The Mayoral candidates April 6 at LV4ALL: the environment and Martin Tower

Latest in a series of posts on candidates for election

“How would you balance environmental protection concerns such as those brought up by the Environmental Action Committee with rezoning and development in Bethlehem into such things as Martin Tower?

Candidate Grubb:

  • The EAC made recommendations when Martin Tower was before Council
  • such as impact on Monocacy Creek, pollution
  • they weren’t listened to
  • developers given carte blance
  • which opponent Reynolds supported
  • with so much impermeable surface you can’t ignore the environmental impact
  • you gotta play hardball with developers
  • has experience doing that
  • gotta let them know the environment is important to the residents
  • would take a hard stance with developers

Candidate Reynolds:

  • Administration not Council brought forward the re-zoning proposal
  • Council created compromise that reduced the amount of retail by 75%
  • compromise balance commercial, residential, and retail
  • redevelopment is a balance of those three in a sustainable way
  • nobody’s talking about the Climate Action Plan I developed and that is just going to be released
  • EAC has been 100% supportive of CAP
  • members are supporting my campaign
  • roadmap to sustainability that touches every project including Martin Tower

One thought on “The Mayoral candidates April 6 at LV4ALL: the environment and Martin Tower

  1. Gadfly, I note two interesting things about WR’s response. First, he is taking a lot of credit for doing his job, which is to respond to the significant citizen interest in a climate action plan (CAP). While he deserves some credit for helping to get money for other people to write the CAP, it is a bit self-aggrandizing for him to claim that HE is the developer of it. He’s the public face of a citizen effort, and as a consequence of that, he is benefitting from significant political support coming from the environmental community in Bethlehem that this public role assured him. Of course, we don’t actually have any concrete action on climate change after many years of planning and talking and support building, so whether he will be successful in getting anything significant done on climate remains to be seen. Second, as a quasi-governmental advisory council without a partisan political affiliation, I’m shocked that Mr. Reynolds would publicly proclaim the support of members of the EAC that he voted to appoint. It’s fine for appointed officials to support political candidates as private citizens, but for Reynolds to affiliate his candidacy with the support of people he approved for public positions smacks of impropriety. It undermines the legitimacy of the EAC because it gives the appearance that he approved the appointment of people because he already knew he could later claim their support in a political campaign. This is precisely why we need the Ethics Ordinance that Reynolds so effectively torpedoed.

Leave a Reply