Township to join suit against PA law allowing municipalities to be sued over local gun laws
By Rick Marts, Correspondent, The Times
Kennett Township’s Board of Supervisors voted Wednesday night to acquire the historic Chandler Mill Bridge from Chester County.
KENNETT — At Wednesday night’s “working public meeting,” township supervisors voted to obtain ownership of Chandler Mill Road Bridge from the County.
Supervisor Richard Leff offered the following motion: “I move that the appropriate township officials take all actions necessary to obtain title ownership of the Chandler Mill Bridge from Chester County, with the intention of maintaining the Bridge’s historic nature.”
After discussion, the motion passed two to one, with Supervisor Robert Hammaker voting no.
Leff said in elaborating on his motion that with ownership comes “the intention of restoring the bridge to its original appearance and design as either a single lane pedestrian and vehicular bridge or a pedestrian and bicycle bridge that could be used only by emergency vehicular traffic.”
The Chandler Mill Bridge was built in 1910 and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The bridge has been closed for nearly four years and during this time it has been the center of controversy. Emergency services groups have argued for restoring it to a full two-lane vehicular traffic to ensure residents’ safety, while conservationists believe a pedestrian-only bridge would be more in keeping with the township’s lifestyle and preferences for open space and a new nature preserve.
Leff and Board Chairman Scudder Stevens gave lengthy statements in support of their positive positions for taking ownership of the bridge. Their rationales included the conservation benefits that would be realized, including creation of the Chandler Mill Nature Preserve enabled by a 35-acre gift from a local landowner; the community’s overwhelming desire for the township to take ownership; and the township’s ability to restore the bridge at a much lower cost and in much less time than proposed by the County.
However, during public comments several residents expressed concerns with township ownership of the bridge.
“Liability risks exist if the township owns this bridge,” Former supervisor Mike Elling said. “Furthermore, will we be responsible for possibly very expensive federally required improvements, including raising the bridge to keep it from flooding during big storms?”
Stevens said that issue had been studied.
“Our engineers have advised us on liability and flooding potential, and we have found that we can insure against these risks and the cost of this is not expected to be unreasonable,” he said.
One resident summarized the situation in this manner: township ownership gives us multiple options, some less expensive than others; on the other hand, letting Chester County retain ownership means that we will have only one option: to accept whatever the county deems is appropriate, namely a costly reconstruction occurring over an 8- to 10-year period that will require the township to perform significant future road maintenance to accommodate the increased traffic volume, all with the no possibility of a nature preserve.
Stevens said, “Yes, that just about sums it up.”
Following the vote on the Chandler Mill Bridge, the board opened the floor to discussion of what should be the township’s response to a new state law that allows municipalities to be sued over local ordinances they enact that potentially exceed state statutes — and could be seen as infringing on private property owners’ second amendment (right to bear arms) rights.
Stevens said, “This is relevant to us because this township enacted a local gun law last year at this time.”
As background to the discussion, Stevens informed those in attendance that the state legislature recently enacted Act 192 of 2014 that allows municipalities to be sued for imposing gun restrictions that could be deemed too restrictive. However, a class action suit has been brought by many municipalities around the state, including the city of Philadelphia, against the new law. The question is whether Kennett Township should join that suit in light of its own new gun ordinance.
In response, Supervisor Leff offered the following motion:
“…to authorize the Township solicitor to take all action necessary to join the Township as a party plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled, “Leach vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” in order to participate in a procedural challenge to Act 192 of 2014 regarding amendments to the Uniform Firearms Act.
Hammaker seconded the motion, stating that the township’s solicitor should determine whether the township will incur any cost to join the lawsuit.
Public comments questioned why we are joining a lawsuit that seems to impinge on second amendment rights and what real benefit exists for us to do this. Stevens said he disagrees with the implication that the township’s new gun law unduly limits residents’ rights to bear arms. He further said that we need to support our residents in their desire for this ordinance to be in place.
The motion passed unanimously.
I’d like to know what evidence exists that “the community’s overwhelming desire for the township to take ownership”? No surveys were ever issued on this matter. The cost to township TAX PAYERS will be anywhere from 1/2 million dollars to 2+ million dollars with a CHANCE to be less if grants are received, but no guarantees that they will be available. Another quote from the meeting, which was left out of this article, was that “ownership into perpetuity is a very long and expensive time.” And these are the politicians who campaigned on the township’s supervisors past financial irresponsibility, really?
At one point in this long dragged out process I was informed that the county, with its own money plus subsidized with federal and state funds, and ZERO cost to local township taxpayers would build a one lane one way (northbound presumably) bridge. Why that option was not pursued is irresponsible?
Can anyone show me the “beauty” of this old rusty iron monstrosity? Current county bridges being built are much more pleasing to the eye.
Even though I personally benefit from living in an area close to this scenic and presumably soon to be “linear park” this decision was made without all the facts known and at an enormousness cost to township tax payers.
No, there is NOT an overwhelming desire for the township to take ownership in this community. You misread the tea leaves supervisors Leff and Stevens.