Month: October 2018

Exhibit 5: Plan B? (45)

(45th in a series of posts on parking)

Gadfly wishes there was a recording of exchanges near the end of the longish discussion in the Public Safety committee meeting on Oct 10. BPA was asked about their Plan B. The question was asked bluntly (by President Waldron?): what will happen if your proposal for the fine increases is denied? Gadfly’s notes indicate that Desman was complacent, indicating that revenue from fines was neutral, a position that Councilman Reynolds seemed to latch on to, stressing the reason to raise fines was to change behavior not to raise money. And this was the noteworthy moment when BPA Board chair Hoffmeier (BPA solicitor Broughal was also present) made the noteworthy point that BPA makes most of its money by people parking legally.

That Desman statement jarred and confused Gadfly, for it looks to him like the Desman report estimates a $250,000 increase from meter rates and $400,000 from fines (73). Gadfly has asked for Desman’s email address to clarify his understanding on this, but it has not been provided yet. My notes show Desman saying there would be “no significant revenue increase.” Hard to reconcile that with what I take to be the estimated figures provided in the report. Major discrepancy. Must be a reasonable explanation. Gadfly hopes. But, for now, this is just another question mark for me as I think back over this whole process as we approach the vote tomorrow.

Yet, that aside, shortly thereafter, when asked again what would happen if the proposal on the table was denied, BPA answered this time that there would be increased enforcement, more towing, and more staff (as enforcers, I guess). Gadfly remembers that expressly because it struck him as a threat that if you deny the proposal there will be hell to pay – Gadfly could be way wrong, of course – but, contrary to what Desman said, it would certainly seem to indicate that revenue was an issue, and if it didn’t come in one way, it would have to come in another. Gadfly found that idea very disconcerting. And it was hard to reconcile that answer to the previous one by Desman in which he understood that revenue from fines would be flat.

Gadfly is hoping that communication with Desman will clarify his comment.

Maybe Gadfly is flat out wrong here. If so, whack me upside the head. Can anyone else attending the meeting chip in here on what Desman said? I think I’m right, though, because (trying to psych out how Council members would vote), I took Councilman Reynolds’ quick uptake (in my notes) as a clear mark of where he stood.

(Parenthetically – ha! literally — the ability to communicate directly with BPA Board members and with Desman is a minor but yet irksome and non-trivial point with Gadfly. BPA provided a group email address for the Board but not individual emails. The only Board member individual email available is Chairman Hoffmeier’s. Gadfly wonders if there is a City policy on this. Gadfly can certainly understand trying to protect unpaid volunteers from unwarranted intrusions, but, on the other hand, there is a part of Gadfly that feels people making million dollar decisions should be readily contactable. Would be a good conversation.)

 

Exhibit 4: Variable Rate Parking (44)

(44th in a series of posts on parking)

There is considerable clamor for examination of Variable Rate Parking. *

(Dynamic pricing? Differential pricing? Variable rates? Gadfly didn’t know there were so many options. Cool. See below for a taste of what VRP would mean. *)

Several speakers at the Sept. 20 public meeting championed it.

The Mayor requested the BPA to consider it in the future.

At the City Council Public Safety committee meeting Oct. 10, two of the committee voting members vigorously promoted it, two committee non-members present affirmed its possible value, and the fifth Council member asked questions about it.

Variable Rate Parking is in the air! And deservedly so, Gadfly believes.

But will it ever get seriously talked about here?

One wonders.

Mark Post #26 Exhibit 4.

In the funny (I hope!) “Hear Ye” part of Post #26, Gadfly was making a serious (I hope!) point. The Mayor listened to alternate viewpoints at the Sept 20 meeting and, for instance, in his approval letter to BPA on the meter rate increase he requested (ordered?) BPA to consider it (before or after a study?) in the future (vague). That sounds so soft to me. And in light of the “independence” of BPA, Gadfly wonders if this official acknowledgment of the validity of VRP for study has any power at all over BPA.

Here’s what Gadfly was looking for in the Post #26 spoof: the Mayor ordering BPA to come back in a month with a plan about how they were going to approach studying VRP, get approval for their plan, then set a deadline – say 6 months — by which they would return with detailed results of their study.

Now, since the BPA is “independent,” maybe the Mayor can’t do that. Gadfly doesn’t know.

But that would be the right plan of action going forward.

And the BPA could volunteer to adopt it. Or something similar. To meet the spirit of interest in and enthusiasm about VRP that surrounds them.

How ’bout dem apples?

Now BPA had a chance at the Oct. 10 meeting to make some voluntary move to meet the Mayor’s request and the evident clamor of interest in studying VRP.

It seems universally agreed that BPA has the technology already in place – meters capable of handling variable, dynamic, differential pricing. No problem, no extra expense there.

But BPA/Desman demurred, citing lack of data points, and time involved to set up such a program.

Excuses.

Gadfly thinks it’s important that the VRP option be seriously studied (that doesn’t mean it will turn out to be a good idea – objective study) and doesn’t feel assured that it will be.

Regardless of industry trends,* Mayoral nudging, and significant urging by serious residents.

——————————

 *From Contemporary Approaches to Parking Pricing: A Primer

Variable Rates

Parking rates should be allowed to vary across a variety of dimensions. One dimension should be geographical, as some areas of a city will have greater parking demand than others. Rates should also vary by time of day, which is already a common practice as meter rates are typically in effect only during daytime hours and overnight parking is free. A few cities, New York City and San Francisco being notable examples, have implemented differential parking rates that vary by time of day based on changes in parking demand. New York City implemented variable parking rates in two pilot neighborhoods. In one neighborhood the peak rate is charged between 12:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. and in the other neighborhood the peak rate is charged between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. As in most meter applications, overnight parking is still free, leaving three distinct price regimes throughout the day. Rates should also vary across days of the week, as some areas will have higher demand on weekdays than weekends and vice versa. They should also vary across time more generally: as inflation erodes prices and as areas gain or decline in popularity, meter rates should fluctuate to reflect these realities.

A somewhat controversial approach is to vary prices in real-time, which the District of Columbia is proposing to pilot for some on-street commercial vehicle parking. This approach is analogous to a travel lane that is priced to ensure a particular travel time. As parking utilization on a given block increases, the price escalates from a base price. The practice is more controversial with respect to parking as there is a value-driven belief among most city leaders that people should have a reasonable a priori expectation of prices. Also, it may be counterproductive to keep the price low for people who arrived during a period of high availability. That outcome would encourage people to arrive early and stay for longer periods.

From Fortune Magazine

“Uber-Style Variable Pricing Could be Coming to a Parking Spot Near You”

We’re just starting to get used to the idea that getting an Uber is more expensive at 10 p.m. on a Friday, and that the price of our Amazon basket can change at any time. But what if the same kind of dynamic pricing were applied to the cost of parking spaces? It sounds irksome, but it could help cities reach the holy grail of reduced traffic and commute times.

Wired reports that all of San Francisco’s city-owned parking meters will be switched to dynamic pricing if the City Council approves a proposal next week from the city’s transit authority. Each day would have three time ‘bands,’ and prices on the internet-connected meters would be adjusted according to demand at a particular time and location. San Francisco would be the first major American city to use such a system, and it could provide a model for other cities. That’s because parking influences traffic, and San Francisco has some of the worst traffic in the country.

Exhibit 3: The Lehigh University and St. Luke’s Hospital Leases (43)

(43rd in a series of posts on parking)

 Gadfly is a peaceful man. Does yoga. Meditates. OMMMMMmmmmmmmm

Gadfly hates to see others not at peace. And the leases, the damn discount leases for space in the New St. Garage for Lehigh University and St. Luke’s Hospital disturb the peace. Mightily.

Mark them Exhibit 3.

There is such snarly talk about the leases. They are obviously a vigorous point of contention. They stick in craws. But there is no definite response from BPA. And Gadfly thinks there could be. Should be. And if there is no definite response, snarliness escalates. Not good. Gadfly, as you all know, likes good conversation that builds community!! Can BPA commit to reasonable discussion of these leases? After getting clearly out in the open who did ‘em and why (the wounds of past history that haven’t healed), one can move on to should we rethink them, are we locked in, can we do something now, can we renegotiate, how would the institutions react to change, what are the risks? Instead, conversation stops or get slurred.

Councilperson Van Wirt asked the question about renegotiating now directly to Desman on Sept 20. See the video (begin at approx 10:15) (end at approx 2:50). Desman says the leases get re-evaluated every 2-3 years. VW says that’s now. Desman says, “next year potentially if the Authority comes to ask our opinion, it will be that it evaluate its monthly contract policy and make adjustments.” So that’s next year not now, and that’s if BPA asks Desman’s opinion, and that’s no guarantee what kind of adjustments. And, most importantly, that’s Desman giving opinion that BPA wouldn’t have to accept. BPA was sitting right next to Desman at that moment and could have commented but didn’t.

But do Lehigh and St. Luke’s even have leases that can be evaluated and adjusted every 2-3 years? The matter gets a little more complicated if you look at the minutes of the wonderful May 3, 2016, Council meeting (p. 19) (wave of the Gadfly wings to Louise Kelchner) where Atty Broughal says the 57 spaces dedicated to Lehigh and St.Luke’s will be evaluated in 5 years (not till 2021?) but not after that (?!). Confusion needs to be cleared up on this point of exactly what’s in the leases and when they are evaluated. Desman’s response to Van Wirt may not be possible. We need to know.

Gadfly wants to get into Councilman Reynolds’ point at the Oct. 10 meeting about factoring in other things Lehigh does for (pays for?) in the City when thinking about their discounted lease rate and how making changes in this instance is like politics in the Middle East! Honest to God, I thought all night about his analogies to this and what happens in a multi-kid family (Gadfly was father of six young ‘uns, all rambunctious boys) when one is treated a certain way and not others. Good stuff. O, the memories.

But must move on.

Why can’t BPA simply say, for instance, that Lehigh’s lease ends on such a date, and we promise to raise the rates to market value? Or raise them to some point. Or that we are going to reevaluate those leases every x years, like clockwork. Or we promise to come back to Council at that time and share our thinking? Or something. Say something. And then let’s have the (good!) conversation (that builds community!). Why cannot BPA say something definitive, binding, in writing about the lease issue to get us off this sticking point? And satisfy the contentious “what about the leases?” chorus. And let some heat cool down. Offer something concrete, BPA, please!

Exhibit 2: The Polk St. Garage (42)

(42nd in a series of posts on parking)

Speaking of the Polk St. Garage.

Mark it Exhibit 2.

Gadfly tries to pay attention. But is confused about the exact status of this major project.

If there is to be a Polk St. Garage, it will cost a bundle.

Revenue from meter rates and fines is BPA’s oxygen. Not enough revenue, no Polk St.

Here’s what the June 15 Desman report says about Polk St.: “This plan could include a new parking structure, which has been discussed in the past for the corner of E. 3rd Street and Polk Street, or a formalized agreement with the Sands Corporation to ensure that the SteelStacks parking lots will remain available for public parking in the long-term” (70).

Two things to note:

1) Polk St is described nonchalantly as in potentis. Well, I just made up that Latin phrase. Let’s say Polk St. is described as a potentiality. And that discussion of it is not happening now.

2) The SteelStacks lots seem to be described as an option to building a garage. Whether there would be a cost to securing those lots is not clear.

In either case, why would funding for a Polk garage be included now?

But, contrary to that statement in the June 6 Desman report, it seems the garage is being discussed now and indeed may be definite. Plans seem much more advanced than the above statement would indicate. The April and May BPA Board minutes show what look like active preliminary phases under way.

But most, most, most important it seems to Gadfly – the question ever asked and never answered – the question that always hangs hauntingly in the air — is the Polk St site in the CBD area (if that’s what it’s called)? Looking at the map in the Desman report itself, it isn’t. Is this of no concern? Then tell us. What Gadfly has heard is that if it isn’t in the CBD, the City is not responsible for providing parking. I don’t know. Might be that a simple answer is all that is needed to clarify. Might be that processes are under way to waive the requirement or to expand the CBD boundary across the street. I don’t know. Just tell us. But if there is a possibility that a developer will have to pay for a garage or that there will be a legal snarl that might delay a garage for a period of time, even years, why should we start collecting money for its construction now?

Why can’t BPA just answer that question? is the Polk St site in the CBD area? You can see  below a video of that topic put directly to BPA/Desman at the Sept 20 meeting (approx. min. 5:30-6:30). To Gadfly’s thinking, it would have been easy for BPA/Desman to give an answer then or to say something like I’ll call you and we’ll arrange to talk about that privately. Something. Courtesy. Nothing.

That kind of willful silence can be infuriating. And Gadfly is not sure why it is necessary.

Exhibit 1: The BPA Fine Increase Proposal (41)

(41st in a series of posts on parking)

Parking fines

Let’s take a look at the Desman memo dated Sept 13 that makes the case for the fine increase. It’s attached to the Sept 24 letter from BPA asking that the proposal be considered by Council.

Mark it Exhibit 1.

Gadfly hopes it is fair to say that there are two “drivers” in the Desman study dated June 6: to achieve better parking management (i.e., more turnover) and increased revenue.

Now look at the proposal memo to Council. It contains 6 pages, 16 paragraphs, and 2 charts.

The two “drivers” are not treated nearly equally. There is substantial detail on the first driver, little on the second.

Paragraphs 11-13 deal with revenue. There is no problem with paragraphs 11-12. Paragraph 12 cites the need for revenue to cover “a 10-year capital repair and maintenance program. . . . budgeted at more than $6 million over the next 10 years.” Godspeed.

Paragraph 13 deals with the Walnut St and Polk St garages. In this fashion: “there are two capital improvement projects that the Authority may be initiating in the next several years. These include the demolition and reconstruction of the Walnut Street Garage and the construction of a new Polk Street Garage facility. These projects, in addition to operating expense, existing debt service and capital repairs must also be funded through Authority-wide parking revenues and resources. Again, for these reasons the fine increases noted above are warranted.”

For Gadfly the status of these two garage projects has been foggy. He has never gotten a straight answer about the exact status of either.

Leave out the Walnut St garage.

The paragraph is internally inconsistent. It says the Polk St may be initiated but also that we need to fund it.

Further, as perhaps Gadfly can show in more detail later, it seems pretty clear that preliminary work on the Polk St. has already begun. There is no “may” about it.

Now all Gadfly can think of to put a better spin on this for BPA is that what was meant to be said is that actual construction may be initiated in the next several years.

Gadfly may agree that we need the Polk St. garage. But he feels twisted by the rather obvious minimization of the revenue driver and the fuzzy if not outright disingenuous language in the presentation.

Another revoltin’ development (40)

(40th in a series of posts on parking)

The Parking issue that Gadfly has devoted 40 posts to is probably entering the final glide path Tuesday, and, on reflection, Gadfly has two profound thoughts:

  • it’s amazing what our quarters add up to, hundreds of thousands of dollars
  • the Bethlehem Parking Authority is a slippery devil

The BPA has requested increases in parking meter rates and parking fines. The Mayor has approved the meter increase, and, though there is vigorous resistance, smart money is probably on Council approving the fines next week at first reading of the bill.

Gadfly has been thinking about where he stands. Earlier he used the term “confused.” Today he’s thinking “twisted.”

Honestly, Gadfly could live with a $1.50/hr. meter rate, though realizing that could be a hardship on some or even many. And Gadfly has no trouble with the fine increases. Gadfly might even go along with new Walnut St and Polk St. garages.

So why does Gadfly feel twisted?

Because, Gadfly thinks, of the disingenuous way the BPA presented its case, and the condescending view of its audience (“us,” Gadfly followers) contained in that presentation.

Gadfly finds himself in the curious position of willing to accept the message while being repelled by the actions of the messenger.

Isn’t that “a revoltin’ development”?

Further, Gadfly finds himself in the “revoltin’” position of hoping Council can do something, if not to deny the BPA proposal, but to force it to recognize how it has acted.

In the next few posts, let me give you some examples of why I have become so unenviably revoltin’.

Happy Mirthday, Gadfly!

The Gadfly is one month old.

I hope it’s obvious . . . I hope you can tell . . . I hope it’s evident . . . I hope it shows

that Gadfly is having fun.

babyI started my freshman year majoring in Civic Observation back in January.

I have met such wonderful people.

I have watched from afar such hardworking people, especially the volunteers.

I have seen elected officials fighting the good fight.

I feel really part of the town for the first time as I have sort of entered its bloodstream.

In the digital age we are losing our sense of place, of city, of neighborhood. I was thinking about that a lot hearing the Mayor, Councilman Reynolds, and others kick off Northside 2027 last week.

I realize that I have been trying to regain a sense of neighborhood. For instance, after years of not paying attention to it, I subscribed to the Bethlehem Press, where, as I wrote there a while back (in print next to veteran civic observers Barbara Diamond and Bill Scheirer), “The BP reminds me — with the help of lots of color photos! — that I have neighbors who lead regular lives of family, work, church, school, sports. I need to feel that normality. I forgot my small town is pulsing with old-fashioned normality. The BP reminds me.” A simple delightful town newspaper. Reflecting and creating community.

The major “serious issue” over Gadfly baby’s first month has been the parking fees. 40 posts. I hope I have modeled there the approach that will typify the Gadfly. I am about to venture some judgments, but I will always try to show you that they come out of as full a consideration as possible of varying perspectives. And, of course, I encourage thoughtful alternate views.

(My model, frankly, is Michael Smerconish, Lehigh grad of the 80s, who has a Sirius XM talk radio show and is a CNN commentator. When his call board shows a caller with a contrary opinion, he goes there first and gives him or her the floor. Nice.)

I have a lot to learn. Pontification is not my strong suit.

For instance, you have seen me several times on these pages admit that I don’t understand the relation between the Bethlehem Parking Authority and the City. Now I don’t think I’m alone. I wager that if Dana Grubb asked residents what the BPA was as part of his “The People Say” column in the Bethlehem Press, he wouldn’t get much of an answer. The City organizational chart (see the Gadfly sidebar) shows a line from the Mayor to BPA. But the Mayor just yesterday told me the Authority is “independent.” Go figure. I don’t get it. The BPA answers to the Mayor and City Council to sanction the nature of its income, yet it’s independent. Don’t get it. Ha! Yet, that is. Don’t worry, I’ll eventually get it. I’m researchin.’

One month. A good time to ask for feedback.

I describe gadflies as unofficial officials, as self-appointed representatives of the people.

I invite you to let me know how I’m doin’.

If you think we’re doing well, please spread the word. Gadfly can only work if it is widely read by a substantial range of people with serious interest in our City. Help me to foster that readership and participation.

And I invite you to contribute. To the serious stuff, for sure. But I know there must be people out there with “local color” photographs, stories, and the like. Help make Gadfly a varied experience. A fun place.

Van Wirt Puts Her Boots on the Ground (39)

(39th in a series of posts on parking)

Gadfly followers will remember that he has whined about the lack of the merchant voice in the run-up to the decisions on meter rate and violation fine increases.

How could that be?

Seemed to Gadfly that, except for one Main St. businessman who spoke at the Sept. 20 public meeting, the opinions of such major stakeholders were absent from the conversation. And you know Gadfly is alllll about good conversation from all perspectives on an issue.

Good conversation builds community! Rah! Rah!

At the Oct. 10 Public Safety meeting (see post #36), we learned that the Board of the Downtown Business Association (3 people?) “acknowledged” the BPA proposals but did not take a position on them.

All very strange to this new observer of City affairs.

But we also learned in a surprising coda to the Oct. 10 meeting that Councilwoman Van Wirt made up and delivered a “generic survey” to 70 small businesses. She received a remarkably high number of returns, 30, and among important things she learned, she said, was that many did not know about the proposed increases and many were completely against them. “We are not reaching out to people affected,” she told us.

Gadfly was happily apoplectic at Van Wirt’s revelation and had to ask for more information.

Linked, then, you will find Councilwoman Van Wirt’s “Bethlehem Small Business-Owner Parking Survey.”   Paige survey

Here’s how she described the process:

This is the survey I created for North and South Bethlehem Businesses. I handed this survey, along with a self-addressed stamped envelope, to the owner or manager who was on duty. My sister Allison, my daughter Beatrice, and I did all of Main Street and up the first block of Broad on one Saturday, and the next Saturday I did all of 3rd Street from Cutters Bikes down to the Fahy Bridge. I tried to be very neutral in my approach as I did not want to skew the results. However, if the store owner/manager asked how I felt after introducing the topic, I did tell them my concerns. Many of the verbal concerns as I was dropping off the survey were the lack of cheap parking for their employee — I think there were a lot of managers on duty rather than owners, managers see the problems differently than an owner. That’s why I wanted a mail-in survey — to get the owners to weigh in. I also was trying to get people ENGAGED. Be a part of the voices on this issue. I was surprised at how many answered the survey, but I was even more surprised at how few people showed up at the public meeting, given the fairly energetic responses I received. I was also shocked to learn that really none of the downtown businesses appeared to be aware of the increase itself.

Gadfly hungers to hear the voices of these merchants, but as you can see by Van Wirt’s introduction to the survey, the responses are confidential.

But high-fives to Van Wirt for putting her boots and her ears on the ground in our downtowns!

Council Homework for Tuesday on the Proposal to Increase Parking Violation Fines (38)

(38th in a series of posts on parking)

Ok, listen up, me Gadfly bonnies. The test is coming. Time to do serious preparation.

Gadfly means all of us.

But Gadfly means especially Council members. In fact, my main intended audience here is the Council members. I wish all were followers. Sigh.

Council will discuss the BPA proposal to raise parking fines on Tuesday, October 16.

We know that the Mayor has already approved part 1 of the BPA proposal, the increase in parking meter rates. Now it is Council’s turn: to consider the proposal to increase the fines.

Though the meter part and the Mayor part are officially out of the way, I know that personally it is hard not to feel that the whole package is still operating when it comes to deciding about the fines: meter rates and fines are integrally related, symbiotically related (wonk!), and the whole approach of BPA/Desman is under scrutiny. Everything is still in play.

Daryl Nerl, “Bethlehem council committee says no to raising illegal parking fees — but it’s not over.” Morning Call, October 11, 2018.

The Council Public Safety committee considered the BPA proposal and voted it down 2 (Van Wirt and Negron) – 1 (Colon). Councilpersons Reynolds and Waldron also attended and participated in the meeting. Reporter Daryl reads them as yay votes at this next level in his Call article above, and he may be right. That leaves Councilpersons Martell and Callahan not sounded out yet.

There are almost 40 posts on this parking issue here on Gadfly. Gadfly loves the flow of conversation, loves all the posts, but what should Council review for the test?

First, the BPA side:

The final Desman report is a 93-page megabrute. There for you, Councilpersons, but not especially recommended here in the homestretch review period.

Rather, for final review from the proposer’s perspective:

  • Post #7: a short series of overview bullets relevant to meter rates and fines
  • Post #10: video of Desman’s overview presentation Sept 20 (25 mins.)
  • Post #24: “the BPA case distilled from the Desman report as best I can”
  • Post #29: the BPA memo to Council proposing to raise fines

Second, the view of the “other” side:

Posts 11-14 chronicle the mostly opposition voices to the meter rate proposal and the whole BPA/Desman approach at the Sept 20 meeting. That’s a kinda long stretch of posts. But the great thing is that the whole meeting was video’d. And you can see the “others” doing their thing in the links there.

More efficient for this final contrarian review, though, would be:

  • Posts 16-17: Gadfly tries to give a sense of the content and concerns of the “others” at the Sept 20 meeting on meters
  • Post 25: Gadfly tries to give his own “honest reactions” to the “others”
  • Post 36: the “audience” and “nay sayers” bullets of the Oct. 10 meeting – a shame we didn’t have video at this one (a lot of great comments from all perspectives)
  • Post 37: Gadfly’s trouble with BPA/Desman’s proposal presentation

So there’s Gadfly’s attempt, as the vote appears on the horizon, to provide resources to consider both sides of this issue on the table Tuesday.

The Gadfly likes to help people have the resources to make their own informed decisions.

Gadfly has one or two more steps in mind as he himself thinks about what Council should think about before voting on Tuesday.

And Gadfly hopes that Councilpersons will clearly articulate their positions for us that night in some specific detail. Many of us on Gadfly have been following closely and paying attention as best we can (witness the almost 40 posts here) and will be interested in comparing how you see things.

Gadfly Testifies (2)

(2nd in a series of posts on Lehigh University)

Nicole, Radzievich, “Take a peek at Lehigh University’s latest project: ‘Bridge West’.” Morning Call, October 11, 2018.
————————

Gadfly attended the Planning Commission meeting described in Nicole’s article.

The only spectator.

Tickets to the Planning Commission meetings are a tad or two easier to obtain than to Dr. Phil.

To summarize: Lehigh University has embarked on a breathtaking ambitious plan to increase its national reputation by adding a 5th college to its academic roster, adding 1800 students-faculty-staff, and turning its lower (Asa Packer) campus into a walking campus. Lehigh has chosen to site new construction associated with this worthy plan on previous parking lots on lower campus, causing a loss of over 800 parking spaces. (For comparison purposes, our New St. Garage has 626 spaces, our Walnut St. Garage has 750 spaces.) That’s a lot of lost parking for a lower campus on which parking was already tight.

It was previously claimed at City meetings at which the Gadfly attended that a Lehigh comprehensive parking study showed the university could absorb that loss on its campuses (Lehigh has several campuses: Asa Packer, Mountaintop, Goodman, Southside), that is, not spilling out onto Bethlehem streets. Yet in the roll out of its “Connections” plan, Lehigh has apparently leased 150 spaces in a Northside lot at 123 W. Lehigh St. (adjacent to the Wooden Match and the entrance to Sand Island) from the Bethlehem Parking Authority.

That Northside component came as a surprise to Gadfly, who had witnessed questions about use of that lot for other purposes at other City meetings met with garbled responses. Lehigh’s contract was not acknowledged at those times. Gadfly now understands why the responses were garbled.

Parking on campus in this new “Connections” plan will cost faculty and staff $500/yr. This “Northside Commuter Lot” across the river, said to be .75 miles from Farrington Square at the lower end of the Asa Packer campus, will be free, and serviced by a bus every 10 minutes to transport users to campus. Faculty and staff will be given a $250 “signing bonus” the first year to sweeten the transition to the new more tightly monitored (spaces will be assigned) and much more expensive plan. The system is highly regimented. Gadfly, for instance, a retired Lehigh faculty member, will pay $86/yr to park on lower campus only after 4pm and weekends and will not be permitted to park during weekdays. Northside lot users who work further up campus will transfer to another bus at Farrington Square.

It is not clear to Gadfly whether Lehigh staff in the “Connections” plan includes workers for Sodexo or Brickman or whatever companies like that Lehigh contracts lower-level-wage work to, and probably not technically Lehigh employees any more. At the information session Gadfly attended, there was no answer to that question. It might be that many cleaning people, for instance, work at night when parking is basically unregulated, so there is no problem there. But the status of that level staffer was not clear. And needs to be.

Now why Lehigh chose to cram all this construction onto lower campus when it has acres of space elsewhere would be an obvious question to an outsider.

But there are no doubt good answers for that question, and, in any event, what Lehigh does within its perimeters and with its faculty and staff is its own business.

For Gadfly it’s that surprise appearance of the Northside commuter lot that perked up his antennae.

Gadflies ask questions.

In essence, then, Gadfly posed the two questions in his previous post to the Planning Commission:

1) If the City has some parking space needs (maybe we don’t), is it ok to be opening that [Northside] area to Lehigh?

There is a multi-step bureaucratic process to build in Bethlehem. Lehigh has been bringing the various individual pieces of its new plan to the various committees one at a time. Almost each piece has a parking component. Approved one at a time, it is easy to lose sight of the total number of parking losses cumulatively mounting. Gadfly’s sense was that the Planning committee was surprised at the 800+ total number. Gadfly suggested that somebody had to take a Big Picture view, especially in light of the move to the Northside, which committee members were not aware of. The question that needs discussion is why the City should bail Lehigh out for decisions it made that affected parking. And does the City have a higher priority for that Northside space? If the City has discussed this, I think we should know the details. My sense – and it’s only a sense – is that the contract has been kept under the radar. Gadfly could well be wrong, but he would like to be sure that discussion was in the open.

2) Does the City owe some thought to these people [the low wage workers who will gravitate to the Northside free lot]?

Gadfly wonders about and worries about the people forced, in effect, to choose that faraway free lot. One can easily imagine that lower paid faculty and staff will not be able to afford the $500/yr. Gadfly – a Bethlehem resident and tax payer — couldn’t have in his first few years of work there. Low paid adjunct faculty and grad students will seek the free lot. If the cleaning people, the cafeteria workers, the grounds people are involved, then, for sure, they will seek the free lot. A percentage of these people will be City residents, City taxpayers. Should we care about “our” people who could find 1 – 1 1/2/hrs added to their work day just getting to the free lot and back?

Is Gadfly too much a bleeding heart? It’s ok, you can say it.

The Planning Commission was lenient, giving Gadfly more time to talk than is usually given, answering rebuttals and explanations by Lehigh’s lawyer. Bottom line seemed to be Lehigh saying we have abided by all the City regulations and guidelines (which they have, no question), with Gadfly saying something dramatic like “there’s law and then there’s concern for people.”

Interestingly, when the Commission chair asked for a motion to approve the Lehigh plan, no committee members responded, which I took to mean they were troubled. Seeing no committee action, the chair dutifully made the motion himself, to which the 4 members all voted aye but, to my eyes, not without some hesitation. They were thinking about the issues.

Gadfly made a mistake. A rookie. He should have offered the suggestion that the motion be tabled, asking Lehigh to come back in a week with a more detailed analysis of who will be using that Northside Commuter Lot. (Why do you always think of these things when you are back in the car?) That may have given the members an option for their unease and, frankly, it would have given Gadfly some assurance that the “little guys” were fairly treated.

Gadfly is a soft touch where the little guys are concerned. I want my City to have that soft touch too.

Again, it is Lehigh’s business, but, as Gadfly pointed out to the Planners, the system seems a bit absurd: it’s like working at City Hall but having to park at Lump’s Deli on Center and bus in.

Just me?

Gadfly will raise the issue again Tuesday to the full City Council. Bleeding heart gadflies are indefatigable.

“Where’s the plan?” (37)

(37th in a series of posts on parking)

You know what just about the hardest thing in life to do is?

pause . . . . . .  head scratch . . . . . . roll eyes . . . . . . squint (as if you could see the answer)

Gadfly will tell you: to boil down a mountain of information.

Councilwoman Van Wirt and others chant “I want a plan . . . give us a plan . . . show us your plan.”

And Kevin and Tim are sittin’ over there waving their 93-page report, muttering what the hell do they want!

Plan! Here’s your damn plan!

And they did provide shorter rationales along with their proposals on meter rates to the Mayor and fines to President Waldron and Council.

I tell you, though, with all that, strange as it is to say, it feels to me like they do not have a plan. Gadfly gets it.

Gadfly does not feel the proposals speak to him as an average resident, a shopper, a tax payer who worries about the price of things. For me (O, you know I’m exaggerating for effect), most of that 93 pages is a blur. And charts give me a headache (no exaggeration).

For Gadfly it’s a communication problem.

I’ve said before on these pages that the first question I ask (asked, sigh) of students in my writing courses was “who is your audience?” And if there are multiple audiences, you might have to write or prepare text for each one.

In this context, substitute “stakeholders” for “audience.”

Gadfly thinks the sense of ships passing in the night may be a communication problem.

Desman/BPA have a mountain of information that needs to be boiled down and targeted to specific audiences.

So Gadfly the penny-pincher imagines a one-page (probably less) executive summary (or maybe there’s another jargon business management term) aimed directly at a cost-conscious resident like he is that succinctly answers 4 questions:

  1. here is the increased cost to parkers in Bethlehem
  2. here is our estimate of how much money that increased cost will raise
  3. here is what we plan to do with that increased revenue
  4. here is the benefit you will receive

Almost all other content in the 93-page report is fog to the average resident. Now you may say that audience is Council, but they must see it through the eyes of the average resident. And justify it.

Now that would be MY idea of a plan. One page. Probably less. Then I can wrap my mind around what the proposal means for me.

Right now I’m kinda confused, wandering.

Nine times out of ten when the audience is confused it’s the writers’s fault (quoth Conan the Grammarian).

Take a look at the topic sentence (topic sentence! some of you haven’t heard that since the 6th grade) of the Desman/BPA proposal for the fine increase: “The purpose of this memo is to review and evaluate the City of Bethlehem’s parking violation fines in comparison to peer cities.”

Yawn.

And one can imagine other like tailored executive summaries, such as to small business owners, or out-of-the-box (Gadfly almost said off the wall) thinkers, etc. –

Or at least talking points memos for meetings made up of diverse audiences that could be put up on a screen as the basis for good conversation.

Gadfly does not think Desman/BPA did enough profitable thinking of how to compel acceptance of their work.

If you are a cost-conscious consumer . . . .

If you are a small business owner . . . .

Etcetera

Gadfly has been hoping that Desman/BPA is following here on Gadfly and might take this opportunity to post. Perhaps answering my 4 questions.

Gadfly is willing to support the proposal but needs persuasion.

Gadfly has some other ideas stimulated by the Oct 10 meeting about bringing the sides together.

 

Report on the Oct 10 Meeting on the BPA Proposal to Raise Parking Fines (36)

(36th in a series of posts on parking)

Prologue: Meter rates and fines. Gadfly has used the analogy of conjoined twins with separate doctors with separate treatment plans. The doctors have to work together for the twins to survive, but Gadfly believes he heard last night that there was no coordination between the Mayor and Council. Who is responsible for facilitating coordination – BPA? Should BPA have called a meeting bringing the two sides together to talk preliminarily about their positions and attempt to reach consensus? I think I read somewhere that Council has a liaison to BPA. If true, was there a channel of communication here that wasn’t utilized? Seems to Gadfly that the process was almost destined to blow up even if good will on both sides.

Gadfly loves drama. And last night’s meeting was damn interesting. But he has to feel that the whole process needed better management.

Why do we have such a “conjoined twins” system? President Waldron referred to “checks and balances” last night. If so, what are the competing interests that necessitate checks and balances? Well, checks and balances might be the reason. But we just don’t know for sure. Gadfly is always buzzing about the value of history in helping us understand where we are. So Gadfly is going to try to dig into the origins of this system. Maybe there was a reason at a particular time that made this system reasonable. And maybe that reason is no longer operative. Who knows. Gadfly will gad-in to the past history of the BPA (where’s a good political science student looking for a Master’s Thesis topic when you need one?). But gonna take some time. And the issue comes up again on Tuesday. Sigh. But maybe ultimately the process that Council and the Mayor wrought in the past can be changed going forward.

Gadfly mentioned that he’s pressed for time today (two more meetings ahead!), but here’s some quick bullet notes. He’ll come back to try to focus narrower (more narrowly? what the hell, Gadfly!) later.

From the audience:

  • complaint about the piecemeal approach
  • raise rates of violators rather than users
  • there’s no plan where the money’s going
  • the whole approach was not “sophisticated”
  • gretzyness over favorable leases to Lehigh and St. Luke’s
  • garages don’t pay for themselves
  • soundbites: dead-end policies, white elephant, money pit, death spiral, doubling down on foolishness
  • old-fashioned, antiquated view of parking management
  • a revenue ploy
  • some garage leases way undervalued
  • where’s the Mayor?

From the front desk –nay side:

  • rates first, then fines = lousy order
  • rather increase fines than fees
  • definitely not the double whammy of raising both
  • low leases make no sense
  • would favor higher fines but not raising both
  • the whole process disjointed
  • What about Polk St Garage?
  • What about Walnut St Garage?
  • need entire picture
  • build first and then catch up not good
  • depressed prices for institutional users

From the front desk: the non-voters

  • lots of good ideas here, no bad ones
  • complicated interconnections
  • no unified view in business community
  • restaurant vs. retail interests different
  • not a unified interest group
  • appreciation for outside-the-box thinking
  • different moving parts
  • would be good to look at variable rate parking
  • good sound bite, need “efficient nimble system”
  • Lehigh does other good things: ambassadors, inspector
  • not one magic bullet
  • need to balance
  • must be honest about how complicated it is
  • variable rate may be part of the solution
  • hands tied by the Mayor
  • no coordination
  • why aren’t we talking about variable parking

Interesting discussion: what will BPA do if this proposal voted down?

  • took people in the audience a bit by surprise: BPA/Desman said that the purpose of the proposal was not to raise revenue but greater compliance with regulations
  • if fine increase denied: increased enforcement, increased towing, more staff
  • BPA makes most money by people parking legally
  • no significant revenue increase from fines projected, but yes for rates

Talk about surprises:

Councilperson Van Wirt made up and delivered a “generic survey” to 70 small businesses. Many did not know about the increase. 30 surveys received back.  Many responses completely against the price increases. “We are not reaching out to people affected.”

[We learned in other conversation that the Board of the Downtown Business Association “acknowledged” the BPA proposals but did not take a position.]

Ok, best Gadfly can do for now.

What a revoltin’ development this is! (35)

(35th in a series of posts on parking)

People of Gadfly’s long-in-tooth age will remember the famous and well-worn phrase “What a revoltin’ development this is!” from the classic radio and television series “The Life of Riley.”

Gadfly was thinking of those words at last night’s Public Safety committee meeting on the parking fines element of the BPA rate increase proposal.

(Remember, one example would be raising the fine for a meter violation from $10 to $15.)

The conjoined twins of the proposal are meter rates and violation fees. They should be going in the same direction.

But they aren’t. At least not yet.

Somebody, somewhere – and more likely somebodies – is saying this morning, “What a revoltin’ development this is!”

For after the Mayor last week approved the parking fee increase, the Public Safety committee of City Council rejected the fine proposal. Councilpersons Negron and Van Wirt voted nay, and Councilperson and committee chair Colon voted aye.

Councilpersons Waldron (Council president) and Reynolds were there and also engaged in the discussion.

The proposal will still go to the full City Council for consideration at next Tuesday’s Oct 16 meeting.

Gadfly wonders if you did the homework he assigned yesterday. Are you up to speed?

Frankly, Gadfly expected a fairly smooth meeting. Not so. But certainly a very, very interesting one. Lots of important issues.

And to borrow Councilperson Reynolds’ oft-repeated phrase, lots of very important and “complicated” issues.

The Morning Call covered the hearing, and I’ll bet we get a full description by tomorrow.

Here’s how Councilperson Van Wirt summed up the meeting on her Facebook page:

At Bethlehem’s Public Safety Committee meeting tonight, the Mayor and BPA’s request to raise the parking fines were not supported by the committee in a 2-1 vote ( Olga Negron and I voted no, Michael Colon voted yes). The request will now go for a vote before all of city council with a negative recommendation from the Public Safety Committee.

The major point for me voting against this increase is the fact that there is no coherent plan from the Parking Authority, and I do not support the concomitant increased parking meter fees, which may negatively impact our downtown businesses.

Sometimes, there is little more boring than municipal parking issues. Despite this, there are people on both sides of this issue who care deeply about the city. It’s the issues that exist in the cracks, the often overlooked bureaucratic details, where the deep seams of transparency and accountability lie.

Unfortunately, Gadfly is hard-pressed for time today but hopes to return with some comments this afternoon.

In the meantime, Gadfly hopes for comments from participants, other attendees, and onlookers from a distance.

But Gadfly found the meeting far from revolting. Important issues here that need airing.

More later.

Bethlehem Moments: A Proposal (5)

(5th in a series of posts on Bethlehem Moments)

So how might the addition of a 1-minute “Bethlehem Moment” (is there a better name for this?) to the prayer and pledge at the beginning of City Council meetings work?

Who would deliver the moments? Who will be the “Momentors”?

Brainstorm with Gadfly a bit

  • In that fit of spontaneous passion at the April 17 meeting in which this idea was conceived, Gadfly suggested school kids. Is Bethlehem history taught in the district? Gadfly doesn’t know, and all he remembers from his own kids was that they visited City Hall and so forth. If there is a curricular element, there might be an easy transition to have kids prepare and deliver Moments. If there is no curricular element, maybe we (whatch you mean “we,” Kemosabe?) could approach the school district and find a teacher or a rotating team of teachers who might see this as a great educational project. Having kids involved might have the side benefit of planting the seeds for civic participation later on. School Board president Mike Faccinetto follows us on Gadfly, but maybe the Superintendent would be the more appropriate first contact.
  • One resident – a volunteer – could be informally assigned either to do the Moments or to recruit a team of Momentors. Good resident involvement.
  • We have a cluster of Historical groups and organizations; they could collaborate on a schedule and take their turns.
  • Council members each could take a turn.
  • The Mayor and/or Dept heads could each take a turn.
  • Members of the Historical Boards and Commissions could each take a turn.
  • Candidates for office – ha! – could each take a turn. (A rite of passage)
  • Developers and prospective developers could each take a turn (O, Gadfly, you sweet devil, you!).
  • What’s your idea?
  • What’s your idea?
  • This space reserved for your idea.

The Moment texts should be collected and preserved, and one could imagine a nice volume at some point comprising, in effect, a citizen history of Bethlehem.

The delivered Moments are short, but a fuller written version (but still short) from which the Moment is drawn could be published on Gadfly, like the one on the Hill-to-Hill bridge and “fraternal cooperation” now on Gadfly that will be the source of the inaugural try-out Moment next Tuesday.

One more thing to chew on. Hang in there.

“Clacking the Dish” on the Parking Rate Increases (34)

(34th in a series of posts on parking)

Reminder: Public Safety Committee meeting tonight Wednesday Oct 10 6:30 Town Hall to discuss the BPA parking fines proposal. The Mayor has already approved the BPA request to raise meter rates from $1/hr to $1.50/hr. See post #28 in this series for the BPA proposal on fines.

—————-

Gadfly’s revered former colleague and boss, the late Frank Hook, used to describe people seeking attention in what he said was a Pennsylvania Dutch phrase: “clacking the dish.”

A delightfully vivid phrase, Gadfly has always loved it.

So Gadfly has been wondering when it would happen.

But the dish clacking has begun.

Breena Holland and Paige Van Wirt, “Your View: Why Bethlehem should not raise parking meter rates.” Morning Call, October 9, 2018.

Douglas Graves, “Parking ticket increase requested.” Bethlehem Press, October 8, 2018.

Time for you to weigh in and make up your own mind.

You can read the stories linked above yourselves.

As well as reviewing the following here on Gadfly:

  • The BPA/Desman report June 15, 2018
  • #7 Sept 21: overview of BPA/Desman position
  • #10 Sept 22: video of BPA/Desman presentation of position at Sept 20 meeting
  • #11-14 Sept 24:  public response at the Sept 20 meeting
  • #16-17 Sept 25: summary of options to BPA/Desman and questions
  • #24 Oct 2: summary of BPA/Desman report
  • #25 Oct 2: Gadfly response

Plenty here ON BOTH SIDES of the parking increase issue to chew on.

Chew, and then let’s come back here and talk.

Bethlehem Moments: A Proposal (4)

(4th in a series of posts on Bethlehem Moments)

C’mon, Gadfly, get to it.

Ok, ok — Gadfly suggests that we add a historical moment, a “Bethlehem Moment,” to our opening meeting protocol following the prayer and the pledge.

The Moment should be short, meaningful, and often kinda fun.

We don’t want to interfere with business, no, no.

Let’s say one minute.

Discipline needed.

Now Council won’t take a pig-in-a-poke (what in hell does that mean anyway?). So Gadfly proposes to do a try out for Council, using public comment for a period of time to show how it works — well, to see if it works. (Others are welcome to share the try out stage with me!) After all, it could knit President Waldron’s eyebrows so tightly together the twins won’t recognize him.

Gadfly has said that he likes Bethlehem unique.

It’s unique that we have so many elected officials, so many heads from headquarters, paying attention along with the public to a blog in which ideas, issues, dreams, proposals, irritations, problems, and the rest of the kitchen sink (where did that phrase come from?) can be shared in a collegial way.

The “Bethlehem Moment” would be unique too. Allentown and Easton do the prayer and the pledge, Nazareth only the pledge.

I like Bethlehem unique.

Now after experimenting, gaining feedback, listening to suggestions and criticisms, if the try out is deemed successful, well, then, Council might formally take up the idea of incorporating a “Bethlehem Moment” into our meeting practice.

Gadfly not done yet. He’d like to brainstorm some interesting ideas about structure. As well as consider some contrary or verging on contrary ideas suggested by Peter and Barbara in reference to Gadfly’s previous posts on this topic.

So chew on this. And come back later.

Gadfly turned to stone (33) (5)

(33rd in a series of posts on parking)

(5th in a series on the communication survey)

Reminder: Public Safety Committee meeting Wednesday Oct 10 6:30 Town Hall to discuss the BPA parking fines proposal. The Mayor has already approved the BPA request to raise meter rates from $1/hr to $1.50/hr. See post #28 in this series for the BPA proposal on fines.

We know the Communication survey meeting on Oct 24 has been canceled, but this thread on communication refuses to die.

———-

In the October 8 post Public Response to Parking Increases? (29) (1) (why are you so number-anal, Gadfly? You oughtta see somebody about that), Gadfly said he was surprised at the lack of response and hatched a handful of possible reasons why:

  • Maybe the 50% rise in meter rates met with acceptance with the public and business stakeholders.
  • Maybe the response won’t come till the parking proposal package is completed when Council takes action on the fines.
  • Maybe it’s a little too early — a week — for the Morning Call to be publishing a spread of Letters to the Editor, which is the place where Gadfly usually expects to see a register of public response.
  • Maybe the reaction won’t come till the moment of implementation January 1.
  • Maybe “the people” really don’t know about it yet.

And Gadfly rambled off into some meditations about the last bullet.

Then Dana reported that social media was active and that “comment by area residents on social media sites was unfavorable overall.”

So Gadfly girded his loins and plunged into Facebook. Where he was immediately turned to stone like Polydectes looking on the face of Medusa (O, Gadfly, you are so wonky. People need a Bullfinch’s Mythology at hand just to make sense of your damn little blogblurt).

See if you too don’t feel just a little masonry-faced:

“Why does it matter? [About going to an open meeting to discuss the parking rates.] City Council will do whatever they want. Public input wanted but public input not valued. That leads to frustration which I don’t have time for. Example: meter rate increase. Foregone conclusion. Why waste people’s time?”

Mortar-throated, it’s hard for me to talk. My knuckles won’t bend; it’s hard for me to write.

We should think about that quote every morning. Put a stickie on your bathroom mirror. On your shoe top. On your Keurig. On your steering-wheel.

“Maybe” there hasn’t been the response in mainstream channels that Gadfly expected because people feel shut out.

We should think about those words before every meeting.

That guy is Gadfly’s audience.

the City’s website should be the mainframe for disseminating information to the public (4)

(4th in a series of posts on the communication survey)

Dana Grubb is a lifelong resident of the City of Bethlehem who worked 27 years for the City of Bethlehem in the department of community and economic development, as sealer of weights and measures, housing rehabilitation finance specialist, grants administrator, acting director of community and economic development and deputy director of community development.

In my opinion, the City’s website should be the mainframe for disseminating information to the public, with social media as a supplement.

I have opted in for all alerts, and yet the only topics that seem to be covered, my compliments to both of these areas, are streets and recycling.

There are no alerts for meetings such as HCC, HARB, ZHB, Planning Commission, Health Board — no alerts for initiatives such as flu shots, availability of CDBG applications, recreation programs, etc. (with links to applicable agendas and minutes).

I would suggest that each department have an information officer who would insure that public information is sent out to all residents and businesses who opt into the website, so that these timely alerts provide city government’s news and opportunities.

There should be no political news, just the service-related info that citizens deserve to have in a timely fashion.

Dana

Remembering the New St. Garage Bond (32)

(32nd in a series of posts on parking)

Olga Negrón is a City of Bethlehem Councilwoman and a Community Liaison for HGSK Law Firm.

BPA doc 1
BPA doc 2
BPA doc 3

Perhaps Gadfly wants to read the minutes from City Council on May 3, 2016, where the bond for the New St. Garage was approved by Council (I was the only member that voted against it), where it’s stated that in order for the BPA to be able to pay the bond back, it included an increase in the parking fees for the next 5 years. Oh! That’s an increase for us all except for the 180 parking spaces in the New St. Garage that will have a set fee for 5 years (57 will actually be FREE for 5 years!).

Olga

Rambling with the Gadfly (31) (2)

(31st in a series of posts on parking)

(2nd in a series on the communication survey)

So, the “comment by area residents [on the parking meter increase] on social media sites was unfavorable overall.”

Let me ramble a bit meditating about that report from Dana in context of the upcoming City communication survey. And how the Gadfly is going to answer.

Social media. Facebook. Twitter. Blogs. Instagram. Snapchat. Etcetera.

Gadfly is not a Luddite. Gadfly has used the new technology profitably professionally for pedagogical purposes. For instance, he gave you a link several posts back to his cluster of “History on Trial” web sites.

But he isn’t one to follow the latest fads and hasn’t seen the need for much of social media for either personal or professional use. His phone is plain and simple. Quaker-like.

Gadfly has 7 grandchildren in college spread all over the country who had never voted before the past primaries. He found Twitter useful this year in providing information, providing things to read and watch, providing things to think about, and urging them to vote in the primaries and now in the upcoming mid-terms. A good use of that technology.

The Mayor has a Twitter account, and Gadfly follows him. Do you? I wouldn’t say it’s a very active account. Should it be more active? (Ha! maybe not Trumpstyle active!)  Gadfly doesn’t believe the City has a separate account – should it?

After several months of stalking City government, Gadfly felt the need for people to talk more, interact more – and started this blog. “Blog” — a word to choke any person with a moderate literary sensibility. But the name can’t be stuffed back into the bottle now. And it is a good technology for this purpose.

Facebook. Has never interested me. And Gadfly imagines Facebook is what Dana was patrolling. Facebook is actually a bit scary to me.  Gadfly heard reliably reported that many people, especially young, now get their news from Facebook. Gadfly asked those grandchildren. Yes. True. That’s scary. Without even considering that the Russians were manipulating the news, there is no “center” for authenticity or ethics on Facebook.

Some people assume this blog is like Facebook. What scares me about comments on Facebook about parking, for instance, is the probable lack of context. Maybe this is an unfair assumption. But Gadfly  doesn’t see there room or space for extended discussion or argument or informed opinion. What Gadfly will try to do here is frame an issue from all sides, making evaluation, analysis, opinion legitimately grounded in facts, evidence as much as possible.

I hope the unfavorable comment on social media about the parking increase is not just thoughtlessly aimed at a money-grab by greedy bureaucrats but thoughtfully aimed at the announced uses necessitating that extra money. That’s where discussion needs to be.

Gadfly doesn’t think the City has a Facebook page. Is he right? If not, should it?

Gadfly likes the idea of a full, robust City web site. https://www.bethlehem-pa.gov/ is a “virtual” City Hall. For me it’s like physically going to Church Street. Gadfly likes the idea of this web site being the solid source of all that residents need to know. And that’s why he pointed out the inconsistency of announcements there about something as important as parking rate increases.

Gadfly literally has his Monday calendar marked to check the City Hall web site announcements (though he inevitably looks there many more times than that in the courses of his gadflying) and Breena Holland’s Google calendar of local events for the week. Works for me. Gadfly likes the idea of the City Hall announcement page as the official channel for news.

And – and this is easy for me to say who is so shy he adopts an insect disguise to verbally hide behind – Gadfly would feel better if the Mayor were visible making announcements about what seems to me a largish issue like raising these parking rates. The Mayor sent a brief memo to BPA, is quoted a couple times in a Morning Call story, and (‘cause he was under the weather) had the decision straightforwardly announced without explanation at City Council. Gadfly thinks the decision could use some beefier legs under it. And maybe convert some of those Facebookers. At least give them more to think about.

Don’t leave out face-to-face communication.

So, quite a zig-zag ramble here. Any reactions to communication issues or your use of technology in anticipation of the survey coming? Or how communication happened in the parking rate process? Is there anything we can learn?

Comment by area residents on social media sites was unfavorable overall (30)

(30th in a series of posts about parking)

Dana Grubb is a lifelong resident of the City of Bethlehem who worked 27 years for the City of Bethlehem in the department of community and economic development, as sealer of weights and measures, housing rehabilitation finance specialist, grants administrator, acting director of community and economic development and deputy director of community development.


Gadfly: Comment by area residents on social media sites was unfavorable overall, regarding the meter increase. It was certainly unfavorable at the public meeting held to accept comment. My sense is that when the new meter rate actually takes place is when there will be another public outcry, but will anyone want to do something? The public in general will grudgingly accept what has been shoved down their throats once again, which I sometimes believe public officials count on.

City Council might be able to reverse all or some of the increase if they’re willing to raise parking meter fines beyond the recommended $15.00. We wait to see how that goes.

One has to wonder how many of these public officials actually pay these rates themselves, or do they get a free parking pass, good for wherever they choose to park?

Dana

Public Response to Parking Increases? (29) (1)

(29th in a series of posts on parking)

(1st in a series on the communication survey)

Reminder: Public Safety Committee meeting Wednesday Oct 10 6:30 Town Hall to discuss the BPA parking fines proposal. The Mayor has already approved the BPA request to raise meter rates from $1/hr to $1.50/hr. See post #28 in this series for the BPA proposal on fines.

******************

So Gadfly wonders what you’ve heard from the “public” in response to the increase in parking rates. And Gadfly is still wondering about a response from the business community — anybody hear anything from that sector? It’s been quiet where Gadfly lives and plays.

  • Maybe the 50% rise in meter rates met with acceptance with the public and business stakeholders.
  • Maybe the response won’t come till the parking proposal package is completed when Council takes action on the fines.
  • Maybe it’s a little too early — a week — for the Morning Call to be publishing a spread of Letters to the Editor, which is the place where Gadfly usually expects to see a register of public response.
  • Maybe the reaction won’t come till the moment of implementation January 1.
  • Maybe “the people” really don’t know about it yet.

Now this last “maybe” gives Gadfly pause.

How does the public find out about such decisions that affect them? Gadfly is an old timer, still loves his morning newspapers. But, let’s face it, circulation in the Morning Call is way down from the time when Gadfly started to read it, and, adding in the Bethlehem Press, our town is not saturated with newspaper coverage. Gadfly is used to depending on his newspaper for this kind of affecting local news. But, for instance, only 2 of the 15 houses in my block receive the Morning Call, when every house got it when my Gadflykiddies delivered the papers.

So, how does the public find out about such decisions that affect them? And the deliberations that precede those decisions?

I don’t know details, but I am anxious for the Oct 24, 4PM, Town Hall meeting that we learned about in the Fall City newsletter that just came to our mailboxes, a meeting about “undertaking a comprehensive communications survey that will look to measure how residents are currently receiving information.”

How should residents get news from the city? How should the City communicate important news to the residents?  Good questions that Gadfly gathers the surveyors  hope to illuminate by their survey.

For instance, the City web site did not, as far as Gadfly can determine, announce the Sept 20 public meeting on meter rates, though it has announced this Wednesday’s meeting. The Mayor mentioned a press release at the Sept 20 meeting, but I guess that just goes to the press, and then residents are dependent on their mediation.

The Mayor’s approval letter to BPA on the rate increase was dated Oct. 1. There was a Morning Call news story Oct. 2. And probably by other news outlets as well. Is that the best way these days of media diversity yet fragmentation to get the word out?

Should the increase have been announced on the City web site? Odd to me, it wasn’t. So, neither the public meeting about the increase of rates nor the decision about the increase of rates itself was announced on the City web site. The Gadfly thinks of the City web site as the official central location for this kind of news. That’s where Gadfly would expect to get such news.

“Maybe ‘the people’ really don’t know about it yet” kind of haunts me.  Gadflies worry about such things.

As always, Gadfly expects a whack upside the head for faulty facts or thinking here.

But it seems to Gadfly that there are some things to figure out in the communication process between City Hall and residents. And Gadfly is glad about and looks forward to the communications survey launch October 24.

 

I am not a native Bethlehemite, but . . . (4)

(4th in a series of posts about Bethlehem Moments)

Barbara Diamond enjoys retirement as Lehigh University Director of Foundation Relations by engaging in various activities and organizations hopefully for the betterment of the community. Her particular interests at the moment are preventing gun violence, local government ethics reform, and Bethlehem Democratic Committee work.

Dear Gadfly, I think taking a moment to celebrate our city’s history especially some event of great civic engagement like funding the Hill to Hill Bridge is a splendid idea. As we know, some issues before Council can be quite contentious. Recounting a Bethlehem moment can remind all of us that when we work together on a common goal we can achieve great things. I was recently involved with some of my neighbors in two projects that exposed me to Bethlehem’s history, digitizing Historic Bethlehem Museum & Site’s photo collections and capturing oral histories of long-standing residents of my neighborhood. I am not a native Bethlehemite, but I appreciate this city’s rich history and cultural heritage. I believe a brief Bethlehem moment would be a fitting way to start a City Council meeting by setting a tone of unity of purpose. Despite the great partisan divide out there, we can accomplish great things when we work together on a common goal. BTW one of the captivating stories I learned from doing the oral histories was the citizen brigade that moved the books hand to hand from the old to the new library. Like Peter, I am not a fan of the prayer and pledge but recognize that others do.

Barbara