Charlton Explains Why Church Should Donate Land

Charlton Explains Why Church Should Donate Land
Alex Charlton and family

Charlton Explains Why Church Should Donate Land — Alex Charlton, of Springfield, who is the Republican candidate in the race to replace Bill Adolph in the 165th District of the Pennsylvania House, had an excellent column in the July 18 Delaware County Daily Times explaining and defending his request for the Philadelphia Archdiocese to donate the 213-acre Don Guanella tract in Marple Township as open space rather than sell it for development.

It can be found here and is worth reading.

We will take issue with Charlton, however, regarding his claim that   taxpayers have long borne the hidden cost of Don Guanella property by virtue of its tax-exempt status and suggest he stop making it.

Don Guanella Village — like Catholic schools — provided a desperately need social service that would otherwise be borne by the state at far, far higher cost to taxpayers if it hadn’t existed.

And it wasn’t as though taxpayers hadn’t been using the church property for nature hikes, jogging and such which is the status that Charlton and other opponents of development are fighting to keep.

So stop saying that Alex.

We’d further note that the Village proper is already developed and there would no objection if the Archdiocese were to separate that for sale.

We’d also note that it wouldn’t hurt for the county were to sweeten the deal, say, by agreeing to develop and maintain some athletic fields at Reed and Sproul roads giving Cardinal O’Hara first free use of them during weekdays during the school year. Or by building an access drive from Reed Road to O’Hara paralleling Sproul. Or both.

Charlton Explains Why Church Should Donate Land

 

 

2 thoughts on “Charlton Explains Why Church Should Donate Land”

  1. It is breathtaking that a politician should advocate for open space by demanding that a church (or anyone, for that matter) must donate their property just because! The audacity and presumption in demanding that a church do so because it is a church is appalling. How would he like to be told that as a politician with the best interests of voters in mind, he should donate his property, because after all, he’ll be living off the taxpayer’s dollars for an extended time period? Proponents of open space need to sell their vision to like-minded supporters, and then raise the funds necessary to purchase (at fair-market value) whatever they feel compelled to preserve. Anything else is a travesty and hypocrisy of people who want something for nothing or for very little work or effort on their part. Easy to do when it isn’t coming from their own pocket.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *