Month: May 2019

What do the Council candidates have to say about their “unique qualifications” to serve? (48)

(48th in a series of posts on candidates for election)

Election Day is May 21

That’s five days from today!

Be sure to review the Gadfly series of Q&A’s with candidates, the like of which you can get nowhere else, on these pairs of posts in the candidates series: 45/44, 36/35, 31/30, 26/25, 24/23, 20/19, 17/16.

The third general question that BCDC asked of all the candidates was:

“What single skill or experience makes you uniquely qualified to serve on Bethlehem City Council?”

Candidates for the one 2yr. seat

Will Carpenter: “fluency in the development process, I spent twenty years negotiating with mayors, councils . . . I know how the process works.”

Grace Crampsie Smith: “I’m a bridge builder . . . I’ve had to look at different sides . . . I’ve always looked at the whole situation pragmatically and objectively.”

Candidates for the three 4yr. seats

Michael Colon: “I grew up in the Marvine neighborhood of Bethlehem, I was raised by my grandparents . . . we didn’t have a lot. Through hard work I’ve been able to achive the things I have today . . . I am one of two Spanish-speaking members of City Council . . . I relate to members of the City in any neighborhood . . . I volunteer work, I stay involved

J. William Reynolds: “I bring forth creative solutions to problems in our community . . . It’s never been enough for me to say “no,” it’s about how you come up with a “yes” . . . an ability to work through disagreement to come up with creative visions.”

Carol Ritter: “My one thing is leadership, I have led many boards in my career . . . leadership is about service . . . raised [with her team] millions of dollars for the Children’s Room [in the library].”

David Saltzer: “I worked for the City  . . . born and raised in the City . . . and I was also a Union president . . . [looked at budgets from three perspectives] as a taxpayer, what was good for the City, and what was good for the Union.”

Paige Van Wirt: “I used to be an urban planner . . . I think I really understand what makes a healthy city . . . not afraid to ask questions . . . I understand the CRIZ . . . sidewalks . . . why were we not funding a feasibility study for a pedestrian bridge . . . I bring a different perspective to City Council.”

Be sure to review the Gadfly series of Q&A’s with candidates, the like of which you can get nowhere else, on these pairs of posts in the candidates series: 45/44, 36/35, 31/30, 26/25, 24/23, 20/19, 17/16.

Vote and vote informed!

Insurers KNOW WHATS IN THE DUST! (61)

(61st in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

George Lopez is retired after working twenty years with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Gadfly:

Reading this [post #60], here is what gets me. During all of the countless meetings between the owners, contractors, city, county, and state people that Councilperson Callahan mentions, why didn’t anybody ask one simple question ” Is dust damage covered by the contractor’s liability insurance?” The answer would be “No, only accidental discharges are covered (and this could hardly be called “accidental”) which brings us to the next question. “Why won’t the insurers cover it?” ITS BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHATS IN THE DUST! The risk is too great.

George

Reflecting on the demolition discussion (60)

(60th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Risk tolerance should not be the default position of public officials.
(Breena Holland)

I wish all this didn’t make me think of Erin Brockovich, but it does . . .
(Nalyn Marcus)

Thank you, all of you . . . I personally think they have done what they possibly could do in the right way to take this building down.
(Resident Jean at the May 9 meeting)

The demolition of Martin Town is a “done deal” said two residents in the response period at the end of the May 9 night meeting at Nitschmann.

Maybe so.

But if so, it’s time to reflect.

Gadfly is thinking about several things.

One is the type of representation we want, the type of representative we have.

Councilpersons Van Wirt and Callahan were particularly illustrative at the discussion of the demolition at the May 7 City Council meeting, as I detailed in post #38.

Gadfly thinks that Van Wirt and Callahan are in a real sense talking to each other.

North pole and south pole.

Please listen to this interchange and ask yourself what kind of citizen each Councilperson envisions. And ask yourself how you would describe the tone of their deliveries.

Listen. Take the time to listen. It’s important.

Don’t look down at the transcript.

Listen first.

Councilperson Van Wirt (6 mins.):

Councilperson Callahan (3 mins.):

Ok, now listen to this second interchange.

Listen.

Councilperson Van Wirt (30 seconds):

Councilperson Callahan (2 mins.):

What are you thinking?

What kind of citizen does each Councilperson envision?

So, now here are transcripts. But the tone is as important to my question as the content. So listening is primary.

Councilperson Van Wirt: “I’m trying to get this information to the people. . . . The time frame for this is still troublesome . . . so the citizens aren’t at the last minute feeling that they are scrambling for answers that they want to know for their health. . . .The predominant concern that I’m hearing about is health concerns, and these are legitimate health concerns. . . . I think there is a valid role here for the Department of Health to be involved in disseminating health-related information to the citizens. . . It’s not on the citizens to not have the information. . . . They deserve the right to know the answers to these questions. . . . I would ask that the Department of Health be involved. . . . If we have to double-down and do a deep dive, we need to be doing it. . . . Michael Bloomberg said, ‘In God we trust, everyone else bring data.’ So tell them to bring data.”

Councilperson Callahan: “Can you just tell us briefly all the organizations that have been involved in the planning of the demo? . . . How about from the county? . . . How about the state? . . . And what other departments from the state have been involved? . . . How about the FAA? . . . Are there any county, state, or city organizations that you think should be involved that weren’t involved? . . . And the people that are involved in the demolition, this their first time doing it? . . . Do you know of any buildings that they’ve knocked down that something went wrong? . . . I know you and the owner and everybody else in all the departments that have been involved have done an enormous amount of planning on this. The thing that kind of upsets me is this undertone that all the professionals, these organizations aren’t doing what they are supposed to be doing . . . everybody’s just pushing this through to demo a building . . . I think you are going to find out that a large majority, an astronomical amount of people are informed about it and feel completely safe about it and you are going to see a lot of people getting up early in the morning to watch it, and they have no fear of anything that’s going on at the site and they have complete confidence in all the professionals as I do.”

What kind of citizen does each Councilperson envision?

Gadfly always hates to speak for others.

But he hears one Councilperson who wants to empower citizens to make their own good decisions and another who is willing to let the “professionals” do the thinking.

Wow! — did Gadfly stretch too far? Is he the only one who hears this?

In any event, it’s worthwhile to ask which kind of citizen you see yourself and what kind of representative you want.

What do the Council candidates have to say about “transparency”? (47)

(47th in a series of posts on candidates for election)

Election Day is May 21

That’s 6 days from today!

Be sure to review the Gadfly series of Q&A’s with candidates, the like of which you can get nowhere else, on these pairs of posts in the candidates series: 45/44, 36/35, 31/30, 26/25, 24/23, 20/19, 17/16.

The second question the Bethlehem City Democratic Committee (BCDC ) asked of all the candidates on May 6 was about transparency:

“Transparency, especially in terms of fiscal matters, is incredibly important to Bethlehem residents. What initiatives do you support to keep the City government accountable?”

Candidates for the one 2yr. seat

Grace Crampsie Smith: “We need to improve accessibility . . . the City web site . . . significant advance notice of meetings . . . very important to consider rotating City Council meetings throughout the City.”

Will Carpenter: “We need you to pay attention . . . We both need to do our part . . . [The City needs to] put more information out there [in local papers] so you don’t have to seek as much.”

Candidates for the three 4yr. seats

Paige Van Wirt: “making sure people have access to meeting agendas and data way in advance of the meetings . . . continue to make the meetings available online . . . all public meetings after 6 o’clock . . . remove any impediments to [participation].”

David Saltzer: “more people coming in and voicing their opinions is going to allow us to do a better job . . . open door policy is also a great thing.”

Carol Ritter: “One of the things that is important to me as a representative of you if I am elected, when I am elected that I am an active listener . . . Transparency is not only about the Administration and City Council but also about the staff.”

J. William Reynolds: Talked about his Open Bethlehem (open data), Fair Accountability Incentive Reporting (FAIR), and the Connecting Bethlehem Survey projects.

Michael Colon: “We’ve taken major steps these last few years to make sure people have access to these meetings . . . I’ve always tried to respect everybody’s opinion and never discourage anyone from wanting to come out to City Council meetings or discourage anyone to make their opinions known.”

Candidate responses to BCDC’s third general question coming soon.

Be sure to review the Gadfly series of Q&A’s with candidates, the like of which you can get nowhere else, on these pairs of posts in the candidates series: 45/44, 36/35, 31/30, 26/25, 24/23, 20/19, 17/16.

Vote and vote informed!

The Bethlehem City Council election: GET BEYOND THE YARD SIGNS!

It’s election season!

One of the primary purposes of the Gadfly project is to foster not only voting but, most importantly, informed voting.

How many times have even the most responsible citizens been faced with a relative lack of substantive information about candidates and found themselves voting on the basis of a yard sign, a pretty face, a familiar name? "Attack of the political signs!"

This is particularly true as in-depth newspaper coverage of Bethlehem politics has gradually lessened.

Gadfly aims to be a resource for getting beyond all that to a solid basis for your vote.

See the “Candidates for election” thread under Topics on the sidebar or under Serious Issues on the top menu where you will find around 50 posts (some with video and audio) helping you to know the candidates better.

Note especially a series of Q&A’s, the like of which you can get nowhere else, on these pairs of posts in the candidates series: 51, 45/44, 36/35, 31/30, 26/25, 24/23, 20/19, 17/16.

Please spend time here and significantly increase the value of your vote.

And, if you are a new visitor, consider following by clicking the button at the top of the sidebar or following on Facebook @TheBethlehemGadfly.

Ed Gallagher

 

 

What do the Council candidates have to say about “neighborhoods”? (46)

(46th in a series of posts on candidates for election)

Election Day is May 21

That’s one week from today!

If you need an absentee ballot, you still may be able to get one today. See links to both Northampton and Lehigh County voter registration at the bottom of the sidebar.

At the May 6 Bethlehem City Democratic Committee (BCDC) candidate forum each candidate was asked to respond to a specific question to which others could respond if they wanted.

Gadfly has already posted the audios of each candidate answering the question and the cluster of responses by other candidates.

BCDC also asked three questions to which each candidate was to give a brief response.

The first question was about neighborhoods:

“All of our candidates have expressed here thatneighborhood improvement is a high priority issue for them. What would you push for City Council’s primary focus to be?”

Candidates for the one 2yr. seat

Will Carpenter: “Let’s improve the walk- and bikeride ability in our town.”

Grace Cramspie Smith: “We have to really look at attacking opioid prices” and “We need stronger enforcement laws for landlords.”

Candidates for the three 4yr. seats

Michael Colon: “I think we need to maintain the level of services and keep trying to provide quality services for all those departments that are the first line of contact with the public.”

J. William Reynolds: “We need to build an initiative that brings together our churches, our schools, our Little Leagues, our community, and build sustainable neighborhoods. That’s how we do it. We turn it over to the neighbors.”

Carol Ritter: “I think the most important thing is that we are not saying here’s what we want you to do . . . what are your ideas, and how can we help you implement them?”

David Saltzer: “We can improve our neighborhoods without losing that city charm without losing that historic feel . . . Get involved in the block watches and let us know what you need.”

Paige Van Wirt: “I think our Zoning Hearing Board needs to be more responsive to the needs of the citizens of Bethlehem and not the developers of Bethlehem . . . We need more code enforcement officers . . . We need to focus on making sure our sidewalks are walkable . . . We need to focus on affordable housing . . . We need to focus on changing our Zoning Code in piloted areas.”

Gadfly will post responses to BCDC’s other two questions in following days.

Vote and vote informed!

Johns Hopkins has never used an implosion to demolish a building (59)

(59th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

George Lopez is retired after working twenty years with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Gadfly:

Johns Hopkins has never used an implosion to demolish a building. That’s blatantly false. The building in question and cited in the study was Broadway Homes, which was owned by the Housing Authority of Baltimore City. Hopkins had no involvement with the implosion other than being an adjacent neighbor.

George

The point of reference here is CDI’s claim that hospitals use implosions, so that implosions must be good.

Bethlehem is essentially supporting the demolition without investigating the health hazard (58)

(58th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Dear Gadfly,

Your most recent questions [post #57] show a willingness to investigate a very difficult political environment. The city essentially is supporting the demolition without investigating the health hazard of demolition. They did have the City of Bethlehem Health Department at the meeting on Thursday, but they allowed the demolition company ( who is in a conflict of interest) to answer health concerns. As I found during my questioning [at the May 9 night meeting], the responses were essentially deflections about our worry about long-term health problems. An argument with them would have mitigated the points, I tried to make. So let me answer some of your questions and responses the company gave to defend the implosion.

1. The amount of dust will be the same if mechanically taken down slowly vs. implosion.
This may or may not be true, but a slow release would not have the magnitude of silica load to the community outside the building. As you questioned, most of the release would be experienced by the workers wearing masks in the building. On the other hand, the implosion would definitely increase the probability of the community to inhale silica since the dust will be outside the building. The mass of silica released all at once would increase the probability of inhalation to cause damage. Once the building is down, the processing of the remains will cause a constant stream of silica dust over a protracted time. If I were frequenting that area afterward, I would wear a mask. It is hard to understand how Lowe’s would not understand that going to their store may cause a health hazard. Maybe their income will drop because of fear of dust contamination. How about all the medical office buildings? Patients with medical disabilities will also be encountering dust from the processing of the remains of Martin Tower.

2. People who work in the cement industry do not have lung problems.
There are multiple papers that refutes this statement. Obviously they either made up the answer from the experience of one person or it was meant to be an outright lie. An example of a paper referring to Portland Cement workers is: Effect of Exposure to Cement Dust among the Workers: An Evaluation of Health Related Complications, published June 20, 2018. As you mentioned, these workers get chronic lung disease from inhalation of silica and lime. [Listen to the comment by resident #4 at the May 9 night meeting: post #56.]

3. Johns Hopkins used demolition as their choice, so why are we questioning the choice?
This statement does not explain if this decision was chosen by the physicians. The decision could have been for a small building away from the hospital. It could have been decided by the management without physician support. So by name-dropping, they were putting up a smoke screen.

The one thing I do know. The cause and subsequent morbid effect is generally distant. The silica ( and possible asbestos) acts as a foreign material that does not go away once inhaled. It stays in the lung. The body’s response is to put fibrous tissue around the irritation. This takes many years. If there is little silica inhaled, the fibrous response may be focal. The residual lung tissue is enough for normal living. However, if there is much silica inhaled, it will effect enough lung tissue to compromise the transfer of oxygen from the alveolar sacs into the capillaries. This causes chronic lung disease. It also could lead to cancerous transformation.

I think the fact that the demolition company could not quote any medical studies after implosion is troubling. They cited a Philadelphia Study on measurements proximal to the implosion. There was no reference to where this information could be found.

I believe the City of Bethlehem has done a poor job in alleviating the problem we are confronting. I would like to know why the city allowed the implosion to occur. I believe the city is opening themselves to future law suits due to negligence once pulmonary diseases manifest themselves in the future.

Steven Diamond, DO, MBA
Forensic Pathologist

Concrete — lime — sand — silica (57)

(57th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Gadfly was a literature prof.

He knows “nuthin'” about the real, practical world out there.

Nuthin’.

Gadfly needs help.

Gadfly do believe (subject to review and documentation) that when asked what will be in the “dust” generated by the Martin Tower implosion — CDI answered twice (subject to review and documentation) that the dust will contain “sand and lime.”

Gadfly thought the dust would contain silica.

CDI did not mention silica.

Gadfly stands to be corrected.

Gadfly wishes somebody would correct him before he goes further, wasting your time.

So Gadfly does poor man’s research on the web and finds this web site: The Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR — The Center for Construction Research and Training is an international leader in applied research and training for the construction industry, and serves as the National Construction Center for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH). Sounds legit.

And reads such things as:

  • The dust created by cutting, grinding, drilling or otherwise disturbing these materials can contain crystalline silica particles.  These dust particles are very small. You cannot see them. This respirable silica dust causes lung disease and lung cancer. It only takes a very small amount of airborne silica dust to create a health hazard.

Now this is a web site that focuses on workers, and when the developer has said that factors influencing the choice of implosion over conventional demolition are “safety and time,” I do believe that it is worker safety that is referred to. And we want worker safety too. But substitute “spectator” for “worker.”

And if one goes on in this web site, you find:

  • A worker’s chance of becoming ill from exposure to silica dust depends on the tasks performed, the amount of dust they are exposed to, and the frequency of the exposures. Each exposure to silica adds into the total load of silica in the lungs – in other words, each exposure adds to the lung damage.

So it may be that one exposure to a small amount of dust of short duration might not affect a healthy spectator.

The argument we have heard is that about the same amount of dust has already been generated in the last 18 months will be generated now in one shot. So there is no worry.

I’m not smart enough to get my mind around that argument. But it sounds fishy.

Might not a large amount of dust all at once be possibly more dangerous to a spectator?

Likewise, I’m not smart enough to figure that out.

Let me repeat from post #39 a site that contradicts developer statements:

The most efficient of all commercial demolition methods is explosion or implosion, but it’s typically only suitable when mechanical demolition and deconstruction aren’t an option. There are public health concerns with this type of demolition, including environmental issues, damage to adjacent structures, flying debris, air quality concerns, noise, and more. When used, this is typically the least expensive commercial demolition method.

And look at the link provided by George Lopez in post #45.

I’m bothered by the idea (subject to review and documentation) that CDI mentions sand and lime but not silica.

So, here’s my bottom line:

1) Is CDI “hiding” the presence of silica in the dust? If so, why?

2) If silica is there, is the amount of exposure here dangerous for spectators?

Anyone clearer headed than I want to press their brow against such questions?

The May 9 night meeting Q&A on the Martin Tower demolition (56)

(56th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Martin Tower demolition

Rough notes on the question period at the May 9 evening meeting
(time notation keyed to audio on Gadfly blog)
(doesn’t start quite at beginning)

Gadfly loves this stuff. Democracy. Public participation. Nitschmann auditorium decently populated by interested residents. Asking questions. Making comments.

The presentations at the 6pm meeting were virtually the same as at the 3pm meeting, so we don’t have to repeat them.

But here, except for 3-4 questioners at the beginning of the session is a complete record of the public participation period.

Listen to the whole proceeding. Use the “contents” below to browse to a specific section in which you are interested. Use the index at the end to find topics. Whatever. But Gadfly invites you to live or relive democracy in action.

1) work safety: pregnant woman asking if it’s safe to go to work at Lowe’s. Not if the dust blows in that direction. Do what you feel comfortable with.

2) Wind (1:45): will wind be measured on site? What will be the velocity on site at implosion time? No Anemometer on site. Higher velocity is better; dust gets quite dispersed. Wind not a factor.

3) long-term health problems (7:50): asking for Health Department statement on long-term health problems. Health director responds it’s ok.

4) Monocacy Creek (16:00): effect? Casilio has been there for years. Screens present prevent contamination.

5) air quality (19:30): distribution of small particulates? Will air be monitored before and after? Yes, testing before, during, and after, and checking of size. Will info be published? Yes.

6) cost (22:06): who pays? Not the City!

7) dust (23:00): how wide an area affected by particulate and how long? Worst-case scenario is calm day. What is dust made of? Sand and lime. How long does toxicity last? Been doing this for 18 months onsite and not toxic. How is it cleaned up? Sweep dry first, then water. Where disposing it? On site. Clean fill.

8) air quality (26:38): machines to clean air? masks? No.

9) decision factors for implosion (28:00): safety for workers and time.

10) responsibility (30:07): How many people here are elected representatives? Not enough consideration for citizen safety. If this goes bad, who is responsible? Demolition team.

11) air quality (32:20): why is our air quality so bad? Have anything to do with the 18 months of demolition work? No.

12: approvals (33:27): who approves? City and State. When? Friday, Monday. What chemicals in explosives? They go off as gas immediately on detonation. What’s the City permit? Demolition permit. Who approved remediation? Asbestos, EPA. Lead? No. Why not measure particulates? Jars will be analyzed. How made public? The independent firm? Vertex. How much water will be used? 3 cannons, several hundred gallons per minute. Water goes to inlets that have protection. How monitored? Screens will be monitored. Any way to know what the long-term impact is?

13: doing business (51:16): when can my customers with respiratory distress come back? Monday. If the dust blows toward you, we’ll clean it up. Pets? Keep inside if worried.

14): people with disabilities (53:52): can you get my son out of there for a day or two? Let’s talk.

15): I-Beam (55:59): what doing with it? will be onsite or in museum.

16) Monocacy (58:12): Is there no water testing and are alerts dependent on casual observers? Is there no pro-active, official monitoring? Protection is in place, and it is monitored to function properly. Not dependent on casual observers. Site will be actively monitored.

17) media (1:04:30): How is the “stay inside” message getting out for people who won’t see the last slide? City web site, newspapers, media, probably will be upped next week.

18) the clean-up (1:06:16): how do you clean up? contractor sweeps up.

19) asbestos (1:07:36): what about asbestos left? None, all gone.

20) work safety (1:10:08): what time do I need to get out of my house to go to work? satisfied

21) against questioners (1:12:25): you people are doing a good job, why grousing, nobody worried about Minsi bridge.

22) asbestos (1:14:42): was air quality tested when it was being cleaned out? Yes.

23) Why? (1:15:38): why did we want to blow this building up in the first place? Effect on the school we’re in? Safer than a carefully managed step-by-step demolition? Do you think the voters would have chosen this method?

24) photographic survey (1:21:08): Yes, also seismographs. Residents aren’t aware; talk to them.

25) infrastructure (1:24:45): this is a “done deal” – but looks to future, feels it will be worse. Traffic concerns. Mayor described past history and the public comment process at some length.

26) recycling (1:30:27): business closed on Monday? No. Recycling? Yes, steel and concrete. Reiterated the “done deal” now but wanted openness in future, so Mayor explained the process again.

27) Mayor’s conclusion (1:34:12)

28) affordable housing (1:34:55): Looking ahead, senior citizen asked for a portion of the site be affordable housing.

———————————————————————————————-

Index

air quality: 5, 8, 11, 12

asbestos: 12, 19, 22

approvals: 12

awareness: 24

business: 13, 26

clean up: 18

cost: 6

decision factors: 9

dust: 7

future: 25, 26, 28

health, long-term: 3, 10, 12

home safety: 9

I-Beam: 15

media: 16

Monocacy Creek: 4, 12, 16

people with disabilities: 14

pets: 13

recycling: 26

seismograph: 24

why?: 23

wind: 2

work: 1, 20

Risk tolerance should not be the default position of public officials (55)

(55th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

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, I agree [with Gadfly post #52], which is why I used the word “equivocating” in my characterization of the message that was conveyed. One has to wonder whether the city might have actually encouraged viewing the demolition as a spectator sport had citizens and a couple councilwomen not drawn attention to the health risks. Since any recognizable impacts would likely be far in the future when the mayor is no longer in office, it’s hard to shake the feeling that the situation is being handled carelessly because there won’t be any immediate political consequences. I think I recall from a recent meeting, that Councilman Bryan Callahan even suggested that citizens’ spectator activity at the implosion would be a sign that everything is fine, that the citizens who are worried are over-reacting [yes, see post #38]. And yet, at the meeting with the “experts” from the company, when pushed, they finally admitted that the “safe” thing to do is stay indoors.

Risk tolerance should not be the default position of public officials. We look to them protect us, not to gamble with our health while trying to find something worth cheering in a a series of terrible land use decisions.

Breena

Beginning at the beginning, finally (54)

(54th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Gadfly depends on audio here. Unfortunately, his video failed him. Just pretend we are living in the Age of Radio. It’ll be fine.

You know Gadfly. He likes to work from beginning to end. He likes to put all the information out before editorializing.

He’s gotten out of his usual sequence here. He should have given you the developer and CDI (the demolition people) and City presentations first.

So let him try to fill in. Gadfly likes you to have the primary sources, so that you can do your own thinking and ask your own questions.

Here, then, are the presentations at the 3pm Thursday May 9 meeting. You can refresh your memory if you were there, or you can, in a sense, attend the meeting if you weren’t there.

1) Intro by the Mayor and the handoff to developer Duane Wagner of HRP Management (who is described as hosting the meeting) (6 mins.)

2) James Santoro of Controlled Demolition Inc, the company doing the implosion (5 mins.)

3) PowerPoint presentation by Robert Novatnack, Emergency Management Coordinator for the City (19 mins.) You don’t have the slides unless you came to one of the two meetings, but you can follow along pretty easily just with the audio.

The above presentations were replicated almost exactly at the 6pm meeting, heard one, heard both.

Then the floor was opened for questions from the audience.

The only question regarding the health issue that we are following here was Gadfly’s. He addressed his questions mainly to the CDI guy, with a few to the developer at the end.

First, go back and listen again to Santoro, but this time begin at min. 1:45.

Then listen to the exchange initiated by Gadfly (a minute or two at the beginning was cut off).

Gadfly has already analyzed this exchange at length in post #49, so he won’t repeat that here. You might want to go back and take a look.

The presentations at the 6pm meeting were virtually the same, but in his next post Gadfly will give you the question period of that 6pm meeting.

The only reasonable health message is “we strongly advise” people not to be outside and to wear a respirator if they are within, say 2 kilometers (53)

(53rd in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Peter Crownfield is officially retired but spends most of his time working with students in his role as internship coordinator for the Alliance for Sustainable Communities–Lehigh Valley.

Gadfly:

“We don’t encourage” is a weak recommendation, especially when conditioned with the silly bit “if you find dust uncomfortable.”

The real point is that the fine-particulate matter is harmful even if you don’t notice or don’t have any immediate reaction.

The only reasonable health message is “we strongly advise” people not to be outside and to wear a respirator if they are within, say 2 kilometers—and to post signs throughout that area.

Too difficult or expensive? — then don’t do the implosion.

Peter

What are “they” saying about the health risk from watching the Martin Tower demolition outside? (52)

(52nd in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

And how have you spent your Monday morning?

May 13

Bob, Bob, Duane, Adam:

Pesky Gadfly again. Always acknowledging your hard work in a complex endeavor. But again pointing out after reviewing all the documents and recordings, that I think there is a mixed-message about people being outside for the implosion. The following “argument” will be convoluted, I know, but please hang tough.

1) In the May 9 afternoon presentation, the CDI focus is on preventing dust from going inside houses. Nothing is said about being outside.

2) In the question period after its afternoon presentation, CDI is direct about being outside: “We don’t encourage people to come out during the process; stay indoors during the process. Stay at home, watch it on television.” “We don’t encourage” is strong and direct. “Stay at home” is what we call in the language business imperative mood; it is strong, direct, forceful. Why was this important message dependent on a question to elicit it? Why was this important message not part of the direct presentation? But, anyway, it is clear.

3) There’s a disjunction between #1 and #2.

4) In #6 in the City “Martin Tower Implosion Frequently Asked Questions” document posted online and handed out at the two meetings,” the questions are: “Are there any precautions residents should take related to dust? Should residents stay indoors during the implosion and, if so, for how long?” The first question is answered, focusing on preventing dust from getting inside houses. Unlike the imperative statement above in #2, however, the answer to the important second question about being outside is prefaced by the conditional “if”: “If you find dust uncomfortable, etc.” Why doesn’t the City FAQ clearly say we don’t encourage you to be outside, stay home, and watch it on tv?

5) Another disjunction. So is the recommendation to stay indoors during the implosion or not? CDI and the City are not saying precisely the same thing.

6) The Dept of Health handout presents a new disjunction. In the afternoon question period, CDI says that if you are outside, stay upwind. DOH says that too but adds the important imperative to wear a respirator. CDI does not say that and even in the question period at the night session the idea of wearing a mask is said to be unnecessary, seemingly contradicting the DOH.

7) At the end of my question segment at the night session, CDI took issue with my characterization that the message was it was ok to be outside but to use commonsense (precisely, I would point out, the term CDI used in the afternoon session!), pointing me to the “Your Attention Please” document where, according to CDI, “we are advising people to stay indoors.” I humbly protest that you will find nothing of the sort in that document. The conditional “if” is again operable. There is NO direct advice for people to stay indoors in that document.

8) After which comment by CDI, the City pointed, conclusively to answer me, to the statement at the end of the contact number slide: “REMEMBER, THE BEST PLACE TO VIEW THE IMPLOSION IS FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR OWN HOME WATCHING IT ON TELEVISION.”  Exactly. But where else in the packet is this said that we should be asked to remember it here? I don’t see it.

9) In the “Implosion Dust” slide, all that is said is “Please stay indoors IF you have any respiratory conditions aggravated by dust.” There is nothing about staying in, watching on tv, etc.

10) My belabored point is that there is confusion on what your position is. If “REMEMBER, THE BEST PLACE TO VIEW THE IMPLOSION IS FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR OWN HOME WATCHING IT ON TELEVISION” is your bottom line because of health reasons, as the City indicated to me in the night session, then that should be on the title page of the packet not buried at the end, precisely as an acute audience member pointed out to you during the night session. And City officials should be heard saying that over and over again. And the media should be prompted to amplify that message for you.

11) It sounds to me that both the City and CDI want the important soundbite about health to be that for safety reasons THE BEST PLACE TO VIEW THE IMPLOSION IS FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR OWN HOME WATCHING IT ON TELEVISION.” Well, in my opinion, it’s lost in your documents and presentations.

Ed Gallagher

Can Gadfly get some breakfast now?

Absentee ballot deadline looms

Vote Tuesday May 21

Voting and, more importantly, informed voting is a big part of the Gadfly project.

Gadfly and the City Council candidates have spent a lot of time presenting information to you on which to make informed choices.

If you can’t be physically present, you can submit an absentee ballot.

The deadline for picking up the ballot is a week before the election.

That means if you need an absentee ballot, you should do it tomorrow, Monday, May 13.

Northampton County: Northampton County Voter Registration

Lehigh County: Lehigh County Voter Registration

Don’t be an election pooper.

Gadfly thanks to follower Kate for a reminder about this.

Council Candidates – 2-year seat – Prompt 7 (45)

(45th in a series of posts on candidates for election)

Election Day is May 21

2 candidates

vote for 1

7th in the series of candidate statements

Prompt #7, 1 & 2

1) Participation

Gadfly followers want to be involved, want to be heard, do not see themselves as CAVE people (citizens against virtually everything). How can Council foster increased citizen participation with and trust in City government? Possible foci include increased interactive technology, increased public inclusion, office hours, different kinds of Council meetings, a different format for the current Council meetings, a stronger ethics ordinance, term limits.

Grace Crampsie Smith grace crampsie smith

I feel enhancement of existing technology is important. Specifically, the city website needs to be upgraded. The impending 311 service is a step in the right direction as far as increasing constituents’ access to city government. We also need to assure calls to city hall are answered and  returned promptly.

I also feel that in order to promote accessibility to ALL citizens within the city, we should consider alternating locations of council meetings throughout the city on a sporadic basis. It appears that the same individuals attend council meetings and while their attendance is admirable, perhaps there are others that would attend if it would be more convenient. For example, some cannot walk to the meetings, and parking is not always available in close proximity to city hall. If we “go to “ the people in the community sporadically, it may increase meeting participation by constituents. Other entities such as school boards achieve this by rotating meetings throughout different schools. Perhaps we could do the same?

We can also consider Town Hall-type meetings on a sporadic basis where the agenda is designated solely towards input from citizens.

Will Carpenter Will Carpenter

We don’t have CAVE people. That is a name made up for people who are engaged by a few old cavemen to protect the status quo. People are more likely to voice their opinions when they disagree, but it would be great to have more voices supporting good initiatives like the Climate Action Plan, ethics provisions, and others. I think our Council has made important progress in transparency, and many of our Council members do a good job being responsive and available, but there is room for improvement. I think engaging and listening to citizens is perhaps even more important for the Mayor and his administration. It is encouraging to see some progress here as well — such as the recent decision to hold meetings later in the afternoon so more people with standard working hours can attend.

We live in interesting times, and I believe there is positive energy at work. Democracy and citizenship require work. More of us need to attend the events, read the papers and the blogs that help inform us. It is not the government’s job to solve our problems or to invite us to participate.  It is our job to require our elected officials pay attention to our needs and to hold them accountable. I would encourage more neighborhood and other local groups to organize and send representatives to attend Council meetings or watch the published recordings. It is most important that people are looking when the sunlight is let in.

———-

2) A Vision of/for the City

The job of a leader is to have a vision that inspires citizens, that connects with citizens, that engages citizens. Sometimes that vision is capsuled in a slogan. What is your vision of/for Bethlehem? What is your vision of Bethlehem past, or Bethlehem present, or Bethlehem future? How is Bethlehem unique – in a positive, negative, or potential way? Are there best practices from other cities you would you like to see implemented in Bethlehem? Does a pedestrian/bicycle bridge that would connect the north and south sides fit into that vision?

Grace Crampsie Smith grace crampsie smith

My vision is captured in the following: “Embrace our rich heritage as we build our future.” Given Bethlehem’s rich cultural and architectural history, it is fundamental to maintain a balance between preserving the city’s past, honoring the people and businesses that built this city, and promoting progress in our diverse community. Bethlehem is a city that has never been stagnant. We are unique in that for centuries Bethlehem has constantly evolved and re-invented itself in the arts, education, and business while never losing sight of its heritage. Maintaining a balance between our past and future will remain a constant challenge, yet an achievable one. The Steel Stacks is a fine example of connecting the past and the future. While many steelworkers had concerns re: this project, it has a good mix of preservation of the industry that built this city and the addition of a great cultural center for the city. As we move forward, it is imperative to honor and build upon our unique past, while incorporating modern and smart growth.

Will Carpenter Will Carpenter

Bethlehem is a gem. We are very fortunate to have inherited what we have from past leaders. Many, many business leaders, residents, and city employees work to make what we have so special. Our first obligation is to respect that work and the needs of our current tax payers. Where is the sense in giving public funding to attract new businesses that harm existing ones? We must define what we value in our community and make policy to promote and protect those values.

This has always been a place where hard working people can afford to live, find good jobs and attend great schools. To protect this we need strong leadership to value and attract more than just high-end developments. Neighborhoods should have a seat at the table when new projects are considered. If a project is not supported by the surrounding neighborhood citizens, their concerns should be addressed before a project can move forward. At the very least, contested projects should not be awarded public funding or tax incentives.

Our historic city is uniquely situated for smart growth —  or exploitation. Our geographic position, natural and historic beauty makes us attractive to businesses and investors. We should both protect and take advantage of this and make Bethlehem better for everyone — with projects that help fund solid infrastructure and connectivity, improve air and water quality, and so on to allow us all pursue our livelihoods on equal footing.

We must respect our past as we forge our future.

Council Candidates – 4-year seat – Prompt 7 (44)

(44th in a series of posts on candidates for election)

Election Day is May 21

5 candidates
(one not represented here)

vote for 3

7th in the series of candidate statements

statements in reverse-alphabetical order this time

Prompt #7, 1 & 2

1) Participation

Gadfly followers want to be involved, want to be heard, do not see themselves as CAVE people (citizens against virtually everything). How can Council foster increased citizen participation with and trust in City government? Possible foci include increased interactive technology, increased public inclusion, office hours, different kinds of Council meetings, a different format for the current Council meetings, a stronger ethics ordinance, term limits.

Paige Van Wirt (incumbent) Van Wirt 2

I decided to mount a write-in campaign in the late summer of 2017 for two major reasons. First reason: nobody ran against any of the incumbents, which I felt was a disturbing reflection on citizen involvement in council, due to many factors which needed to be addressed. Second reason: after attending the City Council Committee of the Whole meeting regarding the proposed Ethics Ordinance in spring 2017, I was very upset at the substance and tenor of the conversation among council members and particularly toward Councilwoman Negron, who was trying to help make our city stronger and avoid problems like we have seen in Allentown, Reading, Scranton, Philadelphia . . . this list is too long, and the cities too close. The Ethics Ordinance was subsequently shelved. Since appointment to council, I have been pushing for more citizen participation in council by trying to open up the workings of our Authorities and Commissions; establishing a vigorous Facebook presence which posts relevant meetings and issues for citizens of Bethlehem; reintroducing the proposed Ethics Ordinance in the upcoming month; and pushing for Bethlehem City public meetings to be held after normal working hours and filmed for all to see, which has now been requested by the Mayor to start in 2020. I will continue these efforts by continuing this work; I will request that our most active authorities and commissions present to council every 6 months updates on activities, finances, and new initiatives.  I will continue keeping the citizens informed, not just of the what, but of the WHY.

David Saltzer David Saltzer

As a council member, we need the citizens to be engaged in and working with city government. Transparency is a big topic right now and one that I believe in. The ability to now watch council meetings online and follow what is going on is a step in the right direction, as is the mayor moving all committee meetings to start after 6pm beginning in 2020, allowing working residents the time to attend. I also believe there needs to be a minimum time of the announcement of important meetings so that the people that want to attend can plan to do so. Announcing a meeting at 9 or 10 am for a 4pm start is not being transparent and fosters a community of distrust. Other technologies, such as the city’s website, can be managed better with meetings announced and posted on the homepage, as well as made more user friendly as well. I think between the live streaming of the meetings, an active, user-friendly website and later meeting times following announcement protocol will allow the citizens the ability to be more active in local government.

I maintain that I would have an open-door policy and would encourage residents to
reach out to me with questions or concerns. I would support office hours where
residents would be able to come speak with a city council member.

As for different types of council meetings, I believe in the past that city council did try to
take the meetings on the road and have them in different corners of the city to attract
people to come out in their neighborhoods to attend the meeting. I am not sure what the
outcome of that was or if it was talked about trying it again, but it is an idea that could be considered.

As for ethics, I know that the current council has presented an ethics policy and have
adopted some parts of it in different forms. I would need to see what was presented and
I do believe that we do need to have some type of ethics policy in the city.

For council term limits, we would need to investigate that by researching other 3rd class
cities to see if anyone else has council term limits. What are the pros and cons of them?
How long are the term limits? How has it worked out and have they changed back to no
term limits? After researching this we can come up with some type of plan, and we
should leave it up to voters in a referendum vote as to whether the constituents in the
city want their council members to have term limits.

J. William Reynolds (incumbent) Reynolds 3

When I launched Bethlehem 2017, I did so partly as a way to mobilize the people in our community who are passionate, committed, and want to be involved on a local level. Our Climate Action Plan, NorthSide2027, and Open Data projects all were designed to create permanent structures of citizens to help plan and implement the initiatives. Creating positive opportunities for citizens to be informed and involved in the issues they care about is vital in creating meaningful opportunities for citizen engagement.

There are thousands of people in Bethlehem who want to be involved in giving back to
our city. They are often very busy helping their children with homework, volunteering
at their church, or running a small business. These responsibilities often prevent them
from committing to standard meeting schedules or attending City Council meetings.

Finding flexible, meaningful, engagement opportunities for our citizens is very important in creating citizen engagement moving forward. This idea was the genesis behind the structure of our planning strategy for our Bethlehem 2017 initiatives and has proven to be effective in engaging citizens on a city-wide level.

Michael Colon (incumbent)  Colon 2

For about two and a half years before being elected I attended as many meetings of City Council as I could make it to, both regular meetings and committee meetings. After meetings I’d occasionally email a Council member if I didn’t understand something I heard, and they’d always get back to me. After asking to get more involved, I was appointed to two city boards and also completed the Bethlehem Citizens’ Academy. As a member of Council I’ve continued to encourage participation and involvement. I’m now on the receiving end of those emails and try my best to answer what questions someone has. More often I’ll invite someone who wants to have a discussion to breakfast so we can really get into the nuance of the issue. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree, but I always want to be respectful of differing opinions especially because we all, including myself, have the capacity to subscribe to bad ideas. We’ve taken steps to make meetings more accessible, in the forms of YouTube broadcasts and now mandating all board/authority meetings to be in the evening. The City’s use of social media is increasing to keep people informed and give the public another avenue to reach out to City Hall. I’ve always favored campaign finance reform and also support term limits for elected officials, including City Council.

———-

2) A Vision of/for the City

The job of a leader is to have a vision that inspires citizens, that connects with citizens, that engages citizens. Sometimes that vision is capsuled in a slogan. What is your vision of/for Bethlehem? What is your vision of Bethlehem past, or Bethlehem present, or Bethlehem future? How is Bethlehem unique – in a positive, negative, or potential way? Are there best practices from other cities you would you like to see implemented in Bethlehem? Does a pedestrian/bicycle bridge that would connect the north and south sides fit into that vision?

Paige Van Wirt (incumbent) Van Wirt 2

I think Bethlehem has been held in a paradigm of development that is left over from the early years when Bethlehem Steel closed: any development is good development.  I think this is an outdated notion and does not reflect the reality that we are a unique city, poised for a development boom, with a diversified tax base and beautiful downtowns, architecture, and geography.  We are in this strong position in part due to the hard work of our previous city leaders. However, this economic engine must now be harnessed and directed to create a city that respects our downtowns, demands excellence in the plans and vision of the investors in our city, and hews to the notion that a great city comes from incremental, healthy organic growth of codependent businesses, and does not run after the next large, bright shiny object.

I see a walkable Bethlehem, including a pedestrian bridge project if found to be feasible, that attracts young people to stay here, or to relocate to here, because of our wonderful quality of life. I see a Bethlehem that emphasizes alternative means of transportation, including walking on our future repaired sidewalks, with increased residential density downtown to support our small businesses. I see a Bethlehem that uses data to drive decisions, not campaign donations. I see a Bethlehem that respects the environment and uses the power of the government to pilot green initiatives that have worked for other cities. I see a Bethlehem that prioritizes the development of affordable housing through targeted zoning changes which will spur construction in this price range. I see a Bethlehem, emboldened by the involvement of its citizens in local government, that is innovative, fiscally prudent, adaptive of best practices and determined to provide a joyous quality of life for all our citizens, a Bethlehem where the citizens know their voices matter, and will be heard.

David Saltzer David Saltzer

The Historic City of Bethlehem, The Christmas City, The Steel City, all of these make Bethlehem unique, and all of these describe this great city’s ideals and history. This city is rich in its history, which needs to be preserved and continue to be taught to the next generation, as well as new residents and visitors. I have concerns that we are losing some of that history by allowing buildings to be built that do not fit into the neighborhoods or blend in with the beautiful architecture of the city. We need to look into rehabilitating some of these beautiful remaining structures and reusing them rather than destroying them and building new “box” structures. We are on the cusp of an exciting time and have the opportunity to do some phenomenal things to bring affordable housing into the city and attract businesses that will work with the city to maintain some of the history while providing good jobs with a livable wage. These initiatives will attract people to live, work, and reinvest in the city, allowing it to grow and create new history. Bethlehem-present has the ability right now to make Bethlehem-future something that our previous generations would be proud of and happy to call home.

Walkability and bikeability are important issues. How can we make that more enjoyable and safer for everyone in the city? The city has applied for a grant to have a study done on this initiative. I am excited to see what the study shows and what the recommendations are.

J. William Reynolds (incumbent) Reynolds 3

During my time on City Council, I have tried to lay out a vision for what our
community needs to be moving forward. I included my vision for our city in my Bethlehem 2017 initiative when I proposed making our city more progressive and investing in several areas in which I felt we could do more. We needed to focus on the issues that will determine our success in the 21 st century and do so by creating opportunities for our citizens to be involved in helping to create the solutions to the problems of the 21st century.

We need to focus on the issues that matter to our residents – climate, neighborhood
reinvestment, technology, the efficiency of government. That focus starts with planning
that includes creating long-term strategies for our community and our city. That
planning isn’t just elected officials sitting around talking. It involves government
leveraging the best asset we have – the passion of our citizens.

Our community is at its best when we have everyone working in the same direction on
an issue. Our NorthSide2027 neighborhood meetings are a great example of that.
Families, long-time residents, small business owners, community groups coming
together to work on planning what the future of their neighborhood can be. This is the
vision that I have always had for our city – our neighbors coming together to positively
talk about what we are as a community and what we can be. We are going to need
more of that to make sure Bethlehem never loses what makes our city what it is.

Michael Colon (incumbent) Colon 2

Moving forward I want to keep making Bethlehem a place where natives want to stay and out-of-towners want to move to. As many industrial towns across this country lost their economic anchors, like a steel mill, they saw a mass exodus. Even as recently as my high school and college years, I’d have to hear from friends that Bethlehem did not appeal to them. Reasons included lack of career opportunities, a perception of a rusty old steel town, or simply “nothing to do.” Through its reinvention and revitalization, Bethlehem has come out of the shadow of the Bethlehem Steel celebrating strong technology, arts, education, healthcare, and small business sectors. We are unique in how we’ve redefined what Bethlehem is and what it will continue to be. This energy revitalizes a community and brings it together. I envision more community hubs and events growing that bring out neighborhoods. The expanded Tunes at Twilight concert series, the upcoming 3rd season of the West Side Farmer’s Market, the Recreation Bureau’s Movies in the Park, all the events put on by the Downtown Bethlehem Association and SouthSide Arts District. I envision us to keep diversifying our economy, supporting the quality of life for all who live here, and fostering the sense of one big community. I support a pedestrian bridge as another means to connect the neighborhoods and encourage activity. When we stop moving, the rust comes back.

Vote and vote informed May 21

Paige Van Wirt at the Bethlehem City Democratic Committee Forum May 6 (43)

(43rd in a series of posts on candidates for election)

Paige Van Wirt is a candidate for the one of three 4yr seats on City Council, running against Michael Colon, Carol Ritter, David Saltzer, J. William Reynolds.

Van Wirt 1

Paige Van Wirt’s question: infrastructure (4.5 mins.)

“Many of the questions submitted on social media concern infrastructure — city road repairs, highway maintenance, new construction, etc. Can you speak to how you will address those concerns if elected.”

  • there’s a definite mindset different from a business mindset now
  • we just keep kicking the can down the road
  • getting a windfall from Casino Transfer Tax now but must plan better for infrastructure
  • don’t annex other communities into our sewer capacity
  • her requests for sidewalk repair have been denied
  • need a pilot program for sidewalk repairs
  • walkability has been neglected
  • walkability drives people to the City

Saltzer agreed that there should be grants for sidewalks and suggested that grouping projects together could reduce cost (min. 2:28). Carpenter remembered that the Casino was supposed to help us, but now we’re behind on important things. Why are the fundamentals suffering? (min. 3:48).

Paige Van Wirt’s closing comment (1.5 mins.)

  • re-introducing ethics ordinance

Look for more on Van Wirt as she responds to other candidate presentations and participates in group answers on such topics as their unique qualities, transparency, neighborhoods.

Two possibilities for the silence of the Health people (51)

(51st in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Peter Crownfield is officially retired but spends most of his time working with students in his role as internship coordinator for the Alliance for Sustainable Communities–Lehigh Valley.

ref: “Where are the Health people?” post #50

Gadfly:

Well, two possibilities seem obvious — which does not mean either is correct!

City officials did not realize there were any potential health concerns because they got all their information from the developer and/or the demolition contractor. – or – City officials did realize there were potential health concerns and sidelined all health experts in favor of the pro-demolition people. (But why on earth would the city’s business manager be on the panel‽)

I hope there are other reasons, since either of these would be frighteningly irresponsible.

Peter

Let’s stop the rush to development (51)

(51st in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

John Marquette is a retired librarian/archivist, author, historian, and a resident of Bethlehem. His current project is focused on the restoration of the interior of the Archibald Johnston Mansion in Housenick Park. 

Given the questions from the meeting at May 9 and many citizens and local experts expressing concern over the project, why do we continue the implosion countdown clock to May 19?

Councilmember Van Wirt seems to all but ask this question in her post from earlier today. There’s no containing the resultant plume, if indeed there is a plume. We know there’s going to be particulate matter. The state health people haven’t given their own evidence.

Because the tower’s structural frame has been compromised in preparation for removal, the demolition needs to take place. Once it’s down, however, what stops the developers from moving forward with plans which look and feel inconsistent with good urban planning? What does the Ronca/Herrick plan do that integrates the Martin into the heart of the city of Bethlehem and not simply imitate a little piece of Lower Macungie Township in the heart of our home? Nothing.

This ought not to be a quid pro quo. Implosions are cheap and efficient and environmentally risky. Herrick and Ronca are ready to build and to take full advantage of the tax district in which the Martin Tower property sits.

Withhold additional permits and revoke the permits already issued based on insufficient evidence of safety. Let’s stop the rush to development.

John

It’s worth starting to think seriously what steps can be taken to stop the rush to development or even the rush to implosion.

“Where are the Health people?” Gadfly asks at the public meeting on the Martin Tower demolition (50)

(50th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Gadfly’s focus — spurred by follower concerns — has been on the health and environmental effects of implosions.

Gadfly learned that Martin Romeril (audio posts #19 and #38), Nalyn Marcus (post #34), Barbara Diamond (post #23), and others had been trying to get information about the demolition to no avail. Nalyn, for instance, reported a few posts back that she had been trying for 8 weeks to get information. 8 weeks! After promising an update by mid-April, you might remember or noticed, the City information web site went dark.

Public anxiety is captured well in this email sent to Gadfly: “My father lives at 1102 Eaton Ave, Bethlehem.  He turns 92 years old tomorrow.  The apartment building that he lives in is located directly across the street from the Martin Towers. I am very concerned for his health and well-being along with all of the other residents at that location, as they are all elderly.  My dad has breathing issues.  What is being done to remove those residents for the duration of this implosion?  They’ve been told to cover their air vents.  How does that prevent particulates from coming in through the door?  It’s an old building, there are other ways the dust and asbestos could get in.  Regardless, of the abatement, potentially there will be particulates and dust that will get into this building.  Also, what if it causes breaks in the building from the implosion and other issues, such as water pipe or gas pipe breaks?  Obviously, there is concern that this implosion could not go as planned as there are going to be ambulances and emergency services standing by.  So, rather than wait to see if someone is affected, why not ensure these people are taken elsewhere for the event?  I think they should be given an alternative location until the air quality and the building are deemed safe.  Please advise me as to what is being done.”

Gadfly formulated a long list of questions into a “Letter to the City” (post #32 in this series) and got a few minutes to “depose” reps from the developer and demolitioner at the afternoon meeting for stakeholders last Thursday May 9. He hopes you listened to the audio of his interchange in post #49.

But what to ask and/or talk about at the general meeting for the public in the evening? He didn’t want — and there wouldn’t be audience patience for  — a lot of “in the weeds” kind of questions, so he tried to think about his one most important and major concern.

Thus, Gadfly decided to focus on the lack of an authoritative Health Department (City or State) voice in the discussion to address health concerns, especially long-term health concerns.

This seemed such a glaring omission.

Once again, please listen to the audio, go to the source — and think for yourself.

Only 8 minutes this time.

“Is there a health person here?” Gadfly asked right out of the gate. Bethlehem Health Director Kristen Weinrich was not among the 13 officials at the Head Table but sitting in the front row. Gadfly said he would feel comfortable if a health official said the implosion was ok health-wise, pointing out that the people answering the health questions were the developer and the demolitioner, “people making money” off the project and with no health credentials: “I want to hear from a health person.” Gadfly pointed out that the developer claim that they’ve done 18 months of work without a complaint was weak since the kind of health problems we’re worried about don’t show up for years, for decades, and even the most cursory survey of the web would show that silica dust (in concrete) causes cancer and silicosis. (The earlier scene of our resident forensic pathologist making his case to a business man struck Gadfly as completely absurd.) Gadfly wanted a health person to point to the studies that make sense of all this. Can we have the evidence from Phila. studies that were referenced, he asked? The demolitioner assumed that Gadfly was advocating for conventional demolition — not so — just advocating for assurance about health safety. Gadfly cited an online source that said implosion is cheaper but has more health hazard than other types of demolition and the need for a trusted health professional to decide whether that’s true. Gadfly pointed out that other cities clearly advise “Stay inside,” and the City replied that that was their message (Gadfly would say it’s not strong enough).

In what he thought would be conclusion, Gadfly ended (to a smattering of applause), asking “Where are the Health people?”

But then it got pretty interesting. The response was that the City Health Director was in the front row, to which Gadfly asked why she wasn’t at the Head Table — and a response to that was that there were not enough seats. Grrrr. If she was thought important, enough seats would certainly have been provided. And, in fact, it was not necessary for the City Business Manager and the demolition assistant to take space at the Head Table. They certainly had no higher priority than City Health Director.

In Gadfly’s opinion, the City Health Director should have had a forefront role. No question.

But Gadfly’s question did flush out the Health Director Kristen Weinrich to make — off the cuff — what he called in post #42 a position statement. Here it is again:

“The Health Department does not regularly get involved with air quality issues . . . but in looking at long-term health outcomes due to dust, you are looking at direction, long-term exposure, and you’re looking at quantity. So that everything I’ve been told and everything I’ve seen, they’ve done everything that they can to minimize [garbled audio]. It’s a short-term event, they’re not expecting any type of long-term exposure, and we’re not expecting [garbled audio] amount of dust. So that’s my opinion from a public health standpoint.”

Now we can agree or disagree, but here at least and at last is the kind of statement that Gadfly felt that we needed from the beginning.

The City Health Director does not say that there will be no long-term health problems from the implosion but that the demolitioners are doing all they can to minimize exposure, which will be to only small amounts of dust for a short time.

She went on to say that she was concerned about short-term outcomes for those with respiratory diseases.

Gadfly does not understand why the Health Director did not have a central role.

Gadfly does not understand why the Health Director had to be flushed out to make statement.

Chew on this too, and there will be more to follow.

Gadfly cross-examines at the Thursday stakeholder meeting on the Martin Tower demolition (49)

(49th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

There were two meetings on Thursday May 9 — for the stakeholders (residents and businesses) in the exclusion zone at 3PM in Town Hall and for the general public at 6PM in Nitschmann Middle School.

Both meetings were run well by Bethlehem Emergency Management Coordinator Robert Novatnack. Novatnack — affable, courteous, patient, knowledgeable — set an excellent tone for both meetings. The Mayor made clear several times that day as well as at Council two nights before that he wanted everybody to have the opportunity to speak and that he was willing to stay as long as that took. In Gadfly’s opinion, public comment was amply solicited and welcome and, except for one ugly blip late in the night meeting, the atmosphere was cordial. Well done.

Gadfly will talk about the meetings one at a time.

Awareness of or concern for long-term health issues did not seem much present at the stakeholders meeting.

But for 10 minutes Gadfly got to play the lawyer he always wanted to be, and specifically here played the role of a lawyer taking a deposition.

The deposed are Jim Santoro from Controlled Demolition Inc. and Duane Wagner from owner Herrick/Ronca.

Please listen.

Gadfly always urges that you go to the primary source and make your own conclusions.

Do your own thinking.

There are bullet notes below that you can browse as you listen or use to refresh your memory afterwards.

But please listen and think about what you hear.

It takes but 10 minutes.

And then join me in formulating some take-aways.


  • what is the nature of the contaminants now in the building? (a minute or two in the beginning of the audio was lost)

    • only concrete dust no different than the long-standing Casilio business has been expelling for years
  • Concrete dust is not dangerous even in the quantity that will be released at this time?
    • the same quantity of dust is released in conventional demolition and implosion; you can avoid exposure in implosion because of the short duration; conventional demolition means weeks or months of constant exposure
    • we don’t encourage people to come out during the process; stay indoors during the process
    • stay at home, watch it on television
  • why don’t you encourage people to be outside during the process?
    • why do you want to be out in the dust? (tonal implication being that it is not a good idea)
    • the vast quantity of the dust is going to settle on the property
    • give us a chance to clean up before you come outside
  • So somebody standing outside downwind to get a look at this, you’re comfortable that that’s safe — people with good health — you would recommend that they stay inside? (awkwardly phrased)
    • I would never recommend that (being outside), but it should be ok
    • if you have a respiratory condition, absolutely don’t go out, that’s not being smart
  • But people with good health, you wouldn’t recommend it, but you’re not saying they shouldn’t do it
    • I don’t recommend people standing in the middle of the road either (a bit garbled)
    • take things and be sensible about them
    • if you’re going outside to watch this, stand upwind
  • How far do you consider the dust will go?
    • read a study many years ago that can’t be pinpointed that said 140 miles
  • Could you point us to an independent general scientific study?
    • there haven’t been many of them
    • Phila, dust-sampling over 30 years of their work there has never found any contaminant
    • air quality returns to normal 6 hours later
    • there’s a spike of dust in the air and then it goes away
  • You are saying that for people who may be worried, perhaps unreasonably so, about health, there isn’t an independent general study, scientific study of this kind of implosion that has been going on for decades?
    • correct
    • Gadfly then said there are studies on the web, some saying implosions shouldn’t be done in metropolitan areas — the problem is knowing which studies to believe
  • I would feel comfortable with a recommendation of a scientific study about the long-term health effects of implosion.
    • to be fair you’d have to study conventional demolition too
  • There are several kinds of demolition: what was the factor in choosing implosion?  Was it cost? Was it time? Was it health?
    • time and safety; safer and faster
    • about same amount of dust as demolition that’s occurred on that site for the past 18 months
    • not one comment, complaint, or concern during that time
    • there’s acute exposure and people are recommended to stay inside if they think it’s going to bother them
  • “Shelter in place” is a kind of awesome term.
    • stay inside or go away for a short period of time
    • same amount of dust, same kind of degree we’ve been working with for 18 months and no issues
    • Burnside now has to clean Casilio’s dust off their vegetables, same thing
  • Is the dust only a problem when it’s in the air?
    • Yes, and you only worry about respirable dust
    • monitoring that will be done is only of respirable dust
    • Lots of hospitals use us for good reasons, to get it over quickly, protect people
  • In choosing this mode of demolition, was the cost a factor,  . . . Is this more expensive, less expensive?
    • cost was not a factor
    • decisive factors = safety and time

———-

Join me in compiling a list of take-aways from this developer and demolitioner “testimony.”

1) They are not recommending people be outside (stay in and watch it on tv). My sense is that that message needs to be amplified by the City. People should be actively discouraged from watching in person.

2) Silica is a component of concrete, and silica is dangerous — perhaps mainly from long-term exposure – but there has been testimony that one exposure can be deadly. The claim that there are no contaminants needs to be interrogated.

3) The argument that Bethlehem is habituated to Casilio without harmful effect and the Lehigh Valley is habituated to the concrete industry (like in Coplay, Bath, etc.) without harmful effect needs to be interrogated.

4) There must be relevant scientific studies.

5) We are given no data about anything. (You know who you are)

6) Given time, “we” could have commissioned somebody to review the scientific literature and digest it for us.

7) Since the danger here is invisible — not apparent for years and years — the argument that they have been working for 18 months without a complaint is without merit.

8) The argument that the same amount of dust is produced over time by conventional demolition as implosion needs to be interrogated — is that true? And would a big dose of dust all at once not possibly be more deleterious than small doses over time?

9) It’s hard to believe that cost was not the driving factor — a web source says implosion is the least expensive mode of demolition.

10) Bottom line: “we” take their word for everything; no data.

Chew on this, and Gadfly will shortly continue with discussion of the night meeting.

“data and advice to citizens should come from people who are impartial” (48)

(48th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

x-posted from the “You know you’re from Bethlehem” Facebook page

The demolition contractor, hired by the developer, should not be fielding health risk questions. That should have been done by the State Department of Health, who was not there. The Department of Environmental Protection representatives did not answer the questions about protecting Monocacy Creek, the developer did. When there is a profit motive, data and advice to citizens should come from people who are impartial. The bottom line from the developer last night was clear: we only do what we are obligated by law to do. He referenced other development projects many times but did not seem to understand the scale of this project and it’s significance to the citizens of Bethlehem may require a better approach than “we did nothing illegal here.”

Paige Van Wirt

Paige Van Wirt is a Bethlehem City Councilwoman, physician, and small business owner.