The following comments or blog posts illustrate a specific pattern of misrepresentations in the media of the Steifels, the project’s impact to their property, and/or the Steifels’ personal feelings about the placement of the middle interceptor made by the Lower Providence special interest group. All posts are sourced with web addresses that were working on the date of compilation, August 1, 2013. In order to preserve context, comments are included in their entirety; segments directly relating to impact on the Steifels have been bolded and highlighted. --Lisa Mossie
LPVRSA Releases Official Position on Sewer Interceptor http://lowerprovidence.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/lpvrsa-releases-official-position-onsewer-interceptor Catherine Beyer September 30, 2012 at 08:04 PM Nobody livse on the "Oaks side" its just rock.That is where the original interceptor is and is where the 'approved' replacement was to go. Why do you think the original one was put there back in 1972? Maybe because people cared about private property and property rights back then? - You just didn't go blasting thru private citizens back yards if you don't have toplus just like I said before , its just rock over there- it doesn't flood and erosion like on 'our side'- but lpvrsa does not want you to know that- they keep referring to the sewer running on the LP side as the "original plan", Its all lies- DEP never approved the sewer on the LP side in this little section- the ENTIRE Perkiomen Creek interceptor was designed to run parrallel to the exisitng interceptor in previously disturbed areas- so no new disturbance! lpvrsa is the one who tried to sneak it over on lp side BUT THEY GOT CAUGHT! That is what's holding up this project now- DEP is making them redo the plan if they want a NEW location other then what was approved on the Upper providence side of the creek they have an approved plan already!- But just for FYI, LP and the residents want to save both side of the Perkiomen Watershed- because we really care about the 'whole picture" Catherine Beyer October 01, 2012 at 01:06 AM more research would help you understand- there are no houses on the Oaks side,
Mossie: Lower Providence contradicts its own case against Middle Interceptor placement http://www.timesherald.com/article/20130228/OPINION03/130229422/mossie-lowerprovidence-contradicts-its-own-case-against-middle-interceptor-placement February 28, 2013
1kiltimaugh2
5 months ago
Ms Mossie weighing In the Sewer project is Most certainly slanted. I am a Resident Who is Directly in the line of fire IF the sewer line is installed in Lower Providence.So i will speak to a particular issue Ms Mossie raises Inference that We, are somehow insensitive NIMBYS who could care less concerning Our Veteran neighbor across the creek . It is Divisive, Emotionally charged rhetoric, that has nothing to do with this issue. But serves her biased agenda. BUT lets "GO
THERE" Where is the concern for our 90 year old resident a Veteran with a missing leg .His family homestead will be utterly destroyed as the path will go right thru the middle of his homestead. The truth is in the eye of the beholder. Ms Mossies half truths and NO truths are a pathetic display of self serving rhetoric
3568
4 months ago
I really don't understand how myself or any other residents or Lower Providence can be blamed for this. The alternate study being done now, should have been done before any design was started, I do think someone was trying to sneak it through. I do not think the regional board ever even knew what was going on. LP or its residents have no reason to try and delay this project or do any of the things that this U.P supervisor is accusing them of.. I think this is a classic case of "shooting the messenger". LPT and its residents have just been trying to point out that our land was never approved for the sewer line. 3 yrs of being told ,, the sewer has to go thru your properties because its the cheapest way! Then to find out that the cost is the same??, and even cheaper in one of the estimates to put it in the exisiting trench on the U. Providence side, in the DEP approved right of way..?? Who is the victim here? I think it is shameful and embarrasing for a public official to speak in such a way against a neighboring township and its residents in a newspaper like this. Why not have a meeting with us and discuss it. Come take a walk with us. One last thing, there are too many factual errors in this article to address them all, but one that affects me most deeply is about my neighbor across the creek on U.Providene side. He and his family have been friends of my family for decades and we would never do anything to hurt each other. Replacing the already exisiting pipe that is near their house will not cause anymore disturbance then what's already there
Lower Providence contradicts its own case against LPVRSA's middle interceptor placement http://perkiomenvalley.patch.com/groups/lisa-mossies-blog/p/bp--lower-providence-contradictsits-own-case-against88c2d1f52e Missy March 12, 2013 at 11:33 PM Actually Fedor, there are people's yards on the Upper Providence side too :) Recommend Flag as Inappropriate Mohandus Frieri March 14, 2013 at 09:57 AM Have you ever been there Missy? Recommend Flag as Inappropriate Mohandus Frieri March 14, 2013 at 10:03 AM As it turns out, as usual, Mossie, or Missy, or Messy, is full of bluster and seriously short on facts. The Army Corps of Engineers has reported that the Middle Interceptor Route is the best route at no additional expense. Maybe Missy, or Messy, or Mossie can say less.
Letter to the Editor: Alternative 3 is the Right Choice for Middle Interceptor
Local resident Catherine Beyer asks the Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority to consider Alternative 3 for the middle interceptor sewer line. Posted by James Myers (Editor) , April 11, 2013 at 03:16 AM
http://lowerprovidence.patch.com/groups/opinion/p/letter-to-the-editor-0329ce40 We, the citizens, would like to voice our objection to the selection known as Alternative 1 or Alternative 1c in Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority’s 537 planning. Since cost has been determined to not be a significant factor, the use of this pristine area in Lower Providence Township along the Arcola section of the Perkiomen Creek as a host for a gravity sewer line holds no public benefit. The selection known as Alternative 3, which places the sewer line where it is currently approved in the Act 537 plan – located on the Upper Providence side of the Perkiomen Creek in the existing trench – or the alternative of slip lining the existing pipe and building a small pump station for the overflow, would benefit the public by avoiding costly, timely and environmental issues along with personal hardships imposed on the many affected residents. Alternative 3 avoids issues such as but not limited to:
The permanent condemnation of private citizens' property Potential damage and consequently repair of private homes, wells and septic sewer systems New manholes in private citizens back yards Two major stream crossings which would require blasting 20 feet under the creek bed Permanent installation and maintenance of two inverted siphons, one of which would be located in a resident’s back yard and private dock and would require additional land condemnation Potential condemnation and destruction of two private homes. (Both homes are on pillars.) Excavating archeological sites. Completing the Phase 2 and Phase 3 study. (When a pre-historic cooking hearth was found, the Phase 2 study was halted and never completed. Consequently, the remainder of land will require Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 studies. Even if Hoy Park is only used as an access way, the heavy equipment driven thru the archeological sites would still necessitate these studies. Directional bore drilling under massive historical stone wall. Replacement of stone wall if compromised. Responsibility to the environmental agencies if wall is compromised causing catastrophic erosion downstream and into public drinking water. Destruction to habitat of endangered species. Time restrictions due to nesting of endangered species. Replacing established wooded areas. Rerouting sections of the sewer line to avoid significant trees. Replacing wetlands, stock piling and removal of massive soil. (During prior construction of original pipe, rock from trench was set aside until after
construction then replaced over trench. Over 40 years later that same rock still remains in place today.) In conclusion, the original pipe was successfully installed over 40 yrs ago without the help of today’s modern technologies and should not present a major challenge for a competent engineering firm. The selection of the originally approved Alternative 3 is the sound responsible choice based on what is best for the people and the environment. We implore you to take your time in your decision. It will affect our land and our lives for generations to come and once done, it cannot be reversed. Catherine Beyer
LETTER: Unhappy with Middle Interceptor Plan http://lowerprovidence.patch.com/groups/editors-picks/p/letter-unhappy-with-middleinterceptor-plan Catherine Beyer June 17, 2013 at 03:25 AM you won't win on that argument Eric - the creek crossings are worse. the resident on the UP side is a close family friend of mine- he already has the pipe there, and its not right up against his house- there is already a right of way- lpvrsa is in the process of taking a access easement from him to start construction on the "upper part of the middle interceptor- so its not because of the lpt people he;s being disturbed this poor guy was very unhappy when the bike trail went in because it permanently invaded his privacy- I hear he wil at least get a new driveway out of this - the whole thing just is a shame
Grassroots Effort From Residents Stalls Multi-Million Dollar Sewer Project http://lowerprovidence.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/grassroots-effort-fromresidents-stalls-multimillion-dollar-sewer-project_ccca1606 Catherine Beyer July 21, 2013 at 08:07 PM I have never read anything so absurd until I read this article- their trying to use scare tactics- which might be ok for a 'lay; person , but for an engineer or a lawyer.. giving misleading information to the public,, its just wrong. Nobody caused their delays but themselves. that's evident now. Like their own Rep. from Skippack said at their last meeing, the 537 issue is old news.. Everyone knows they have to amend their 537 Plan because of what THEY did.. And a storm is going to cause a moratorium?? What planet are they from? On the 2nd 'series' they say there's enough capacity in the sewer line for the prison to hook up NOW without construction of a new pipe.. then on the first 'series' they say their at 95% full capacity and one big storm will make it overflow!! Well they better not hook up the Prison then! And what about Dewatering the creek?? ha!, he must be referring to keeping the water out of the TRENCH.. well the SAME thing happened on the lower interceptor construction, and the upper interceptor,, and would happen on the LP side too except probably worse.. our trench would be 20ft deep, so 24'7 pumps running right by our house.. at least on UP side there isn't any houses until
you get near the bridge. And sure their sensitive to the Arcola residents... that is my biggest laugh- how they treat us at the meetings..wish I would have had a camera a long time ago. Scott Cosmi July 21, 2013 at 03:25 PM Left out in this article is the fact that if the LPVRSA had stuck to its original 537 Plan the project is shovel ready. Also missing is the fact that 25,000 linear feet they put in is gravity fed & the sensible thing to do is continue a gravity fed system (LPVRSA Engineer told us himself) - BUT the four 90 degree turns - to cross the creek 2 x - reduces the flow so much they have to put in inverted siphons which are susceptible to clogging & thus require regular maintenance (I am sure they haven't said how much this will cost rate payers). Keep Hoy Park intact - keep them from condemning personal properties - blasting close to residences & contaminating wells (they already have done so on UP side) - remember they have yet to add in costs to the LP side for impact on the LP residences or public property. Recommend Flag as Inappropriate Catherine Beyer July 26, 2013 at 11:50 AM Laura, good luck in getting a straight answer. And the just the facts would be nice also. For anyone to say the residents stalled the project shows a complete lack of the facts. Just one example, lpvrsa doesn't even have all their easements yet on the "upper section of the middle interceptor, the area that is not in dispute. So they couldn't even start construction there yet let alone the lower section of the middle interceptor. And they don't have their permits!! The fact that lpvrsa has had our easements for 2 yrs now.. but they stopped taking the rest of the easements in our little section because they know and knew they can't LEGALLY take easements until they have 537 approval.. which they have on the upper providence side- but NEVER had for the LPT side. The fact they stopped taking the easements in our section is an admission of acknowledgement of that, don't you think? Being the 'whistle blower' does not make us the 'bad guys' or the 'stallers' of the project... I think there's a saying, if you did it right in the first place you wouldn't have all these problems. If they cross the creek, I would imagine the whole creek will be closed in this section. Thank you for your concern for Hoy Park but remember the Park is connected to all of our land. What happens up stream will affect downstream. We need to care about the entire area, cutting a 70ft wide swath of our trees upstream and blasting a 20ft deep trench in our soil will affect everyone downstream for years to come, if not permanently. No one wants to see the UP side clear cut again, but it is the 'lesser of the 2 evils..at least they won't be bombing the creek bed- or disturbing the Indian Village- taking down the wall- or disturbing nesting for the Red Belly-, or wetlands, or private property,, etc.. etc...