This post is a simplified version of one on the same topic that was posted yesterday.
It reaches the same conclusion more directly - read the full version for intermediate details
The file that was sent to the Record containing the amendment text to be advertised was obtained via a Right to Know Request. This was cross-checked with a representative at the Record who has the original submission. There were 24 items that were to be underlined, and 11 items that were to be displayed with strike through, to indicate respectively text to be added, and text to be deleted. When compared with the actual advertisement, there were exactly two discrepancies noted - both of them in the Eldred Township water extraction amendment. One instance was underlining of manufacturing, light was not shown, and the other was
Below, the advertisement as it appeared is shown. Beneath that, the advertisement as it should have appeared based on the file submitted to the Record is shown. The bottom half of the advertisement was printed correctly and contains no underlined items or text with strike through - it is not shown. The only differences between the two pictures below are within the yellow shaded areas. Compare the two. Knowing that underline means add that text, and strike through means existing text to be deleted, do you see why someone might intentionally make this change? You'd better see - it's painfully obvious this obscures both the "from" and the "to" of the change.
By the way, the fact that manufacturing, light is italicized is not an indication that it is new text or a change. It simply denotes a "use" in the ordinance, like "industry". Look again - this means the ad as printed tells the reader nothing at all about how Water Extraction/Bottling is changing.
Note: the bottom picture is an edited version of the actual ad, altered to represent how the ad would have looked without the two omissions noted above. This is what should have been printed, which while better than what was printed, still doesn't tell the average reader what is happening. Someone wanted to make sure you didn't know.
There is a mathematical probability of 1/24*1/11 that one underline and one strike in the water extraction amendment were deleted accidentally, or 0.4%. This means there is a 99.6% probability that the two changes were intentional. When you consider why someone would want to make this precise change, the probability increases to about 100%. There is no real practical difference between those two, hence the title of this post. We're ready - let's see the magic:
April 21 2014 CJER advertisement as printed in Pocono Record
Can you hear strains of Sharon Solt's voice dripping with disdain while chastising someone and saying "If you had paid attention in 2014 you would have known what was happening"? Yeah, right Sharon - every possible effort was made to inform citizens what was happening. Give me a frigging break.
These ads aren't cheap. This one that doesn't match what planners approved cost $1143 each time it ran. That's taxpayer money. At the May 1, 2014 CJER meeting Fareri announced that the ran, and that the requirement was met. Check mark. Bill an hour for that. But is the requirement met if it doesn't match what was sent? Oh, you can't answer any questions about 2014 because you're covering your ass, that's right.
