If you are currently attending or viewing the MUST Public Hearing in progress you would have heard during Robert Duncan's initial comments he made reference to one of our members, Carla, and her desire to have an e-mail she wrote to him about MUST placed on the record. He graciously has allowed to be placed into the record for tonight's hearing. Carla has given us permission to post it. We will note that she wrote it to Mr. Duncan in advance of the November 3rd meeting which was at first thought to be open to all. In actuality, that meeting was a specific presentation to all our civic associations.

We would like to note that as we listen to the public hearing we are disturbed by comments to the effect that a developer won't develop without MUST on Schaffle Plaza. We remind the public that there is a small, viable neighborhood that will be negatively affected by too tall buildings. Good developers can work within the exisiting codes. So we will have to disagree: say no to this MUST ordinance as proposed. Especially since MUST as currently proposed will be spot enacted. Why have specific town guinea pigs? Comprehensive plan first. Then we'll talk about the rest. There are too many inconsistancies.

We respectfully disagree with comments from others who claim everyone wins with MUST. It is simply NOT true. MUST is not a healing ordinance, and you can NOT be lulled into believing it will help heal all woes as it is ALREADY proving to be contention in itself. And Ardmore is not as they described it. Why, in truth, if they so hate the town, why have their businesses here?

We have no problem with thoughtful redevelopment. We just feel (again) that MUST is dangerous as it currently is written. It needs a LOT of work, and it shouldn't be spot enacted.

Anyway, without further ado, Carla's comments (we welcome anyone else to send us their comments to post):

Dear Mr. Duncan,
I realize that I am not number one on the hit parade of popularity of my township due to my outspoken views on Ardmore and eminent domain. However, that being stated, I am still a resident, and my Haverford neighborhood will be directly and negatively impacted by MUST as it is currently proposed. This means that I would be remiss in NOT contacting you on this issue and the upcoming meeting.

I contact you for two reasons:

(1) to gently remind you that a 4 PM meeting is NOT a convenient time if you want a citizen inclusive process, and all have publicly stated that you do. People work Mr. Duncan, and we can't just pick up and leave the office early all the time. I would request that the BOC and your staff reschedule this meeting, and ANY meeting on MUST so that as many interested parties as possible can voice concerns and suggestions. If the meetings are held at standard open meeting times it will ensure it is inclusive. 4 PM is an odd time.

(2) MUST is something that proves to be as or even more controversial than the current Ardmore Redevelopment Plan B, given the outcome of the first meeting. THAT being stated, and I realize I am just one person, but I for one plead that this thing be reworked and proposed in a few months. While the Township might have been working for a long duration on this, the citizens of Lower Merion have so many concerns, so many questions, that this can't be pushed through too quickly. Please do not do that.

I do not want to see my neighborhood of Haverford which abuts the R5 and is already sandwiched between a train station and commercial properties on Lancaster Avenue destroyed by huge monolithic concrete structures which will ultimately destroy the beauty and charm and quaint aspects of what neighborhoods like mine in Haverford represent. Nor do I think it is applicable in Ardmore or Bryn Mawr for that matter. No one objects to progress, sir, but residents do object to things coming at them so fast and so furious that we can barely breath. It is simply not right.

Please don't let MUST the next Ardmore Redevelopment Plan B-like controversy.

Thank you
Carla Z