Poor Quakertown borough council. Even when they are right, they are wrong. Now their past is returning to haunt them.
Their latest self-inflicted problem has them balancing the borough's history against the rights of private landowners. And, because they ignored the issue for so long, their negligence will have an impact forever.
Although Qtown is celebrating its sesquicentennial, the place was actually named in 1801. And, despite the absence of building codes, zoning, fire codes, inspectors, permits, licenses, and development protestors back then, homes built in that era still exist today. Today literally means today , because the owner (a Sellersville resident) of one of the oldest houses in Quakertown wants to tear it down and build three townhomes. Two would be on lots smaller than allowed by the current law.
To accomplish this subdivision, the owner must get the approval of the Zoning Hearing Board. Sounds like a no-brainer. Why should Quakertown lose one of its oldest buildings so a developer can make more money? Especially when his plan doesn't even conform to today's laws. Just say No.
But how about the rights of a landowner to maximize the use, and income, of his own land? Can our local officials deny him his legal rights because his view of architecture, and history, differs from theirs? Especially when council has never bothered to pass any of the necessary preservation laws?
Qtown's elected leaders have snoozed their way into a position where they can't act in the best interests of the people. Again, they have deferred making any key decisions, deferred taking any important action, for just a wee bit too long. In this case, about 200 years.
204 years after the town was founded, there is still no zoning or architectural code to prevent developers from replacing Quakertown's unique and historically important buildings with just about anything they choose. We can't blame the current members of council for the sins of the entire two centuries, but President Ray Fulmer has been in power for ten years. Dennis Hallman 19 years. Borough Manager David Woglom 20 years. Jim Roberts 23. Elfriede Werner 25. Plenty of time to act. They just didn't.
Fulmer huffed that the townhouse idea is "totally inappropriate", and "an intrusion on the integrity of the neighborhood". Hallman accused the owner of putting his needs before those of the town. And they are both right. The problem is, they did absolutely nothing to prevent it. And they have had every opportunity to do so. In fact, Quakertown is about the only municipality in Bucks County that has not legally preserved its historically-significant architecture.
There has been a solution at hand for decades. Apply to the National Park Service to be included in the National Register of Historic Places. Once that is accomplished, people who want to tear down any building in the preserved area would have to replace it with a structure the same size and style. No townhomes, no undersized lots.
But Quakertown ignored this idea, and any other form of preservation. While the rest of Bucks County did the right thing, and registered their historic districts, council did nothing. Thirty five municipalities, from the biggies like Doylestown, Bristol, Langhorne, New Hope, Newtown, and Yardley, down to where-is-thats like Dyerstown, Penns Park, and Upper Aquetong, have preserved key portions of their towns. Some acted as far back as the 1970's. In total, 148 places in Bucks are registered. None is named Quakertown Borough.
In 2003, 202 years after Great Swamp got a more formal name, Quakertown Alive! (not council) finally did make a preliminary application. But this process requires an assessment of the borough's buildings, which is not yet complete two years later. And, in the meantime, council has not passed any other ordinances or rules regulating historic preservation. And now they face the embarrassment of the loss of one of the oldest homes.
Incredibly, Councilman Dave Wilsey opined that it is OK to tear the building down because it is not "historically significant". Wake up, Dave. Your own borough website points out that in 1820 there were only twelve dwellings here. The house in question, which even has a historical name, the Dr. James Green house, was one of the first built, about 1808. If anything is worth preserving, it is something like this.
Republicans for Stevens?
Even in the seamy world of political deception, this takes the cake. "Republicans for Stevens". Logically, you would think that this is an organization of Richland Republicans that supports Democrat Vic Stevens for supervisor.
Or not. Decide for yourself. The "group" is not registered with the Board of Elections. Perhaps that is because their website is owned and created by Marshall Linton of Perkasie. Not even a resident! And not even a Republican!
Linton, and Amanda Amarotico, bought their Perkasie house together two years ago. Both have voter registrations as Green party members , and donated $525 to Green presidential candidate Ralph Nader in 2004. This past July, Amarotico was signer #423 on a nationally-circulated Green Party petition that demanded:
"The Green Party must declare as policy that it does not endorse, support or urge votes for any partisan candidate of either the Democratic or Republican Party". ( http://www.steelfarms.net/pipermail/gppa-discussion/2005-July/000329.html)
Linton refused to reveal the names of any other Republicans for Stevens. He said it is not "public information", and hung up. Considering the deception, no one should be surprised. Nor should anyone be surprised that supervisor Mike Zowniriw, a Greenie, has a Republicans for Stevens sign on his car.
The Linton website laughably states at the bottom of each page "Morals, Ethics, Trust". Mr. Stevens - what moral, ethical, trustworthy candidate would arrange for Greens to pose as Republicans???