Check out my editorial in today's Main Line Life:

Posted on Tue, Jun 24, 2008
It may be summer, but that doesn't mean that it's quiet
By Carla J. Zambelli for As I See It

Greetings from the sidelines. There are so many things to follow, even in the dead of the summer, that I am worried about whiplash.

In Ardmore, we are on the brink of a new day, and now we wonder what Suburban Square will be doing. I am just going to say it outright: Suburban Square has pre-existing issues that should be dealt with and solved before any expansion or additional development is even casually entertained. Suburban Square doesn't need to develop, it wants to, and that is the difference. They are a success just the way they currently are. If they truly wish to be a good neighbor, they won't develop now.

Ardmore also needs a master plan, and the Suburban Square issue demonstrates that. Right now Ardmore has a redevelopment plan, MUST, and multiple independent development plans floating around in various stages of discussion, planning or approval. Nothing ties it all together to make it cohesive. And don't tell me we have MUST, so Ardmore doesn't need a master plan. MUST is an overlay, not a plan. A master plan would better ensure that Ardmore's future is a truly collective vision. And MUST? It should be revisited now. If some commissioners are concerned about the height and density implications of MUST, revisit it now. Otherwise, commissioners can ask developers politely until the cows come home to be judicious with things like height and density, but it will all be meaningless. If the ordinance says they can develop to "X" point, they will develop to "X" point to maximize their profits.

Moving onto Bryn Mawr, where new zoning was just passed. While much attention was paid to the business district, there is another component to the "village." I wonder about the way Bryn Mawr was in essence scrubbed clean of certain small neighborhoods. You can replace buildings, you can't replace people. Where are those people now? It's simply tragic that parts of Bryn Mawr were, in effect, cleansed of residents of certain socioeconomic levels. I hope the redevelopment and new zoning of Bryn Mawr brings the renaissance predicted, otherwise we're looking at a whole lot of waste.

In St. David's, next on my list, there is a heated sidewalk debate going on. Residents don't have to go out of pocket for the expense of them, they apparently seem as if they will be built in the public right-of-way. Sidewalks are a tool to assist with pedestrian safety, as well as promoting community walkability. Yet a handful of St. David's residents apparently have their knickers in a twist. Is it really about protecting daylilies or is it because they don't want the hoi polloi strolling past, or to have to shovel sidewalks in winter? Mind you, the "hoi polloi" in this case would be moms with kids and strollers, people walling their dogs, people going back and forth from the train station, and oh yes, commuter students from Eastern University. So it's OK if people walk on the road and in ditches and play chicken with traffic, just as long as no one has to move some perennials?

A little farther west is the open issue of 236 North Aberdeen in North Wayne's "Little Chicago." At the Radnor public meetings in which this plan was discussed it was strongly suggested that the developers meet with neighbors, correct? Have they ever met with concerned residents on both sides of the creek? After all, we're not just talking about creating a multitude of density related issues on North Aberdeen, we're talking about FEMA flood plain lines, storm water issues and the people on the low side of the creek who would be potentially impacted, aren't weft The residents of Willow Avenue?

Ah yes, this completely unnecessary development devoid of any true hardship or necessity will make for an interesting property rights debate, won't it? Will everyone's property rights be valued equally? After all, we're talking a small neighborhood of modest proportions and given the recent history of the Main Line, will these people be protected? And then of course, there is the undeniable history of the home which currently stands at 236 North Aberdeen. But in the end, will anyone care?

There are a multitude of other issues sprouting daily, and honestly, it does give one pause for thought. After all, here we are living in one of the most beautiful areas, and I have to ask all of you: is the beauty only skin deep and selective at this point?

The question is, when do we say "enough"? And when we all do stand up as a collective from one end of the Main Line to the other, who will listen? Who will care?

Yes, there are many slightly jaded questions, and no, I don't have a crystal ball. What I do know is simple: most people in most communities have no objections to modest redevelopment. What they object to is the convoluted sense of process which often leaves little to be desired because moderation and common sense often seems left out. And along with leaving out the aforementioned, government often seem to leave out the basic will of the people who actually already live in areas some seek to redevelop. And that is something which always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Carla J. Zambelli writes an occasional column for Main Line Life.