Manor Township Supervisors were visited by more than ten members of the Manor Township Fire Department as well as members from the community at last night’s meeting.
MANOR - Supervisor Don Palmer discussed with fellow supervisors the need to clean up Manor Township by eliminating old signs.
“One of the things I noticed driving around the township is that we have a lot of people that are using wire to wire signs to stop signs, yield signs,” Palmer said last night at a public meeting. “We need to get those down. They are definitely interfering with traffic signs. I would like to ask the road department that as they are out and about, not a special effort, if you see signs that are attached to our traffic signs, let’s get them off of there. It also wouldn’t hurt to look for old election signs, real estate signs laying in ditches, and just perform general cleanup as you see it.”
Palmer said signs would be added into the garbage collection.
On another note, Supervisor Paul Rearick made the motion to only have one public meeting in December instead of the customary two meetings that have been held each month. It was seconded by Palmer and agreed by all three supervisors that the only public meeting will be on Wednesday, December 6 at 6:00 PM in the municipal building.
Finally, supervisors tabled a decision to accept or reject a resolution permitting mini-casinos in the township. While all three supervisors said they wanted to study Act 42 of 2017 that authorizes the placement of ten Category 4 casinos within the Commonwealth, both Palmer and Rearick said they didn’t object to it. Supervisor Bob Southworth said he had a personal moral objection to the mini-casinos. The final decision will be made at the public meeting next Wednesday.
It is good to read of 2 to 1 decisions in local townships’ supervisors meetings. Non-unanimous voting - something I’d like to see in the school board.
Local gambling agreed-to by 2 supervisors while one supervisor understands and realizes the ills that go along with gambling. I’d rather see 2 to 1 voting so that the topic stays on the table for complete discussion rather than a pat-on-the-back unanimous 3 vote.
On local gambling, I’d opt for the yes vote because gamblers will gamble - if they can’t gamble locally, they’ll travel to gamble elsewhere. So, I’d look at it as a business decision while realizing the social costs and dollar costs as a result of that gambling.
Would I be there to gamble? No. I’m with Bob Southworth on that. But I would not want to impede others from their desire to gamble.