Greener Partners Sharecroppin' at The Willows?

Welcome Lower Merion residents!

We're glad you stopped by. Go ahead and register for a free account to get the benefits of being a member, including:
  • Access to all of our posts and comments
  • Your own profile including an avatar, buddy lists, and other social networking features
  • The ability to send private messages to other users on this site
  • The ability to chat and interact with other citizens and voters in and around Lower Merion.
Creating an account is easy. Register now!

(Don't live in Lower Merion? That's okay. We won't hold it aginst you.)
Tags:
MainLineThoughts's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 17 weeks ago
Joined: 2008-05-11 :48
Posts:

So is it true that last evening's meeting at the Radnor Twp. Board of Commissioners included a conversation that went like this (see below)?

In order to preserve the elusive heirloom tomatoes allow a relatively new and still sort of unproven venture that has only had one expensive season selling organic produce called Greener Partners, to be able to use 2 acres of land at the Willows and to use the Willows Cottage....FOR FREE?

I was all for Saving The Willows Cottage, but for FREE RENT and FREE use of township owned land for in essence a private enterptise? So the non-profit Greener Partners runs it's stuff through other non-profits? That is a weird pass thru kind of arrangement.

The Willows is PUBLIC land, paid for by the taxpayers of Radnor Township. Community gardening is a GREAT idea, but only if the community does it. Greener Partners gets FREE Radnor Township Land to sell their veggies, and this is for free? They charged people in the summer of 2008 at least $500 for that pleasure. Yes, and while some of the produce was lovely (people picked it up at Smith & Hawken), it was at best inconsistent. For example, some weeks people were sick of getting bok choi. Can you eat two huge heads of bok choi a week for a few weeks? Some weeks your bag was busting at the seams, other weeks it was downright skimpy. Fragile perishibles like those little cherry and other small tomatoes were packaged in baggies, plastic baggies....and in the bottom of bags. When they gave you cut flowers, most had to be tossed the day people took them home or the next day.

When you compared Greener Partners to other organic ventures in the area, they were nice, but the market shares of produce that other people were getting locally was better, and the goods more consistent. And those people didn't get their berries in used Starbucks plastic cups, either. Plus there is the organic market at Oakmont (Havertown) and West Chester, just to named two. As a matter of fact these organic produce initiatives are cropping up everywhere, but here is the ultimate question Radnor: are these people are doing anything for free? That answer would be no. Why? Because it is a business model.

Greener Partners is a nice idea, but not for free. Forget about the elitist and discrimanatory implications about essentially sharecropping on publicly owned park land, it's a crackers plan for the Friends of Willows Cottage. How can they keep the cottage preservation going if no one is paying a dime towards it? They are going to be taking what? Upwards of $800 or better next season per person for their veggie services? Then they should at least pay $800 per month for rent of the cottage, and some sort of fee for the land. The business plan, look at the business plan. IF it fails, who is left holding the bag?

That land at the Willows belongs to the people of the township in which it is located. In these economic times, which will only get worse, if Greener Partners was going to start a farming cooperative where any resident of Radnor Township who desired could have a little plot of land to grow stuff (like Haverford College), that would be one thing, but these people are talking about using land FOR FREE and selling pricy produce subscriptions?

Did anyone bother to check the bio of Greener Partners founder,Jason W. Ingle :

Mr. Ingle co-founded Greener Partners to compel potential partner organizations to take underutilized land holdings and put it into sustainable agriculture using organic growing methods for the benefit of surrounding communities. Core components of this initiative are the education and community outreach programs. Mr. Ingle was raised on an organic, diverse family farm and has always been driven to communicate to others the benefits of this way of life. Prior to co-founding Greener Partners, Mr. Ingle has spent much of his career in the finance industry, including the development of Aslan Capital Management from 2001 to 2005, a distressed-debt hedge fund based in Manhattan, NY. Mr. Ingle is also the co-founder and managing partner of Fairlane Partners, a Private Equity/Venture Capital firm based in Berwyn, PA. Mr. Ingle currently serves on the Board of the Tyler Arboretum in Media, PA, Heron Hill Winery located in the Finger Lakes region of New York State, and Brush Street Capital based in Detroit, MI.

Fairlane Partners is (if you are interested):

Fairlane Partners 1055 Westlakes Drive Suite 300
Berwyn Pennsylvania 19312
Industries: Construction/Housing
How to contact: Call (610) 213-0055 or e-mail to
Fairlane Partners is an investor group that allocates capital towards various ventures from private equity to expansion capital to real estate development primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions.

Provide expansion capital to companies accross various sectors.

This idea can be translated as ommy boutique farming, and employees to help load the weekly bag of veggies from the "distribution center" at the Willows Cottage? People that employee employees, non-profit or not can afford to pay rent of some sort, correct? Good wishes are not going to keep that cottage on the right path of preservation. And I object to this freebie as I kind of object to taxpayers bailing out AIG while their executives go on retreats, ok?

What kind of non profit are these Greener Partners people? I can't find it listed on their website, although I did find a listing on PA's site:

Non-Profit (Non Stock) - Domestic - Information

Entity Number: 3807340
Status: Active

Entity Creation Date: 5/1/2008

State of Business.: PA
Registered Office Address: 6154 Goshen Road
Newtown Square PA 19073
Mailing Address: No Address

So, maybe they are a non-profit, but are they a charity worthy of FREE rent at taxpayer expense in tough economic times? Can you find them listed on PA's Bureau of Charitable Organizations ?

Last word? I am all for organic produce, but not at the expense of the average taxpayer of a municipaltity on public lands, or another non profit. Greener Partners is not marketing to the little folk, their services are only available to those who can pay a LOT of money, correct? And if Greener Partners flubs at this site, who is on the hook for money shortfalls? Would that be the Friends of the Willows Cottage?

If Greener Partners wants to PAY rent to Radnor Township for use of the cottage and use of 2 acres of taxpayer owned land, then by all means, let 'em play "Green Acres" (Who is playing Zsa Zsa's part, by the way?). But if they can't fork over the green, no need for Radnor to get into the red over this, right?

Sorry, but as a freebie, I find this to be a dumb assed idea potentially at taxpayer expense. There should be no such thing as a free lunch at taxpayer and resident expense....sorry...I know people are going to think I am a green meanie for not saying how wonderful, but I simply do not agree with this. I think what Greener Partners does is probably admirable, but I can't justify $500 to $800 for in essence less than half a year so I can by organic produce that I am not actually choosing myself.....and is their business plan proven as a success yet? How can you say, since it is too early to tell...it just seems like a commercial use to produce food for a few, not for everyone. Again, if they are going to swap services like conduct free seminars on say, 4 square gardening with a demonstration garden that residents can apply to their own property, that might help. And again, if there were little plots for gardening available for residents along with the Greener Partners folks, well that would be cool, wouldn't it?

All I am saying is I think the Friends of the Willows Cottage will be giving more than they are getting, and I find that risky.

If this was a proven business model, no what I think? They would be doing this stuff on private land, not public. Maybe it is better than nothing, but it seems a little funky.

4.214285
Average: 4.2 (14 votes)
Your rating: None

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
JohnN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-11-10 :54
Posts:

At this point I will not enter in to a debate with you about this topic because you do not know the facts, understand the concept or appreciate what is being done.
It was made very clear that the expense to the township and taxpayers is zero. Township employees will not be involved and the folks who buy the "shares" will be the risk takers. The CSA shareholders will pay for the electricity, fencing and such, not the township. Yes the use of the land and portion of the building will be rent free, as part of the pilot program. We will have to wait and see what the future holds. It is a pilot. And by the way, the shareholders and volunteers will be responsible for the resoration of those portions of the Cottage that they will be using. This is a great start towards the long term survival of the Cottage.

Please keep an open mind and get the facts and lastly, there is no reason to delve into personal attacks on the participants, lets talk about ideas.

1.88889
Average: 1.9 (9 votes)
Your rating: None
MainLineThoughts's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 17 weeks ago
Joined: 2008-05-11 :48
Posts:

Sorry, but the Willows is a municipal park and this is a private venture. No one ever said township employees would be involved (except you saying it would not happen here), but this is a scenario that smacks of elitism. Those people can afford to pay rent, so, if they were proposing to pay rent, my mind would be much more open...fencing parkland so the Landrover/Cayenne/Lexus set can not have to go to Whole Foods? What's not to appreciate....if you can afford it, right?

You are right, I don't appreciate this because I think it is potentially foolish, and I saw first hand how they worked this past summer as I knew quite a few folks who subscribed with them. I doubt all of those people will sign up twice. It was too much money for the product which was delivered, and somewhat inconsistent.

There are too many other farm-to-market programs which cost subscribers A LOT less. And these programs are done for profit, not altriusm.

NO ONE was delving into personal attacks on anyone, merely stating facts. The Greener Partners main dude is a Venture Capitalist, so he is not naiive as to how to work a deal, which also says he has the talent so the Friends of the Cottage could be shown a little green, even if it's not much. No one is saying "don't do this" , all I am saying is you all need to learn a little more and at least charge rent on the cottage, if not the land (or both).

At $500 to $800 per subscription, they should be able to afford to pay that much in rent. If they have been able to afford office rent, why give the cow, err cottage away for free?

4.333335
Average: 4.3 (12 votes)
Your rating: None
JohnN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-11-10 :54
Posts:

Everyone will have a second chance to see the presentation at the Parks Board meeting Thursday night.
You seem to have two issues:
1. Paying rent for public spaces. Have you considered the fact that local engineering firms, builders and architecs have already provided in kind services valued at about $20,000? Also, part of the proposal includes to renovations to the "garage" of the cottage into an education space that will be available to the public. In fact a big piece of the proposal involves public eduaction. Demonstration gardens are part of the proposal as is composting. We hope to show folks that even the smallest parcel can be used to grow your own heathy food. As far as fencing off public land, the area proposed in on Skunk Hollow, near the leaf composting area, in a space that is not particularly utilized by the public. I believe that the existing trail network will be enhanced by this development.

2. Elitism- Have you visited Radnor lately! Recognise that this is a pilot program and has start up costs that the founding members will absorb. So that is why initial costs are high. These programs even work in poor neighborhoods but someone has to get them started. CSA's once established have a history of providing locally grown, organic produce to folks at a reasonable price. Will the cost be higher than Pathmark? Probably, but the food will be better, and healthier for the folks and the environment. if the folks you have talked with don't think they are getting value then they can and do quit. I also know several folks who are shareholders in CSAs and they are extremely happy with what the get for their investment.

What does the fact that the founder of Greener Partners is an "investment guy" have to do with anything? Do you think he will be making a fortune from this venture? The skills he has from his "day job" are brought to bear in all that he does. Be glad we have folks like him.

1.923075
Average: 1.9 (13 votes)
Your rating: None
MainLineThoughts's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 17 weeks ago
Joined: 2008-05-11 :48
Posts:

JohnN, then if everything you say is true is happening, I will be much happier. Please understand, I mean no disrespect towards you or the Friends of The Willows Cottage, but this just seems risky in a tight economy. Who knows given economic forecasts if anyone will be able to afford these farm shares at $500 a pop and up? Also, if this was being started in a more poor neighborhood with more hands on approach like a community garden along with the farm market plot that would produce the produce to sell, well that would have meant we wouldn't be even having this conversation.

And as for elitism, my point is there is way too much going on around the Main Line in general. Also, do you know people that were involved in THIS CSA? I know people who were involved in THIS one and others, and the ones who were involved in some others seemed like they got more bang for the buck. I also do not shop at Pathmark, nor do I buy produce at grocery stores. I patronize Oakmont Farm Market, the one in West Chester on occasion, and places like that. Better food doesn't have to be expensive, you merely have to know how to shop. Also? I prefer to pick my own produce. So if THAT was an option with this and they also started something like the Oakmont & WC markets there, I would definitely be cool with it - as a matter of fact they should consider it, and as a way of making money for the Willows Cottage, 15-20% of proceeds from each market day would go to the Willow Cottage Fund.

How about THAT? Have the CSAs and a market day cooperative food market say twice a month between May and October? That way when they had excess they could sell it for cash and not lose anything.

4.2
Average: 4.2 (10 votes)
Your rating: None
JohnN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-11-10 :54
Posts:

Great idea about the coop (I have been to Oakmont) I will take it to the group.
Yes the economy is a problem but again there is no risk to the Township (taxpayers).
We interviewed other folks that Greener partners is helping (unlike el presidente, we vett). I would suggest that the firat few years of a CSA are very rough. Getting the right farmer, lining up the shareholders, understanding the crops to be planted.

Community Gardens are great ideas, too. Somthing we looked at but decided that that will be in the future. We would like to do it all but resources and priorities always come in to play.

1.4
Average: 1.4 (10 votes)
Your rating: None
RadnorLawyer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 33 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-21 :24
Posts:

Outstanding points, MainLineThoughts.

Here's one that will really get your head spinning:

The Radnor Conservancy, a group supposedly dedicated to the "preservation of open space" (and which, quite modestly, describes itself as "[t]he local champion of protection efforts in the Radnor Township area"), is actually supporting the implementation of this farm onto land that is (a) publicly owned, (b) was under no threat of development, and (c) was (previously) open space.

Heck, the Conservancy has even dedicated an entire page to the farm on their official website:

****
http://www.radnorconservancy.org/Community_Farm/community_farm.html
****

So much for the Conservancy's goal of keeping open space...well..."open". Instead we, in Radnor, now have a big, fenced-in garden (approximately "2.5 acres") where our citizens can collect produce from a farmer...provided that they pony up "$700 - $850 a season".

One other thing…that “$750 - $850 a season” is in addition to the $25 - $200 membership fees associated with joining the Radnor Conservancy:

****
http://www.radnorconservancy.org/Become_A_Member/become_a_member.html
****

What…you didn’t think turning open space into farmland was free…did you?

4.11111
Average: 4.1 (9 votes)
Your rating: None
Woozaleedoodle's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 35 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-27 :45
Posts:

Ugh!! From now on, my money goes to the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. Dunno if anyone has seen/met Maya Van Rossum (she's a Radnor resident)...now there's a true ADVOCATE for the environment:

http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/aboutus/delawareriverkeeper.asp

4.5
Average: 4.5 (8 votes)
Your rating: None
JohnN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-11-10 :54
Posts:

Yes Maya and her organization do great work and please contribute to them. Your post suggests that you have given money to the Conservancy in the past??

1.5
Average: 1.5 (8 votes)
Your rating: None
JohnN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-11-10 :54
Posts:

Actually the Conservancy is doing this as a pilot project with the goal of making it a standalone organization in the future.
Your post suggests that you do not understand CSAs. There are many benefits: helping individual (and usually young) farmers remain in farming by having the members "share the risk"; providing organic fruits and produce; eliminating to a large extent the transportation etc associated with standard markets hence reducing our carbon footprint.
Also, on average, the cost of a membership is the same or less thaen the cost of the produce one receives.

As discussed above in the earlier posts, another way to help is to support "farm to city" markets where local farmers bring their produce to a farmers market once or twice a week. You may have seen the folks that made a presentation at the last Commish meeting wishing to do this in Wayne using a public parking lot. The produce sold there will carry a premium because it is local, fresh and organic. I hope they are successful. One is starting in Bryn Mawr.

The portion of land being used is at the Skunk Hollow leaf mulching area and it is practically invisible to the neighbors.

Farms aren't open space? Wow.

1.57143
Average: 1.6 (7 votes)
Your rating: None
RadnorLawyer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 33 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-21 :24
Posts:

First and foremost, an accusation that a poster "doesn't understand" an issue is, in my mind, a fairly condescending and/or dismissive way to frame a response (which you have done twice on this post's thread). It's also incorrect, as I think I understand CSAs just fine.

Second, the (public) land being used for the farm used to be completely open space. It is now surrounded by a deer fence made of wood and mesh that is approximately ten (10) feet high and encircles two and a half acres (frankly, it resembles a gigantic chicken coop). It is not invisible to the people walking on the public trails that traverse through Skunk Hollow, Saw Mill Park, and/or the Willows, and it is not "open", as the view is (now) artificially obstructed. Hey...that reminds me...didn't the Radnor Conservancy say something about natural landscapes on their website...something about their mission being about "[p]rotecting and conserv[ing] the natural, scenic, historic and cultural landscape of Radnor Township":

****
http://www.radnorconservancy.org/About_Us/Our_Mission/our_mission.html
****

Third, your use of the word "wow" insinuates that you are surprised that a person could possibly think that the development of publicly-owned open space into fenced-in farmland does not comport with the philosophy of "open space". I am genuinely surprised that you are surprised, and I am, likewise, surprised that you apparently do not consider a newly developed fenced-in farm to be...well..."enclosed space"...especially since the land, prior to the farm, was, unquestionably, "open space". But let's delve into this a bit further...what other things would you consider to be in keeping with the preservation of "open space" in so far as public land is concerned (we've already established that you're fine with the development and implementation of a fenced-in farm)? How about the development and implementation of a golf course?

4
Average: 4 (8 votes)
Your rating: None
JohnN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-11-10 :54
Posts:

So are you having fun being a naysayer? So if you understand CSAs, am I just to assume that you overlook facts that do not support your argument? As for being accusatory, your original post includes "a group that supposedly supports open space". How Rovian.

So farms are bad and golf courses, too?? It should only be so black and white. I am not a fan of golf courses because they use far too many chemicals for one thing. BUT, would you prefer 100 (one hundred) new homes or a golf course? Many, many times you can't get what you want so you have to compromise. Unless you have $50 million plus to buy the land....

As for use of public property...... How about all of the playing fields? A fairly large number of the taxpaying residents do not use the playing fields or have children in the various sport programs. Do you think the fees collected begin to cover the cost of the "rent" and maintenance? And are we to not consider ball fields open space since they have dugouts, backstops and fences?

You also have overlooked the fact that the repairs and improvements to the Cottage have cost the Township tax payers nothing. In addition to the Cottage use associated with the CSA an Eco center is being implemented where we will provide training and educational opportunities. Also the space should be available as a meeting space for other township organizations.

What percentage of the folks in the Township use the trails you mentioned? Are they being deprived of access? No, but they will have to look at a fenced in farm. The fence is 8 foot high. Also along this trail route you get to see the 8 foot high mulch piles and the area where the Twp dumps "stuff" until they can do final disposal.
BTW, I was one of the folks responsible for the trail network in Skunk Hollow and the Willows, which were mostly constructed by our local Boy Scouts and Church Youth Groups.

Oh, a little bit of history... do you know the first public meetings in Radnor that were broadcast on cable? Parks and rec. Do you know why? Chip and Dave had issues with Skunk Hollow and some of the proposals in the long range plan. And from their efforts, which they expanded (along with John H., as volunteers) we now have all meeting televised and even available on the web. Three cheers for them. Quite a feather in their collective hats.

1.57143
Average: 1.6 (7 votes)
Your rating: None
RadnorLawyer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 33 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-21 :24
Posts:

...are you finished? I only ask, because it would be an outright disservice to the readers of this blog for me to interrupt that last post of yours. So...anything else you'd like to add, before I respond?

4
Average: 4 (8 votes)
Your rating: None
JohnN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-11-10 :54
Posts:

Surer, how about... I have finished with this topic and won''t be reading this thread any longer. So have a party Dan.

1.57143
Average: 1.6 (7 votes)
Your rating: None
RadnorLawyer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 33 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-21 :24
Posts:

I always consider it a shame when somebody proactively involves themselves in a topic, and thereafter asserts that they will neither read subsequent posts nor will they provide any further responses.

Be that as it may, John Nagle's previous postings were done in response to a post I had made (on this thread) specifically about the Radnor Conservancy. Accordingly, it is important to evaluate the ten (10) points raised by Mr. Nagle in the context of the Radnor Conservancy. As a brief aside, had Mr. Nagle remained on this discussion, I would have asked Mr. Nagle to clarify whether his comments reflected his personal beliefs, or those of the Radnor Conservancy, as, according to the Conservancy's official website, he is their active Treasurer and Secretary:

****
http://www.radnorconservancy.org/Contact_Us/contact_us.html
****

First, Mr. Nagle's comments, insofar as they relate to "[f]arms and golf courses", is surprising to me. One would think that the Conservancy would be vigorously opposed to either…assuming that the development and implementation of either was to occur on public land (which is where the farm in question was developed and implemented). Indeed, just because a building is not developed on the land, does not mean that the space remains "open", particularly if a ten foot high mesh fence is erected around the perimeter. Mr. Nagle apparently disagrees, and does not consider the discussion to be "black and white". However, Mr. Nagle then, quite inappropriately, supports his position with a comparison between the farm, which was implemented onto publicly owned land, and the development of "100 new homes or a golf course" onto privately owned land (hence his "50 million to BUY the land" language). Accordingly, my response to Mr. Nagle is that although development of farms and golf courses onto private land may not be "black and white", the distinction between public land and private land is "black and white"...and one would hope that the Radnor Conservancy's officers (including its Treasurer/Secretary) would understand this rather basic distinction.

Second, Mr. Nagle's commentary about "public property" vis a vis "playing fields", is particularly confusing, insofar as its relevancy with the Radnor Conservancy is concerned. If these "playing fields" are on public property, they have been implemented and designated as such by Radnor Township, a municipal government, as opposed to the Radnor Conservancy, a 503(c) non-profit organization. I have not seen anything on the Radnor Conservancy's official website advocating for (or against) these playing fields…which are, of course, maintained by Radnor Township. However, to the extent that Mr. Nagle is insinuating that, in the future, the Radnor Conservancy will advocate the transformation of publicly-owned meadows and forests into "playing fields" (and thereafter support the construction of "dugouts, backstops, and fences"), I would respond by stating that such a position would appear to be contrary to the Conservancy's expressly-stated "mission" of conserving "[t]he natural, scenic, historic and cultural landscape of Radnor Township":

****
http://www.radnorconservancy.org/About_Us/Our_Mission/our_mission.html
****

Third, Mr. Nagle's suggestions about the "[r]epairs and improvements to the [Willows] Cottage" are interesting insofar as the Radnor Conservancy is concerned. Repurposing the interior of an existing, historical building is clearly a fine idea, and in keeping with the goals of most conservation groups. However, I would be deeply surprised to learn that conservation groups, in general, would support the notion that the repurpsement of an existing building should be inextricably tied to the enclosement of previously-open public land. Instead, I would submit that if the repurpsement of the Cottage requires additional funds, perhaps the Conservancy could have considered raising its membership rates, or hosting additional fundraising events…before it supported the conversion of publicly-owned open space into fenced-in farmland.

Fourth, Mr. Nagle's commentary regarding the "[p]ercentage of folks in the Township us[ing] the trails [that run through the Willows, Saw Mill Park, and Skunk Hollow]" is particularly enlightening...especially if said commentary espouses a view held by the Radnor Conservancy at large. Essentially, the commentary insinuates that Mr. Nagle (and possibly the Conservancy) are only interested in preserving public open space if a specific threshold is met, namely, that at least a minimum percentage of Radnor's citizens experience the space and/or view the public property on a regular basis. It would be interesting to know what these minimum standards actually are, as they are not presently identified on the Conservancy's website. Alas, Mr. Nagle has expressly stated that he will not be commenting further on this topic, so I suppose any clarification will not be forthcoming, unless another officer of the Conservancy reads this post.

Fifth, Mr. Nagle's commentary stating that "[he] was one of the folks responsible for the trail network", is only relevant insofar as it relates to the Radnor Conservancy (my original post did not mention Mr. Nagle, nor any other person). If Mr. Nagle, in his capacity as Treasurer/Secretary for the Radnor Conservancy, was responsible for implementing a trail network (which does not enclose open space), then that is certainly a good past act performed by the Conservancy...but it does not excuse the Conservancy's subsequent role in converting publicly-owned open space into fenced-in farmland. However, to the extent that Mr. Nagle's role with respect to the trails was done in his individual capacity, it's good for the public to know such a fact...and, by extension, it’s good for the public to know that Mr. Nagle desires them to give him credit and/or acknowledgement for his involvement.

Sixth, Mr. Nagle's commentary with respect to "mulch piles" that the Township maintains on public land, does not seem to have any correlation with the Radnor Conservancy's desire to convert the publicly-owned open space into fenced-in farmland. Again, Radnor Township is a municipal government with varied roles and responsibilities, whereas the Radnor Conservancy is a "503(c)(3) nonprofit organization" that describes itself as "[t]he local champion of protection efforts in the Radnor Township area", and charges its members between $25.00 and $200.00 for their membership:

****
http://www.radnorconservancy.org/Become_A_Member/become_a_member.html
****

Accordingly, Mr. Nagle's commentary, insofar as mulch piles are concerned, is only relevant if he is insinuating that Radnor Township and the Radnor Conservancy are complete aligned in their interests. So far, I have not seen any evidence on either the Township or the Conservancy’s respective websites that denotes or demonstrates such a relationship. However, if Mr. Nagle does care for the aesthetics of the mulch piles, perhaps he (and the Conservancy) should advocate for a relocation of the piles and/or a reduction in the height of the piles. That would certainly be in keeping with the Conservancy’s professed goal of “[p]reserve[ing] the natural, scenic, historic and cultural landscape of Radnor Township”:

****
http://www.radnorconservancy.org/About_Us/Our_Mission/our_mission.html
****

Seventh, Mr. Nagle's commentary regarding televised public meetings, is not related to the Radnor Conservancy, but is instead relates to Radnor Township’s Park and Recreation Department, which is "[r]esponsible for the development, operation, administration, and maintenance of Township recreational facilities and year-round programs for Township residents of all ages":

****
http://www.radnor.com/department/index.asp?fDD=14-0
****

Eighth, Mr. Nagle's commentary regarding "Chip and Dave and John H." is completely irrelevant insofar as the Radnor Conservancy vis a vis the fenced-in farmland is concerned. Chip Layfield, former Seventh Ward Commissioner Dave Cannan, and John Haines are not officers of the Radnor Conservancy (and I do not know if they are even members). I have found no evidence indicating that any of these three extremely principled men ever publicly advocated that two and a half acres of public open space be converted into farmland, enclosed with a tall meshed fence, and thereafter the produce sold to people at a rate of $700-$850 per family, per season. Accordingly, any insinuation by Mr. Nagle that these men support the farm is, at a minimum, deeply misleading. However, since Mssrs. Cannan and Layfield actively post on this website, I am sure that they can capably speak for themselves.

Ninth, Mr. Nagle’s commentary about me “[h]aving fun being a naysayer”, is, at best, a wholly misguided, misleading, ad hominem, and gratuitous statement. However, it is a departure from his previous pattern of responding to postings with which he disagrees, with the somewhat dismissive phrase, “You don’t understand.”

Tenth, Mr. Nagle’s commentary about me being “Rovian” is confusing, because he connects this characterization of me on the basis that I asserted that the Radnor Conservancy “[s]upposedly supports open space”. I suppose he takes issue with my use of the word “supposedly”…but given that the Radnor Conservancy supported the implementation and development of a fenced-in farm onto publicly-owned open space, I think my use of the word “supposedly” was justified.

As an aside, my understanding of Rovian tactics (attributed to Karl Rove and his mentor Lee Atwater) is that heavy emphasis is placed on (a) “whisper campaigns” which involve covertly spreading false rumors (like that Texas Governor Ann Richards was a lesbian in 1994, and that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child in 2000 ), and (b) “dog whistle politics”, in which certain code words are specifically used to grab the attention of a particular population (like the terms “states rights” and “activist judge”). Accordingly, I do not think my posts on this site are “Rovian”, and I would ask Mr. Nagle to clarify his position…except that he has expressly stated that he will not read or respond to this post.

I’ll close by stating that, unlike Mr. Nagle, I look forward to reading and replying to any and all responses.

4.2
Average: 4.2 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
chattypatty's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 23 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-22 :14
Posts:

Brilliant summation counselor!

4.42857
Average: 4.4 (7 votes)
Your rating: None
Woozaleedoodle's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 35 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-27 :45
Posts:

Since John Nagle has claimed he isn't going to read/respond, I sure hope a member of the Conservancy does. I'm REALLY interested if they will support or distance themselves from the positions put forth by Mr. Nagle on this blog.

4.42857
Average: 4.4 (7 votes)
Your rating: None
carla's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-01-03 :36
Posts:

Enough.

Attacking each other accomplishes nothing. You all, in your own ways, wish to improve the quality of government and resolve issues, correct? Then get together OFF the blog, clear the air and get on with the business of cleaning up local government. You need discourse that is somewhat more productive, I think.

And please refrain from now attacking me. I am trying to help.

Blogging isn't just venting, to an extent it is a craft and it is an art form. You are all welcome here, but flame wars are not. This is not so unusual, most blogs have similar policies. And we all blog here because the webmaster allows us.

Thank you.
_____________________________________________________________
L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers/Man is born free, yet he is everywhere in chains.–Jean Jacques Rosseau. The Social Contract, 1762

1.57143
Average: 1.6 (7 votes)
Your rating: None

"Well behaved women rarely make history" - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

RadnorLawyer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 33 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-21 :24
Posts:

Carla, the one person who has engaged in "attacks" on this thread (i.e. calling a poster "Rovian", describing a poster as a "naysayer", claiming that a poster “overlook[ed] facts that do not support [their] argument", dismissively asserting that posters "don't understand", etc.) has unambiguously stated that he has left this thread, and will not read any of the posts.

Accordingly, I would respectfully suggest that you send him an EMAIL of your comments, so that he can be apprised of your position.

4.42857
Average: 4.4 (7 votes)
Your rating: None
carla's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-01-03 :36
Posts:

Again, I am not a witness being cross examined on the stand. Please stop. People do not have to play with you if they do not choose to.

_____________________________________________________________
L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers/Man is born free, yet he is everywhere in chains.–Jean Jacques Rosseau. The Social Contract, 1762

1.57143
Average: 1.6 (7 votes)
Your rating: None

"Well behaved women rarely make history" - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

RadnorLawyer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 33 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-21 :24
Posts:

Carla, respectfully, in my opinion, your characterization of me as a person subjecting you to cross-examination in a manner befitting a witness on the stand, is inaccurate. Along those same lines, I take issue with your non-specific characterization of people "attacking" each other on this thread. I have reviewed the thread in its entirety, and I do not see how a "pox on both your houses" characterization is warranted, because, in my opinion, only one person has engaged in postings that, in my opinion, contained inappropriate “attacking” phrases. At least, that's my opinion...and, likewise, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Moreover, in my opinion, your assertion that I am requiring people to "play with [me}" is likewise, inaccurate. Mr. Nagle left this discussion voluntarily and expressly, and I did not force him to do so, or demand that he return. The fact that Mr. Nagle chose to leave (and stated that he refused to read the thread or offer future responses), does not, in my opinion, immunize his postings from evaluation and potential criticism. Indeed, giving him (or any poster) that type of immunity would, in my opinion, create significant mischief. At least, that’s my opinion.

4.42857
Average: 4.4 (7 votes)
Your rating: None
carla's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-01-03 :36
Posts:

Again, I am entitled to my opinion.

I was trying to be nice when I said people do not have to play with you.

I feel you are being overly argumentative at times.

Maybe that is only my opinion in this matter, maybe others will have a similar or dissenting opinion, it matters not.

Please...dial it back and stop dissecting every word. You do not have to be the last word to be heard, capice?

Thank you.

_____________________________________________________________
L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers/Man is born free, yet he is everywhere in chains.–Jean Jacques Rosseau. The Social Contract, 1762

1.57143
Average: 1.6 (7 votes)
Your rating: None

"Well behaved women rarely make history" - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

RadnorLawyer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 33 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-21 :24
Posts:

Carla, respectfully, to me the phrase "argumentative" (and certainly the phrase "overly argumentative") means that a person is (a) making statements for the sole purpose of provoking an argument, or (b) making gratuitous statements (i.e. without factual or evidentiary support). In my opinion, I have not been conducting myself in such a fashion on this blog.

You are entitled to your opinion (again, I don't think anyone is insinuating otherwise), and, likewise, you are entitled to make those types of characterizations. However, I am not, for one second, going to quietly accept those types of characterizations of me (which, in my opinion, are pejorative in nature)…particularly because they are being made in a public forum. It is not “dissecting every word”…rather, it is “responding to a specific accusation”.

Since you ended your post with the phrase “Thank you”, I will, accordingly, end this one by stating “You are welcome”.

4.2
Average: 4.2 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
ArdmoreWilley's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 17 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-04-30 :09
Posts:

Be Careful RadnorLawyer and JohnN,

Carla has the power of deletion here so I would be careful not to disagree with her too strongly or your posts might end up like some of mine...poof...gone.

I can't wait to see what score I get...

Willey

1
Average: 1 (6 votes)
Your rating: None
RadnorLawyer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 33 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-21 :24
Posts:

Wiley, I have seen no evidence that Carla (or Doug) have ever "scrubbed" (is that the right term of art?) this site...at least, not without first publicly identifying an offending post as being in violation of the site's guidelines (i.e., spam, overpost, etc).

Instead, I see a plethora of evidence indicating that all are welcome to post on here, irrespective of their viewpoints...although that does not mean that said postings are not justifiably subjected to scrutiny.

5
Average: 5 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
dmuth's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 2005-09-13 :35
Posts:

Uh, no she doesn't. The only person who can remove posts here is me. I know. I'm the admin of the machine this site sits on.

5
Average: 5 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
carla's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-01-03 :36
Posts:

Willey,
Not my post. On my posts marked "Carla", yes, I can delete them, as can everyone else. If people want to delete posts they authored it is their right.

But oh neurotic man, posts can be deleted for several reasons such as: I have deleted posts when I have accidentally posted them TWICE due to computer/browser glitch. I have deleted posts because I could not get the margins and embedding of stuff done correctly and Doug wanted me to fix them and I could not do it any other way. I have deleted posts by accident when editing them as well.

But do I have the magic "easy" button that controls the website? No, I don't. Doug does.

For all your protestations that you love your community, where are you on the billboards in Haverford Township, since you do come from Haverford Township?

Do you have anything constructive to add, or do you mistakenly think a conversation some of us are having is a chance for you to pile on me?

_____________________________________________________________
L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers/Man is born free, yet he is everywhere in chains.–Jean Jacques Rosseau. The Social Contract, 1762

5
Average: 5 (5 votes)
Your rating: None

"Well behaved women rarely make history" - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

ArdmoreWilley's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 17 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-04-30 :09
Posts:

I think I did have a lot of constructive things to say about Ardmore, both in Haverford and Lower Merion, and though I "was" a resident in Haverford Township in Ardmore for a long time I really just lived in Ardmore. I hope to post a lot more constructive info. in the future here though I'm deciding based on how this goes whether it is worth the effort or not if posts are just going to disappear. Well, this is going back a ways but anyone can go here (http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/2560) and they will see just one post from you Carla. But, there was a bit of back and forth between you and me regarding the west river trail connecting Bala Cynwyd to Conshohocken that is referred by many at the LM Township meetings as the "Olsen" trail. I've been going to the meetings, I've talked a lot about this trail with our officials and learned a lot about it since out last discussion here and I even talked with Mr. Olsen a bit. But, this really isn't the point.

I basically asked you what your friends on River Road objected to regarding the implementation of this trail. I understand you have a beef with Ken Davis, someone who I'm not trying to defend in anyway, I just wanted to understand the specifics of the neighbors objections. I think you cited safety concerns and emergency access concerns but you were vague as to the specifics. I do not think this was an unreasonable request, considering your position here, in our community as an activist, as a part time journalist for our local paper and considering you started the topic with this post(http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/2560). As soon as I used the word cronyism, suggesting that because these were your friends on River Road there might be some reason why you wouldn't be specific, all but the first post got dumped.

Soo, I'm curious as to what happened and why and I still do not understand what the specific objections the residents of River Road have regarding this trail as per your post.

I hope this is constructive enough,

Willey

2
Average: 2 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
carla's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-01-03 :36
Posts:

Well Willey,
This was too long ago and I do not remember. I have stated the reasons posts can come down, and I am not discussing it any further.

As for the trail, it has been consistently and constantly in the papers. The neighbors beef was not wanting to waste money on parts of the trail that could NOT e built or would NOT be safe. This trail specifically (not the Cynwyd Trail, which is terrific now and will only get better), was an ego project for Ken Davis and a whole lot of money may have been wasted, and if you read the article, it appears the neighbors have been vindicated. If you would like to be put in touch with neighbors, either go down to River Road, or look up Commissioner Jenny Brown on the website and send her an e-mail.

You can read the article here:

LM trail plans may have hit dead end
Published: Wednesday, May 13, 2009
By Cheryl Allison

_____________________________________________________________
L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers/Man is born free, yet he is everywhere in chains.–Jean Jacques Rosseau. The Social Contract, 1762

4.2
Average: 4.2 (5 votes)
Your rating: None

"Well behaved women rarely make history" - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

ArdmoreWilley's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 17 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-04-30 :09
Posts:

I'm gonna start a new post on while I'm still being constructive...seems like it need it.

2.6
Average: 2.6 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
chips's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 38 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-02-20 :45
Posts:

Very prescient and right on the money.

5
Average: 5 (6 votes)
Your rating: None

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.