Home Feedback Search

 Former Sadsbury Supervisor Questions...


Township News
Public Notices
The Developers
In The News
Message Board
Zoning Tutorial
Local History
Township Meetings
Other Links

Former Sadsbury Supervisor Questions Current Supervisors' Opposition to Referendum

Letter to the editor 10/24/2002

I would like to comment on the October 11-16, 2002 letter "Here is some knowledge about your township business." The two supervisors are against the referendum on the November ballot increasing the amount of Sadsbury Township supervisors from three to five.

The first paragraph states that a resident sets his priorities by filing a lawsuit instead of buying medicine for his family. I know the man's wife and she has been ill. She is a great person, a real sweetheart. If his priority is spending money on a frivolous lawsuit, instead of buying medicine for his wife, he should be taken out and horse whipped. However, the point is moot because I believe he did not spend one cent of his own money when filing the lawsuit. He was a tool used by other factions. Besides, if he was truly concerned about monies being spent, he should have raised questions about a new police car, zoning issues, and the use of the CPA for normal uncomplicated financial matters. If there is going to be a tax increase, it is only due to uncontrolled spending by the current board.

In my previous letter I stated the facts on the cost of adding two new supervisors. I did not deny that it costs money. However, the amount of money (a total of $3,875) is so minute that it amounts to nothing. Messrs. Garris and Dorrat revealed the truth when they did not provide any documentation for or mention a tax increase in their letter.

Their letter impugns the integrity of the petitioners. Although I had nothing to do with the petition, I do know all the parties involved. It is my opinion that the persons circulating the petition have more integrity in one of their little fingers than Mesers. Garris and Doratt combined. After all, who was it that invented and perpetuated the fictitious huge tax increase? Case closed.

Their rationale for increasing the Planning Commission because of increased workload and then saying their workload is not increased is laughable and pathetic. How can one be increased without the other?

These two supervisors have an agenda of changing zoning and other matters that need to be examined very closely. Maybe with two additional supervisors the number of secret meetings and closed-door sessions will stop.

This is America. This is a political decision for the voters to make. Let the voters make their decision based on the facts and not political untruths and hyperbole. It is time for five!

Neil H. Heineman


İCoatesville Ledger 2003


Send mail to webmaster@sadsburyville.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 12/01/07