It isn't easy being a township supervisor. Aside from the time and aggravation, serving the public can turn out to be very costly, as Steve Tamburri is finding out.
Tamburri was not the most enthusiastic candidate back in 1999. He had a close-knit family, with two children. They all loved to travel. For thirty years he had grown his insurance business, and he was good at it. Successful agents must be people-persons, and that described Tamburri to a T. Always smiling, always knowing peoples' names. He was in the business of planning and helping; a lover, not a fighter.
But when Richland supervisor Earl Kline retired, the Republicans looked to Tamburri. Well-known, well-liked, a graduate of Penn's Wharton Business School, long-time resident. A man of honesty and integrity, with no personal agenda. A Republican by registration only, with no political aspirations, and a wife who is a life-long Democrat. He ran, he won, he served. For the princely sum of $2000 per year. On an hourly basis, about half of minimum wage.
And, true to his nature, Tamburri was pretty much below the radar for the first four years of his term. While Rick Orloff was always vocal, and Pat Keller served on several boards, Tamburri did the low-profile necessities, like planning the townships finances and greatly increasing the contributions demanded from developers. Richland's fund balances grew from $1.7 million in 1999 to $4.2 million today. If you like your low taxes, thank Steve.
The Tamburri family bought an 1800's-era farmhouse, on 38 acres, back in 1979, and gave it a complete, beautiful renovation. It was to be their home, and, like many of us, their retirement investment. They had no plans to develop the property, or move, until last year. The kids had gone off to college, one to law school. The house started to look large, and the tuition costs even larger.
So they couldn't help but pay attention when THP Properties made them an offer they couldn't refuse. But with a catch. The property is located just outside the Primary Development Area, and does not have municipal sewer and water. To fully develop it, THP needed a zoning change, and a significant one at that.
Tamburri didn't hide anything. He disclosed all of this publicly, and signed an agreement with THP allowing them (not him) to apply for the necessary changes. Changes that might have been granted to anyone five years ago, and still might be granted in other townships. But not here, not now. Too many perceived problems. Tamburri is a supervisor. THP is an active developer in an area where some vocal residents see all builders as evil exploiters.
Eventually this issue may end up being decided by the Board of Supervisors. They will be guided by the recommendations of three Planning Commissions: Bucks County, Quakertown Area, and Richland. Bucks has already raised several negative points, but its report has been criticized for sloppy investigation and many obvious inaccuracies. Perhaps the BCPC was unduly influenced by the members of the Richland Citizens Alliance (the RCA), Tamburri's political adversaries, who made their differences personal. They took the highly unusual step of traveling to the BCPC meeting in Warrington to fight the changes. It isn't easy being a supervisor.
Richland's Planning Commission is requiring more area studies from THP, and if the PC votes no, it is a no-brainer for the supervisors to deny the request. If it even reaches them for a vote. It probably won't. But suppose, just suppose, that those PC's were to say, "Yes, we agree that, on balance, such development would be a benefit to the area". Then what?
Tamburri has already recused himself from township votes regarding his property, or any other THP matters. That leaves the other two supervisors, who could be split in their decision. How would that 1-1 deadlock get resolved?
The Second-Class Township Code provides that in such cases, the supervisor who has recused himself may then cast the deciding vote. Just to be sure, Tamburri asked the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission, which oversees such matters, to issue a written opinion. They clearly stated that, under state law, Tamburri would be the one to break the tie.
This law is unfair to everyone. No supervisor should be put in the position of being able to vote to benefit himself. But, at the same time, no supervisor should have to forfeit a lifetime of investment because he chose to serve the public for $2000. The current law is actually a deterrent to attracting good people to run for office, since they might someday be prevented from selling or developing their own land.
There should be an impartial outside agency, like the Ethics Commission, to decide these matters. The ancient Greeks had "lawgivers", whose job it was to govern cities where they had no family, no roots, no friends. Sadly, we are not as wise. We may govern only our own communities, for better or worse.
So what would YOU do if you were Steve Tamburri? You can refuse to vote, and let the tie stand, which would be the same as voting against it. Or you could vote Yes and allow the changes. Sell the property you invested in 25 years ago as you always hoped. Send your kids to college, and retire comfortably some day. Look deep into your souls, folks. What WOULD you do?