It seems appropriate here to quote something that Jack Showalter said to me about 8 years ago. "If you own the track, the SOB's can't throw you out". I think that is a wise position for any organization to take.

It's unlikely that the nearby joint base will be able to assist, as the military services, like the mayor, have their own budget ceilings with which to contend, and these efforts cost money. The state's Army National Guard has provided assistance in the past by moving some small landlocked centercab locomotives to a museum site, but such action must be coordinated many months in advance and worked into a unit's training plan. Given the little time left before the deadline, this is unlikely to be a viable option.

How does the trust justify their decision to bring in more equipment after they were told not to? What is their side of this story?

WOW! Where to begin.

First let me say that the mayor isn't interested in trimming any money from the budget. There just isn't enough space here to tell you about all of the money he has wasted in the past five years. If you go back to the Pemberton Voice site and look at the older posts, like the ones about the clock and coy pond, you can read about all of them.

The budgeted amount of 35k is so far over what the actually spend that it borders on disgrace. The excess is put into a general fund and used for other projects. The volunteers do ALL of the maintenance on the building and the grounds. We supply all janitorial services and paper goods as well. The only thing the township pays for is utilities.

One of the things the mayor wants us to do in his proposed license is to pay all of the utilities and taxes! That's right, taxes on the township property.

At one of the meetings I attended between the attorneys, trustees and the mayor, I confronted him that this whole thing is just a cover up for a vendetta against the president, Mike. All he did was rock in his chair and grin.

There is no steam engine involved.

In our original TEA grant, it says the site is to be used for display of historic artifacts including any rolling stock. All equipment on site is equipment that was used by the PRR during its years of operation or has county significance. Five pieces came from and are the only remaining pieces from all of the cars of Roebling steel other than the crane and 45 tonner on display at that museum.

Yes, some of the equipment needs to be restored. But if you have been involved with a museum, you know how tough that can be. Up until this year we had a very small staff of volunteers and the grounds take top priority. It is 11 acres. That includes the Wawa and county easements. With the little time left over and funds provided by the little taken in at the gift shop and the donations of the volunteers, we did the best we could. Those of you that have never been there, really shouldn't comment. This year we had a volunteer force of a dozen men but every time we would show up to work on the equipment, the mayor had the police run us off the proerty, even when we were on the county easement. We can only imagine what they might do to Wawa if they stood up for us.

Yes, the council says they support us, but they are relying on bad information from the township solicitor who is representing the mayor, not the council.

There was no plan "B" because the board thought they would win this battle.

My post was (is) not to solicit support, but to let you know of our situation.

Use the information as you see fit.

Later!
Mr. Ed

Mr. Ed,

Thanks for that information. What about the issue of bringing in another piece of equipment after the town had ordered that no more equipment could be brought in?

How did the trust justify this move?

[quote="Mr. Ed"]
One of the things the mayor wants us to do in his proposed license is to pay all of the utilities and taxes! That's right, taxes on the township property. Mr. Ed[/quote]

Hang on a second. The Mayor is proposing to give you legal permission (a license) to keep your stuff be on the town's property, and your group objects to having to pay for the utilities you consume? Who do you think pays for the utilities at every other railroad museum/preservation entity/tourist railroad?

As for "taxes on the township property," are your sure your group is being asked to pay real estate taxes on the public land in question? Is it possible that what's at stake is personal property tax on the locomotives and rolling stock? On what basis do you presume that you're automatically exempt from having to do so?

A railroad museum organization I'm aware of received personal property tax bills for several years for that portion of its collection that was kept within a particular town, which the organization's treasurer basically disregarded on the assumption that its 501c3 status automatically resulted in exemption from property taxation under the laws of the particular state. This went on for several years, and having not followed the strict statutory procedure for challenging the tax, a sheriff's sale was only averted by immediate payment of the several thousand dollars at issue. Fortunately, the town in question subsequently granted the organization statutory tax exemption from property tax upon satisfaction of the necessary criteria - but had no legal authority to waive or refund the taxes for the prior years. I'm not familiar with the property tax laws of the State of New Jersey - but from the hints you've provided, your situation sounds strikingly similar.

[quote="Mr. Ed"]
At one of the meetings I attended between the attorneys, trustees and the mayor, I confronted him that this whole thing is just a cover up for a vendetta against the president, Mike. All he did was rock in his chair and grin. Mr. Ed[/quote]

Yeah, in the situation I described above, members of the organization also thought the local chief elected official was out to get them, until they eventually learned that under the law, he was perfectly correct. Once they began listening to people with legal knowledge instead of to conspiracy theorists within the group, the perception of oppression was no longer a sustainable story line. I'm sure there were more than a few similar grins down at the town hall for as long as that remained the sum and substance of the organization's position.

[quote="Mr. Ed"]
Yes, the council says they support us, but they are relying on bad information from the township solicitor who is representing the mayor, not the council. Mr. Ed[/quote]

That's what the group in my example thought too, until they received correct legal advice themselves. Besides, town council members are generally sworn to follow the law, and under many municipal charters, the municipal attorney is the ultimate authority of this and council members are bound by his or her opinions. Nothing unusual in this.

[quote="Mr. Ed"]
Those of you that have never been there, really shouldn't comment. Mr. Ed[/quote]

Then why did you bring all of this to our attention in the first place? Some of us have indeed "been there," and may be trying to share with you the benefit of what they learned in the process.

If one of your members is "pulling aggro" onto your organization, then the only honorable thing for that member to do is dissociate themselves from the organization. If they are exceptionally clever, they will do it in a notable way which is likely to satiate those who he has offended.

If that doesn't happen, it has the effect of "throwing the organization under the bus" to serve the pridefulness (or other motivation) of the aggro-puller. It is an emotional version of private inurement.

Gentle Forum Members, Mr. Ed,

I apologize for any misunderstanding. One of the many articles I read on the Pemberton Township issues imply the locomotive brought to the property was a steam engine. This evening, after reading the Railfan.Net thread on the Trust, I see by pictures and text it was a 100 ton center cab switcher that is in question. I am sorry, I was misinformed and I misquoted. The issue remains, another piece of rail equipment was brought onto the property after the landlord said no more.

I stand by my earlier post. Additional reading this evening just goes to solidify my opinions and observations as noted. No one, Dave the Mayor, the Town Council, the community or the Trust is going to win this one. There will be deep wounds that will take years to heal in Pemberton if a reasonable solution - for all sides - is not found by December 31.

I do not suggest that the yet to be explored resources of the Joint Base, local vocational school/college or the dedicated volunteers could resolve all of the Mayor’s aesthetic complaints by December 31. (Mr. Ed, Karl and the other Trust volunteers, in very short order, did one fine job of prepping and painting the switch engine that faces WaWa. Outstanding!) That is why I suggest the all-powerful Mayor Dave take a deep breath, count to ten and be a Leader to maintain what is a benefit to his community. To do less would expose his suggested animus toward the Trust or certain individuals of the Trust to be fact rather than speculation. Mayor Dave recently won re-election and will remain the Mayor for a few years, he does have the “high ground” in this fight and he has the power of his elected office and the law to his advantage.

As I read your posts on Railfan.Net, from 2005 to the present, the similarities and challenges of the Trust and the RMLI are remarkably parallel. We only OWN a little over an acre of land, (We too are a 501 (c) 3 and before we could take title to that land we had to pay the donor's sizable tax lien to the Town!), all of our other property is controlled by license with the LIRR – MTA or by lease with the Incorporated Village of Greenport. We have a wooden caboose that we restored in 2001 – 2002, just like the caboose Chris and the Scouts helped to stabilize. I had an Eagle Scout who successfully completed a cleanup and stabilization of our Greenport turntable pit – he too was frustrated with the paperwork and senseless rewrites that Chris experienced. Want to talk about grant-funded contractors working on or around your Museum and artifacts, I could write a book! We too have been approached by politicians and pundits regarding our rolling stock being an eyesore. Both of our organizations have no barn or covered space to protect a piece of equipment that we have just spent time and money on to restore. Before the paint is dry the elements are working against us! Mr. Ed, it is scary how our two Museums parallel – and I think hundreds of other small Museums and Societies across our Country could also relate.

Finally, in our twenty-one years of operation, we too had political storms to ride out. One of our Trustees was nearly arrested at a Museum event by a Town Enforcement Officer. We were not "Poster Boys on the Block." It took years of trust building, give and take, understanding and tolerance to position the RMLI in a good light with Town Fathers. I’m proud to say we now work together and the relationships with the political entities we owe our survival too are excellent. I only wish you and the Trust the best. Good luck, this is not going to be an easy time for you.

de Don n2qhvRMLI

aka: Don Fisher, President
Railroad Museum of Long Island

The 100 ton center cab has been on site for many years. The engine in question is the 45 ton center cab.

The trust applied for and received a grant back in '95 to restore the station building, rebuild the section house on its original foundation, rebuild the bunk house on its original foundation, and lay 1500 of track to house any and all exhibits. But as those of us that have applied for grants knows, the money never seems to cover the quotes received. All that was done was the station rebuild.

The license that was issued by the township then stated that the township would cover the utilities and do maintenance on the proerty to include janitorial and paper goods. This arrangement lasted until this mayor took office five years ago. At that time, the trust began cutting the grass on the station grounds and the old rail yard, which is the Wawa easement. We also keep the 1.5 mile hiking trail clean of fallen trees/branches, general trash and the occasional deer innards when one of the township police officers feels it is OK to hunt on the property and clean the deer there also. According to the mayor, his interpretation of the license says we should have been doing it all along. And that same license said nothing about us paying taxes. Is it right? We are not arguing that point, just commenting that it is a huge change to the existing license.

Before the formation of the trust, the old PRR station was an empty eyesore that had been vandalized many times since it was closed in the '80s. Since this small band of volunteers decided to take on the challenge of restoring the property, and take on the task of applying for a grant, the township decided it was the right thing to do to help them out by issuing the license with all of its points which lasted and was renewed many times as it was until this mayor took office.

Later!
Mr. Ed

I have been informed by a volunteer at the staion that the bunk house basement has been filled in. This means the township is on site cleaning up. The bunk house was built in the mid 1800s and the trust dug it out in the late 1990s. It was part of the original grant to rebuild the bunk house. It was also part of the second grant but by the time it went out to bid, the township had sucked out not one but two engineering studies at around 40K each. This didn't leave enough to do the bunk house or put down the 1500' of track that was in both grants.

So the trust will follow the P&H, UTC and PRR into history. Sad because only one person wanted the trust out and that guy was the mayor. The trust had many many people tesify on their behalf an many of the township council meetings. But the cowards on the council knuckled under to the mayor and didn't issue a new lease to the trust. I guess they don't want to serve the public any more because those that are up for re-election in November, except for Rick Prickett, will be voted out. Only Mr. Prickett did what the people wanted and voted for the trust to remain. He is what a public servant should be.

Was the trust able to remove their artifact displays from the station building or is this a completely lost cause at this point?

Kevin O

I have followed everything said about this matter here, and have given up expecting to ever learn exactly what the dispute is about. I know it is something about bringing in a locomotive after being told not to.

The clearest explanation of the dispute has been presented on behalf of the mayor’s side of the argument, although the information has been quite limited. Whereas the Trust’s explanation seems to amount to a litany of complaints about the mayor’s behavior and character in general, whether it has any direct bearing on the dispute or not.

It's a fairly sad and typical example of moles in their holes not really dealing with the community, not fostering relationships and expecting their railroad museum to thrive without any help.

The site is southwest of Fort Dix, where the Railroad RoW hooks across Fort Dix Rd. The Pemberton Historic Trust had a lease from the Township to occupy the depot, then an abandoned building; and they also maintained the bike trail on the former RoW. At the time they moved in, the area north of the depot (this is where you hit Google Earth) was the ruins of a former PRR yard, team track, shop and warehouse area, including a number of dilapidated buildings (visible if you roll back time on GE). The Trust's dream was to restore those buildings and the former shop area, pit, turntable etc. (ruins now buried, except the Trust uncovered some of that.)

Wawa is a large regional gas seller, like Sinclair or Speedway or Terrible's. You know gas stations have been moving through phases. First they sold gas and did car repairs. Then they put a really rinkydink convenience store in the former garage area, where you could overpay for stale Oreos. But nobody went in there because 90% of people paid at the pump. They realized the only way to get you to go inside was to make inside worth going to. So they added soda fountain, fancy coffee, fresh pastry, Slurpee machine, prepared food - they literally decided to compete head-on with 7-11 and even exceed it - many gas stations even flip burgers, make burritos or fried chicken. Anyway, Wawa had developed a format of that, called Super Wawa. Their market analysis said Pemberton was going to get one; if not Wawa, someone else.

The old PRR warehouse and shop buildings sat vacant for years, and were a major unloved eyesore to the community. The Trust just assumed they had forever to deal with this situation -- heh -- don't we all. Anyway, across the street was a small 80s style Wawa gas station, and the site wasn't big enough for a Super Wawa -- but the abandoned railyard/warehouse was. The township said "Hallelujah!" The Trust said "Oh #!@&%." Their response was to demonize Wawa. That worked about as well as you'd expect. But Wawa was a class act and left as much as they could of the historic area out of the site plan, even transferring some land interest in it to the Trust, but the Trust remains unclear on exactly how and the terms therein.

The Trust also collected a number of pieces of railroad equipment relevant to PRR and a significant county industry called Roebling. Keep in mind another thing in the back of the Trust's mind was to relay rails on the bike path and run a train ride. However, the Trust did not own land and did not have a place to put the equipment. At first, they used their lease of the station area to simply put the equipment next to the station. I have to imagine that started just with 1 or 2 cars and they made fair effort to keep them up, or the public was like "Let's see what they do with these." But eventually their collection overwhelmed their willingness to do cosmetic upkeep. They were active; they did a lot, for instnance, archaeology on site; but paint wasn't high on their priority list. The Trust were moles in their holes, doing what interested the Trust rather than what the community and landlord would want them to do.

This has gone on for a long time, at least 10 if not 20 years.

This caused of friction with the public. Equipment was positioned on both sides of the trail, and the public had to go between them to get to the trail. I'm looking at photos on the Web that were placed there by random members of the public prior to the bulk of the scandal, before this mayor was elected. The primary comment was that they were junky eyesores.

However, they kept adding new equipment. Every year or two another piece showed up. This was really rubbing people wrong, because they are saying "How come there's always money to bring junky old equipment here, but never any to fix it up." The township (their landlord) had discussed this long and often with the Trust, asking the trust to do less collecting and more painting. The trust, by action, said "***** that dear landlord."

Somebody (I believe the Trust) got some grant money to rehab the station. The Trust had a very particular way they wanted the work done. However they declined to actually assert leadership of the project, so the township ran it. It was not done to the Trust's satisfaction. "WRONG, ALL WRONG" they kept yelling, further wearing the relationship with the township. This was a case of throwing money away, as if the Trust had run the project they could have worked much more efficiently than contractors and pocketed the difference. And got it done "their way".

Well in comes the new mayor. Doesn't help at all that a Trust figurehead is his political rival, so now all that political claptrap is ALSO added to the mix. The mayor knew the Trust was giving the township trouble, but he tried working with them as new equipment kept showing up. Finally he threw down an ultimatum: Read my lips, no more equipment. Remember this is the landlord talking. The Trust didn't think this applied to a Roebling 44-tonner.

This was the tipping point. Their landlord did what any landlord would do under those circumstances. "No more negotiation and broken promises. GET OUT."

Now, there's another factor. The Township owns this land, and the County owns another parcel across town. The two parties agreed to a land swap. The County will be the future owner of the land and depot. I have heard nothing to suggest that the Trust is in dialogue with the County about the future of the site. What I have heard is the County would like to get the site bare of railroad equipment, for reasons I have not heard. Perhaps they plan a development there. The Township definitely plans to develop the other land in the swap; and that funding expires if not used by a certain date. So the Township has ants in their pants to get this swap done. I do not know if removal of the railroad equipment is a prerequisite to the completion of the swap and the release of the money; however; the fact that the Township is still yelling at the Trust suggests to me that the swap has not yet occurred.

Rather than hear say, I kind of stumbled on the below data which I think summarizes things and on an official basis.

This is from the 19 October 2011 Pemberton Township council meeting and is the resolution that ended the formal litigation and allowed the mayor to negotiate a new lease. Key in here are the dates of various letters and details on the original agreement with the Trust. The Trust clearly over stepped their bounds. In later council meetings, the public asked the council members why they voted in support of terminating the agreement. All waffled a bit, but admitted that the Trust did not live up to the requirements of the license agreement and even after being told in writing not to bring more equipment to the site, they did anyway.

The site where other minutes are available is http://www.pemberton-twp.com/2011_MTG_MIN

Resolution no. 238-2011

Whereas, the Township of Pemberton owns and controls property known as the North Pemberton railroad station located at 3 fort dix road in Pemberton Township; and

Whereas, the Township and the Pemberton Township historic trust entered into a license agreement dated October 4, 2000 (the “license agreement”). pursuant to the license agreement, the Township licensed a portion of the Township property, specifically the railroad station building itself, and gave the historic trust the non-exclusive right to utilize the railroad station building (the “licensed premises”) as a New Jersey pinelands tourist information center; and

Whereas, the license agreement did not provide the historic trust with permission to utilize any portion of the Township property other than the railroad station building. the license agreement disallowed the historic trust from using the licensed premises for any purpose other than a pinelands information center without the prior written consent of the Township, which could be withheld by the Township for any reason. if the historic trust sought to make any alterations to the licensed premises, including the theme of the pinelands information center, it was required to submit such alterations to the Township in writing and the Township had the right to reject such requests; and

Whereas, from 2000 through 2011, the historic trust placed approximately 12 pieces of railroad equipment, including cabooses, pennsylvania passenger shelter and cast iron crossbuckflat railroad sign car, twin hopper cars, gondola tank cars, box cars rail bus and a center side rod engine and substantial amounts of railroad track and railroad ties (collectively, the “railroad equipment”), without the Township’s written permission and in violation of the license agreement;

Whereas, in 2006, the Township formally advised the historic trust in writing through letters dated July 5, 2006, August 9, 2006, September 11, 2006, and October 5, 2006, as well as through court litigation that was filed and served on the historic trust, that the license agreement did not authorize the placement of railroad equipment on the Township property. the historic trust failed to remove the railroad equipment as demanded by the Township.

Whereas, the Township entered into a shared services agreement with the County of Burlington on January 21, 2009. pursuant to the shared services agreement, Burlington County and the Township agreed to a land exchange whereby the Township agreed to convey to the County the Township property and Burlington County agreed to convey to the Township 11.12 acres of property designated as block 812, lot 9.01 in the Township of Pemberton; and

Whereas, in February 2011, the historic trust and michael tamn sought the Township’s permission to place a 1930 era center cab side rod engine on the Township property by letter dated February 15, 2011. the Township denied the request by letter dated February 16, 2011. notwithstanding the denial, the historic trust arranged for the delivery of the1930 era center cab side rod engine onto the Township property. a portion of this particular piece of railroad equipment was also placed on a parcel of property owned by the adjoining property owner, wawa, inc. by letter dated May 26, 2011, wawa advised the historic trust that it did not consent to the placement of 1930 era center cab side rod engine on wawa’s property. wawa further advised the historic trust that if it did not remove the 1930 era center cab side rod engine within 48 hours, wawa intended to bring suit for ejectment and for damages; and

Whereas, the Township has demanded that the historic trust remove the railroad equipment from the Township property because the license agreement did not authorize the placement of the railroad equipment on the Township property. in contravention of both the Township’s and wawa’s wishes, the historic trust has refused to remove the railroad equipment from the Township property; and

Whereas, the County of Burlington has declined to close on the land exchange as a result of the historic trust’s placement of the railroad equipment on the Township property; and

Whereas, the historic trust filed a lawsuit against the Township and Mayor david patriarca and, in response, the Township and Mayor patriarca have filed a counterclaim against the historic trust, michael tamn, and other defendants; and

Whereas, Mayor patriarca has presented a compromise to the Township council, in the form of a new license agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto, that permits the historic trust to maintain railroad equipment on the Township property , permits the historic trust to continue to use the railroad station building as a New Jersey pinelands tourist information center (but on an exclusive basis rather than a non-exclusive basis), and clarifies the responsibilities of the historic trust and the authority of the Mayor during the term of the license agreement; and

Whereas, the Township council, under its statutory authority to approve contracts presented by the Mayor, believes that the attached license agreement fairly resolves the issues caused by the historic trust and will effectively put an end to the pending litigation between the Township and the historic trust.
Now, therefore, be it resolved, by the Township council of the Township of Pemberton, in theCounty of Burlington and state of New Jersey, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the attached license agreement with the trust.

Be it further resolved as follows:
1. The license agreement between the Pemberton historic trust and Pemberton Township dated October 4, 2000 is hereby terminated effective immediately.

2. In the event that the historic trust declines to execute the attached license agreement, or another agreement to which the Mayor agrees to present to the To
wnship council for consideration, the Mayor May exercise the authority reserved to him in applicable statutes, including, but not limited to, n.j.s.a. 40:69a-4
0(f) and (k).


Motion by Allen and Stinney to add Resolution No. 238-2011. Allen, yes; Stinney, yes;
Prickett, no; Cartier; yes. Motion carried.

Council President Cartier read the title of Resolution No. 237-2011.
Motion by Prickett and Stinney to adopt Resolution No. 237-2011. Prickett, yes; Stinney,
yes; Allen, abstain; Cartier, yes. Motion carried.

Council President Cartier read the title of Resolution No. 238-2011.

Motion by Allen and Stinney to adopt Resolution No. 238-2011. Allen, yes; Stinney,
yes; Prickett, no; Cartier, yes. Motion carried.

The meeting ended at approximately 11:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy P.

Thank you Robert Macdowell and J.R. May for that very clear and detailed explanation and technical information explaining how this saga has developed. I wonder where this goes from here.