Daniel Rubin: A troubling ballot question

The Montgomery County commissioners agree, which is almost news in itself. The Cheltenham Township commissioners concur as well.

A question pitched for next week's ballot should not be put to vote.

But there may be no stopping a grassroots movement in the township to let residents veto unwelcome development.

Aided by an environmental-law group out of Chambersburg, Pa., an organization called We the People of Cheltenham appealed to Montgomery County Court, which last month saw no reason the question shouldn't be on the ballot.

If you talk to local politicos, they see this proposed amendment to Cheltenham's Home Rule Charter as a violation of a variety of state laws and the Constitution.

They also see the amendment as passing, which worries them.

We the People, which was born out of fervent opposition to building a SEPTA parking garage in Wyncote, has tapped township-wide concerns about a number of large proposed developments. The group is passionate and relentless, and it gathered more than 3,000 signatures for its petition.

It will be interesting if the amendment passes, because this power grab from corporations and government authorities could cost the residents in court battles and do nothing to stop the development they organized against. That's what State Rep. Larry Curry said.

"If this referendum carries and is appealed by any party," the Democrat said, "then that case will go on for years, and it will be very expensive, and that will come out of the property taxes of Cheltenham Township, [which are] going to skyrocket."

Brooke Welsh said her group is composed of "conservative Republicans to liberal Democrats to fierce independents." Welsh, a yoga instructor and massage therapist, said she grew frustrated during a meeting with SEPTA representatives who she felt didn't listen to neighbors' concerns about a large parking garage planned for the Jenkintown train station, which borders Cheltenham.

And township officials, muzzled by their solicitor's advice not to comment on a plan that had not been officially submitted, weren't helping, she said. That hurt.

"I've lived in other countries and cities and areas of Philadelphia, and I keep coming home," she said. "There is a sweetness and a specialness to Cheltenham Township for me. When I heard they were going to build this garage, I said, 'Oh, my God, it's going to destroy the fabric of this community.' "

Through her mother, a peace activist named Theresa Camerota, she learned of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which has helped create a citizens' Bill of Rights in communities from Maine to Virginia where residents organized to oppose such threats as strip mining and sludge dumping.

This would be the advocates' victory closest to Philadelphia - a possibility that troubles Morton "Mickey" Simon. The commissioner railed against the proposal at the township meeting Tuesday night, saying the charter changes would violate rights the state and federal governments have given to municipalities to govern and corporations to develop their properties.

The wording, said Simon, a Harvard Law grad, is vague and rushed, which could bring about unforeseen trouble. "My concern is that this is going to pit neighbor against neighbor. One person's idea of quality of life is different than another's.

"Good developers will not waste their time here."

Welsh insisted that the proposal wasn't intended to block "someone who wants to open a small shop and sell newspapers and candy. We're talking about large land development."

The ballot question targets a "public-benefit corporation," which is intended to mean SEPTA. But it would not stop the two big housing projects being planned, Simon said. For tax reasons, rarely do builders in Pennsylvania structure themselves as corporations.

And he can't imagine that SEPTA wouldn't challenge the law in court.

Other township officials worry what message the amendment would send developers. Township manager David Kraynik said that with so little industry or commerce, Cheltenham already relied on residents for 90 percent of its property-tax revenue.

Welsh dismissed these arguments as scare tactics. All her group is doing is giving people a voice, "a seat at the table."

"We are not saying don't develop in Cheltenham. We are saying make it smart and consider the sustainability."

I wouldn't underestimate the power of groups like this to harness feelings of anger and powerlessness. But is this the best way to give people more say? I think of an argument advanced in the Economist in July, when it attributed California's budget problems to its overabundance of ballot initiatives, which the writers called "the crack cocaine of democracy."

Here's a time-honored idea should the amendment proposal fail or be tossed out of a courtroom:

If you don't like those you've elected to represent you, why not just vote them out of office?