Elwood Taylor for Upper Pottsgrove Township Commissioner

27/09/2025

VISITING MY NEIGHBORS IN REGAL OAKS

Today, I was out walking around the neighborhood, knocking on doors and chatting with voters. I asked for their support to help me return to the Board of Commissioners next year. My goal is to bring more transparency to how things are done in our Township. I really believe that if we have honest conversations and listen to each other, we can avoid the fights and disagreements that have caused so much tension lately. I’m ready to work together and make things better for all of us.

25/09/2025

28/08/2025

Our OPEN SPACE being put to good use!

27/08/2025

TOWNSHIP’S ACTIONS COULD THREATEN OPEN SPACE THROUGHOUT PENNSYLVANIA.

Even though a County Court judge has recently granted “injunctive relief to preserve the Township's pact with its voters” for SMOLA FARM, efforts are again underway that would break that promise by building instead on the GILBERTSVILLE ROAD OPEN SPACE.

Since it’s vital that residents trust our Township’s commitment to preserve Open Space, a new legal injunction has been filed. If taxpayers lose confidence that their funds are being used properly, the entire Open Space Lands Act’s effectiveness could be compromised, threatening critical lands across the State.

Taxpayers will not be so willing to vote a tax on themselves if they think it could be a bait and switch scheme rather than a guarantee that their Open Spaces will be permanently preserved.

20/08/2025

News report on today's hearing to stop building on Township Open Space

Residents Albert Leach, Elwood Taylor, and Tyrone Robinson are suing and seeking an injunction to stop the township from building the $9.5million municipal complex on land bought with dedicated open

04/08/2025

A great use for Township Open Space!

Our Farm Stand is up and running! And this week, we have sweet corn! Hours are dawn to dusk until sold out.

29/07/2025

JUDGE SAYS – SMOLA FARM IS NO PLACE FOR A JUNKYARD

But if Township Officials win their appeal of the judge’s order later this year, that’s exactly what Judge Saltz warns could happen. He wrote that if the Township’s argument is to be believed - “it would permit the installation of, say, a JUNKYARD on OPEN SPACE” and be “inconsistent with the intent under which the property was acquired.”

But some Township Officials believe that the judge got it wrong and have said - “It’s a big case and it needs to go forward.”

In court they stated that “if (the judge's) decision is allowed to stand, municipalities will be hamstrung in deciding how to best use land acquired for the benefit of the public.” Township officials insisted that building a municipal complex on “permanently protected land” would be “consistent with the Open Space benefits” that taxpayers had voted for.

But the judge said - “The power of the Commissioners does not extend to overriding the action of the Township’s voters” who paid for the Open Space.

18/07/2025

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT – Now vs. Then

A statement in the Mercury reacting to the recent injunction seeking to prohibit construction of a municipal complex on the Gilbertsville Road Open Space parcel conflicts with other statements made at the time of the property’s purchase.

NOW - Commissioner Read – “The Gilbertsville property (was) purchased in March 2024 as an ALTERNATE BUILDING SITE.”

vs. THEN - Township Solicitor Eric Fry - The reason for the purchase is “the township believes the acquisition of the property will yield certain OPEN SPACE BENEFITS.”

NOW - Commissioner Read - “The Gilbertsville property … was bought with GENERAL FUND DOLLARS.”

vs. THEN - Commissioner Slinkerd reviewed the balance sheet of the OPEN SPACE FUND and stated that “the finances are well in place for the purchase.”

WHAT CHANGED? –

Almost a year AFTER the Gilbertsville Road property was purchased for its OPEN SPACE BENEFITS with money from the OPEN SPACE FUND, some of the Commissioners voted to “adjust the fund entry” to “pay back the Open Space Fund from the General Fund to give the Township the option to …. construct the municipal complex on that property.”

It is the effect of this fund “adjustment” on the status of Open Space that will be the focus of the injunction. The judge hearing this case has previously ruled “that nothing in the Open Space Act authorizes the Commissioners to terminate the restrictions imposed on a property acquired … with revenues from an Open Space Tax approved by the voters.”

17/07/2025

IN CASE YOU MISSED CHANNEL 69 NEWS TONIGHT

After losing a case to build a municipal building on preserved open space land last fall, Upper Pottsgrove Township is trying a repeat on a different piece of preserved land,

14/07/2025

TOWNSHIP BLAMES SMOLA FARM DEFENDERS FOR NEEDLESS LEGAL COSTS

Recently, the Commissioners sent a letter to all residents of Upper Pottsgrove Township highlighting their accomplishments—including their plans to build a new municipal complex. In the same letter, they criticized “TWO INDIVIDUALS” who think that their “POLICY DEMANDS” about building on SMOLA FARM “supersede the decisions of the elected Commissioners” for the use of Township Open Space - claiming their efforts have led to “needless (legal) costs.”

They want you to regard those “TWO INDIVIDUALS” as recklessly blocking progress and preventing the Township from “enhancing the community’s quality of life.” However, they omit several revealing facts.

- Those “TWO INDIVIDUALS” are supported by almost 300 households where SAVE SMOLA FARM signs have been prominently displayed for over a year.

- They ignore the fact that over $50,000 has been raised by residents who endorse the actions of those “TWO INDIVIDUALS.”

- They hope you forget that TWO OTHER INDIVIDUALS - who happen to be fellow Township Commissioners themselves – ALSO OPPOSE building the municipal complex on Smola Farm or any other Open Space.

Furthermore, the “POLICY DEMANDS” of those “TWO INDIVIDUALS” were ultimately validated by the Court of Common Pleas. Judge Saltz reaffirmed that the power of the Commissioners does not extend to overturning the will of the voters. While Township officials argued they could change the Open Space designation at will, the judge made it clear that THE VOTERS’ CHOICE MUST BE HONORED.

So, while the Commissioners chose to denounce and draw attention to just those “TWO INDIVIDUALS” - the judge instead focused on the SOLID MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS who were “willing to be taxed an additional amount in order to acquire and preserve open space in (their) community.” In fact, 60% of voters approved of the tax, demonstrating strong community backing for this effort.

In the end, those “TWO INDIVIDUALS” have used legal channels and community activism to amplify their voices and hold officials accountable. Their actions reflect a sincere desire to protect the character and future of Upper Pottsgrove Township—an effort that deserves respect and recognition.

26/06/2025

GOVERNOR’S AWARD FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE.

Ten years ago, little did I realize when I helped facilitate the agreement that established a unique use of Open Space in our Township, that it would one day attract state-wide recognition.

The PA Environmental Council, together with the PA Department of Environmental Protection, just gave its highest state-wide honor to our very own Althouse Arboretum, showcasing the ability of the student-led Green Allies to work collaboratively with our Township to preserve and protect Pennsylvania’s natural resources.

The Arboretum was created through an agreement between Upper Pottsgrove Township and the Althouse family. They wished to see their grandparents’ property - where they had enjoyed so many childhood adventures - permanently preserved as an outdoor activity center focused on environmental stewardship.

Ken Hamilton, the Executive Director of Green Allies, commented on the award. “This award validates all the many hours of hard work the Green Allies students have put into the Althouse Arboretum for our community. It also recognizes the unique partnership that it takes to make this all happen between our nonprofit and Upper Pottsgrove Township.”

I was honored to accompany some of our Green Allies students to Harrisburg for the award presentation.

17/06/2025

WE SAVED SMOLA FARM (so far – appeal in process!)

Selections and highlights from the judge’s 6/13/2025 opinion to the Appeals Court confirming his decision that prohibits Upper Pottsgrove Township from building a municipal complex on Smola Farm.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court, after a nonjury trial, concluded that the Township's construction plans would violate its statutory obligation to use open-space tax revenues solely for the acquisition and preservation of open-space lands and related uses.

At trial, the Township suggested that it is permitted to "develop" the Smola Farm pursuant to the (provisions of the Open Space Act) even though in context those provisions permit only development consistent with the "open space benefit or benefits" for which the property had been originally acquired.

A review of the statute as a whole makes clear the legislative intent that when a government unit acquires land for open-space purposes under the (Open Space) Act, it may not use the land for contrary purposes.

If a municipality could acquire land by using this open-space tax revenue, but then decide to develop the land for another purpose, it would betray the bargain that the elected representatives made with the public- i.e., if you the public are willing to be taxed an additional amount in order to acquire and preserve open space in our community, then we the elected representatives will use the tax revenues solely for that limited purpose.

In short, both the purpose and the operation of the (Open Space) Act make clear that when open-space land is acquired pursuant to the Act, it may not then be developed except in a manner consistent with the "open space benefits" for which it was acquired.
---------------------------------------------------
The Township's argument ….. is mere sophistry. (ed. note – I had to look this one up! - SOPHISTRY is a type of deceptive reasoning that uses cleverly crafted arguments to mislead or confuse, often by making a false or weak argument appear strong.)
---------------------------------------------------
The evidence does not support the Township's factual assertion that no open-space tax revenues were (used to purchase the Smola Farm).

(The Township argues that) by the time of the Smola Farm purchase, all of the tax revenues in the Open Space Fund had already been exhausted from the prior purchases of other properties. In support, it relies on a trial exhibit, Exhibit D-2, titled Upper Pottsgrove Funding Open Space Acquisitions…… The Court spent much time reviewing Exhibit D-2 and concluded that it shows no such thing.

The Township simply assumes that the open-space tax revenues in the Open Space Fund were fully expended before any dollars from the other two sources were used. There is no basis in the record for that assumption.

Remarkably, the Township specifically denies that the Open Space Fund received any open-space tax revenue during 2008. This bald assertion is flatly (contradicted) by the Township's own exhibit - the audited Township Financial Report for 2008.

Perplexed by what appeared to be the Township's misplaced reliance on Exhibit D-2, the Court asked counsel for the Township at oral argument on its Post-Trial Motions to walk through the exhibit step by step, to explain how it could lead to the conclusion that no open-space tax revenues were in the Open Space Fund at the time of the Smola Farm purchase. To the Court's consternation, counsel for the Township stated that he was not familiar with Exhibit D-2 and was not able to explain how it supported the Township's insistence that all open-space tax revenues had been expended by that time- this despite its repeated assertion that the showing made by the exhibit was "unrefuted." The Court was thus deprived of the benefit of an explanation by the Township, if it had one, of its own purportedly dispositive trial exhibit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the Township has not seen fit to order the transcript of oral argument on its Post-Trial Motions, even though the argument addressed issues that are raised on appeal. When the Court became aware that the transcript had not been requested, it issued an Order of April 29, 2025, directing that Defendants had one week to request the preparation of a transcript. As of the filing of this Opinion, counsel for Defendants still has not done so. If the Commonwealth Court agrees that a transcript should have been included in the record on appeal, it may "take such action as it deems appropriate." The failure by an appellant to insure that the original record certified for appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a proper review constitutes a waiver of the issues sought to be examined.
----------------------------------------------------------
It would be fundamentally unfair for the Township, by the commingling of cash (in the Open Space Fund), to deprive the Plaintiffs of the ability to establish the source of funds used in purchasing the Smola Farm and then fault the Plaintiffs for a failure of proof.
----------------------------------------------------------
The public works portion of the complex, in particular, would be wholly out of character with the open-space status of the Smola Farm as it currently exists. The complex would not be a single inconspicuous building blending in with the agricultural landscape. Rather, it would include multiple buildings and public works vehicles with a garage and other storage facilities.

On the basis of the evidence, the Court found as a fact that "the construction and operation of the municipal complex would substantially detract from and materially impair the open-space benefits of the Smola Farm in a manner inconsistent with the intent under which the property was acquired." That finding is amply supported in the record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Township argues that even if the Smola Farm is subject to the restrictions of the (Open Space) Act, that status can be terminated by the Township Commissioners at will. This extraordinary interpretation of the Act would mean that after the citizens of the Township had authorized a special tax for the limited purpose of acquiring and maintaining land for open-space purposes, the Township could use the tax revenues to purchase land, purportedly to be maintained as open space, and then terminate its protected status a year later - or even a day later. Such a result would be plainly contrary to the intent of the voters in authorizing the tax and, indeed, to the intent of the Act itself. After all, section 1 of the Act states the legislative intent not just to "acquire" land for open-space purposes but also to "preserve" it as such.

It is true that as a general rule, a Board of Commissioners may override its own prior action by modifying or repealing a prior ordinance passed by the Commissioners. But that power of the Commissioners does not extend to overriding the action of the Township's voters.

Nothing in the (Open Space) Act authorizes the Commissioners to terminate the restrictions imposed on a property acquired in fee simple with revenues from an open-space tax approved by the voters.
------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The citizens of Upper Pottsgrove Township voted to tax themselves in order to enable the Township to acquire and preserve open-space land. In using those tax revenues to acquire the Smola Farm - whether by direct payment at the time of purchase, by a pledge to secure indebtedness, or by payments in partial retirement of the indebtedness (or by all three) -the Township became duty bound to preserve the open-space character of that property. Construction of the proposed municipal complex on the Smola Farm would violate the Township's obligations under the Act.

Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs declaratory and injunctive relief to preserve the Township's pact with its voters over the use of open-space tax funds.
--------------------------------------------------------------
THIS LOPSIDED DECISION AND OPINION OF THE COURT COST THE TAXPAYERS OF UPPER POTTSGROVE OVER $250,000 – AND THE TOWNSHIP IS STILL CONTINUING WITH AN APPEAL – EVEN AFTER THEY APPROVED BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON ANOTHER SITE!