We don’t need no office building We don’t need no more congestion No money grubbing on the Southside Developers, leave this park alone Hey, Developers, leave this park alone
I know a beautiful vantage point in our town. And I usually have it all to myself.
You know it too.
That open area above Perkins, between Perkins and Wyandotte.
I’ve seen it called Triangle Park. And the Hub Tract.
Some sensitive City planner (whose decision was it? I need to know. I want to high-five!) put three benches there.
Looking right down the spine of the Southside.
The view is beautiful.
Straight ahead you might not be able to see forever but certainly as far as the Antalics homestead on the Ridge.
But it’s the Cityscape you want to look at.
The Banana Factory is dead ahead.
And in one sweep from right to left, you can pick out all our major landmarks from the slender Packer Chapel spire through the grimy nest of stacks to the hulking Hotel B.
And you are in the town, can sense it throb, not ethereally disconnected like you are at the Lehigh Lookout or Mountaintop Tower vantages.
The thunder of the traffic running but a few feet behind you becomes as natural as waves crashing on a vacation beach.
I love to sit there and take in the hustle and bustle flowing in and out of our Southside.
I even look forward to stalled traffic on Wyandotte offering a moment of urban voyeurism when I am driving.
There used to be a park there. The monument for the 14 Bethlehem draftee “boys” whose lives were snuffed in one demonic swoop on the way to their first military assignment used to mourn there. Like an archaeologist, you can find the embedded stony ruins left when the monument packed up and migrated to the Rose Garden.
There’s still an inviting grove of trees, with a rock-stool inviting you to pause, lean back against a sturdy trunk, and let the rest of the world race by, Rip Van Winkle-like.
There’s a developer’s sign. Two actually. One is knocked down, facing the heavens instead of 3rd St.. I’d leave it there. Let it be for the birds to poop on and the space aliens to ponder over.
I fear the developer’s appetite for open space. Will a dentist’s window frame this view for root-canal’d patients? Will green eyeshades color the view for accountants pausing from stacks and spires of calculations?
When I sit there I hear the ominous, haunting lyric of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall” that I have recast above in the epigraph.
I find myself silently screeching to Pink Floyd’s dark rhythm, “Developers, leave this park alone.”
The park, a news reporter casually concluded twenty years ago, is “too hazardous for pedestrians to reach.”
I guess that’s why I am usually there alone.
But I get there.
Whatever.
A modest proposal.
Can this space be made into a more welcoming strip of land in this gateway corridor? Instead of, on the mid and lower sections, like it was mauled by an angry back-hoe.
That same news story reported on ideas to make that area a park “intended for the enjoyment of passing motorists.”
Now that sounds like at best an oxymoron, at worst an absurdity.
On the other hand, it also sounds like a provocative challenge to our imagination.
Intriguing. What would a park there meant for the enjoyment of motorists look like?
It is open space valuable in ways developers never seem to know.
The last piece of information that we need on the 2 W. Market case is the position of the neighbors opposed to the petition of 2 W. Market to run a business out of that residence.
Note: the text summaries of the speakers here are not exact quotes as they were in the previous post on the neighbors supporting the petition.
Attorney Tim Stevens was given two public comment times, In the second he laid out 6 key points of the argument against the petition.
Attorney Tim Stevens (2): key reasons to deny the petition:
1) it’s self-serving interest, and that’s spot zoning
2) it’s unclear how many other properties would be affected
3) it’s contrary to the corner lot provision that is specifically tailored for those architecturally unique corner properties such as the food place across the street from City Hall
4) there’s nothing unique about this property being on a corner
5) it flies in the face of section 1323, where we see the whole theory of non-conforming uses is to bring them back into conformity (gave 5 examples of non-conforming use brought into conformity lately. The trend over the last 15yrs is to make mixed-use into residential properties
6) it violates Bethlehem’s Comprehensive plan, such as fostering smart-growth and fostering a sense of place.
Attorney Tim Stevens (1)
The owners are wonderful people doing wonderful things to the property, but they did it knowing there was a zoning impediment. The Commission must look to the future. There’s no guarantee the owner/business will stay there. Commonwealth court ruled that there was nothing that prevented this particular property from being used as a residential property. The property had been used as a residence for over 100yrs. This petition is the 5th attempt by the owner to authorize a business use there. Contrary to what Atty Preston said, this amendment does alter the classification: adding a brand-new use to a residential property. The burden of knowing the effect of this amendment on other properties is on the petitioner. You can’t make a recommendation with so many uncertainties. Also, this property does not meet the corner storefront focus of the ordinance. Why wouldn’t this apply to other properties on the block?
Barbara Diamond
Despite the wonderful job, 2 W. Market is still an office. It’s not a home, not their home. They may have deep roots in the community, but that’s still an office – it’s dark at night, vacant on weekends, not a place to go to chat, borrow a cup of sugar, or where children will play. The petition looks like a blatant effort to circumvent the court. It’s unclear how many properties would be affected. At what point do you tip the balance away from a residential neighborhood? You run the risk of changing the neighborhood in ways that deprive us of neighbors. Investing in the building is not the same as living there. Be aware of bad optics: this looks like special, favorable treatment to one person. I don’t think you would change the ordinance for me.
Paige Van Wirt (resident of W. Market but also City Council person – will she need to recuse?)
Present non-conforming uses are grandfathered in. Certain things were allowed in the past to keep buildings from decaying. The market has now changed. My neighborhood is a residential neighborhood that is struggling to come back from that past era. I know my neighborhood and want to take care of my neighborhood. Our whole block is zoned residential. That is what we are aspiring to. Our zoning map is an aspirational map. It is what we want our neighborhood to be. Allowing the intrusion of an office building into this neighborhood defeats that purpose. There’s nobody there nights and weekends, as fine people as they are. That’s the loss of eyes on the street, eyes on my kids. Office use weakens the neighborhood. Nobody doubts the beauty of the rehab job, but where does this activity belong? On Broad St. We should be making our hurting commercial districts stronger. Important to me that we don’t make this decision based on what is here, what has been done to this building. We need protection from business interests that want to come in and take advantage of the beauty of our neighborhoods.
Steve Diamond
[Directly answering Claire Rij] Barbara and I would put money in. We believe in a historical area of a residential nature. The idea that that house would not be sold is a fallacy. Why didn’t the present owners move in to the commercial area of the parcel? Why a fire escape if historically accurate? Homes in downtown area are very desirable. Prices lare ow compared, say, to Long Island. Homes here are a steal. Could be sold easily as a residence.
Gina Kelechava
[Also indirectly answering Claire Rij] She’s a Real Estate agent who does a lot of business in the historic district. People who are coming here are people who are retiring. They are looking for a lifestyle change. And paying cash. This is a cool place to be. This is a fabulous improvement, but there are people coming here, and houses are scarce. Someone recently put as much in to improvement as they paid for a house — and paid cash.
Bill Scheirer
Why hasn’t the property been subdivided? The unspoken assumption is that in mixed-use, the commercial dominates. Why not reverse? And modify commercial uses on the edge of residential areas not the reverse. If this applies to one property, it is, in effect, spot zoning. If it affects other properties, we ought to know that before a decision. Perhaps the recommendation should be to table till there is more information.
Additional oppositional comments by Beall Fowler, Bill Scheirer, Barbara Diamond, Steve Diamond, and Bruce Haines can be found in posts 3, 4, 5, 11 in this series.
And now Gadfly will pause, allowing time to absorb the five posts presenting the various positions in the 2 W. Market case. Post your questions and comments.
Think of your role as participating in City government by helping City Council come to a fair decision.
Gadfly will return with his own analysis in a day or two or three.
Gadfly’s special invitation is to attend the City Council meeting Tuesday, Nov 20, 7pm, in Town Hall.
Let me explain.
The impetus for the Gadfly blog is increased public participation in City government.
Several followers have told Gadfly they have appreciated being able to “follow” some issues through the blog in a way they haven’t been able to before.
Ok, that’s participating. But still not the same as being there.
Some of us were talking after the Planning Commission meeting on 2 W. Market a week ago about how interesting that meeting was. It was really kind of gripping.
Gadfly has captured some of the passionate voices on audios in previous posts in this sequence. You can feel the intense emotions.
2 W. Market will be the subject of a hearing at the beginning of Council on Tuesday (so you could leave after if you want), and it promises to be just as gripping.
The issue of control over your neighborhood and neighborhood quality of life is significant to all of us. There are sincere people on both sides of this issue. Both sides see it as a slam dunk for their side. There’s a marathonish Zoning Board hearing in the past history of the issue. Courts have split on it. Our Planning Commission just split on it. Talk about drama!!!!!
How about coming?
Most of you probably have never been at a Council meeting. (Gadfly was rendered speechless when pitching attendance earlier in the year to hear that one of his auditors didn’t know where Town Hall was!)
This would be a good opportunity.
After my next post on 2 W. Market, you will be pretty completely “read in” on the issue.
You will have pretty much the same information as Council members.
So come and see how the issue plays out. Test your views with Council’s. You can feel that you have a stake in their decision.
Some of you probably can’t name or recognize your Council representatives. That was me only a few months ago. This is a good chance to “meet” them and to see them in action.
Granted, some Council meetings are rather boring. Routine stuff. But this one promises to be quite the opposite.
How about coming?
Get your “butt in the seat,” as one Gadfly follower aptly put it.
And say hello to Gadfly – usually sitting stage-left / house-right – bearded, bespectacled, looking every bit an aged literature prof whom you would cast in your next movie.
A good 15 neighbors of 2 W. Market stepped up to support the petition.
They were in the nature of character witness, both to the owners themselves as well as the quality of workmanship performed on the house.
The very first to speak – Jean Sieman (Gadfly hopes he has the name right) – is representative.
Jean Sieman
“I just want to say that I am pleased and delighted with the improvements that have been made here at 2 W. Market St., and I believe that the occupants of the building will continue to take care of this property. They already have walked the talk. They have been a great neighbor. They have also been a great supporter of Historic Bethlehem museums and sites. And I would love to see them stay. And I ask that you please help to this end.”
The remarks of these supporters were peppered with high praise superlatives. Here are typical sound bites.
I love and respect my neighbors
They did an incredible job of improving that property and making it a gorgeous gateway to Market St.
They did a phenomenal job on the building
They support local businesses
I hope they’ll be there for a long time
It’s a fabulous building
It’s incredible inside, incredible outside
I only wish I had a neighbor like this renovating to this fabulous beauty and historic significance
It’s a job well done
We’re glad to have you here
You couldn’t ask for better neighbors
It’s a joy to watch this magnificent building
We’re grateful that someone was willing to step up and insure the future of this historic building
Exemplary job, exemplary building!
The owners uphold the values we all hold dear
We were concerned what would happen because of the investment in our home nearby
Their interest in investment in city is deeply rooted
They have enhanced the value of the community
Some people deserve more than a soundbite, however:
Suzanne Virgilio
“I’m here to speak very much in favor of what has happened at 2 W. Market . . . We were very concerned [when the house went for sale] . . . You cannot get a residential loan for that property . . . Yeah, it’s a great home. It would be wonderful to have a family live there with lots of kids and I could go over and borrow a cup of sugar, but there’s no yard, it does not offer the amenities that people with children would look for in a house on a busy intersection in a downtown neighborhood. So when Quadrant was in the process and eventually purchased the building, we were thrilled, thrilled because the property could be made into a nursing home [etc.] . . . All of which we were fearing as property owners and as neighbors with children . . . What they have done to improve the property any other city would welcome with open arms . . . It’s magnificent . . . It’s increased our property value, it has increased the integrity of the neighborhood .. . . We know our neighbors . . . We’re thrilled . . . We want to see it continue. We know that it will be improved beyond our expectations.”
Claire Rij
“I have heard some things tonight . . . that have been somewhat hurtful to me. I was born on that street . . . I walked that cemetery [with my mother] maybe that’s where my love for Bethlehem came from . . . When my mother died . . . I named the garden building at the Burnside Plantation after her . . . My mother was the one who started the Arts program for the children . . . For years I maintained the garden next to the library . . . I took care of it because my mother loved gardening. I hear people talking about the fact that this building is going to be a turnover. I hope that as a mother I instilled in my daughter Kori . . . the love of Bethlehem. They have lived here all their lives. And I don’t see them walking away from this . . . They have been part of Bethlehem all their lives . . . The money we put into that building was not because it was an office . . . it had never been updated . . . The dollar price to fix those Green buildings . . . $400,000. Now if you know somebody who wants to buy a family house with no yard . . . but in addition wants to take on the responsibility of putting $400,000 into Green buildings so that they can have a commercial entity, please introduce them to me. I don’t know what that person is . . . I would be very concerned about that house sitting empty . . . We will leave it.”
Robert Virgilio
“[31 years Bed and Breakfast across the street] People thought we were going to create a brothel, they were all misinformed, misunderstood . . . we worked through it . . . underwent tremendous scrutiny . . . got it approved. We didn’t run out of town . . . This was on the market when the market was down . . . What more can you ask for? . . . I have skin in the game . . . It’s a fantastic use, why roll the dice and see what happens?”
Jason Cort
“Public good . . . common sense . . . I’m not a lawyer . . . we love this neighborhood, we love Bethlehem, we want to be here for a long, long time . . . we want to do what’s right by the community . . . to do what’s in the best interest of the community . . . we didn’t move forward in a reckless manner . . . we delayed multiple years to do it right.”
Now we move on to neighbors — less in number but equally as passionate — who spoke against the petition. How’s it going for you? What are you thinking?
Steve Melnick has had a career in economic development for over 35 years in several states, with the last 20 years here in Bethlehem and the Lehigh Valley.
Gadfly: The city has uncovered a three million dollar shortfall in the budget. and taxes are proposed to be increased 3.8%. Why, then, did the Redevelopment Authority give away $800,000 to a private developer for unspecified environmental issues? Why wasn’t the state ISRP (Industrial Site Remediation Program) used to provide assistance to the developer so the RDA could have reprogrammed that money for other more public uses. I realize that in the context of a $78,000,000 budget, $800,000 is small potatoes, but it still irritates me that that money wasn’t somehow reprogrammed to help the city close it’s shortfall while our taxes will increase. Incidentally this $800,000 grant was given to the same people who sold a parcel of vacant land to the same Authority for 2.1 million dollars. Does it make sense to buy a piece of land for 2.1 million and give the same people an $800,000 grant? Parking and development in Bethlehem is being hijacked by a few individuals who have little or no regard for the overall public good.
Gadfly knows you will say he needs a life, but he is looking forward to 5 budget meetings over the next couple weeks.
The Mayor has proposed the 2019 budget (see the link above), and now Council goes over it closely over the course of these 5 meetings.
It may be about the most important work that Council does.
Gadfly has attended meetings over the last few weeks where Council members have applauded the current A+ credit rating the City enjoys, which, I gather, in fairly recent history was not always so good.
Gadfly will report on the proceedings.
Nicole’s articles will fill you in on the Mayor’s proposal.
Bethlehem Mayor Robert Donchez on Friday called for a 3.8 percent tax increase to balance a $78 million budget. The proposal would cost the average property owner an extra $34 a year, but the city will get enough money to fill a $3 million budget hole. The city’s pension payment is expected to increase by $2.2 million next year. The debt payment will rise by $250,000, and there are contractual raises in employee salaries. Donchez said the proposal will allow the city to maintain its strong balance sheet, which prompted Standard & Poor’s to award it an A+ credit rating, and keep the city safe, clean and a quality place to live.
Council President Adam Waldron said he had not received the budget as of Friday morning, but a small tax increase is expected. “The budget is very challenging because so many costs are fixed. There is little discretionary once you factor in public safety, pensions and health care,” Waldron said. “At each of the five budget hearings, council will do its best to identify anything unnecessary, but overall the administration has made some very positive decisions in the last couple years to get where we are … in regards to our bond rating and personnel head count.”
The tax increase will cover about $1 million of the projected budget hole next year. Bethlehem would make up another $1 million by reducing department budgets to what was spent in 2017. The city also will save about $750,000 when the operation of its 911 center is turned over to Northampton County by June of next year.
The proposed budget in Bethlehem would mean a tax hike of 0.67 mills in the Northampton County part of the city, bringing the total millage to 18.22 mills, and 0.21 mills in the Lehigh County part, bringing the total to 5.71 mills. The owner of a home assessed at $50,000 in Northampton County part would pay a $911 tax bill to the city.
Bethlehem Mayor Robert Donchez has proposed to borrow nearly $5 million to go toward covering some big-ticket projects in the next couple years.
For instance: Memorial Pool, Fire Dept trucks, Roads, Police body cameras.
For example:
Memorial pool
The city is hoping to make some waves with a new flagship pool on Illicks Mill Road. The old one, which was built 61 years ago, has been out-dated and in need of repairs. The city is about to launch a $4.5 million project to reconstruct it with more slides and more modern water play features, hoping to remake it as a destination pool. The pool was closed this year and is expected to be closed most of or all of next year while the construction takes place. (The neighborhood pools remain open.) The city has secured about $1.5 million in state grants for it and earmarked $600,000 brought in from recreation fees.
In the Gadfly house, budget times are narrow times.
Budget is a 4-letter word. “Holy Budget!” can often be heard rattling the windows.
Though there is an A+ rating for the City — and maybe because of it — there will be winners and losers.
Atty Preston, then Kori Lannon for the owners of 2 W. Market – ok, let’s get everybody in here!
Where does the City stand on the matter?
The City is an important player in this process.
Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, provided the Planning Commission with a guiding memo, as is usual procedure, and elaborated on the memo during the meeting after the presentation of the owner’s case.
And you can hear her “testimony” here (isn’t having these audios great!):
The key points for the City:
2 W. was not originally built with a commercial store front.
Text amendments are not written for the relief of one party.
It is unclear which or how many properties would be affected by this text amendment.
There is no connection with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (which is linked on Gadfly’s sidebar – very interesting – take a look)
Here are the parts of Heller’s memo that Gadfly thought especially relevant:
Morning Star Partners owns the property at 2 W. Market St which is zoned RT.
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance notes that the RT, High Density Residential District, is to provide for “higher density residential neighborhoods with a mix of housing types. However . . . [it] allows several non-residential uses. . . .by special exception.”
The occupancy is no longer permitted since the courts have overturned the approval.
[Section 1304.04] is intended to allow flexibility for the re-use of corner buildings originally built as a commercial storefront.
The attached petition expands on the existing section 1304.04 by proposing that a professional office use should also be permitted and that a storefront shall not be required.
It is unclear which or how many properties would be affected by this text amendment in the future. Although the amendment is specifically written to provide relief for the applicant’s property, there is no information related to the overall number of properties that will be affected.
Additionally, the City typically proposes amendments to address overall goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan or other planning documents. It is not the City’s practice to initiate text amendments that are written for specific, individual properties. If individual properties need relief from the zoning ordinance text, that relief would be sought through the Zoning Hearing Board.
There is no information about how many properties this amendment would affect in other areas of the City. Therefore, the end result of the amendment is unclear.
In her verbal remarks, Heller explained the genesis and rationale of section 1304.04, the subject of the proposed amendment. Heller said it was observed that some buildings with storefronts were vacant or had been turned into apartments, and the purpose of 1304.04 was to give some flexibility for owners for those storefronts to be reused as originally intended.
Also in her verbal remarks, Heller said the City was “not taking a position” on the petition, but that regarding a text amendment designed for a particular property, “we do suggest some caution.”
There was quite a bit of public comment at this Planning Commission meeting – that’s where we go next.
Stay with Gadfly on this issue, gang, we’re going deep!
Everybody got that definition of “spot zoning”? Ok, let’s move on.
Attorney Preston made the legal case for the owners.
(Preston’s claim that the financial services business at 2 W. Market is now operating legally may not be right, though. See the City memo coming in the next post.)
Now we continue in our desire for understanding the petitioner’s viewpoint by listening to Kori Lannon, daughter of the owners and a member of the business, talking about her personal connection with the property.
Once again, you can listen to Lannon’s presentation, and Gadfly advises you to do so.
Kori Lannon (8 mins.)
The full text of Lannon’s presentation is also available: Kori Lannon
Lannon’s presentation complements Preston’s. It is crafted to answer a series of specific questions about the owners and their goals and motivations, so Gadfly has taken the liberty of breaking up her presentation in a way that aids better focus for us.
When and why did we become interested in the house?
Our motivation to buy was the character of the house and well before we even had a business to house there; this was a house to start a business in, not a business looking for a house.
How did we see ourselves as owners?
We saw ourselves aligned with goals of the historic district, “excited to have become the stewards of this majestic and historic property.”
What did we want to do?
“We had a vision to restore the house to its magnificence of a century ago, to keep it true to the flavor of historic downtown Bethlehem.”
Who are we?
We are not outsiders, but people with roots here: “We are a group of Lehigh Valley people”; many born, raised, educated, live, work, and play locally.
We are active in and committed to the community, financially supporting the police, historical societies, the Arts, local and national charities.
How committed are we to the house?
“It took over two years of effort and hard work to get the proper zoning approval”; it was over three years before we moved in.
Can the neighbors trust us?
The evidence is plain to see: we have lived up to our promises and proposals, we have followed every guideline.
Have we had a negative impact on the neighborhood?
We’ve kept the property nice, we keep the sidewalks clear, we have not created a parking problem, we have no signs.
Isn’t the proof of our integrity plain to see?
All the unknowns of legitimate concerns in the past are now knowns, and “favorable knowns.”
Are we fighting for this property just for the business?
“We love this building. We love being a part of historic downtown Bethlehem. And contributing to its preservation in a meaningful way.”
What are our plans for the future?
“We hope to expand the rehabilitation on this property, to preserve the green buildings that are part of our parcel . . . a significant commitment.”
What are our long-term goals?
“Our strong desire is to continue to be a good neighbor and a reliable steward of this very special property.”
On what basis can we hope for your support?
Our vision has already been approved by the Bethlehem Zoning Board and the Northampton County Court, and we have “much local residential support.”
That completes the presentation of the owner’s side of the case.
Do you have any questions? How are you feeling about the owner’s claims?
Before we listen to witnesses who testified at the Planning Commission hearing — for and against the petition — we’ll consider what the City has to say. After the Commonwealth Court overruled the County Court’s upholding of the Zoning Board decision on appeal by neighbors in May 2018, the City issued an enforcement notice to vacate the premises.
At the Planning Commission hearing November 8, Attorney Jim Preston represented the owner and Kori Lannon spoke as member of the firm now operating legally out of 2 W. Market St. We’ll take up Kori’s presentation next time. But Gadfly begins with Attorney Preston making the case.
You can hear Preston’s full presentation in his own words for yourself. Gadfly advises that you do that. Never completely trust the intermediary. Go to the source when you can.
Attorney Preston (22 mins.)
But Gadfly has provided a summary here as well.
Some key Preston points (what did Gadfly miss?):
this is a “text amendment,” not rezoning property
it will apply only to mixed-use residential/retail properties not any single-family dwelling
it is not spot zoning: there’s no reclassification of land, and the property is distinguishable from others
you can see the property shows no appearance of being a business
you are only authorizing the owner to go before the Zoning Board where conditions can be set
you can help provide the owner with financial resources to maintain the property
Here below an edited summary in Attorney Preston’s voice (remember his full presentation is available on audio):
This is not just a single-family lot but mixed use, residential and retail. The retail use is not permitted in that zone, which makes the use of the property non-conforming. The purpose here is to change the single-family dwelling use of the property to an office use. We are operating there now legally as an office with a Certificate of Occupancy granted by the Zoning Board when it permitted the change at a past time. That Zoning Board decision was appealed to the County Court, which agreed that the property could be used as a professional office. Then an appeal to Commonwealth Court reversed the County Court. As a result, the City issued an enforcement notice to vacate the building, which we will have to do if we lose this petition. We are seeking to have the local expertise and knowledge of the Zoning Board and the County Court affirmed.
We are proposing a text amendment to the zoning ordinance. We are not proposing to re-zone the property. If we’re successful, “the zoning map for the City of Bethlehem remains unchanged.” The districts stay exactly as they are. We add an “additional use to the zoning ordinance.”
(a) (1) of Section 1304.04 of the existing City Zoning Ordinance is the key section:
1304.04. Reuse of Corner Commercial Uses Allowed in the RT and RG Districts. The following uses shall be allowed in addition to uses allowed under Section 1304.01:
(a) As a special exception, uses that are small in scale, such as but not limited to a professional office, barber/beauty shop, retail store, nail salon, coffee shop, retail bakery, art gallery, real estate office, photography studio, green grocer, cafe, or antique store may be approved by the Zoning Hearing Board (“the Board”) provided all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The lot shall be at the corner of 2 streets. The primary building shall have an existing storefront character. This shall include such features as large first floor commercial window(s) and a main entrance at the corner or along one of the street facades abutting the commercial windows.
Etc
This section of the City Ordinance allows use by “text” – it does not identify any particular property or change the zoning map.
We propose to add a section b) to the current 1304.04 as above, cutting and pasting section a) with certain changes: “as a special exception, the conversion of a single-family dwelling to an office use may be approved by the Zoning Hearing Board provided all of the following requirements are met.”
This change does not say you can convert any single-family dwelling into an office. Section (a) (1) still applies, with a change: “and shall contain some form of a non-conforming retail or commercial use in combination with a single-family dwelling.”
Basically, here’s how the change will look (some final editing will be necessary) if approved. New sections bolded:
1304.04. Reuse of Corner Commercial Uses Allowed in the RT and RG Districts. The following uses shall be allowed in addition to uses allowed under Section 1304.01:
(a) As a special exception, uses that are small in scale, such as but not limited to a professional office, barber/beauty shop, retail store, nail salon, coffee shop, retail bakery, art gallery, real estate office, photography studio, green grocer, cafe, or antique store may be approved by the Zoning Hearing Board (“the Board”) provided all of the following requirements are met:
(b) As a special exception, the conversion of a single-family dwelling to an office use may be approved by the Zoning Hearing Board provided all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The lot shall be at the corner of 2 streets. The primary building shall have an existing storefront characterand shall contain some form of a non-conforming retail or commercial use in combination with a single-family dwelling. This shall include such features as large first floor commercial window(s) and a main entrance at the corner or along one of the street facades abutting the commercial windows.
Etc.
The ordinance as changed is limited in scope. It will not be available to any properties that are simply single-family dwellings. We are adopting the methodology and rationale that the City already uses. We are not trying to introduce something new or untested. We are aware of the doctrine of unintended consequences.
Now we’d like to address some of the questions that will come up. There are three categories: legal issues, policy issues, and practical considerations.
Legal: This is not spot zoning. Spot zoning is “singling out of one lot or a small area for different treatment from that accorded similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character for the economic benefit of the owner of that lot or to his economic detriment.” Certainly, the petition benefits the petitioner, nothing wrong with that – there’s an “absolute right” to petition for change. That’s allowable. So economic benefit does not make this spot zoning. The real question is does it single out a single lot and is that lot indistinguishable from surrounding properties. Precedent: spot zoning involves land classification, this proposed change does not. In order to have spot zoning you have to rezone the piece of property. In addition, that property is different, is distinguishable in character from the surrounding property: it is a non-conforming, mixed-use property. There’s no other near it in that location.
Zoning Board and Northampton Court found no harm to public welfare from use as an office.
Practical: the property is being used for the intended use of this petition, and you can go look at it. We’re not asking the City to take a flyer and hope something good comes out of it. You’d be hard-pressed to tell that’s a business in there.
This amendment deals with a property that is unique and thus is not spot zoning. The amendment does not authorize the use as an office but only authorizes the owner to apply for a Special Exception from the Zoning Board and conditions can be placed on the owner, whatever they feel is in the best interest of the City of Bethlehem. This amendment applies exclusively and solely to properties that are non-conforming mixed use. And it is good planning sense to allow such property owners some options to provide the financial resources to maintain those properties, particularly those in the historic district.
Here is the latest of our “neighborhood” issues heading for a decision.
The focus is the residential property at 2 W. Market in the Northside Historical District, a parcel that also includes commercial property fronting on New St. You’ve all no doubt passed the property a hundred times, and maybe even remarked about it. Corner of New and Market.
To recap: The owners would like to use the residence for business purposes as an office for their financial services operation. The owners have petitioned for a change in the Bethlehem Zoning Ordinance. There is some history to the dispute over this property going back several years and several adjudications that readers can follow in previous posts in this sequence. But this is a fresh case.
Gadfly has previously indicated some distress at incomplete understanding from coming late to this controversy. It looks now, however, that there will be plenty of information. The Planning Commission meeting last Thursday was several hours long and particularly full of information and perspectives.
In past history the owner’s case has been both approved and rejected. And the Planning Commission just deadlocked twice 2-2 on the present petition. Now the petition goes to City Council for a hearing November 20.
The issue is significant. And it is obviously a close call.
That’s what makes it so interesting.
Gadfly likes to think of his audience as intelligent, thoughtful, deep thinkers who are willing to walk with him through the different angles of this case and provide opinions that might help inform Council’s decision.
As will be our usual procedure, Gadfly will present information first without comment or analysis, and in small chunks, so you can absorb that information and form your own questions and opinions.
Follow me, Gadfly says, as we first try to understand the owner’s position.
The parking system in Bethlehem: the mayor has responsibility for meter rates, the City Council for fines, and the Bethlehem Parking Authority for the parking lots.
Councilman Callahan
“When the Parking Authority was created, who came up with the rules that the mayor takes care of the meters and City Council takes care of the fines. . . . Who made the rules and how could they possibly be changed?”
Mayor Donchez
“I think the answer to your question is that I really don’t know. But what I assume is this. The Parking Authority used to be within the Police department, and I think we are probably talking about 1960s or early 1970s. It was removed, set up as an independent Board with an executive director hired by the Board to be less political and having all the tickets fixed within City Hall. And I think that the key reason was the Authority could take out bonds. I would think that when they established the Board, they came up with the trifecta, which makes no sense to me, to be very honest with you.”
Councilman Callahan
“I don’t agree with the structure. . . . I have no idea how it came up. . . . I don’t know if it can be changed or whatever.”
“Now that it sounds like we are going to be tabling the fine increases. Are you still going to direct the Parking Authority in terms of the meter increases as of January 1.” Councilman Colon
“The answer is yes.” Mayor Donchez
So Gadfly had a feeling of substantial satisfaction about the handling of the gnarled parking issue at last week’s City Council meeting.
The Mayor outlined what is, in effect, a business plan on the Polk St. Garage, a good in its own right, but the main specific request of City Council in what President Waldron called the “infamous” set of questions posed to the BPA.
Great!
The one puzzling piece of last Wednesday’s action, however, was leaving in place the January 1 inception of the meter rate increases.
Everybody knows the rates and the fines need to work in tandem. There was plenty of discussion at the meeting of what will happen negatively if they are not in tandem.
Mainly complaints to City Council!
Councilfolk Colon, Van Wirt, and Waldron each brought it up. January 1 is an arbitrary date. The rates don’t have to go up then. We should work together on timing, said Van Wirt.
Why consciously court the kind of absurdity that Councilman Callahan repeatedly depicted, no matter how short the time?
Doesn’t make any sense to Gadfly.
The nasty interpretation: Public and business blowback will be directed at Council, who has responsibility for the fines, and such blowback is a backatcha by the Mayor and BPA for Council’s actions.
The benign interpretation: BPA had planned a soft opening of the new system, which wouldn’t really, really go into effect till June 1, so maybe the perturbation of the system is not seen as severe as has been forecast.
Gadfly just doesn’t understand why – during the Era of Good Feeling at the meeting – this last detail was not nailed down.
Gadfly also hopes that the examination of Variable Rate Parking doesn’t disappear and hopes that a detailed plan for studying it will emerge at the BPA meetings with Council early and mid-2019.
“Most things can be explained. . . . We could provide this information clearer.” Councilman Reynolds
Gadfly believes strongly in the above tagline for his project.
The major process take-away for him from following this parking issue for several months is the need for better communication all around.
Some randomly organized thoughts about communication during this process, seen, of course, from Gadfly’s necessarily outside and possibly ill-informed perspective – and meant to be helpful:
The Parking Authority does not know how to “speak” to the public or even to City Council. Gadfly said at a BPA Board meeting that they need a public relations person. They had an enormous and no doubt competent parking study, but the tailoring, the transmitting, the marketing, the communicating of that study to important stakeholders was not tended to.
At the last City Council meeting, the Council liaison spoke of “numerous discussions” recently with the BPA Board chair, but Gadfly doesn’t see that there was a channel for those discussions to the rest of Council. Maybe there was; Gadfly is not aware of how Council members interact outside of meetings.
If Gadfly is not mistaken, according to the published BPA minutes going back to December 2017, the Council liaison has not attended BPA meetings.
If Council has liaisons to all the Authorities, do they periodically “report” back officially to Council? Gadfly believes there was recent reference to a Redevelopment Authority meeting where something important happened. And “nobody was there.” The whole general issue of announcing meetings, posting agendas, publishing minutes has to be tightened.
Gadfly, admittedly on slim observation, wonders about the “involvement” of BPA Board members. The chairman is an “institution” (nearly two decades on the Board), and Council liaison’s “numerous discussions” were solely with him, outside of Board meetings. Are the fresh new voices on the Board engaged? Or is the BPA power vested in one person?
It was not possible for Gadfly to communicate directly with BPA Board members. And some BPA leaders were not responsive to interaction with Gadfly.
Gadfly found the Mayor’s report and demeanor at the last meeting refreshing and reassuring. Gadfly felt the need for more of that. This will sound strange, but Gadfly found himself reflecting that he doesn’t hear from the Mayor much. There is little in the way of “reports” at City Council meetings. He is a kind of a “quiet” Mayor. Ha! Which, all in all, I think may be a good trait. But there are times when we need the firm voice of the leader.
the “trifecta” system – mayor responsible for meter rates, Council for fines, BPA for parking lots – though theoretically it might be seen as a mechanism for the trifectors to talk with one another, doesn’t seemed to have worked well.
The “parking issue” is not over, but Gadfly thinks there will be some quiet time for a while. Perhaps one or two more posts on it for now, and we can move on.
As Gadfly has reported earlier here, the tuition-paying undergraduate students raised a stink about an early phase of Lehigh’s Path to Prominence planning that brought an immediately placating response from the Lehigh Administration.
Gadfly was not at all concerned with undergraduate students, virtually all of whom live on campus and who have tremendous leverage to apply to get fairness.
Gadfly has been concerned about a large segment of graduate students and about such low-wage staff as maintenance, grounds, cafeteria workers, and so forth, many of whom may be Bethlehem residents/taxpayers.
Gadfly has asked for transparency on the impact of the new parking plan on such people.
Now, however, see the linked Nov. 7 letter from the Lehigh Graduate Student Senate to the Lehigh Administration about graduate student concerns about parking inequity under the new plan.
(Gadfly especially encourages you to read the direct quotes from grad students in Appendix B of the letter. Gadfly loves the raw voices.)
The graduate students have political power to bring to bear against the Lehigh Administration, they are using it, and it is to be hoped that Lehigh will recognize that these voices, previously overlooked like the undergraduates, will be heard.
So maybe Gadfly need not be very concerned about the graduate students. We’ll see.
But what about maintenance, grounds, cafeteria workers, and so forth, many of whom may be Bethlehem residents/taxpayers?
The undergrads (dollars) and grads (teaching classes, running labs) have chips to play within the system.
Gadfly doesn’t think these others do.
They are low pay. Without representation. Replaceable.
We won’t see letters to the Administration from them.
(Many, if not all of them, may not even technically be employees of Lehigh – which makes matters worse.)
There may be no problem. But the undergrad and grad brouhaha’s indicate flaws in Lehigh’s planning.
So Gadfly is asking for more information, for more transparency, before the City grants any further approvals.
And he has now spoken twice at City Council meetings, hoping to raise consciousness about his concerns.
One of the ways you measure a just society is the way it treats its most vulnerable people.
You are a veteran if you spent your entire working career in the Armed Services or if the signature on your papers was barely dry.
And you are deserving of recognition today.
On November 8, 1961, 14 young Bethlehem men (including two brothers), draftees, gathered at the Salvation Army, joined three-score others from various parts of the Lehigh Valley and New Jersey, got on a bus mid-afternoon for Wilkes Barre, where they were formally inducted into the U.S. Army around 5PM, took a plane bound for Fort Jackson, South Carolina, which crashed, and by 9:30PM they were all dead.
Albert W. Andreas, Robert S. Bedics, Barry A. Brandt, Donald F. Doyle, Thomas D. Gasda, Richard W. Jones, Joseph J. Kobli, Stephen M. Kobli, Leroy Kranch, Jr., Thomas A. Motko, Michael Placotaris. Albert J. Rice, John D. Schuler, Charles D. Yeakel
In all 77 died. Only 2 escaped the crash. Some Bethlehem families learned of the crash and deaths when awakened by 4AM phone calls from reporters. Most of the bodies were burned beyond recognition. It would be 3-4 days before some bodies were identified. One Bethlehem man was identified only from a school ring.
The crash triggered a national investigation of substandard transporting of military personnel. The crash was determined to be a result of shoddy maintenance, human error, and lack of emergency procedure explanations. Many could have survived.
Bethlehem took the tragedy hard. A monument was dedicated exactly seven months later, on June 8, 1962, on what was called Triangle Park or the Hub Tract, the still open space above Perkins at 3rd and Wyandotte streets. The monument was removed for a time in 1986 because of the possible sale of the property but then returned and rededicated November 8, 1986. The monument was relatively recently removed to the Rose Garden when the property was sold to developer Jim Petrucci. The monument is located on Eighth Avenue, just a short distance from Union Boulevard.
The 14 young Bethlehem men never had a chance to wear a uniform but died for their country.
It seems to Gadfly that it is always cold in cemeteries or at monuments for the dead.
His fingers courted frostbite at 9AM this morning just in the short time he ungloved to take a few pictures. The biting wind found ways through woolen layers to find bare skin.
There were two flower arrangements, two flags. Gadfly was able to right one of the arrangements blown over by yesterday’s even more biting wind.
There was one card, “In Loving Memory of Brother Donald Doyle,” from his older brother Richard and Richard’s wife (whose name I am sorry I couldn’t make out).
A touch of warmth that helps one forget the cold.
Gadfly plans to return to this story for the next Bethlehem Moment. Thanks to Dana Grubb.
We know that the vote was 6-1 in favor of indefinitely tabling the BPA proposal, but of as much interest as the final tally should be the reasons supporting the votes.
So here Gadfly gives you text and video windows on the main commentary preceding the vote. CM Callahan was the lone “no” vote, so we should pay special attention to his position as we judge the “ayes.”
Gadfly will post an overview reflection on the meeting and the decision in the near future, but in the meantime he invites you to engage with each of the positions and see where your opinion falls. With the video you can almost be there.
CM Reynolds framed the specific response to and specific questions he asked of the Mayor that Gadfly reported on last time with refreshing comments about what Gadfly would call communication problems. Reynolds pointed out the confusion and frustration some felt was created by lack of transparency and context. He expressed belief that all things could be properly explained but that “we” (the City) need to provide information in a clearer fashion. On the “large scale decisions,” it’s the administration’s job, not BPA’s, to “stand up” and articulate goals and rationale. Gadfly found those welcome sentiments and believes what the Mayor presented was aligned with those sentiments – a step toward better communication.
CM Callahan was the lone “no” vote and he makes some good points. The video link is to Callahan’s initial and main comments, but Gadfly has added in points he made during two other comments.
The disparity between the meter rates and the fines will cause diminished parking turnover and more expenses for the BPA and will create a serious issue for the BPA that will inevitably become an issue for Council.
If Council action to deny the BPA proposal is for “leverage” against the BPA, that is a political act and not for the good of the City.
By the “rules” (everybody agrees the “trifecta” rules over responsibility for different parts of the parking system don’t make sense, and nobody seems to know who made them up!), fines should be tied to the rates. The Mayor made his decision, we should follow.
Denial puts the non-profits in a very difficult situation. They took a gamble situating there. They were promised a garage. Lots there are being bought up; there is no additional space. Some lots are on a 60-day vacate notice. The non-profits could face a situation where there is no parking, and it would take 16 months to build a garage.
Denial is basically telling everybody to not follow the rules. The whole point is to obey the law. It makes no sense to have a fine less than what it would cost to park. Some people simply won’t follow the rules.
We will eventually support a parking deck. BPA has provided a path to pay for it. There is no taxpayer money. The garage is paid for by people who use it. The only risk for the taxpayer is if BPA defaults, but BPA’s “financials are fine,” and they could get funding on their own but at a higher rate without City backing.
BPA as a whole supports the garages. Nobody has $20m to build a garage. The Walnut and North St. garages were not built with their own funds. The money came from the BPA as a whole.
He thinks that BPA sees tabling as politics and recommends voting not tabling even if the result turns out to be for denial. BPA is in to parking not politics. BPA was reading the “tea leaves” when it suggested tabling as ok.
1) The rates don’t have to go up January 1. We should work together on timing. Everybody understands the problem with rate and fine disparity, but rates do not have to go into effect January 1.
2) If BPA finances are so great, we should not have to be raising rates on backs of taxpayers. Authorities were created to leverage their own debt and not put it on the taxpayer. It’s ok for BPA to get their own bonds, taking risk off taxpayers, and if their finances are in good shape, they can pay the higher rate
3) The Walnut St. Garage is in the Central Business District, so there is a viable reason for City to provide financial support. Moreover, the Walnut already exists so that if it needs to be replaced, that’s a logical use of the money and of taxpayer-backed debt.
4) She’s hoping that CC and BPA can work hand in hand. They are stronger together. Being open and transparent gets things done faster and better. And everybody ends up more satisfied.
CM Waldron was the clean-up man. Everybody agrees fines have to be raised. This is the first opportunity for Council to be part of the conversation of what parking means for our City. It makes sense to ask BPA what their 1yr goal, 5yr goal, and overall idea of parking within the City is. Polk is the “hot ticket item.” It is understood that the meter rate increase goes toward Polk and the fine increase to Walnut. But Walnut dollars are not needed right now, and “ultimately getting a full plan on what Polk St. will be, a timeline for that, what the funding will look like, is the best approach.” CC asked for a business plan and didn’t get it, so there’s not a lot of confidence in BPA long-term planning. It feels like they are making it up as they go because of lack of information. Maybe lack of communication rather than lack of planning is the problem. Tabling is the right move now and Council will approve fine increases when appropriate.
So let’s pick up the long-awaited meeting of November 7 in which City Council considered the Bethlehem Parking Authority’s proposal to increase parking violation fines in tandem with the Mayor’s previous approval to raise the parking meter rates. This meeting came after the BPA answered a series of questions asked by Council. Council voted 6-1 to table the fine proposal indefinitely. The meter rate rise will still go into effect January 1.
Gadfly felt good about this meeting. He left the meeting with a feeling of satisfaction. He felt progress.
But Gadfly welcomes judgments of the many wise heads in attendance.
Remember that Gadfly had said that for him Polk St. haunted this whole process. So many ambiguous statements.
Remember that Gadfly asked the BPA Board directly, “is the Polk St. Garage going to be built?” And was told unambiguously by the bulldog bodyguard BPA solicitor, “Nobody interrogates the Board”!
Well — answer to Gadfly’s prayers — the Mayor went right to sole focus on Polk.
The Mayor – without being asked to make a statement – immediately created a positive atmosphere through a 5-minute prepared statement focused on the previously enigmatic Polk St. Garage in which he provided important background in addition to setting a timeline for key future developments. All exactly what Gadfly had been missing.
There was no kumbaya, but the interaction between Mayor and Council was calm and business-cordial. The Mayor and the strong majority of Council (and even the BPA) were agreed on the “table indefinitely” option. There was never doubt of passage. The one negative voice was strong and given plenty of time to articulate his position. All good.
For Gadfly, this meeting took a big step toward clearing the air of the cobwebs around this whole process that have enveloped him for the last 30 or more posts in this long thread.
From Gadfly, kudos to the Mayor for his clear, concise statement of where the Polk issue has come from and where it is going. His statement is linked above, transcribed from an audio recording. Gadfly hoped to have a copy of the Mayor’s actual statement to post, but it did not come in before press time. Take a look for yourself. Gadfly always suggests going to the primary source and forming your own opinion.
The first concrete step on Polk St. happened in 2014 through the Redevelopment Authority.
The RDA project stalled, and BPA was given responsibility for the project in 2015.
In early 2017 the Mayor asked BPA to conduct a comprehensive parking analysis as a prelude to capital projects.
Attempts to secure land from the Sands were unsuccessful till plans for selling the Casino in early 2018.
BPA approved an agreement of sale in September 2018.
The goal for beginning construction was the mid-2019.
Construction should take 16 months.
The meter and fine increases are needed for Polk St.
The BPA is exploring financing both with and without City guarantee.
The Mayor has asked the RDA to compile a complete timeline of their involvement.
The Mayor was organized, provided chronology, provided facts – provided understanding.
Had Gadfly purring like a kitten.
Councilman Reynolds then completed construction of Gadfly’s Era of Good Feeling by asking direct follow-up questions and getting direct answers (see the video of Reynolds here):
Yes, there is an agreement of sale for 3rd and Polk.
Construction should start mid to ¾’s 2019.
Construction should take 16-18 months.
Yes, the increased revenue is needed for Polk.
BPA will discuss options for funding with Council early in 2019.
Possibly, BPA funding may not need City guarantee.
But even if not, BPA will discuss funding with Council.
The fine proposal will be taken up again when funding is discussed.
That meeting will take place in the first ¼ 2019.
Clarity. Transparency. Timeline.
Pretty damn close to the strategic plan the Council letter asked for.
Now, here’s the only hitch Gadfly could see. Councilman Colon asked the Mayor if meter rates were still going up January 1, thus causing, if so, a skewed proportion with the fine structure that will remain static till later into 2019.
The Mayor said yes.
Meter rates going up though fines remain static.
Gadfly doesn’t understand that. And we’ll return to this point later.
We live in a Fallen World (remember, Gadfly moonlights as a philosopher-theologian weekends), is all he can say.
Gadfly has remarked that he got into this issue late, that he didn’t have a full grasp of all sides, and wondered what could have caused a marathon Zoning Board meeting in the past.
Now he knows.
Yesterday’s meeting on whether the stately home at 2 W. Market can be used for commercial purposes went well over 2 hours, saw testimony by well over a dozen people, and posed such a knotty problem that our Planning Commission deadlocked 2-2 not once but twice. (There are officially 5 members of the Commission.)
The petition of the homeowner/business owner now goes before City Council on November 20 (Gadfly is not sure whether this hearing will be part of the normal Council meeting at 7PM or at a special time of 6PM – and will clarify later).
The sides of the issue Gadfly were weakest on – the City and the homeowners – were well represented. There were presentations by the homeowner’s attorney, by one of the Quadrant partners, and by the City. Lots of new information for Gadfly to absorb.
Gadfly plans to break down this issue – which is just one of several “neighborhood control” issues we’ve been following – shortly, but for now the journalists will fill you in on this latest step in a controversy that goes back several years.
Attorney Jim Preston, representing Morning Star, proposed an amendment that would allow for both uses by special exception, which would need to be granted by the zoning hearing board if the amendment were first approved by council. He contended that both the zoning hearing board and county court had upheld the variance request, finding it presented no harm to the surrounding community.
Tim Stevens, an attorney representing five residents opposed to the use, contended that allowing the amendment to pass would constitute “spot zoning.” He said it would open the door for more non-conforming uses and would serve to diminish housing options. “It’s self-serving; it doesn’t benefit the welfare of all the Bethlehem citizens,” he said.
Kori Lannan, of Quadrant, dismissed the notion that they would eventually flip the business to another entity, and said she and her four business partners are committed to the community because they are all lifetime residents of Bethlehem. “We love being part of historic downtown Bethlehem and contributing to its preservation in a meaningful way,” she said.
Planning and Zoning Director Darlene Heller cautioned the board that there was no way to know how many properties would be affected in other parts of the city if the amendment is approved. “Therefore the end result of the amendment is unclear,” she said.
Several nearby residents, some of them business owners, spoke in favor of allowing Quadrant to continue, and praised the owners for beautifying the building that sat on the market for an extended period. Daniel Nigito, a certified financial planner who lives on West Market Street and operates a business at a separate address there, said he supports the business, referring to himself and Quadrant as “the caretakers” of the district’s vintage structures. “We take care of them because of what they represent to the city,” he said.
Neighboring resident Barbara Diamond said that, despite the effort put into beautifying the building, it still doesn’t fit into the character of the community. “It’s still an office, it’s not a home,” she said. Councilwoman Paige Van Wirt, who also lives nearby, made it clear how she would likely vote. Adding her voice to the objectors, she said Quadrant should have sought to fill one of the vacancies along Broad Street, where zoning for professional office space is in place. “Our zoning map is an aspirational map, it’s residential — that’s what we want it to be,” she said.
Planning Commissioner Joy Cohen, who voted against the amendment, said she was “very concerned” about how it would impact other portions of the city. Fellow commissioner Matthew Malozi, who voted with her, said he had to base his decision solely on Bethlehem’s Comprehensive Plan, and not on emotion.
Here’s the bottom line: City Council last night voted 6-1 to table indefinitely the Bethlehem Parking Authority’s proposal to increase fines, an action that BPA even suggested. The motion can be taken off the table at any time, and the legislative process will start over. The meter rate increase will still go into effect January 1 as planned. Mayor Donchez made his longest statement yet (which we hope to publish here) about the history of Polk garage planning and promised more info early next year. All agreed something will eventually have to be done about the fines. In a related development, Council voted 4-3 to deny re-appointment of the bulldog bodyguard BPA solicitor who famously told Gadfly that “Nobody gets to interrogate the Board” during a meeting, then also attempted to thwart his questions after a meeting as well.
The discussion of the fine proposal was long and very interesting. Gadfly will return shortly with a more extensive description and some analysis – and video.
Bethlehem City Council is holding off on a request to hike city parking violation fines until it can get more information from the city’s parking authority. A majority of council was reticent to back the ordinances that would hike the fines on first reading Wednesday evening and voted 6-1 to postpone them indefinitely.
Donchez said the authority wanted more time and planned to come back to council in early 2019 to discuss the fines and the financing options for a new parking garage planned for the corner of East Third and Polk streets. The authority is now exploring whether it will finance Polk Street independently or with bonds backed by a city guarantee, Donchez said.
“There’s not a lot of confidence currently in what is the long-term plan for the parking authority,” Council President Adam Waldron said. “It kind of feels like they are making it up as they go.” Waldron noted that’s likely more reflective of poor communication, rather than poor planning. Waldron emphasized that parking authority Executive Director Kevin Livingston himself requested the matter be tabled, which was echoed by Donchez.
Councilman Bryan Callahan, who is the liaison to the parking authority, adamantly opposed postponing votes on the measures indefinitely. He argued at length about how crucial it was to hike the fines and the meter rates at the same time. Otherwise, long-term parkers are likely to roll the dice, not pay the meters and risk getting a $10 fine, he said. This will hurt businesses that need meters to turn over, Callahan said. “All we are voting on is a ticket fine, not the Polk Street garage,” he said. “They (the authority) are willing to wait until we get our act together. They’re into parking. They’re not into politics. They get a mandate from the mayor. The parking authority director works at the will of the mayor.” He criticized other council members for using the fines as “leverage” over the authority and making them political.
The mayor does plan to still make the parking meter rate hike effective Jan. 1. Councilwoman Paige Van Wirt suggested the Jan. 1 date is arbitrary and the city could opt to hold off on raising meter rates until council is ready to pass the fine increase. Donchez did not respond to the suggestion during the meeting.
Councilman J. William Reynolds said council is hoping to bring more transparency to the discussions and more public understanding about the relationship between a city and its authority. He pressed Donchez to lay out a vision and be clear on the impetus for some “large scale decisions.” “The administration’s job is to stand up and say, ‘This is what we think is best,'” Reynolds said.
The mayor reiterated how crucial the Polk Street parking deck is to the ongoing redevelopment of East Third Street in South Bethlehem and to the success of Northampton Community College, The Factory, St. Luke’s Health Network and Lehigh Valley Charter High School for the Arts. NCC and Charter Arts have committed to 265 spaces in the garage.
The mayor reiterated how crucial the Polk Street parking deck is to the ongoing redevelopment of East Third Street in South Bethlehem and to the success of Northampton Community College, The Factory, St. Luke’s Health Network and Lehigh Valley Charter High School for the Arts. NCC and Charter Arts have committed to 265 spaces in the garage.
There’s a lot to chew on in this latest parking chapter. Been a busy week. The Planning Commission meeting today on 2 W. Market was riveting as well. So Gadfly has a lot to catch you up on.
The Gadfly invites “local color” creative pieces of this sort. See other examples by clicking “local color” on the sidebar.
Monday. August 27, 2018. 7:45 a.m. Center Street. The bus driver and I locked eyes. Sharing daggers. His eyes flicked to his mirror. Cars disappearing over the hill, stacked maybe to Macada, tires impatiently pawing the asphalt. My eyes flicked to my mirror. Cars back to Dewberry, menacing, growling, like a hungry pride behind a lead lion blocking their way to a fresh Zebra carcass. The bus driver and I locked eyes again, severely slit now. Our fuses blown. The bus finally lurched forward like a carriage on a roller coaster. A split-second later, a snappily dressed boy appeared at the edge of the driveway, fully formed, like a hologram beamed directly from the back-to-school department at Target. Too late. His head corkscrewed in disbelief. No help in sight. Stranded between worlds. The boy and I locked eyes. And my anger mellowed in memories of my own fear-filled first days.
Edward J. Gallagher
Originally appeared in the Bethlehem Press, September 25, 2018.
We happened to have Gadfly videographer Owen Gallagher at the City Council meeting last night where several residents took the opportunity to prime Council on the 2 W. Market issue heading toward them after the Planning Commission meeting this afternoon as I write.
So Gadfly is able to provide here two videos of residents giving testimony against the petition of 2 W. Market to make a special exception to zone their property for commercial use.
Marty Romeril also gave a spirited talk, but, unfortunately, we were not set up soon enough to capture him on audio or video.
Followers know that Gadfly loves to showcase residents in an advocacy role, as respect for their involvement and as invitation for others to come to Council and speak their minds.
It is wonderful to watch residents in such active “political” roles.
Gadfly is all about increased public participation and salutes those who speak up.
“You may think, what are all these Center City people coming in complaining all the time? Well, we feel our neighborhoods are being invaded. There are people who want to turn our residences into offices and hotels and our churches into homeless shelters. And we’re a residential neighborhood.”
“A rental is a residential property.”
“On the map that the Planning Commission has been given [to make their decision], the property that my son has which is owner-occupied residential is labeled mixed-use. . . . The map is really useless, it’s bogus.”
“There’s an error in the petition, an alleged statement of fact which is incorrect. The petition states that it is not possible to use 2 W. Market as a residence. That’s not true. It’s true that the petitioners don’t want to use it as a residence. . . . If the price were reduced sufficiently, he could sell it as a residence.”
Good Evening Council President Waldron, Council Members, Mayor Donchez
A Bethlehem Moment: October 2 to October 8, 1916
Within a whirlwind one-week period in October 1916, citizens of the two Bethlehems worked intensely together to raise the final financial piece in funding the Hill-to-Hill Bridge. Large clocks were mounted on the Bethlehem Trust Company north of the river and the E.P. Wilbur Trust Company on the south, where crowds of people gathered at lunch each day singing songs and making speeches while watching the new funding total posted. In the end, in an awesome display of ground-roots civic power, individuals raised over $200,000 towards providing a long-awaited secure and stable link between the two Bethlehems. The Hill-to-Hill Bridge — with its eight approaches plus crossing a river, a canal, and four railroads — was an engineering marvel of its day, and the “fraternal cooperation” of the final campaign to build it spurred the Greater Bethlehem movement. One year later the two Bethlehems would be one.
For the full story, see “The Hill-to-Hill Bridge: A Story of ‘Fraternal Cooperation’” under Bethlehem Moments on The Bethlehem Gadfly, September 16, 2018 (thebethlehemgadfly.com/).
So the inaugural “Bethlehem Moment” should come to pass tonight!
Remember that the Momentor will be Gadfly granddaughter Riley Gallagher. Riley will read the Moment during public comment so that Gadfly can buzz on about other things.
Please make Riley feel welcome.
Remember too that this is the beginning of a try-out before a proposal to Council to formally add a Bethlehem Moment to the prayer and the pledge as part of the ritual opening of Council meetings.
For good or for bad, let’s remember who we are as Bethlehem residents.
We’ll see how it goes for a while and see if it’s worth a formal proposal to Council.
Anyone interested in participating in this trial run should contact Gadfly.
Over the past several posts, Gadfly has filled in details about and his thinking about these “Moments.”
Some additions.
Gadfly’s thinking the Moments should be approx. 1 minute in length. To give you an idea what that looks like, for Gadfly’s speaking pace that’s about 10 lines of type in a normal 12pt. font size.
Gadfly thinks all Momentors should bring a clean copy (with your name and date ) to give to city clerk Louise Kelchner for the minutes and perhaps for collection purposes or other uses in the future.
Gadfly was thinking a bit more about the subjects of the minutes.
Gadfly doesn’t think they should be about recent history. He would say topics anywhere from the colonial period through the 1950s or so.
And Gadfly’d also say that the topics don’t have to be the big, obvious events and obvious people. The Bethlehem Moments should for sure focus as well on the “little guy” and the “little noticed” that also go a long way to displaying the character and the quality of our town. As a matter of fact, we should try to discover and uncover previously unknown or little regarded aspects of our history.
History isn’t always made in the headlines.
At some point, too, we should build a small bibliography of resources of use to potential Momentors.
Just last night Gadfly wrote: “There’s actually quite a bit of drama going on. But yet it’s under the surface. The news [regarding the parking issue] hasn’t really been covering this process in any intensive way. The town isn’t on the edge of its seats.”
Gadfly is not exactly sure what to make of this at the moment. The situation has corners Gadfly has not explored yet. And Gadfly’s day is chock-full. No time for much contemplation.
Does this change the dynamics of tonight’s meeting at all?
Gadfly is putting it out there to you to think about.
Here are some quotes from Sara’s article that jumped out at him:
Some Bethlehem City Council members were surprised to learn last week that a prominent city developer was awarded an $800,000 grant out of a tax fund they thought was almost empty. The same developer is a member of the investment group the Bethlehem Parking Authority is paying $2.1 million to buy land for a new city parking garage. And it left them wondering: If the city’s tax increment financing district fund had $800,000 in it, why wasn’t it put toward the cost of a new city parking authority garage planned for the corner of East Third and Polk streets instead of going toward private development?
“At the time we made the decision to fund Five10Flats, there was no discussion about the garage,” Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Tony Hanna said. “I’m not saying it’s not a legitimate question to ask, but it is a little late.”
“The Peron grant marks the first time TIF funds were awarded to a taxable, private development. Five10Flats also sits in the City Revitalization and Improvement Zone.”
[CRIZ, by the way, is chaired by the bodyguard BPA solicitor you have heard about here on Gadfly.]
“The money is there to spur development, not to enhance the private development that is already happening,” [Councilwoman Van Wirt] said. “It is not like this project was going to stop when it was already underway. It was already being done.”
“It was exactly what the TIF was intended to do: site remediation,” Hanna said Monday, noting the award was made in a public meeting. “We spent money on some appropriate issues.”
Questions surrounding the grant are interwoven with council’s questions about the future of parking and economic development incentive benefits in Bethlehem. It’s left some on council wondering about who benefits from the deal and if there were better uses for the money.
“I did not think there was money available,” Councilman J. William Reynolds said. “I was under the impression from the last couple of years that the parking authority was tasked with coming up with a plan for a Polk Street garage because there was no money left for the RDA to do it.”
Hanna sees the questions about using the grant for Polk Street as a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. “Nobody asked me that question,” Hanna said. “We made the decision to fund Five10Flats as a standalone discussion. That was never on the table that the parking authority could use another $800,000.”
One of the most sought after properties in the TIF is a modest parking lot at the corner of East Third and Polk streets where city leaders have long envisioned a parking deck anchored by retail.
The plans date back to the Callahan administration when the redevelopment authority was spearheading the project. That authority spent almost $1 million designing and gaining city approval for the almost 600-space deck.
But plans stalled when a ground-lease deal for the property petered out and the authority began to question whether enough new projects would be built in the TIF to support an almost $13.3 million garage. The redevelopment authority and NCC have secured $2.5 million in state grants for the deck.
The redevelopment authority then handed over the project to the parking authority, which finally just inked a $2.1 million agreement to buy the land from Sand BethWorks Retail LLC, the development group that includes the Sands and Perrucci.
At one time, the Sands was supposed to sell the land for $1, Negron said, and now she is learning from meeting minutes that the parking authority bought the land.
“I am very frustrated because they keep making decisions without coming in front of us and then they come to us as if we have no other choice but voting in favor because the parking authority and the city will be in trouble if we don’t support it,” she said. “It is in the wrong order.”
Donchez’s administration hopes the luxury apartments atop a Starbucks and restaurants represents the first spark of economic resurgence in that stretch of the South Side. The mayor sees the parking garage as the crucial linchpin in that redevelopment, which will hopefully eat up the surrounding vacant parking lots that are all owned by the Sands development group.
Council is being asked Wednesday night to hike parking fines by almost 50 percent to encourage folks to actually feed the meters and to help fund the city’s parking infrastructure needs.
Waldron sent a lengthy memo to the parking authority pressing it to provide a long-term plan for how it is going to build a Polk Street deck, repair or replace the Walnut Street garage and maintain its other structures.
“The goals need to be clear, the financing needs to be clear and the idea that this Polk Street garage is the magic bullet that will draw development to East Third street is an antiquated notion,” Van Wirt said. “Development is there.”
Van Wirt is concerned about the authority’s ability to pay for another parking deck.
“I don’t want to stick my kids with paying for an out-of-date parking garage that is not going to be used,” she said.
