Latest in a series of posts on Airbnb and short-term lodging
City Council held a public hearing on the short-term lodging issue March 3. Once again, Sara provides us with a good overview of the hearing. Note the contribution by Gadfly follower Kate McVey.
For 30 years, Kate McVey’s lived in her four-bedroom home steps from Moravian College’s campus, taking great pride in her Bethlehem home. With room to spare, McVey’s discovered that renting a single room on Airbnb helps her keep her home updated and her bills paid.
“I’d like to think I am a good neighbor,” McVey told Bethlehem’s City Council last week. Her guests have spanned all ages, exposing her to wonderful people in town for a job interview or a special event, she said. Folks often Uber from the airport or bus station and don’t take up a parking spot on Lorain Avenue where parking can be at a premium, McVey said.
McVey was one of three Airbnb hosts who spoke at a city council hearing Tuesday on a proposed zoning ordinance to share their concerns about a proposal to more tightly regulate the city’s short-term rental market. Bethlehem’s trying to rein in the practice of investors snatching up properties in the Historic District solely for renting them on home sharing sites like VRBO, Airbnb and HomeAway.
But residents and some members of council expressed concerns that the restrictions might go too far and inhibit legitimate home-sharing efforts, which the city says it doesn’t want to discourage. “This is a tourist city,” Councilwoman Grace Crampsie Smith said. The quality of life for residents is paramount, but it is a shame a “few bad apples” are ruining the process, Crampsie Smith said.
Under the proposed changes, a homeowner must be living in their property, present for all rentals and renting no more than two rooms. A home could not be rented for more than 30 consecutive nights under the proposal and the city requires annual licensing and inspections. The proposed zoning change also requires two off-street parking spaces per home and a third space if two rooms are rented. This does not apply to homes in the central business district, per the proposal.
Councilman Bryan Callahan opposes investors offering up city properties on home-sharing websites, but he has no problem with a resident renting their house for a month while they are on vacation, he said.
The city currently has 20 short-term lodging facilities that are properly licensed and inspected. But a few online searches turn up plenty operating outside the bounds of the regulation.
The city currently has 20 short-term lodging facilities that are properly licensed and inspected. But a few online searches turn up plenty operating outside the bounds of the regulation.
Councilman J. William Reynolds called this a balancing act between protecting neighborhoods and individual property rights. Much of it depends on how a judge interprets the regulations, he said. It will be very difficult to prove someone is renting their owner-occupied home when they are away, Reynolds said.
Bethlehem City Council took a progressive stand when it unanimously decriminalized possession of a small amount of marijuana back in 2018, in hopes of preventing a minor arrest from derailing a person’s future job and school prospects.
Yet, a year-and-a-half later data show that Bethlehem police officers are hesitant to ignore state law in favor of issuing small time violators — those with 30 grams or less of pot — a city fine.
In fact, city police only used the new city law for 19 of the 289 total minor marijuana arrests made over that same time period. In the heart of South Bethlehem, Lehigh University police reported five low-level weed arrests in 2019, only charging one person under state law.
City police Chief Mark DiLuzio shared these stats with council’s public safety committee Tuesday evening, explaining officers have been hesitant to rely on the city law amid fears they’d be accused of dispensing justice unfairly. “You are correct it is not being used,” DiLuzio said. “But officers do have reasons they aren’t using it.”
Members of city council and District Judge Nancy Matos Gonzales, who penned a December letter to DiLuzio, worry there’s currently an inequitable system in place due to uneven enforcement. Forty-seven percent of the minor marijuana arrests since the ordinance was enacted occurred in the Southside, which covers Matos Gonzalez’s district.
At the close of the meeting, the chief surprised council by floating a possible solution: city officers can fine someone under the city law or charge them under both the city and state law and leave it up to a district judge. The idea was met with support from council and DiLuzio promised to issue a directive to his department.
The city ordinance only applies to the Northampton County section of the city because Lehigh County District Attorney Jim Martin — the top law enforcement official in the county — says state law supersedes the city law. Pennsylvania treats marijuana possession as a misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in prison and a $500 fine.
“Many of the officers, and I’ll be real blunt with you, they have an issue with it,” DiLuzio said of the option to use the city law. “Their issue is: we have the same violation on this side of town and the same violation here and we have two different ways to enforce it. It should be universal and it should come from the state.”
The chief surveyed his 154 officers department and the 117 cops who responded were split on decriminalization with 44% favoring it. But 97% agreed it should come from state lawmakers.
The majority of the marijuana arrests stem from officers encountering people while investigating another crime, the chief said. The stats don’t reflect the officers who choose to toss a small amount of pot they find. “We are not out there hunting down people and jumping out of bushes to arrest people for weed,” DiLuzio said.
Council members were upset to learn police were not choosing the city fine the majority of the time and pressed DiLuzio to explain why and outline any steps he’s taken to encourage its use.
Officers get to decide whether to charge someone under the city or state law, DiLuzio said. So many factors go into this: Was the person cooperative? Are they under the influence? Were they driving? Is it only a little bit of pot?
Of the 19 people who were charged under the city law: five were white, four black and 10 Hispanic, the chief said. “It was used more on minorities,” he said.
Council members shared Judge Matos Gonzalez’s concerns that Lehigh students arrested by campus police are facing small fines for marijuana violations, while most people arrested steps off campus by city police face state misdemeanor charges, carrying stiffer penalties, court costs and required court appearances.
Decriminalization must come from Harrisburg, the chief said.
Councilman Michael Colon, who chairs the public safety committee, said council wasn’t willing to wait for change in Harrisburg, where mechanisms move slowly. Eleven states and Washington, D.C., have legalized marijuana, so large chunks of the U.S. population are free to walk into a dispensary and buy whatever they want. In most of Pennsylvania, a small amount of pot gets you a criminal record, Colon said.
Council wants to be at the front of this sea change, which is why it joined at other cities in decriminalization, Colon said. He predicted this will be looked at like Prohibition in the near future.
Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside
What is the official position of the City regarding the closure of Packer Ave? An agreement seems to have been made in secret to purchase the street from the city by Lehigh University. As a concerned citizen, tax payer and motorist I’m deeply worried that the public good has been yet again been forgotten in favor of some smoky back-room deal. Edward Ballinger, Bethlehem City Hall Facebook page, Friday
Temporary closure of Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster to study the Lehigh University proposal to permanently close that stretch begins tomorrow, Monday, March 9.
As of noon today, Sunday, March 8, Gadfly sees no notice from the City in the news or on Facebook or Twitter.
Or on the City web site.
Maybe tomorrow.
Here’s what Gadfly was hoping for:
1) The City will put out a story not only with the technical details of the closure
2) but also full details of the Lehigh “ask” that is behind the study
3) as well as the means for citizens to record their travel experiences during the temporary closure plus their thoughts on a permanent closure
4) and concrete plans for a community meeting to discuss the results and steps forward, including at least a tentative date for such.
Here is what Gadfly is not hoping for: “the smoky back-room deal” that Mr. Ballinger speaks of above.
In absence of other options, Gadfly will gladly receive your thoughts and impressions and photos, which don’t have to be long, which can be multiple, and of which he will keep a running log.
That casual reference in the last post about slapping Gadfly upside the head reminded him.
Gadfly did get slapped upside the head.
Not pleasant. He thinks he will stop saying that. More people will take him up on it.
Public comment. Bethlehem Parking Authority meeting February 26.
Gadfly was winging it as usual. (“Winging,” get it?)
Three things on his mental agenda to talk about as he remembers it.
1) The BPA website: giving a pat on the fanny for changes in an already terrific website for changes that moved the Board meeting link to the more visible top menu and thus easier to find but a reminder that the Gadfly had been asking for months that the agendas for meetings be posted, bringing BPA in line with most of the other ABC’s (Authorities, Boards, and Commissions) in the City as a courtesy for residents.
2) ‘Fessing up: At the February 18 City Council meeting, Gadfly was riding his hobbyhorse again (he had done so as well at the February 4 meeting and other times in the past) about a more rigorous reappointment process for ABC members — a reappointment based on evidence of performance. In doing so he referenced the Parking Authority, as he has done in the past, since a member of the Board was up for reappointment. That generated an interesting discussion on Council that even raised the topic of term limits for certain ABC’s, a conversation Council president Waldron said that he would entertain. (Gadfly audio below, if you want video City Council video 2 18 20 begin min. 4:20)
In those Council discussions both Gadfly and Council members were clear and careful to say that they were not casting aspersions on any specific person but that the focus was on the system, the procedures. Gadfly wanted to be honest with the BPA — though he was not sure that they would have even been aware of the Council comments and discussion — that he had raised this issue with specific reference to the BPA. So he told them, prefacing his remarks with the admission that he knew little of finance and nothing of the nitty-gritty of Parking management but that as a resident his interest was in procedures and policies and rules and transparency and visibility.
February 26 was a BPA reorganization meeting. New year. New beginning. In a sense, a “new” Board (though only the exec director was new). So that it was a good time for Gadfly to repeat what he had said before to them on at least two occasions about being active and creating a record of performance on the minutes for reappointment purposes if they were interested in reappointment.
3) In the same vein, Gadfly said that he was often unclear how decisions were made since in his experience over almost two years there was little substantive discussion of issues at the public meetings. As an example, he used the issue of variable rate parking, which the Mayor had asked the BPA to consider when he approved the parking meter rate increase in late fall 2018 when there was the big controversy over the rates. This idea was raised by members of the public in public meetings, and the BPA was cool about it, yet the Mayor did suggest consideration, and Gadfly was looking forward to BPA discussion and reporting back to the “public” that their words were heard.
Gadfly, as the BPA minutes will show, started asking about such discussion at BPA meetings in March 2019. But there was no sign of talk of variable rate parking during the ensuing months. Then Gadfly was surprised to hear in a Parking Authority presentation to City Council in, he thinks, August or September or October 2019 that there were two consultant reports on the issue, both in the negative. In a later Board meeting, the studies were referred to casually in regard to another issues as costing more than $25,000. That perked Gadfly’s curiosity. That was a lot of money. Should it have been discussed and voted on at a public meeting?
Gadfly knew (or thought he knew) that the Sunshine law required “creation of liability by contract” to be approved by the Board, and he didn’t remember that happening. So he filed a “right to know” request for the contracts on the consultant reports and other associated material. The requests were filled the day before the Board meeting. The answer on the contract was that “Records that you are requesting do not exist.” Gadfly believes he said how perplexing that was and that he must be missing something in his understanding and that he would consult with the exec director for clarification.
Here’s where it gets interesting. As Gadfly returned to his seat, the BPA chair, rather heatedly in Gadfly’s recollection, said, paraphrasing, “I do not usually answer such questions, but I will here.” And went on to say that by BPA policy, disbursements under (I’m not sure, but I think he said) $25,000 don’t need to be approved by the Board. Now that sounds reasonable to Gadfly. It would not make sense for every small bill to wait for Board approval.
So it was not the content of his reply that surprised Gadfly. But his agitated tone. As if Gadfly had hit a nerve. Agitated enough, in fact, to arouse the Gadfly’s “Irish.” And the extension to which he took the topic. As Gadfly remembers it, the chair said something about not discussing policy here, that that was the role of Council. I remember feeling that was an odd thing to say. And other things.
Gadfly frankly does not remember the transition but the subject of that mention of variable rate parking at a meeting with Council came up, and Gadfly must have been asking about the involvement of the Board when he said something like “but they weren’t there.” And the chair replied something like “it doesn’t matter, I was there.”
Now Gadfly really wanted to hear the audio record of the meeting (the BPA does not meet in Town Hall where they can be video’d, and thus they do their own audio for public record purposes) for two reasons:
1) to find out his tone: was he snarky, angry, gretzy, irritable, irascible? He knows he can be. He wonders if he set the chair off.
2) Gadfly took mental note as it all was happening of two comments by the chair: a) that he was making an exception by answering the Gadfly question and b) the “I was there” phrase.
Gadflies by nature are pests. Gadfly may well have been out of bounds.
Those two comments by the chair — if Gadfly remembered them correctly — fit into the topic of term limits for members of certain ABC’s raised at Council. Gadfly remembers that months and months ago, the Board solicitor, first appointed in 1998, addressed him, rather stentorianly (good SAT word), with “No one questions the Board.” The chair’s preamble about not usually answering questions — if Gadfly remembered it correctly — fits the same pattern of the sense of untouchable power. And if Gadfly also remembers correctly that the chair said all that mattered was that he was present at a meeting might indicate a kind of identification of himself as the Board. Not good. Perhaps marks of a person who’s been in a position too long. The chair’s first term was 2008 according to newspaper records.
So, lots to be resolved, Gadfly was really interested in hearing the tape of the February 26 BPA meeting to try to figure some things out. He’s old, and his memory ain’t what it used to be. But, golly, guess what?
Drat!
Call me Ahab! (in-joke between me and faithful follower)
The initiative certainly has merit. The question is, does Councilman Callahan want to get the ordinance right for Bethlehem, or just get anything passed out of political expediency?
The three women on City Council all attended. Councilwomen Negron and Van Wirt serve on the committee and Councilwoman Crampsie Smith was present.
Each had quite valid questions, comments, and suggestions, yet the Councilman seemed more concerned about getting his proposed ordinance out of committee than addressing any concerns raised.
This ordinance is designed to combat widespread gender-based wage inequalities by prohibiting employer inquiries into prospective employee wage histories, as well as employer reliance on such wage histories for determining compensation. Councilman Callahan, December 13, 2019.
It’s time for some analysis of the personal and interpersonal dynamics of the February 25 Human Resources committee meeting discussing Councilman Callahan’s wage equality ordinance on which we have spent 5 posts so far.
By a 1-2 vote (Councilwomen Negron and Van Wirt nay), the committee postponed further discussion and vote on Councilman Callahan’s proposed legislation. In reporting on the meeting to Council March 3, chairperson Callahan described the February 25 discussion in his committee as “spirited.”
Gadfly has now laid out for you the entire one-hour February 25 meeting, last time asking you to view the last half-hour in one chunk.
One could call the discussion “spirited,” but in Gadfly’s mind that adjective usually has a positive connotation. Frankly, the word that comes to Gadfly’s mind for this Human Resources committee meeting is “dysfunction.”
Let’s start with analysis of the core statement of Councilman Callahan’s position that Gadfly isolated for you a few posts back:
“This is a good ordinance. It’s the same ordinance that all the cities, all the major cities are doing. I believe that 27 states that are now looking in to it. And I kind of find it hard to believe in the City of Bethlehem that it’s good for all these other places, but it’s not good for us. If there’s some other amendment that you’d like to add, you know, throw it out there. I mean we had discussion about a month ago, and I think that the meeting was scheduled about 3 weeks ago. So we knew this meeting was coming, we knew what the topic was. The ordinance was sent to us many weeks ago. And instead of stalling it or trying to table it, I think it’s that important of an ordinance for the women of the City of Bethlehem. I want to move it forward with a positive vote, and if you don’t want it, I understand it, then send it to full Council with a negative recommendation and let full Council listen to it.”
“This is a good ordinance.”
Yes, everybody agreed, even Councilwoman Grace Crampsie Smith, not on the committee but who was sitting in at the Head Table. But the women on Council are seeing a disadvantage to women in the workforce in the ordinance as proposed. That ought to mean something. In Gadfly’s opinion, Councilman Callahan is mistaking disagreement on a key part of the ordinance as opposition to the ordinance as a whole.
“It’s the same ordinance that all the cities, all the major cities are doing.”
No, apparently not — here’s the big rub in Gadfly’s opinion. Gadfly would say Councilman Callahan is mistaken here. It seems the proposed Bethlehem ordinance meaningfully differs from the others in that here the complaint would be uniquely handled by a magistrate whereas in other cities it is handled by a city Human Relations Commission. (Our HRC declined involvement.) Councilman Callahan doesn’t see this difference as a problem; the Councilwomen do. Gadfly understands where the women are coming from on this key point. And will talk more about it later.
“I believe that 27 states that are now looking in to it. And I kind of find it hard to believe in the City of Bethlehem that it’s good for all these other places, but it’s not good for us.”
Nobody said or even implied that the ordinance was not good for us. Au contraire. What the Councilwomen said was that the enforcement section of the ordinance needed work. In Gadfly’s opinion, Councilman Callahan misses the point of discussion by the Councilwomen.
“If there’s some other amendment that you’d like to add, you know, throw it out there. I mean we had discussion about a month ago, and I think that the meeting was scheduled about 3 weeks ago. So we knew this meeting was coming, we knew what the topic was. The ordinance was sent to us many weeks ago.”
Councilwoman Van Wirt says she made her feelings about problems with the proposed ordinance known to Councilman Callahan back as far as the beginning of January. Councilwoman Van Wirt wanted Councilman Callahan to initiate personal discussion with her about those problems before bringing the ordinance to the committee and a probable vote there. Councilman Callahan did not initiate such personal discussion, felt the ordinance was fine as is, and apparently expected Councilwoman Van Wirt to come to the meeting with specific amendments if she so desired. Councilwoman Van Wirt wasn’t ready to propose amendments at the meeting; Councilman Callahan felt there was ample time to do so, and he wanted to move on. Gadfly sighs over this point of contention. What happened to “communication”?
“And instead of stalling it or trying to table it, I think it’s that important of an ordinance for the women of the City of Bethlehem.”
The Councilwomen verbally championed the ordinance at the meeting. The veiled charge of stalling or tabling the ordinance, implying a wilful obstructionist motive, seems unfair, totally without basis to Gadfly. Councilwoman Negron has a suggestion requiring investigation by the Solicitor, a suggestion that might answer the enforcement concern raised by Councilwoman Van Wirt. Councilwoman Van Wirt wants to add an amendment that will even further enhance the protection for the employee this ordinance is designed to provide. They both want the ordinance to go forward, just not now. There is no urgent need for immediate action that Gadfly can discern. Stalling, if you will pardon the pun, didn’t seem on that table. Gadfly sees no reason for Councilman Callahan to object to a reasonable delay.
“I want to move it forward with a positive vote, and if you don’t want it, I understand it, then send it to full Council with a negative recommendation and let full Council listen to it.”
This climactic point relates to bullet #4 and your conception of the function of a committee relative to the full body of an organization. The way Gadfly sees it, yes, the full body surely has full and final authority and can reverse the recommending voice of a committee. But Gadfly sees the work of the committee as to present the product of its full deliberation and not just “pass through” a proposed ordinance. Gadfly doesn’t understand Councilman Callahan’s reasoning. If there are changes and amendments to be heard, and if there is no urgent need for a decision, why is Councilman Callahan in such a hurry to get the issue in front of Council? Gadfly is not good at thinking “politically.” Is there some benefit to Councilman Callahan if the proposed ordinance goes to full Council as “his” proposal, even if with a negative vote? Is there some advantage to Councilman Callahan in having his basic proposal as well as any amendments “heard” in front of the three men and one woman not on the committee? Gadfly simply does not get Councilman Callahan’s almost obsessive impatience for a vote, even if negative. And is willing to be enlightened. Or slapped upside the head.
Gadfly has a hard time figuring out the Councilman here.
And he thinks the others did too. Councilman Callahan exhibits a kind of repetitive stubbornness in that last half-hour of the meeting to which Gadfly asked you to listen that, in Gadfly’s opinion, escalates tension among committee members to a point that produces some generally regrettable behavior.
Is that the way you saw it? Gadfly invites your perspective. More discussion of the interactions in this later part of the meeting coming.
Moving slowly. Taking an issue or an event in chunks for better focus.
Inviting you to “know” the primary source as the basis for forming opinions of your own.
Holding back on his own analysis.
But the February 25 meeting of the Human Resources Committee on Councilman Callahan’s proposed wage equality ordinance is presenting him a bit of a dilemma.
Gadfly has posted 4-5 short chunks of the meeting in chronological order.
The next part of the meeting does not break up easily into chunks. In fact, it seems to Gadfly, you can’t really understand it unless you hear the whole sequence and know the whole context.
There is a kind of rhythm, a kind of crescendo movement that you have to experience to understand what Gadfly sees as the significance of this section as part of his goal to help you understand our elected officials better so that you can be the most informed voter you can be.
The section is susceptible to some distortion if sound bites are lifted out of context.
This meeting has already been written about in other places, and people have talked with Gadfly about it (as well as providing some posts or comments on earlier posts as you have seen) — focusing on pieces.
So Gadfly is going to do an unusual thing.
He’s going to ask you to listen to a long section — almost 30 minutes — before he comes back and breaks it up in to parts for some analysis.
Isolating parts simply does not help you understand the significant interactions here.
So Gadfly will wait a bit before posting again, hoping you will find time to experience this interaction that is so revelatory of the characters and personalities involved.
The discussion ends up in a motion to postpone discussion for perhaps six weeks. The discussion gets rough.
Latest in a series of posts about Neighborhoods and block watches
Officer David Horvath and Councilwoman Grace Crampsie Smith at Moravian block watch
Councilwoman Crampsie Smith doin’ the Lord’s work again.
Ten residents met with her and Officer Horvath last night.
Conversation revolved around student rentals, student parking problems, and nuisance zoning violations by a local business.
Gadfly gives you here a funny piece of conversation — agile students perhaps using access to a police scanner to know when the cops are a ‘comin’ to quiet their noisy party!
Contact Councilwoman Crampsie Smith at Crampsie150@gmail.com
Gadfly would love to hear about other block watches across the City.
Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside
We are committed to working together with our campus community, the City, the Bethlehem Area School District, and other community partners to ensure that any and all concerns about the closure are heard and addressed. Lehigh University, February 20
We move closer to next Monday’s temporary closing of a section of Packer Ave.
We see that Lehigh has opened a web page on the closing for their faculty, staff, and students. Which is good. But it does not exactly foreground an invitation to comment on the impact of the closing by the people who use and park on Packer as part of the information gathering essential for the study.
We see that Lehigh made a presentation on the closing to the Mayor’s Southside Task Force last week, that is, after the public meeting at Broughal and, most especially, after the discussion and vote at City Council. It does not seem that this community partner was alerted in an appropriate time fashion to have input on the idea and the decision.
“Community partner” — as one keen-eyed follower has observed to Gadfly — is a curious term. It’s a jargon term, isn’t it? Does it mean the same as “community”? Does it mean the same as “residents”? Does it mean the same as “neighbors”? Who knows? Remember that there was some skepticism about how and how vigorously the surrounding neighborhood community was advised of the January 23 “community” meeting at Broughal. Lehigh really kinda skipped over a question about that there.
But maybe there are no “neighbors” left around Lehigh. Maybe only “community partners.” At City Council Tuesday a lady recounted looking for housing in that area for months but only finding student housing.
Gadfly still has 2 tickets he can’t use for the Sunday March 8, 2 pm performance. Free to someone who hasn’t been to Touchstone Theatre in exchange for at least a selfie that he can publish.
As a bonus, you can take a selfie with the Gadfly his very own self!
Edith Piaf: Hymn to Love
March 5-8, 2020
Thurs-Sat @ 8 p, Sun @ 2p
Teatro Potlach of Fara Sabina, Italy returns with a new reimagining of their Edith Piaf cabaret; the original production played to four sold-out houses on their first visit to Bethlehem! This new iteration, created in collaboration with Touchstone Theatre, will delve deeper into the chanteuse’s life and will feature live accompaniment from Touchstone Musical Director Jason Hedrington.
Edith Piaf may not be a household name in the United States, but she is an icon in her native France and legendary throughout Europe.
Her life was as tumultuous as that of Judy Garland and Billie Holiday, and she has been compared to them.
Piaf was vilified for her many, often scandalous, love affairs and glorified for her singing. She was unique in the emotion she poured into her songs, and in the way they reflected her life.
Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside
Gadfly loves to compare his thinking to our elected officials. Join him. The Council members gave us clear and substantial rationales. Remember, too, that one of the main reasons for the Gadfly project is to help you know your Councilpeople better so that you can be the most informed voter you can be. This is a good opportunity. Whom do you agree with, disagree with? Who makes you think? Who gave you something new to think about? Whom are you glad to see with a seat at the Head Table? The Gadfly, February 24
As the opening of the temporary closing of Packer Ave. approaches on Monday, Gadfly would like to wrap up the series of posts he made on the individual comments from Council folk approving the measure 3-2.
Gadfly doesn’t always agree with Council decisions, of course, but what he looks for is good conversation — “Good conversation builds community” — and he thought there was good conversation from a variety of perspectives on the Packer Matter at the February 18 Council meeting.
So he hopes you took a few minutes to consider the range of statements and positions from the individual Councilpersons. Gadfly hopes you will be as much interested in why they voted as how they voted. The “why” is the indicator of the calibre of person we have entrusted with our public lives. You can respect a vote you don’t agree with if you respect the basis on which it was made.
Councilwoman Van Wirt spoke third, and the “vision” idea was picked up by Councilmen Reynolds and Waldron who followed her.
“Community” is an aphrodisiac word for Gadfly. “Vision” is another.
All the talk from Lehigh was ho-hum. Necessary. But ho-hum. For him their talk started at the wrong end of the rhetorical spectrum.
Give me the vision. Excite me. Then we can do the ho-hum.
Give me the song, the poetry, then I’ll listen to the engineers and bean counters.
Build the castle in the air. Then we can talk about the supports underneath it.
The collaborative past actions of Lehigh and the City in creating the Lost Neighborhood on the north side of Packer Ave. seem manifestly reprehensible. A power grab.
Gadfly’s sympathies were there with the ghosts of the past who for him still haunt the area from Packer to 4th St.
He remembers thinking somewhere along in the conversation about closing Packer that if it happens, Lehigh should be required, as restitution, to have a statue, a monument erected to the memory of the Lost Neighborhood at the center of the promenade.
No, better yet, not something required of Lehigh as restitution. But something done by Lehigh willingly as repentance.
Perhaps at the center of University Walk and the promenade — Lehigh might build a Southside Memorial Fountain of some sort by which people could sit, pause, and reflect come a summer day on the damage done when Power and Politics and Progress are out of control.
Silly Gadfly. A topic for a Thursday afternoon session with his therapist for sure.
But Lehigh’s Carolina Hernandez at the February 18 meeting was like a squirt of 3-1-oil on his tight lock on the grim past.
And then Councilwoman Van Wirt’s “I do have a vision of what this permanent closure could look like for Bethlehem, and it’s a great vision” was like an ice-cutter freeing a trapped cruise ship.
A vision of what could be done with the Packer Matter!
A “great vision”!
Gadfly came alive!
There were vision-teasers: a community fund, a business association.
And then with President Waldron, “is there a playground there, is there a community space . . . community programing?”
Not the whole vision. Not yet.
But enough to turn Gadfly’s perspective 180 degrees.
The word that came to mind was “heal.”
How might the Packer Matter become a “healing”?
If the closing of Packer Ave. could become an acknowledged healing ritual and not another grave stomping, then Gadfly’s on board.
If there is only a fine, and it requires the aggrieved individual to pay for and initiate the prosecution, something seems missing.
Does the aggrieved person receive compensation in addition to the fine, attorney fees, and court costs? If the “aggrieved” person does not win, do they pay court costs and attorney fees?
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.
My initial reaction is that the HRC should not be able to exclude a whole class of people who are exploited — especially on the basis that there might be too many people who consider themselves to be aggrieved! Forcing people into magistrates’ courts greatly increases the initiative required by the employee and makes it more difficult for them to pursue justice.
A more logical and just course of action would before the city to budget funds to provide some administrative and investigative support for the HRC.
11:20 AM
Realistic, meaningful implementation (& enforcement) is always an issue. Look at Bethlehem’s marijuana ordinance, which LUPD uses when appropriate, but has been basically ignored by the City’s own police department.
Legislation that is not coupled with meaningful implementation is generally ineffective and tends to be discriminatory in that some people are better able to have it enforced the others.
Finding reluctance to moving to a vote from the other members of the Human Relations Committee as well as the meeting guest Councilperson because of concerns about the enforcement element, Chair Callahan restates concisely his position on the proposed wage equity ordinance and moving it forward.
It’s clarity and succinctness makes it a good reference point for the active discussion that follows leading up to a motion to postpone voting for what was ultimately agreed on as about six weeks from now.
“This is a good ordinance. It’s the same ordinance that all the cities, all the major cities are doing. I believe that 27 states that are now looking in to it. And I kind of find it hard to believe in the City of Bethlehem that it’s good for all these other places, but it’s not good for us. If there’s some other amendment that you’d like to add, you know, throw it out there. I mean we had discussion about a month ago, and I think that the meeting was scheduled about 3 weeks ago. So we knew this meeting was coming, we knew what the topic was. The ordinance was sent to us many weeks ago. And instead of stalling it or trying to table it, I think it’s that important of an ordinance for the women of the City of Bethlehem. I want to move it forward with a positive vote, and if you don’t want it, I understand it, then send it to full Council with a negative recommendation and let full Council listen to it.”
In the previous post on the topic of discussion of Councilman Callahan’s wage equity ordinance at our Human Relations committee meeting February 25, we focused on Councilwoman Van Wirt’s belief in the need for more discussion on the enforcement aspect of what everybody agrees is a good ordinance.
It seems that in other cities the enforcement element of a wage equity ordinance aimed at protecting women from financial exploitation has been handled by a City Human Rights Commission. In Bethlehem, our Human Rights Commission (one of our volunteer ABC’s) has previously indicated its inability to handle a projected number of cases that will arise from this ordinance.
Thus, Councilman Callahan, after discussion with the City administration and Solicitor Spirk, has modified what’s done in the legislation in other places to make the magistrate court the locus of enforcement here. The aggrieved employee would, on the basis of this ordinance, bring a case before a magistrate, one in which, Councilwoman Van Wirt avers (with the agreement of Solicitor Spirk), she would need (or be best served) to retain a lawyer.
After Councilwoman Van Wirt, Chair Callahan turned to Councilwoman Negron and meeting guest Councilwoman Crampsie Smith for comment.
Councilwoman Negron, picking up the enforcement issue, asked Solicitor Spirk to research the possibility of lawyer fees being added to magistrate’s fine — he agreed to do so.
Chair Callahan, holding to the position that the proposed ordinance is good as is, calls again for amendments or for voting (even with a negative recommendation) to pass the ordinance on to full Council — which is not satisfactory to Councilwomen Van Wirt and Negron.
Councilwoman Crampsie Smith — a kind of “outsider” here since she is not a member of the committee — suggests coming back in a few weeks for focused discussion just on the enforcement angle.
One of the purposes of the gadfly project is to help you know your Councilpeople as well as possible so that you will be the most informed voters you can be.
This Council discussion over a kind of no-brainer basic ordinance is proving to be a good avenue for doing just that.
Gadfly hopes that you will listen here and to the following posts as the issues and the personal dynamics sharpen.
Our next City Council meeting — the “face” of Bethlehem City government — occurs tomorrow night Tuesday, March 3, Town Hall, at 7PM.
These meetings are video-recorded and can be viewed LIVE or later at your convenience on the City’s website after the meeting at https://www.bethlehem-pa.gov/Calendar.
The YouTube channel for live or archive viewing is “City of Bethlehem Council.”
Find the Council agenda and supporting documents here.
Looks interesting: a Public Hearing on short term lodging; committee report of short term lodging and rentals; committee report on the proposed wage equality ordinance; committee report on the marijuana ordinance; and first reading of the residential renter ordinance.
And there’s always the unexpected.
As long as he has flutter in his wings, Gadfly urges attending City Council live or virtually — one way or the other.
Last time we looked at Councilman Callahan’s proposed wage equality ordinance and listened to him fill in the rationale and the background for the ordinance.
The basic idea is that this ordinance (which is gaining nationwide acceptance) hopes to free women from the spiraling trap of beginning their work careers at a low salary while they progress in their careers.
Gadfly expects that you will see this proposal as a good idea, one in which Bethlehem would be in step with such legislation occurring and already completed around the country. And certainly no one at the Human Relations Committee meeting last Tuesday (Chair: Councilman Callahan; members: Councilwomen Van Wirt and Negron; guest: Councilwoman Grace Crampsie Smith) had anything but support for the basic thrust of the proposed ordinance.
But Councilwoman Van Wirt had questions about a specific piece of the proposal, the enforcement piece, as well as suggestions for an addition to it.
Let’s listen.
Always essential in Gadville that you go yourself to the primary source, but here is a much selected record of the discussion between Councilpeople Van Wirt and Callahan. Don’t depend on another’s selection. And tone of voice in the discussion is important too.
Paige Van Wirt:
I’m fully behind the energy and the idea.
Without a doubt I appreciate your concern for this matter at hand.
I do have concerns.
This is the second time around . . . I was wondering if you could tell us why it didn’t pass that time and what efforts you’ve done to address those problems.
Brian Callahan:
The Human Relations Commission [HRC] had some issues with how it would be implemented.
We [BGC and solicitor John Spirk] worked it out that they won’t be involved.
PVW:
Why did you have them involved in the first place? What was their role going to be?
BGC:
We decided . . . there was a way without getting the City department involved, which they thought would be burdensome
A compromise was made so that it could go straight to the magistrate.
PVW:
And how is Philadelphia’s ban enforced?
BGC:
They have a $2000 fine right now.
PVW:
But they use a Human Relations Commission.
BGC:
Our [HRC] didn’t want to deal with it.
PVW:
That’s one of my major concerns is a City like Philadelphia that has enormous resources in order to help people . . . They have a commission in place that does all of this leg-work.
I am concerned that the people in our community do not have that resource.
I am concerned about the ramifications of this ordinance without a proper methodology for vetting and handling the concerns.
BGC:
Well, I’m all ears for listening if you have any amendments that you’d like to make.
[Mr. Spirk explained that since there was no City department to handle this, “the only enforcement mechanism left was with the individual . . . who would have to go to the magistrate . . . A private individual could go and file a complaint.” What that would result in is a fine, not compensation to the victim.]
PVW:
When we were in the throes of deciding who would be the next Council president, you called me up and said you’d be willing to vote for Olga if I supported this act, and I told you then and there that I could not support this act as it was written because there were substantive problems with it, and I urged you to contact me, Olga, and Grace because we have over 100 years experience as women who have been in the work force, so that we could work on some solutions that would make this a workable act, and I didn’t hear anything from you. And so we’re sitting here today without any changes to the same thing I had problems with before. Without you reaching out to the working women on Council and asking how can I make this a more valid, useful, and meaningful ordinance for the women of Bethlehem. I didn’t hear it, so it’s hard for me to jump in and say let’s add an amendment. We’ve never had a conversation, and, yes, I do have some real ideas about how to make this a more valuable document . . . including rules within a company about employees not allowed to share salary information. I think that’s a much more enforceable, more valid, and easier to understand for businesses than this one . . . While I support the effort behind this, I have grave concerns about how it will roll out in the City and what resources would be available to women who experience violations of this ban. I’m always willing to sit down with you and work on these ordinances.
BGC:
I welcome any amendments that you’d like to make. I did talk with you about supporting Olga for president, I never heard back from her, but I did hear from you.
PVW:
I encouraged you to talk with me so that we could work on something that could get passed.
BGC:
I’m all ears . . . You have to understand that this ordinance is basically the same exact ordinance that has been passed by twelve different states and multiple huge cities.
PVW:
Right, and we’re Bethlehem.
BGC:
I think what we need to do is not look at this as business people but as City Council people looking out for women of the City.
PVW:
If we are going to enact this type of ordinance, we’ve got to get it right . . . It needs collaborating, especially with the women on Council who have had extensive experience here. So I’m willing to sit down out of committee.
BGC:
Let’s talk about it now. And if you have an amendment, we can add it.
PVW:
This is not the time to add an amendment, I don’t have it drafted, I would like to look at other laws . . . Mr. Callahan, the time to do this was before this committee meeting.
BGC:
Ms. Van Wirt
PVW:
Dr. Van Wirt
BGC:
Councilwoman Van Wirt, ok, in here you’re a Councilwoman . . . I heard through the grapevine that you weren’t in support of this . . . you could have reached out . . . If you care about the ordinance and doing what’s right for the City, then this is the time right now to throw out some amendments . . . If you don’t want to, take some time . . . and you may vote against it. If you don’t like it and Councilwoman Negron doesn’t like it, pass it through to Council with a negative recommendation. That’s all you have to do. And then we have time . . . before we have to vote on it. And you are going to have a full month to come up with any different amendments that you would like. I think what you want to do is you want to stall it and table it.
PVW:
You’re assigning motives to me . . . I cannot support this for the reasons I have outlined.
There is some behind-the-scenes politics at play here (horse-trading on the Council presidency), some failed diplomacy (forwarding a proposal about working women without full collaboration of Council’s working women), and a procedural conflict over passing the ordinance to Council in (to some) a flawed state or fixing the (to some) flaws in committee and then passing it on to Council.
Latest in a series of posts about the Bethlehem Police
10 days or so ago we posted a November 20, 2019, letter from Bethlehem Police Chief Mark DiLuzio, co-signed by Deputy Chief Scott Meixell, to the Northampton County Court administrator with concern about a November 14 conversation between District Justice Nicholas Englesson and two police officers regarding a traffic stop of an Hispanic male and subsequent marijuana charge, a conversation in which the arresting officer felt he was accused of being racist. In epistolary response that we also published, the Judge said that his purpose in initiating the conversation was to counsel the officer about possibly racially insensitive behavior.
Gadfly has framed the situation this way: what’s at stake here is the possibility that we have either a racially insensitive police officer backed by his Chief or a district judge abusing his power, overstepping his bounds.
The City has denied there was any wrongdoing on the part of the officer and is withholding further comment.
In fact, there has been little public comment at all from the City. The newspapers have not picked up on this. It may be that the Mayor’s prepared statement at the February 18 City Council meeting is the only public comment. Again, not picked up by the papers as far as Gadfly knows.
Gadfly thinks this a serious matter and did publish private letters.
Gadfly has devoted a half-dozen or so posts laying out the controversy, ending with one in which he says he still has twenty questions, mostly about how the City has handled the matter. (See “Police” under Topics on the sidebar for the letters, the Mayor’s statements, and all the posts.)
Gadfly wishes there was more openness. That’s what gadflies always wish. Sigh.
Because charges of ugly racial insensitivity are around us right now.
Was City Council briefed on this? Was that what the executive session with the Mayor was about February 18? If so, would it be permissible for Council to at least make a statement saying they had been briefed, that they are monitoring the situation, and that they agreed that lip-buttoning was best?
More than a year ago Bethlehem passed a marijuana decriminalization ordinance giving police the discretion to charge people arrested for possession of a small amount of marijuana either under the harsh federal statute or the less severe City ordinance comparable to receiving a traffic ticket.
‘Twas wondered from the beginning how the ordinance would be applied since the Lehigh County District Attorney wanted all cases to be charged under the federal statute. Creating the potential for a boundary dispute. Charged one way one side of the street, another way on the other.
But there’s another issue too.
In December Southside District Judge Nancy Matos Gonzalez published a letter calling attention to the fact that Lehigh University police were charging Lehigh students under the lesser penalty while by-and-large the Bethlehem police were using the federal statute — what she saw as a problem for her dispensing fair and equal justice.
Lehigh students get off with a slap on the wrist, Southside residents get hammered.
On January 6 the Mayor said that the Police Chief would investigate the county differential, and on January 13 Councilman Reynolds called also for information on application of the laws in the different geographical regions of the City.
The issue in the Southside is particularly crucial because of the racial and social class discrimination implications if there is an uneven application of the law between, for example, Hispanic residents and “privileged” white students.
We would assume that necessary information gathering for tomorrow’s Public Safety Committee meeting would necessitate contacting the various magistrates and gathering statistics. And, like the Bethlehem Press reporter above, Gadfly tried 2-3 weeks ago to do a bit of investigating himself to see if that was happening.
The other Southside Judge had not been contacted by the police but reported to Gadfly that during a several month period before Judge Gonzalez’s letter was publicized, the Bethlehem ordinance was not used at all in 117 cases. Another Judge met with me only to say that there had been no contact from Bethlehem police and no statistics were gathered. All other judges would not talk with me at all.
The information from the two Southside judges 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 different parts of the city — especially in the heavily Hispanic Southside.
We are hoping for a good discussion based on solid data tomorrow.
The Public Safety Committee is chaired by Michael Colón, with members Grace Crampsie Smith and Olga Negrón. The meeting is 5:30 in Town Hall, before the regular City Council meeting at 7PM.
The Gadfly invites “local color” photos of this sort
Monstrous mutant silicon-ant colonies (of the CRIZ family) unleashed on the former
site of the headquarters of now defunct Bethlehem Steel Corporation —
developers beware
Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside
Here’s Lehigh announcing the temporary closing of Packer Ave to the Lehigh community. Feels a bit strange to Gadfly that no mechanism is identified for Lehigh community members to register thoughts on a permanent closing. Feels a bit strange that nothing was addressed to the people who park there. The photos in the previous post were taken c. 4PM Saturday afternoon, and Packer was parked up the whole length on both sides. Maybe something was going on, but it didn’t look like it. The campus felt deserted. Where are those cars going? — I guess the study will tell us.
But this is Lehigh announcing the closing to the Lehigh community. There was some skepticism about how and how vigorously the surrounding neighborhood community was advised of the January 23 “community” meeting at Broughal. Lehigh kinda skipped over a question about that. Should Lehigh be addressing a statement like this to that other community? Or is that the City’s responsibility?
Followers will recognize that Gadfly is more and more taken by Lehigh’s reason #3. Can you imagine Lehigh writing to the neighborhood community directly and saying, “We recognize there are long-standing cultural issues that can make our campus feel inaccessible to you, and we are trying ease those issues by_____________.”
Wow, that would be neat (does anybody say “cool” any more?).
Does the neighborhood community have any idea of reason #3?
Isn’t one of the long-standing issues poor communication?
February 20
Dear Members of the Campus Community,
Earlier this week, the Bethlehem City Council approved the temporary
closure of Packer Avenue from Vine Street to Webster Street, beginning
March 9 and continuing through April 30, 2020. No vehicles or parking will
be permitted during this time. Pedestrian traffic will be allowed and
encouraged.
This test closure will allow the university, the City, and our partners in
the community to gauge the long-term feasibility of a permanent closure of
that portion of the street. At this point, no decisions have been made by
either the university or the city regarding a permanent closure. We will
conduct independent studies of vehicle traffic and pedestrian usage to
assess the impact on neighboring streets and the surrounding neighborhoods.
We will also assess the impact on Broughal Middle School.
More than 1,200 pedestrians cross the affected portion of Packer Avenue
each day. We are proposing the test closure for three reasons: 1) to
enhance the safety for our community and the pedestrians that cross
primarily at University Walk; 2) to knit together the Lehigh campus, which
this street bisects, and strengthen the connections to the South Bethlehem
business district; and 3) to create an attractive pedestrian walkway for
both the Lehigh community and the Bethlehem community. We recognize there
are long-standing cultural issues that can make our campus feel
inaccessible to the Bethlehem community and we hope this closure might
address that by creating an amenity that serves both Lehigh and SouthSide
Bethlehem.
We are committed to working together with our campus community, the City,
the Bethlehem Area School District, and other community partners to ensure
that any and all concerns about the closure are heard and addressed. During
the trial period, Packer Avenue will remain open for emergency access, and
studies will be conducted to assess the impact of the closure on traffic
flow, parking, and safety. The results of the studies will be made
available to the public.
More details will be forthcoming on the closure in the coming weeks.
Sincerely,
Fred McGrail
Vice President
Communications and Public Affairs
Adrienne McNeil
Assistant Vice President
Community and Regional Affairs
Brent Stringfellow AIA
Associate Vice President of Facilities & University Architect
Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside
The signs are up!
Packer between Vine and Webster closed March 9 for 45 days
Here’s what we’re hoping:
1) The City will put out a story not only with the technical details of the closure
2) but also full details of the Lehigh “ask” that is behind the study
3) as well as the means for citizens to record their travel experiences during the temporary closure plus their thoughts on a permanent closure
4) and concrete plans for a community meeting to discuss the results and steps forward, including at least a tentative date for such.
In reference to #3, Gadfly will gladly receive your thoughts and impressions and photos, which don’t have to be long, which can be multiple, and of which he will keep a running log.
Latest in a series of posts on Airbnb and short-term lodging 
Latest in a series of posts about the Bethlehem Police 
