The Political Debate Over Tredyffrin's Board of Supervisors Sidewalk Ordinance Vote

Monday night's Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisor's vote on a new sidewak ordinance was not a simple matter. Before the vote, came questions, answers and the politics of township business.

During public comments on the ordinance residents added pointed and passionate arguments, questioning potential budget-busting costs to property owners, stating their worries over the safety of the locations of the proposed sidewalks and even pointing out an undue burden for residents of the west side of Paoli, who wouldn’t benefit from the sidewalks anyway.

As the public hearing progressed, it became evident that as informed as the residents of Tredyffrin were, many seemed to have misconceptions as to how this ordinance would really affect them.

Supervisor Michelle Kichline answered many of the questions that arose. She seemed to set the record straight as to what the ordinance was, and what it wasn’t. Specifically, that there would be no cost to the township and that the proposed ordinance was actually more restrictive while simultaneously relaxing the verbage.

“When we started this whole process, we were actually trying to restrict the amount of sidewalks that are currently required by our ordinance,” said Kichline. “So this ordinance that we are looking at right now is actually more restrictive.”

“As a township, we are not building sidewalks right now,” she continued. “We don’t have the money.”

Kichline’s explanation garnered her a round of applause from the audience.

Chair Robert Lamina took the floor, using his time to discuss the materials and measurements generally used to construct sidewalks.

Finally, Philip Donahue offered up the motion that was quickly seconded.

In a last ditch effort, Chirman Lamina attempted, to no avail, to amend the newly passed ordinance, asking that the Green Routes Network Map, be added to the Township’s Comprehensive Plan instead of being a part of the ordinance.

The amendment was not accepted, as it was proposed in haste and hadn’t been properly acknowledged, in the processes of the floor. Vice Chair Paul Olsen then tried to propose Lamina’s amendment as a referendum question on an upcoming ballot. The proposal was not accepted in part because it was not made under the Board's rules of order.