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,
Personally, I like Adam. I particularly admire him because he’s a successful small business owner in Bethlehem.
As Council President, there are two qualities I have enjoyed and am happy he’s brought to the position. First, he isn’t rigid with the 5 minute limit given to public speakers. Second his sense of humor is welcome in some cases. I’ll get back to that in a minute.
But, there is a really big difference between allowing someone, whether a resident or Councilmember, to speak versus issuing a personal attack. And, I think that’s where he loses sight of his role as Council President and allowed it to become disruptive to the ebb and flow of Council meetings, especially in 2019. Personal attacks on residents or other Members of Council are completely inappropriate and as President of Council you have to be able to recognize the difference. Anyone who has attended many Council meetings can. Whether it is initiated by another Councilmember or public speaker, that’s when a City Council President needs to step in and turn that “soft gavel” into a hard gavel. As far as humor goes, poking fun at the topic or a situation is fine, but poking fun at a person takes it too far. Commenting on a person’s dress, in the example you’ve mentioned in this column, is an example of the latter and shouldn’t be done. Fortunately, Steve Antalics had a great comeback to Adam’s sweater remark, one that shouldn’t have been made in the first place. And, these kinds of comments, attempts at humor, have been made at someone’s expense before.
I believe those who appeared at the Council meeting in support of Olga Negron recognized these shortcomings while also complimenting Adam’s strengths and felt that a more experienced more mature City Council President was needed. I don’t believe it was really anything more than that, although the secondary benefit of an opportunity for Council to elect a woman, and in the case of President, a Latina, into leadership positions was not lost on the public.
Dana
Dana’s post moves us toward the next topic Gadfly will write about on this thread, free speech among the Council members.
So there’s a proposal on the table to close the part of Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster Sts. that runs in between sections of Lehigh University.
The idea is to make the closed area a pedestrian mall.
Let’s get some eyes on the area.
Visual 1:
the section x’d is the section closing on Packer between Vine and Webster for the pilot study
the arrow on the left shows the route of pretty heavy traffic coming from Wyandotte/Rt 378 on to Summit, then left onto Brodhead that will not be able to use Packer to go east
the arrows on the right shows the current normal routes of pretty heavy traffic traveling east on Packer turning left down to 4th St. and right up Hillside
a just-being-approved new classroom building at Webster and Packer will add more foot traffic at that corner
Visual 2:
a close-up of the designated area
the brackets indicate the area on Packer between Vine and Webster
the arrows indicate the path that a veritable torrent of students take up and down campus crossing Packer Ave.
especially at class shift time this area — which is only marked with a cross-walk — is territory in which it is particularly troublesome and dangerous for people and vehicles to co-exist
Visual 3:
This link to google maps should take you to the corner of Vine and Packer looking east on Packer toward Webster, and you should be able to maneuver down to Webster. If the link doesn’t work, use google street view yourself to “drive” east on Packer.
So let’s start thinking about what the issues, if any, are and who the stakeholders are.
RULES OF COUNCIL 3.B Public Comment is extended as set forth in Rule 3 hereinabove but in no event shall one individual address Council during Public Comment for a period of time in excess of five (5) minutes.
Councilman Callahan has told some secrets at Council. Like parking meters really are set to give you an extra three minutes beyond your limit (the executive director of the Parking Authority lost all his hair at that disclosure). Like the hairless executive director of the Parking Authority found another job in another city (most likely coincidence between these two examples not causation).
This should be a secret: President Waldron usually conducts public comment with a soft gavel.
If this becomes common knowledge, Council meetings will likely be besieged by legions of wind demons (wonderful phrase from American novelist Stephen Crane).
So buffeted, the Ship of State will not advance on the Sea of Progress.
And the Water Department contracts will never get approved.
For example, at the January 6 Council meeting a resident got to her five minutes and seamlessly inserted “Ineed a few more minutes if you don’t mind, please” into her narrative and without a word or a gesture of approval from President Waldron (not that Gadfly could hear or see; check the video yourself) flowed on for another almost four minutes.
Pretty cheeky, thought the shy and timid Gadfly.
And, on second thought, why didn’t I think of that.
For President Waldron is pretty liberal with public comment time.
But this situation is very unusual.
From Gadfly’s perspective in the cheap seats, the public is pretty cognizant of the five-minute border and generally respects it, and when someone crosses over (Gadfly has been guilty) there seems to be a bit of time built in to President Waldron’s meter (just like the parking meters) before there is a gentle but firm nudge to finish.
Gadfly cannot remember one instance in the past two years of his Council-watching when someone was shut down mid-breath, never once was the podium trap-door used (a salute to Gadfly #1 for that one).
So anyone can speak during public comment at Council meetings and speak for five minutes plus a little.
The rule is five minutes, and five minutes maddeningly measured, as colorfully described by our irrepressible Gadfly #1, by the stupid light in the idiot box on the Head Table.
That idiot box is a vivid acknowledgment that though we have free speech, it is limited. And we chafe at that. Gadfly #1, who, it is rumored, did the superb cave paintings at Lascaux, reminds us that at one time public comment time was unlimited, then it was twelve minutes, before now being five.
Our free speech has been gradually rationed. (Even the energy in the Sun is running down.)
And we chafe.
But that is the rule. And it is not President Waldron’s rule. And he is reasonably flexible about applying it.
In fact, in a deliciously humorous irony, the same resident who banked on the magic word “please” in the quote above to get extra time for herself during public comment later volunteered her appreciation at that presidential largesse (good SAT word) as she criticized other manifestations of the soft gavel in other Council situations.
So Gadfly doesn’t think the five-minute rule unreasonable since we do not live in an ideal world, and he tries to work within it, well, right up to the limit, and he appreciates the soft gavel when he is wrestling to the end of his thoughts.
In this context, he wouldn’t have President Waldron any other way.
Thank you, Mr. Soft Gavel.
Are you with me or agin’ me so far? Responses invited.
But — remembering Gadfly #1’s division of this free speech subject into several parts — the road ahead is more rocky.
Say, didn’t I just see all of you in line in front of me at Weiss market an hour or so ago?
We posted earlier about the differential in the heavy way Bethlehem police are charging residents and the lighter way Lehigh Police are charging students in front of southside judge Nancy Matos Gonzalez, a serious question, said the judge, of her ability to dispense justice equitably.
In other words, in this judge’s experience the Bethlehem Police were not very often utilizing the lesser charge option made possible by the ordinance.
And it makes you wonder if Bethlehem police practice is undermining the intent of the recent ordinance decriminalizing the use of small amounts of marijuana, as well as wonder if the ordinance is applied differently in other parts of the city.
At Council January 2, the Mayor reported that the Police Chief will be meeting with the new Northampton County District Attorney Houck about his views on our new ordinance. Remember that the decriminalizing ordinance was not effective in the Lehigh County parts of Bethlehem because the Lehigh County D.A. ruled that Federal law still uniformly applies there. The former Northampton County D.A. ok’d the option for the police to decide whether to make the offense a heavy (Federal) or light (City) charge.
The Mayor’s response seems solely aimed at the question of how the marijuana law is functioning in the context of the split county jurisdiction in our town.
But that’s not the same question as how the police option to bring a light or a heavy charge is working.
Councilman Reynolds’ request to Council seems have the necessary breadth.
Reynolds’ request for a Public Safety meeting on the issue will be communicated to Council for action at next Tuesday’s meeting.
City Council’s new year begins for real at next Tuesday’s meeting.
Adam Waldron begins his second term as Council president for real at next Tuesday’s meeting.
The one big criticism of President Waldron expressed strongly both before and after the election on January 6 focused on his gavel.
It’s been described as a “soft gavel.”
In fact, Gadfly might have originated that description. Way back, Gadfly referred to President Waldron as Mr. Soft Gavel. He meant it in a humorously thankful way for usually allowing loquacious (good SAT word) public commenters (like himself) a bit of leeway with the 5-minute rule.
But not everybody is happy with President Waldron’s soft gavel and, indeed — you can’t deny — there have been problems surrounding its use.
President Waldron’s gavel is a legitimate subject of controversy.
President Waldron realizes that his gavel style/philosophy has been seen by some as problematic. He has not hidden from the criticism. Admirably, President Waldron has made at least three extended statements about/defenses of it during his first term. And, in fact, it was the substance of his pre-election “stump speech” on January 6, where he acknowledges that he has been criticized for allowing people “to speak too much” but that he believes that “more conversation . . . is always a good thing” and that “everyone should have an opportunity to be heard.”
President Waldron is personally committed to his gavel style and relates in the stump speech that individual conversations with his Council colleagues have not given him reasons to change.
President Waldron will continue to apply a soft gavel.
Which means that some Gadfly followers will continue to be dissatisfied and that some problems may occur.
Ugh.
So let’s talk about this gavel issue. Gadfly, you know, believes that “good conversation builds community.”
Listen to Gadfly #1 Stephen Antalics on the subject of freedom of speech within the rotundity of Town Hall, speaking just after bequeathing President Waldron that most Christmassy of all Christmas sweaters he’s wearing.
Gadfly #1 gives us a structure with which to talk about the gavel issue. Following classic rhetorical practice, he “divides” the subject into free speech for the 1) audience and 2) the Head Table, then further subdividing 2) into 2a) objective speech and 2b) subjective speech.
Useful divisions.
So let’s think first about how President Waldron uses his gavel with the audience during public comment.
Latest in a series of posts on Airbnb and short-term lodging
A “Town Square” in today’s Morning Call. A thorny issue as you can see if you browse past posts in this thread. There’s a short-term lodging ordinance on the agenda for Tuesday’s City Council meeting. So it’s time to pay attention. Gadfly will post again on this issue in the near future, before the meeting.
The plans for expanded development of the Hotel Bethlehem that generated so much discussion and excitement 2-3 years ago have been put on a bit of a pause because of new hotels in Center Valley and the proposed development by Wind Creek.
Hotel Bethlehem managing partner Bruce Haines is still optimistic about the project but says the timing right now is not right.
See his good description of the situation here in his appearance before the CRIZ board this week seeking and gaining approval for an extension of the expansion planning.
Lehigh University wants to close a portion of Packer Avenue for 45 days this spring, a move aimed at making its south Bethlehem campus more pedestrian-friendly.
The temporary closure, between Vine and Webster streets, would run between March 9 and April 30. During that time, officials would assess the impact on parking, traffic patterns and pedestrians on that section of Packer that brushes Lehigh’s Asa Packer campus.
Lehigh says about 1,200 people cross that street daily, and the Bethlehem Parking Authority operates metered parking there. Lehigh says that about 85% of those vehicles parked along that stretch are affiliated with the university.
Lehigh plans to present its plans at public meeting from 6 to 8 p.m. Jan. 23 at the Broughal Middle School Auditorium. City Council would ultimately have to decide on the closure.
Mayor Robert Donchez said he supports the study but has not taken a position on the permanent closure of that section of Packer Avenue. He said he would like to see whether the cars that had been parking in the metered spots will spill into the neighborhoods. He also had questions about how the loss of parking meter revenue will impact the parking authority.
He said the move could build upon a larger effort of Lehigh’s to blend the campus into the south Bethlehem community. In recent years, Lehigh has contributed money toward the beautification of South New Street. Lehigh has moved into offices at the Flat Iron building and the Gateway at Greenway Park building attached to the South New Street garage.
Adrienne McNeil, Lehigh University’s assistant vice president of community and regional affairs, said limiting traffic on that part of the street would help bring the campus closer to the downtown and would be another step in a yearslong effort to make the campus more pedestrian-friendly and environmentally sustainable.
Lehigh has been revamping its transportation system. In the last year, the shuttle buses have been making stops every 10 minutes from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. and added stops at Farrington, Vine and Webster streets. Three additional shuttles were introduced as part of the effort.
McNeil said ridership has doubled on campus, and the university has moved to a zoned permit structure where parking permits are only good for certain areas of the campus during the peak times.
The Gadfly invites “local color” photos of this sort
Blessed when these creatures appear in the wild. Yes, I speak to them reassuring that I mean them no harm. Dana Grubb
———————–
Gadfly is reminded of Robert Frost’s “Two Look at Two”:
Love and forgetting might have carried them
A little further up the mountain side
With night so near, but not much further up.
They must have halted soon in any case
With thoughts of a path back, how rough it was
With rock and washout, and unsafe in darkness;
When they were halted by a tumbled wall
With barbed-wire binding. They stood facing this,
Spending what onward impulse they still had
In one last look the way they must not go,
On up the failing path, where, if a stone
Or earthslide moved at night, it moved itself;
No footstep moved it. ‘This is all,’ they sighed,
Good-night to woods.’ But not so; there was more.
A doe from round a spruce stood looking at them
Across the wall, as near the wall as they.
She saw them in their field, they her in hers.
The difficulty of seeing what stood still,
Like some up-ended boulder split in two,
Was in her clouded eyes; they saw no fear there.
She seemed to think that two thus they were safe.
Then, as if they were something that, though strange,
She could not trouble her mind with too long,
She sighed and passed unscared along the wall.
‘This, then, is all. What more is there to ask?’
. . . . . . . . . . .
It was all. Still they stood,
A great wave from it going over them,
As if the earth in one unlooked-for favour
Had made them certain earth returned their love.
He worked fifty years at a job he loved. He lives in a beautiful town. He lives in a solvent town. His Visa balance is heading in the right direction. His weight is heading in the right direction. His wife has a few good days. All his daughters-in-law are strong, all his sons are good looking, and all their children are above average. He can still go 8 for 10 from the foul line. He wasn’t last in the D&L Half-Marathon. His backyard blooms thanks to a good neighbor gardener. His Gadfly followers would not fit in the two Banko Alehouse Cinemas. He was once compared to Jimmy Stewart. His high school yearbook speaks of “his keen sense of humor.”
Gadfly is usually a happy man.
But late in the Monday, January 6 meeting he was wearing a poo-poo face when, taking advantage of someone he knows with a soft gavel, he shuffled to the Town Hall podium to address the Council.
He hasn’t mastered the art of the video-selfie yet, and you really can’t tell from the birds-eye view on the City video (minute 2:22:50). . .
but Gadfly was not a happy man.
You can hear his poo-poo face in his words.
I guess I’d like to say that the way I think of you all is as family. So what I will say is not against any individual. I think of you all as family, I try to write on Gadfly about you all as family. I used a line from the Mayor’s Op-Ed as a headline on Gadfly this week that Bethlehem will continue to be the jewel of the Lehigh Valley. I’m disappointed tonight. I think Bethlehem had a chance to do something bold. And didn’t. And I’m not sure why. It doesn’t seem like the kind of choice that would have bothered lots of other places. So I’m disappointed in my family tonight.
This comment was after the election for president and vice president, when re-elected President Waldron — who, as a water-cooler chatterer in the previous post said, admirably “remained composed” as the Negron supporters flooded the podium (there’s that damn verb phrase again) — was patiently taking a bit of a beating on his meeting-management style. Earning every bit of the extra $500 stipend the presidency brings. Combat pay.
There were two energy waves pulsing through the meeting that night: total adoration of Councilwoman Negron, some aggravation at Councilman Waldron.
Gadfly has written about Councilman Waldron’s management style/philosophy, he will do so again in a post or two, and frankly he did not personally see it as a factor so grave as to disqualify him from the presidency.
And Gadfly does think of his elected officials as family, as corny as it sounds. He may not always agree with them, but they are his family. He is not your typical gadfly. He does not wear a hard crustacean shell like Gadfly #1. He was accused in Gad-school of secretly loving the enemy.
On the night of January 6 Gadfly felt like a Native American on the western plains with his ear to the ground, hearing the onward rumbling of the buffalo that meant the renewal of his tribal life.
On the night of January 6 he felt the hair on the back of his neck stand up, alert to something coming like one of those animals with instinctive early warning apparatus who sense the storm, the tsunami, the earthquake before anything is visible.
On the night of January 6 he felt like the 4AM bird who chirps about dawn in the still dark night.
In short, on the night of January 6 Gadfly felt History coiling up to make a Moment.
A candidate to be the first Latina City Council president was worthy and willing
But History passed on by. Without being hailed at the Head Table. Maybe never to return.
Cheryl Dougan has lived in Bethlehem since 1992, has served on the Fine Arts Commission, the Bethlehem Historic District Association. and several state and national boards and committees relevant to disability issues. She is a spokesperson on behalf of Direct Support Professionals and is committed to raising awareness of how essential and underpaid this workforce is to people living with disabilities.
Gadfly:
It is a travesty that Olga was not elected president of the Bethlehem City Council. A worse travesty that Adam Waldron, who has proven himself to be ineffective and self-serving, did win re-election, thanks to cronyism rather than his ability to guide good governance. I sat beside a newcomer to Bethlehem at the last council meeting I attended and watched the proceedings with embarrassment, through her eyes. She was astonished at the dismissive, arrogant, and rude comments from Waldron. Olga would have been great, for so many reasons. Her grace, dignity, brilliance, moderated tenacity, and deep concern for the welfare of our city more than qualified her for this post. A missed opportunity, to be certain.
Congratulations to Michael Colon on being elected City Council vice president!
A post about the election of the new City Council vice president should be about Colon, who was nominated by Councilman Callahan.
But it’s not.
Unsuccessful candidate Paige Van Wirt’s short but passionate “stump speech” sucked the oxygen out of the room.
Let’s listen again to just her part of the previous video.
Van Wirt (nominated by Councilwoman Negron) linked her candidacy to Negron’s unsuccessful candidacy for president, forty perplexing years after the last (and only) female Council president:
“We lost an opportunity tonight that would have meant a lot to a lot of people in this community, a lot of women in this community, a lot of people from the Southside, a lot of Puerto Rican people in this community.”
The rhetorical drumbeat of “people . . . people . . . people.”
You can recognize here Van Wirt’s often articulated populist agenda.
Semper ad populum, she wrote recently on her Facebook page (a phrase she used during the primary election too): Always for the People.
Van Wirt also linked her candidacy unabashedly, unambiguously, and vigorously to a feminist agenda:
“I would accept this role as vice president because I do think the time has come for leadership of women on City Council and, I’ll even say, a female mayor of Bethlehem.”
“The time has come” for “a female mayor of Bethlehem.”
Gadfly is not sure Van Wirt’s talking about herself; it may be Negron.
But Gadfly can’t be the only one who heard a salvo fired, who saw a gauntlet thrown.
Gadfly has been consciously posting slowly on last week’s Council meeting, affording you time to reflect on this eventful event. As always, he invites comments from all perspectives.
Especially because of the twenty two residents flooding the podium to support Olga Negron. (Has lehighvalleylive’s Sara Satullo ever been quoted more?)
The vote was 4-3 in favor of Adam Waldron.
Councilfolk Colon, Crampsie Smith, and Reynolds voted for Waldron. Councilfolk Callahan and Van Wirt voted for Negron.
The room was heavily pro-Negron, so there was an audible orgasmic lament at the decision.
The election of the vice president is normally anti-climactic.
Not so this time.
The nominees were Michael Colon and Paige Van Wirt.
The vote was 4-3 in favor of Michael Colon — Callahan, Crampsie Smith, and Waldron siding with Colon, and Negron and Reynolds siding with Van Wirt.
What qualifies the election of vice president a Main Event is what was said.
Listen. Think. And we’ll come back and discuss.
2020 let’s hope is a year to see more clearly. Gadfly #2 Bill Scheirer
Gadfly has downsizing work to do. He keeps hoping for resolution of the 2 W. Market case. At least at the local level. Whatever happens here, the case will no doubt fly into the court system. And we’ll lose sight of it for a while.
His eyes are focused on tonight. Can we get to closing arguments, please?
But Gadfly thinks there is one more piece that you will be interested in, you who see this case as important to such questions as whether you have any control over your neighborhood, whether zoning laws matter, whether City Hall is for or agin’ you.
And you who are kind of nerdy like he is.
Remember that in skeletal form what’s happening here in this phase of a longstanding argument is that neighbors are questioning the validity of an amendment to the zoning code that enables the owners of 2 W. Market to operate a financial service office in a residential neighborhood.
Now this case has generated a truck load of testimony.
You who are more recent Gadfly followers should look at this chart of testimony of just one meeting done when Gadfly was much younger and intoxicated with his power to help people come to a decision about the controversy: Chart of 11-20-18 testimony . It’s from a post entitled Gadfly’s Study Guide to the 11/20 Council Hearing on 2 W. Market. A post that won an honorable mention at the northeast regional conference of The Gaddies, our national organization.
So the neighbors’ attorney wanted to use a large portion of such testimony — our voices — in the attempt to invalidate the amendment favorable to the Marketers.
The neighbors’ attorney had a document of several hundred pages (Gadfly’s testimony itself took 12 pages) of transcribed testimony — our voices — over several Planning Commission and City Council meetings that he wanted to introduce into the ZHB record.
The marketers vigorously objected. And it would seem to Gadfly that the Zoning Hearing Board is on the side of the Marketers.
As Gadfly understands it, the Marketers want to exclude all (or as much as they can) of the negative testimony that led up to the approving vote on the amendment by City Council. That would exclude all (or mostly all) of the resident voices — our voices — testifying against the Marketers.
The past does not matter, say the Marketers, a past that the neighbors would argue is full of problematic aspects that call into question the very basis on which Council passed the amendment.
It does not matter whether the amendment was immorally or illegally passed, according to this position. It was passed. That’s it. Get over it. (Hmmm, where in the national dialogue has Gadfly heard that phrase before?) Move on to subsequent events.
The Marketers argue that the clock starts anew with the passage of the amendment, that the reasons and motives on which the amendment was passed are not relevant. The Marketers would start this case with the notion that the amendment as passed is valid.
Now we have seen in a recent post what the impact of such a ruling can have, the post in which we see Mr. Haines sparring with the opposition attorneys AND the ZHB over the relevance of the influential role the Mayor played in passage of the amendment. Such testimony is not acceptable according to this position.
Another example of this view of the restricted legal basis of neighbor testimony — our voices — is what happened to Gadfly #2 Bill Scheirer.
Scheirer was “precluded” from testifying. Precluded! He came to the big dance dressed up with a prepared statement and was refused admission at the door.
A usually gentle and calm but now exasperated Mr. Scheirer (you know him, you’ve seen him in action) had one word for the proceeding as he exited the arena! One word! Click here to find out what it was.
We are pleased to include here for history the full text of Mr. Scheirer’s precluded testimony: Statement of Bill Scheirer
The neighbors have Baker v. Chartiers Tp. Zon. Hearing Bd., 677 A.2d 1274 , in which we find as a reason an amendment was invalidated “the failure of the Board of Supervisors to provide a full and fair examination of the impact which the rezoning would have on adjacent properties.”
Which will the ZHB go with? Gadfly feels the ZHB has already shown strong leaning to the Marketer’s case.
Gadfly finds this back-and-forth legal arguing fascinating and invites you to hear the lawyers lay out their cases. In the following video clip, the ZHB solicitor raises the question of what kind of testimony the ZHB should listen to, and then the attorneys for the City/Marketers and for the neighbors respectively make their pitches.
Gadfly has been working slowly through the eventful January 6 City Council meeting.
He always works slowly, doesn’t he? Sigh.
Olga Negron (by Paige Van Wirt) and Adam Waldron (by Grace Crampsie Smith) were the nominees for Council presidency.
Twenty-two residents flooded the podium to speak for Negron. (Geezuz, Gadfly, give us a break on this, willya!)
Was Council president Waldron not spoken of?
He was, he was.
A few residents prefaced their support for Negron with thanks to Waldron for his two years as Council president.
But a few residents also criticized what we might call Council president Waldron’s “management style.”
There has been a sense in some quarters that Council president Waldron has on occasion let the meetings get out of control — let the Council members get out of control, to be more precise.
There has been a sense in some quarters that Council president Waldron has a “soft gavel” and has failed to exercise proper discipline among Council members.
It will be no surprise to Gadfly followers that these criticisms center on Councilman Callahan and his contentious interchanges with Councilpeople Reynolds, Van Wirt, and Negron.
Council president Waldron’s critics point to a breakdown in order and decorum, a loss of cooperation on Council, a loss of Council reputation among the public, and the erosion of pubic confidence.
His critics look for a heavier gavel or a different person wielding the gavel.
This criticism of Council president Waldron’s “management style” or perhaps what we might call “management philosophy” reminded Gadfly of related events that happened exactly a year ago.
However you feel about Council president Waldron’s management/style philosophy, you have to admire that he has been forthright, candid about it, and has asked for feedback from Council and the public that might prompt him to change.
Here is what he said a year ago at the January 2, 2019, Council meeting:
I also want to make a couple general remarks which I’m sure some other members of council will want to jump in on once we get to new business about some of the accusations of some of the rules of Robert’s Rules, and my opinion on that. I spoke to Mr. Spirk about it, and I went back and did some research on some of the minutes and some of the things that were said by members of council and by members of the public, and I just don’t see a lot there as far as violation of Robert’s Rules. Personal attacks, I think, is a term getting thrown around for political reasons. I think there’s a healthy debate, and I think there’s respect for each another on Council. We may not agree with each other, and that’s fine, and that comes down to the vote some times, and I like to think they we can move forward professionally. But I think there is a decorum here, and I don’t think that there has been a lack of professionalism. There’s been calls for me to gavel down other members of Council when they are speaking, and I don’t see myself doing that in 2019. I think that the First Amendment is strong and well in this room, and I have great respect for it to the point that I respect it over Robert’s Rules. I think that people should have the ability to speak their mind as long as they are doing it in a respectful way, and I think that disagreement is good because it shows different points of view and perspectives. Again, you may not agree with that assessment, and you might think that we should follow Robert’s Rules to the “T,” but my view is that we should be able to have a positive conversation in which we respectfully disagree with each other. That is not prone to personal attacks just because we use each other’s names. That doesn’t mean that it is a personal attack. It’s just a differing of opinion. . . . I give great respect to Robert’s Rules, but I think the First Amendment, as Mr. Spirk would agree, in court rulings is that the First Amendment will trump Robert’s Rules any day of the week. So if you want to point to Robert’s Rules and say these are the rules we are supposed to be following, I do respect those, however, I think that a healthy dialog starts with the ability to express yourself, and if you don’t like what someone else is saying, I don’t think censoring their speech is the right thing. I think topping it with better speech, more accurate, or a different point of view is a fine thing to do, just like Mr. Antalics and I did this evening. And we can respectfully disagree on a different point of view, but that’s part of the process, I think.
Gadfly engaged with these comments in such posts as:
The comments by Council president Waldron and by Gadfly were about incidents at Council meetings in 2018. It is fair to say, as you hear in the critical voices above, that incidents in 2019 were even more troublesome.
Since, as Waldron himself said, the job of Council president is 90% running the meetings, 10% communicating with Council, management style/philosophy is a prime concern.
What did you think of the testimony of Mrs. Virgilio, the sole resident witness put on by the City/Marketers?
If I were to boil her testimony down, I’d say Mrs. Virgilio feels it’s ok for a financial service office to operate out of 2 W. Market even though it’s in an area zoned residential because it’s a commercial area and because it has raised property values.
Would you agree with the way Gadfly put it?
Last post I asked you to use Google to “see” what Mrs. Virgilio sees. Now see the area through the City zoning map. (Have you ever seen the zoning map. Pretty interesting.) Yellow is residential; the other (pink?) is commercial.
Now Mrs. Virgilio “sees” the New and Market intersection as commercial even though 3 of the corners are zoned residential. Councilman Callahan said basically the same thing at a key Council meeting long ago and even extended his purview of the commercial area west on Market toward Main, saying something like “you can’t tell me W. Market St here is residential.”
Here is the audio of the cross examination of Mrs. Virgilio by the neighbors’ attorney.
The attorney makes several points in that cross examination:
Though there was a dentist office in the Virgilio B&B before they bought the property, it would not be allowed now by law.
Verizon is in the business district, and Glemser bldg and the law offices are grandfathered, so they have no legal bearing on 2 W.
Though there is a longstanding law office near the B&B, a new one would not be allowed there now by law.
Though Mrs. Virgilio testified that there was no “commercial creep” in the neighborhood, the recent opening of a financial service office at 2 W. itself is indeed an example of commercial creep.
Valid points, Gadfly thought.
But, climatically, the neighbors’ attorney focused on what for Gadfly was precisely his big takeaway from Mrs. Virgilio’s testimony when he asked, “You have a financial interest in this, don’t you?” Go back to the last post and look at her stress on increased property values under examination by the City attorney. Did you notice that?
For Mrs. Virgilio the touchstone is money, thought Gadfly. Hmmm.
Her answer to this question of whether she had a financial interest in the approval of the Marketer’s presence — delivered with emphasis and urgency as if it was a stupid question — almost jolted Gadfly out of his seat with its dollar-sign clarity:
Isn’t that the whole idea of buying property?
A rhetorical question. As if the answer could be nothing but a “yes.” But Gadfly, sitting in the cheap seats, was about ready to shout “NO.”
The principal purpose of buying property is to make money? Not always.
Mrs. Virgilio is a businesswoman. Ok, you buy a property as a businesswoman, and you hope to build on your investment.
She was answering with honesty and complete transparency.
But if you are buying a “home,” you have a lot of other values in mind, the kind of things a long line of neighbors talked about in meeting after meeting embodied in references to a sense of community, eyes on the street, borrowing cups of sugar, shoveling sidewalks, watching each others’ kids, and so forth.
A “neighborhood” for a prospective home owner and for a prospective businesswoman would mean two different things.
Mrs. Virgilio admits of such when she says if she was looking for a place to raise kids, she wouldn’t have bought there.
But kids have been raised in the 2 W. Market house. The previous owner Schadts had one or maybe two children there. One testified several times, and Gadfly believes another may have done so once.
The Romerils (Martin testified last meeting) were raised on the block. Ms. Van Wirt, also a prior testifier, is now raising kids on the block.
More importantly, by her own admission at the beginning of her testimony, Mrs. Virgilio herself raised three sons at the intersection of New and Market.
So, children can and have been raised at the intersection of New and Market. One can have a home there.
New and Market is residential.
The fact that a street has double yellow lines, the fact that a street has parking meters, the fact that a street has a bus stop does not make an area commercial to Gadfly’s way of thinking.
So Gadfly was no more moved by Mrs. Virgilio’s testimony here than he was similar testimony by many more people during the original stages of this controversy.
And he doesn’t see that she goes anywhere to rebutting the two main conclusions of the neighbors’ expert witness.
Here’s the full interchange between the attorney and Mrs. Virgilio:
Attorney: You have a financial interest in this, don’t you, in that a financial service office has been placed diagonally across from your property that has now increased the value of your property?
Mrs. Virgilio: Isn’t that the whole idea of buying property?
Attorney: Well, isn’t the whole idea of when you buy into a residential neighborhood that it remains residential?
Mrs. Virgilio: I think I stated up front that when we purchased our property we purchased it with the idea of putting a business in there. It was already a business when we purchased it, and we purchased it with the intent of continuing it as a different type of business, but it would still be a business. I already said if we were looking to buy a home as a residence to raise our children, we would have never looked at New and Market.
Huzzas, high-fives, hugs, handshakes, and honkings are in order for dramatic elements of Touchstone Theatre’s 10-day festival this fall that occasioned a near record 77 posts here on Gadfly.
Well done!
“The Secret” — the play about Bethlehem-born poet H. D. — returns to Touchstone April 2-5.
Producer: Touchstone Theatre. “Festival UnBound,” the multimedia project two years in the making, produced some 20 events and ran 10 days in October 2019. The festival took a measure of Bethlehem’s southside 20 years after Touchstone’s landmark “Steelbouund” production when SteelStacks was a twinkle in the Christmas City star. It was a big year for Touchstone Theatre, which also produced a terrific 20th production of “Christmas City Follies.”
Play: “The Secret,” Mock Turtle Marionette Theater. The world premiere about H.D. (Hilda Doolittle), Bethlehem native and poet, during “Festival UnBound” was part of “Finding H.D., A Community Exploration of the Life and Work of Hilda Doolittle,” a year-long series of events organized by the Lehigh University English Department, Bethlehem Area Public Library, the Bradbury-Sullivan LGBT Community Center and Mock Turtle Marionette Theatre. Doug Roysdon, Artistic Director, Mock Turtle Marionette Theater, was chief writer of the multimedia performance that mixes narrative, song, music, poetry, puppets and actors. Script collaborators were Jennie Gilrain, William Reichard-Flynn, Aidan Gilrain-McKenna, Matilda Snyder, Kalyani Singh and Seth Moglen.
Original Play: “Prometheus/Redux,” Touchstone Theatre. “Prometheus/Redux” was the astounding opening work of “Festival UnBound.” “Prometheus/Redux,” commissioned for “Festival UnBound,” is written by Gerald Stropnicky, a founding member of Bloomsburg Theatre Ensemble, and directed by Christopher Shorr, Touchstone ensemble member and director of theater at Moravian College. Music is by Harry Mann. Images and footage from the Steelworkers Archives are incorporated into the work as is an image of the implosion of Martin Tower, former Bethlehem Steel Corp. headquarters.
Ensemble, Play: “Prometheus/Redux,” Touchstone Theatre. Touchstone Theatre cofounder and ensemble member Bill George returned as Prometheus. It’s 20 years after he left The Steel and now, instead of being chained to the ladle, he is bound to a hospital bed, suffering liver failure. The cast included former steelworkers, a county judge and members of previous generations of the Touchstone ensemble.
So one thread Gadfly is following in his mind this week is the import of the Council election that occurred last Monday night.
A meeting at which twenty-two residents “flooded the podium” (in the words of a newspaper report) to support Olga Negron in her (unsuccessful) bid for the Council presidency.
Gadfly has been a Council-watcher for 25 months, 16 months as a gadfly, and he’s never seen anything like this.
It was rather extraordinary.
So who is this Olga Negron?
And why would she inspire such enthusiasm in so many?
In past posts we’ve looked at her resume as well as a sampling of actual words from her supporters.
Gadfly would now point you to the twenty-minute interview with Negron that was part of the “Betting on Bethlehem” documentary by Lehigh students that premiered in November.
Here we can, as it were, sit across the table from her and hear her own words.
“Betting on Bethlehem” interviews a group of residents on a specific topic: “the social and economic impact of the Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem on the South Bethlehem community.”
The interviewees are Les Bernal, Paul Pierpoint, Sonia Vazquez, John Callahan, Roger Hudak, Chloe Taft, Tony Hanna, Bill Kuntze, Doug Walker, Jason Schiffer, Donna Taggart, and . . . Olga Negron.
This quiet, warm, intimate interview is a wonderful introduction to Negron’s personality and character.
Gadfly knows Negron can whoop it up at a rally, but he has described her voice at Council as a “radio voice.” When she talks, you feel you want to lean in, to get close, to make contact. It’s an inviting voice. It’s striking and quite different than the other Council voices.
Especially noteworthy in this interview is her willingness to work with others, her ability to change her mind — a trait not so noticeable in elected officials — her honesty, and her persistence.
to be continued . . .
———-
Searching on Google and in YouTube you will find a a good bit on Negron. Here are a few other links:
Gadfly spent another long night Wednesday at the Zoning Hearing Board at which the owner of 2 W. Market St., the neighbors of 2 W. Market St., and the City are locked like Middle East countries in a feud of such longstanding duration that it’s almost impossible to remember anymore what the core issues are.
Those issues are lost in the legal weeds. Gadfly invites you to peek at the last 45 minutes of Wednesday’s meeting (begin around min. 4:15:00), for a mind-numbing City-lawyer-led tour of city properties by a civil engineer, who, rather amazingly, was permitted to testify as an expert witness on zoning.
Gadfly assumes this kind of thing was necessary for the City to make its case and the attorney to earn his keep, but it was not spectator-friendly. God bless the Board members. One of whom appears to be looking for divine intervention during this punishing latter testimony. One could better hope that he has discovered the beauty in the Town Hall ceiling that Dana Grubb has just revealed to us.
There was no resolution Wednesday night. We look forward to another try at such next Monday night.
“Some people may wonder why this matters so much and see it as a tempest in a teapot,” neighbor team member Barbara Diamond says in yesterday’s explanatory post in this series.
Yes, some of you Gadfly followers ARE wondering that. Couldn’t we all be making better use of our time, you ask?
Yes, Gadfly hears that.
So what is the City/Marketer case?
Gadfly has done exhaustive presentation of the Marketer position in past posts when as many as 12 or 15 residents testified in their favor at previous meetings. See here for one example among many posts.
But the City/Marketers only presented one testifier this time.
So — since in Gadville we always try to present all sides — let’s look at the testimony of Suzanne Virgilio, owner of the Bethlehem Inn Bed & Breakfast catercorner from 2 W. Market, the sole resident witness put on by the City.
But, first, let’s familiarize ourselves with the 2 W. Market “neighborhood.”
2 W. Market is at the corner of New and Market. Gadfly bets we all have passed it scores if not hundreds of times.
But let’s try to “see” it right now before listening to Virgilio. If the technology works, click here for the google map in (I hope) the mode that will enable you to travel east and west on Market as well as north and south on New. (If the link doesn’t work, you can google-map 2 W. Market yourself and maneuver around in the street view.)
The idea is to see what Virgilio sees as she stands at the intersection of New and Market.
Ok, now listen to her testimony.
Gadfly apologizes that his camera position and YouTube’s choice of image make Mrs. Virgilio look like a mob informant secretly testifying before a Congressional committee
“Our objective in purchasing the property was to run a bed & breakfast at that location.”
“We did so specifically at this location because it was a great business location.”
“If we were looking to buy a home to raise our children in, we would not have chosen this location.”
“But it was ideal for business.”
How would you characterize the nature of the neighborhood?
“Obviously we’re within the historic district, but within the historic district there’s many different personalities.”
“That’s what makes it very appealing . . . in a downtown area you can live on a residential street, but you also can live in a more commercial area.”
“Which is how I characterize the neighborhood at the corner of New and Market.”
“It’s a very commercial area. It has a 4-way traffic light. It has double yellow lines which indicate a heavily traffic’d area.”
“Up until this year we had a LANTA bus stop directly in front of our home. I don’t think residential areas necessarily have that.”
“We have a school directly across the street, with drop-offs, pick-ups, school buses, parents, etcetera.”
“While maybe some areas in the historic district pose a more residential feel, certainly that’s not the case at the corner of New and Market.”
It’s an area in which there are parking meters, already existing offices, and there has been no increase in traffic as a result of the 2 W. Market business.
Have you observed any negative effects in the neighborhood?
“Absolutely not.”
Quite the contrary, I thing the improvements made to that property have upped the bar.”
“Our own property value has increased since that property has been renovated.”
“On New St., two houses on New St. from us, sold for very, very high amounts and sold quickly.”
“On Market St. two doors down from us another property sold very quickly.”
“And I think that has a great deal to do with what has been done to 2 W. Market St.”
“It’s improved the neighborhood. It’s improved property value. It’s been a great improvement overall.”
Have you noticed any creeping commercialization in, say, the past five years?
“In my immediate 4-corner area, I can’t think of anything that has become commercial.”
Ok, so here is the only testimony by a resident put on by the City/Marketer to defend against the claim by the other neighbors that the zoning amendment permitting a business use at 2 W. Market in a residential district is invalid.
Latest in a series of posts on City Government 
Latest in a series of posts on city government 
Latest in a series of posts on city government 
