Month: May 2021

Trying to nail down the Martin Tower developer

Latest in a series of posts on Martin Tower

Bethlehem is not where we were in 1994. This City is now in a position of strength.
Councilwoman Van Wirt

I am not overwhelmingly encouraged by what I’ve seen thus far.
President Waldron

What is it that you are able to do if I was the developer and I said I don’t
want to do these things?
Councilman Reynolds

It’s our role as Council to . . . help represent the community to say that these things are important based on conversations with members of the public that
have been ongoing for years.
President Waldron

ref: The Martin Tower site — almost two years later
ref: Martin Tower addendum
ref: Martin Tower developers request parking limitation exception at Planning this afternoon
ref: The tweaking of the Martin Tower site plan begins
ref: Martin Tower site: “we want it done the right way”
ref: Martin Tower proposal significantly interrogated at Council

Martin Tower’s on the City Council agenda for Tuesday night.

The developers are proposing a Zoning text amendment relative to parking and traffic flow that Gadfly, as you might remember, thought of relatively minor significance from the way it earlier flew through the Planning Commission.

Not so.

Several Council members at the public hearing on April 20 addressed the specific proposal on the table, but the more important thing that happened was that said proposal opened the door to a more general discussion of the Martin Tower project.

The proposed buildings on the old Martin Tower site face 8th Avenue in deference to the end users’ (e.g., St. Luke’s) desire for greater visibility. The original design proposes one traffic lane and one parking lane across the front. The amendment would permit the developer latitude to increase that area however he liked. The City Planning Bureau is not in favor of the amendment. Nor the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission.

At the earlier Planning Commission (not Planning Bureau) meeting, the developers said that this narrow and relatively insignificant (in their eyes) proposal was the first of a series of tweaks they would be proposing now that we are coming out of the pandemic (O, god, please!) and construction on the project is about ready to begin.

At the public hearing on the amendment April 20, some Councilpeople questioned this specific amendment on the table, but some were obviously looking for more general information on the project as well as wary of giving the developer too much freedom.

For instance, President Waldron almost immediately called attention to the significance of the night’s discussion, explaining that “This may be one of Council’s only opportunities to weigh in on the project and gain feedback from the public as far as what’s going to happen on such an important large parcel in the heart of Bethlehem.”

President Waldron was signifying that Council wanted eyes on the project because the eyes of the public were on them. He made the interesting point that there were two end users involved here that needed to be pleased, end users like St. Luke’s on the business side and end users like us the residents of Bethlehem on the public policy side.

In a previous post Gadfly used the term “interrogation” to describe Council’s mood at that April 20 Public Hearing, a mood no better exemplified than in the muscular tone of Councilwoman Van Wirt’s virtual lecture to both City Hall and the developer. Give a listen:

 

“Whenever I come across a privately requested zoning text amendment, my guard goes up. . . . Bethlehem is not where we were in 1994. This City is now in a position of strength. And I feel that there is a Golden mean that we have to find where we have appropriate development that respects our zoning code, that respects our walkability, and our need to de-emphasize motor travel and transportation, and especially strive to decrease the sea of asphalt that we see on our roads. We want development to happen at Martin Tower but not at the expense of our zoning and our quality of life. I feel that we must try harder. I feel that when developers come to our administration and our Department of Community and Economic Development that every single effort will be made to insure that new development respects our historical districts, our zoning codes, our walkability, but also will negotiate with the developer prior to coming for any requests to obtain the very best deal and maximum benefit for the citizens and not the developer. This is what I expect of the Administration and City Council, I believe, will hold to these standards, and I feel that there really is a good solution here, and it’s called good design. And I think that’s what we need to be asking of our developers before they come and ask for exemptions from our zoning codes.”

The discussion got really interesting when Councilman Reynolds — naming big picture topics like timeline, the look of the project, the design — said there were “lots of questions” about the project. Indeed, he coaxed a list of City priorities for the project out of the Mayor, a list that included shared parking, reduced impervious coverage, attention to a walkable community, replacement of trees, the view, handling of stormwater, enhancement of the trail network, green space, recreation space, decertifying Criz acreage, and affordable housing. Listen in:

All good stuff. Followers will recognize items on this list. We’ve all made lists. One of Gadfly’s is here. Scott Slingerland’s is here.

So we could make a list of the lists.

And Councilman Reynolds, channeling us no doubt, then asked the City where “we” were on securing the achievement of those items and, more to the point, “what is it that you are able to do if I was the developer and I said I don’t want to do these things?”

Big question.

Good question.

Can we trust the developer to have good ears?

What recourse do we have if he doesn’t?

Councilman Reynolds wasn’t satisfied with the vagueness of the response. He had to ask the question twice.

Solictor Spirk was incorporated into the discussion.

The end result of which was that though Council could stipulate a list of priorities for the developer to achieve, Council could not enforce such a list.

Drat.

But the City might well do it.

Someone turned on the fog machine.

Would the City sit down with the developer and nail down these priorities?

Yes, if the developer was willing.

Gadfly listened, but he heard no response from the developer.

President Waldron — “not overwhelmingly encouraged by what I’ve seen thus far” — and doing yeoman work for us, tried to arrange not only a meeting between the City and the developer to agree on priorities but also the production of a written agreement as the end result of such meeting.

A written agreement. Some basis for some accountability.

That daring suggestion/request hung in the air as the Public Hearing ended.

What will happen Tuesday night if such written agreement is produced?

Perhaps more importantly, what will happen if it is not?

The history of the Martin Tower saga refuses to be written yet.

Gadfly council forum #7: the state of the city

Latest in a series of posts on the Gadfly Forum

The Council candidates comparison chart

Candidates: Callahan, Crampsie Smith, Kwiatek, Leon, Wilhelm

The prompt:

The Mayor delivered the annual State of the City address April 16.

For this Forum response, Gadfly asked the candidates to think of the state of the city, the Mayor’s state of the city address, the content of that address, criticism of or additions to the address, the way in which that address is given, focusing more resident attention on it, and options or supplements to it.

Big open range again for the candidates to roam in.

Listen to Gadfly’s full prompt here.

———–

Kiera Wilhelm

Ed, I can’t believe we’re only three weeks away from the May 18 primary election. The time has flown by. Your latest question, as you know, touches

on a very important foundation of my campaign: warmly inviting residents to be informed, and participate. Communicating with constituents through your blog has been an important part of that.

My February press release announcing my candidacy stated it:

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.”

Looking back, my path to city Council has been paved with “invitations“—even (mostly?) inadvertent ones. When I returned to Bethlehem in 2013, my core group of friends included (and still does!) people who were involved in this city in a number of ways: performing artists, small business owners, generally engaged and concerned citizens. In the last four and a half years as Director of Fig, I became further entrenched in not only the small business community but the community at large. Being out and about, learning and telling the stories of hard-working people dedicated to serving the city in a number of ways, informed and enlightened me. It made me want to learn more, do more. My connections presented opportunities to become more involved, in a number of arts, education, and other community organizations. And now here I am.

City Hall has made important strides in becoming more accessible to residents, and I’m pleased about that. This year’s State of the City address was streamed live, and I watched it with interest. Its many positive messages were accompanied by colorful, engaging photos of places and faces I recognized: the Southside ambassadors; our new police chief, Michelle Kott; our incredible public health team; business owners and other members of the community. I loved seeing renderings of our new food co-op and other projects on the horizon. And I wondered how many others were watching. We can, and should, build on the efforts already made to ensure that City information is reaching as many of our citizens as possible.

Communication with stakeholders is crucial—people and institutions who are investing themselves in the growth of the City need to be kept informed and included. But it’s important to remember that the citizens of Bethlehem are stakeholders, too. As a member of Council (and a former teacher) I’m committed to striving to continually make information not only readily available and accessible but easy to understand. The language we use in communicating information is as important as how and how often we communicate (terms such as “LERTA” and “Enterprise Zone” may not be familiar to most residents, for example). Furthermore, we have so much to learn from the citizens of Bethlehem. Getting information not just to them but from them will inform our work as public servants in deeply valuable and meaningful ways. We can provide unintimidating opportunities for residents to share their perspectives. Not just at the City Hall rotunda but in the neighborhoods where they live and work.

Not everybody is given a natural path to information and engagement. I feel fortunate that my path led me here. As I was invited in, I want to invite others in, too. We all benefit when we hear from all voices, and I’m eager to be part of a City Council that welcomes and engages with those voices.

————

Hillary Kwiatek

When I heard the Gadfly’s question about the state of the city, I was reminded of one of the guidelines for effective dialogue that we use for

conversations across difference among faculty, students and staff at Lehigh: Notice Process and Content.

When viewed from this perspective, we see that the process of the presentation of the annual State of the City address to the chamber of commerce influences its content. A chamber of commerce audience is thought to be more interested in economic development than other areas of municipal government or broader issues such as racial justice or climate change. If this is the only time that a mayor reports on the “state of the city,” that address will fall well short of what our residents want and need to know about.

The economic development and vitality of our city are crucial aspects of the overall health of our city. And the annual address to the chamber of commerce, which includes member businesses of every size, is an absolutely valid exercise. And, at the same time, I think it points to a need for a much more robust and inclusive communication plan for our city going forward.

As part of Councilman Reynolds’ “Bethlehem 2017” initiative, which also included the Open Data ordinance and Climate Action Plan, I served on a working group focused on communications and engagement between the city and our residents. This group, “Connecting Bethlehem,” launched a survey in 2019 to learn more about how the people who live, learn and work in Bethlehem find information about the city; their level of awareness about the city’s communication channels; and their satisfaction with the amount and quality of communication coming from the city.

We received nearly 1,400 replies to our survey. The data showed that while people felt largely positive about the effectiveness and value of the city’s communications, they also found the many channels available, from hotlines to social media, disorganized and confusing. Respondents indicated there were too many places to find information in some cases, and not enough in others. Community members were seeking a unified voice that they could rely on for consistent messaging about the aspects of municipal government that mattered to them.

One more note on the survey. It was important to us that the survey be offered in both English and Spanish, and Councilwoman Negron kindly translated the survey for the working group. We launched the English and Spanish versions together; however, in the end we received only a handful of responses to the Spanish language survey. We saw that as evidence that even our communications efforts to gather information about communications weren’t reaching a large part of our community, at least partially due to a digital divide. This led us to recommend that the city continue to communicate in both print and digital formats.

Finally, the state of the city shouldn’t only be addressed once a year in one place. There should be continual two-way communication between residents and its government.

I believe that City Council members have a role to play in city/community communications. Council members can serve as a connection between residents and the government, and I believe they can create greater engagement from residents by explaining how the city’s many ordinances and approval processes work. I would point to Dr. Van Wirt as an exemplary councilwoman in this respect (among others!).

As a councilwoman, I would see this as a key responsibility of the role and would strive to be as accessible as possible. For example, I want City Council to conduct town halls and other meetings in neighborhoods throughout our community at times and places that are convenient to residents on topics such as the Climate Action Plan, economic development, public safety and more.

If I am fortunate enough to be elected, I will work with the administration to build on the Connecting Bethlehem survey findings to develop robust, inclusive, and unified communications that reach all of our diverse communities.

————

Bryan Callahan

————

Rachel Leon

Once again, I thank you for your thought provoking prompts Sir Gadfly. I enjoy the time we are given to sit with these prompts.

This week’s prompt reminded me of the TED Talk given by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie on the dangers of a single story. She highlights the pitfalls of

only viewing a situation from one point of view. She ends by saying “when we reject the single story, when we realize that there is never a single story about any place, we regain a kind of paradise.” I was also reminded of one of my favorite quotes by James Baldwin when he states, “I love America more that any other country in the world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”

I love Bethlehem more than any other city in the world and for that reason I feel it is my responsibility to be realistic in my description of the state of Bethlehem. When Bethlehem is only spoken about in terms of economic development, we are given a single story of the state of Bethlehem. A story that is financially focused and not family focused. I’m not naïve to the needs of economic stability in a city. I support responsible development and believe in the small businesses that continue to make Bethlehem a totally unique place. However, it is important to be able to point out obvious issues that we are facing as a city. A critique of a specific initiative or practice that residents notice is not a condemnation of the City. It is a call to pay attention, so that a situation does not progress to a point that we are unable to return from. I can say that I appreciate Lehigh’s commitment to investing in the business district in South Bethlehem. I can also say that the trend of student housing in South Bethlehem has made it increasingly difficult for families to find affordable housing in an area that has always been affordable to our residents. I can commend the revitalization of the Memorial Pool and still express concern as to when Yosko Pool will be prioritized. The complex at Third and New is a point of pride for some but a reminder of concerns left unaddressed to others.

When the state of the city is spoken about, I would love to hear the good and the bad. Where are we now? Where are we going? What have we lost sight of along the way, and how do we intend to make it right? The state of the city should express the true diversity of the city, because if it doesn’t, we risk perpetuating the dangers of a single story.

————-

Grace Crampsie Smith

————

Residents are welcome to fashion reflections on candidate comments, sending them to ejg1@lehigh.edu. On Gadfly we seek the good conversation that builds community, so please be courteous at all times. Gadfly retains the right to abridge and to edit your reflections and to decline posts that are repetitive or that contain personal attacks. Gadfly will publish resident reflections on the week’s Forum at noon on Friday.

Mayoral candidates Grubb and Reynolds on the most pressing issue facing the City

Latest in a series of posts on candidates for election 

selections from Christina Tatu, “Q&A with Bethlehem’s Democratic candidates for mayor.” Morning Call, April 22, 2021.

Q. What do you think is the most pressing issue facing the city and how would you address it?

Grubb: Gentrification. It is becoming more and more difficult for longtime and lower income residents to remain a part of the community. Addressing affordable housing is the first step to rectifying this. If a diverse population can’t afford to rent or own a home in Bethlehem, its character will suffer as a result. Diversity is a strength, and losing that strength will negatively impact the pool of qualified people to fill employment opportunities in the city.

Reynolds: The pandemic has upended our community in many ways and we need to emerge as a stronger, fairer and more vibrant city. Families, small businesses, nonprofits and our institutions have all made incredible sacrifices during the past year. We need to assist our residents most affected by the pandemic as well as invest in building a more resilient community.

Our response must be directed towards both short-term relief and longer-term planning in Bethlehem. We must continue to attract jobs and new investment to our city. Private economic investment in our community is needed to fund our basic city services and keep taxes as low as possible. Every job that is created in our community makes it easier for City Hall to continue to deliver high quality public safety services, pave our streets and invest in our neighborhoods.

Hardball (3)

Latest in a series of posts on candidates for election

ref: Hardball (1)
ref: Hardball (2)

from Greg Zahm

First, in response to the Grubb campaign Mailer of last week, how many can say they have served the city equally to either Dana Grubb or Willie Reynolds? I have served as a teacher for 16 years in this my home town (eight more between NYC and Easton) – much less than many have given to Bethlehem, and also not in a city-wide capacity. Children’s education and small-scale intervention in their lives have been quite enough responsibility. Having said these things, our city – all of it – needs our help.

I can say unequivocally that I do not like the tenor of Dana Grubb’s “hardball” mailer – some of what he’s saying and much of the way he’s saying what he’s saying: “It’s no one’s “turn” to be Mayor: It should be the CHOICE of the people!”

Mr. Grubb, it is already the people’s choice. This statement is manipulative.. It’s “said” publicly (rather than behind the scenes), but in a forum where many reading it cannot interact with others to digest it with thorough and informed consideration.

And, while I want to admire the spirit of “It’s time to break the cycle of “graduating” members of City Council to the Office of Mayor” – of COURSE not – where is the substantiation of this implication? I find it cheap and offensive. CAN it be substantiated? And, is the bigger implication intended that “anyone who really matters” should simply agree?  Alas, it too is public . . . and done.

And now, there is Willie Reynolds’ mailer (of Friday, April 30) comparing Mr. Grubb to the most recent ex-president, due to one – albeit concerning, but investigated, explained, and resolved – event.  (And is the picture supposed to be derogatory? Meh.)

How many more physical altercations has Mr. Grubb had? Has he been charged for any? (Has Mr. Reynolds?) I have heard of none. On what facts does Mr. Reynolds challenge Mr. Grubb in the mailer? One.  I agree that the last four years have essentially been the absence of federal leadership. That, however, does not translate so easily to Mr Grubb. Arguably, this is equally if not more disappointing than Mr. Grubb’s innuendo.

Now, to the “facts” of Mr. Grubb’s mailer.

No resident wants to see personal taxes raised – EVER. Amid a pandemic? Yes, that IS very concerning.

What explanation was given by Council and Mayor Donchez for not finding another solution? (Perhaps I did not attend enough to gather that answer.)

Would you say it was a lack of vision and leadership? Failure to apply sufficiently for grants (an area of your apparent expertise), as, Mr. Grubb, you implied at the Church of the Manger forum? And/or was it a lack of compassion – all the way around, including at the State and Federal levels?

But, what did YOU propose to solve the revenue shortfall, Mr. Grubb? Did you come forward at the time and share your wisdom? Or, what do you have to say NOW about what should have been the solution then?  (Grants, cutting personnel AND expanding the tax base?) I hear you criticizing, but WHERE WAS YOUR LEADERSHIP?  Then again, I only occasionally attend Council meetings.  (Having that experience, I think I can accurately state that most residents do not attend at all.)

I did attend the Church of the Manger event Monday. Based on your statements there, should it be assumed that you, Mr. Grubb, would have already acquired the millions in grants to weather this current terrible storm, or would you have re-organized City Hall AND cut more staffing – that Mr. Reynolds suggests is already at an all-time low?

And speaking of “storms”– sort of, was Climate Change – and other/related anthropogenic disasters such as the current mass extinction – not important enough to make the mailer? Improving parks has made it to the top of your list, but what about the current and predicted impacts of environmental inequities on poor and minority communities/residents? Have you really addressed this? Do I digress?

Back to Mr. Reynolds. Unhappily, I am very familiar with the avoidance of answering questions over the past year by Council – including mayoral candidate Mr. Reynolds — and current Mayor Donchez.

I asked council (and the Mayor) multiple times during meetings since last summer and via email why they were failing to hold EVEN ONE MINUTE of discussion on the topic of reevaluating the police budget, an issue critical to many residents.  Doing so then was – and STILL IS NOW – their responsibility to the residents!

When Mr. Reynolds agreed to discuss this question with me after the Church of the Manger event he said the reason it wasn’t discussed by council or the Mayor was because . . . no one wanted to discuss it. City Council and Mayor Donchez, according to Mr. Reynolds, did not WANT to discuss this significant demand made by much of the public.  (Mr. Reynolds, you still have not explained why you never responded to my question and emails.)

I reminded Mr. Reynolds then – as I do readers, now – that “Accountability” and “Advocacy” on behalf of ALL residents, an “Open Bethlehem,” and a “Responsive City Government” are the highlights of his mayoral platform on the web.

So, the public’s demand for budget reevaluation – and my inquiries/correspondences about simply discussing the demands of so many residents – REMAIN unmet and unanswered, MONTHS later!

Council and the Mayor failed to advocate for MUCH of the public on this issue, but not for ALL of the public.

Some residents (lead by the Bethlehem “Good” Neighbors Alliance) berated any councilperson as a “radical leftist” and as literally wanting to overthrow the government for even considering doing their job of discussing the police budget.

The result?  Council – and our Mayor – failed to hold ANY discussion, yielding to threatening and fear-mongering of one loud minority.  NOT ONE motion to discuss was made in council.

In retrospect, after the Jan 6 attack on the US Capital, perhaps they felt legitimate fear.

Nonetheless, the problem seems to be that we have skilled politicians when we need more leadership.

Shouldn’t leaders, when elected, represent ALL and hold the difficult discussions, ESPECIALLY with those who voted against them or who disapproved of their actions? And, as human beings, acknowledge their mistakes? Even as late as now? (Or explain why it wasn’t a mistake?)

Is a politician one who avoids difficult situations and represents those who did – or would – give them their vote, and calls it leadership? And, once elected, is staying elected the goal?  (I think I am channeling Mr. Grubb.) This IS a legitimate concern.

Are my complaints “sour grapes”?  Well, these grapes are bitter at the lack of representation that occurred – and continues, but also for the apparent lack of courage and Leadership that remains.

And then a campaign taking money from developers? Has “Even the appearance of impropriety” gone out the window?  This is clearly a conflict of interest.

And, that ethics ordinance? Delayed? Forgotten? Or buried?  Is that an example of advocating for residents?  Is it not apparent after the last year – four years? – that it is critical?

I repeatedly remind myself of the service given by those in leadership positions, certainly by both of these men. We are all flawed. Mr. Grubb has explained his role in the fight that lead to his forced retirement. He’s owned that – not run from it, and I believe that reflects character. The lack of representation described above, and its continued avoidance are disqualifying to me. I NEED to hear publicly – all of our Bethlehem family deserves to hear – that that has been acknowledged AND DISCUSSED publicly, in order to continue considering Willie Reynolds as a candidate.

Mr. Reynolds, you are still somewhat unknown to me. I spoke to you after the Church of the Manger Forum and shared my concerns in person and honestly – after the many digital attempts. Answer ALL of your constituents’ concerns, as a councilperson.  You, like the current Mayor, work for each of them.

Mr. Grubb, you are largely unknown to me. As one asking to lead, you have not addressed – certainly not with clarity and depth – a number of the above issues.

Truly,

Greg Zahm

Hopeful Human, Advocate for All Species, Teacher, Parent, Husband, Brother, Son (of a Native Son), AND one who aspires to leaving a place better than he finds it (thanks first to my childhood baseball coaches Mr. D. Horst and Mr. B. Kresge)

Two interesting things about candidate Reynolds and the CAP

Latest in a series of posts on candidates for election

Breena Holland is an Associate Professor at Lehigh University in the Department of Political Science and the Environmental Initiative. She is a past director of Lehigh University’s South Side Initiative.

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

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 benefiting 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.

Breena

Mayoral candidate Dana Grubb: the City must have “a comprehensive code of ethics”

Latest in a series of posts on candidates for election

Dana Grubb for Mayor

click here for video

Candidate Grubb at City Hall:

  • worked 27 years in various capacities in the Department of Community and Economic Development
  • critical for the City to have a comprehensive code of ethics
  • proposed several years ago but rejected by several Council members including opponent Reynolds
  • need transparency, honesty, integrity in a system built on checks and balances
  • must deflect solicitations for special favors
  • no campaign donations from Bethlehem major developers (deep pockets)
  • also no endorsements from City and elected officials (you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours)
  • will act solely in best interest of residents

Let’s believe in a better Bethlehem.

Key Southside grocery site will live on

The latest in a series of posts on the Southside

Kudos to the Mayor, the Administration, Council members, and residents who sprang into action when Ahart’s folded.

———–

selections from Christina Tatu, “Ahart’s Market in Bethlehem sold for $2.3 million with plan to keep it a grocery store.” Morning Call, April 30, 2021.

A buyer has closed on the former Ahart’s Market in south Bethlehem, paying for $2.3 million for the property with the intent of keeping it a grocery store, a listing agent and Bethlehem officials confirmed Friday evening.

The market, long considered a staple in south Bethlehem at 410 Montclair Ave., closed after 20 years last month. Steve Clipman, a real estate broker with TRUE Commercial in Lancaster, which listed Ahart’s, said a new buyer closed on the property Thursday, buying it for $2.3 million. It will take about six months before a grocery store is opened there again.

The Bethlehem location was critical, however, for an area that is considered a food desert, without ready access to fresh fruit and vegetables. City officials sprung into action working to identify a buyer for the property who would keep it a grocery store.

The 24,535-square-foot-building will undergo extensive renovations.

The property was only listed for two months before Thursday’s sale and attracted plenty of attention, he said.

Mayor Robert Donchez confirmed the sale Friday evening, though he also declined to identify the buyer. City officials have been in contact with the buyer for several weeks and they hope to make an official announcement soon, he said.

“I impressed upon this individual that it was very important to keep the facility as a full-fledged grocery store that serves a large clientele in Southside Bethlehem and Fountain Hill,” Donchez said. “He was very receptive. Over the last three weeks, our conversations were always positive and we knew they were getting very close to finalizing.”

Friday evening, Donchez said he was elated the deal finally went through and he looks forward to making an announcement.

“I grew up on the Southside and my mother shopped at that store until the day she died,” he said. “It’s one of the anchors of the Southside community.”

In the meantime, as residents await the re-opening of the market, the nonprofit Kellyn Foundation, based out of Tatamy, will operate a “Real Food Mobile Market” in Ahart’s parking lot every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

The first mobile market is planned for this Saturday and will likely operate until the store re-opens, said Eric Ruth, head of the Tatamy-based Kellyn Foundation.

The nonprofit has a mission of bringing fresh and nutritious food to areas lacking reliable access. The mobile market will be filled with locally grown produce as well as healthy prepared foods, like plant-based cuisine, salads and breads.

City officials also partnered with Kellyn, providing $55,000 in Community Development Block Grant COVID funds to start a coupon program for eligible residents. Under that program, qualifying residents of the city can fill out an application to get a $20 coupon they can use weekly at the mobile market, explained Alicia Miller Karner, Bethlehem’s Director of Community and Economic Development.

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

Bethlehem’s Year of Floyd (2): Council deploys

Latest in a series of posts regarding the George Floyd anniversary

Gadfly is modestly proposing that City Council mark the anniversary of George Floyd’s death at a Public Safety meeting on May 25, 2021. A year gives us some distance on our efforts to act on the significance of his death and a perspective on the challenges it presented to the City. Gadfly continues here a quasi-history of the “Year of Floyd” as seen through his eyes and the pages of the blog. One man’s version. As always, Gadfly invites you to join in.

————–

The June 2 City Council meeting at which Chief Diluzio made his “George Floyd’s Death & Policing in America” presentation was 8 days after the murder of George Floyd. Bethlehem had seen a peaceful demonstration 3 days before. Peaceful but certainly angry.

Several Council members were there on May 30 to witness and no doubt to participate in the anger, and all members shared such messages addressed to Council calling for local action as “During the next budgetary assessment, the City of Bethlehem needs to defund policing and allocate this funding to Health services, Public Housing, and Education,” “We are contacting you again to demand immediate action,” “I am emailing to demand the restructuring of the Bethlehem city budget in a way that prioritizes social services for communities and drastically minimizes spending on police,” and “WILL YOU ask the “affected” what THEY need?”

The Mayor and the Chief had stated their relatively inactive positions, now what would Council do?

Would they, in Gadfly’s view, rise to the occasion, respond in kind to the uncoiling significance of Floyd’s murder and the demand for meaningful action?

Each Council member spoke at that June 2 meeting.

President Waldron’s focus was solely on the model non-escalating behavior by our police department in ensuring a peaceful protest and ensuring the First Amendment rights of the protestors. The police acted with such  “restraint” and “respect,” said President Waldron, that “not a single incident . . . happened within that large rally last Saturday.”

Councilman Callahan likewise echoed praise for the police doing “a heckuva job” but moved a bit beyond that to action, by which, however, he meant only sending “some type of resolution to the state . . . our state senators, our United States senators,” and by “going out and voting.”

Frankly, Gadfly was most surprised, most disappointed by Councilman Colon — from a diverse Puerto Rican/African American family with a life experience no doubt different from almost every one else on Council — who was satisfied hearing that the police department was up to snuff, who’s “using this time to listen” (a term he repeats 4 times) and keeping “the dialog going” (what new in regard to racism could he expect to hear at this point in our history?), who sees change as “incremental,” and who seemingly sees very little role for Bethlehem in taking the lead in fostering change. Councilman Colon’s response simply seemed too low energy for Gadfly given the rather tumultuous events spreading around the country and, indeed, the world. (Councilman Colon is chair of the Public Safety Committee, and Gadfly will have occasion later to link this low key attitude to the operation of that committee.)

Thankfully, in Gadfly’s opinion, the remaining four Councilpeople significantly raised the level of conversation.

Councilwoman Van Wirt immediately smoked the Mayor and Chief for failing to indict systemic racism not only in Minneapolis but also here in Bethlehem as well. The Councilwoman charges them “to do something,” that is, “to look at our own city and address economic and social racism where it exists.” Bingo! Councilwoman Van Wirt reads a letter originally posted on Gadfly from resident Breena Holland — the hard-edged, no nonsense kind of letter we’re used to from her –in which she calls out the Mayor and Chief for words that “are not that meaningful unless they get turned into action.” If the Mayor and Chief “can pretend [racism] does not exist locally” and only “condemn what happened to George Floyd for the brutal inhumanity it displayed, . . . then they are part of the problem.”

Now we’re cookin’, feels the Gadfly.

If we — the imperial white “we” — are going to help the “other,” are going to actively help the other, what do we most need? Perhaps empathy is the key trait. The ever heart-felt Councilwoman Crampsie Smith does a clinic on empathy: “it is really important for us to reconcile with the fact that people of color are deeply and profoundly hurt and that hurt is manifesting itself as anger. Can we blame them? Absolutely not. I would not be in this position of councilmember if it were not for my dear friends of color. I am blessed every day to see the gifts, talents, and dignity of my wonderful students of color. My heart is broken for them and for our country. As a mother you live with many fears regarding your children’s well being. I thank God my twenty-year-old son is white, for his safety is greater than his friends of color. And that is truly wrong. My heart breaks for the parents of children of color, for I cannot fathom the fear they live with each and every day. Their fears are above and beyond what any parents’ fears ever should be.” So personal, so powerful. And where does the Councilwoman end up? With the magic words. Anti-racism. “We must insure that we are not not just against racism, but that we are anti-racist, we are inclusive, and we always strive to insure justice for all.”

Anti-racism. Bethlehem as an anti-racist city. Now we’re talkin’.

Gadfly remembers remarking during public comment one meeting that Councilman Reynolds is the loudest of the Councilmembers. With his commanding voice and machine-gun delivery, he can make you sweat. Councilman Reynolds picks up on the need for empathy, describing what he has learned from his students. He picks up on the need for anti-racism: “there’s also a difference between not doing something wrong and doing what’s right. And I think that’s part of the conversation we need to have in the city. . . . It is not even enough just to say that we can have peaceful demonstrations here. It’s gonna be enough when people that are in marginalized communities are able to look at us as our elected officials and look at things we’ve done and say, you know what, they made things better, they made things more inclusive, they gave power to people that didn’t have power before.” With the statements by the Mayor and the Chief as the implied point of reference, the Councilman says, “it’s just not enough to be against racism, but we need to pro-actively be anti-racist. ”

Anti-racism again. For most individuals and institutions, that means a complete 180-degree re-orientation in attitude and behavior. And a risky re-orientation at that.

We end our survey of Council responses at this June 2, 2020, meeting with a dose of reality. We end with Councilwoman Negron. We don’t need a resolution, she says. We don’t need a “magic pill.” We know the problem, we just ignore it. It’s simple. Simply do justice, something we all know. Simply do justice. Here’s the bitter truth. Here’s speaking truth to power. “Your brown and black constituents are being right now, every day treated in an unjust way. . . . the injustice exists. And there’s no way for anybody to say otherwise.” The Councilwoman herself feels at times “intimidated, afraid.” Then come the words “we” don’t want to hear: “Liberty and justice for all. Really? Justice for all. Justice for all as long as you have light skin, gold hair, and blue eyes. Because if you don’t, there’s no such a thing in here as justice for all.”

Words far from those of the Mayor and the Chief. Words that should move us to action.

Will they?

to be continued . . .