Our Response to their Second Letter:

November 4th  - Well the last letters are out from both sides.  Let's dig into their letter a little bit tonight.  In red below are their statements and in blue are our responses:

"We are unfortunate to be one of the few townships that have faced opposition to our open space [tax]"

==> We could not disagree more.  Public debate of issues benefits everyone.  It is only unfortunate when local governments try to sneak these votes through with no public debate.  This is how democracy is supposed to work.

"Similar referendums have already been passed in 22 townships in Chester County, including our neighboring townships...Wallace Township should be doing this too"

==>  Actually 3 out of 5 neighboring townships; this implies all of them.  But, the main problem we have with this is that just because 22 out 74 (29%) of townships are imposing taxes on their residents does not make it right or beneficial to Wallace.  We should not be FOLLOWING these other township just because they have done it.  Once you start to dig into the failures many of these townships are having managing this money and trying to acquire property you would actually come to the conclusion that we should NOT FOLLOW them.  Many townships in Chester County have busy commercial districts and roads, should we follow that example.  This is just faulty logic.

"this is a small tax"

==> Our October 24th update speaks to this (seems they have finally stopped comparing this tax to fast-food):

Our opponents seem to have “hamburgers” on the brain when they keep comparing this tax to fast food.  How about something a little closer to home?  Thinking about starting that savings account for your child or grandchild’s college education?  Well 18 years from now you could have saved $11,526.16 for this child’s college education; if you saved the money you will be sending to the township for the new “open space” tax ($250 a year at 10% interest).

THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT...

November 7th  - Pretty busy as you can imagine, so this is not going to be as thorough as we would like.  But, if there is anything that you still need answered, please see us at the polls:

In red below are their statements and in blue are our responses:

"Land purchase outright will be available as public parkland.  Even when development rights are purchased, public trail access if often provided"

==> First, they keep exaggerating the land they can purchase, because they will only be purchasing development rights.  Now when it serves their purpose they switch back to outright buying land, so that it is completely off the tax roles and we have to pay to maintain it.  They can't have it both ways.  Besides now for 2.9 million your talking about buying 58 acres ($50,000 an acre for developable land), 29 of which would have been preserved through the current ordinances.  As far as the trail access often being provided with development rights, where is the proof.  Besides, you can get anything you want as long as you pay extra for it.  But, most land owners are not going to have people walking all over their property for free, if at all.

"But, some property owners will sacrifice some of their land value to keep the developers out.  They deserve our thanks."

==> They have changed their tune again.  Saying in their first letter that land owners "USUALLY accept less for their land than the developers offer".  We asked them for their sources, they still have not provided them, and now they have gone from USUALLY to SOME.  We think they really don't know, and should just drop this point until they have some proof.  It is not logical that land owners would give us their development rights for less than they are worth.  And as far as thanks.  I think 2.9 million dollars is plenty of thanks.

"If your family can't afford $2.50 more per week, then you really shouldn't vote to save open space"

==> First, unless there are 100 weeks in the year, this $2.50 per a week is incorrect.  They have already agreed that it will cost the average family $250 a year.  Secondly, we detect some sarcasm here.  They don't think anyone's budgets could use an extra $250 a year.  No one could be living paycheck to paycheck.  Well we will never feel comfortable assuming that everyone will be ok.  That is your business to know and it is your money.  Lastly, telling people to vote NO if they cannot afford it is pretty harsh.  What would have been helpful is if they said they would pay your share if you can't afford it.  Because, if this passes, EVERYONE pays, even the people who vote NO.

==> Our last letter hits most of their other new points.  Their scare tactics about streams being polluted, etc. is just plain dishonest.  As both of their officers are members of the planning commission they both know that developments cannot be built in water sheds and anywhere close to streams.  And, they must maintain proper standards in building and excavation to make sure they never pollute or damage the environment.

==> Remember we are only talking about saving 57 acres with this tax hike (not hundreds like they claim).  Hankin which has it's initial approval from the current board of supervisors is nearly 700 houses on approx. 700 acres.  When you add the remaining developments that are already on the books to be built there is very little left to preserve in Wallace.  And what is left we will get nearly 60% automatically preserved by the current ordinances.  Unfortunately, it is too late and too expensive for the township to buy enough land in Wallace to make a difference.

==> Lastly, if you are in doubt, vote NO.  This tax will be around at least 20 years to pay down the debt.  In all likelihood it will be around forever.  So you can't change your mind later.  However, if your questions are answered and you decide to vote YES later, this can be introduced onto the ballot again.  And probably will.

That's all we have time for.  Any questions please see us at the polls.

Thanks!!!!!!