selective Enforcement
|
|
Dexter
Supreme Poster
Posts: 261
|
Post by Dexter on Dec 18, 2013 13:23:38 GMT -5
So Moose, you are suggesting that this all stems from Hartzell and his anti-growth attitude? He, at some point, instructed the tax office in how to process and enforce the C&G application process? Again, NOT doubting you, but, trying to understand your thoughts.
|
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Dec 18, 2013 13:56:26 GMT -5
So Moose, you are suggesting that this all stems from Hartzell and his anti-growth attitude? He, at some point, instructed the tax office in how to process and enforce the C&G application process? Again, NOT doubting you, but, trying to understand your thoughts. No one really knows how deep this goes. Maybe we'll find out if it goes to court, which is looking better and better to me. I've been kicking some questioning and strategies around in my head. It's kinda hard to figure that our Solicitor can't figure out the law regarding the program. Don't forget they have the Pa. Dept of Agriculture to call on for an advisory role. |
|
