Regrowing the Shade Tree Commission
POTTSTOWN, PA – At last night’s Pottstown Borough Council meeting, the future of the Shade Tree Commission was discussed and its new direction was put into motion.
Council voted unanimously to have Solicitor Charles Garner draft the new Shade Tree ordinance.
The matter of funding was also discussed. 5th Ward Councilor Dan Weand raised the issue of the $104,970 that the Borough contributed to Trees, Inc., the 501(c)(3) non-profit operated by Pottstown School Board member Thomas Hylton, over a five-year period from 2003-2007. To which Solicitor Garner replied that, if interested, Council could pursue getting that money back.
While the Shade Tree Commission, currently chaired by Hylton, continually claims to have no funds to assist Pottstown taxpayers in the maintenance of street trees, Trees, Inc. shows net assets of $96,634 according to the non-profit’s 2009 IRS Form 990.
When you visit the Borough of Pottstown’s website and select the link to the Shade Tree Commission, a link takes you to the Trees, Inc. website. And the only available meeting minutes posted on the Borough’s website are over two years old. It’s very non-customer friendly…pretty much the modus operandi of the Shade Tree Commission itself.
It was refreshing to read the article in today’s Mercury on the Phoenixville Shade Tree Commission.
If you missed it, here it is:
Residents want Phoenixville to continue maintaining street trees
Unlike the Pottstown Shade Tree Commission, Phoenixville’s Commission meets on a monthly basis, with their Annual Report available on the Borough’s website as well as their monthly meeting minutes:
Phoenixville Shade Tree Commission Meeting Minutes and Annual Report
Phoenixville also has helpful information available to the taxpayers it serves:
Phoenixville Shade Tree Commission Members
Thank you Pottstown Borough Council for starting the process of putting in place a new and improved Shade Tree Commission! It’s time to reclaim our underutilized taxpayer funds and start putting it to good use throughout the Borough.
It’s so nice to see progress in action! We’re looking forward to the new changes!
NOTE: After we published this post, we received some very interesting information we’d like to share with our readers. Below are the Borough of Pottstown ledger figures for Trees, Inc. from the period of January 2003 to December 2009. That’s a lot of money coming and going isn’t it folks?
I was suprised. Usually TH is at the council meetings, especially if it concerns the Shade Tree Commission. Alas, he wasn’t there. I doo like the way Phoenixville handles their tree commission. On a side note, the recommendation that was discussed last night for the Mrs. Smith building on South & Hanover, that of painting a mural on the side, seems like a good idea. But they should remove the trees along Hanover and South so we can see the finished work. How would that sit with TH?
Do we really think it’s a good idea to revert back to a treeless Pottstown?
Last night at the Council meeting, NOTHING was brought up about eliminating shade trees. Discussed was how to handle problems and complaints about sidewalks and such. At the several Shade Tree Committee meetings I attended, all Mr. Hylton would say was “we have no money from the boro, talk to your councilperson” So the councilpeople were told about this, and they are taking action.
It is not a treeless P’town anyone is after, from my understanding. It is my understanding that what is being sought is a responsible way to maintain a ‘treeful’ P’town under a more up-to-date (hopefully self-funded) system which allows equal treatment and assistance for all rather than being at the discretion of one individual.
The current ordinance is from the 1950′s and requires some scrutiny to provide for the many changes the town has seen these last 50+ years and free the town from the non-profit we seem to be dependent upon. This organization (Trees Inc.) has limited the ability the town ought to have in some decision making which, in turn, has led to many residents having significant frustrations with trees and planning, placement and restrictive damage repair remedies.
As noted in the RTK request, there are also some questions many people have with regard to the way that money has come and gone from the accounts (the amoount of money, too). Questions have been raised, in the past, about duplicity in billing/payment for services and it would seem beneficial to return control of these shade trees back to the Borough with updated ordinance language in place. No one is disputing the relevance or value of the trees, themselves – only the rules and funding sources currently in place.
Interesting RTK – many numbers to study (some, much larger than I thought I’d see on the balance sheets)!! Thanks for obtaining the info AND sharing, SP!!
Who said anything about a treeless Pottstown? There is not one person on Council who wants to see trees eliminated! Where did you get such a notion? What Council is after is the SENSIBLE and EQUITABLE maintenance and placement of trees! Neither of which TH has ever been accused of using.
And I applaud Chuck Garner for actually suggesting that the Borough might get some, if not all, of that money back that was handed over to TH who has hoarded it instead of using it for the purpose for which it was given. If he doesn’t return that money, in my opinion he is no less that a thief.
sp – have you seen the recent shade tree comments posted on the merc’s website?
http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2010/08/16/news/srv0000009093943.txt
funny stuff. ms. x, the downtowner, is still licking her wounds after getting booted off the shade tree commission. who else but her would be still defending tom hylton? there’s also a comment from stooge don read. i’m wondering when dnile will post a comment defending her father-in-law for all the legal work he did for hylton over the years.
and they have the nerve to blame code blue for problems caused by hylton.
what a bunch of sad sacks.
Bravo, luis! You have them down cold!
What did Ms. X ever contribute to the Shade Tree Commission other than admitting she didn’t know anything about trees? And Don Read is the last person who should be lecturing the leaders of town about anything. He should worry about his own leadership skills with his comments and actions as a member of the Borough Authority.
I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but there are people who have been trying to have Ms. X’s (aka pottstowndowntowner) rabid remarks removed from The Mercury’s blogsite on the story we’re referrencing here. The Mercury has been called, the publisher has been called – all to no avail! I’ve tried to have the offensive blogs deleted myself! Nothing! But my blog in reply to her ravings was never posted. It appears that The Mercury not only lies, but gives preferrential treatment to certain bloggers and others in P-town. Go ahead Evan. I know you’ll have some vitriolic comments to make about this blog! And NO – I will NOT divulge my name – just to spite you.
nice catch sr. it looks like Ms. X has gotten herself stuck up a tree that she can’t get down from. when are people in this town going to learn that you get more with honey than vinegar? she certainly isn’t doing herself any favors with her looney tunes posts. maybe she should stick to sending out emails to borough council members instead of posting crazy comments for everyone to read on the merc.
SR,
Sorry, I was not involved in any of the deliberations regarding the Mercury posts you speak of so I cannot address the matter.
But speaking of double standards, I will note that while I was threatened with excommunication here by the administrators here for the unspeakable crime of speculating about the identity of posters on this site, also lambasted by others here for the practice and my bad form, it would appear that the outing of poster identities on other sites is perfectly acceptable to this site’s administration and the posters here as I hear no wail of protest rising.
So SR, revel in your self-righteous anonymity while you deny the same protection you claim to need to others.
Was that vitriolic enough for you?
I must agree with Evan, that does seem to be a pretty glaring double-standard. Perhaps SP could consider “x”ing out the names in the above posts, or ask for them to be re-submitted without pottstowndowntowner’s identity. It is pretty clear from pottstowndowntowner’s online Mercury posts who that person is, no need to “out” them.
To protect the policy of anonymity, then (I think) SP needs to stay the course and not let anyone put a name with an identity; if it is okay to “out” people’s identities here, then Evan shouldn’t be criticized for doing just that in his comments.
Just sayin’…
Amy, You’re absolutely correct and I apologize. Using “X” where a name is inserted is a perfectly acceptable way for Save Pottstown to help us maintain our anonymity if any one of us slip. I will, in the future, remember to not name names. Thank YOU for pointing that out to me.
That’s a good way to handle those situations for sure. I can tell you, as an “outted” person on the Merc,
it was alarming, and as you know, frightening when our home was vandalised on the heels of that revelation.
Other activists figured out who Daisy was and asked me for confirmation. I was comfortable with that and had no reason to remain incognito among friends and activists….because of course I know and trust them.
I think it is important to remain above suspicion – as in – “feigned ignorance is bliss”.