A Warped Frustrated Old Man
POTTSTOWN – Well well. Look who’s come out from under his rock (with his pen and fists swinging!). We truly felt the need to address today’s latest waaa-waaa advertisement that appears in the print edition of The Mercury.
As a gift to their subscribers (courtesy of Mercury Editor Nancy March), the few unlucky readers of today’s edition were subjected to yet another 25 year old picture of a once smiling Thomas Hylton on page A3. Come on Nancy. Get an updated photo of Hylton in your paper. Hell…your reporters have the latest high-tech digital cameras…how about using one once in a while? This is 2010 after all…not 1983.
If you need a good chuckle…here’s the latest advertisement:
Council’s vision: cutting down on trees
Most likely, today’s Hylton advertisement will appear in tomorrow’s online edition of The Mercury (in the Opinion section of course). Go figure. At least the paper discontinued running these sappy vindictive advertisements on its Opinion page.
Do you think Nancy March ever gets tired of accepting checks from Mr. Hylton? We certainly like the idea of separating Hylton from his stacks of cash…but really…how desperate is The Mercury for advertising revenue if they’re accepting trash like we see in today’s edition?
In today’s tired and sad commentary…Mr. Hyton’s “foe of the week” is Pottstown Borough Council Member Jody Rhoads. So…who will be selected as next week’s foe? Borough Manager Jason Bobst? Or maybe Public Works Director Doug Yerger. Only time will tell.
More and more, Tom Hylton reminds us of Lionel Barrymore’s character Henry F. Potter in Frank Capra’s 1946 film “It’s a Wonderful Life”…he’s nothing but a warped, frustrated old man.
Maybe Mr. Hylton should change his byline at the end of his advertisement. Haven’t you heard the news Tom? There is no more shade tree commission. And Tress, Inc. isn’t far behind.
MY, MY…What a treat this was to read! Thanks, SP!! since I don’t get the actual paper I was wondering about things I had heard about this newest ad.
Well, it is a bit bitter and attempts to rile people up about yet another cost they might need to bear BUT on the lighter side of life the action causing this rant is all good news. Councilman Rhoades is not single-handedly the one to thank for all this (I believe the vote was unanimous or close to it), though he did make this an issue to be dealt with and for that he deserves a BIG pat on the back!!
Now, by Tom’s own admission economy has caused Trees Inc. to not be able to provide proper care in their ‘unwritten’ responsibility to the Borough by leaving stumps all over town (87, was it?) and planting only one tree (didn’t a bunch get planted recently at Edgewood Cemetary?) – doesn’t sound like this ‘partnership’ is really working out anyway. While I understand trees are the main focus of Trees Inc. I have a difficult time understanding how the person administering the funds can be all over town and not see other greenscapes that require attention for safer streets and pedestrian walkways – trees aren’t the sole providers of shade nor are the only plantings requiring care. Again, a mere trifle – and part of the ‘discretion of ONE’ Council seems content to say it’s time has passed.
BTW – trees are not the most pressing problem but we have to start somewhere and this was a very good place to start, in my opinion!! So, if we follow Tom’s argument – if we have fewer shade trees, given the new rules, through attrition would it stand to reason that we could have fewer roadblocks thrown into the ‘field of play’ by Mr. Hylton asthings he crafted cease to exist? Just sayin’ – please take a hint!! Steps are being taken to turn the town around ‘cuz what you promised when you wrote the rulebook hasn’t happened and people are tired of the flat promises and want to try something new!!
UMMM…let’s see, why do we need a law – because Mr. Hylton will look to find a loophole in the system and a law needs to be on the record to have a way to hold people accountable (like our finely crafted, tired zoning ordinances – oh yes, I went there!!). Correct me if I’m wrong BUT Mr. Hylton doesn’t pick up the phone to make ‘simple requests’ to anyone – isn’t he a sticler for having things in writing UNLESS he is the one that doesn’t wish to be proven wrong??
In his summary he suggests it will be restrictive for Trees Inc. to provide their free service to the Borough – is he considering still doing this? I got the distinct impression Trees Inc. would ‘wash their hands’ with Borough trees. Did I misunderstand? BTW – many people DO pay for services to trees so what’s the big deal if we ALL split the cost?? Convenient economic burden wording – Tom, it goes both ways.
Here’s a quarter call someone who cares…