(The latest in a series of posts on Gadfly History)
Kim Carrrell-Smith is a 31-year resident of Bethlehem’s historic Southside, where she taught public history at Lehigh University for almost two decades. She is also an aspiring gadfly, buzzing in on issues of historic preservation, public education, city government, and other social justice issues. She tips her wings to the master gadflies who have served our community for so long!
Stephen Antalics is 90. I find that hard to believe, but it makes me happy to have an occasion to wish him well and say thanks. He has been a fixture at City Council Meetings: the battling, dodging, darting, eloquent King of Gadflies who has brought so much to the attention of our elected and appointed city officials. He’s fought for justice, for enforcement of laws, for equity and respect for our citizens (even though the majority of our citizenry is unaware of his advocacy)! He is not paid to do this, nor is he seeking fame or glory. He simply wants what is best, and fair, and uplifting for our community. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t tell you why I really love Stephen.
As a fellow Southsider who holds an abiding affection for this eclectic, diverse, vibrant part of town, I love Stephen because as a lifetime resident here he gets this place in a way that no one else under 90 really can. He’s part of this place, and he’s seen the good, the bad, the ups and downs, the old folks departing, and the younger folks coming in. He’s seen the range of ethnicities change and morph over time as our population has ebbed and flowed. And he loves the history of this place that is represented in its people, its buildings –from churches to businesses and homes, to industrial structures, to streetscapes—he knows that history is important. He knows that it is a selling point for this side of the river, just as it’s a selling point for that other side. And he’s not afraid to show up and do his part to help folks understand that.
Gadflies, as we know, are underappreciated and underestimated. They show up when you want to end a meeting, or when you want to rush something through; they don’t seem to fit our efficient, speedy “lifestyle” these days. The Usual Suspects are met with rolling eyes, and sometimes more overt derision and disrespect. But they persist. And Stephen is the guy who looks past all of that, and does what is necessary to raise consciousness, and consciences. He puts himself on the line. He brings attention to small things as well as big issues. He persists. And he makes us better people here in Bethlehem.
Stephen is 90? Hard to believe. But I’m wishing him light, and happiness, and well-being on this big birthday, with all of the thanks I can send him. The King of the Gadflies: long may he reign!
But last post in this series I promised that there was some action you can take if, indeed, you see the problem with charter schools that has certainly been evident in our series here.
Contacting our representatives and signing petitions:
Despite a drumbeat of scientific warnings, the Trump administration Wednesday issued a new rule that cuts carbon emissions from power plants by less than half of what experts say is needed to avoid catastrophic global warming.
The Affordable Clean Energy rule, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, represents the Trump administration’s most significant action to unwind federal regulations aimed at addressing climate change. At the EPA on Wednesday, Trump’s top aides, Republican lawmakers and state business leaders celebrated it as proof that the president had delivered for his constituents in coal country.
On a day in which we learn of another effort by our national government to thwart progress in avoiding “catastrophic global warming,” it might be good to wonder outloud where the single-use plastic bag ban advanced some time ago by Beth Behrend and our Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) is in the City ordinance-producing pipeline.
Gadfly notes that amid the tumult over the demonstration ordinance Tuesday at City Council, two residents made pitches for the plastic bag ban ordinance.
People aren’t forgetting about it.
Listen:
Dan Miller:
Mary Jo Miserindino:
Nothing is easy, right?
So Gadfly was curious how Narberth — the first and I believe still only town in Pennsylvania to enact such a ban — did it.
Narberth is described as “low hanging fruit” for such an ordinance. Small: 4500 residents compared to our 75,000. Small: two chain stores compared to dozens probably in our town. And long-standing eco-conscious as marked by the three-decade NarbEarth event.
There did not seem to be any concerted opposition in Narberth.
We probably should be prepared for more controversy, more struggle.
But, first, we could use an update on the whereabouts of the EAC proposal.
It’s Thursday, June 20, do you know where your local Climate Action Plan is?
(The latest in a series of posts on Gadfly History)
Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be gadflies, Gadflies ain’t easy to love and they’re harder to hold They’d rather give you a snarl than diamonds or gold
fantasy first draft of Waylon Jennings’ and Willie Nelson’s hit song
Stephen Antalics – Bethlehem’s Gadfly #1 – is 90 years old Friday June 21.
Stephen doesn’t want me to make a fuss.
But I think he’s extraordinary.
For at least twenty years, he’s attended virtually every City Council meeting.
And held feet to fire. With facts. With wit.
A smiling Stephen recently described gadflies as “pit bulls — when our teeth sink into the shank, God help the poor victim, since we are unrelenting! We do NOT quit, since we wear gold badges and white hats. Offenders beware.”
I love this picture of Stephen. Clenched fists. A warrior.
People have said to me, “what’s the use. You gadfly guys never win.”
Stephen’s had his share of winning.
But those naysayers just don’t understand.
Winning isn’t the goal for the gadfly. Speaking truth to power is.
His “That’s not right!” has wrinkled the brow of a generation of public officials.
Stephen’s gadfly lineage includes Socrates, Thoreau, Gandhi, MLK – are they losers?
Gadflies believe with MLK that the long arc of the universe bends toward justice.
Underappreciated is Stephen’s written and oral artistry.
Here just two weeks ago at City Council Stephen puts aside his prepared remarks and fills his five precious allotted minutes – on the fly – with a perfectly paced, perfectly shaped lament on the fate and state of the Southside, a haunting melody in his playlist over the years.
Stephen doesn’t want me to make a fuss.
But I love the man that he is for what he has done for us so completely unselfishly for so long.
Mamas, please let your babies grow up to be gadflies. Like Stephen.
We need ‘em.
If followers would like to send Stephen birthday messages, Gadfly will collect and post them.
(The latest in a series of posts on City government)
Maybe we should just all pause for a moment because here we are, there are a lot of folks in this room on the political left of things and the political right of things, and we’re all here together, right? And we’re having a civil conversation about something we care deeply about. Which is the good governance of our country. And I think we should just take a moment to say “this is a really good thing.” (Mary Lou Hatcher)
Gadfly loves your voices. He has told you that over and over again. And one of the missions of the Gadfly project is to capture and archive those voices — to give them the longer life they deserve.
The newspapers can only give us a few quotes.
Gadfly always promotes having the primary sources available.
Rather than Gadfly tell you what went on in regard to the demonstration ordinance last night, read . . . listen.
And, as Mary Lou said, realize that “this is a really good thing.”
—-
Indeed you do not, have not banned the most dangerous items, guns. (Nancy Tate)
Deal with the knuckleheads, but don’t penalize the masses. (Dana Grubb)
The goal may not be to restrict free speech, but the effect will be exactly that. (Ziona Brotleit)
Your thoughts are 2 policeman for each demonstrator . . . absurd. (Diane Dilendik)
The creation of an ordinance limiting group size of all gatherings in the City to be a bit of overkill. (Mary Toulouse)
Smacks very strongly of 1920, 1930s, and 1940s fascist movements . . . It’s a very, very slippery slope. (Dana Grubb)
The notion that law-abiding citizens can be fined and jailed for exercising free speech and constitutional rights is unconscionable. (Andrew Snyder)
At a time when we are worried about voter suppression, we do not need to suppress or make more difficult another form of citizen participation. (Nancy Tate)
Bethlehem is not just a sleepy little town like it used to be. (Mary Toulouse)
We need the right to protest, demonstrate immediately. (Jake Stofko)
Spontaneity . . . is one of the reasons very important to us. (Melissa Gallagher)
Thank God, we got a good country . . . let’s keep America straight. (Mike Garcia)
It’s a broad ordinance, and broad applicability is a problem, not a solution. (Ziona Brotleit)
The City should already be ready for everything possible. (Melissa Gallagher)
Conflicts [will arise] from attempts to enforce a rule that a reasonable American would recognize as unconstitutional. (Andrew Snyder)
Musikfest presents a whole different sort of problems than demonstrations and making your voice heard. (Diane Dilendik)
We need to be calling our citizens to speak out, urging them to do this, not setting up roadblocks. (Nancy Tate)
The U.S. Constitution is not like a restaurant menu. (Dana Grubb)
I think this will kill the spirit of the community. (Beverly Hernandez)
This is restricting law-abiding citizens. (Melissa Gallagher)
Shame on you guys! (Mike Garcia)
We’re penalizing the law-abiding, the masses. (Ziona Brotleit)
Free speech delayed is free speech denied. (Andrew Snyder)
This bill would force 6 or more Christmas carolers in the Christmas city to have a separate activity permit. (Paul Saunders)
This new registration policy is actually criminalizing free speech. (Diane Dilendik)
We don’t need laws restricting demonstrations in Bethlehem. Not one bit. (Dana Grubb)
Bethlehem will become the byword for socialist government. (Beverly Hernandez)
Acts as a barrier to public discourse in a public square. (Mary Toulouse)
You are making more rules and more hoops for those of us who are already law-abidng citizens. (Melissa Gallagher)
Bethlehem was regarded as a beacon among the cities in the Lehigh Valley in terms of its respect for rights. (unknown)
We don’t want to create impediments to peaceful assembly. (Ziona Brotleit)
We have laws in place for illegal behavior. (Diane Dilendik)
The authors must be fantasizing about problems which in reality do not exist. (Nancy Tate)
If this law passes, the police will demand, show me your papers. (Paul Saunders)
If anyone did feel threatened [at the 2017 incident], why weren’t the police asked to intervene? (Dana Grubb)
This ordinance minimizes the freedom and smothers any event of the people . . . There can not be a more straitjacketing law. (Beverly Hernandez)
If you don’t have free speech, you can’t let the people know what’s going on. (Jake Stofko)
Musikfest . . . is not more important than the protection and preservation of our constitutional rights. (Ziona Brotleit)
This unconstitutional law will shackle, cripple, and violate the individual rights of everyone in Bethlehem. (Paul Saunders)
Insurance? Good-bye spontaneity. (Diane Dilendik)
This ordinance is full of overreach and minutia. (Nancy Tate)
I grew up in the 1960s, so let’s talk about civil rights . . . There were no restrictions placed on it, and it brought societal and political changes. It changed this country for the better. (Dana Grubb)
ArtsQuest as the driving force behind this is letting the tail wag the dog. (unknown)
This will have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to get involved. (Beverly Hernandez)
Permit is a public record . . . winds up on the internet . . . unintended consequences of open public record. (Tricia Mezzacappa)
I would call on [the police] . . . to refuse to enforce that law . . . and impose fines and jail sentences on all of you who would vote this in. (Scott Frey)
Adds an unconstitutional and unAmerican law . . . requiring prior restraint. (Paul Saunders)
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. (Diane Dilendik)
(The latest in a series of posts on City government)
Gadfly is a bit pressed for time today, so here is quick information about doin’s on the demonstration ordinance last night at City Council.
Gadfly will return to give you more detailed information on resident commentary.
The Mayor’s statement:
Some members of the City inquired if the City could exclude such groups from demonstrations on public property.
It was quickly understood on our part that First Amendment considerations do not allow exclusionary solution ordinance.
However, I considered it reasonable to let ArtsQuest and its representatives to contribute ideas about how to address their concerns,
We submitted this ordinance to Council early in April, and it has been in the public domain for two months . Surprisingly, it attracted very little attention from the public.
It’s only within the last several days that most public concern has surfaced.
I have always been a firm supporter of First Amendment rights.
Through this ordinance we seek to employ reasonable and constitutional time and place regulations . . .
One of my responsibilities as Mayor is to be responsive to public concerns . . . I consider it best and responsive to take the time needed to consider all the constructive comments.
(The latest in a series of posts on City government)
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.
Bob —
I understand that the permit ordinance will not be voted on tonight — Please confirm.
In any event, I would like to make these observations about the proposed ordinance:
1. Statements that the new ordinance was “to codify existing practice” were misleading and deceptive at best, because Bethlehem has not required a permit for most of the newly-covered activities.
2. Disruptive or violent behavior is covered under other ordinances and statutes, so this proposed change does not promote greater public safety; what it does is reduce the likelihood of ArtsQuest patrons being annoyed or distracted by messages outside ArtsQuest’s control. That is not city business.
3. Requiring people to ask the city’s permission to exercise their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights is repugnant and unacceptable. It would deter some people from participating or speaking out at all, making it profoundly undemocratic.
4. Requiring people to pay a fee to protest, celebrate, or even hold a vigil is an additional deterrent to free speech. Allowing people to apply for a waiver of the fee is not a remedy; it creates situations that are ripe for favoritism or abuse (or the appearance thereof).
5. Free speech must sometimes be exercised at a particular time and place to respond to a particular problem; requiring people to apply in advance is a further disruption of fundamental rights.
In addition to those substantive concerns, it is also disappointing that the City would even consider such a drastic change without discussion with local groups it would seriously effect, limiting or deterring their activities in the public interest.
(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)
Dana Grubb is a lifelong resident of the City of Bethlehem who worked 27 years for the City of Bethlehem in the department of community and economic development, as sealer of weights and measures, housing rehabilitation finance specialist, grants administrator, acting director of community and economic development, and deputy director of community development.
Gadfly:
Kim is absolutely right with her assessment. If you chip a piece of marble off of a statue in a less obvious location, most wouldn’t notice it. But, when you chip a piece of the nose, and then another chip, and then another chip, etc., pretty soon you won’t have that magnificent piece of art.
This is exactly what is happening in Bethlehem, a chip here, a chip there, but no holistic approach that says enough is enough because each of those chips contributes to destroying the original. Whether it’s a marble statue or a community, how much can be absorbed the integrity of the statue or character and quality of life of the community are lost? And, how many of these citizens who are appointed on the ZHB and PC are ever directly impacted by the decisions they’ve made? A rhetorical question. When I was the City’s deputy director of community development, I was constantly stressing to staff to treat each situation as if you lived next door, or your parents did. Bethlehem’s residents need public appointees and officials to put themselves in others’ shoes, and show some empathy and consideration. Empathy and consideration are currently lacking greatly in Bethlehem’s processes and in some very key employees, and that contributes to a declining quality of life and civility.
(The latest in a series of posts on City government)
from the City web site, thanks to the ubiquitous and omniscient Kathy Fox:
June 18, 201911:59 AM
City Council Meeting June 18, 2019
Proposed Article 961 / Bill 19-2019 Relating to Special Event Activity Permits, Demonstrations, and Use Permits.
The referenced proposed ordinance was submitted to Council for consideration on April 9, 2019. To be responsive to public and third party comments and concerns about the ordinance, including those of City Council, I am requesting postponement of final consideration of Bill 19-2019 and the related ordinance amendments until the Administration has a full opportunity to review the comments and integrate changes, if any are deemed appropriate.
I am requesting postponement indefinitely until such time as the Administration completes its review of the comments and suggestions and submits Bill 19-2019 with any recommended amendments for final consideration.
Yes, Gadfly, we need to mount up. But not just the immediate neighborhood, although that is important. But EVERYONE in our city needs to be concerned about the way developers are bypassing city ordinances. The developer’s lawyer said at the last Planning Commission meeting that they are seeking “small variances.” SMALL?? Check out the percentages of steep slope and impermeable surfaces they are asking for and compare with the ordinances they are seeking to bypass! This is about environmental damage and quality of life in the First Terrace neighborhood . . . aside from the other obvious issues of serious traffic problems and inadequate roads and parking, as well as scale of the project, noise, and housing a total of 40 students, where four houses stand today. But if ZHB only wants to hear about steep slope and impermeable surfaces, those issues are egregious enough.
ALL CITIZENS of Bethlehem should be concerned about this. Although we are told there are no such thing as precedents with these kinds of decisions (that’s what we’ve heard from Planning Commission folks, ZHB, and others), we have definitely heard the same folks say, “well, we did this for the __ project, so I guess we have to do it again for this developer, or they could sue us.”
Is that the way we want our city to function? I don’t live in the First Terrace neighborhood, but I see what may happen to neighborhoods on the Southside, OR North, when developers with deep pockets can come in and bypass our city laws, which exist for good reasons and are the will of the people of our city. The developers have the lawyers; residents don’t, and won’t, unless they can find themselves some deep-pocketed supporters; that’s not happening on First Terrace.
Please support the residents and other speakers on June 26 [Zoning Hearing, 6pm, Town Hall]; just stand up in the audience when they speak! Don’t let the Zoning Board think that no one cares about this kind of thing. You should, and I think you would if it were your neighborhood . . .
Kim
Gadfly was “nonplussed” at the lack of courage by the Planning Commission on this 1st Terrace case last week.
Article 961 will come up for final passage tonight.
The concern is public safety. The impetus mainly is the “brouhaha” caused by a group of outsiders at Musikfest in 2017.
The contrasting concern is freedom of speech.
The key issue in Council discussion is the definition of a demonstration, specifically the number of people that triggers the need for a permit.
The number in the proposed ordinance is 5:
“DEMONSTRATION” shall mean a parade, march, public assembly, meeting or gathering, rally or protest event, political rally or event, speechmaking, marching, the holding of vigils or religious services, and all other like forms of conduct, the primary purposes of which is expressive activity or the communication of expression of views or grievances, that: (1) is engaged in by more than five (5) persons and the conduct of which shall occur in whole or in part on City Property and has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.
The concern expressed at the Public Safety committee meeting June 5 is that the number 5 may be ok for Musikfest but is too small for other situations and might cause hardship or an obstacle to free speech.
Discussion at the Public Safety meeting was thorough. Everyone understood the relevance to Musikfest. Councilwoman Negron was worried about effects on smaller groups like MANA or the MLK Day activities. Councilwoman Van Wirt was concerned about overreach and inhibitions to free speech. President Waldron pointed to the subjectivity of the number 5.
The City felt that a two-tiered system — one number for Musikfest, another for smaller events — would not pass legal muster.
The number 20 was discussed as an alternative.
It looks like an amendment will be forthcoming tonight at Council before the vote on final passage.
Small groups worried about the impact of this ordinance on their events should register concern with City officials immediately (contact info on the sidebar) and/or speak during public comment tonight.
Let’s see what the issues are in the “demonstration ordinance” coming up for final passage tomorrow night.
Let’s start with the May 7 Council meeting.
The genesis of Article 961 seems to be a combination of 1) ArtsQuest’s desire to be prepared to handle such ugly incidents like the one by outside demonstrators that occurred in 2017 and 2) the City’s desire to codify some ordinances and practices in one place.
Councilwoman Van Wirt questioned 1) what seems to be a new definition of a demonstration as 5 people intent on drawing a crowd (too low) and 2) the proper handling of appeals.
So, ask yourself — if 5 people are gathered together in a park or on a sidewalk or on City Hall plaza, do they need a permit?
The matter was referred to the Public Safety committee meeting June 5.
The email copied below came out from LEPOCO this afternoon.
Gadfly loves LEPOCO. Gadfly loves the Lepocopians. Best people ever. What a “cause.”
Joining and participating a bit was on his retirement bucket list.
In these pages, you have seen Gadfly participate in the Peace Pilgrimage and in the Bike-a-thon.
LEPOCO now has to have $1m insurance and pays $75 for a park permit for the Bike-a-thon, the Hiroshima-Nagasaki event next to the library, various events in the Rose Garden (though they have brought up at City Hall that certain other groups have the fee waived).
This new ordinance looks like it could well also affect the monthly peace vigil on the sidewalk second Thursday of every month, 4:30 to 5:30 pm, at the south approach to the Hill-to-Hill Bridge, 3rd & Wyandotte — as well as other LEPOCO activities.
Does it? Will it?
Nancy Tate wonders why the City didn’t reach out and alert the “usual suspects” applying for permits. She did not know about the proposed ordinance till seeing the Saturday newspaper article. The ordinance passed a first reading at May 7 Council, was discussed at a Committee meeting June 5, and is now up for final passage tomorrow.
Not much time if you have questions and concerns.
CPs Van Wirt, Negron, and Waldron showed concern for the ordinance as written and as supported by the City June 5. CPs Reynolds, Martell, and Callahan did not attend the meeting. So Gadfly doesn’t know which way the wind is blowing.
Gadfly suggests that if you have questions and concerns, you contact the Mayor and Council members immediately. Contact links are on the Gadfly sidebar. If they don’t show up on your phone or other ways you access Gadfly, go to https://thebethlehemgadfly.com/
And Gadfly suggests that you come to the Council meeting and speak during public comment tomorrow night.
Gadfly will write more about this ordinance tonight and tomorrow.
Dear Friends,
In case you did not see reports in local newspapers, Bethlehem is considering an ordinance that will have significant impacts on many of the public events held by LEPOCO and other groups. Please read the article linked below and consider attending the meeting prepared to speak during the opening comment period. The meeting will be tomorrow, Tuesday, June 18, in the City Council chambers, the Rotunda, Church Street (between the library and city hall). Comments are limited to 5 minutes per speaker. The meeting begins at 7 pm. Please alert anyone you think should attend.
(The latest in a series of posts on City government)
Gadfly:
Chief DiLuzio is quoted saying they should have 2 officers for every uncooperative protester. Does that include protesters who become uncooperative because they are intimidated by police? In the last 15 years, there have been dozens of protests, rallies, & demonstrations in Bethlehem without incident. (Many have involved dozens of participants, some at least 100.)
If an on-street march requires closing a lane or needs a police escort or will bring 100 people to city center plaza (outside library & city hall), a permit is reasonable—if the cost is minimal. The ordinance didn’t set a fee, but I think anything over $10 would be unreasonable unless the event is expected to draw 100s or 1000s of people.
Gadfly always worries that “comments” to posts get lost in the WordPress design.
Did you see this comment from Peter Crownfield a week or so back?
People who are deciding or contributing to public policy should probably read Bill McKibben’s latest: Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?
Spurs me to ask what you are reading. Spurs me to ask what we should be reading? In regard to City issues, I mean.
To give us some ideas. Some solutions.
I am nibbling at McKibben’s anthology American Earth: Conversations on the Environment since Thoreau. Small anthology chunks. Reading in bits and pieces. Suggested by follower Ed Lotto.
I’ve also been dipping in to works by Jeff Speck — who did a study for Bethlehem, actually — works like Walkable City. Suggested by Tony Hanna.
(The latest in a series of posts on City government)
“Bethlehem is considering an ordinance that would require a prior permit if five or more people plan a demonstration in a public place like a sidewalk or park.”
The rationale is based on public safety, but there is concern over limitation of free speech.
Councilpersons Van Wirt, Negron, and Waldron have trouble with the number 5 triggering the need for a permit. They would like the number higher.
There was a 2-hour Public Safety Committee meeting (CM Colon, chair, with CWs Van Wirt and Negron) on the proposed ordinance last week. Gadfly suggests that you watch 1:30:00 onward to focus on the important concluding discussion.
It is expected that the critics of the proposed ordinance with 5 people triggering the need for a permit will be introduced tomorrow night.
A street preacher calling a passerby a whore. A nearly naked woman protesting a circus in town. Workers rights. Immigration. School shootings. Occupy Wall Street. Make America Great Again. Over the years, Bethlehem has witnessed more than a few headline-grabbing demonstrations as activists spread their message in a city that often teems with visitors attending festivals and special events on any given weekend.
Now, in the name of public safety, Bethlehem is considering an ordinance that would require a prior permit if five or more people plan a demonstration in a public place like a sidewalk or park. City officials say the goal is not to restrict free speech, but gather information. Police want to know where and when potential flare-ups may occur, and then deploy police and other emergency personnel accordingly. They say they’re concerned about the conduct of the demonstrators, not their message.
Pennsylvania ACLU attorney Mary Catherine Roper said she believes a threshold of just five people would not hold up in court. Some City Council members are considering increasing that threshold in the proposed ordinance to avoid a First Amendment conflict. “I have concerns about potential overreach,” Councilwoman Paige Van Wirt. She is concerned the requirement could deter small groups from speaking out.
Philadelphia has an ordinance similar to what Bethlehem is considering, but the permit requirement would be triggered by demonstrations of 75 people or more, and Pittsburgh’s limit is 50, according to a survey presented to City Council at a recent public safety committee meeting. Bethlehem police Chief Mark DiLuzio said at a June 5 meeting those municipalities have police departments much larger than Bethlehem’s 155-officer department. Ideally, he said he would like to have at least two officers for every protester, if they are uncooperative. DiLuzio said the city has about 20 officers working the South Side and 50 on the North Side during Musikfest. So, even a handful of people protesting during a festival can significantly divert resources, he said.
“You’re putting police in position to confront American citizens over nothing more than a peaceful assembly,” said Carroll, also the Republican nominee for Northampton County district attorney. ”It’s absurd.”
Council President Adam Waldron said he appreciates the public safety argument, but it makes him nervous any time government “is tip-toeing up against the First Amendment.”
Council could vote on the ordinance as early as Tuesday, which would put it in effect for Musikfest Aug. 2-11.
(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)
Kate McVey is a concerned citizen, 30-year resident of Bethlehem, professional organizer, dog owner, mother of two children, been around, kosher cook . . . explorer.
Gadfly:
Are there written rules and goals for the planning commission and the zoning board? Do those committees adhere to those goals? Do the planning and zoning boards work for developers or the citizens? If variances and changes are constantly made for the developers, what is the point of rules and regulations?
It does make one wonder what hold the developers have over the city council, planning commission, and the zoning board.
Development is necessary, development need not be a bad thing, but, where is it going, and is it meeting a need of the community or just the goal of the developer?
South Side Bethlehem residents Thursday implored the city’s Planning Commission to take a long, hard look at a proposal for additional student housing in their neighborhood before recommending it move ahead.
City dwellers living nearby 1st Terrace took turns voicing their displeasure over Lehigh
the site on 1st Terrace
Property Management’s intention to add two four-unit town homes each numbering five bedrooms with three floors above garages to the narrow, hilltop street zoned high-density and overlooking the Asa Packer Campus of Lehigh University.
The board reviewed a sketch plan revision from one presented to them in March and opted by a 2-1 vote to advance it to the zoning board with no action for or against.
Vice Chairman Matthew Malozi, who cast the lone no vote, said he’s concerned that the project might not fit within the community, and urged those in attendance to return for the zoning hearing and speak again.
“We’ve created a plan that conforms to all of the ordinances of the city,” [the developer rep] said.
“Implored” — there’s that tough verb again.
The one that indicates the gulf between the powerless and the empowered.
Some South Side Bethlehem residents Thursday implored the city’s Planning Commission, the Morning Call article states, just like the May 22 South Bethlehem Historical Society letter implored the Mayor and City Council.
People who implore are, figuratively if not literally, on their knees.
They are looking for mercy (or justice).
So residents of upper Hillside Ave. and 1st Terrace implored the Planning Commission to take a stand against the developer sketch plan (second version) to raze four homes on 1st Terrace and build two town homes accommodating forty students.
The residents were calm but firm. In short, they said, this is an out-of-scale project involving the need for serious variances regarding steep slopes, impervious surfaces, and parking that will destabilize a highly cohesive neighborhood when the University has said there is no need for extra student housing.
This is a highly functional, mixed-income, ethnically and racially diverse neighborhood in which neighbors know each other, look out for each other, which
1st Terrace looking west
will be destabilized by this project . . . if Bethlehem city government allows all those variances to be issued for a project which is demonstrably destructive to the neighborhood, we have to ask what is the Planning Commission for . . . This is a project that simply has no place in this neighborhood. (Seth Moglen, min. 7:55)
We have been threatened several times by the developer’s maintenance persons saying that you should move, you are not going to like where you live in a couple of years . . . we should sell our houses now before the area is destabilized. I invite you all to please take a drive up to our lovely little quaint neighborhood, it’s a beautiful quiet street, we’ve lived there a long time, we have a great neighborhood. (Gretchen Starke, min. 13:20)
Last week we were on the front porch, and Justin my 9-yr-old said, “This neighborhood is starting to suck . . . there’s no kids around here any more.” We can’t make it go worse. We want more families to come into the neighborhood. And we have the potential to do that. . . . We want to be here, we choose to be here. My grandfather grew up in this house . . . we want to stay in this house. . . . We want to be sure we have a community and a place where we can raise kids like Justin to know all the things the Southside has to offer not just being a party town where kids come to party. (Murdock Saunders, min. 17:40)
One of the things that makes all of the Southside a cool and interesting place to live is that we have an eclectic blend of architecture, and we like it that way, it’s kind of cool, but what we don’t have are new things that completely depart from that old
1st Terrace looking east
look of a neighborhood . . . those are just not ways houses were designed in the old days . . . part of the interesting features of the Southside are things that blend, they might be different but they blend . . . the biggest issue is scale that does not blend. (Kim Carrell-Smith, min. 20:52)
The problem with this project is to put such density of housing on this relatively small site on a steep slope with all those cars means a malformation of the neighborhood. . . . Those would be conditions under which we would consider moving. . . . The difference between what is permitted and what is requested is so great, I don’t understand how people could really consider it just a variance. . . . Consider the scale of the variance. It’s not minor. (Kristen Handler, min. 27:28)
When you buy a home and put a lot of money into it, the expectation is your Planning Commission and Zoning Board keeps that stability. They don’t go ahead and put a Wal-Mart behind your house. This is not Rt. 22, this is not Catasauqua Rd. . . . A project like that would be 3rd St., 4th St. (Steve Mendez, min. 31:05)
Gadfly loves the power of Bethlehem resident commentary, and he encourages you — please! — to listen to their full testimony:
So what was the up-shot of this forceful testimony?
The purpose of the PC at this meeting was to review the developer sketch plan (2nd version) before it headed to the Zoning Board, allowing the Commission to provide any comments they would think meaningful to Zoning for the future development of the plan.
One PC member said “we heard you loud and clear,” and it was a “tough decision” — and two members of the 3-member PC recommended that the neighbors attend the Zoning Board meeting on June 26.
The PC had three options: recommend for the sketch plan, recommend against it, or take no action.
A motion to take no action passed 2-1.
“We heard you loud and clear,” but we will take no action.
Gadfly was nonplussed.
Why is it so hard to say no to a developer?
Ok, in fairness, the sketch plan had moved in a good direction in this second version, and there was no significant testimony from the developer (no rebuttal to the residents), and, the key decision on those significant variances seems to be with Zoning, and, if Zoning approves, the PC gets to vote again — ok, Gadfly gets all that . . .
But why is it so hard just to say no when that is manifestly the right decision?
Take no action. Such a wussy decision.
But at least one PC member was willing to be clear about the significant negative issues here.
(Latest in a series of posts on Bethlehem Moments)
Gadfly has asked President Waldron if we can move the Bethlehem Moment to the top of the meeting after the prayer and the pledge.
Here’s the document I supplied to support the request:
Bethlehem Moment Project
Ed Gallagher ejg1@lehigh.edu
version 1 6/4/19
Proposal:
That beginning July 2, 2019, as a one-year pilot program, Bethlehem City Council add a historical moment – “A Bethlehem Moment” – to its opening meeting protocol immediately following the prayer and the pledge of allegiance and before the body of the meeting starts.
What is a Bethlehem Moment?
an historical vignette
a scene or event from Bethlehem history between 1741 and the 1960s
topic of the author’s choice, approved by the program coordinator
short, so as to not unduly delay the business of the meeting
entered in the minutes, published on the Gadfly blog and perhaps also on the City website or social media
our history completes the triumvirate of God and Country that is the source of our values and the context for our decisions
without a sense of our shared history, we can never be a true community
by invoking our history at the beginning of the meeting, we would be powerfully signaling our commitment to our history
by invoking our history at the beginning of the meeting, we would be encouraging knowledge of that history
this addition to our meeting protocol will make us unique among our peers
How will the project be administered?
Ed Gallagher will engage to find readers and arrange the schedule for the year. After which, he will find a successor coordinator. Or City Council could take the project over and line up participants as it does clergy. Or the program could languish, having run its course.
All elements flexible!
A profound Gadfly thanks to these good people who have signed on for the rest of the year. Several people have indicated interest in that last date but no firm commitment yet. So we could use one more “Momentor” to finish off the 2019 line-up.
(Conclusion of a 5-part series of posts on the Southside by Anna Smith)
Anna Smith is a life-long Southside resident and Director of the Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem, a non-profit dedicated to improving the quality of life in south Bethlehem by fostering economic opportunity, promoting community development, and empowering residents to actively participate in the decision-making process regarding the future of our diverse community.
Gadfly:
The Southside is far from a monolith, and I moved a mile across town this past winter. I’m not sure what my neighborhood’s challenges and opportunities are quite yet, but I’m starting to get a feel for my new community. I look forward to continuing conversations about my neighbors’ hopes and fears for their community over the backyard fence and on nightly dog walks on the eastern side of south Bethlehem.
I bet that housing affordability will be a big one—my mortgage payment is a lot cheaper than what I paid in rent for a much smaller and more run-down place on the Southside. Rental prices are spiraling upward, and there isn’t nearly enough affordable, quality housing to go around. It seems to me that neighborhood change is accelerating these challenges, and the stories I hear from residents on a daily basis illustrate the human impact of our affordable housing crisis. What do we do about it? As always, my inclination is start by listening.
There are no simple or straightforward answers when it comes to dealing with neighborhood change. But as it continues, here are a few principles that I’ll be keeping in mind:
The Southside is a unique, diverse community with individuals who have a range of perspectives on any issue—any attempt to suggest otherwise is disrespectful to the experience and agency of those who call our community home. All have the right to be heard.
The best ideas usually come from those who have personal experience with the topic at hand. If they are not at the table, then we should stop discussion until they are and do what it takes to make participation easy—even if it means taking a step back or down.
Southside Bethlehem has always changed and will continue to change. However, the inevitability of change does not mean we have to accept all changes as inevitable.
Deficit-based thinking leads to missed opportunities, or worse, can lead to the accidental destruction of assets. If we can identify what is great about our neighborhoods, we can preserve it and use it as inspiration for future development. Always start with assets.
It may be hard to believe, but former Southsider and folk singer John Gorka wrote this song about south Bethlehem in 1991. Concerns about neighborhood change are hardly new to the Southside and are indicative of a deep sense of commitment to a community. The least we can do, and the best place for any of us to start, is to listen to them.
Cyber charter schools are privately operated, publicly funded schools authorized by the state and paid for by school districts. Advocates say cyber schools provide options for families seeking choice for their children’s educations. Children learn virtually on charter school-provided computers, at no cost to the families. The cost comes to the districts instead. Bills in the state House and Senate would allow districts with their own cyber programs to stop paying tuition to cyber charter schools. If a student decided to attend the cyber charter school, the family would be responsible for the tuition.
It’s also time to stop kicking the can down the road on charter funding reform. Pennsylvania’s charter law needs an overhaul, including setting the bar higher for charter operators. It’s not about district schools versus charter schools. It’s about high-quality schools, period. The state’s charter funding model needs to reflect that.
One example is the chronic underperformance of cyber charter schools, which are costly to taxpayers and fail to deliver for students. Thirteen of the state’s 14 cyber charter schools are on the list of the lowest performing schools in Pennsylvania. School district-operated cyber charters perform better at a fraction of the cost.
Last week Republican members of the House Education Committee advanced two charter school expansion bills that deliver the charter school industry’s wish list. We anticipate that the House will vote on these bills in early June.
By a party-line vote of 14 to 10, committee members passed House Bills 356 and 357. These bills strip communities of the ability to plan and exercise appropriate fiscal and academic oversight over their public education systems. These bills also weaken accountability, allow for the unfettered expansion of even the lowest performing charter schools, and fail to protect taxpayers and students from failing schools.
By a party-line vote of 14 to 10, committee members passed House Bills 356 and 357. These bills strip communities of the ability to plan and exercise appropriate fiscal and academic oversight over their public education systems. These bills also weaken accountability, allow for the unfettered expansion of even the lowest performing charter schools, and fail to protect taxpayers and students from failing schools.
(Fourth in a 5-part series of posts on the Southside by Anna Smith)
Anna Smith is a life-long Southside resident and Director of the Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem, a non-profit dedicated to improving the quality of life in south Bethlehem by fostering economic opportunity, promoting community development, and empowering residents to actively participate in the decision-making process regarding the future of our diverse community.
Gadfly:
Campus-community tensions are an inevitable component of any college town. South Bethlehem and Lehigh are no exception to the rule (if you can find an exception anywhere, I’d love to hear about it!). Once again, your perspective depends on your location (in this case, physical location matters), and your frame of reference. Here are a few of the things I’m thinking about these days.
Going back at least a decade, the expansion in off-campus housing for Lehigh University students drastically changed the face of Fifth Street, Hillside Ave, Birkel Avenue, and Montclair Avenue. Once home to families and homeowners, portions of these streets are now almost exclusively student housing. This transition was painful for the remaining homeowners who feel that the community where they bought their homes has disappeared. They can probably sell their homes for more money now, but the emotional component of losing a neighborhood has to be recognized, and we can’t deny that the look and feel of a community has value for those that call it home. Backyards once home to meticulously tended rose gardens have been converted to parking lots. Remnants of student parties are piled high on trash day, and old couches continue to appear on front porch littered with beer bottles. Neighbors who have witnessed the transition from Bethlehem Steel retirees to students are entitled to their frustration. Not all students are bad neighbors, but that’s not the point.
Like development, however, the student housing expansion did not occur in a vacuum. Without student housing, what would have happened to these properties? Overall economic trends in south Bethlehem and similar deindustrializing communities would suggest that many of these properties would not have been purchased by homeowners following the relocation of their original owners. The neighborhood would have experienced change with or without students—what that change would have looked like is difficult to say, and value judgments are beyond the scope of this discussion. However, the lack of a resident voice—the lack of choices—in what happened to these neighborhoods was enough to create a sense of impotence among those left behind. That frustration can be difficult to understand for those focused solely on the economics of the situation, but taking some time to listen to the stories of our neighbors brings the aches and pains of neighborhood change into view.
For those living on the outskirts of the student neighborhoods, the student housing discussion is quite different. Give them Birkel and Fifth, my former neighbors on Carlton plead; just don’t let them take over my neighborhood. The students are generally fine people, but they just have different hours and lifestyles that don’t mesh well with raising a toddler. Doesn’t it make more sense to concentrate the students close to one another and to campus? What family wants to live across the street from a student dorm, anyway? The conversion of single-family homes to student housing feels threatening to residents on the outskirts of predominantly student neighborhoods who are watching their blocks change more rapidly than they ever had before. What will they do if they are the last homeowners on the only block they have known for the last 50 years?
(Third in a 5-part series of posts on the Southside by Anna Smith)
Anna Smith is a life-long Southside resident and Director of the Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem, a non-profit dedicated to improving the quality of life in south Bethlehem by fostering economic opportunity, promoting community development, and empowering residents to actively participate in the decision-making process regarding the future of our diverse community.
Gadfly:
Instead of starting with nothing, why don’t we start with something? Community-driven, asset-based development is an alternative approach that some community organizations have taken in south Bethlehem, and that can be applied to any potential development project. Working with residents and other stakeholders to identify a neighborhood’s strengths and assets and then creating a plan for development that builds off those strengths ensures that development adds to a neighborhood’s character without erasing the elements that attracted development in the first place.
A classic example is the South Bethlehem Greenway—a defunct rail line was converted into a community park that connects south Bethlehem commercial districts, improving walkability in an already walkable community.
On Hayes Street, the historic architecture of St. Stanislaus church was adapted into a multi-purpose space for the Southside Lofts affordable apartment community.
In both examples, a community need or challenge was identified and a strategy was developed to address that challenge by building off existing assets.
This approach brings its own challenges, and no development project will ever be supported by everyone. However, making an effort to engage community members tends to make for a better project in the end.
way that no one else under 90 really can. He’s part of this place, and he’s seen the good, the bad, the ups and downs, the old folks departing, and the younger folks coming in. He’s seen the range of ethnicities change and morph over time as our population has ebbed and flowed. And he loves the history of this place that is represented in its people, its buildings –from churches to businesses and homes, to industrial structures, to streetscapes—he knows that history is important. He knows that it is a selling point for this side of the river, just as it’s a selling point for that other side. And he’s not afraid to show up and do his part to help folks understand that.
(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)
Dana Grubb is a lifelong resident of the City of Bethlehem who worked 27 years for the City of Bethlehem in the department of community and economic development, as sealer of weights and measures, housing rehabilitation finance specialist, grants administrator, acting director of community and economic development, and deputy director of community development.
Gadfly:
Kim is absolutely right with her assessment. If you chip a piece of marble off of a statue in a less obvious location, most wouldn’t notice it. But, when you chip a piece of the nose, and then another chip, and then another chip, etc., pretty soon you won’t have that magnificent piece of art.
This is exactly what is happening in Bethlehem, a chip here, a chip there, but no holistic approach that says enough is enough because each of those chips contributes to destroying the original. Whether it’s a marble statue or a community, how much can be absorbed the integrity of the statue or character and quality of life of the community are lost? And, how many of these citizens who are appointed on the ZHB and PC are ever directly impacted by the decisions they’ve made? A rhetorical question. When I was the City’s deputy director of community development, I was constantly stressing to staff to treat each situation as if you lived next door, or your parents did. Bethlehem’s residents need public appointees and officials to put themselves in others’ shoes, and show some empathy and consideration. Empathy and consideration are currently lacking greatly in Bethlehem’s processes and in some very key employees, and that contributes to a declining quality of life and civility.
Dana