Category: Gadfly’s posts

Let’s think about our charter schools (1)

(1st in a series on Education)

Jacqueline Palochko, “WATCHDOG: Lehigh Valley arts charter high school looking to receive state money for lease.” Morning Call, December 22, 2018.

The Lehigh Valley Charter High School for the Arts will take advantage of a loophole that allows charter schools to collect lease reimbursements from the state while paying rent to foundations that support them. Under state law, charter schools can apply for partial reimbursement of leasing costs as long as the school does not own the building it’s in.

Carol Burris, “Can charter schools be reformed? Should they be?” Washington Post, December 16, 2018.

The bottom line is this. It is foolish to fund a parallel system of privately managed schools at the expense of the nation’s public schools.

These two recent articles reminded Gadfly that he’s wanted to think more about the fiscal AND educational impact of charter schools in Bethlehem.

On this subject, one rarely sees the name of our superintendent Joseph Roy’s name without “a vocal critic of charter schools” pinned to it.

(I’ve invited Dr. Roy to follow Gadfly, but as far as I can tell, he hasn’t taken me up on that. But school board president Michael Faccinetto has published on the subject of charter schools and does follow. Can somebody nudge Dr. Roy? Tell him this is where the elite meet!)

The fiscal impact seems to dominate the news.

Last year Dr. Roy pointed to charter schools as the reason for our 2.5% tax increase.

In the above “Watchdog” article, Dr. Roy says, “As the auditor general found, this [Lehigh Valley Arts] charter worked around existing laws to avoid the public bidding rules public schools must follow. Now, this taxpayer-funded, privately run school is using another loophole to get their hands on more tax dollars for paying themselves rent.”

Gadfly – whose own memories are stirred when CM Reynolds talks of his “beloved Thomas Jefferson” –would like to know more about charter schools and proposes to explore the subject over the course of several posts.

The local coverage of the above WAPO article referenced an earlier 2017 WAPO article based directly on Bethlehem. Wow! What did WAPO have to say about us? Let’s start our exploration right there.

Carol Burris, “A disturbing look at how charter schools are hurting a traditional school district.” Washington Post, January 9, 2017.

It has not been easy supporting the [Bethlehem] public schools, however, given the financial challenges of the city. In addition, the district suffered a financial crisis in 2008 and then reeled under massive cuts in state aid in the 2011-12 school year. But the worst hit of all has come from the continuing and increasing siphoning of district dollars to charter schools — a whopping $25 million this year alone.

The news always seems bad. Say it isn’t so.

Since you may need a subscription to access this article, Gadfly has copied it here: charter 3.

Read, and we’ll come back in a day or two to begin our conversation.

A matter of decorum (9)

(9th in a series of posts on City Government)

In post #2 in this series, Gadfly announced that the January 2 and all future City Council meetings will be available on video and at some point will be televised live.

Did you see Gadfly’s tease there about the important issue on January 2 beginning min. 32:50? Did you peek?

That issue was Council decorum. Decorum: good taste, polite behavior.

Gadfly raised the issue in his public comment at the beginning of the January 2 meeting, without realizing that President Waldron had evidently prepared to talk about it immediately after his annual report and that Council members were ready to weigh in later as well (CM Callahan twice, CW Van Wirt, CM Reynolds).

Gadfly’s mantra is “Good conversation builds community.” He believes in healthy, vigorous dialogue. He is especially sensitive to violations of common rules and practices for good conversation.

The last several weeks of 2018 were rough. The intersection of 2 W. Market and 306 S. New, covered in detail here on Gadfly, frayed Council and audience alike. There were to Gadfly’s way of thinking several instances when decorum was nearly breached, and one in which Gadfly felt there was definite lack of civility. In his opening public comment January 2, without mentioning names, Gadfly suggested that President Waldron refresh all Council members on guidelines for decorum in Robert’s Rules of Order.

President Waldron did not see violations of Robert’s Rules, said there was healthy debate and mutual respect, did not see himself “gaveling down” Council members, valuing the First Amendment over Robert’s Rules.

There followed in the last part of the January 2 meeting statements by CM Callahan, CW Van Wirt, CM Callahan again, concluding with CM Reynolds. “Elder statesman” Reynolds, as he was delightfully termed by President Waldron, an 11yr veteran of Council, wrapped up the interchanges with a wonderful statement on the need for harmony and respect. Perfect punctuation.

End of story.

I thought.

I wasn’t going to write or speak any more about it, leaving the final apt word with CM Reynolds.

But something kept nagging me. The person whom Gadfly thought demonstrated lack of civility had reviewed the December 4 meeting minutes and saw no wrong and was blameless. That person would later apologize January 2 if anybody took offense without, it seemed, believing there was any offense to apologize for. President Waldron also said he reviewed minutes and didn’t “see a lot there as far as violation of Robert’s Rules.”

What was clearly visible to Gadfly was not visible to others, and, if indeed there was a violation of civility as he felt there was, it would not be avoided in the future without such recognition.

Here’s the specific line that jumped out at me. CM Callahan addressing CW Negron in the 306 S. New portion of the December 4 meeting. The subject: their unfortunate “divide” over the Southside that you have seen Gadfly post about several times now.

CM Callahan: “I grew up here, I spent time on the Southside, way before you [addressing CW Negron, though not mentioning her by name] moved here, ok, and you’re telling me right now that the Southside is worse now than it was 25-30 years ago, you don’t have a clue.”

The line was spoken with some vigor, with some passion. It’s the climactic “you don’t have a clue” that’s the mortal sin for Gadfly. CM Callahan totally invalidates the experience and knowledge of a fellow Council member who is a long-time resident of and acknowledged, respected leader of the Southside in a bluntly insulting way. The effect of and impact of that line is not to engage debate and exchange ideas. And, Gadfly thinks, those words are contrary to the spirit and letter of Robert’s Rules.

In Gadfly’s respectful opinion, Councilman Callahan should not have spoken to Councilwoman Negron in that manner. In Gadfly’s respectful opinion, he committed a breach of decorum. Which neither he nor president Waldron has recognized.

But Gadfly might be all wrong, might be the only one who thinks this way. Perhaps a councilman addressing a councilwoman in that manner is acceptable behavior. As always, Gadfly suggests you go to the primary sources and make up your own minds.

1) The full statement by CM Callahan on December 4 that Gadfly felt was a breach of decorum (2 min. audio):

2) Gadfly’s suggestion to President Waldron January 2 about refreshing Council on Robert’s Rules (takes about a minute, beginning at min. 3:05):

3) The first time he speaks about this issue at the January 2 meeting, CM Callahan “challenges” anybody to go into the minutes and find where he broke decorum; he would never do break decorum (min. 4:30ff out of 7 min. video):

4) The second time he speaks on this issue at the January 2 meeting, CM Callahan indicates if anything was taken personally, he apologizes; if what he said hit someone personal, he apologizes; he didn’t mean it; he’s sorry if you didn’t agree with what he said, but he didn’t agree with what was said; has a right to voice his opinion; won’t be stifled (3 min. video):

Gadfly implies no intent to censor speech. In fact, followers will recognize that CM Callahan’s “who pays the damn bills?” advocating the necessity of developers – also spoken in the heat of his defending improvements in the Southside – has spurred him to personally productive thinking about the relationship between economic and community development.

Gadfly simply points to what seems to him to have been a significant but overlooked instance in which civility lapsed, with hope that such obstacles to good conversation can be avoided.

More on Community and Economic Development (8)

(8th in a series of posts on City Government)

In his Wednesday “Divides” post, Gadfly mused over not fully understanding the difference between economic development and community development.

Thanks to Steve Melnick and Peter Crownfield for very recent posts on the subject.

And – duh! – it finally hit Gadfly that we have a whole city department under that title: “The Department of Community and Economic Development.”

So he went to their web site.

At first glance, the info looked primarily “economic.” But then I saw “community” in the sidebar link to Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley.

And that enabled me to work to the Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem.

So much Gadfly doesn’t know about city operations. Seriously. He’s only entering his sophomore year.

And that took me to things like Southside vision 20/20 with foci on housing, safety, public spaces, and so forth.

Paydirt!

Gadfly hopes to explore and learn more about this “community development.”

This all started with CM Callahan’s “who pays the damn bills?” as a full-fledged endorsement of “economic development” as a means to improve the quality of life in the city.

Gadfly admits that he knows little about city finances. And needs to know more.

But he is also interested in learning about other metrics in determining the “state of the city.”

Election coming . . . May 21

(6th in a series of posts on City Government)

“When nobody runs against the incumbents, democracy dies.”
(Paige Van Wirt, January 9, 2019)

Bethlehem City Council:

— one opening because of CM Martell’s decision not to run again

— three incumbents running: CM Reynolds (’08), CM Colon (’16), CW Van Wirt (’18)

Remember that City Council meetings are now video-recorded and soon may be televised live.

Remember that already there are video and audio clips as well as commentary here on Gadfly, and you can expect more opportunities here to get to know the incumbents.

Remember that Gadly invites candidates to use Gadfly as a vehicle for shaping and sounding out ideas.

 

Divides . . . (5)

(5th in a series of posts on City Government)

Gadfly sitting here Tuesday night waiting for the president to speak.

Mind naturally turning to “divides.”

Gadfly posted recently on the Mayor’s annual report and President Waldron’s annual City Council report.

He’s thought about doing a Gadfly annual report (though only 3 months in service).

But that’s kinda pompous.

But if he did, one of the things he would say on looking back is that he saw division on Council.

Two competing visions of “neighborhood.” Two views of the Southside. Two images of developers.

Gadfly even previously wrote about the Southside in Final observations on 2 W. Market – Part 4: the Great Divide (74)

Nothing unusual about division. Nothing especially negative about it.

But worthy of noting. And wondering what effect it has on Council operations. And on life in the City.

Two views of neighborhood

In the rough going of the 2 W. Market debate, CM Reynolds crystallized that marathon for me when he said, “There are different people in this room that have different definitions of what it means to live in a neighborhood.” That line straightened me up. That line framed the debate for me. On the one side there’s the “cup o’ sugar”/”eyes on the street” definition of a neighborhood. Easily caricatured, as in fact, it was throughout the debate. But real, worthy, and, in fact, an easily understandable and desirable image. Over the holidays, for instance, I was picking up my paper on the porch when Art, the guy I share my west wall with, said, “Eddie [people seem to address me as if I were a teenager!], Eddie, I got up to pee last night, looked out the back kitchen window, and there was a guy standing at our back fences. He saw me and took off down the alley.” Yeah, eyes on the street. Much appreciated, Art. That’s one definition of a neighborhood. Another has to do with being the first one to shovel your sidewalk, to decorate your house seasonally, to participate in the Luminaria, to create no parking problems. That’s another way of defining neighborhood and neighborliness. Just as real. Just as worthy. But that’s two different definitions, as CM Reynolds said. That’s two different images. In a dispute over the definition of neighborhood, one side is unlikely to persuade the other. And neither side is wrong. The roots of those definitions are deeper than argument. So what to do when disputes arise? My answer was (and is) that you look for the center that unites us, that the only thing you can do is look to impartial law (Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinances, judicial decision). Anything else is deciding subjectively and bound to only propel the dispute.

Two views of the Southside

In a way, this is also two views of neighborhood. I’ll try not to repeat all that I said in my Great Divide post. CM Callahan is a half-century Bethlehem native, thoroughly aware of the Southside, though not living there. CW Negron hasn’t lived in Bethlehem as long, but she has lived here a substantial time, a generation, and she has lived on the Southside during that time. Can there be visions any different? Let’s paraphrase CM Reynolds: “There are different people in this room that have different definitions of what it means to live on the Southside.” BC’s Joe the barber, a Southside resident, tells him one thing; my Mike the barber, a Southside native, tells me the opposite. Is one right? Is one wrong? Several times during the 2 W. Market debate, people would say, just go up the street, look at the house, see it, it’s right there, no guessing how it will turn out. When I heard that I would look north, and an imaginary iris would open on the wall, and, yes, I would see the beautiful 2 Wester in mind’s eye. And then when Gadfly #1 Antalics and CW Negron would reference the cancer that hit the Southside, a like imaginary iris would open for me on the south wall of Town Hall, and I would see the view up the alley between Birkel and Montclair as I leave Wendy’s, and, yes, I see the ravages of the ugly cancer. Both visions are true. When BC sees the Southside, he sees it from the outside: arts, shops, schools, bars, restaurants, lighting, residential facades. When ON sees the Southside (and I’m guessing a bit here because she has not expanded as BC has), she’s thinking of homes, where families start, grow, thrive – where roots are planted. BC, it seems, sees primarily a place to work and visit; ON thinks of a place to live. They simply have two different sets of “eyes.” It’s hard to see through someone else’s eyes. But we all have to try. Especially leaders. Mutual understanding needed. Vigorously intoning “you don’t have a clue” in ON’s direction as BC did recently, only propels the divide. If more harmony is desirable, I would invoke my favorite philosopher, Dr. Phil, who says, “somebody has to be a hero in this relationship.”

Two images of developers

Gadfly readily admits his limitation. He knows 9 uses of the comma, but he understands little of TIFFs and LERTAs and CRIZs. He was in awe when CM Reynolds instantaneously calculated what a change in millage would mean for the average taxpayer during a budget meeting. CM Callahan’s recent “who pays the damn bills?” struck him hard. The implication being the answer was developers, certainly not in whole, but seemingly in significant part, and seemingly in that part that makes a crucial difference in the quality of our lives and the claim of Bethlehem to be a first-class city (number of police officers, city services, etc.). Made me think how little I know about funding a city. Developers – angels or demons? It’s clear that our leaders are divided on this, and there is an oft expressed belief from people in the cheap seats that developers rule. CM Callahan openly courts, canonizes, and congratulates the developer/investor. It seems he sees money as the solution to problems, the answer to needs. CW Van Wirt, on the other hand, recognizes a problem when money rules, when money calls the shots – we lose control of defining who we are — and feels there is a way for the city to successfully manage the developers rather than the reverse. I was thinking about this today in regard to the Maze garden that used to be at 3rd and New before the Benner building. It was considered inappropriate as the gateway to the Southside or, should I say, to a certain image of what the Southside should be. But think of what an interesting statement of the kind of city we are if the gateway is a garden, a living space, communally tended by representatives of all ages and types, literally serving/feeding the community – a place of natural beauty, a place to work with the earth, and rest and enjoy it. But I digress. The garden was never meant to be permanent there. “Feet on the street” was the mantra, and for that we needed a developer. I have been trying to get a handle on how I feel about developers and about the nature and function of investment. A few days ago, regarding the Mayor’s annual report, Peter Crownfield posted that “the Mayor [and, for instance, CM Callahan?] looks at the state of the city primarily in terms of economic development, which so often has a negative impact on community development.” Hmmm, what exactly does that mean? That distinction between economic development and community development intrigues me. Are there contrasting measures on how we judge “the state of the city”? So, I’m kinda hoping Peter or someone else will run with this distinction a bit. Would it help me understand the ambivalence toward developers I have? Or the mindview that favors developers?

Been rushing here at the end. Am I making any sense? Saying anything worthy of response?

For instance, as Gadfly said in the previous post, should one even care about such divisions? Maybe they are just natural and productive.

Off to watch the Trumpster!

Gadfly #1 and Freedom of Speech at Council, and Three Requests (4)

(4th in a series of posts on City Government)

antalics 10-22-05

O, my, look what Gadfly found!

Browsing through the Morning Call archives.

(Ok, not quite normal, but how do you spend your spare time? Watching television?)

Gadfly #1 Stephen Antalics Oct. 22, 2005, bemoaning the reduction of public comment time at Council meetings from 12 mins. to 5 mins.

12 minutes! 12 minutes each!! A paradise for gadflyers!!! Now lost. Forever. Sigh.

(I call Stephen Gadfly #1 for his two decades of service, Bill Scheirer is close by at Gadfly #2. I am a Johnny-come-lately, a pretender, a usurper — not worthy of the Gadfly title. But I need a number. Maybe Gadfly double-zero: “Gadfly00.”)

Could there ever have been a time when 12 minutes was allowed??

Gadfly00 understands that there was a time when only 2 or 3 minutes was allowed. A time when throats dried up and tongues shriveled.

Thank you, Stephen, for fighting for the public’s time at the microphone.  As you still do.

But this discovery of the Golden Age of Gadflying leads Gadfly00 to make three requests:

1) that when you have something longer to say, you think of the Gadfly blog as your vehicle (cf. the recent invitation to candidates for elected office to “use” us as a platform, but this could apply to any topic you want to explore)

2) that you pass the word about the Gadfly blog to the kind of serious, thoughtful type of audience members Gadfly00 aspires to, so that good ideas, provocative ideas can have the widest possible reach and impact (Gadfly has several hundred followers now, but we are a town of 75,000)

3) that you help the blog achieve necessary balance by posting oppositional views and/or encouraging others to do so (Gadfly has been criticized for leaning one way)

Gadfly00 encourages you to contribute, promote, criticize.

 

The developer, not city, should have paid (8)

(8th in a series of posts on 306 S. New St.)

Paige Van Wirt is a Bethlehem City Councilwoman, physician, and small business owner.

Gadfly, I disagree with your assessment. It presumes the city would pay. This was a mistake generated between the developer and the restaurateur. The developer knew, after much hand-wringing in front of HCC, that the deck was NOT available for development of the restaurant. This would have been firmly decided-upon when restaurateur signed lease with developer. If it was not, this mistake is on the developer. We should have mandated seeing the original lease!. This developer knew what was allowed by law, and chose not to oversee the development plans of the restaurateur. The fact that erroneous plans were submitted to the city does not speak well of city’s competency, but this “mistake,” in any other city determined to operate within the confines of the law, would have been mandated to have been corrected at the developer’s expense. Developers are investors in our city. They are also partners, forming good, trusting working relationships with the cities in which they invest. If this developer knew he would be held to account for this mistake, which originated in his office, I doubt the “mistake” plans never would have been submitted to city. And now that we have let this one slide, how many more “oops” mistakes will be made, predicated on the city not requiring any remediation. 2 W. market tried to use this argument as well- “look how great it looks, he spent so much money!,” not addressing the fact that his decision to renovate was done WHILE a court-case was pending against it. It’s a pattern, only open to those with high-level connections, to assure that this matter will be taken care of, after the fact, an assurance that City Council has been more than willing to oblige. Finally, the city needs to clarify its own rules. If a restaurateur submits interior build-out plans, and includes exterior plans, such as this one did, then those “exterior” plans should not count under any approval. Interior build-out plan approval by the city should ONLY apply to interior plans. And so on and so forth. This is not rocket-science. These waters have been made muddy by all sides on purpose, and it speaks very poorly to all parties involved, including city council. The developer should have paid for the remediation of the error, which generated in his office through lax oversight, and future city deals with this developer should take into account this very poor decision-making.

In all these matters, I hear so frequently from those who do not look deeply at our city patterns, “what’s the big deal? It’s just a (insert mistake here) building, deck, armory, unsupportable garage”….and yes, in each of these items, the collateral damage may be considered small by some (not by me). But taken together, it shows a deep and ingrained pattern of shirking of municipal responsibility to the citizens — for equal application of the law, and for true accountability to our citizens.

Paige

306 S. New St: just for the helluva it (7)

(7th in a series of posts on 306 S. New St.)

Remember 306 S. New?

A quick recap:

Check out Deja-vu: 306 S. New St. (1) and 306 S. New St: deciding under less than ideal circumstances (3)

Plans for developing a 7-story building at 3rd and New began in 2013. The height was always an issue. In 2016 the Historical Conservation Commission (HCC) and City Council finally approved a 6-floor building at 306 S. New St. with a 12’ terrace on the north side top floor to achieve a tapering effect, softening the feeling of height. The exterior of the building was completed with the 12’ terrace. That stipulation never got to the tenant of the 6th floor, who designed a restaurant in late 2017 or early 2018 that included modifying the completed exterior of the building for an extension of the interior dining area onto the terrace, the plans for which were then mistakenly approved by the city. It was not until late October 2018 when the expansion work was ½ done and the planned New Year’s Eve restaurant opening hovering on the horizon that the mistake was discovered. Construction was halted, and the area secured against the weather. On November 20, the HCC stood by its ruling 8-0, denying the permission to expand that was already then ½ done. On December 4, City Council overruled the HCC 5-2, the expansion work was completed, the restaurant had a soft opening December 20, and opened on schedule.

When Gadfly last posted on this gnarled case, he said:

Let’s do a thought experiment next.

What would it look like if the vote was reversed?

What if the Council sided with the HCC?

For the helluva it, let’s try to think that through.

So here goes. “Play” along.

  • HCC votes 8-0 to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for completion of the dining room expansion contrary to the original COA
  • City Council votes (let’s say) 4-3 to sustain that denial

Where does the scenario go from here?

  • The ½ completed expanded part (approx. 47’ x 12’) needs to be torn down and that area restored to its original condition
  • Somebody needs to pay: either the city (who made the permitting mistake), or the builder (who should have known about the stipulation), or the restaurateur
  • Nobody wants to pay
  • Since the city made the operative mistake, let’s say the city has to pay
  • Even if the city agrees to pay, the proposed opening of the restaurant would surely be postponed, causing the restaurateur (who may be an innocent victim of circumstance) to lose momentum and revenue
  • The restaurateur will sue the city immediately as an innocent victim, arguing substantial loss of customer capacity from the original design (lost space) and irreparable harm from loss of timing — and therefore arguing to continue construction
  • It is not likely that the suit could be settled in the restaurateur’s favor and in time enough not to destroy his business schedule, so he would eventually sue for substantial damages
  • The decision would generate enormous negative reaction and bad press and even ridicule for the city
  • Some people would feel that a victory for historical district guidelines and the important work of HCC commission members had been achieved and was worth the ensuing legal, financial, and reputational mess

Many people were more than unhappy at the 306 S. New St. resolution, especially after the wrestling bout with 2 W. Market that same night.

But in Gadfly’s thought experiment there really was no even remotely satisfactory option.

You might argue with the reasoning behind some of the affirmative votes to overrule the HCC, but Gadfly cannot see the issue practically concluding in any other way than denial of HCC.

Siding with HCC would have been a Pyrrhic victory.

Does anybody’s thought experiment generate a different scenario? One with a better outcome?

So what’s important for Gadfly is that steps are taken to insure that the city mistake doesn’t happen again. That’s why you can see Gadfly in public comment at the beginning of last week’s meeting (Jan. 2 Council video, min. 10:25) asking for a report from the city (not just verbal assurance) on the review of permit procedures and steps taken to obviate repetition of the error.

But there is still something bothering Gadfly about this whole set of circumstances. He can’t quite put his wing on it. But you might see him post about it again.

Calling all candidates! (3)

(3rd in a series of posts on City Government)

How’d you do on Saturday’s quiz?

Could you recognize our elected officials?

Gadfly hopes you can or will.

And, beyond that, take advantage of the audio and video files here on Gadfly, as well as the upcoming videos of Council meetings, to also have a good sense of the intellectual and practical qualities they bring to the Council table.

CM Martell’s decision not to run again means there will be at least one opening next election. And no doubt prospective candidates are thinking about that right now.

Gadfly has an idea.

The Gadfly blog now has an interested, serious, thoughtful group of several hundred followers.

Gadfly’s idea is that prospective candidates think of the blog as a place to begin to establish a “presence” among voters by regularly commenting on issues, trying out ideas, and sharing visions.

Gadfly doesn’t want to vote for candidates because they were selected by “the machine”! If there is one in Bethlehem, that is.

He doesn’t want to vote on the basis of good looks, cocktail party chatter, snappy slogans, glossy flyers, and the like.

Gadfly would like the kind of sustained interaction on the level of ideas that regular participation on the blog can give.

Gadfly is alllllll about informed voting.

We hope that prospective candidates will take advantage of the Gadfly forum to “test the waters,” to shape their positions, to engage a constituency.

And start now.

(One more thing: Gadfly is running into people who think City Council is a full-time job. Not so, of course. Part-time: $7100/yr, less than $600/mo. All Council members have “day work.” Not much extra pay for not only the time put in but the slings and arrows they get from sitting in the front of the room. It’s a big responsibility.)

Car-free zones (3)

(3rd in a series on Walkability and Bikeability)

A tip o’ the hat and a wave of the wings to Gadfly follower Judy Adams-Volpe, former Bethlehem resident, for referring this article.

In his Saturday post, Bill Bettermann described his European experience. Here’s some additional info.

The analogy of car-free zones to smoke-free spaces is intriguing. Lehigh University has such a plan, I believe.

Gadfly has to believe that we have some traveler-followers who might share national or international experiences with innovations in walkability and bikeability.

Jonathan Wolfe, “Oslo Puts Up a Stop Sign.” New York Times, December 19, 2018.

Starting in 2019, the Norwegian capital will restrict the use of vehicles in its city center, following a global trend to make popular tourist destinations more pedestrian-friendly.

If you drive a car into the city center of Oslo next month, you shouldn’t plan on staying long: There won’t be any parking spots.

The Norwegian capital is in the process of eliminating the remaining 700 street parking spots in its city center by the end of 2018 as part of its plan to turn the area into a car-free zone.

“We’re doing this to give the streets back to the people,” Hanna Elise Marcussen, Oslo’s vice mayor for urban development, said during a recent phone interview. “And of course, it’s environmentally friendly.” (The Scandinavian country, recently recognized as one of the world’s most ecologically progressive nations, has plans to become carbon neutral by 2030 and halt the sale of fossil fuel cars by 2025.)

And it’s not just Oslo that is turning away drivers. Popular tourist destinations across the globe are removing cars from heavily trafficked areas to reduce congestion, cut down on pollution, and make streets more welcoming to bikers and pedestrians.

Last month, Madrid restricted private vehicle access for nonresidents in its city center. A few weeks earlier, London introduced a plan to bar cars from many of the roads in its financial center, continuing its years long plan to combat pollution. And Paris, Athens and Mexico City are attempting to ban diesel cars in their city centers by 2025. (In 2016, when Paris banned cars for the day, the city saw a 25 percent decrease in nitrogen dioxide and a 20 percent drop in noise.)

In Oslo, the plan to remove cars from the city began in 2015 when a coalition of progressive political parties called for a city center free from vehicles. Similar plans have been met with resistance in places like Dublin, where local officials have proposed expanding that city’s pedestrian zone, and Barcelona. Even in ecologically minded Oslo, it wasn’t easy.

“There’s been quite a bit of public debate, and there’s been quite a lot of controversy, and it’s been quite difficult to do this in a way that businesses and citizens can accept,” Ms. Marcussen said.

The strongest opposition came from local business owners who were worried that fewer cars would mean fewer customers. So the city came up with a compromise: Instead of an outright ban, they would enact regulations that would allow as few vehicles as possible in the city center. The city designated certain streets for pedestrians or public transit only, restricted the ability of nonresidents to drive through the center, and removed hundreds of parking spots from city streets while creating designated parking spots for disabled citizens and businesses that require a car.

Oslo hopes to be a model for other cities looking to restrict cars in densely populated areas, Ms. Marcussen said, adding that soon enough, the policy will seem obvious.

“A couple of decades ago, it was perfectly normal to smoke cigarettes inside,” Ms. Marcussen said. “Today, very few would do that. I think it’s the same with cars in the city center. One day we will look back and ask ourselves why we ever thought that was a good idea.”

Smile, you’re on . . . . (2)

(2nd in a series of posts on City Government)

As announced here a month or so ago, the City Council meetings are now being video’d. They will be streamed live starting in a few weeks and, as of now, also archived on the Council web site.

Mrs. Kelchner’s great minutes of meetings have always been available shortly after each meeting (and Gadfly hopes that doesn’t stop), and within the past year audio of the meetings has also been available.

But now video!

When Gadfly announced this big step late last year, he wondered aloud if it would have any effect.

He was hoping that it would encourage more awareness of the issues before and the process of city government.

A wise but cynical head experienced in city politics, however, ventured that the video would have a chilling effect on Council, making it less likely that Council members would talk much, especially explaining their positions on votes.

Now that is chilling were that to happen.

Council meetings are the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month at 7PM (competing with “Entertainment Tonight” and “Hardball” and “Martha MacCallum”).

January 2nd’s meeting was not televised live, but it is available on the City Council Meetings page.

Go take a look.

city council

You can see feeble ol’ Gadfly make a public comment early on (min. 10:25), an interesting exchange between Gadfly #1 Stephen Antalics and President Waldron (approx. mins. 23-25), President Waldron’s annual report (min. 27:55), and then President Waldron’s comment on an important issue (min. 32:50),  as well as comments by other Council members on that issue (min. 40:38) – an issue to which Gadfly will return in a subsequent post.

There is one casualty of the leap to video – Owen Gallagher, my videographer, has been put out of a job. Well, almost. Gadfly and Owen will still try to provide some video value by providing edited sections of meetings on the blog, making it handier for followers to focus on specific parts.

Climate plan action: the beat goes on (13)

(13th in a series on Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan)

“There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization.” (Kurt Vonnegut)

Last time, last week when Gadfly posted on this topic, he said:

If journalists keep the heat on . . .

If the new Congress  . . .

If the new presidential candidates . . .

Well, the beat certainly goes on. Check out the following from this week’s note file.

Those of you more attuned to the nuts and bolts of these happenings than Gadfly is are invited to comment.

Our own Peg Church, “Sen. Casey should support Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act,” Morning Call, January 5, 2019.

Because Pennsylvania has an unequal burden, it makes great sense for Casey to strongly advocate for the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, introduced Dec. 19 in the Senate. The House version was introduced several weeks ago, and both have bipartisan support and are expected to be reintroduced in 2019. . . . Start the New Year right, Sen. Casey, and sponsor the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Bipartisan support can make our planet great again.

Pelosi gets standing ovation over climate change.

Announcing a new Congressional committee: “We must also face the existential crisis of our time . . . natural disasters of epic proportion.”

A commitment to fast, bold action on climate is becoming a threshold issue for Democrats running for president.

A marginal candidate for president, for sure, but will help raise the issue to national consciousness.

Robinson Meyer, “Democrats Establish a New House ‘Climate Crisis’ Committee.” Atlantic, December 28, 2018.

It’s official: When Democrats take control of the House of Representatives next month, they will form a special new committee to examine climate change. . . .[Pelosi] announced that the new committee will be named the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. It will be led by Kathy Castor, a seven-term representative from Tampa Bay.

Robinson Meyer, “The Democratic Party Wants to Make Climate Policy Exciting.” Atlantic, December 5, 2018.

On Monday, speaking at a town hall led by Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative-Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez framed her chosen climate policy—the Green New Deal—through the lens of gallant American exceptionalism. “This is going to be the New Deal, the Great Society, the moon shot, the civil-rights movement of our generation,” she said. The Green New Deal aspires to cut U.S. carbon emissions fast enough to reach the Paris Agreement’s most ambitious climate goal: preventing the world from warming no more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

It’s Sunday, January 6, do you know where your local Climate Action Plan is?

Do you know your elected officials?

Nicole Radzievich, “Martell not seeking reelection to Bethlehem City Council.” Morning Call, January 5, 2019.

Local elected officials include the mayor and 7 members of City Council.

Can you name them? Can you recognize them?

Moreover, can you characterize their views, their positions, what they have initiated, what they have accomplished, how they have voted, what they stand for?

Some Gadfly followers can, but I think that many – like Gadfly a year or so ago — cannot do these things.

One of Gadfly’s personal goals in this project is to be able to know more about our elected officials so that he can be a more informed voter next time around.

And in educating himself, he hopes he will be doing the same for those of you who need it.

Educated voters – making good choices – striving for the best city government we can get.

The news that CM Martell is not seeking reelection reminds us that there is an election coming, one in which incumbent CP’s Reynolds, Colon, and Van Wirt will be on the ballot.

It’s time to start paying attention to them and to the others as well – for other reelections will roll around, and some of this group even will no doubt be seeking higher office in the future.

We need to “know” them!

So, see how you do – can you identify the council members and the mayor?

If you need help, go here for Council, and here for the Mayor.

 

 

President Waldron: City Council’s 2018 report

Nicole Radzievich, “Here are 5 things you can’t do this year in Bethlehem.” Morning Call, January 2, 2019.

At City Council January 2, President Waldron presented his detailed annual report. AWaldron

Please spend a few minutes checking out the long list of business conducted in 2018.

Some statistics: 21 committee meetings, 41 ordinances, over 250 resolutions.

Pretty good for part-time work!

 

Quoth the Mayor: dramatic changes in 2019!

“Your View by Bethlehem Mayor Robert J. Donchez: Big 2019 plans for casino, arts district and the Factory,” Morning Call, January 2, 2019.

Please be sure to read Mayor Donchez’s annual reflective/prospective report to the City!

“Bethlehem is strong, our people are engaged, and our accomplishments are too numerous to find their way into this message.”

“As my fifth year in office comes to an end and my sixth begins, I am proud of the progress we have made with an emphasis on our streets and public infrastructure, parks and recreation, public safety, neighborhood improvement, our downtowns, and improving the financial and operational stability of Bethlehem.”

Looking ahead, the Mayor highlights:

  • the transformation of Martin Tower
  • new vitality at the Westgate Mall
  • the sale of the Sands casino
  • the Factory, the new innovation center for food entrepreneurs
  • Five10 Flats and the growing of a new neighborhood, a “knowledge neighborhood”
  • continued investment in our school system
  • improvements to Memorial Pool, Friendship Park, and the Bethlehem Municipal Golf Course

The Mayor expands on the Factory, 327 Columbia St., which is not on Gadfly’s radar at all. How about yours?

Former Bethlehem Steel building set for ‘scale up’ companies, Morning Call, September 15, 2017.

“The Factory is a new, 40,000-square-foot innovation center for food entrepreneurs. It is the first facility of its kind on the East Coast. This exciting development will hopefully be the start of another economy in Bethlehem, one not based on steel and its many byproducts, but one based on healthy food, drinks and innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Delicious!

The Mayor’s annual State of the City address is March 7, 7:30, at ArtsQuest.

Bethlehem Moment 4: Zoning comes to town

Bethlehem Moment 4
City Council
January 2, 2019

Ed Gallagher 49 W. Greenwich

A Bethlehem Moment: February 24, 1926

On February 24, 1926, the Bethlehem version of the open-range Wild West ended. The new sheriff in town, two years in the studying, was Bethlehem’s first zoning ordinance, whose purpose, in the exact same words of our zoning ordinance today, was to “preserve the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.” If the zoning ordinance was Wyatt Earp, the Real Estate Board was the villainous Clanton family. The ordinance was ready to go in November 1925, but the Real Estate Board succeeded in getting it delayed till the next Council took office. If this ordinance becomes law, Bethlehem’s industrial growth is at an end, they said. Commercial interests constitute the life blood of the city, they said. Taxes will rise, they said. “You can sewer us up, but don’t zone us,” they said. The ordinance is so lengthy, complicated, and obscure, it’s utterly impossible for even the most intelligent man to digest, they said. The Real Estate Board generated a large crowd that turned an informational meeting heated. They claimed that 98% of businessmen on the West Side were opposed to zoning. On February 15, the day of the first reading, a petition to abandon the ordinance signed by 114 residents was delivered to City Council. On February 24, the day of the second reading, the Real Estate Board presented a 10-point manifesto climaxing in the claim that the Zoning Board of Appeals was open to favoritism and discrimination. But the ordinance prevailed. As one wise head remarked at the time, “more property values are destroyed for lack of zoning than by fire.”

 

“City Engineer Tells Real Estate Board of Zoning Ordinance,” Morning Call, December 15, 1925,

“Voices Opposition to Zoning Ordinance,” Morning Call, December 29, 2015.

“Real Estate Board Wants Zoning Plan Further Considered,” Morning Call, January 4, 1926.

“Zoning Ordinance under Discussion, Morning Call, January 13, 1926.

“’Special Interest’ Talk Heard at Zoning Ordinance Hearing,” Morning Call, January 23, 1926.

“Several Banks Join Real Estate Board,’ Morning Call, February 2, 1926.

“Zone Bill Passes the First Reading,” Morning Call, February 16, 1926.

“Zone Bill Passes Second and Final Reading in Council,” Morning Call, February 25, 1926.

“Council Faces Problem in Zone Bill Appeal Board,” Morning Call, March 1,1926.

“Realtors Discuss Multiple Listings, also Fire Final Gun at Zoning Ordinance,” Morning Call, March 2, 1926.

“Permits Refused under Zone Ordinance,” Morning Call, February 7, 1927.

Sustainable Future film this Friday at LEPOCO (12)

(12th in a series on Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan)

From LEPOCO, pass it on! Note that Gadfly follower Kathy Fox is discussion leader.

Friends,

We hope you can join us for the Popcorn & Politics Film, “Tomorrow: Take Concrete Steps to a Sustainable Future,” this Friday, January 4, at 7 pm, at the LEPOCO Peace Center.  Peace, Nancy Tate

Friday,  January 4, 2019   7 pm

Popcorn and Politics – First Friday Film

“Tomorrow: Take Concrete Steps to a Sustainable Future”

LEPOCO Peace Center, 313 W. 4th St., south Bethlehem

Unlike other films which focus on the cause of global imbalances and their negative consequences, “Tomorrow” has the distinction of not giving in to catastrophism.  Optimistically, it identifies initiatives that have proven themselves in ten countries around the world:

concrete examples of solutions to environmental and social challenges, be it agriculture, energy, economy, education, governance.

Directed by Cyril Dion and Mélanie Laurent.  120 minutes.  2015.

Discussion led by Kathy Fox.

Please bring a snack or beverage to share.

Call 610-691-8730 for more information.

It’s Thursday, January 3, do you know where your local Climate Action Plan is?

306 S. New St: the decision (6)

(6th in a series of posts on 306 S. New St.)

Audio of the 306 S. New St. portion of the December 4 City Council meeting:

Finding fault, assigning blame, as we discussed in the last post, is one thing – and emotionally satisfying — but there is still a practical decision that must be made.

Rather craftily, Gadfly thinks (is he wrong to see conscious strategy here?), the developer has made the restaurant the focus of attention not him. The developer describes himself as a “representative” of the restaurant whose job it is to ask Council to hear from the restaurateur who, “not skilled in building or development work,” is someone innocently caught in a perplexing bureaucratic gnarl. That seems a bit ingenuous to Gadfly. Gadfly cannot understand why the developer is not the central figure here. Surprising to Gadfly, it was the contractor who applied for the Certificate of Appropriateness for the dining room extension and appeared before the HCC on Nov. 19. What standing does the contractor – an employee — have? Why wasn’t the owner of the building the “applicant” for the COA? And even the restaurateur would seem a more logical applicant for the COA than the contractor. But that leads to the question – can a lessee/tenant make a (I assume) permanent structural change to the building he leases without the full knowledge of and permission of the owner? If I am renting a house, can I knock out a wall and build an extension without informing the landlord? I don’t think so. So it seems to Gadfly that the developer has craftily hidden himself behind several layers of camouflage.

Anyway.

In front of you, there’s a restaurateur, who may be innocently caught in this situation,  who has a $2.5m investment in a business at 306 S. New. He’s close to opening, basically begging for mercy, claiming that an adverse decision will “ruin” him, will be “catastrophic” (this last term Prez Waldron’s, agreed to by the restaurateur).

The city admits the mistake in authorizing the permits.

Even the HCC chair said that because of the structural steel involved, going “backwards” would be very difficult.

Do you make him go backwards?

Do you follow the HCC rules or break them?

Like with 2 W. Market, the need to make this tough decision tells us a lot about how our elected officials think, how their minds work. Which is one of the goals of the Gadfly project. Let’s take them in order of their involvement in the dialogue. Always remember that Gadfly wants you to hear and see your elected officials when you can, so the numbers in parentheses refer to the pertinent minute in the above audio of the meeting. You can learn a lot about someone from tone of voice.

Prez Waldron (21:07): votes to approve the extension of the dining room to the edge of the building.

AW remembers well the original discussion of the parameters of the building, remembers the “point of contention,” remembers the position of the HCC as “very clear.” Since the restaurateur comes on scene well after the original HCC decision, AW agrees heAWaldron has what the theologians call invincible ignorance, what the politicians call plausible deniability about that decision. But AW does not let the developer off that knowledge hook. The developer should have known about the HCC stipulation, AW indicates. Looking at the proposed extension itself, however, AW finds de minimis impact, pointing to an already existing bump-out on the northeast corner, a fin already adding additional height, and the unremarkable look of the addition from the main vantage point on the Fahy bridge. AW’s conclusion is to “respectfully reverse” the HCC decision.

CM Reynolds (7:07) (28:30) (40:35): votes to approve the extension of the dining room to the edge of the building.

JWR strikes Gadfly as a careful, process kind of guy. He questions the city rep and the HCC chair to make sure he is “clear” on the nature and sequence of events. He references another process and decision as context. He frames the options of a decision as eitherJWReynolds take down the work authorized by permit or approve since the applicant was not told to do what he got the permit for. He highlights the difficult situation, the “impossible position” Council is in because of lack of guidance from the city and the HCC. He sees “no other choice” but to approve the work done. JWR feels it’s hard to support the HCC, he even feels that HCC recognizes there is nothing else to be done outside of scuttling the project. He sounds a bit frustrated by and resigned to the position in which Council has been put.

CM Callahan 1 (11:54) (36:54) votes to approve the extension of the dining room to the edge of the building.

BC immediately judges the extension work itself. It is not protruding, it went through the city permit process, it was the city that made the mistake, it does not extend even ½ way along the 3rd St. side, it will have sliding windows and thus open in good weather, BCallahannothing was improperly done – all in all there is minimal change. BC also, as is his wont, strokes the developer: “Thank you, Mr. Benner, for investing in our city.” It’s an unbelievable project, the view is spectacular, it will be a very successful restaurant. There’s been a “lot of compromise,” you have “bent over backwards.” $25m has been invested in a lot vacant and not tax productive for 10 years. The issue of the plants [there was a garden on the vacant lot] was the first attempt to stop the project. Why do we make it so difficult to get anything done here? (see below for another BC comment)

CM Colon (13:50) (26:40) votes to approve the extension of the dining room to the edge of the building.

 MC is typically on the quiet side of the Council audio spectrum, along with CM Martell (who did not speak during this discussion). But he asks a key question about responsibility on the part of both the city and of the applicant. He draws a long, MColonsubstantial response from the city rep. The development community is generally well versed in city ordinances, but she does feel a “sense of responsibility” for the mistake that occurred here. His question about the patio on the 6th floor seems important to his decision, since, with people visible there, it’s not a matter of not realizing that there is a 6th floor.

CW Van Wirt (16:38) (30:58) votes to side with the HCC and deny the extension

PVW questions the city about whether an exterior modification is usually on an interior fit-out, and, if not, then she can’t assign the city full blame. PVW is anxious to focus on the responsibility the developer has in this instance. The city rep describes a “savvyVan Wirt development community” but still takes responsibility. PVW is “completely lost” about how this “huge mistake” happened between two good, strong, smart businessmen.  Negotiation should have been about squarely what was covered. Set-back was required with “great thought and intent.” Building owner has a role in overseeing how the restaurant would be outfitted. Hard to go against HCC.

CW Negron (33:09) (44:12) votes to side with the HCC and deny the extension

Frustrated. Disappointed. Against this building from the beginning – too tall, unhistorical. Feels there is still time for a conversation between the developer/restaurateur and the HCC, the conversation that normally happens after a denial but didn’t here. For instance, ONegron-Dipiniwe could do what other Bethlehem places do – have tables and chairs outside, and heaters in the chill weather. So she offers an option that would work with HCC guidelines. Sees the similarity with 2 W. Market. “But this is Southside, who cares, right?” HCC has an obligation, a role, and this issue should go back to them. Don’t make the building uglier than it is. We have the HCC, we have rules, and we’re not supposed to break them. What’s the point of having an historic area? Average people must abide by the rules but not those who have big money in their pockets. This is so wrong. Ridiculous. (ON’s passionate statement was answered by AW pointing out that Council had today and had always supported the vast majority of recommendations of the HCC.)

CM Callahan 2 (46:06) response to CW Negron

CW Negron tapped what Gadfly has called in a previous post the Great Divide with CM Callahan over the Southside, and we quote him in full: “We are following the rules. They [HCC] are advisory. And 99.999% of the time we do follow their advice. Sometimes we BCallahan don’t because maybe we have a different opinion. You obviously were against this project from the beginning, and the majority of Council was, and that’s the way Democracy works, and to state that we are not following the rules, and someone is trying to get by the rules or slide by the rules is false. And I wanted to leave it at that, but I do want to make a couple things. Number 1, I’m getting a little tired of, and I wish Mr. Antalics was here, you know, this idea that the Southside is this disgusting place to live is beyond me. I grew up here, I spent time on the Southside, way before you [CW Negron] moved here, ok, and you’re telling me right now that the Southside is worse now than it was 25-30 years ago, you don’t have a clue. The investment in that Southside, the Arts, the Charter Schools, the restaurants, it’s alive, it’s alive down there, and it’s in beautiful condition, a lot better condition – you don’t think it’s in better condition than it was 25 years ago? I had a property on Hayes St. If you talked to Alan Jennings, they did at least 10-12 properties all new on the outside. Hayes St. was not in good condition. But if you drive up Hayes St. now, it’s starting to get revitalized. So to keep on hammering, we’re ruining the Southside, it’s beyond me.”

********

So the decision went 5-2 to approve the extension in opposition to the HCC decision. Smart money was not surprised.

December 4. What a night. 3 hours on 2 W. Market. Another hour on 306 S. New. Nothing easy. There were some bleary eyes next morning.

But something here will not quite settle with Gadfly. So, while he seeks some further information on some things, let’s do a thought experiment next.

What would it look like if the vote was reversed? What if the Council sided with the HCC?

For the helluva it, let’s try to think that through.

306 S. New St: fault-finding (5)

(5th in a series of posts on 306 S. New St.)

Fault-finding.

The blame game.

Who’s at fault here? Who’s to blame?

The Zesters? or the City?

As Prez Waldron said, “Somewhere along the way, somebody dropped the ball.”

Who? the City?

  • The city official threw herself on her sword. She appreciated suggestions by CW Van Wirt and CM Colon that there was shared blame. But she did not duck. She accepted accountability. The “mistake is on us.” She felt a “sense of responsibility.” It was a “highly unusual situation.” A half-dozen people missed it. The closest she came to an excuse was the quantity of work — 2500 or so such files to go through. Seems no doubt the city did mess up.
  • The city official pledged to review the process with the goal of improving it. I think Council is owed a detailed report on her evaluation and changes that have been instituted to prevent such a thing from happening again. And a public report – public perception of city fairness was wounded here and needs to be repaired. We need to be assured that concrete steps have been taken to avoid this kind of thing happening again.

Who? the developer?

  • At the very beginning of the meeting, the HCC chair, quoting minutes from the Nov. 19 HCC meeting, says that the approval of the 6th floor was “predicated” on the set-back. Predicated. No weak word. Meaning the foundation, the basis. The developer will go on to make light of the HCC stipulation, when, in fact, it is the essence of the HCC decision.
  • The developer makes it sound as if this is the first time he’s hearing of the HCC stipulation and that he must depend on the HCC chair’s explanation to understand it. He talks of reading the correspondence from HCC to whomever. As if he/his company were never directly notified of the HCC ruling and got a copy of it. And when he understands the stipulation through the HCC chair’s explanation, he doesn’t understand it. He questions HCC thinking. But could he not have been aware of this from the beginning? I was barely paying attention to city matters in 2015 and 2016, but even I knew the height of the building was a problem just from the newspaper coverage.
  • There were 4-5 meetings with the HCC apparently prior to approval in which the compromises and negotiations for final approval were worked out. Was the developer there at those meetings? Who was at those meetings? I won’t know unless minutes can be obtained. But even if he wasn’t, he’s the boss, and it’s hard to believe he didn’t receive a detailed report of everything, especially since changes had to be made to gain approval. So it’s very, very hard to accept his feigning ignorance, and it is not his place at this moment to question that original judgment of the HCC.
  • And the developer passes the buck to his leasing/management agent. Why weren’t all relevant details transmitted to his agent? Does Council have something like subpoena power? I’d like to have served one on the agent and heard his “sworn” story. Why wasn’t he at the meeting with Council to answer questions? But, in any event, the boss can’t pass the buck. If your “agent” made a mistake, you made a mistake.
  • It’s also hard to believe that somewhere, sometime the restaurateur didn’t talk to the developer about what would be a highlight of his business – that dining area with a fabulous view. It may just be “the” special place in the room. It had to come up.
  • So it seemed to me that the developer was playing Council. And I would like him to pay a price of some sort. To be held accountable. If only it is a kind of public reprimand that he should have known better, which, actually, Prez Waldron came close to giving him when answering his “we didn’t know” about the stipulation with HCC’s belief that he should have known. He should have known.

306 S. New St: deciding under less than ideal circumstances (3)

(3rd in a series of posts on 306 S. New St.)

So the process of building 306 S. New in the Southside Historical District, bumpy to begin with, ended in a wreck.

Check out Deja-vu: 306 S. New St. (1) again.

In short, the Historical Conservation Commission approved 306 S. New St with a 12’ terrace on the top floor (6th) to achieve a tapering effect, softening the feeling of height. That message never seemed to get to the tenant of the 6th floor, who designed a restaurant with a portion of the terrace covered, the plans for which were then mistakenly approved by the city. It was not until the work was about ½ done and the planned restaurant opening hovering on the near horizon that the mistake was discovered. The HCC stood by its ruling. And the imbroglio landed in City Council’s lap. What would you do? What should they do? What’s fair in a situation like this?

Let’s look at the timeline:

  • April 2015: newspaper story says the developer submitted plans for a 7-story building. The submission would probably have been to the Historical Conservation Commission (HCC), but no details have been found yet. The developer has said that original plans were for the building to be even taller, with apartments on the top, but they decided that was not a good idea and scaled it back themselves. The HCC was concerned about height in this historical district.
  • Dec. 21, 2015: a 6-story building was approved by the HCC. The HCC chair has said that the owner/developer met at least 4 times with HCC, but meetings do not appear elsewhere on any HCC agenda. I have requested the city to search records. The idea was a design that didn’t make the building look so tall. The architect “came back” with the design to recess the 6th floor to diminish the sense of height of the building. The newspaper report clearly speaks of a “set back” and a “garden” on the 6th floor: “The top floor of the building will have a mostly glass facade and will be set back from the other floors to allow for a rooftop garden. The garden will extend across the roof of a building bridge to the top floor of the new parking deck. The office building will actually connect to the parking deck on four levels. Commission members said the new plan submitted by developer Dennis Benner and his architect, Howard L. Kulp, was a significant improvement over an earlier plan they reviewed. The original plan called for a seven-story structure and included a residential component.” Height was a prominent, well known, well publicized issue. The newspaper cites an activist critic who “acknowledged that the new design was a ‘vast improvement’ over the original. He nonetheless complained that even one story shorter, the building will be ‘inappropriately tall’ for the neighborhood, with twice the number of stories and three times the height of the typical buildings around it.”
  • Jan. 19, 2016: City Council approved the Certificate of Appropriateness. There is nothing of significance relating to this issue in the minutes, but Prez Waldron specifically remembers the height issue as an issue at that time. Again, height was no hidden concern among all concerned.
  • 2016? 2017? into 2018: construction on the building begins and is completed per the HCC stipulation. The completed building looked like this. Except for the left-hand corner, the 6th floor is set back 12 feet per the stipulation by HCC.
  • Dec. 2017-Jan. 2018: the restaurant “Zest” enters into a lease agreement for a restaurant on the 6th floor. The developer/owner is not involved in lease negotiations, and, in any event, seems not to be aware of the set-back stipulation. The negotiation is handled by the owner/developer’s leasing agent/marketing company. According to those involved, the HCC stipulation is not mentioned at all in this negotiation. It is not clear if the leasing agent/marketing company knew about the stipulation. The restaurateur claimed to have no knowledge of the set-back stipulation at that time. There was no design for the restaurant at the time the lease was signed.
  • Early 2018, exact date uncertain: The restaurateur proceeds to engage his architect, tells him he wants a dining area on the terrace, the architect draws up the plans, the final design includes a dining area 45’ long on the east end of the terrace. Including the already constructed bump-out on the plan as shown in the picture above, the enclosed area would now be a little less than half of the terrace.
  • Later 2018, date uncertain: the restaurateur submits plans to the city for an “interior fit-out” including the covered area on the terrace. The city runs it through a half-dozen hands in its normal interior fit-out routine, approves the plan, issues permits. Nobody in the city process notices exterior component. Nobody notices the violation of the HCC stipulation.
  • Later still in 2018. date uncertain: construction begins to enclose that outside area. Construction proceeds till it is more than ½ done, when the HCC chair observes the violation. Since the area is open to weather, he asks that construction be stopped, the area weather-proofed, and an appeal be filed with HCC. This is the first time the restaurateur has heard of the setback stipulation. The owner/developer does not seem to have been aware either. They are caught by surprise at this late hour problem.
  • Nov. 19, 2018: HCC hears the appeal and denies it 8-0 based on the original set-back stipulation. No minutes are yet available. Apparently, no negotiation occurs during or after the hearing. No remedy for the problem is offered.
  • Dec. 4, 2018: City Council is presented with the case. The city accepts responsibility. The owner/developer/restaurateur deny responsibility. Time is short. A soft opening for the restaurant is planned for Dec. 20 and then a major opening at New Year’s. As one Councilman put it, there seemed but two options: scuttle the work done or approve it.

What would you do? What should Council do? This is truly, as the HCC chair and CM Reynolds agreed, deciding under “less than ideal circumstances.”

Climate change: science, yes; politics, no (11)

(11th in a series on Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan)

Are we feeling some momentum building?

“Meet the Press” devoted its full Sunday show yesterday to climate change.

If you missed it, watch “The Climate Crisis” here.

One of the tag lines:

“The science is settled, the politics is not.”

If journalist keep the heat on . . .

If the new Congress  . . .

If the new presidential candidates . . .

But, in the meantime, as CM Reynolds and others have said, let’s do what we can in our own backyards.

It’s Monday, December 31, do you know where your local Climate Action Plan is?

A first step toward a map of Bethlehem neighborhoods

(the latest in a series of posts on Neighborhoods)

A tip o’ the hat and a wave o’ the wings to Julia Maserjian for contacting Karen Pooley after Gadfly’s December 29 post Reminding myself about a neighborhood map.

Read on — doesn’t this sound exciting!

Karen,

Just read your comments on Gadfly and think your idea of a neighborhood map(s) is a good one.  When the Still Looking for You project was developed it was with the goal of residents being able to contribute “memories” about their city. With the exception of “The Lost Neighborhood,” this did not happen. People want something about place to latch onto, and the issue of urban renewal in a particular neighborhood was the thing.  Let’s talk more about how we can engage in a map-making project.

Julia

*******

Julia,

Thank you so much for reaching out.

What we’ve found in city after city is that people are most connected to their neighborhood and their block — and the bigger the geography you’re talking about (whether the “west side” or the city as a whole), the more likely people are to have negative impressions of it even when they love their immediate surroundings (because you’re talking about somewhere else that they don’t associate with their immediate surroundings). Geneva (NY) was a case in point of this — people were uniformly down on the city of Geneva but loved the block they lived on and the adjacent blocks. We actually helped them define 11 different neighborhoods (Geneva has roughly 13,500 residents — roughly the same as the South Side), and it completely transformed how people thought of their hometown.

Happy to work on a mapping project!  The market value analysis TRF recently completed for the city is likely a good place to start.

Karen