Although talks and communication are ongoing between MSA and state as well as city levels of government. Major impasses exist and do not seem surmountable. When MSA first began our members voiced their opinions on what they would like to see be done about this current dilemma to their elected officers.
At first membership wanted the City to address the issue of providing meaningful flood prevention. Membership indicated after all these years of study, and promises that such measures would be forth coming it was devastating to membership to learn that government proved that such measures were not economically feasible.
MSA officers in ongoing talks got confirmation that indeed nothing would be done to the Assunpink Creek. Upon conveying this information to membership, they suggested many scenarios where business concerns if removed from our community might have changed the governments out come of that study. For the business concerns actually are literally upon the banks of the Assunpink and are the leaders in insurance claims which prompted this mitigation in the first place.
As of the 17th of April City has broken there weekly scheduled meetings with MSA on grounds of members of their team were on vacation. MSA is not pleased with the City’s continual refusal to recognize MSA as a viable negotiations team for the owner/occupants of Mulberry Street.
MSA still strives to keep talks open and to propose new agenda’s to expedite this process onward. MSA shall be receiving its Grant money soon from the Self Development of People. These funds will aid MSA in acquiring Legal council to represent all owner/occupants in this matter.
While it is our most sincere desire to try not to take this situation to another level. It appears the City through its callus lack of recognition of MSA that perhaps its time for lawyers instead of a Chairman and Co-chairman to address the City through the court system.
The City wants not to be portrayed as the “bad guy” yet by there own very actions. They deem they are not certainly “the good guys”. Their failure to keep their own promises of weekly meetings is proof that although their intentions are good their objectives which are acquiring owner/occupant properties under current deplorable circumstances have not changed.
