Month: December 2018

Walking for Peace: LEPOCO

It sounds like a question you’d find on Steve Harvey’s “Family Feud” show. Which you must know. It’s on every tv channel all day and all night.

“What store in Bethlehem would you not want your spouse or kids to see you coming out of?”

Now you are thinking maybe Cupid’s Treasures on Stefko. Or maybe Vegan Treats on Linden.

Seriously.

LepocoHow about LEPOCO, 313 W 4th St.?

The LEPOCO Peace Center: Lehigh-Pocono Committee of Concern

Look at it hidden behind that tree. Little signs of life. It’s always dimly lit. Posters on windows obscure what’s going on inside. It’s sinister. Scary, by golly.

Is it a cult? Will you be indoctrinated? Do they smoke pot? Will an intervention be necessary?

I crossed the threshold last Sunday. Rainy, you might remember. I wore a trenchcoat with the collar turned up, a woolen Eagles hat pulled low. (I couldn’t find my ski mask.)

I was assaulted with signs that made me feel morally inadequate.

 

Lepocopians have causes.

When was the last time you had a cause? (100yrs ago the nuns forced me to contribute “Pennies for Pagan Babies” – Oii.)

They fight injustice.

They demonstrate.

They vigil.

They hold signs.

They probably cabal.

They hold feet to the fire.

They stand on street corners.

They seek peace.

They walk for peace.

In fact, the Christmas Walk for Peace from Nazareth to Bethlehem (10 miles) is this Saturday.

Gadfly’s gonna fold his wings and walk.

Join me? You can walk smaller segments, joining and leaving where you want.

Or how about contributing a $1 a mile to LEPOCO for whatever Gadfly completes?

You don’t have to sign up or anything. I’ll let you know what I do.

But watch it, causes can be contagious.

Democracy in Action (42)

(42nd in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

Nicole Radzievich, “In a Nail-Biter, Council Backs Quadrant Staying in Historic Bethlehem. Morning Call, December 5, 2018.

Sara K. Satullo, “Why Neighbors Aren’t Excited about This Business Invested $1.3M in a Historic Home in Their Neighborhood.” lehighvalleylive.com, December 5, 2018.

Jacob Kise, “Bethlehem Council Approves Amendment Allowing Historic House to be Converted to Office.” WFMZ-TV, December 5, 2018.

Gadfly left you at the end of his last post urging those of you who were not involved in the 2 W. Market issue to come to the meeting to witness “democracy in action.”

Gadfly knew it was a “can’t miss” for those involved.

But for the rest of Gadfly followers it should have been a “can’t miss” as well.

It was indeed democracy in action, Gadfly’s Norman Rockwell small-town fantasy come alive.

Maybe 30 speakers on this the third night of testimony totaling over 10 hrs. total.

When Gadfly spoke he couldn’t help calling attention to the vigorous contrasting comments that preceded him by Mr. Fitzpatrick “for” and Mr. Diamond “against” — the high quality passionate presentations that Gadfly has always admired by our residents.

Mr. Rij, patriarch of the petitioners, made a dramatic climactic appearance.

The Mayor spoke.

And then the voting. Tension high.

CW Negron “no.”

CM Colon “no.”

Gasp: 0-2.

CM Callahan, long, long, and then “yes.”

CM Martell “yes.”

O, god, 2-2.

CW Van Wirt “no.”

CM Reynolds “yes.”

Be still my heart, 3-3.

President Waldron, making us die a thousand deaths as he suspensefully wrung us to conclusion:

“This is going to be a 4-3 vote [yes, yes, we get it, but which way?], which is a rare thing on this Council. More often than not it’s 7-0 because there are clear answers and clear solutions to problems [yes, yes, history later, which side? which side?]. This is one where it’s a little bit trickier for sure. Last night we had our 4th budget meeting in which we were discussing a $78m budget for our city including a tax increase of 3% [tonight, damn it, tonight, how are you voting?]. We ended the meeting with one person from the public who was here to be part of that meeting [There were 2 for most of the meeting, but Gadfly was called away for a meeting with his therapist]. This goes to show you where a $78m budget lines up with how people passionately feel about their neighborhood. I think that shows the level of engagement in a both positive and negative way, depending on how you want to look at it [if you wait any longer, I’m urging impeachment]. I think it ultimately comes down to the point of what Dr. Van Wirt said [you, you, President Adam Waldron, you, what are you saying?], is this a net positive for the neighborhood and the city. And I come down clearly on the side that yes, it is. So I will be supporting the amendment this evening [Gadfly fainted].

4-3 in favor of the petition.

Gadfly, remember, had his wing on denial.

Second reading (and voting) on December 18. So don’t go away.

And stay tuned for some analysis of the evening’s proceedings.

“Butts in the Seats” tonight!

(41th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

Gadfly thanks faithful Southside follower for the slogan.

Gadfly is speaking to a slice of his followers here. You know who you are.

He borrows it to exhort you to attend the City Council meeting at 7PM tonight in the Town Hall rotunda.

The whole reason for the Gadfly project is citizen participation.

Some of you have been kind enough to say that participation through Gadfly has been good.

Not enough.

Get your buttz in the seatz!

You have been following the important “neighborhood” issue in the 2 W. Market controversy.

You have engaged. You have ideas. You have opinions. You may have worries. You may have a favorite.

Come and hear it play out tonight.

Gadfly alerted us a few posts back that the City is working on plans that may enable us to click from Fox News or CNN or Entertainment Tonight at 7PM every other Tuesday to catch “Live From Bethlehem, It’s City Council”!

That will be good. But still not like being there.

Come tonight. Crane your neck at our handsome Christmas tree. Luxuriate in the awesome view from the parapet.

Best of all, though, is democracy in action.

 

The 7 Myths of 2 West Market (40)

(40th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

Bruce Haines is a Lehigh graduate who returned to Bethlehem after a 35-year career at USSteel. He put together a 12-member Partnership to rescue the Hotel Bethlehem from bankruptcy in 1998 and lives in the historic district.

Gadfly:

Clearly there are several myths that have been perpetrated during the five years we have been dealing with this commercial intrusion effort.  Let’s sort them out:

Myth #1) The house is too large and rundown to sell as a single-family home:

+The home itself is comparable in size & condition to many other homes in the historic district all of whom have sold and remained single family homes.  Exhibit of 23 Single family homes in the district over 3000 sf that sold in this decade was presented to council.

Myth #2) The house has no yard for children to play and therefore undesirable for a family:

+The Schadt’s raised their family there as did every other occupant for over 160 years.

+Location across the street from Moravian Academy is highly desirable for a family with children

+Empty Nesters moving back from the suburbs don’t want big yards to maintain but want large houses for family visits and want homes walkable to downtown.

Myth #3) Because of the retail commercial building buyers can’t get a mortgage:

+This is pure smoke and mirrors as bankers are more interested in appraised value.  It is each bank’s decision whether they finance thru their residential lending or commercial lending department.  In either case the mortgage payments are not materially different and many empty nester buyers for this property may be cash buyers not requiring financing.

Myth #4) The house languished while on the market in 2013 and Morningstar saved the property:

+ Morning Star put the house under contract less than 4 months after its multi-listing in a market where historic district homes generally took 1-2 years to sell.  This property clearly never had the opportunity to determine its market value for a buyer to use the property as it had always been used as a single family home with rental income supplement.

+Morning Star went forward to buy the home despite being turned down twice for a variance by the ZHB and before their appeal decision was even handed down by the Common Pleas Court—why would a rational person move forward under those circumstances were there not pressure from another prospective buyer to purchase the property?

Myth #5) Quadrant Financial loves the historic district and wants to be a good neighbor to the community:

+Good Neighbors don’t threaten their neighbors with Section 8 housing, tattoo parlors, or more recently Drug rehab facilities if they don’t get their way.  The courts have consistently ruled against this change.  City Council zoning changes attempted in both 2015 and twice now in 2018 have continually carried these threats to neighbors including during a petition signing process in 2015.

Myth #6) The ZHB finally approved their petition on the 3rd attempt and they therefore had a green light to move into the property in 2017 and should be rewarded for spending nearly $1 million:

+ Morning Star knew full well that this approval was under appeal and proceeded at their own risk while the appeal process played out thru the court system.  The final unanimous Commonwealth Court decision did not occur until May 2018 that overturned the city ZHB flawed ruling.

+ Morning Star proceeded while blatantly violated 2 specific conditions imposed by the ZHB:

  • Added a huge 3rd floor fire escape and removed the iconic iron gate in direct violation of the provision for no exterior alterations to change the residential character of the main house.
  • Failed to close the retail store when they opened the office which was a specific provision of the ZHB allowing only one nonconforming use on the property.

Myth #7) The City Administration has been neutral with respect to this property:

+The Mayor put forth a proposal to the Planning Commission in 2015 to accommodate this property owner that included rezoning one block of Market Street to include this parcel after the Commonwealth court upheld the original ZHB decision to preclude an office at this property.

+The city held back sending this proposal to Council after the Planning Commission failed to endorse this apparent spot zoning effort knowing that it did not have Council majority vote.

+City failed to vigorously object to the 2016 variance attempt by Morning Star that resulted in the 180 degree reversal by the ZHB to permit the office use after emphatic denial in 2013 upheld by higher courts.

+City facilitated the approval process for a Certificate of Occupancy in 2017 despite the blatant violations of conditions imposed by the ZHB decision cited in Myth #6.

+ Is the city totally incompetent or did major contributions to an organization that supports the Police Department somehow influence their approval and enforcement decisions, or is there simply only the appearance of such?

+The inconsistent nature of this petition with the city comprehensive plan and zoning plan requires the city planning professional to speak out professionally against this proposal and that has not occurred for some reason.  In addition, the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission altered their Committee recommendation to weaken its response at the 11th hour for some unknown reason.

Bruce

Crunch Time (2) (39)

(39th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

Posting at a late hour. Was watching the Garth Brooks special from my alma mater.  Any of you rockin’ along with me?

But time to decide about 2 W. Market St.

After the second long hearing, this one before City Council, and further extensive reflection, including a kind of intense role playing of each position (posts 35 & 36), Gadfly again sees denial of the petition as the proper course of action, just as he did after the Planning Commission meeting (see post 26).

Gadfly was moved by Planning Commissioner Malozzi’s thoughtful recognition of the need to “cut away” much of the emotional and even factual testimony and focus on what Gadfly would call “the heart of the matter” – a “standard” by which to judge the petition.

Where else to find such a standard, such a policy, such a principle, such guidance, such law but in the Constitution-like Bethlehem Comprehensive Plan and the Bethlehem Zoning Ordinance?

  • The petitioners make no appeal to the Comprehensive Plan, a fact clearly noted by the City. Those opposing the petition do make such an appeal, noting recent trends toward residential consolidation in the context of an historical analysis of changing economic conditions in the City.
  • The petitioners make no argument relating to Zoning Ordinance section 1323 regulations governing existing non-conforming uses. In fact, petitioners violate that section of the ordinance. Those opposing the petition align themselves with 1323. In fact, one might say the essence of their argument is 1323 in holding that the Zoning intent is to reduce mixed or non-conforming use not maintain or proliferate it when the opportunity arises.

These two “heart of the matter” points are enough for Gadfly to hold for denial of the petition. But here are comments about a select few, but by no means all, of the other aspects of the controversy:

  • One can deny the petition without impugning the character, good intentions, and good work of the petitioners.
  • Petitioner’s argument that their petition is an “amendment” to section 1304.04 is strained. It does not “amend” but “repeal and replace.” It makes a perfectly fine and un-assailed 1304.04 into something entirely different.
  • Petitioner’s argument that it was operating a legal business at the time of the petition (and thus aggrieved?) does not make good sense, ignoring, as it does, the prevailing ruling by the State court. No compelling case has been made for ignoring the ruling of the State court. Equally without good sense is, in effect, trying basically the same case again in a local jurisdiction after the highest court has ruled without materially changing the facts of the case, just the approach. This feels like shopping for the outcome you want.
  • Petitioner argues that the impact of the amendment will be relatively minor citywide. But what kind of impact: positive or negative? If there is any possible negative impact, the amendment should be denied. If there is positive impact as in the rationale for the original 1304.04, let that case be made. The evidence the petitioner gathered about other corner properties did not resolve anything of substance.

Now that’s the best that a guy with “Friends In Low Places” can do.

How are you filling out your jury card?

too much like the imperial executive

Breena Holland is an Associate Professor at Lehigh University in the Department of Political Science and the Environmental Initiative. She is a past and current director of Lehigh University’s South Side Initiative.

Gadfly, thanks for this information. It’s fascinating!! Do you have any information about what the “weak Mayor” form of local government would be? That is the form I would be interested in understanding better, especially if it gives more power to the City Council. I think one problem we have is that we need more ideas than just one person — the Mayor — can provide. What would happen if councilmembers were paid a more reasonable wage to help with some of the tasks involved in city governance? Right now the mayor gets all the money and has all the power and all the responsibility. I fear it is too much like the imperial executive. I think the city would benefit from a broader distribution of responsibility, in particular.

Breena

Yes, Gadfly can return to this with, especially, some opinion from that time period about how the Commission form was perceived. His sense at this point is that the Commission form was not well liked, was seen as inefficient. But this deserves a closer look at the specific reasons. And Gadfly, ever-the-utopian, wonders whether there is a 4th and even better choice, wonders with Thoreau whether “there is a still more perfect and glorious [form of city government] imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.”

 

Fighting City Hall: November 4, 1958

This story will be the subject of the next Bethlehem Moment at City Council.

You just never know. Where there’s an interesting – and even inspiring – story for a Bethlehem Moment.

Gadfly, as some of you are aware, is coming up on his first-year anniversary of observing City affairs. It was Christmas-time last year that he resolved to act on his long-time hankerin’ (Gadfly loves and for many years taught the classic Westerns – can you tell?) to attend some City Council meetings.

And he was immediately struck by the “architecture” of the meeting – Council members in judicial-like semicircle at the head of the hall, with the Mayor on the side. What’s with this, Gadfly thought? Isn’t the Mayor top-dawg?  Then hearing the occasional distressed resident addressing his or her distress to a Council that in most instances had no direct powers to redress the distress.  And meetings in which the Mayor seemingly rarely spoke, even in his assigned “report” time on the agenda. It took a while for Gadfly to recognize the Mayor’s voice. At election time, from Gadfly’s sideline seat, the mayoral race seemed the focus. City Council members were faceless to him. Yet here the site of power was the “City Council” meeting, seemingly above the mayor. City Council ran the meeting – did they “run” the City?

Curious to Gadfly. Odd. Puzzling. Intriguing.

How do things get done in the City? Who’s in charge? Where’s the power?

And why do we have this form of city government? And how did we get it?

So Gadfly was happy to use a Bethlehem Moment as the occasion to do a little historical research. You’ll find the long version of a piece of his research on this linked short essay – short but still too long for top billing on a blog like this. Gadfly hopes you will click the link and take a few of your own Bethlehem moments to read:

Fighting City Hall – and Winning, November 4, 1958

The short of this part of Gadfly’s research is that when Bethlehem was born in modern form in 1917, it operated under the state-mandated Commission (so-called Weak Mayor) form of government. In 1957 the state granted cities the voluntary option of staying with that form or choosing between two other forms: the Strong Mayor-City Council form and the City Manager form.

The Democrats ran Bethlehem, and an entrenched element of the Democratic Party fought efforts by the Bethlehem Junior Chamber of Commerce to study the advantages and disadvantages of the three options and provide residents with an opportunity to choose among them. How’s that for democracy – the opportunity to choose your form of government!! The “political novices” successfully fought the “machine,” educated the general populace about the choices they had, and voters ultimately chose our current Strong Mayor-City Council form of government.

gov 4

It’s a pretty amazing and, I say again, inspiring story of the power of the public to fight – and beat – City Hall. Not that every City Hall has to be beaten, mind you.

But this is the kind of story that we need to periodically remind us where the power ultimately lies. With us. Out here in the cheap seats at Town Hall. And beyond.

Please read: Fighting City Hall – and Winning, November 4, 1958

This is a story of Bethlehem residents taking control of their own destiny. Never easy. But doable.

Beware setting a precedent (38)

(38th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

Steven Diamond, DO, MBA is a Medical Examiner of Hunterdon County, NJ, and a forensic pathologist. He is a board member of multiple international start-up companies and is the Medical Director of clinical trials laboratories.

Gadfly:

Another consideration has become apparent. The Council will be setting a precedent for petitioners to write their own exception to the ordinances, let alone the corner store. Anyone can use 1326 amendment to get in front of City Council. The most dangerous, Air B and B. Mr. Brew has two corner properties. He has the same law firm as Rij. Who’s to stop Brew from making his own “cut and pastes” to the corner store ordinance once a precedent is made.

A no vote tells the public you cannot change an ordinance this way. If they set a precedent, suits of discrimination will follow. They will have to answer: why I chose this petitioner and not the other.

Steve

Founding Fathers and Mother

Gadfly is researching the history of the Bethlehem Charter Commission for the next “Bethlehem Moment.”

Charter

Here is the newly elected group — November 13, 1958 — that gave us our current Mayor-City Council form of government.

Elaine Meilicke was the top vote-getter.

Not all that long ago — any connections with these folk we should know about?

Charles Donches is not related to our Mayor but is the father of Steve Donches, who was head of the National Museum of History.

An interesting story here, but you’ll have to wait for the “Moment” to hear all about it!