Gertrude Stein waxed lyrical in 1913 "Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose", meaning things are what they are. You can conjure up the beauty by just hearing the name. A rose may grow in Open Space, but Open Space is not Open Space is not Open Space. And an apparent community activist may not be what she appears.
The most recent personal crusade of Richland's long-time self-appointed watchdog, Jane Steeley, is to make sure that nothing is ever built on township "Open Space". As she put it, "not on .001 percent of the land". But she uses the term "Open Space" improperly. Just as there are over 6500 varieties of roses today, "Open Space" has become a catch-all term for many programs. And not all are intended to be empty lots.
Lynn Bush, the Executive Director of the Bucks County Planning Commission, warns residents not to confuse Open Space donated to the township with purchased Preserved Space. The rules are much different for each. Any land purchased with government grant or bond money can not be built on. But land dedicated by developers, or donated to the township, for stated purposes, can be.
And Jeff Marshall of the Heritage Conservancy explained in the Intelligencer that, sometimes, officials have to allow some land to be developed in exchange for preserving most of it. "Preservation efforts can't always meet the public's high expectations, given limited budgets and the increasingly steep cost of property. As land values escalate, more and more shades of gray have developed. We can't just say it's got to be perfect or we won't be involved."
And while Open Space is a great idea in theory, it does come with a price tag. As the Philadelphia Inquirer observed, "In town halls across the suburbs, conservation euphoria is giving way to the sober realization that open space can be a money pit". Evesham Township , N.J., has preserved an amazing 3300 acres, but has an annual bill of over $400,000 to maintain them. Lower Makefield bought a 235-acre farm that dated from the 1700's, and now must deal with over $400,000 worth of repairs to the farmhouse alone. The manager of Solebury Township lamented that municipalities now worry "What did we get ourselves into?"
That doesn't faze Jane Steeley. She is now fighting a Richland ordinance, which has been amended twice already, declaring what can, and can not, be done with township-owned property. The issue is muddied by the fact that some land, which Steeley improperly refers to as Open Space, was not designated that way on township dedication documents. Certain tracts have been given to the township for "general municipal purposes", but she wants them to be restricted from any development, no matter how small. It is no coincidence that one such tract is right by her house.
The term "general municipal purposes" is not a random thought. Richland supervisors intentionally avoided taking some land specifically as Open Space for good reason. While they have no plans to build anything on the properties, they point out that no one knows what may be desirable, or even necessary, five, or ten, or fifty years from now. Residents may need wells, tot lots, restrooms and parking for playing fields, or perhaps a community center. It would be poor planning to tie the hands of future generations just to satisfy Jane Steeley.
Steeley, who frequently pleads her case in the media (where her questionable "facts" can go unquestioned) fanned the flames of confrontation by declaring that "people don't trust Richland Township". In fact, it appears that people don't trust Jane Steeley. She has a long history of battling the township, the supervisors, and her neighbors on Station Road. For more than 20 years she has pushed her own agenda at board and committee meetings. In 1984, she publicly complained about her neighbor, my Quakertown Farmers Market. The township zoning officer, Paul Hoot, found no violations. In 1992, zoning officer George Gardner suggested that she was waging a "one-woman crusade" against the Market.
She made such outlandish accusations that, when she was sued for defamation, the township's insurance company refused to cover her. As Chair of the Planning Commission, she was the very definition of an over-regulator. Voters apparently took notice: she ran for supervisor in 1997, and received only 87 votes. She then resigned from the Planning Commission, and publicly stated that she would not serve as a township volunteer, or seek public office here. But, before departing, Steeley, and buddy Brian Kline, co-authored Richland's horrible Comprehensive Plan, which kept development away from her own home, but made hundreds of acres available for building throughout the township. If you believe that Richland is overdeveloped, look no further than Jane Steeley.
And, though she speaks as if she is representing everyone in the township, her battles have always been about her own property. In 1997, she publicly objected to paying her tapping fee for borough water service - the same fee that all other homeowners paid. Not surprisingly, she was a founding member of Mike Zowniriw's now-disgraced Richland Citizens Alliance. She fought the YMCA's plans to build near her home, but had no objection to locating it elsewhere in the area. She opposed the very successful traffic roundabout down the street, and opposes construction of a park on township land by her house, although her own Comprehensive Plan stressed the need for parks and recreational facilities. And, while loudly decrying development, she quietly applied to the township to subdivide her own property, and change the zoning from Residential to Planned Commercial.
The Supervisors decided not to fight the what-can-we-do-with-this-land? issue in court, since they have no plans to build anything. And Steeley also acknowledged that she didn't think she could legally force them to totally restrict all Open Space from any development. So now everything waits for that possible future township need, captive to one woman's personal agenda. Maybe we'll grow roses, if that's OK with Jane.