Bethlehem Moments: A Proposal (3)

(3rd in a series of posts about Bethlehem Moments)

Ok, are you with me?

(Be sure to see Peter’s cautionary comment on my Proposal (2) post. One bad thing about WordPress is that the comment space is barely visible and thus easy to miss. Not good. Please check out Peter’s comment.)

So what’s so special about history?

Gadfly’s had to answer that question many times in his life as a (literary) historian.

(To gain a sense of his work, followers might want to drift for a moment to Gadfly’s “History on Trial” project where he engaged students on the impact and power of history on our lives through controversies over the representation of that history in various media.)

I answered that question in as many ways.

But here are two of my favorite and easy-to-understand sound-bite answers:

“History is our mother”

“History is our cultural memory”

History is our mother:

Our mothers give us life, physical life, but they also give us the first values by which we live.

You know the old saying:

“Mothers write on the hearts of their children what the world’s rough hand cannot erase.”

True.

Bethlehem is our mother and has written on our hearts in ways we don’t even realize.

History is our cultural memory:

You don’t realize how important memory is till you get to Gadfly’s age and some lights go out or till you have to advance or defend a sexual assault charge from 36 years ago.

The stark horror of some of the Edgar Allan Poe classic stories you might know (if only from movie versions) that at least some students still read came from memory loss. “The Pit and the Pendulum.” “The Premature Burial.” Characters who find themselves in catastrophic situations without the least notion of how they got there no matter how hard they strain. The memory box is empty.

Poe is fiction. Dementia and Alzheimer’s are real. What family does not have a member so struck? Some gradually slipping in to a living death. Blank-faced. Memoryless.

Meaningful life is not possible without memory.

Cities (countries!) can shamble into Dementia and Alzheimer’s too.

History tells us culturally where we came from, where we are, and points us to where we are going.

That’s why leaders with memory and vision are so important, reminding us where we came from, where we are, where we are going.

Ha! I’m trying to make the case for the utility of “history,” if you haven’t noticed.

Chew on this for a while. More to come. Soon.

Bethlehem Moments: A Proposal (2)

(2^nd in a series of posts on Bethlehem Moments)

Gadfly can count on faithful followers remembering his first post on this proposal September 23, right? Seems just like yesterday. Time-sense is so strange in Trumpworld, isn’t it? Ok, take a minute, click “Bethlehem Moments” on the sidebar, and come up to speed.

On September 23 Gadfly was working up to a proposal to add a 30-second vignette on the history of Bethlehem beginning every Council Meeting, an idea that sprang spontaneously like Athena from the brow of Zeus [wonky, must revise in the 2^nd draft] during public comment April 17. [Gadfly would like everybody to forget the “30-second” part, but there it is in the minutes, of which Mrs.Kelchner is the incorruptible guardian.]

As far as Gadfly can trace the subconscious rivulets that merged to form this dam-breaking idea, his thinking went like this:

We begin each Council meeting with a prayer and the pledge.

Why?

Opening ceremonies can become routine. Something to get over. It’s good to stop for a moment and re-think what we are doing.

So, why?

Because God and Country are — or should be — the source of our values and the context for our decisions, that is, for the work we do at Council. They are the Higher Authority, as it were, to which we hope to align.

But it seemed to me, after four months of regular Council attendance as well as reflections on the character of our hometown, that something was missing in that opening ceremony. Because of who we are, who we profess to be, we were missing an invocation of history.

Gadfly began to feel that we needed to invoke not only God and Country but our local past.

Prayer > Pledge > Past

God > Country > Bethlehem

Yeah, that gives Gadfly a sense of completeness.

Gadfly likes Bethlehem unique.

And he thinks this expanded homage to our power sources would be another way Bethlehem is unique.

Chew on this for a while. More to come. Soon.

“Wawa Music”

The Gadfly invites “local color” creative pieces of this sort. See other examples by clicking “local color” on the sidebar.

We are a divided country, they say. You wouldn’t know that if you pass through the doors of my Wawa on Eighth Avenue during the morning rush. It’s always a bit of a jam, but those narrow passageways are zones of perfect harmony filled with constant comments of gratuitous grace. If you listen you can hear shared humanity. I call it Wawa music. You first . . . After you . . . Ooops, pardon me . . . Let me get that for you . . . I’ll hold it! . . . Need help with that? . . . No rush . . . No trouble . . . No problem. What! No problem? Think of that! No problem! No problem for a me to do something for a you, for you to do something for me. All it takes is someone holding a door for you – whether with arms beefy, skinny, smooth, wrinkled, shaved, hairy, flabby, sweaty, scarred, perfumed, black, brown, white, or tattooed – to restore faith in common bonds. And it happens to me every morning right there on Eighth Avenue.

Edward J. Gallagher
Originally appeared in the Bethlehem Press, August 28, 2018

The Gadfly wrote this on the double whammy day when Paul Manafort was found guilty and Michael Cohen pleaded guilty. And we feel ever more dangerously split after this past week. God save us.

STRs are commercial operations and belong in commercial districts (5)

(#5 in a series of posts on Airbnb)

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 have watched Mr. Brew’s video a couple of times (and have taken note that it appears embedded in a number of the Morning Call articles about this issue, as well as a slide show of one of his short term rentals [STRs]. I’m still waiting for the Call to do a video featuring opponents’ arguments!) In response to his statement that he is preserving the historic houses for posterity, I say that all of us who reside in these houses are doing that without turning them into businesses that create negative impacts for immediate neighbors and the neighborhood as a whole. There is a considerable body of evidence about how damaging this is for neighborhoods, easy to find online. That is why cities across the country and all over the world are passing ordinances to regulate STRs. They are commercial operations and belong in commercial districts not in residential neighborhoods. They instantly cause residences around them to lose value — who wants to live next door to one? They remove houses from available residential housing stock so that individuals and families, the very foundation of a neighborhood, are closed out. The houses he bought were all previously single family residences. He did not “rescue” them; they did not need rescuing. As to his implication that his only alternative would be to turn them into apartments, I actually would prefer that because they would be homes for people who would be my neighbors, part of my community rather than be weekend destinations for people with no investment in my neighborhood or community. But that is not his only alternative. If he can’t get the rent he wants, he can sell them so that they can become a home for people who will cherish them.

Barbara

Airbnb: Big Picture — Part 2 (4)

(4th in a series of posts on Airbnb)

Airbnb
Airbnb locations in Bethlehem

—————–

How did Williams and Brew respond?

Gadfly is not totally confident of his grasp of the exact steps and chronology in this area. And perhaps others can provide clarification if necessary.

But around June they sued the city:

“Bethlehem’s fledgling home-sharing law, which cracked down on a trio of historic homes listed on the Airbnb website, is being challenged in Northampton County Court. The legal action filed Tuesday alleges the law, which includes a provision that short-term residential rentals be owner-occupied, should have been addressed through a zoning ordinance and that the city didn’t go that route because it would mean those existing rentals in the historic district would have been ‘grandfathered in’.”

At some point — April, I think — the City started citing Williams and Brew for violations of the ordinance. Williams and Brew apparently ignored the citations according to testimony the Gadfly heard yesterday and that lead to yesterday’s hearing in local magistrate court.

Are Williams and Brew the BadGuys?

Brew was at the hearing yesterday but was not called on to testify. He was certainly the “villain” to the audience members filling the room. In a case before the Court of Common Pleas, Williams and Brew are questioning the validity of the City ordinance itself, and in the magistrate proceeding yesterday they were contesting the validity of citations for violating that ordinance.

But Williams and Brew have a side, a position that goes beyond making money, which one might think of as the main motive. They see themselves protecting the history represented in those houses.

They can be seen talking about their “philosophy” in the short video here: “we’re preserving these homes and also the green space behind these homes and in the front yards. . . . [we are hoping] to bring people in to Bethlehem who will enjoy the historic district as well as support the local businesses. . . . we’re really making an investment in the community. . . . [we aim to] “improve the values in the historic district and also save these large homes from being just turned into apartments.”

And here is the Williams and Brew side of the situation as captured in the Morning Call story:

“He’s a great neighbor, a reputable businessman who will maintain his properties and be good for the neighborhood,” [a neighbor] said.

That, Brew and Williams say, is their intention.

He is one of the founders of Embassy Bank and she is a retired doctor. They decided about a year ago to buy some historic homes as a way to keep them from becoming run-down and spoiling the neighborhood, where they also live. They started with a home they could see from their backyard, fixing it up and renting it to a professor.

When a neighboring home went on the market, the couple bought that, too, accumulating seven rental homes in the neighborhood, including the Chandler House, which they bought for $800,000 last summer. The homes less than 3,000 square feet rented immediately, Brew said. But there was no market for homes such as the Chandler House, which exceeds 4,000 square feet.

Recalling that the previous owner had listed one of the three bedrooms on Airbnb, they decided to rent Chandler House rooms from $150-$240 a night, or the whole house for about $720.

Without the income, Brew said he fears he would have to convert the house to two units and, to meet city parking requirements, pave the backyard. He said his solution maintains the historic grandeur of the home while keeping it a place where people live — at least temporarily.

Gadfly is reaching out to Williams and Brew and their attorney for comment.

What are the stakes in this dispute?

the homeowner’s right to run a business
the neighbors’ rights to good quality of life
the city’s right to protect residents
the city’s right to collect taxes
the hotels’ rights to be spared unfair competition

What needs to be filled in to Gadfly’s BigPicturing here?

Airbnb: Big Picture – Part 1 (3)

(3^rd in a series of posts on Airbnb)

Airbnb
Airbnb locations in Bethlehem

———

So let’s look at BigPicture. Gadfly’s quoting will be from the newspaper articles.

What is the issue?

Complaints by neighbors about Mary Ellen Williams and Jay Brew using their homes at 258 E. Market, 265 E. Market, and 4 W. Church for short-term rentals through Airbnb.

While Williams and Brew are the foci of the legal proceedings going on that give this situation headlines, others have come to public comment at City Council meetings to complain about similar issues in other parts of the City.

What is Airbnb?

“The Uber of the hospitality market, Airbnb acts as an online broker, connecting people who need a place to stay with hosts who have a spare bedroom, apartment or a full house to rent.”

Is Airbnb a BadGuy?

No, not necessarily.

Like every new technology (and I think we can think of this system as a technology), it has a good side and a bad side. And sometimes the bad side is not seen right away. And sometimes there’s a time-delay until the bad side is seen. Side-effects come with the territory. Society always has to adjust to a new technology. Society often has to play catch-up.

No doubt many people in Bethlehem have utilized Airbnb. In fact, as of a year ago, 13,000 of us used Airbnb. Two of our City Council members described positively using Airbnb during discussions of this issue. In addition, Williams and Brew are not the only Bethlehem hosts. As of a year ago, 51 of us were hosts.

A Gadfly son and daughter-in-law are hosting us and other family members in South Bend for several days next May around the graduation of our oldest grandchild from Notre Dame (Go, Irish!) in a rented house. And it would not surprise me at all if this was an Airbnb transaction.

Airbnb does not seem to Gadfly the BadGuy. (Gadfly does not feel the same way about Adams Advertising, but that is another story that apparently will have another chapter.)

What are the complaints?

“Historic residents filtered into City Hall to support restrictions on home-sharing, arguing that short-term visitors are staying in what essentially is a hotel in a residential district and ruining the character of the neighborhood and create parking, noise and safety concerns.”

Imagine if a hotel moved in next to you. Frequented sometimes by larger groups of people sometimes intent on partying.

Before we ever heard of Airbnb, one of our new neighbors – a young single woman — was renting a room in her house through Airbnb. We other neighbors were gretzy about parking, suspicious of comings and goings (usually late night), and – ha! – frankly gossipy about what exactly was going one. You can imagine.

We all have neighbors that throw big parties for Fourth of July or Labor Day, etc., and we grant them godspeed and hope for a beer or a hot dog out of them for a bit of inconvenience. But suppose the parties were every weekend?

What did the City do?

After some back-and-forths, City Council adopted this law December 5, 2017.

SHORT-TERM RENTAL LAW

Hosts must register with city, get homes inspected for $100 annually and keep a log of visitors and duration of their stays.
Homeowners can rent as two bedrooms in the house where they live for up to 30 consecutive days, provided they remain in the house while the rooms are rented.
Hosts who lease whole houses — and do not remain in the house — are barred from doing so for more than 30 consecutive days or 30 days in any calendar year.
Homeowners are barred from renting out whole houses for less than seven consecutive days.

Chew on this so far.

to be continued

Airbnb: Why Should We Care?

(2^st in a series of posts on Airbnb/short-term rentals)

The Gadfly likes to be in at the beginning. And he’s not on what for this blog’s purposes we are calling the “Airbnb issue.”

There was a development in this issue yesterday, and we’ll get to that, but hold on for a post or two or three while Gadfly tries to wrap his wings around this issue, wonk fashion, that has been “brewing” (bad pun as you will see) for maybe two years.

In the last post Gadfly provided some basic sources to establish a timeline. Check it out. A wave of the wings to Morning Call reporters Nicole and Matt and Daryl for providing the framework for us.

The issue centers on neighbors’ reacting to a Bethlehem couple in the Northside historical district renting their home (and then homes) on a short-term basis.

First things first, why should the general “we” of the City care? Why is Gadfly spending time on this? Why should you read on if you don’t live in the Northside Historical District?

Good question, Gadfly.

And Gadfly answers that it has to do with the perfectly understandable concern over the nature of your neighborhood. Something everybody has or should have. Every time Gadfly uses that word “neighborhood,” he thinks with pleasure of Fred Rogers, “Mr. Rogers” (did you see the recent movie “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” and not cry?). It’s about the quality of life in your neighborhood, about caring for and about your neighborhood, and “control” of your neighborhood. This is or should be a concern across the City and has much wider implications than just Airbnb.

Mr. Gadfly’s neighborhood is changing. Has changed. Of the 15 houses in Gadfly’s block, 6 are now rentals. Porch palings are missing. Parking is harder. Some sidewalks want to hurt you. Mother Nature is a sidewalk snow-shoveler. Glaring, spooky feral cats have taken over the once carnival-like street (40 kids playing there at one point). Yards aren’t all that well taken care of. Gadfly’s lawn is “crop-circled” by dogs on leashes. Where have all the flowers gone? Some porches have become utility sheds. We were once a tree-shaded lane; now Gadfly’s tree (“Secundus,” since it is a replacement) stands alone, sole respecter of City ordinance.

Poor maudlin Gadfly. He doesn’t live in the Northside Historical District. But he gets it. We all should get it. Neighborhoods change one rented house, one dog pee at a time. Often imperceptible change. Till one day it’s too late. Gadfly gets it. We all should get it. And be invested in what happens in the Northside Historical District.

Lehigh on the Northside (1)

(1^st in a series of posts on Lehigh University)

Path to Prominence

Connections: A New Mobility Ecosystem

Parking and Transportation Impacts and Plan for Faculty and Staff
2018.09.10 Lehigh Parking Staff and Faculty Announcement (1)

Jacqueline Palochko. “As part of major expansion plan, Lehigh University sets 2020 date for new college.” Morning Call, January 9, 2018.

——————-

Lehigh University is on the move! Literally as well as figuratively.

Over the next several years, Lehigh will be adding 1500 students (the current student body is about 7000), 200 faculty and staff, and a new college (the College of Health) as part of an ambitious “Path to Prominence” aimed at moving the university to the next step in intellectual stature and national reputation.

Gadfly knows that many of you driving around town have shared with him a bit of awe at the rise of the Southside Commons snaking down Brodhead from Packer toward 4^th St. And other major construction is taking place inside campus away from our eyes. And other major construction will soon take place at the corner of Adams and Morton.

It makes Gadfly sweat just thinking about it.

And not only all that, because of the decision to build on what were parking lots, the University has also “re-visioned” the campus into a “New Mobility Ecosystem . . . a more connected, pedestrian-friendly, and sustainable campus environment.”

The new mobility ecosystem includes walking, campus busses, bicycles, carpooling, car sharing, and even free transportation on Lanta. The full package.

It’s breath-taking actually.

Now Lehigh is also on the move geographically too, with a Southside campus in the new building at 3^rd and New.

Gadfly knew that.

What Gadfly didn’t know was that Lehigh is apparently leasing parking spaces on the Northside in the lot on Lehigh St. adjacent to the Wooden Match at the entrance to Sand Island, “0.75 miles from Farrington Square [New and Morton] or 15-minute walk.” Bus service will be provided from this “Northside Commuter Lot” to Farrington Square, from which point the commuters can walk to lower campus work locations or take another bus to up-campus destinations.

Ah, so Lehigh is moving to the North side as well, leasing 150 parking spaces in that Northside lot.

Gadfly’s antennae would not have been tickled by all this except for the fact that he’s sure he’s been at two City meetings in the past several months in which questions about using that lot for one City need or another were met by vague response (no mention of Lehigh) and two meetings in which Lehigh reps have said their parking studies showed sufficient parking on campus (no mention of the Northside commuter lot). If Gadfly remembers correctly, the parking specifics are to be addressed in detail when Lehigh meets with the City Planning Commission.

By Lehigh’s own count, siting construction on existing parking lots has caused a loss of 839 parking spaces on campus (Gadfly hopes that is right: Lehigh does not give a total number; my number may be lessened a bit by gaining some spaces through re-configurations of certain areas).

Parking on campus will now cost $500/yr. The Northside Commuter Lot will be free. A little bit like getting tickets for a concert, on a certain date people will be able to submit bids for on campus parking and when and if those spaces fill (Gadfly is sure they will), the luckless will have free parking at Northside or at a likewise free parking area on Goodman campus (certainly not walkable if you work on lower campus).

Sounds a bit bizarre to Gadfly who blissfully lives in a Norman Rockwell small-town fantasy world where you park right outside the Malt Shop. But all that is Lehigh’s business. What Gadfly wonders about is the decision to lease that lot to Lehigh. Gadfly wonders who made that decision and if it was publicly disclosed. Certainly, it could well have been. No reason for Gadfly to be let in to everything that goes on. Sigh. And the only reason Gadfly asks is his experience at the meetings described above, where silence about the lot ruled.

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

And one more thing, $500/yr to park is real money. In fact, to make the bitter pill slide easier, Lehigh is providing a one-time $250 salary bump (but Gadfly is not clear on whether that applies to all workers). Again, how Lehigh conducts its business with its staff is its business, no question. But a certain percentage of Lehigh workers – obviously workers at the bottom end of the pay-scale — are City residents and taxpayers who won’t be able to afford $500 for campus parking even if available and will probably of necessity seek the free parking alternative from the get-go, as cumbersome, time-consuming, and second-class citizeny as it is.

Does the City owe some thought to these people?

As usual, Gadfly sees from a distance, may not have all the facts, asks questions, and stands ready to be put straight with a whack upside the head.

But it seems to me that we might want to know more about this move of Lehigh to the Northside as a step to its laudable Path to Prominence.

Gadfly has circulated several announcements about our blog to the Lehigh brass, but I am not sure how many if any are following us. But City officials certainly are and can fill us in.

BPA’s Second Proposal: Increasing Fines (28)

(28^th in a series of posts on parking)

The BPA Proposal

Now that the Mayor has approved BPA’s request for the increase in parking meter rates, BPA is requesting City Council to approve increases in the fine structure. And there’s a Public Safety Committee meeting Wednesday Oct 10 6:30 to discuss the BPA parking fines proposal.

——————–

The Gadfly admits to wonkish behavior.

I feel a wonk coming on.

Here’s what puzzles me: the BPA answers to the Mayor for meter rates. And to Council for fines.

Really?

Who set that up and why?

Is Gadfly the only one who twists his nose up in an improbable way and says, “Huh?”

One would think the two would be automatically linked one t’other.

Especially since they should move in tandem according to the Desman report and the supporting material in the proposal. Which makes sense.

A structure with such dual separate funding sources and approving bodies on what is, in effect, one unified system would seem potentially subject to absurd outcomes.

Like having different doctors with different treatment plans working separately on each twin joined at birth.

Imagine, for instance, if the fine for a meter violation were less than the meter charge. Or suppose Council voted on the fines first, what would that do to a proposal on rates?

On the surface, makes no sense to me.

Seems like there should simply be some sort of automatic re-sizing of the fines when the rates go up.

So, why do two separate bodies have jurisdiction?

I guess only a wonk would care.

The answer must lie somewhere in the “history” of the establishment of this Authority. Job for a historian.

Unless there is a wise head in the group that saves me from the task.

I’ll bet I’ll be surprised at the logic of it all.

There are probably better ways for the Gadfly to spend his time.

In any event, there’s a Public Safety Committee meeting Wednesday Oct 10 6:30 to discuss the parking fines.

Relevant sections from the BPA proposal prepared by Desman:

“Parking industry standards suggest that the fine for non-payment of a parking meter or other parking meter violations be priced at least 10-15 times the hourly parking rate. The fine for illegally parking in a residential permit parking zone should be priced at least as high as that for a parking meter violation, in order to ensure that non-residents who should be parking at meters do not, instead, park in residential areas. Finally, certain violations that create dangerous traffic situations or take spaces from drivers with disabilities, such as parking too close to a corner or illegally parking in an ADA space, respectively, should carry higher fines, commensurate with the severity of the offense.”

“DESMAN is proposing that the fines associated with parking meter violations (Code1A, lB and 1C) be increased from $10 to $15. These increases will bring the fine amounts for parking meter violations in Bethlehem closer to those of the peer cities examined. In addition, should the hourly rate at the parking meters in Bethlehem be increased in the future, the proposed fine amounts will allow the City and Parking Authority to maintain the ideal ratio of fines that are 10-15 times the hourly parking rate.”

“Aside from the parking meter violations, nearly every other proposed increase is meant to bring the fine for a violation to $20. These fine amounts should help discourage illegal parking behaviors, more so than the current fines of $10 or $15 for these violations.”

“Finally, DESMAN is proposing that the fines associated with unauthorized parking in handicapped parking spaces be doubled, from $50 to $100. The higher fines for these violations are intended to punish parkers who are fully physically capable from parking in the limited number of spaces that are available for handicapped parkers. Despite the proposed increases, these fine amounts are still well below the average of $146 charged for similar parking violations in the peer cities we examined.”

So, there you go. The Gadfly is not sure there is much to fuss over. Once the meter rates go up in the way the Mayor decided, the fines seem to have to fall in line.

Is the Gadfly missing something? Is there an issue here?

A Head-Scratcher (27)

(27^th in a series of posts on parking)

I’d like to scratch my head. But Gadflies have wings. No can do.

I’d like to scratch my head over the Mayor taking a pass on the suggestion that limited free parking could work fiscally.

It’s clear the Mayor was listening at the September 20 public meeting. He took notes. (Neither BPA nor Desman did – boo!)

Elements of the Mayor’s listening and note-taking became part of his decision. Fannnntastic!

But there was a suggestion that free parking (Gadfly assumes one or two hours of such) & $25 fines would generate the same revenue as the $1.50 & $15 proposed – and have a strikingly different aura.

Now what did the Mayor see that the suggestor didn’t?

Did he run the math and find it just doesn’t work?

I must admit that I’m very curious.

In any event, would somebody run the math here?

Gadfly is mathematically challenged. But he knows 9 uses for the comma, in case anybody needs help there.

The Mayor Approves the Parking Meter Rate Hike (26)

(26^th in a series of posts on parking)

Nicole Radzievich, “Bethlehem parking meter rates to rise.” Morning Call, October 2, 2018.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/bethlehem/mc-nws-bethlehem-parking-meter-increase-20181002-story.html
“Starting Jan. 1, Bethlehem’s meter rates will jump by 50 cents to $1.50 an hour, an increase designed to sock away money for parking garage repairs on the North Side and a new garage on the South Side.”

—————————-

The Mayor’s October 1 letter to BPA

Ahhh, didn’t take the Mayor long to pull the decision-trigger on the BPA request to raise the parking meter rates from $1/hr to $1.50/hr effective January 1, 2019.

Take a look at the Mayor’s October 1 letter to Kevin Livingston at BPA.

In addition to flat acceptance of BPA’s basic request, the Mayor added a request that the BPA consider a handful of items in the future.

So the BPA got what it was asking for, and commenters at the September 20 public meeting on the proposal will recognize that such ideas as variable rate or zone parking and a review of hours/location of meters are identified for consideration. (items 1-2 of the handful)

The variable rate idea was one of those “new” ideas in parking management that Gadfly found so intriguing. Yay!

Gadfly worried in his last post about involvement of merchants and the public in the decision-making process, and the Mayor identifies bonuses for both constituencies to help ease the transition to the new rate. (items 3-4)

A separate capital improvement fund suggested by Desman makes sense.

But Gadfly is unsure about the statements made about the garages. Sounds like it’s been decided that there will be a new Walnut Street garage (when “replacement is built”). Is that true? Has the Desman recommendation on the issue of repair/replace been accepted? Who makes that kind of decision? The decision-making process on the Walnut is not clear to Gadfly.

And is the Polk St. garage a done-deal? Or is the Mayor saying it just makes good sense to plan on the good chance that it will happen? Again, the Gadfly is not clear on the status of this project as well. (item 5)

(The seemingly portentous question Gadfly has heard several times now about whether the Polk St. site is actually in the CBD still hangs out there waiting for answer. Will anyone take a crack at that so Gadfly can get it off his to-do list?)

Sorry, maybe just Gadfly’s ignorance since he has been only been recently and newly buzzing around these matters. But there might be people following us on the blog who can fill me in. If Gadfly, who’s trying to pay attention, has questions, he assumes others will as well.

Gadfly pleads ignorance on a larger matter. Socrates was always pleading ignorance. And asking questions. That’s what gadflies do. That’s how they learn. Ha! That’s also why they irritate. They can be pesty and pesky.

The larger matter: the Mayor’s handful is a request for consideration in the future.

Gadfly is puzzled by that.

Gadfly doesn’t understand the authority that the Mayor has over the Authority. The organizational chart in the Desman report would seem to indicate that the Authority answers to the Mayor. So, is the Mayor’s request actually a polite way of saying it’s a . . . what? . . . directive, order, command, mandate?

That seems important to know for sure.

And the Gadfly finds the request a bit vague (I guess his English teacher fussiness for detail didn’t retire when he did!). The Gadfly would have been happier with a definite time frame and some stipulation on the grounds of the consideration. “Consider” implies the possibility of rejection. Is that what the Mayor means?

Gadfly would have rested easier if he saw something like this:

HEAR YE! I HEREBY COMMAND AND DIRECT THE YEOMAN OF THE EMINENT HOUSE OF BPA FROM NORTHSTREET PROVINCE TO PROBE AND EXAMINE THE FOREIGN BUT SEDUCTIVE NOTION OF VARIABLE RATEMENT AND TO REPORT ON ITS UTILITY AND APPLICATION IN OUR BELOVED REALM BY THE IDES OF FEBRUARY IN THE YEAR OF OUR TRUMPLORD MMXIX WITH SCROLLS OVERFLOWING WITH PUNGENT EVIDENCE OF THY DILIGENT QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE AND THE ARDUOUS INQUISITION OF WORTHY KNIGHTS ENCOUNTERED ON THE FIELD OF PARKINGDOM IN YON PROCESS, UNDER PENALTY OF HAVING TO LEAVE THEIR SCALP-LINED CARRIAGES IN THE RUINS OF STACKSTEEL AND MAKE PILGRIMAGE UNSHOD IN GADFLY INFESTED HABILIMENTS THROUGH THE PERILOUS VALLEY OF ANTALICUS TO OUR WONDROUSLY FLAGSTONE’D BEGIRT PALACE ON MOUNT CITYHALL, WHERE THY JUST PUNISHMENT WILL BE FORCING COINS INTO BROKEN METERS TILL THY BLEEPING BRAINS ARE FRIED.

The Airbnb Controversy (1)

(1^st in a series of posts on Airbnb)

Airbnb
Airbnb locations in Bethlehem

A‌i‌r‌b‌n‌b operates an online marketplace where members can offer lodging, primarily homestays, on a short-term basis.

—————————-

We’ll tag this the “Airbnb” issue for Gadfly purposes.

Gadfly needs to come up to speed on this one, so people interested in this issue should pitch in.

The basic situation is this. Through Airbnb, homeowners, who may or may not live fulltime in a house, rent rooms or the whole house on a short-term basis. Airbnb rentals might be anywhere in town, but the issue with them is acute in the Northside Historical District where speculators are buying houses and basically changing the character of the neighborhood. Residents complained to City Hall, which has responded with legislation. There has been a continued problem of enforcement of that legislation, however, and homeowners are fighting back. One owner (Brew and Williams) has sued the City over the validity of the ordinance on short-term rentals. Residents are upset. The City is trying to respond.

Timeline:

1) Nicole Radzievich and Matt Assad, “Airbnb ruffles feathers in historic Bethlehem neighborhood.” Morning Call, June16, 2017.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/bethlehem/mc-historic-bethlehem-homes-airbnb-20170617-story.html

Contains video of the central figures — homeowners Jay Brew and Mary Ellen Williams

“The Uber of the hospitality market, Airbnb acts as an online broker, connecting people who need a place to stay with hosts who have a spare bedroom, apartment or a full house to rent. Rates tend to be lower than at hotels or traditional bed-and-breakfasts, in part because the rentals are harder to pin down for taxes. Hoteliers are pressuring city officials to level the playing field by taxing Airbnb enterprises and limiting where they can set up shop. Bethlehem officials are trying to figure out how to regulate the home-sharing businesses and fit them into zoning laws.”

2) Nicole Radzievich, “Bethlehem tackles home-sharing issue – Planners considering measure that would drop the number of rooms owners can rent out.” Morning Call, November 10, 2017.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/bethlehem/mc-nws-bethlehem-hotel-home-sharing-20171109-story.html

“Neighbors in the historic district took issue with the Chandler House, a Market Street property that owners Dr. Mary Ellen Williams and Jay Brew bought next to their home and started renting on the Airbnb website. They also bought other homes nearby.”

3) Nicole Radzievich, “Council passes home-sharing regulations — Bethlehem tightens controls for short-term stays, including hosts must register properties.” Morning Call, November 22, 2017.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/bethlehem/mc-nws-bethlehem-home-sharing-hearing-20171121-story.html

“Home-sharing hosts would need to register with Bethlehem and get their home inspected annually much the same way as landlords who rent homes to tenants under the regulated rental ordinance. The hosts would also have to keep a list of visitors and the duration of stay.”

“The regulations would allow any homeowner to rent as many as two bedrooms in the house where they live for up to 30 consecutive days. The owner must occupy the home under that arrangement.”

“The proposal would also allow owners to rent their entire primary residence for 30 consecutive days or 30 days within each calendar year. Under that arrangement, the owner would not have to be present.”

4) Daryl Nerl, “Bethlehem passes law regulating Airbnb rentals.” Morning Call, December 7, 2017.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/bethlehem/mc-nws-bethlehem-home-sharing-vote-20171206-story.html

“An ordinance that places restrictions on Bethlehem homeowners who rent their bedrooms or houses to visitors through Airbnb and similar home-sharing platforms was adopted unanimously by City Council on Tuesday night.”

“In an amendment to the initial bill that council passed on first reading in November, homeowners are also barred from renting out whole houses for less than seven consecutive days — effectively limiting to four the number of times in any year that a house can be leased short-term.”

SHORT-TERM RENTAL LAW

Hosts must register with city, get homes inspected for $100 annually and keep a log of visitors and duration of their stays.
Homeowners can rent as two bedrooms in the house where they live for up to 30 consecutive days, provided they remain in the house while the rooms are rented.
Hosts who lease whole houses — and do not remain in the house — are barred from doing so for more than 30 consecutive days or 30 days in any calendar year.
Homeowners are barred from renting out whole houses for less than seven consecutive days.

5) Nicole Radzievich, “Bethlehem’s home-sharing ordinance challenged — Owners of Airbnb-listed properties file action — in county court. Morning Call, June 22, 2018.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/bethlehem/mc-nws-bethlehem-home-sharing-ordinance-lawsuit-20180621-story.html

“The business caused backlash among neighbors in the city’s original historic district prized for its large, ornate homes and proximity to Main Street. Among the chief critics was Hotel Bethlehem’s managing partner Bruce Haines, who once called that home-sharing business in the historic district ‘an extension of the hotel system’.”

“The city in June 2017 initially cited the owners for multiple zoning violations, arguing a bed and breakfast, hotel and rooming house were illegally being operated at the properties.”

“The city began work on a new ordinance that would regulate the home-sharing industry. The effort was championed at City Council meetings by many historic district residents who complained that homes were being essentially run as a hotel in a residential district, ruining the neighborhood’s character and creating parking, noise and safety concerns.”

6) There was significant discussion at the Sept 4 meeting, with City Solicitor Leeson weighing in on the seeming impotence and delays residents were experiencing. The minute of that meeting are not available yet.

7) Nicole Radzievich, “City to step up enforcement of home-sharing law – Bethlehem will have inspectors ‘on call’ Thurs. through Sun.” Morning Call, September 20, 2018.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/bethlehem/mc-nws-bethlehem-short-term-lodging-enforcement-20180919-story.html

“Starting this weekend, Bethlehem is stepping up enforcement of a new law that regulates an emerging business where residences are rented out to overnight to visitors.”

“Mayor Robert Donchez announced this week he is putting his inspectors ‘on call Thursday and Friday evenings and on Saturday and Sunday to investigate complaints about possible violations of the short-term lodging ordinance which, among other things, requires the home be owner-occupied and licensed by the city.”

“The owner of those properties has also challenged the validity of the short-term lodging ordinance in Northampton County Court.”

8) There have been hearings in Northampton County Court and before local Judge Manwaring. I need details on these. There will be another magistrate Manwaring hearing October 5.

The Issue of Parking Fees and Fines Now before the Mayor and Council: Part 3 (25)

(25^th in a series of posts on parking)

The BPA proposal to raise parking meter rates and fines is the first “serious issue” that the “Bethlehem Gadfly” is covering. I hope you will see it as a model for what Gadfly is trying to achieve here.

Serious talk about serious issues by serious people from all sides. Healthy dialogue. Good conversation.

Gadfly sees it as his job to fairly frame issues for focused discussion. Hence, here he has taken time to lay out both sides, the BPA/Desman report and the mostly contrary views expressed at the Sept 20 public meeting. Laid them out, I think (hope), without prejudice.

Gadfly is a process kind of guy with an eye for bumpy logic and contradictory thinking (as well as the proper use of commas — in a past life he was known as “Conan the Grammarian”). When he speaks, it is most likely to be focused on such things whichever side of the issue it is.

Gadfly likes to hear everybody speak, especially the little guy, who has no power but common sense and personal conviction.

But when the Gadfly takes position on issues, he hopes that it will be evident it comes after understanding all sides.

Ha! after that pious prologue, let me shotgun, in no especial order, some reactions to this parking proposal, with, first, a wave of the Gadfly wings to Desman for pulling a lot of threads together.

At the Sept 20 meeting, Jake (whose last name I missed. Does anyone recognize him from the video? I would like to give him credit) asked if there was cost-cutting in the report. I believe the BPA answer, forthrightly, was “no.” Such honesty. I appreciate the candor. But I thought that was telling. It sounded like a question that was unanticipated. It sounded as an activity that was not considered. Jake went on to say that’s the first thing you do around the house when money gets tight. Yes. Yes, it is. Now Gadfly is new to the “talk” that goes around and tries not to bother with it anyway. But I sense that there’s a feeling that BPA is kind of arrogant. And that interchange wasn’t good. It’s “our” money, for god’s sake! Wouldn’t it have been simply better strategy to show that though I’m coming after “you” the Bethlehem resident for money, I’m tightening my belt as I do so. As a matter of fact, after having lived “in” the Desman report for a couple of hours, I think there are some positive things that could have been said to Jake’s question. Jake Noname comes out of nowhere and disappears into nowhere (ha! like Clint Eastwood in some of those great westerns), but he left a BIG impact on my mind.

I thought the point about comparison cities for the data collection was excellent. Again, I’m new. It’s quite possible that Desman has been around the City doing studies for a long while. It might make sense on a certain level to have the same consultant. Consistency. But the choice of cities has a kind of textbook (“industry standards”) feel to it. As if it were done by someone not a native, more in touch with balance sheets than the pulse of the downtowns. Yii, I could be way off. But that’s how it felt. Honestly. Who, indeed, are our peers? That’s the beginning of a great conversation (that Bruce A. Haines should host in the Tap Room). But I don’t sense that BPA/Desman thought to ask that question in a way outside some obvious cold similarities. At Lehigh where I taught along with Asa Packer we were often asked to come up with comparison schools for salary purposes – and it made a big difference if we could make a case that Yale was a peer not Podunk U. And we were often asked what schools we would like to be like – aspirational comparisons. Wow, that can get the juices flowing. I started to think of the excitement that might come from talking about what those other cities were doing. I’d have loved to see a line item in Desman’s budget with funds to go to 3-4 out-of-the-box places at the early stages of the study.

And then there was Jean Tobias (I hope I have her name right). Maybe everybody knows her. But I’ve been coming to Council and other meetings rather religiously since January and don’t remember having seen her. Quiet. Polite. Asking dynamite questions. Are there any studies from other cities that increased their rates? Did they have the same amount of people visiting, or was there a reduction in foot traffic. Are there studies of the impact of rate increase on small businesses before we go ahead with our increase? Studies? The answer was we consulted no studies but we have “expectations.” O, my, Gadfly thought that was an embarrassing moment. Hate to say it. But that was an embarrassing moment. We collected data, but we consulted no studies. They must be out there. So, say, Scranton, raised their meter rates, and we will raise ours to align with them and feel good about it. Ok, ok, but what happened because of that raise? With merchants? With shoppers? That’s what we want to know. If I can come back in another life, I will just pick up the phone and call the newspaper in, say, Scranton, and ask, “say, you guys must have covered the parking hike – what happened?” Like Jake, Jean appeared and disappeared, like a cloud.

There’s talk in the report about extensive interaction with stakeholders. But at the end here there are, to me, missing “voices.” Now the Gadfly is an outsider. There is no reason for him to be “in the know.” There might be a lot of stuff going on I don’t know about. I get it. That’s as it should be. But I would have thought that in this report or certainly at the public meetings or maybe in the publicizing of this report that there would be substantial proof-positive of support from merchants and the public. The only merchant I know of at the Sept 20 meeting beside Bruce A. Haines was Bruce E. Haines (how could this happen! “Of all the gin joints . . .”), and he didn’t seem all that on board with the study. I love the DBA website – it is super cool! – wonderfully enticing and inviting – so much about my own town that I don’t know — but I nudged around to DBA members apprising them of the interest of the Gadfly website on this issue saying we needed to hear from them and got little response. Of course, they don’t know me – no reason to open up to me. I get it. But what seems to me their silence is striking. I would like to know where “they” stand. And as far as the public, well, there are some caution-laden responses on the Desman survey about raising prices. And a poster on the blog has already registered some consumer pain. Is this one of those situations in which the public will be caught unawares and the transition goodies planned to make the pill go down will be ever so necessary? Will the fact that we charge the same as Scranton make people smile and fork over the extra coin? I sense some latent hostility to the last garage. Is telling the public we need another one going to go down smoothly? I know the City is rolling out a communications survey. So much needed. We have to figure out how to get info to people in better ways. And from people in better ways. The Gadfly is a writing teacher (sigh . . . was), and the first question he asked of students was, “who is your audience?” The audience envisioned for this report feels like the beancounters. And I kept thinking about the merchants and the patrons.

Is the site of the proposed Polk St. garage within the CBD? The Gadfly, frankly, doesn’t know the full import or the ramifications of that question, but it sounded serious and wasn’t answered. It hangs in the air. Polk St. feels like an elephant in the room that Gadfly needs to hear more about.

Is TIF funding possible to underwrite the costs of the garage? I didn’t know what TIF was till Grubb and Faccinetto elucidated on the blog. Maybe TIF is not available, but the subtext of Dana’s question is, have you tried alternative sources of funding? Good question. That answer would have been good to hear – ha! consoling — even if the answer was we did but no-go.

Now as my father used to say, “Little Eddie, you don’t know shit from shinola.” Old style. Tough love. But he was right, I don’t know shit from shinola. All I know is talk of making free parking fiscally feasible (alliteration, thank you) and doing variable rate pricing with our hyped-up new parking meters sounded sooooo intriguing. One would like to feel that new, exploratory, creative, cutting-edge techniques were on the table when proposals are cookin’.

I believe Desman suggests we get our stuff together and plan for the repair/replacement of the Walnut St. garage, which feels like the other elephant in the room. Gadfly isn’t sure who gets to make the decision. Feels like the kind of choice that whomever makes it will want to leave town right away. In either case, Walnut St. feels like a bit of a nightmare. Is somebody looking at this? And I guess I mean seriously looking at what happens to parking while either alternative is in process. Commission another study by Desman? Gadfly would like to know more here.

Enough! Enough! There are some honest reactions in no particular order after diving deep into the issue over three long posts. Where’s your mind on this BPA/Desman proposal? The Mayor is deciding right now. The Gadfly wants to feel good about the important decisions on the horizon. And would love to see some good conversation here that would help inform the Mayor and Council members how we feel and what we value. Healthy dialogue.

Gadfly

The Issue of Parking Fees and Fines Now before the Mayor and Council: Part 2 (24)

(24^th in a series of posts on parking)

Come with Gadfly on the next step.

Here is the BPA case distilled from the Desman report as best I can. Of course, take me to task for things I have missed or misconstrued.

Trying to wrestle that 93-page report into something my mind can grasp on this specific topic.

Has BPA/Desman made a successful case to the Mayor for the increase in meter parking fees (and by implication to Council on the fines)? That’s what we want to think about.

The Asker

Gadfly’s first question is who or what is this Bethlehem Parking Authority that’s making this proposal. Who are these people who come out of nowhere (well, North St.) and ask us for money? Don’t lie to Gadfly – you’ve wondered too. If Gadfly is given another life, he wants to learn more about “Authorities” and their relation to cities, and why they came into existence. I’ll bet it’s a good story.

The BPA:

established in 1988 under City Ordinance No. 2196 (the Mayor cited 533.01 of our Codified Ordinances in specific regard to the fees)
managed and controlled by a Board comprised of five members appointed by the City’s Mayor in accordance with the Parking Authority Act
financed and/or costs recovered primarily through user charges, operations are not subsidized by the City’s General Fund
meets monthly (open to the public) at the Authority’s office at 85 W. North Street (I’ve been there, great facility)
subject to oversight by the Mayor and Council
seeks approval of the Mayor for parking meter rates, City Council for fines

Key point: “The financial health of the Bethlehem Parking Authority is not only important in terms of its ability to operate on a day-to-day basis, but also in terms of its ability to maintain its existing assets, upgrade technology as necessary, and support economic development by adding public parking when and where necessary.” (52-53)

Another key point: “the BPA has consistently generated positive Net Cash Flow dating back until at least 2010. Additionally, since 2013, the BPA has transferred $500,000 a year to the City to support its General Fund, a practice which is expected to be discontinued after 2020.” (52-53)

Bottom line: BPA is sort of separate from the City. Has a big job. Has a lot of responsibility. But can only spend what it makes. And needs approval(s) for raising revenue.

The Ask:

raise meter fees from $1/hr to $1.50/hr
raise fines commensurately, say from $10 to $15 and etc.

The Argument:

the hourly rate for metered on-street parking has not increased since 2012 (49)
the industry standard in fines is 10-15 times the hourly rate charged for parking, with 15 times as the target (50)
analysis of comparable municipalities shows our rates low (52)
increase rates to more closely align with the rates charged in comparable cities (52)

Bottom line: “Compared to other similar municipalities both in the Commonwealth and in neighboring states, the parking rates and fine amounts for violations in Bethlehem are below market rate.” (can’t find the damn page reference in this 93-page report now — grrrr.)

The Pinch (53-54)

BPA needs money
New Street Garage: $17.7m cost, debt service $440,000 in 2018-2019, $830,000 in 2020 and beyond
repair of the Walnut Street Parking Garage: $4-4.5m over next several years, higher after that to repair (but maybe replacement at cost of $20m)
future capital repair and replacement fund: instead of from operating revenues, $200,000/yr

The Demand (55) (61-63)

why the BPA needs money
at present there’s a sufficient supply of public parking in both the northside and southside downtowns to satisfy the existing demand
Northside near-term: increased demand if Hotel Bethlehem expansion does not include a garage; temporary demand with replace/repair of the Walnut St. Garage
Southside East near-term: actual and potential new development plus possible loss of Ruins East and Ruins West lots could cause a 450-space deficit
Southside West near-term: available public parking capacity should be sufficient to satisfy the net new demand
long-term: given uncertainty not factoring this in at present

The Conclusions (63-64)

in the Northside downtown the existing supply of public parking appears adequate to satisfy the future demand for parking
in the southside downtown, the existing supply of public parking appears adequate to satisfy the future demand for parking on the west side, while there appears to be a significant parking shortfall on the east side.

The Recommendations

a plan to manage the impending parking shortfall on Southside East could include a new parking structure 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. (69-70)
increase on-street metered parking rates: will increase turnover of spaces and gain $250,000/yr
increase fines for parking violations: our rates only half the average of comparison cities now; raise from $10 to $15, etc., would be industry standard and raise $400,000/yr
Demolish and reconstruct the Walnut Street Garage, cost of $20m. (75)

The Payoff:

better parking management, more turnover, etc.
$650,000 increased revenue per year

The Feedback (1)

Apparently from public meetings, interviews, and so forth from the beginning of the study to the first draft report:

Parking is too expensive; some think that meter rates are too expensive for customers and others think monthly rates are too expensive for employees/business owners. (6)
There are concerns that the Parking Authority does not consider the impacts that their operational and pricing decisions will have on downtown businesses. (6)

The Feedback (2)

Relevant survey questions (Appendix):

15: “Compared to the current Bethlehem parking rates, I am willing to pay more to improve my experience by making parking easier to use, find, and pay for”: strongly disagree and agree = 80%
18: “As the owner/manager of a business in Downtown Bethlehem, do you have any concerns, issues regarding parking?” high cost 3^rd highest of 8 responses
19: “If you are business owner/manager, have your customers voiced concern over the cost or availability of parking?” significant yes response

The Feedback (3)

Relevant questions and comments on this topic from the April 12 meeting on the draft report (not “final” as the heading indicates) (77-78)

A majority of respondents to the online surveys indicated that the current parking rates are too high – in light of this, why did we recommend raising on-street parking rates?
There is concern about the Authority’s debt load

Knock! Knock! Are you with me out there? Who remembers Johnny Carson tapping the microphone to see if it was on when he didn’t get a laugh. Endearing gesture.

But are you with me?

Chew on this.

And then let’s move on to some further analysis to frame the issue for the Mayor and Council.

Gadfly

The Issue of Parking Fees and Fines Now before the Mayor and Council: Part 1 (23)

(23rd in a series of posts on parking)

Gadfly says it’s time to perk up in regard to the issue of proposed increases in parking fees and fines. (Ha! though we’ve had 20-some posts so far.)

The Mayor rules on fees, Council on fines. Gadfly is puzzled on that interesting division of responsibility and will want to research that some time. But perhaps there’s a wise head in our group who can enlighten us.

The BPA commissioned Desman Design to do a wide study of parking in town. The fees and fines are but part. Lots and lots more there. Interesting report. Data. Maps.

On the basis of the Desman report, the BPA has already requested the Mayor to increase meter rates from $1/hr to $1.50/hr, and the fine part of their proposal gets introduced at Council tomorrow Oct. 2. The increase in fines for a meter violation, for instance, would go from $10 to $15.

Desman says fines are usually based proportionately on fees, so perhaps these decisions will be yoked together time-wise. Sounds like they have to be.

The increased fees and fines are proposed to go into effect January 1. The Mayor asked the BPA to hold a public meeting on the fee part Sept 20 (see previous posts for reports). As mentioned, the fines part is just now being introduced.

The Desman final report dated June 15, 2018, is now available online from the BPA web site. There was a draft report dated February 6 that was the basis for a public meeting April 12. Gadfly sees no difference between the draft and the final report EXCEPT 25 or so bullets of questions from the public generated at that April 12 meeting (77-78).

Gadfly is a bit mystified at the addition of that record of public commentary, since denial that such a document existed got his Irish up a bit at the Sept 20 meeting. Gadfly wanted to see if the April 12 public commentary on the draft report occasioned any changes in the final report, but obviously it didn’t.

The Desman final report was accepted unanimously by the BPA Board at the May meeting “with the understanding that the recommendations will be reviewed later one by one.”

Desman representative Tim Tracy discussed fees and fines at the July meeting of the BPA (though the discussion seems to have been solely on fees). The proposal to increase the fees to $1.50/hr passed unanimously, though the minutes do not reveal the nature of any questions or comments by Board members.

A Desman memo presented at the meeting gave 3 reasons so justify the increase: “1) Market value, 2) to provide a better tool to manage parking infrastructure, and 3) After working with the Authority’s Financial Advisors, it was determined that the increases were necessary to cover their costs through user fees.” This memo was presumably presented to the Mayor.

At the time of the Sept 20 public meeting run by BPA to give feedback to the Mayor, the final report was not available for the public to see. Which was awkward. There was a meeting on the final report without the final report. It was understandably not officially “final” till the minutes of the July meeting were approved at the BPA Board meeting Sept. 26. At which time it was published online.

There’s another awkwardness. The public commentary for the Mayor’s consideration on Sept 20 is not included in the final report. The Mayor was taking notes, but it did not appear that BPA/Desman were. So Gadfly is not sure that commentary will get into a report. Gadfly gathers the commentary was simply meant for the Mayor’s ears. Never fear, though, all is not lost, see posts 11-14 and 16-17 in this series for Gadfly’s summary and for a full Gadfly grandchild Owen Gallagher video (oops, sorry Al Wurth, we lost you).

Chew on this for a while.

Gadfly’s set up for thinking about this parking issue will continue shortly.

Welcome to the Bethlehem Gadfly!

Definition of gadfly
1: any of various flies that annoy livestock
2: a person who stimulates other people especially by persistent criticism
3: someone who challenges people in positions of power

The main goal of the Gadfly blog is to provide a space for healthy public dialogue about issues of concern to Bethlehem, Pa., residents. All sides, all perspectives welcome.

For good examples of in-depth coverage of continuing serious issues, see the threads on Gadfly 54 candidates for election, Martin Tower, Parking, and on 2 W. Market St.

As context for and balance to the serious issues, we also have some fun stuff relating to Bethlehem as well.

Please use your contact list to pass the word about “The Bethlehem Gadfly” to others and, most importantly, click the button on the top of the sidebar to follow us.

And follow the Gadfly on Facebook @TheBethlehemGadfly

The Gadfly — Ed Gallagher — would like to hear from you!