After WFMZ’s angle on the length of these proceedings, we have a more balanced review of what happened on Tuesday night via the Reading Eagle. (Article here.)

Highlights:

• Cornelius Brown, the project engineer, was again cross-examined by township supervisors and members of our group (as interested parties) as to the environmental impact of this proposed million-square-foot warehouse.
  
  Everything from stormwater runoff and erosion was posed to Mr. Brown: per the article, Brown admitted that the increased stormwater volume caused by the sizable land development was BEYOND WHAT HE STUDIED.
  
  • This is another unknown/major variable that they did NOT study, did NOT measure and did NOT account for in their plans. Yet if successful, WE will be the ones who have to live with that knock-on effect.
  • With his testimony spread around several hearings through this process, it is concerning to our group how many questions he could not definitively answer regarding the impact of this project.
    
• Mike Baltrusaitis, an expert in environmental, public health and occupational safety compliance, testified and was cross-examined as to other impacts of this proposal.
  
  While he did assert that this development would not cause a health and safety impact to the community per standard metrics — studying everything from vibration levels to air quality — he deferred to the warehouse’s eventual tenants when it came to matters of immediate concern to our community:
  
  • Developers or tenants would “have to comply” with standards and laws
  • The facility would be responsible for offering sufficient training for, and have adequate resources for, hazardous materials in the event of spills or contamination
  • If fuel, oil, anti-freeze and other contaminants made it into the stormwater runoff — and therefore out into our soil, our yards and our neighborhoods — the tenants “should have some added procedures and safety precautions.” OK then.

What did WE hear? Deference, vagueness and a sense of detachment from these issues. “Oh, it’s on the tenant.” Is that good enough? Is that enough to sleep comfortably at night?

The longer these meetings go, the less we’re actually learning about the truth of their proposal. They are fighting us on PROCESS while we fight them on CONTENT: which is more applicable here?

The out-of-town developers, experts and attorneys may think this proposal is adequate, but remember: WE have to live with the consequences, and WE will get NONE of the benefits.

• Tax breaks are A MYTH, people. NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON PROPERTY VALUE, however, are VERY REAL.
  
• So is DIESEL POLLUTION: we are all suffering the effects of Canada’s wildfires in our air, but diesel fumes from excess truck traffic are a constant concern.)

This fight is not over. Please join our efforts.