Dear Mr. Hoeffel, Ms. Washington, Mr. Curry, and the Cheltenham Democratic Committee:

I just received a five-by-eight card from you threatening me with tax hikes and asking me to vote no on the ballot question to amend the home-rule charter in Cheltenham Township.
Is this the best you can do for your constituents?

 “You’ll pay for this” is the message of every line in that mailer. And it’s demeaning and disappointing to receive such an item from the three politicians in my party who are best poised to protect Cheltenham Township and from my party’s committee.

Perhaps you haven't even read the mailer; if not, I suggest that you do. Because instead of hearing and responding to our deep concerns about the effects that two huge parking garages and other public-service corporation development would have on our small streets, quality of life, environment, safety, and property values, you have threatened us. Instead of recognizing that hard-working Cheltenham residents have shown extraordinary dedication to getting your attention and respect, you have scared us. Instead of seeing that we need your help badly in dealing with the all-powerful and disrespectful denizens of public-service corporations such as SEPTA and our own zoning hearing board, you have sent out an internally contradictory, fear-mongering mailing, thus using your access to taxpayer money and citizen addresses to overwhelm our neighbor-to-neighbor communication capacities.

If the amendment is indeed unconstitutional, as you state that it is, then it will not hold. But if it is enforceable, then no other damage you threaten would occur. Firstly, it only applies to land-development proposals from public-benefit corporations. Secondly, it will not affect business privilege or mercantile taxes, for public-benefit corporations do not pay these taxes. Thirdly, the CELDF, the nonprofit legal defense fund that helped citizens draft the proposed charter amendment, will also defend the municipality against challenges to it, because in their understanding it does not limit or abolish rights written in the U. S. Constitution, Pennsylvania State Constitution, or Cheltenham Charter.

You write that developers will be turned off by the referendum. But if having no voter voice is such a wonderful thing for development, then why has so little positive development been drawn to the area in the decades without the voters’ voice threatening (in your view) those efforts? Encouraging small business instead of huge developments and boosting rather than damaging the beauty of the area are good for the township in the long term. Drastically out-of-scale parking garages and transit centers that will increase traffic and air pollution—outdated approaches that violate federal transportation-funding requirements—are not.

And if, as its supporters hold, the proposed charter amendment would defend the quality of life in Cheltenham and give residents a say in determining what public-service corporations can do in our township, then real-estate values will go up, because people want to live in places that are protected. And the area will attract developers who care about having their businesses in an area that will retain and further improve its character.

I was appalled by the approach taken in your ad. I perceive that you have genuine concerns about the effect the home-rule charter amendment could have, but your response reflects no respect for your constituents. If you don't want us to vote for the amendment, how about telling us how YOU are prepared to defend Cheltenham against damaging development? Instead, you are completely ignoring the message sent to you loud and clear by this proposed charter amendment: You are not doing enough to defend us. Senator Washington did write a letter to SEPTA against the garage in Wyncote, for which many people are grateful, but this hasn’t stopped them from proceeding. As noted in a recentInquirer article, residents in Cheltenham pay 90 percent of the taxes. Isn't that one more reason that our wishes for Cheltenham Township must be heard and acted upon?

If you don't want people to take into our own hands the job of protecting our quality of life and supporting positive development that won't increase greenhouse gases and many kinds of ugliness in our daily lives, then try doing it yourselves. Try listening to us and acting on what you hear. Because you’re not doing that job, we’re doing it the best we can, with the tools available to us. We’re lucky to be a home-rule community that has some real tools to work with.

Here’s a little thought to counter the “you’ll pay for this” theme, intended to scare us away from pulling the "yes" lever. This community’s incredibly dedicated residents are not going to stop doing what we can to protect our township. If you’re not happy about our methods, please don’t threaten and scare us. Instead, try helping us create a healthier township that supports its residents, and demand on our behalf that public-service corporations do the same.

Sincerely,
Janet Benton
resident
Wyncote, PA

To the editor:

For the first time in 33 years, residents of Cheltenham Township will vote on whether or not they wish to amend their Home Rule Charter with a citizens’ bill of rights. As a result of a petitioning campaign initiated by We The People of Cheltenham, a ballot question for this historic change in our democratic process will appear on your electronic voting screen alongside the candidate names. When people vote on Nov. 3 for their bill of rights, what are they voting for?

The bill of rights would recognize the right of Cheltenham residents to local self-government. It would further establish: That corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as township residents. That corporations do not have a right to unearned profits, which is referred to in legal language as “future lost profits.” That citizens would have a right to approve or reject land development projects proposed by public benefit corporations, such as SEPTA.

Over the past year, there has been a long, contentious debate over the SEPTA mega-garage at the Wyncote/Jenkintown station. The debate has brought together hard-working community groups and civic-minded individuals to resolve this conflict democratically. The proposed plan will directly impact many neighbors, decrease the value of homes, impacting the environment, street traffic and disrupt our way of life.

At the heart of the issue, the mega-garage is a symptom. The underlying problem is that the citizens have no deciding voice on quality of life issues in their own neighborhoods. If this opportunity for every citizen to have a deciding voice in the future of Cheltenham is missed, then we will have missed a golden moment to declare our right to determine what our community will look like for our families and for future generations.

Let us be clear. With this amendment, we are not voting “for” or “against” the parking garage. We are voting to legally instate the right to vote “for” or “against” SEPTA land development. When the amendment passes, public benefit corporations will have to have their proposals approved or denied by future voter referendums. The bill of rights would enable residents to approve development that the majority of citizens want, as well as, a deciding voice to say “no” to proposals they do not want . Informed citizen majorities would make local decisions about their everyday, living environment and not a legal team representing a corporate board of directors, who do not live here.

The results would increase voting and encourage more civic involvement. Citizen voices would not be just a token opinion, but rather an avenue on which to navigate our decision-making process. The bill of rights would give us an opportunity to work with our elected officials in an unprecedented way to bring about desirable change. A bill of rights can be expanded to give citizens a deciding voice in other kinds of large corporate development as well. Decisions would favor smart, sustainable business growth.

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it…” – Lincoln’s first inaugural address. It is time to make this move for self-governance. We need to be able to decide, as a community, on the future contours of our neighborhoods. We also need to provide our children with the tools in the Cheltenham Township charter to make similar decisions and amend, as needed, our governing document.

In a participatory democracy, all are invited, citizens, friends, families, and public servants, to vote for what we want. Too often business interests leverage our elected officials into difficult positions where they are caught between their constituents and big corporate interests.

On July 4th, We The People of Cheltenham kicked off a petition campaign to begin a bill of rights for Cheltenham citizens. The county commissioners, acting as the board of elections, tried to deny the 3,023 registered Cheltenham voters who signed the petition, their right to request an amendment change. They were challenged in a county civil court by the citizens. On National Constitution Day, the judge ordered the board of elections to fulfill their duty and write the question to be placed on the November ballot, a victory for the people to have their voices heard.

Election Day is a historic culmination of the campaign and a new beginning for Cheltenham. We have an opportunity to step forward in tandem with many other municipalities in Pennsylvania, and cities like Spokane, Wash., where a far-reaching bill of rights will also be voted on this year. Your vote here, in Cheltenham Township on Nov. 3, will be part of the history of your town.

At the beginning of the campaign, the question was posed to the community about our quality of life versus corporate development in Cheltenham. Who decides? Thomas Jefferson said, “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.” Now is the time of our informed discretion. We have the knowledge. We have the tools. Amend the Home Rule Charter with a citizens’ bill of rights. Let’s make history. Who decides?

In these final weeks, We The People of Cheltenham invites you to join the conversation. Continue our dialogue for democracy. Participate in your local government. Come to a community meeting in your neighborhood before you vote on Nov. 3. Make an informed decision...Thank you.

Vote yes on the ballot question Nov. 3. Volunteer to work at your local polling place. Get out the vote.

Tom Mullian

Wyncote

To the editor:
 
I won't repeat the many fine points made by Mr. Mullian in his letter ("Residents will have chance to change charter on Election Day, Glenside News, Oct. 14). But as a Glenside resident of 27 years, I respectfully ask my neighbors to consider the following as well:

• although SEPTA's heavy-handed tactics with respect to the proposed Wyncote parking garage may have triggered the movement to amend the home rule charter, the proposed Glenside parking garage is far from a dead issue. So in voting to regulate how corporations act inside Cheltenham's borders, we're also voting for self-determination with respect to the Glenside train station and other proposals across the length and breadth of our township.

• experience teaches that township residents cannot rely on their commissioners when it involves SEPTA's designs on our neighborhoods. Their response to this issue has been by turns evasive, dismissive, and condescending. Clearly such momentous decisions regarding our quality of life are safer in the hands of the township's voters.

• opposition to the parking garages has been systematically portrayed as a NIMBY response. Well, if community's neighbors don't protect their own backyards, who will? And while the adverse effects of parking garages in neighborhoods similar to Glenside and Wyncote are widely understood, their benefit to the wider region are far less certain. Millions of dollars spent enabling commuters from distant suburbs to park here will make it easier to decommission train service to communities up the line from us--this in an era when light rail should be spearheading the transition to less carbon-intensive modes of transportation.

So Glenside residents, for our own sake, for the sake of our neighbors in Wyncote, and for the sake of our neighbors "up the line," please, on November 3rd, vote "yes" to amend our township's home rule charter. Let's take the future into our own hands.
 
Rick Topper
Glenside

On Sunday, October 18th at the La Mott Community Center, Cheltenham Ward 3 Commissioner, Harvey Portner, held his community meeting. I was one of 15 neighbors in attendance. I would like to convey the information Commissioner Portner disseminated, in his own words, to the neighbors.  As his last agenda item, Mr. Portner said he knew nothing about We The People until he noticed signs in the Township indicating the Commissioners were "like a bad group of guys."  (Please note: The referenced signs were posted by another neighborhood group opposing SEPTA's mega-garage six months before We The People of Cheltenham - WTPOC - was formed.)

He further stated that the Township Solicitor told the Township Commissioners to make no comment, pro or con, about we the people until SEPTA makes application for permit.  He then stated that to date SEPTA has not made application for permit. 

He went onto describe the process of placing the question on the November 3rd ballot as he understood it, which included getting signatures and then commented, "Anyone will sign a petition."  He advised the attendees that we the people is out to change the Home Rule Charter, which will allow them to determine any development that comes into the township. (Note:  The ballot question specifically "recognizes the right of residents to approve or reject land development projects proposed by certain corporations known as public benefit corporations."  SEPTA is a public benefit corporation and would need to put their proposed development projects up for a referendum vote to ALL the residents of Cheltenham.)

Commissioner Portner told the group that we the people developed the question for the ballot. (Note:  According to the Home Rule Charter, it is the duty of the County Board of Elections to prepare the  ballot question, which they did in compliance to Judge Albright's court order in civil court on Sept. 17th.)

He then continued to advise the community that the Township is taking the case to court to avoid the question from being on the ballot. "They are going for an injunction. If it is a yes vote for the injunction it would be approved by committee.  A no vote would mean a court case, costing tax money."
He then  told us, "You are to vote No." It seemed very confusing , because I think he meant to vote No on the ballot question. I wondered, why was any of this up for discussion if the Township Solicitor instructed the Commissioners not to comment on the issue.

Throughout the meeting I was taking very careful notes, as I do at most meetings, because as President of the La Mott Civic Association I support an informed community.  Commissioner Portner pointed to me and said,  "And Diane Williams, you can report this."

So I took that as my turn to speak and questioned Mr. Portner as to why he was telling the people to vote No, when he was advised by his council to make no comment on the matter.  I asked him further if he thought that the people were so ignorant, that they did not understand the petition they were signing. 
He replied,  "Yes." I reminded him that he was misinforming the attendees on many counts about the ballot question and commented, "We are free people. We are not sheep. Each of us has a brain. We can think and make decision for ourselves on issues regarding our quality of life."

I then suggested my neighbors obtain factual information about the ballot question at: www.wethepeolpeofcheltenham.com.  And told them about a series of Community Meetings being offered before the November 3rd election, where all their questions can be asked.  At our La Mott Civic Association Meeting on Thurs., Oct. 29th at 7 pm We People of Cheltenham have accepted the invite to speak with Cheltenham neighbors, to answer their questions and listen to their comments.

There are many rumors and misrepresentations in the our township around the ballot question for our Community Bill of Rights. Much of this confusion is being perpetuated by fear-based intentions. It is our privilege to have a Home Rule Charter as our governing bylaws. It affords us an opportunity to our basic rights to be heard, to be informed, to participate, and to amend the charter from time to time, as needed.

Our citizens' right to amend our governing laws is restated in our PA State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:  "All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness.  For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform.... their government in such manner as they may think proper."  Claims of illegal, unconstitutional and costly to tax payers are unfounded and often misconstrued.

I encourage all Cheltenham citizens to become informed about their Community Bill of Rights question on the November ballot.
 
Diane Williams
President
La Mott Civic Association

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

"In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.

During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.

But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong -- and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.

Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with...[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics."

-from the Wall Street Journal

Read The Full Article Here

Think arguing for the rights of real people is a new issue?

Listen to the Voices of History:

Almost from the time of the birth of the modern corporation there have been many voices proclaiming that the accumulation of power that the corporate vehicle promised posed a threat to the people. . . .

Thomas Jefferson

3^rd President (1801-09)Democratic-Republican

urged citizens to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country";

"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."The Populist Moment). (Thomas Jefferson, in 1816, quoted in Lawrence Goodwyn,

Abraham Lincoln,

16^th President (1861-1865) Republican

wrote that "corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow," and predicted that "the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed";

" I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." (U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864, letter to Col. William F. Elkins, in The Lincoln Encyclopedia, by Archer H. Shaw).

Rutherford B. Hayes

19^th President (1877-81) Republican

asserted that, "This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations and for corporations."

Grover Cleveland

22^nd  President (1885-89) 24^th President (1893-1897)Democrat

"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters"  (President Grover Cleveland, 1888, quoted by Hughes, Jonathan, R. T. The Governmental Habit Redux: Economic Controls from Colonial Times to the Present, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1991, p. 112, citing Swisher, Karl Brent, American Constitutional Development, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1954, p. 422).

Theodore Roosevelt

26^th President (1901-09) Republican

"Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with those institutions." (T. Roosevelt, 1901, first annual message to Congress).

Woodrow Wilson

28^th President (1913-21) Democrat

"Big business is not dangerous because it is big, but because its bigness is an unwholesome inflation created by privileges and exemptions which it ought not to enjoy." (Woodrow Wilson, acceptance speech, Democratic National Convention, July 7, 1912).

Franklin D. Roosevelt

32^nd President (1933-45) Democrat

"No business is above Government; and Government must be empowered to deal adequately with any business that tries to rise above Government."  (Franklin D. Roosevelt, in Money Talks).

Dwight D. Eisenhower

34^th President (1953-61) Republican

warned us to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence . . by the military industrial complex." 

The Cheltenham Township Home Rule Charter enumerates three rights for residents.

1. The Right to Be Informed
2. The Right to be Heard
3. The Right to Participate

Our Charter states in Citation C1508. Amendments, "This charter may be amended in conformity with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law 33, Act 62 of 1972, as amended from time to time."

Charter amendment from the Home Rule Handbook says, "Basic to the concept of home rule is local control over the content of the charter and the ability to make changes in the structure and powers of the local government by local actions. The frame of government set by the government study commission and adopted by the voters is open to change and adaption through the amending process. The amending procedure established in the Home Rule Law provides citizens direct access to the ballot to alter the form of functioning of their local government."

Proposing amendments from the same handbook states, "Charter amendments can be placed on the ballot either by action of the governing body or by petition of the voters."