Questions re Intell New Era “Dillerville rail yard project nets $3M grant”

Members of TRRAAC – homeowners in the Barrcrest and School Lane Hills neighborhoods ­- have for at least 2 years been begging for an independent study of possible alternate locations for the 14 – 16 track switching yard (which can be further expanded) other than their own “backyard”. Considering this, why is it that the announcement that the construction of the tracks in the former landfill site near these developments could start as soon as 30 to 45 days from now receive such little notice by the press? Why was this information buried in the middle of an article on page 10 of the business section of a Saturday paper?

Note the euphemisms in the wordage:  “constructing a new yard at that site for the activities now along Harrisburg Avenue”. Why didn’t it read, “moving the Norfolk Southern switching yard from the Armstrong site to the former landfill site adjacent to the Barrcrest and School Lane Hills neighborhoods”?  Also, why is the term “Eds and Meds” – inappropriate, unprofessional and  imprecise “slang” terminology – used exclusively in publicity coming from F&M, but absent from any publicity coming from LGH?

The latest word from LGH is that they haven’t decided yet what they will do with their 20 acres of former Armstrong property. F&M has stated many times that it will be using its 27 acres of former Armstrong property for athletic fields. And that is the actual, underlying reason for requesting millions of dollars in state and federal funds, all of which they have received, according to this article, and which the taxpayers will eventually have to pay back.

After announcing PennDOT’s $3 million grant, the story reads: “The new state dollars will not go toward relocating part of the Norfolk Southern operation — the aspect of the project that’s been controversial.” This makes no difference when one considers that the more taxpayer-funded dollars that F&M/LGH get for the “uncontroversial” aspects of the total project, the more of their own private money is made available for the controversial aspects. What F&M and LGH pay for out of their own funds is not scrutinized or criticized because they are using their own money.

The story also states: “Streets on its north and south sides will be connected. This work is due to be completed in late 2012.” F&M has applied for still more taxpayer dollars from the U.S. Dept. of Transportation to cover these costs. Again, this will preempt the need to use private funds. F&M and LGH will each contribute $12 million and Norfolk Southern, the largest beneficiary, a paltry $2 million.

Also, where is the evidence that there is “currently unfilled demand for rail service from local businesses”. Who are these local businesses?

Finally, this entire story reads more like a press release from F&M’s department of public relations than a serious news story on what the reporter, Tim Mekeel, himself admitted is a “controversial” issue. Why didn’t Mekeel contact a leader of TRRAAC or its attorney, Bill Cluck, for a statement or reaction, in the interests of a balanced, unbiased news story? Especially one in the business section of a newspaper.