Air Base Infrastructure Costs Projected at $145 Million
Of that, runway demolition is expected to cost $17 million.
Photos
The Horsham Land Reuse Authority is closing in on the homestretch for approval of a redevelopment plan for 862 acres of shuttered Willow Grove air base.
On Wednesday night, the board’s consultant, RKG Associates, presented a final view of what the property could look like dotted with 1,416 mixed-use residences, a 13-acre aviation museum, a 40-acre middle school, a robust town center and regional recreational area, an estimated 70 housing units for the homeless and a 133-acre office park expected to create more than 7,000 jobs – and a $457 million annual payroll - upon build out.
The culmination of a “close to final” plan, according to HLRA Chairman William Whiteside, has led the board to its last hurdle before approving the reuse blueprint at its March 21 meeting: Public comment. For the next 30 days, the community can share their comments with the HLRA via email or by calling Horsham Township at 215-643-3131.
A handful of the several dozen in attendance Wednesday questioned why the seven-acre parcel proposed for the homeless was situated near recreational space and the area adjacent to the middle school.
HLRA Executive Director Mike McGee said it was important to “integrate” the homeless into the community and consultant Russell Archambault said the area near the main gate, off of Privet Road, is the only parcel with access to public transportation.
The question left unanswered is how the nearly $145 million in combined public and private infrastructure costs – including $10 million for roads, $15 million to raze buildings, $17 million to demolish the runway and $60 million for water and sewer lines – will be funded.
“How this all gets paid for is yet to be determined,” Archambault said.
The bigger question perhaps is if area taxpayers will be saddled with the cost of removing the runway for an airport it firmly rejected. McGee said a military base redevelopment project in Glenview, Ill. was expected to cost $23 million for runway removal, but was whittled down to $3 million because the materials were used to construct new roads.
“The taxpayers will pay – federal taxpayers,” McGee said.
Typically, McGee said the cost of necessary improvements is deducted from the land value paid to the government upon property acquisition.
“I firmly believe the value of the property is a negative number,” McGee said.
Ultimately, the purchase price for the land will be negotiated between the HLRA and the government with upgrades and environmental impacts all factored in, he said.
HLRA board member Steven Nelson said he was concerned that the cost projections were estimated too low and would be much higher.
"My fear is that this is going to go to the Navy with sort of half of the information," Nelson said. "I think this lacks some critical information."
While the board took no action Wednesday, McGee reaffirmed his hope that the HLRA’s intent to acquire the property through an economic development conveyance be included in the plan set to be approved and submitted to the federal government by March 31. The Navy will decide how the property is transferred, McGee said, noting that the government could sell the land at a public sale, meaning that Horsham could only "control" the final development outcome by virtue of its zoning.
An economic development conveyance, on the other hand, would require “some sort of upfront payment,” as well as a commitment of future revenues, but would give the community “maximum flexibility,” according to Archambault, who, along with his firm, RKG Associates, has overseen 50 military base redevelopment projects.
Described previously as a type of “layaway,” McGee said the notion of an economic development conveyance – in which the HLRA could serve as the site’s master developer – in no way encumbers future boards or local government to follow that protocol.
“Right up until the deeds are transferred,” McGee said of the two- to five-year process, “we can always back out.”
KWRUB
6:40 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Should have just left it as an airport. That 145 million will triple before this is done and kill our town with raised taxes. An airport would be running now and bringing in funds instead of costing us.. I hate this plan.. This plan was planned years ago and nothing else has been considered.. Goverment at work!
Mike Shortall
10:32 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Yeah ... BCAA offered to pay the Township $5000 a year for airport operations, and under state law an municipal airport would pay ZERO on local taxes! How did we ever turn THAT down! </sarcasm>
Linda
3:44 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Agreed!! Horsham Township feeds the residents fears of a commercial airport! Should keep the runway and keep it as an airport.
Dan
6:52 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I moved from Horsham and was disappointed to hear of this plan. The locals are used to air traffic noise. If they hate it, they should have moved elsewhere. Philly needs a second airport. Missed opportunity. I will keep using BWI.
Siobhra Aradia
7:13 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
If the airport was so bad and it had such a bad influence on the area it must have negatively effected the value of the homes and business in the area. Now that it is not being used the taxes on the property around the field SHOULD go up. And should go up NOW. That extra money can be put to the redevelopment of the base.
Those people fought for the base to go for their own gain but to be fair they need to pay their fair taxes. They were taxed less because of the noise and fear of crashes and those effects are not there anymore. It is the price they must pay. Anything that is gained will not effect the area for years so they can and should carry their fair share until then and only share equally the benefits when and if there are any.
Suzy Q
7:46 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Cracks me up that Horsham thinks this is the way to go. What a waste. They should've kept it an airport, for heaven's sake. What a bunch of morons.
hatboro dad
8:54 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
absolute stupid, selfish morons
Bill
9:51 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I hope that all the RESIDENTS of horsham remember this come election time. When the HLRA said all the majority of the residents were against the airport idea they were out of line since a formal vote wasn't taken. Most of the people showing up at the meetings didn't even live in the area.
Anonymous76
1:13 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
You can actually verify who attended as they had sign-in sheets. Based on who I saw attend the 2 or 3 meetings I attended, most did appear to live in the township and most of those people were opposed to the airport. Based on the few who spoke up in favor of the airport in our particular break-out group, they were either living in Warminster, Warrington, or Doylestown. I did not see sign-ins from Upper Dublin, Lower Gwynedd, though a few may have been there. But, as I said, you can verify the attendance through FOIA, I think.
Karen
10:01 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I still think there needs to be a public vote...we are the public and we are intitled for a vote but RKG & Horsham Council did all they wanted and now we have to fill more homes and we have enough empty homes already. Can't wait to move out of here and spent my retirement in a community that doesn't want a cookie cutter landscape...all we as for is a public vote. We'll NEVER GET ONE!!....McGee and RKG are in bed together nice and cozy..McGee we would love to hear your opinion on an open public vote..whattda think?
Suzy Q
10:58 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Hey Hatboro Mike.....what/who is BCAA, and where does it say that they were the only one that could take over the property?
Theresa Katalinas
11:06 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Suzy,
BCAA is the Bucks County Airport Authority - one of 2 entities that had applied to operate an airport on the base. The other applicant, Montgomery County, was also rejected as the HLRA voted not to include an airport as one its redevelopment options. The way the process works is that government agencies, nonprofit groups, etc., applied last March for portions of the base that they were interested in acquiring. From that, 17 so-called notices of interest were submitted to the HLRA. Only two of the NOIs were for airport operations. The others were for various uses including a middle school, homeless housing, parks and open space, etc. At this point, it's too late and a moot point to entertain airport options as the HLRA rejected the two would-be airport operators. I hope that makes sense. I know you directed to Mike, but I figured I could respond since I knew the answer :)
Mike Shortall
11:13 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Bucks County Airport Authority ...They were the ONLY entity offering to run an airport operation, They offered the Township $5000/year to run their proposed airport operation. That's not a misprint ... $5000 a YEAR!!
And on top of that, state law makes municipal airports TAX EXEMPT!
That's in contrast to $750K that was paid to Horsham by the Federal Government as property tax offests. That goes away when the property is handed over, regardless of whether it's an airport or not. So Horsham ends up $750K in the hole.
And they wanted MOST of the property, which restricts what else could have potentially been developed there aside from an airport operation.
Mike Shortall
11:03 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Please ... As if any of you "airport people" really care about Horsham. That fact is an airport there would have benefitted Horsham exactly NOTHING, other than a pittance of $5000/year. No taxes are paid by any municipal airport operation ... not a DIME.
So the ONLY way Horsham would have benefitted to any predictable, significant way from an active runway would be to go whole hog on a passenger air operation that would generate HUGE facility development, magnitudes of additional traffic, incredible noise, significantly LOWER residential property values, and a future that looks more like Southeast Philadelphia. Yeah, now that's an attractive scenario!
There are grants, subsidies, other redevelopment programs that will mitigate the amount of local Horsham investment in whatever demolitions and improvements are necessary. The federal government WILL NOT just turn the property over and walk away.
Horsham residents should be glad they have control over this process, as was the intent all along. Yes, the investment might be sizable at some point, as will be the payoff to the Township in revenue and LOWER TAXES once the property is fully developed.
Discount the sour grapes from those interested only in their ability to fly their toys over your house or in saving themselves from having to use PHL for travel. They care not a bit about Horsham life or the value of Horsham's residential properties.
tedtaylor
1:30 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Not a dime is exactly the tax revenue being generated by the deserted NAS now. How obtuse.
Mike Shortall
3:04 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Well, actually Ted, presently the airbase is generating about $600K in Impact Fees. And the discussion of tax revenues is only relevant once the airbase property would pass into Horsham control.
At that point - years in the future - an airport would generate ZERO in local taxes outside of what minimal wage taxes the airport operation would generate.
So it's not very risky to assume that whatever redevelopment Horsham ends up putting on the JRB grounds will generate much more in tax revenues than an airport.
Hope that clears up your obtusiness.
Linda
11:17 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I agree with KWRUB, Dan and Suzy Q 100%!!!! Should have been kept as an airport. Taxes will go up for this development that will cost a lot more than $145 million that they want you to believe it will cost. Horsham just fed the residents fears so that they could get what they wanted. Bad decision. Horsham should try to get those airports that submitted proposals to keep the runway going. Horsham government had an agenda all along and weren't really thinking of the residents in any way. Even the Pitcairn family was disappointed with Horsham's decision. Once this land is built on, you can get that back. Keep the airport intact!
Linda
7:35 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
*Once this land is built on you can NOT get that back.
KLS
12:06 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
The one good thing I see in this plan is the construction of a new Middle School.
Anonymous76
1:15 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Yes, I agree that is nice to see.
Mark
12:58 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Hey Hatboro Mike, I hope you choke on the added traffic that will come from jamming more homes and business's into an area that can't handle the traffic that it get's now. And enjoy the crime that come's with houseing the homeless in your back yard. There was no shot given to keeping the airport. Everyone went through the motions so that when they announced that there would be no airport, no one could say they didn't persue other options. The same people that complain about the airport option will complain about something else when the oppertunity comes along.
Mike Shortall
1:18 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Mark just illustrates how much is misunderstood about the entire BRAC process and Horsham's plan to develop the base.
For one, the MANDATE to set-aside a portion of the property for homeless individuals is part of the Federal BRAC law. It would apply whether Horsham kept the runway/airport option or not. Either way the homeless conveyance was a REQUIREMENT.
Insofar as "choking on the traffic", that too would be an issue regardless. The proposed airport would have grown - as every single airport operation does - and would eventually add its own traffic to what's already a traffic mess on Rts 611 and 463. And Horsham plans no less than four roads (I think) through the property that should help alleviate traffic on 611 and 463 by allowing cross traffic connecting roads that are currently blocked by the airbase fence line.
Jenn King
1:04 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40476.pdf. look at the PDF Mike... It is not a requirement to use land for the homeless. It must be applied for by HUD and CONSIDERED like everyone else.
Mike Shortall
3:11 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
You're right, Jenn. If a suitable Sponsor for the homeless conveyance isn't found (providing financial backing primarily), then the conveyance might not be made for that purpose. I was speaking of the BRAC requirement that you go through that process of seeking a homeless conveyance.
tedtaylor
2:17 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
That may be the dumbest plan I ever saw. But give them time, it may get dumber. In the meantime they are killing off businesses along the Rt. 611 corridor. And what genius decided that housing for the "Homeless" was a key ingredient - and then decided to place those houses near the school and recreation area. Geez.
john
1:10 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The housing was part of the "deal" if the airport was closed. If the airport was held open...this would not have been included.
Mike Shortall
6:27 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Wrong ... again, john. The homeless conveyance would be part of the redevelopment whether there was an airport or not. The only way it wouldn't be was if the AIRBASE stayed, which obviously wasn't going to happen.
kirk eidman
5:36 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
What a stupid desicion this was. Philadelphia desperastly needs a second commercial airport. OH planes are noisy and our property values will fall.
But what about the people who have to travel every week for work, and the companies that would love to be near good transportaion infrastructure.
Your property values would skyrocket.
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Mike Shortall
8:02 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
No ... Your COMMERCIAL property values would skyrocket. Residential properties near the airport would plummet because EVERY airport gets bigger over time, just ask the people in Tinicum.
kirk eidman
5:40 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Southwest airlines would have made that airport their start east coast destination. Easily 2000 flight crew and ground crew jobs. Great access to air travel for norther Philly burbs. Could have probablly attracted UPS or FEDEX also. Another 2000 jobs.
Oh planes aer noisy and I don't like thm over my house.
So you want to drive to California???????
KLS
6:45 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
From what I have been told, FedEx and UPS were both initally interested in using the runway, but were chased away.
Mike Shortall
8:10 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
SWA, FEDEX and UPS was exactly what we didn't want. Nobody in their right mind - who lives here - should. I'm perfectly happy making the trek down to PHL. Keep it there.
@KLS ... I don't remember either UPS or FEDEX ever showing direct interest. Rumors only.
Anonymous76
7:27 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Per SW Airlines, I don't think so from what I understand from business news over the past year. Per needing a second airport, there is still really no strong evidence of a current need in this location, just a theorized future need. Out near KoP or expanding Lehigh? Possibly. Keep in mind Newark isn't far either for most of Bucks and eastern Montco. And yes, the evidence on real estate value shifts is as Hatboro Mike points out. No one wants a Tinicum. Per Dan's comment above on the locals used to the noise, well not really. Military planes, flight schedules and flight paths are different from civil - which the FAA can change as needed. Also most people who moved here post-1995 would have likely been told by their agent that the air base was due to close. That's been expected for a very long time.
john
1:09 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Kirk...this wold not have happened....EVER!!!! If it was open as a General Aviation airport. Despite what Mike thinks with his narrow mind.
TomInPA
9:45 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
The residents really screwed themselves on this one. Now they will have to pay more in taxes, will have to deal with overcrowding of schools, and will have homeless vagrants wandering their neighborhoods and terrorizing their children. That's what happens when you let a bunch of goody two shoes run your government. You should have left it as an airport.
Tom
9:49 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
This is going to be a disaster! What morons voted have homeless people bussed in? And just because you build a business park does not mean it will be filled with businesses. How many complexes have been newly built and remain empty? I can name 3 off the top of my head.
You are going to have homeless people wandering the streets. Your childrens class rooms are going to be over crowded, and YOU are going to have to foot the bill for the new kids since they will all be low income.
Good Job!
Mike Shortall
11:18 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
You're not paying attention, Tom. Federal BRAC law REQUIRES that a portion of any redevelopment be set-aside for homeless accomodations. This would apply whether Horsham decided to go with an airport or not. Either way, the homeless issue had to be addressed.
As for under-occupied office space, I think if done correctly - with state-of-the-art technology and green-based construction - they would have no problem at all filling any reasonable amount of office space. The people who are really worried about this are the ones who own the existing, outdated corporate office space in the area.
Bill
10:56 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
I promised myself I wouldn't chime in anymore but, with a name like hatboro mike you shouldn't have a single say what happens in horsham. If your excuse is that you live in the flight path big deal, we all live in flight paths for Philly international and we have no say there, and mike prove to me I'm wrong with documentation. Next I've been a resident of horsham for 18 years and I have seen first hand the biased opinions that have taken place with the HLRA and no one else's opinions mattered. Next without a formal vote how do we know that all the CITIZENS of horsham got a fair chance. There was no sign ins at the meetings I attended and without checking id's people didn't have to verify anything. The planes have been coming in to horsham for over 50 years and people moving in here knew that and chose to come anyway no one forced them. Because of the greed that has been taking place the only people that will suffer will be the true horsham residents. Like I said I hope everyone remembers this come election time.
Mike Shortall
11:14 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Bill, it's just an internet name I use. I live in Horsham in an area that has the Hatboro zipcode (north of Moreland Avenue and east of Maple), and I pay my taxes in Horsham. I have been at EVERY HLRA meeting and there have been sign-in sheets at EVERY on I've been at..
I doubt you have been there, if you insist that a public vote would change the outcome where only Horsham residents could vote. The most important, widely attended meetings have been overwhelmingly anti-airport. Any vote wouldn;t even be close.
Yes, planes have been flying over Horsham for 50 years. Military planes on irregular, non-daily schedules. No one wants DAILY CONSTANT private and commercial air traffic over their homes in Horsham. What is it about this that you cannot accept????
I certainly will remember the success of the HLRA at each and every election!
Suzy Q
11:50 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Hatboro Mike.....I think you're dreaming. State-of-the-art technology and green-based construction?? Get real. Bottom line, they should've kept it an airport. This whole "re-development" thing is a joke. A very un-funny joke.
Mike Shortall
1:41 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Is that the extent of your argument???
Horsham - if they do this right - will be so much better off without an airport. There are 50+ airports within 100 miles of this area. One less isn't going to matter.
tedtaylor
12:25 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
This has had boondoggle written all over it from day 1. The base actually belongs to all taxpayers, just because it's located in Horsham doesn't give them ownership. If you are a taxpayer you are entitled to your own opinion. Homeless people? Yep, that's just what Horsham needs. More office space? Yep, there's a winner. How about more traffic, more cops, more firemen, more schools and lot more taxes. Boy, oh boy, the PC crowd is gonna stick it to the citizenry big time. And Lord help us if an emergency comes along and we need the landing strip - first we'll have to chase the vagrants away.
Mike Shortall
1:34 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Actually the Federal BRAC law does EXACTLY that! It places the responsibility for all redevelopment issues in the hands of whichever Local Redevelopment Authority applied to accept that role. So complain to your Congressmen.
DId you know that ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT GROUP could have applied for the LRA role?? Yet no one wanted the headache the cost or the responsibility, The State didn't want it. The County didn't want it. No one else did.
So if you think "the public" was short-changed, you should be bitching to your elected officials who couldn't be bothered, and you should stop complaining about the ONLY rightful local government that stepped up and did the RIGHT THING for its residents, who in meetings - that were opened to EVERYONE whether they lived in Horsham or not - overwhelmingly were against an airport, and who gladly accepted the responsibility for making the decisions .... and taking the blame if it does not work out.
Obviously you're incapable of understanding the BRAC law's requirement for LOCAL control and for homeless accomodations, whether there was an airport .... or not. It's all there in black and white.
BrianT
3:00 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Actually the State did want to use the base and runway!Horsham did not want the runway used for anything other than missions related to the JII.Which by the way I have to agree with Horsham .I think there was a term used "associated users"That was never made clear ,then the State dropped their plan.
Jeanette Appice Zeitz
3:04 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
I have always felt that not enough thought was put into making the area a tourist attraction. I could see day trips to our area for museums, shoppes, family entertainment, mini golf, all in a park like setting. Maybe an international food plaza. BTW how does the homeless housing actually work?
Wally
5:10 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Horsham Twp. is trying to create a wonderful Kingdom for all dispite it's lack of experience as project managers. Aside from all the comments about traffic, vagrants etc. , where do you think all the delightful employees for all the terriffic jobs are going to come from? Do you think Horsham has the bookeeping abilities to keep track of this mess? One or two zoning officers to keep track of the building codes, inspections etc. And how about this.... has Horsham thought about all the new grounds, buildings and roads they are going to have to maintain after all is said and done. How about law enforcement? Horsham could give two hoots about their force. A while back cops had to beg for winter jackets. They are to this day working without a contract that had to be sent to arbitration. Now their going to dump this mess on them. Horsham talks a good game. So do you Hatboro Mike. You almost had me until you said we will have LOWER TAXES once we get this developed. Looks like no one on this thread is drinking your Kool Aid. I won't be bitching. We live way too close to put up with all the trucking, dirt and hammering. This is one guy who is staging his home right now. We will be moving on after 33 years.
Mike Shortall
6:49 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
@Wally ... Normally I preface that "lower taxes" statement with the qualification "if we do it the right way". But regardless of the outcome which NO ONE can possibly judge for DECADES, in my opinion Horsham is better off now having no airport and complete control of the site.
Bill
11:40 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
It'll be obvious who will be making out in the deal all said and done, and it won't be the REAL citizens of horsham, only the greedy ones. The runway should've stayed, and a vote should've been taken the RIGHT way and not by word of mouth by people that don't even live anywhere near this area, and I as well as the true citizens will remember this come election time.
Gregory Marston
7:19 am on Sunday, February 19, 2012
The runway staying open was about generating jobs and taxes for Horsham. TEVO had 3000 jobs and Horsham told them to go elsewhere. They were just one of 30 or so government agencies, NGO's and others that wanted to use the unique features of Willow Grove. The continued scare campaign about making this a "Second Philly Airport" defies all airline logic and is a ridiculous concept to anyone with even a small understanding of airport operations. FEMA wanted to fill the empty hangars with emergency supplies, companies wanted to make vaccines at the base - using the runway to send them out.
The plan to build housing developments is a pure pipe dream. Who's buying new houses these days? What builder is going to risk finding an environmental contamination - THAT THEY ARE LIBEL TO FIX (not the Navy, HLRA, Horsham). What homeowner will risk a new "Love Canal" and buy a house here? That is a huge tax sinkhole. When the housing developments are NOT built at the field, the low-income housing will expand. So instead of having a good neighbor airport with thousands of jobs [and no airline business from Philly] you're going to end up with a sewage plant and lots of federally funded low income housing.
Col Gregory Marston (ret)
Mike Shortall
1:29 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Just a few things, Colonel ...
The Rendell Plan which included the FEMA/counter-terror/FBI/TSA facilities died because the State couldn't find the funding or sponsorship to make it economically feasible. It wasn't killed by anyone from Horsham.
The TEVA deal was a different story, since it was EXACTLY what many of us didn't want ... a constant air-freight presence, flying mostly at night as UPS is forced to do at PHL due to airspace congestion and which would grow and grow into a fully functioning airport operation eventually. People can argue that "would not ever happen", but I know of no commericial airport operation that didn't get bigger and broader over time.
Horsham residents cared about their community. If regional jobs and economic activity should have been the primary driver, then the County or State should have stepped in and made it work. That facts are they couldn't in the State's case, and the County had absolutely no interest.
As for the environmental contamination, the Navy and EPA are on the hook to mitigate all ground contaminants - and are required to do so as part of the BRAC law - before they hand the property over to the LRA.
Bill
7:27 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Mike, we've all begun to tune you for the simple fact that we know your biased and clearly know nothing about the law and due process. The collapse of horsham is coming with much higher taxes and the ones who wanted the runway to stay know that and we will all be looking to leave horsham as soon as we can.
Mike Shortall
7:38 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Yes, Bill, I'm sure YOU'RE not biased, right?!? Please ...
I hate - almost - having to jump in here so often, but I don't like to see misinformation and wild conspiracy theories - like yours, Bill - without some kind of rebuttal. The subject is much too important for that.
As for those who wish to flee Horsham because they don't like the decisions made by the responsible people - duly elected to do so - and their own neighbors (assuming they actually do live here), don't let the door hit on the arse on your way out.
Bill
9:04 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Well mike when you prove you have your law degree and show me in writing that everything was done to the letter of the law then I'm all ears.
Marc L.
11:47 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Why is everyone so much against the idea of giving homeless people a place to live? Is it the whole idea of "something needs to be done about this...BUT NOT IN MY BACKYARD!"? I mean, not every homeless person is a criminal. With the rampant foreclosures that this country was dealing with over the past decade, there are surely some good people who are without homes. It seems to me a deeper, underlying issue that some people here are being too coy to say. I think the idea is a wonderful one and hope it brings a lot of new business, jobs and housing opportunities to the area.
Suzy Q
1:13 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
If we have so many houses in forclosure, why on earth would we want to build more? An airport would have brought many jobs to the area, if it had REALLY been given a chance. And with alot less headache.
Marc L.
1:44 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
The banks aren't just going to give away those houses to the homeless. C'mon, be realistic. That's like saying that hunger shouldn't be a problem in America because there are plenty of McDonalds where people can go to eat.
Scott Johnson
10:53 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
I agree, Marc and I'm glad someone pointed this out. I was going to say something similar but decided not to comment. I'm glad you had the courage to stand up for the less fortunate, especially when they could be your neighbors and good people.
Marc L.
9:18 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Scott: Whether people want to admit it to themselves or not, when some people see the word homeless they think "black" "poor" "criminal" and "drunk/addict" when that is not often the case. There's a disconnect in this country. There's no reason why housing for the homeless should be restricted so that it's away from schools and parks. These people are homeless -- not pedophiles. It's disgusting to me that some people can't tell the difference.
Wally
6:25 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Mike, Congrats. I think Marc is sipping your Kool Aid. Marc, what most people are saying here is that we have all worked hard for our money. The thought of inviting people to live in our town that bring little or no value will drive down our propery values creating a negative effect. They are not going to bring more taxes.
Mike, Duly elected responsible people. Do you know them personally? You trust them with your investment? Mcgee said, "up until the deeds are transfered, we can always back out" . Looks like he's a real believer in his plan.... Well, what happens after the deeds are transfered and he bails out to his big jersey shore spread? Please, we all know you hate having to jump in here to straighten out Bill's( and other peoples) opinions but it's OK. Really. We will all get along just fine without you. If you leave an address , maybe someone will ship you a free HLRA FOR ALL limited edition bumper sticker.
Marc L.
9:21 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Wally: I can assure you...the only Kool-Aid I'm sipping is common sense. Many plans were provided and the relatively small number of plans that included an airport were turned down in favor of other plans that are expected to have a better impact on the area. There's a vocal minority of people who do not like that plan. (There always is. Not everyone will always be happy.)
john
1:04 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Wally...whats funny is Mie doesn't even live in Horsham and it seems he's one of the respresentitives of this no aiport thing. Its funny how those who didn't live in horsham who supported the airport were told they had no say........I don't but that seems odd to me too. Maybe mike has some connections to the contrsuction world or something...you never know now....maybe his pockets got lined too.
Mike Shortall
6:29 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Wrong, john ... "Hatboro" is just an internet identity. As stated elsewhere in this thread - had you bothered to read it - is the fact that I live and pay property taxes in Horsham.
Wally
6:32 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Sorry, Forgot to THANK the Colonel.....Well said!
Mott1
8:37 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
I don't mean to sound middle of the road here and I don't mean to offend anyone. I think each side in this debate has valid points. Hatboro Mike is correct with his timeline of how things unfolded in this process i.e. the State backing out of their plan and settign the HLRA back. Hatboro Mike also has a good understanding about the basics of the BRAC Law and what can and can't be done. I am not authority but I did learn alot about the BRAC process when this process was at its peak and the HLRA voted down the airport. For example, I too would have loved to seen a vote on the base for citizens, but BRAC law does not allow it. On the other had the Colonel and others have some valid points that the airport seemed to never have a fighting chance. In the end, whether you agree with it or not, the no-airport group was more organized and got a message out...not saying it was the right message, but they got a message out. I was pro-airport, but vowed I would accept the HLRA's decision. I enjoyed reading everyone's position on this. Just want to see us take the emotion out of this..if possible.
john
12:55 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!
Mike and all those against the airport.....you will be paying these taxes!!!!!! thank god I'm not a Horsham resident or I would be one PO'ed resident because of people like you and the small group of loud mouths who needed to be coddled by this small group of "so-called" respected townships respresentitives. My guess is these rep's will be enjoying the good life soon if not already.....are thier taxes records public since they repsesent the public?...I'd like to see them for the next few years if they are..........I wonder how of the rep's many live in Horsham and will share in the raised taxes this will now bring...........as the people like myself predicted.
I feel bad for the majority of Horsham who didn't get their fair chance at a vote as we were calling for....even if the vote didn't included the close sorrounding coomunities as it should have.......the residents of Horsham should have had a special vote. Well at least the town name holds its own HOR "SHAM" cause thats what this is...a sham that is going to screw the residents.
Mike Shortall
6:35 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Aaaaawwww ... Somebody's upset they can't fly their toy over my house!
Actually, of the nine member HLRA, only two didn't live in Horsham (to my knowledge), And they were the County reps for MontCo and Bucks.
You really have to be kidding about "the majority of Horsham" not having a say. We've only been going through this process since 2005. It wasn't a secret. Public meetings, newspaper articles, website and e-mail addresses for comments ... You had to be living under a rock in Horsham to not know this was happening or to have not taken an opportunity to express one's opinion.
For what it's worth, I'm also glad you don't live in Horsham!
john
1:02 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Is anyone familiar with the neighborhoods near the Warminster Walmart? Guess what Horsham...you about to have your own version coming your way very soon! Oh and guess what...how about that new SuperCenter Walmart going in near BJ's? Even more draw for the illegals, or are we calling them "non-reseidents" and homeless now?
this is what the small loud minotiry wanted so now all of Horsham can suffer.
john
1:12 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Election time is coming folks........lets make sure those in Horsham, and in the sorrounding communities who supported this plan know that we don't appreciate it. I am researching as much as I can to post what communities supported the base closure...but right now I can say that Warminster, and Warrington both supported its closure. Still looking into Hatboro, Upper Moreland, and Willow Grove. Also, don't forget about the politicians who road on elections for this to happen when its time to vote them out.
Marc L.
1:13 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
John: Are you aware of how faulty your logic is? You want to hold the communities responsible for the base closure and penalize the current incumbents by voting them out? What if the incumbent wasn't in office when the original vote took place? What if that official was against the base closure in the first place. And the closure really has nothing to do with this. It's the people who made the decision to go forward with the current plan that you should hold responsible if you're unhappy. I can tell that you're unhappy (even though you don't even live in Horsham -- then again, neither do I), but I think you're blaming the wrong people here.
Scott Johnson
1:15 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Also just a note, local and county elections are on off years like 2011 and 2013... This year will just be state and Federal.
Marc L.
1:24 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
I don't think that matters to John. He's on a roll right now...safest to just let him tire himself out.
john
1:13 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
"Described previously as a type of “layaway,” McGee said the notion of an economic development conveyance – in which the HLRA could serve as the site’s master developer – in no way encumbers future boards or local government to follow that protocol."
This quote to me sounds like they are so happy with their job security.....master developers they are now......how nice.
john
7:23 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
I suggest some look into the MCAS EL TORO base closure and the proposal they denied due to high tax burden placed on the localityand how the NAVY thankfully denied the proposal.......this can happen and hopefully still will.
To mike.....mike hopefully this spring when i begin my pilot training i will be sure do to all i can to overfly hatboro and your residence.....just to let you know that youre wrong....i can and will still be able to fly over your home. Seen how low the airliners have been lately?
Suzy Q
9:31 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
I spend a lot of time at a place in an industrial park immediately next to the Lehigh Valley Airport, and I have to say that you wouldn't even know that the airport is there. A very nice neighbor to have. Wish that could've happened in Horsham. Instead, it will be utter chaos and confusion.
Mike Shortall
8:52 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
Yeah ... But do YOU live near that "nice neighborhood industrial park"?!?
Suzy Q
9:52 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
My point is, the airport is quiet. Regardless of whether I live there or work there or hang out there......the airport is NOT a nuisance.
Mike Shortall
10:10 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
Exactly, Suzy ... An airport is not a nuisance when you get to "hang out" there; take a flying lesson or two; then go home to your nice quiet 'hood. In the meantime, we're the ones living next to an industrial park and an airport.
Suzy Q
11:53 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
I didn't mean hanging out AT the airport, Hatboro Mike. Why can't you just admit that developing the base is going to be the biggest fiasco that Horsham Township has ever encountered. I can't wait to watch this pan out......I'll be laughing for the next 20 years.
John Simpson
12:00 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
housing is going to rasie your taxes that all it will do once they are built the jobs are done and as far as office building how many jobs to you see being created now zero and do you think if they put a company or two in their the jobs will be for the locals think again people and the people should vote on what goes in there not the politicians they just want to line their pockets
Marc L.
6:33 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
John: There are not "zero" jobs being created now. Where are you getting those "facts?" Are you aware that since October 2010, every single month has seen an increase in the number of workers in America. The unemployment rate has been decreasing (down from 9.1% in August 2011 to 8.3% in January 2012). And don't say "Well, it's just government jobs" because it's not the case. Government Employers have actually decreased their workforce while the private sector has increased steadily over the past year. So while you may be against the ideas laid out in the plans for your own reasons, please don't try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes under the false pretense that new office space would be wasteful because zero jobs would be created. That's not only foolish but it's also irresponsible to say. Any why in the world would new jobs go to anyone else than a majority of local Montco area residents? Do you think a company that moves in and creates 2,000 jobs is going to find all of their employees elsewhere?
Suzy Q
9:58 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
How about if that company moves into an existing, unoccupied building?? How about if we first fill the empy buildings that are already there?? If there was a shortage of these, then I might be more inclined to want to re-develop the base. But there is NOTHING that we are short of, except maybe an AIRPORT!!! (I know, I know.....it's too late)
Mike Shortall
10:28 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
How about if Horsham simply seeks a way to replace the $700K plus property tax offset paid by the USG while the airbase was operational, and which will be lost in the next 2-3 years?
Did you know that the Bucks County Airport Authority offered Horsham Township $5000 per year (No, that's not a misprint!) to operate their airport?!? $5000.00!! That's it! And for kicks and giggles, public airport operations pay NO LOCAL TAXES directly to host municipalities. Not a dime!
So explain to us how Horsham maintains its schools, its operatiing budget - which would be required to provide police, fire and EMS services to any muni airport - and its current tax base in the face of a $700K hole in its tax stream????
ANSWER: a larger and constantly growing airport operation, which would be the only way to generate sufficient tax revenue from ancillary airport operations like fees and business/sales taxes. Cargo operations, maintainence facilities, passenger fees and taxes, car rentals, terminal operations, etc., etc. etc.
Now ... How's that nice, quiet industrial park looking? Does it look good to you, because you're just "hanging out" then going home to peace and quiet?? How do you think that would look, sound, and smell to those of us living here in Horsham???
Let me guess ... You couldn't care less.
Marc L.
10:06 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
Geez...with this economy being as bad as it is, who can afford to fly anywhere. Right?
Mott1
10:57 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
Just as an FYI...HH may lose that impact aid sooner as Theresa reported:
http://horsham.patch.com/articles/h-h-could-lose-650k-in-federal-impact-aid
Mike Shortall
11:03 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
Heard Hatboro-Horsham School District will get the impact aid this year and next year. After that we lose it.
Mott1
12:02 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
That is unfortunate. Not to switch gears or take away from this article about the base, however is .77 cents of every tax dollar spend at the district for salaries and benefits seem high? It does to me, but in defense that may be the norm for a "service" such as school districts.
Bucks-Mont Steve
3:37 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
It would have been nice to arrange the marriage between Horsham, the Airport Authority, and the DVHAA museum. In a dream world, it would be a great revenu maker for the local area to have an air show every summer/fall. So many people came to the shows at the base...and brought their money too. The museum could continue the rich historic aviation history that Horsham has. Something I feel too many residents and officials are willing to forget.
But, I know this isn't a dream....and reality will leave us with not a single shred (other than the museum) of evidence that NAS WIllow Grove was ever there, or the Pitcarins for that matter. Instead we will have houses that people from this area (especially the younger group) can't afford to buy.
Bpv
8:44 am on Sunday, February 26, 2012
This plan is filled to the brim with holes. The fact that Montgomery county has no need for homeless housing and Bucks has all the need, and there is a border share with bucks is incredulous. You can find the report on the HLRA website. The BRAC requires consideration for homeless housing, however Montgomery County was found to have adequate amounts of beds and housing for families and individuals. They could have fought against. Not to mention the type of housing. I am all for disabled veterans or a home for disabled homeless. But please keep out with the low income, detox facilities, and possible sex offenders and criminals. This is why we overpay to live in the suburbs. So these people aren't our neighbors.
Marc L.
12:23 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Yet another person who sees the word homeless and, for some reason, instantly thinks of sex offenders and criminals. The two are not remotely the same and your bigotry is offensive.
Mike Shortall
1:50 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
A clarification or two ... The reason Bucks homeless were considered as part of the JRB Willow Grove proposals was because a small part of the JRB BRAC package was military housing located in Ivyland. Bucks and Warminster didn't want to bother with their own LRA treatment, so it was thrown into the Horsham LRA process.
The homeless vet application included a detox center. But that application was rejected early because they did have the required "endorsement" or partnership from a required Government agency. (At least that's how I remember it.)
I thought the homeless vet conveyance would have been ideal, detox center and all, simply because it would have been a perfect way - in my opinion - to give back to these warriors. I was much disappointed in the rejection of that particular application.
Other than that the HLRA has a very good strategy for ensuring the homeless conveyance - if workable (something still under evaluation and negotiation) - will fit in with the rest of the surrounding development. And that conveyance is not a done deal yet.
Bpv
7:52 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Marc has no argument and resorts to name calling. A simple google search can yield many results to back up the homeless/criminal connection. Please take the time to check out these two:
http://largo.wtsp.com/news/news/homeless-shelter-neighbors-frustrated-sheriff/70048
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-18-homeless-offenders_N.htm
Marc L.
8:31 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Actually, it's very clear that I DO have an argument. And saying that your remarks are based on bigotry is not name-calling. I find it interesting that you need to find an article from Florida from 8 months ago to help your "argument." Would posting an article from a recent crime in Horsham help show you that crime already exists? Why, that's no different than calling Penn State a home of pedophiles because of one perpetual criminal. Not all homeless people are criminals, and not all communities intended to re-home the homeless would become havens of crime. You use of "these people" in reference to "low income" families is what is particularly insensitive and offensive.
Mick
5:10 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
Marc, your "argument" is clear that you believe Bpv to be a bigot. But you use that only to dismiss the valid evidence presented. What do you find interesting about the Florida article? are you trying to say because it happened a mere 8 months ago means it's irrelevant to the conversation. You did not comment on the Wendy Koch - USAToday article, I believe USAToday normally fact checks their articles it would be hard to dismiss this.
Here are Horsham Crime stats I am posting them for everybody.
http://www.usa.com/horsham-pa-crime-and-crime-rate.htm
Unfortunately you can only get data from 2009 back. (This is way longer then 8 months back so you may deem it also irrelevant)
As we can see these are pretty low, if we compare them Philadelphia
http://www.usa.com/philadelphia-pa-crime-and-crime-rate.htm
I presume this is why Bpv "overpays" to live in the suburbs. It turns out that they are not the only person to leave the big city for safer pastures.
http://marclombardi.wordpress.com/about/
I can't speak for Bpv but I am concerned about my property value decreasing, even with no crime increase, it is peoples perception of an area that drives house prices. But if crime does increase and it is a factual possibility, no matter how slim, that increased crime, is a risk to my children's safety.
Marc as you clearly live in Abington and have no children attending school in Horsham, I find the weight of anything you say to do with Our township severely reduced.
Marc L.
9:58 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
I can assure you that I did not "leave the big city for safer pastures." Moving to Jenkintown (in the beginning) was due to my wife's employment and then, because I liked it here, we bought a home on the border between Roslyn and Crestmont.
Additionally, I believe my message was clear -- that bpv's comments were bigoted remarks. Again, that's not name calling so I'm not sure the relevance of your comment -- and that fact that you can't understand that explains why you (and others) cannot understand that homeless does not equate criminal. My complaint was that drawing a parallel to an article about one instance of an uptick in crims in Florida was not relevant to the discussion here. They're not the same people and not the same place. Snobbery and class warfare are not easily disguised.
If you want to dismiss the weight of my words based upon where I live you have that right. It doesn't make what I'm saying any less valid.
Mick
5:20 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
Hatboro Mike, I find your clarification about Bucks involvement excellent, I was unaware of the ivyland connection.
I did read the HLRA website to find out what Bvp mentioned.
http://www.hlra.org/media/8039/draft%20homeless%20submission%20web%20(feb%2015).pdf
If you scroll to page 6 on the PDF (actual page 8 I believe) you can see that for Emergency shelter and Transitional housing The report indicates no additional need in Montgomery County
For Permanent Housing Montgomery County has 155 permanent housing beds for families and individuals, but only needs 148.
Whereas Bucks County needs beds for all 3 categories.
So Bucks gets to avoid the time and cost of it's own LRA process, but reaps the benefit of Horshams? Is this then not a clear case for proportional representation, of land to bed use? If Bucks has a small part of land, then they should get the same proportion of homeless housing.
For example If 5% of the land was Bucks then only 5% of the homeless housing should be for Bucks. Also can you help with this question, will Bucks County Taxes-payers be chipping in along with Horsham ones?
Mike, to me it seems like Bucks County is back to the same NIMBY tactic they did for the Airport. Bucks County Airport Authority wants a new Airport but not in Bucks County thank-you. Now Bucks County wants Homeless Housing but AGAIN not in Bucks County!
Joe Murphy
4:40 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Hatboro Mike. You indicated where you live. What are your thoughts on having Norristown road connect directly through the base to Maple Avenue. I don't think the traffic studies ever included the impact on Maple Avenue of having that be a main thoroughfare for traffic to County Line Road. It will be the only direct route.
Mike Shortall
10:30 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
There are other routes to County Line ... Keith Valley Rd. or Dreshertown/Meetinghouse ... But if you mean the only one through the base to County Line that's true.
I'm not particularly crazy about the idea of Norristown Rd connecting directly to Maple Rd. The speed limit is already ignored by a lot of drivers already. But the road itself I think (but I'm no traffic expert) can handle a reasonable amount of additional traffic.
As to a traffic study, I would imagine they would have had to include Maple Ave effects, just like they did for all the other roads. But I'm not really sure about that. However you can find that out by asking the question on the HLRA website. I've asked several in the past, and always got quick responses.
tedtaylor
3:24 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
The fact that this is still bubbling along - and nothing is really happening - should be disturbing to everyone. This will drag on for years. But the most vocal are the "I don't want an airport" crowd. They tell you what they don't want and why. But are kind of light on actual plausible suggestions. It's sad, I'm sorry to see the damage it is doing to the heart of Horsham.
Mike Shortall
4:09 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
The reason why the redevelopment process is still "bubbling along" is because Ed Rendell set the process back 2-3 years while trying to sell his plan to turn the JRB into an Emergency Response center, and because with anything connected to federal government, speed is NEVER a priority.
Fact is, it will take the Fed another 18 months to complete their Environmental Impact Study, and probably another year before the plan gets formal approval.
That process would have applied regardless of whether an airport was to be kept or the current plan under consideration was pursued. No one would be using the property at this point either way, and as stated, we are years from anything happening on the plans.
Horsham can't even cut the grass there until the Fed's BRAC process runs its course.