Latest in a series of posts on candidates for election
Candidate for City Council Rachel Leon at the Lehigh Valley for All “Meet the Candidates” event February 17.
Born and raised in South Bethlehem
Donegan > Broughal > Freedom
10 years in the military
Lived in Hawaii where she started a non-profit for struggling veterans and homeless
Back to South Bethlehem, which she loves and is “home”
Currently studying at NCC, majoring in Global Studies with a focus on environmental sustainability
Learned courage and commitment in the military
Has courage to stand up for people on the Southside who are often unheard
Committed to Bethlehem in general but South Bethlehem in particular
Loves it here
Concerned about affordable housing
Worked on Climate Action Plan, now on the Library Board
There are 6 candidates running for 4 seats on City Council. The other candidates are Bryan Callahan, Grace Crampsie Smith, Hillary Kwiatek, Adam Waldron, Kiera Wilhelm.
This is the important meeting on the proposal for a 12-story building in the 300-block of south New St. that Gadfly has spent several recent posts describing. This is your chance to weigh in on the proposal and to see an important resident-run City ABC (Authorities, Boards, and Commissions) in operation.
Gadfly,
I’m writing to share information on a significant development project proposed for the Southside downtown area and an upcoming opportunity to share your thoughts on the project at a public meeting on Monday, February 22 at 6 pm.
New York-based chef Rafael Palomino and developer Jeffrey Quinn have proposed a 12-story mixed-use development project for South New Street that includes 82 one- and two-bedroom apartments and a first-floor food court made up of Palomino’s restaurants. The current proposal includes a roof-top terrace, basement fitness center, and two community rooms for residents. The project requires the demolition of four structures: 319-323 New Street, which includes a single-story retail property currently occupied by JC Jewelry and Gifts, and a three-story structure with Lara Bly Designs and Car Village Title and Notary on the first floor and apartments on the second and third floors; 325 New Street, which is a three-story structure that was acquired several years ago by the developer’s local business partners, Juan Carlos and Cara Paredes, and has been left vacant ever since, but which previously housed a bar on the first floor and apartments on the upper floors; and 327 New Street, which is a single-story building which was home to Pat’s Newsstand. The project will also extend to cover Graham Street from the third floor upwards. The developer’s original plans and an update can be downloaded here: ORIGINAL and UPDATE.
Since the project is located with the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation District, it must go through a review process to ensure that it aligns with the Design Guidelines for the district. The Historic Conservation Commission reviewed the developer’s application at their January meeting and will continue to discuss the project at this month’s meeting, which is scheduled for Monday, February 22 at 6 pm. The HCC is currently discussing the proposed demolition of the four properties as well as the proposed height of the structure. They have recommended incorporating the historically significant structure at 319-323 New Street into the project and they have asked the developer to look into reducing the height of the structure.
As community stakeholders, I encourage your followers to attend the meeting to learn more about the project and express their thoughts during public comment. At this point, the HCC will accept public comment on the appearance of the building, and in particular on the proposed height of twelve stories. HCC members have emphasized that the area is characterized by primarily four and five story historic buildings, and have mentioned that the City is currently working with a consultant to better align existing zoning regulations for the historic district with the historic guidelines interpreted by the commission. Restricting building height has been a major component of the public feedback provided to the consultant.
It is extremely important that residents and community stakeholders are involved in determining the future direction of our downtown and neighborhoods. I hope that your followers will take some time to review the proposed project and provide feedback on the building’s appearance at Monday’s meeting, which will be held virtually.
Gadfly didn’t mention endorsements in his previous post with some thoughts about the upcoming election.
But seeing what’s happening almost daily on Mayoral candidate Dana Grubb’s Facebook page, he’s become intrigued by (so far) the different endorsement strategies in that campaign.
Now Gadfly has — more than once — heard Councilman Reynolds called a “career politician.” Usually disparagingly. As if there’s something wrong, something suspect, something nefarious in the way that this young man has steadily devoted himself to local public service for a dozen and more years while holding a full-time job. Which is nonsense.
But — almost to ratify the suspect “career politician” moniker — there’s candidate Reynolds celebrating the endorsement by someone further up the party food chain — our Congresswoman Susan Wild.
Of course, that endorsement, that kind of endorsement, can have tremendous value. It’s a kind of blessing, a kind of anointing. It’s saying that you are a good club member.
How different is candidate Grubb’s endorsement practice, endorsement strategy.
Candidate Grubb worked in Bethlehem City government for 27 years.
Now virtually every day, or so it seems, he has an endorsement from somebody he worked with during that long career.
These are for the most part what we might call collegial endorsements, lateral endorsements rather than hierarchical ones.
Gadfly is not sure how long candidate Grubb can keep up that stream of testimonials from, in effect, co-workers.
But it leads to an interesting question for us voters.
How do we weigh the impact of one endorsement from a party luminary against, say, twenty endorsements from peers?
How do we weigh an endorsement by Susan Wild v. endorsements by Richard “Bucky” Szulborski, Tom Mohr, Dianne Bachmann, Jeffrey Fritz, Tom Marshall . . . ?
As I say, interesting question.
Something to think about.
What meaning, power, influence do endorsements have for you?
Kim Carrell-Smith is a 31-year resident of Bethlehem’s historic Southside, where she taught public history at Lehigh University for almost two decades. She is also an aspiring gadfly, buzzing in on issues of historic preservation, public education, city government, and other social justice issues. She tips her wings to the master gadflies who have served our community for so long!
Did I hear someone say “More evidence, please?” Coming right up! Last installment I introduced a plethora of studies which provide evidence that historic preservation and compatible new development can be a significant economic driver for cities. Now it’s time to get more specific . . .
I offer up one study that seems particularly applicable to our current development climate. Comprehensive, yet succinct, the 2014 study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Greenlab, “Older, Smaller, Better: Measuring how the character of buildings and blocks influences urban vitality” focuses on Seattle, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. But as the authors note, there are some general principles that can be extrapolated for cities of any size. Hang in there, I’ll get to those.
First a few of the “key findings” from the Executive Summary found on pages 3-4, with many more details found elsewhere in the study.
From the Executive Summary:
“This study demonstrates the unique and valuable role that older, smaller buildings play in the development of sustainable cities. Based upon statistical analysis of the built fabric of three major American cities, this research finds that established neighborhoods with a mix of older, smaller buildings perform better than districts with larger, newer structures when tested against a range of economic, social, and environmental outcome measures.”
Key Findings:
Older, mixed-use neighborhoods are more walkable.
Young people love old buildings.
Nightlife tends to flourish in areas with a mix of building ages that provide character to the area.
Older business districts provide affordable, flexible space for entrepreneurs from all backgrounds.
The creative economy thrives in older, mixed-use neighborhoods where there is “a smaller-scaled historic fabric.”
Older, smaller buildings provide space for a strong local economy (i.e., small local businesses).
Older commercial and mixed-use districts contain hidden density (both business and residential).
But how do we employ this as we contemplate new development in our city?
In the section “Principles for Other Cities” on pages 5-7 of the Executive Summary, the authors cite some key ideas that cities of any size could follow (with my italics in some sections):
Realize the efficiencies of older buildings and blocks
“smaller buildings and blocks ‘punch above their weight class’ when considering a full spectrum of outcomes on a per-square-foot basis—from the number of jobs and businesses to the vitality of nightlife and presence of young residents.” [And the author provides more specifics on what else this includes: see p.5]
Fit new and old together at a human scale
“mixing buildings from different vintages—including modern buildings—supports social and cultural activity in commercial and mixed-use zones. Many of the most thriving blocks in the study cities scored high on the diversity of building-age measures. Scale also played an important role. Grid squares with smaller lots and more human-scaled buildings generally scored higher on the performance measures than squares characterized by larger lots and structures. These results support the concept of adding new infill projects of compatible size alongside older buildings.”
Support neighborhood evolution, not revolution.
“While this research indicates that successful commercial and mixed-use districts benefit from new construction, these changes should be gradual. The rate of change is important. The higher performance of areas containing small-scale buildings of mixed vintage suggests thatsuccessful districts evolve over time, adding and subtracting buildings incrementally, rather than comprehensively and all at once.”
Steward the streetcar legacy
That is, “As cities seek to re-establish transit corridors and foster mixed-use development, the armature of streetcar-era commercial districts provides a head start.” [Bethlehem’s two downtowns are, in fact, built along these transit corridors from the past]
Make room for the new and local economy
“[Our] research confirms . . . a correlation between a higher concentration of creative jobs and older, smaller-scaled buildings and blocks. These areas also support higher levels of small businesses and non-chain business, helping to keep dollars in the local economy, and providing more resilience against future economic storms.”
Make it easier to reuse small buildings
“[Our] research illustrates the value of keeping older, smaller, diverse-age buildings viable and in full use. In some cities, however, older commercial buildings languish, with empty upper floors or vacant storefronts. Cities can help unlock the potential of these spaces by removing barriers, such as outdated zoning codes and parking requirements, and streamlining permitting and approval processes.”
Yes, “Older, Smaller, Better” is just one study, but it is one of many from 1999 to 2019 that have looked at the efficacy and economic impact of promoting and supporting the historic look and feel of cities with compatible, complementary new development. And it provides strong evidence and clear, specific recommendations for cities of any size. Historic preservation clearly pays, both economically, and in terms of quality of life, making cities attractive and resilient.
With a focus on developer arguments now, we can finish our examination of the proposal for a 12-story building on the Southside presented to the Historical Conservation Commission January 25.
It’s valuable that we have a grip on the issues for this controversial project since it is again on the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting of the HCC, where, perhaps, a vote will be taken.
Remember that chair Gary Lader called the proposal a “big stretch” for the HCC.
Indeed, for all of the Commissioners who spoke, the 12-story height of the building was a stab in the heart of the proposal.
How did the developer respond?
As you might expect, the developer shied away from the subject of height as much as possible in making his pitch and answering questions, though he did eventually clearly say “going to 5-6 stories definitely wouldn’t work.” Here is a climactic interchange between the developer and HCC chair Lader. Lader seems to suggest to the developer that in further discussion, in order to better make his case, he might talk of height in relation to the Zest building across the street and talk in terms of feet rather than stories.
Instead of focusing on the problem of the height, the developer stresses:
other decisions such as the tall building approved at 4th and Vine
they’ll save the facade of 321-323 (but not the inside of the building)
that the apartments will include affordable housing (details not specified)
they’ve already modified the height from a previous higher height design (nothing specific)
that it’s a great design, appropriate for the area, for the future (not specified — is this a look away from history?)
if you want to keep things as is, that’s up to you (ironic to say that in front of an “historic” body — is this a denigration of history?)
that there have been multiple meetings with the Mayor and DCED
they’re doing stuff for the community, for the Greenway
they have passion, they’ve worked hard
Gadfly can see that economics — which, remember, is not the purview of this committee — is the elephant in the room. The building will plunk lots of people smack on the New St. corridor, and the Food Court has the potential for creating a lot of energy, a lot of vibrancy in what the food guy implies is a sleepy Southside. Listen to the developer and his food guy in full court press mode throwing everything but the kitchen sink into their case for their project. “Everything is spot on,” says the developer with wonderful understatement, “except for the height a little bit.”
All good except for the height.
In the only “public” comment at the meeting, Missy Hartney — much respected head of the Southside Arts District — positively drooled at the economic security and stability that infusion of new bodies, patrons of business on the Southside would provide.
A compelling point, thought the Gadfly.
Ok, understand the positions?
The ball is in the developer’s court.
They will return with design revisions and/or arguments to sway the committee at the Zoom meeting tomorrow Monday February 22.
We’re going slow (as usual for Gadfly!) trying to get a sense of the dynamics that played out when the proposal for a 12-story building (82 apartments!) on the Southside came before the Historic Conservation Commission on January 25.
In the last post we looked in detail at Historic Officer Jeff Long’s opening presentation, one in which, while finding good things in the proposal, Long advised against total demolition on the site and advised that the height of the building was inappropriate.
Now let’s look at the discussion that followed Long’s presentation: first by the Commissioners in this post, then by the developer in the next post.
To a person, the Commissioners who spoke, while recognizing appropriate stylistic elements in the facade design and positive aspects in the concept (apartments plus Food Court), had substantial concern about the height. One Commissioner stressed that economics was not part of this Commission’s purview.
HCC chair Gary Lader:
Lader, who has called the project “exciting,” here lays out the mission of the HCC for the developer. The HCC focuses on “maintaining the historic exteriors of the buildings . . . the streetscape . . . the scale and massing . . . maintaining the integrity of these neighborhoods . . . We’re in a challenging position . . . We want to see development . . . help enhance and protect the community . . . We want to encourage folks like you to come in and do great stuff, but we gotta preserve some of these buildings . . . Right now what we have in front of us is going to be a pretty big stretch for us.”
Craig Evans:
“The building is attractive . . . The problem I deal with is the 12 stories being beyond what’s anywhere around it, and I’m not sure how to deal with that, but that’s the challenge I have to grapple with first. Stylistically, I think it’s commendable. In terms of development, I think it’s important to do. But we have to do it right . . . How high is it?”
Roger Hudak:
“It’s high, high, way too high . . . It’s like a cavern . . . The size of that thing bothers me . . . It’s way too tall . . . I just think it’s too tall.”
Seth Cornish:
“As a real estate broker, I’m really fond of development . . . make money . . . revitalize areas . . . a Southside that is predominantly 2-3-4 stories high . . . couple notable exceptions . . . that rhythm of 2-3-4 story buildings is one of the most important keys to our historic district . . . We are a historic commission, and while we are supposed to be concerned with economics, the economics are not really what drives us . . . What really we are charged to do is preserve what is there, the vibrancy of the theme of the area . . . My opinion is that in that particular location, 5 stories is historically appropriate . . . Above 5 stories, I’m probably not going to agree that it’s historically appropriate.”
Beth Starbuck:
“Something’s coming down the pike . . . we will have some more restriction on height, and it’s certainly going to be quite a bit lower than 12 stories . . . We need to make this building a lot shorter . . . That being said, there is a lot about the building that is very nice, and I really appreciate the effort that has gone in trying to making it have some of the character the surrounding buildings do.”
“The current proposal for a 12-story structure is inappropriate for the immediate streetscape and, more generally, for the overall historic conservation district.” Jeff Long, HCC Historic Officer
The discussion at HCC on the proposed 12-story mixed-use building on the east side of the 300 block of New St. during their January 25 meeting took about an hour.
Let’s break the lengthy meeting down into parts in order to more easily grasp what went on.
Per usual practice, HCC Historic Officer Jeff Long sets the table for the discussion between the Commissioners and the developers (mins. 49:30-1:09:20):
Min. 49:30: Long describes each existing building to be demolished in physical detail and historical context. The buildings date from the period 1880s-1900. For the most part original architectural facade features have been lost in alterations and renovations over the years, so several of the buildings now lack a defining architectural style.
Min. 56:20: Long lists each of the guidelines used to render his judgment about the appropriateness of the proposal. This is an official “historic district,” and it is governed by a set of national and local guidelines.
Min. 58:04: Long summarizes the developer’s proposal. A report submitted by the developer justifies demolition on the poor condition of the buildings.
Min. 59:40: Long identifies the 3 components of his evaluation/analysis: the demolition, the size and scale, the facade construction itself.
Min. 1:00:20 demolition: Long’s judgment is that buildings 319, 325, and 327 warrant destruction, but the building that houses 321 and 323 does not.
Min. 1:04:04 size and scale and proportion: Long concludes, “The current proposal for a 12-story structure is inappropriate for the immediate streetscape and, more generally, for the overall historic conservation district.” He uses what I will call the 4-story “Subway” building to the south of the site as the point of reference to say that the proposed 12-story building is out of scale with its surroundings.
Min. 1:06:58 other guidelines: Long finds some positive elements here and makes suggestions for some other elements and resources to be further considered. There are things that the developer does well in aligning the facade with its neighborhood and historical context.
Ok, where do things stand after Jeff Long “set the table”?
As Gadfly sees it (and he’s ready for correction), Long’s role is to be objective. He stops short of a judgment on the entire project. He does not render an up or down.
In Gadfly’s experience going to HCC meetings, the Commissioners can choose to follow him or not, just as City Council in a future step in the process can choose to follow the HCC judgment or not. Council has the last word. And they have rejected HCC rejections in well known “hot” cases.
But let’s think about where we are at this point in the meeting.
Long’s split decision on demolition seems very awkward. What is the developer to do with his plan or any plan if it has to work around keeping a structure right in the middle of his site?
The height of buildings in the Historic District here has been a particular sore point in the past. Witness approval for a tall building at 4th and Vine that has not been acted on yet. Witness the “Zest” building at 306 S.New. Long is categorical in saying the height is not appropriate. But there are tall, though not as tall as the proposed building, buildings across the street.
In talking about his last point, Long seems to be giving positive advice if the proposed height is approved or for a revised proposal for a shorter building if not.
The Commissioners must consider what Long has laid out, but experience would show that they are not bound to it.
Which has not set well in many quarters in the past.
Gadfly can remember a City Council meeting in which Councilwoman Negron bitterly decried the lack of attention to rules and guidelines.
And look at how follower Peter Crownfield responded to Gadfly’s previous post: “It is the HCC’s responsibility to enforce the historic district guidelines. This building does not fit the guidelines, so the developer should simply be told to come back with a proposal that does. The HCC is making itself completely irrelevant if it spends its time on the details of signs while ignoring glaring non-compliance with the guidelines.”
So, should a developer who proposes a 12-story building in an area predominately made up of 2-3-4-story buildings simply be told straight out that it won’t fly?
Let’s go on in the next post to see how the discussion went.
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.He is currently a candidate for the office of Mayor.
Gadfly,
I’ve been reading the commentary provided by Kim Carrell-Smith concerning development in general and in the Conservation District in South Bethlehem. As always, Kim’s analyses are spot on in my opinion and on point with the amazing research she completes. In fact it agrees with everything I’ve felt and learned as a former city administrator.
The other thing that should be reviewed when considering demolition of the existing structures is whether any of them were recognized by both the City and Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission as contributing resources for the creation of this district. If so, and I suspect they may have been (I just can’t recall since it has been about twenty years since I helped to craft the Conservation District Ordinance as a city administrator), then the erosion of the base line through this proposed demolition should be of grave concern.
Finally, one has to wonder how this situation would play out in the Bethlehem Historic District on the City’s north side. Is there less concern because it’s just the south side? Old attitudes towards the “other side of the tracks and river” may still be at play, and I firmly believe that it is time to draw a line in the sand when it comes to development anywhere in Bethlehem, and specifically on the south side.
Development in any city is organic to a city’s progress forward, but that development must respect the existing built environment, be appropriate, and not destroy the charm that gives a community its essence to begin with.
Apropos of what Kim Carrell-Smith has us thinking about, let’s begin to examine the recent proposal for a 12-story building at 319-327 S. New St. on the Southside.
Gadfly was mistaken when he posted about this last time. Then he said the whole block from the Subway on down to the Greenway was involved.
Not so. Only the 4 buildings, 5 addresses marked here: 319-327 S. New St.
It is proposed that these 4 buildings, 5 addresses will be replaced by the 12-story rendering below.
This proposal was discussed at the Historical Conservation Commission on January 25. HCC members are Gary Lader, Craig Evans, Seth Cornish, Roger Hudak, Mike Simonson, Beth Starbuck, Jeff Long.
The scale of the proposal was a significant issue.
No vote was taken.
Get oriented to the proposed project, and Gadfly will return a time or two and go into more detail about the meeting.
Gary Lader and were unanimously elected president and vice president respectively at the Bethlehem Historic Conservation Commission’s first meeting of 2021 on Jan. 25. New member Mike Simonson replaced Phil Roeder, who retired in December 2020.
Lader and Evans presided over an agenda that included discussion of proposed demolition of a row of vintage buildings that comprise 319, 321, 323, 325, and 327 S. New St. to make way for a 12-story mixed use apartment building.
The team representing the ambitious project included developers Rafael Palomino and Jeffrey Quinn, architect Jordan G. Clark and Anthony Scarcia Jr. from Allied Building Corporation. They sought consent from the board to tear down all four buildings and replace them with a structure with a 6,500-square-foot ground floor. As the new building’s height increases, the structure would span the existing alley at E. Graham Place to increase the footprint of each story to approximately 8,000 square feet. The support columns and upper stories would include a strip of land at 317 S. New St. which abuts the South Bethlehem Greenway.
The single story wood frame building at 319 dates from circa 1900. The painted brick Italianate building at 321-323 is three stories, with residential over retail. It dates from 1885 and rear additions were built during the 20th century. Its neighbor is a heavily altered 3-story vacant stuccoed building also built around 1885. A single story retail building at 327 and its rear addition are circa 1900. According to historic officer Jeff Long, defining architectural details for this building and two others have been lost over the years. He recommended retaining the existing building at 321-323, as it contains original architectural details.
Long argued the proposed 12-story structure “is inappropriate for the immediate streetscape and more generally, for the overall historic conservation district.”
The applicants produced an engineering report that pointed out various code violations and structural deficiencies found in the row of buildings, in an effort to support demolition.
When asked, Quinn said they could look at saving the façade of the building at 321-323 S. New St., but emphasized that, “everything inside the building is a public safety hazard and finished its useful life.”
According to Quinn, the design and materials for the new construction would reflect the historic nature of the surrounding district.
“The building is attractive,” said Craig Evans. But its 12-story height was a problem for him.
“It’s way too high,” exclaimed Roger Hudak.
Seth Cornish noted the structures on the Southside were predominantly two to four stories high, “with some notable exceptions.” He said this rhythm was key to the district’s identity and he was not willing to approve anything over five stories.
With his restaurant business background, Palomino described his vision for a food court on the first floor of the project.
The applicants explained that post-COVID technology for occupants would be built into the project to make it safer. There was an affordable housing component, as well.
When Lader called for public comment, Downtown Manager Missy Hartney spoke in favor of adding the “beautiful looking building” to the “heart of the downtown.”
The board agreed to table the proposal, with the applicants to return with a revised design. Ken Loush recused himself from this one agenda item.
Developed as a model sustainable arts venue, IceHouse Tonight is a cultural
initiative designed to serve and share the arts of the local culture.
It is a vehicle for creative place-making, focusing on works
created by local and regional artists.
Bassist Nicholas Krolak is a young veteran of the Philadelphia jazz scene. He has spent the last decade working as a side-man, experiencing new styles, and studying with the masters. Now, he has taken all he has learned and is applying it to his own group. Tracing the lineage of bebop into the contemporary, his compositions celebrate the city and honor nature.
Najwa Parkins is a Philadelphia-based vocalist, songwriter/composer, arranger, bandleader, and educator. Her voice has often been described as smooth, smoky, and soulful— with a profound range of emotion. Najwa has been praised for her compositions, which are both lyrically and musically engaging.
Suggested Donation – $5
The show will be streamed on the IceHouse Tonight Facebook page and the IceHouse Tonight Youtube channel.
Live from IceHouse Tonight delivers local arts to your living room. Presenting a diverse selection of virtual performances, the series is part of the larger IceHouse Tonight series, which features over 100 events each year.
The series is proudly sponsored by Fig Bethlehem magazine.
Kim Carrell-Smith is a 31-year resident of Bethlehem’s historic Southside, where she taught public history at Lehigh University for almost two decades. She is also an aspiring gadfly, buzzing in on issues of historic preservation, public education, city government, and other social justice issues. She tips her wings to the master gadflies who have served our community for so long!
Okay, so if you don’t want to read through all of those regional, state, and city studies from the last installment, how about a summary of key ideas drawn from a number of reports?
You don’t just have to take my word for this: in her 2012 study “The Economic Impact of Historic Resource Preservation,”author Mimi Morris, the Executive Officer of the California Cultural and Historical Endowment, examined a host of data-based studies, and summarized:
The dozens of reports written on the topic of the economic impact of historic preservation all identify these three main economic impacts resulting from historic preservation:
Increased Property Values
Job Creation
Increased Heritage Tourism
Related social impacts that have a lesser but still important economic impact include decreased criminal activity, increased housing supply, better quality of life, and increased pride in cultural assets and communities.
Pretty convincing, especially when you take the time to read the details that underlie those conclusions!
But what about a couple of specific studies that Bethlehem can really learn from, given our city’s historical “branding,” our current historical building stock, and the powerful and predominant aesthetic impact of our historic architecture and views, in both downtowns?
One study that could be very useful for Bethlehem planners and developers is the fascinating 2017 data-rich project conducted by Edge Research — and funded by American Express for the National Trust for Historic Preservation — called “Millennials and Historic Preservation: A Deep Dive Into Attitudes and Values.” This study specifically discusses the economic and social impact of historic preservation when it comes to millennial consumers and residents in US cities. There is very powerful data here, indicating the clear preference of millennials to live, work, and spend their time and money in places with a “historic feel.”
Aren’t these young people the future of our city? Don’t we want this generation to spend their (rent, play, and tax) money in our commercial areas, and nearby?
So our stockpile of evidence is beginning to grow: historic preservation pays in a number of ways. Maintaining the historical vibe of a community is good for jobs, tourism, property values, and feet on the street for retail, dining, and business growth and sustainability . . . and we know it appeals to young people, in particular!
But there is one more study that explores aspects of successful cities and offers recommendations for cities to follow when it comes to historical settings, scale, aesthetics, mass, and context in city development or redevelopment. It is perhaps the most useful for Bethlehem folks to contemplate: Part 3 coming soon . . .
Latest in a series of posts on candidates for election
Campaign season began in earnest this past week.
Candidates could start circulating petitions last Tuesday.
In order to be on the May 18 ballot, candidates must file petitions with voter signatures by March 9.
For instance, the candidates for mayor and Council each need 100 signatures of registered voters in the Democratic party. (Gadfly is not aware of any Republicans running.)
100 signatures sounds easy but probably isn’t. It certainly can be time-consuming.
There are multi-candidate petition-signing events going on.
You may be asked to sign.
As Gadfly reads the regulations, you can only sign a petition for one of the two mayoral candidates. Since there are four Council openings, you can sign petitions for four Council candidates.
There are now six people running for Council: Callahan, Crampsie Smith, Kwiatek, Leon, Waldron, Wilhelm.
Gadfly only learned of Rachel Leon’s candidacy at the LV4ALL event Wednesday and will post about her soon.
You need to sign your name exactly as it is on your voter registration.
The county election board will scrutinize the petitions.
Our democratic process is rollin’.
———-
Some things to think about:
Turn-out in these off-year elections is smaller than others. That’s not good. Gadfly has been thinking about how important mayors are while watching interviews with Texas mayors in their crisis of this past week. And post-GeorgeFloyd events have put the spotlight and the pressure on lots of City Councils. We need to pay attention to this upcoming election for our own good.
The importance of name recognition. The word to prospective candidates at the January 30 League of Women Voters workshop was that name recognition is key to success. Candidate Reynolds — councilman for a dozen years — has a lot of name recognition. Councilman Callahan — councilman for 8 years and brother to a popular past mayor — has a lot of name recognition. As voters, we should go beyond the name recognition and look carefully at what all the candidates are made of.
Money. Candidates Reynolds and Callahan have a huge, huge advantage here. Money translates into options for gaining name recognition. As voters, we need to go beyond the flyers and yard signs and etceteras and look carefully at what all the candidates are made of.
Gadfly has asked rhetorically “Where are the Republicans?” — meaning where are candidates outside the usual suspects: women, Blacks, Latinx, LGBTQ, and so forth. Note, especially, that there are 4 women running for Council. Theoretically, 5 of 7 Council members could be women next year.
If mayoral candidate Reynolds wins, he will resign his Council seat and Council will select yet another person to fill out his term. There’s the possibility of a lot of new faces on Council next year.
Collaterally, Gadfly reminds you again that he will be folding his wings the day after the election, and he is hoping to hear from someone(s) to take over the Bethlehem Gadfly blog or to start a new one.
Lehigh University’s coronavirus outbreak has bloated Northampton County’s infection rate and led to fears that the campus may have to shut down, but officials say that hasn’t stopped some student groups from throwing parties.
The university cited three Greek fraternities — Alpha Tau Omega, Delta Upsilon and Chi Phi — with student conduct charges, alleging they threw parties or gatherings last week, according to a notice posted on the university’s website.
One of those gatherings, according to the university’s notice, was a Feb. 11 off-campus “COVID Party” hosted by Chi Phi and attended by students who had recently tested positive for the coronavirus.
In a letter to the university’s undergraduate students, Vice President of Student Affairs Ricardo Hall said both on- and off-campus parties were quickly shut down, and the students and organizations are facing suspensions, evictions from university housing and even expulsions.
“The consequences are great because the stakes are high,” Hall wrote in the letter.
Even as these examples of bad behavior come to light, Hall emphasized that “the vast majority of students are doing everything they can to keep themselves and everyone around them safe, in hopes of eventually returning to a more ‘normal’ campus life.”
He pointed out examples of students at the campus who’ve been leaders in helping transform the culture around COVID-19, with the student government working to organize a council that would help bring forward possible solutions to these kinds of student-based issues.
Kristen Wenrich, director of the Bethlehem Health Bureau, said this week that cases at Lehigh over the past week have increased the numbers of infections in the city, and there seemed to be no other factors contributing to the rise.
Hall wrote that it’s understandable that students are frustrated and experiencing general “COVID fatigue,” but breaking the rules will only prolong the problem.
“We’ve seen time and again that when the protocols are followed, we see lower rates of infection,” he wrote. “Beyond the importance to health and safety, doing the right thing when it’s difficult — the actions we take today and tomorrow — also ultimately define our community. Thank you for doing your part and for expecting the same from others.”
There are currently 379 active coronavirus cases amongst Lehigh students and more than 600 in quarantine. The university’s test positivity rate jumped to 8% last week, prompting Lehigh to urge student caution last Friday.
There are currently 379 active coronavirus cases amongst Lehigh students and more than 600 in quarantine. The university’s test positivity rate jumped to 8% last week, prompting Lehigh to urge student caution last Friday.
Lehigh’s outbreak is contributing to Northampton County having the state’s second highest per capita infection rate — 43 new cases per 100,000 people — over the past week. Northampton is averaging 132 new cases a day over the last seven days.
Kim Carrell-Smith is a 31-year resident of Bethlehem’s historic Southside, where she taught public history at Lehigh University for almost two decades. She is also an aspiring gadfly, buzzing in on issues of historic preservation, public education, city government, and other social justice issues. She tips her wings to the master gadflies who have served our community for so long!
Thanks for covering so many issues about new development in our city, Gadfly. As so many residents, city officials, and business folks have noted, new development can be good for the city and is necessary for our tax base. But a few of us have added a caveat: there is a difference between “anything goes” and thoughtful planning and development. The future of our city should be based on sound practice that considers the latest data and research.
Is there a sound alternative development vision to the excessive massing and height or the occasional glitzy glass and metal facades that seem typical of new project proposals that have been announced for our downtowns lately, in Bethlehem? As the Infill Development Standards and Policy Guide (developed for the state of NJ by the Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research and the University of MD’s National Center for Smart Growth and Education) has noted, successful infill projects in cities should be “context-sensitive.”
The context in Bethlehem’s two downtowns is HISTORICAL. Bethlehem led a national urban movement when the city chose to protect, preserve, and enhance historical streetscapes as an economic strategy over thirty years ago. That choice changed the fate of an endangered Northside downtown (which was struggling in the face of suburban mall and shopping center developments) into a vibrant, bustling place filled with a mix of housing and small businesses for both tourists and local folks. What attracted them? The historical ambience created by the original scale and massing of the downtown streetscape and the historical architecture of its buildings, as well as the unique small businesses and restaurants on the street level, with apartments above.
A similar renaissance happened in the 1990s as the city embraced the historical streetscape of the Southside business district while assisting new small businesses to establish themselves on Third and Fourth Streets and encouraging the Banana Factory redevelopment, all of which helped to define the Southside’s niche as an historical and artsy side of town. The preservation of significant buildings on the Bethlehem Steel site also emphasized the historical, gritty past of this area, and drew visitors to this side of town. Although totally different thematically, our two downtowns’ eclectic historical architecture and the complementary height and scale of the building stock in the main business districts created an appealing, warm, welcoming vibe and aesthetic in both places. As one small business owner on the Northside said in a 2016 Morning Call article about the city’s embrace of historical ambience and livable scale, “I think a lot of places try to re-create it. But they can’t. They don’t have what we have.” And so far we have a strong presence of historical building stock, compelling historical vistas and views, as well as historical tales to tell from our colonial past to twentieth century industrial history, which combine to make Bethlehem’s commercial corridors a draw for visitors and residents. Of course business cultivation and promotion is essential, and like all downtowns we’ve faced recessions and other setbacks, and small businesses struggle as they do everywhere, but we have the foundational elements for economic success in our unique setting and historical branding.
So, could preserving the historical ambiance and human scale of our city — while allowing for strategically integrated, thoughtfully guided development and redevelopment projects that honor our city’s “history” branding– foster increased economic success like tax money, jobs, feet on the street, new businesses, tourists, and increased property values in Bethlehem? The answer is a resounding yes, and there is plenty of evidence from the experience of other cities and regions to support that claim.
If you can hang on for the ride, I’d like to introduce you to actual evidence, not just baseless claims about whether intentional planning for, and preservation of historical streetscapes and livable scale in a city pays off, starting with one hyperlink connecting to numerous studies that explore the economic impacts of historic preservation. In a future post I promise to discuss the highlights of two studies that are particularly applicable to the current development climate in Bethlehem.
I provide the link to myriad studies here first because it might be fun to skim but also to demonstrate that there are so very MANY legitimate, well-designed studies on this subject! The information in these studies is based on solid data and good research done by professional planners, data and policy analysts, and academics (urban planners, business professors, economists), and lawyers, most of whom belonged to two different top teams of consultants: one firm is the highly regarded real estate and economic development firm PlaceEconomics, and the other consulting group is the equally well known Center for Urban Policy Research, at Rutgers.
Here is the hyperlinked list of studies from 28 states, 12 cities, and a few National Heritage Areas (like our D&L) that all examined the impact of historic preservation on the local economy. The vast majority of these studies indicate that maintaining the historical integrity of cities can and does enhance property values, creates jobs, expands the tax base, attracts visitors and/or new residents, and puts “feet on the street.” In fact. each city, state, or regional study provides strong evidence for such assertions.
So there IS an alternative way of thinking about “progress”! I promise fewer studies, but fascinating findings, in the next installment . . .
Latest in a series of posts on candidates for election
Candidate for Mayor Dana Grubb at the Lehigh Valley for All “Meet the Candidates” event February 17.
What I’d like to do tonight is outline three key areas of my platform:
Public safety and policing:
We need to customize policing and public safety to meet Bethlehem’s needs. I think Chief Kott’s vision for Bethlehem’s police force aligns pretty much with mine; to provide the best service and protection possible to residents, to various out reach measures. I’ve lived through two versions of community policing, and I think it’s been proven to work. It establishes very strong relationships within the community, and in the end it grows trust between law enforcement and the residents. I will implement more diversity in hiring and seek to employ more Bethlehem residents throughout all departments in City government. I worked there 27 years, and when I was hired, you had to be a Bethlehem resident. I’m not saying I want everybody to be a Bethlehem resident, but I think residency improves the buy-in to the community. I fully support programs that encourage young people to consider a law enforcement career in their hometown, programs such as the Junior Police Academy. Continue police training in crisis intervention and diversity recognition, as well as the appropriate interaction with resources dealing with mental health and substance dependence will be a priority for me. And there will be a zero tolerance policy across all city departments for discrimination and disrespect. Our laws will be applied uniformly and fairly.
Climate change:
Considering climate change, I support the city’s climate action plan, and I will pursue initiatives such as widespread and conveniently located electric charging stations for civilian and commercial vehicles. I will seek to amend zoning ordinances to require solar installations on the roofs of large new developments, and I want large warehouse developments to require off-street and energy stations to reduce diesel truck idling. Truck traffic and its attendant pollution disproportionately impacts the very young and the old in the community who are most vulnerable to assaults on their health. And it’s especially dangerous for those with fewer resources. As a long-time advocate of appropriate economic development in low-income communities, in the Southside in particular, I think it is critical that whatever benefits get allocated from the climate action plan apply to all communities not just those that can afford solar panels and electric vehicles.
Affordable housing:
In my 27-year city career, I served as a finance specialist in the City’s housing rehabilitation program, later as grant administrator for all grant programs, including Community Block Grant and Home. My responsibilities included oversight of that same rehab program and the home ownership opportunity program that covered down payment costs for first-time home buyers. I also processed a number of HUD loans used to convert empty factory spaces into affordable housing units, all benefiting low and moderate income residents in Bethlehem. I recently crafted the closing assistance program called CAP, the guidelines for the non-profit housing opportunity program, which provides up to $12,000 in closing costs for low and moderate income first-time home buyers.
I think my experience matters. I have a lot to bring to the table because of that experience in City Hall and since as a small business owner.
Reminder that you can find a comparison of the mayoral candidates here.
Latest in a series of posts on candidates for election
Candidate for Mayor J. William Reynolds at the Lehigh Valley for All “Meet the Candidates” event February 17.
We’ve made a lot of progress in our City since Bethlehem Steel shut down, but there’s a lot more work to do. I feel strongly that we need a vision for our community especially coming out of the pandemic if we are going to grow and prosper this year and beyond. I’ve long felt that we need to continue our economic redevelopment and revitalization efforts . . . and we’ve got to keep building a City where everyone matters. We need to implement our Climate Action Plan to make our City healthier and more sustainable, and, more than anything, we need a vision for what we can be. Our optimism in Bethlehem has always overcome the negative and cynical voices among us . . . Our best days are in front of us if we can rely on our creativity, imagination, and passion to guide our future . . . The pandemic has shown us that we need to design better systems and increase cooperation in our community between our cities, our counties, our school districts, and our healthcare networks, and think about where our systems have failed to protect our most vulnerable. Progress is only possible when we are able to create coalitions of individuals and institutions that are committed to change. I think our efforts with climate action and neighborhood revitalization have shown the work that I am capable of in that area. The only real limitation we have as a city is whatever we put on our selves. This isn’t about who we were or who we are but who we can be as Democrats, as families, as a City.
Mayoral candidate Reynolds answered a question about his plans for the Southside:
I think when you look at the Southside what you see is a lot of private investment going on, but it also is where we see a lot of systems, in my opinion, that failed . . . service requests. snow removal, and potholes, and things like that, and there’s so much less on the Southside than in other areas. It’s not because the problems are less but because we have a digital divide there . . . don’t have access to high-speed internet . . . We need to look at how do we just not build systems for the West side or the North side . . . but what can we do for the City on the Southside as how do we create a fairer city and give everybody in our city access to the opportunities people have throughout our city.
Reminder that you can find a comparison of the mayoral candidates here.
Just discovered your site. The bridge spanning Monacacy Creek at Bella Vista Dr (next to Scholls produce stand) is soon to be closed to vehicles. It’s more than 100 years old, and its concrete abutments are in excellent condition. It will make a great addition to the trail system along the creek, as it has been used by bikers and walkers for generations. It needs to be certified as sound for pedestrians. Maybe needs some strengthening. Definitely needs some railings for safety. Possible historical significance as a crossing dating back to George Washington.
I wasn’t aware of your questions until recently, but for the sake of those who may have questions about this incident in the future, I’ll try my best to answer them. The defendant was interviewed by our Professional Standards Division (Internal Affairs). In an official video-recorded statement to the investigators, the defendant made numerous criminal allegations regarding the involved officer. These statements were contradicted by both in-car and body worn cameras. The defendant’s interview and both videos from the incident were shown to members of City Council. Councilwoman Negron and Van Wirt did not watch the presentation shown by now Chief Kott. I reached out to Negron and Van Wirt and requested they approach the Police admin to watch the videos. Dr. Van Wirt never responded to my emails, and several months later I ran into Councilwoman Negron who informed me she never approached the Police admin to view the footage and she did not intend to. The search was a consent search which was legal and on video. The officer did park the defendant’s vehicle and provided him with a ride home after he was fingerprinted. The FOP does not control when or if videos are released to the public. We believe if this video was released, it would have immediately ended any concern as I believe it was handled so well it could be used as a training aid on how to be professional during a traffic stop. Also, just to clarify, New St. is about 10 blocks from where the officer was parked monitoring the intersection. The defendant didn’t “detour a bit” 10 blocks. I’d be happy to answer any other questions in the future.
Officer William Audelo
Bethlehem Police Department
Tip o’ the hat to Officer Audelo for providing further information on this episode that, as followers might remember, troubled Gadfly.
“Our inability to handle COVID-19 is not only an embarrassment, but serves as a serious hazard to students, professors and the entire Bethlehem community.”
Lehigh University Brown and White
The Mayor made no mention of this spike in his comments about the local virus happenings at City Council last night.
Sometimes it seems like Lehigh isn’t located in Bethlehem.
We are seeing, time and time again, Lehigh’s administration deflect responsibility and refuse to take action until it’s too late.
But now, it’s causing concern for public safety.
According to the Lehigh COVID-19 dashboard, since Jan. 1 there have been a total of 430 positive cases of coronavirus among students living on and off campus. During the first week of classes,104 students tested positive, and during the second week, 272 more students joined them.
This rise in cases in such a short period of time is nothing short of obscene.
It is evident that students have not been following Lehigh’s social contract to social distance and limit social interactions to 10 people or less.
However, as much as it is the fault of students for being irresponsible, going to large unmasked gatherings, and spreading the virus, the responsibility also falls on the university to put tangible policy in place to penalize students for failure to adhere to rules and regulations.
This past semester started out by only testing students who chose the campus access option twice within the first two weeks of the semester. And for a while, there were no active cases of COVID-19 on or off campus, which the school made sure to boast about on its social media regularly. However, it is easy to have a low case count when there is little to no testing occurring.
And when the inevitable outbreak did occur, Lehigh closed its campus for two weeks, wasting the money of those who opted to pay for access to campus.
This semester students were required to show a negative test upon arrival, follow a moderated quarantine before classes began and partake in weekly testing for the first two weeks of the semester. After the initial two week testing period, 50 percent of students were planned to be tested each week.
This new method quickly proved ineffective. Within just two weeks, the case count more than tripled the 100 mark that shut down campus the semester prior.
The university administration knows that the majority of the infection occurs through off-campus social interactions, yet little is being done to inhibit students from attending such events.
There has been no protocol to check if students randomly selected for surveillance testing actually show up for their test, and there have been few reports of off-campus gatherings getting shut down by the police.
If students see no consequences for violating social contract, it can’t be expected that they will alter their hazardous behavior.
Lehigh’s suggestion? Anonymously report your friends.
While many students have turned to anonymous reporting, the method has proven ineffective as Lehigh sits with more active cases than universities with student bodies five times its size.
The egregious mishandling of COVID-19 is only amplified by the hypocrisy that exists within Lehigh’s athletic department.
Throughout the various outbreaks that occurred last semester, athletics have continuously been paused and restarted, to only be paused again. When a player tests positive, they are put on a pause for a small, indefinite amount of time, unless it’s a sport like basketball, where everybody is considered a close contact.
But on multiple occasions, athletics have been able to resume 24 hours after a reported outbreak, despite potential incubation time ranging from three to 14 days.
Whether it be stronger planning or fostering a student body who is more willing to adhere to rules and regulations, it is time Lehigh takes a page out of the planning books of its peers. Our inability to handle COVID-19 is not only an embarrassment, but serves as a serious hazard to students, professors and the entire Bethlehem community.
So now it’s our job, our responsibility in the next three months before May18 to get to know the candidates as best as possible so that we can make informed choices.
You know, “informed” choices, not choices on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, good looks, alma mater, friend of a friend, yard sign design, and the rest of the etceteras.
Here’s an opportunity to get to know the candidates.
Latest in a series of posts on candidates for election
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kiera Wilhelm
617.388.0495 / 484.725.5966
kieraforbethlehem@gmail.com
BETHLEHEM, PA – Kiera Wilhelm has announced that she is seeking election to Bethlehem’s City Council in 2021.
For the past four years, Kiera has served as Director of Fig Bethlehem magazine, a print/digital publication whose mission is to support and promote local businesses and organizations in Bethlehem and the Lehigh Valley. “In my role as Director of Fig, I am charged with representing our local small business community, and I do so proudly. Many of our small businesses have been devastated by the pandemic, and I am inspired every day—now more than ever—by their dedication and commitment, and I want to do more. Connecting with so many hard-working business owners, particularly in the past year, has fueled my desire to run for City Council. Their needs are diverse, and diverse opportunities to help our small businesses exist—Council can and should serve as an accessible resource in getting them the help that they need.”
As a member of Council, Ms. Wilhelm will champion policies that serve the health and well-being of Bethlehem and all of its citizens, including those that:
• support diversity, inclusion, racial justice, and equality;
• promote sustainability, including more green spaces, improved public transportation, walkability, and the targets within Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan;
• increase affordable housing options and strive to end housing insecurity and homelessness;
• actively support and sustain a vibrant small business community, both as it recovers from the economic downturn and beyond.
Additionally, Ms. Wilhelm says she will prioritize more frequent, more accessible communication with the citizens of Bethlehem—via an enhanced and easy-to-navigate digital hub, a more robust social media presence, and, when it is safe, in-person conversations in the neighborhoods where people live and work. “I believe that better, warmer communication between a government and its citizens can lead to increased civic participation—an engaged community of residents who, having been thoughtfully informed and actively invited to participate, do,” she said. “This can mean anything from increased voter participation, to more trees planted, to volunteering, community gardens, more public art, and so much more. Civic participation contributes to the health and well-being of individual citizens, and to the community as a whole.”
As Councilperson, Ms. Wilhelm will also support the administration’s ongoing goal of greater transparency and accessibility, both through systems, such as the Open Bethlehem portal, and direct actions: “I plan to be the type of City Council member I have admired—which is more or less the kind of human being I admire: somebody who listens, pays attention, seeks information and feedback, and responds with thought, care, and intention.”
A graduate of Moravian College, Kiera lived in Bethlehem from 1989-1994 before moving away to begin her career in teaching. In 2000, she received her Ed.M from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She remained in the Boston area, working in education and nonprofit arts administration, development, and fundraising before returning to Bethlehem in 2013. She has served as Director of Fig Bethlehem magazine since 2016.
She currently serves on the development/marketing committee for the YWCA Bethlehem, the marketing committee for the Bach Choir of Bethlehem, and the steering committee for the historic Charles A. Brown Ice House Tonight performance series. Kiera is a member of the Bethlehem Food Co-Op. She was a member of the advisory group for the Lehigh Valley Creative Economy Project, and has served on committees and task forces for the Bethlehem Area Public Library, Touchstone Theatre, Godfrey Daniels, and Any Given Child Bethlehem. Kiera officiates weddings and other milestone life celebrations as part of the Lehigh Valley Celebrant team.
Last Tuesday Council’s Community Development Committee held a meeting on ordinances proposed by Councilman Callahan relating to Third-Party inspections.
Councilwoman Van Wirt chairs the committee; other members are Councilman Reynolds and Councilwoman Crampsie Smith.
Third-party inspections.
Yawn, you are saying, yawn.
But this meeting touches on three important subjects: the quality of City services, the City budget, and the upcoming election.
Gadfly would like you to think about all three subjects as you contemplate this post, but especially the last — the upcoming election.
Literally as he was writing this, Gadfly learned that Councilman Callahan will not be running for Mayor but for re-election to his third term on Council.
One of Gadfly’s most basic goals has been to help you have the information that you need to vote in the most informed way possible.
This is Councilman Callahan’s project.
We should be paying attention to such things as we consider spending our votes (though, at the moment, it looks like 4 candidates for 4 slots — no competition).
Take some time to witness him on center stage, in action, as it were, proposing legislation, one of the main jobs of a councilman. You can listen to him on the meeting video here.
Gadfly will provide some audio clips with summaries from the meeting below, but followers know that he always advises that you go to the primary source yourself and form your own opinions before he comments.
He will only say now that this meeting shows a pattern in the way Councilman Callahan works that he has seen before, and he wonders if you do too.
———–
Councilman Callahan’s proposal cum rationale (20 mins.):
The City employs building inspectors. Councilman Callahan has heard complaints from both commercial entities as well as “mom and pops” of undue delays getting necessary building inspections. His purpose is to streamline the permit process as well as save money by using outside inspectors. This year our taxes went up 5%, we cut 4 public safety positions, etc. The hard budget choices will continue next year. We currently use our in-house inspectors as well as a third-party inspector for acute needs. Councilman Callahan has learned that many other surrounding towns simply use the third-party inspectors. If we did that, he argues, we could cut our budgeted inspectors, save money, and provide better service. Councilman Callahan notes that the Department of Community and Economic Development is the only City department that hasn’t been cut recently — in fact, it has grown. We have 8-10 inspectors now, and something is wrong in the way our sysytem is operating. Councilman Callahan is not asking for immediate change but for the City to request bids from third-parties so that we can determine if a new system would be good for us. He outlines the potential benefits of replacing in-house inspectors with third-party inspectors, such as more efficiency because of more sophisticated technology. Bottom line: a win/win of cutting payroll while gaining more efficient services. Something’s not working now, he argues, and cost-savings will be substantial.
DCED Director Karner’s initial response to Councilman Callahan’s proposal (3 mins.):
Director Karner agrees that there is some technology desiderata while describing what they do have now in the way of technology, but she categorically rejects the anecdotal evidence of delays in the inspection process. These complaints have not come to her attention, and if and when such problems are brought to her, they are/will be addressed immediately.
Further response from Director Karner (5 mins.):
In response to probes by Councilwoman Crampsie Smith, Director Karner adds that the use of a third-party inspector would result in loss of control in front of a magistrate, that the inspectors are revenue-neutral, and that City inspectors do a much more comprehensive inspection than the third-partyers.
Response from Councilman Reynolds (5 mins.):
Councilman Reynolds argues that there would not be a financial savings as indicated by Councilman Callahan (in ways ex-English-teacher Gadfly couldn’t follow!) and that he could not be in favor of the proposal until all the questions/objections raised by Director Karner were satisfied.
Councilman Callahan and Director Karner interact (36 mins.):
Councilman Callahan questions Director Karner for a long time. The Councilman is especially interested in getting some data from the Director in written form. The Director makes two points, that third-party inspectors would not save the taxpayer money (there would be a “remarkable difference” in cost) and that the data he seeks about time lag in inspections will not give the Councilman the information that he is looking for (“it will not show why things are delayed”). Director Karner suggests that Councilman Callahan take up any complaints about delay with the permit coordinator and reminds him of a complaint in the past that turned out to be “unfounded,” turned out to be a “lie.” “I am not going to allow you to sit there and continue to make these accusations that we have these long delays.”
Councilpeople Crampsie Smith (1 min.) and Reynolds (2 mins.) respond to the Callahan/Karner dialog:
Councilwoman Crampsie Smith wonders about simply a policy to deal with complaints, starting with the department head and going up to the mayor rather than dealing with these kinds of things at Council. Councilman Reynolds says that it’s obvious we are not ready to vote on Councilman Callahan’s proposal, that there are questions to be answered, that this meeting is not the most “productive” way to get answers to those questions, and that the proposal should be revisited when Councilman Callahan has the answers to his questions.
Chair Van Wirt make suggestions to Councilman Callahan (5 mins.):
Councilwoman Van Wirt, as chair of the Committee, indicates that a lot has been covered, tries to move Councilman Callahan along by suggesting that he put his thoughts in writing and take time “away from this committee” to pull things together. Councilman Callahan summarizes what he’s looking for and tasks chair Van Wirt for being “unfair” and “stifling” his desire to get information when the meeting has only gone on one hour and twenty minutes.
Chair Van Wirt wraps up the meeting (4 mins.):
Councilwoman Van Wirt pushes back strongly to Councilman Callahan’s proposal. There are “irrelevancies” in the questions he was asking. This is “a solution in search of a problem.” She has seen no evidence of complaints. Until there is a “clear need” for a different way of doing things, the current way (a la Crampsie Smith) is adequate. She suggests adjourning the meeting rather than tabling the proposal, which was what Councilman Callahan was suggesting.
———–
Now Gadfly is asking a lot here.
If you followed him and worked through this meeting, you spent a lot of time.
But when it comes to assessing our candidates for office, that is time well spent.
Gadfly started this post this morning thinking that Councilman Callahan might be running for mayor, and the pattern he sees in such interactions would have been more significant in that context.
But it applies to assessing him for another term as councilman too.
The Swifts are now the official City Bird of Bethlehem!
Join us at the Bethlehem Area Public Library (virtually) for the first in a 3-part series of presentations in partnership with Lehigh Valley Audubon Society and the South Side Initiative entitled S.O.S. Save Our Swifts by Saving their Urban Habitat: Telling the Story of the Chimney Swifts and their Connection to Our City. This series is supported by the Lehigh Valley Engaged Humanities Consortium (LVEHC) Mellon Grant for Public Forums.
Scott Burnet, Lehigh Valley Audubon Society (LVAS) Chairman of the Habitat Committee
Peter Saenger, LVAS President, Ornithologist at Muhlenberg College Acopian Center for Ornithology
Jennie Gilrain (moderator), LVAS Member and Bethlehem Area School District Teacher
Peter Saenger and Scott Burnet will educate the public about these unusual birds. Swifts originally roosted in hollow trees of old growth forests, but since the Industrial Revolution, have adapted to live in chimneys in urban environments. Approximately 2,200 birds were counted entering the Masonic Temple chimney in South Bethlehem in August 2020. Scott Burnet estimates that tens of thousands of chimney swifts use this roost yearly. Since the Masonic Temple was built in 1925 (95 years ago), it is reasonable to assume that up to 95 generations of swifts have called this chimney home. Peter Saenger and Scott Burnet will tell the story of how these aerial acrobats have cohabitated with the people in multiple roosts in Bethlehem since the Industrial Revolution.
Latest in a series of posts on candidates for election
Cribbed this from Bernie O’Hare’s Lehigh Valley Ramblings blog.
Clears the air a bit. But do you think anyone else will join Messrs. Reynolds and Grubb in the mayoral race? Deadline for filing still pretty far off: March 9.
————-
There has been much speculation about my running for Mayor of Bethlehem. Over the last year I’ve met with many residents, homeowners, business owners and union leaders who have encouraged me to run for Mayor. However, the time for me to run for Mayor is not right.
As many of you know, I lost my beautiful wife Lucia to cancer 14 years ago. Our kids were 12 and 9 at the time, so my first and foremost obligation is to my two kids. I am a fulltime veteran educator in the Bethlehem Area School District at Northeast Middle School. I love teaching the students of our City and I believe I’ve made a real difference in the lives of many of them. I have also owned and operated a very successful small business for the past 12 years and just opened a new brick and mortar business, Callahan’s Driving School and Testing Center with my brother John. This new business requires a significant amount of my time to ensure its success. While being Mayor of our great City would have been the honor of a lifetime, it is a fulltime commitment and thus I will not be placing my name on the ballot for the Mayor of Bethlehem.
I will be running for re-election for my third term on City Council. As many of you know, I have a great love and am very passionate about our City. I am a Nitschmann Lion and Liberty Hurricane until the day I die. There is this perception and idea by a few people in our city that everything that has happened, all the good that has happened in our city over the last 20 years, was just inevitable. They think the rebirth and renaissance our City has been through over the last 20 years would have just happened by itself…that is simply NOT true! There are small towns and cities littered and scattered throughout the Northeast and Midwest of the United States that are examples of what happens when you don’t have progressive forward thinking leadership willing to keep pushing for better.
I am proud of my service on Council. As a member and a Chair of the Finance Committee I have fought to keep taxes in check and by refinancing some high interest debt the Standard and Poor’s bond rating for the City of Bethlehem rose 4 times from a BBB Stable rating to a A+ Stable rating in just 5 years.
In my first two terms I introduced, proposed and passed the Wage Equality Ordinance that prevents the perpetuation of gender-based wage inequality, the No Gifts Ban that prohibits City Council Members from accepting gifts from those trying to influence public policy, along with improvements to the Rose Garden and Municipal Golf Course and more funding for ADA Ramps.
I also supported and voted for the Ethics Training Ordinance for City Council Members, the Community Engagement Initiative, the North Side 2027 initiative to help revitalize neighborhoods, the Open Data Group that improves openness and transparency in government, supported ordinances to ensure City contracts pay a fair wage to its employees, two new fire engines to support our fire fighters, body cameras and new Motorola radios for our police, a new EMS vehicle and funding for the Climate Action Plan.
In the next month I will be bringing forward a new ordinance that gives local businesses, especially minority, female and veteran owned businesses an advantage when bidding on local jobs.
My record of supporting critical smart economic development and fighting hard to hold the line on taxes (I voted 6 out of 7 times against tax increases) will continue. I will also fight to make certain we fund our public safety resources at the level needed to keep our neighborhoods safe and our property values up. Growing our tax base, keeping our neighborhoods safe and holding the line on taxes are critical so that Bethlehem remains affordable and the best City in Pennsylvania to live, work and play!
I look forward to the campaign and sharing my vision for Bethlehem.
Latest in a series of posts on candidates for election 
Latest in a series of posts on 319-327 S. New St. 
Simonson replaced Phil Roeder, who retired in December 2020.
The single story wood frame building at 319 dates from circa 1900. The painted brick Italianate building at 321-323 is three stories, with residential over retail. It dates from 1885 and rear additions were built during the 20th century. Its neighbor is a heavily altered 3-story vacant stuccoed building also built around 1885. A single story retail building at 327 and its rear addition are circa 1900. According to historic officer Jeff Long, defining architectural details for this building and two others have been lost over the years. He recommended retaining the existing building at 321-323, as it contains original architectural details.
approve anything over five stories.
Bassist Nicholas Krolak is a young veteran of the Philadelphia jazz scene. He has spent the last decade working as a side-man, experiencing new styles, and studying with the masters. Now, he has taken all he has learned and is applying it to his own group. Tracing the lineage of bebop into the contemporary, his compositions celebrate the city and honor nature.
For the past four years, Kiera has served as Director of Fig Bethlehem magazine, a print/digital publication whose mission is to support and promote local businesses and organizations in Bethlehem and the Lehigh Valley. “In my role as Director of Fig, I am charged with representing our local small business community, and I do so proudly. Many of our small businesses have been devastated by the pandemic, and I am inspired every day—now more than ever—by their dedication and commitment, and I want to do more. Connecting with so many hard-working business owners, particularly in the past year, has fueled my desire to run for City Council. Their needs are diverse, and diverse opportunities to help our small businesses exist—Council can and should serve as an accessible resource in getting them the help that they need.”
There has been much speculation about my running for Mayor of Bethlehem. Over the last year I’ve met with many residents, homeowners, business owners and union leaders who have encouraged me to run for Mayor. However, the time for me to run for Mayor is not right.