(64th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)
Half-time of the Eagles. Be still my heart.
Time for Gadfly to come forward in his own self on 2 W. Market.
Though he has done so twice before. See posts 26 and 39 in this sequence if you want a comparison.
Here’s his third shot.
Gadfly is still for denial of the petition for a text amendment.
Call Gadfly “Straight Arrow.”
He is a law-man.
For a “standard” by which to judge the petition, he looks for a basis in law or something like law.
Thus, Gadfly looks to:
- the Bethlehem Comprehensive Plan
- the Bethlehem Zoning Ordinance
- the decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
If specifically argued that the text amendment is a change in law, Gadfly feels that it
- has not been demonstrated to be a good for the city
- a fact he believes admitted by the petitioner’s attorney Dec 4 in reply to Mr. Walker
The various opposing arguments might be lumped under the general headings of positive characterizations of the petitioner and of the house itself.
The statement of the position against this position that most jumped out at Gadfly came from PVW:
We’re not in the business of judging on the merit to a change in our city zoning code based on someone’s aesthetics, their wealth, their access to connected lawyers. We are in the business of judging the laws we passed are in the best interest of all the city and all of the citizens of the city. Someone’s personal characteristics and aesthetics and impact on that corner and all of that is honestly secondary to what are we doing for the whole of the city.
That seems to Gadfly “right on”! The kind of view that promises fair and objective decisions, the kind that ensures City Hall is not for sale or for favorites.
The irrelevance of the entire set of sub-arguments springing from positive characterizations of the petitioner and the house is clear from this letter to Council from the atty representing those who oppose the petition. The case will be tried and settled on the basis of law.
Now, Gadfly has commented on the Council votes and supporting statements. That’s next.