(78th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

The 2nd round of supporting statements on 2 W. (69)

One more observation about the 2 W. Market proceedings before we move to 306 S. New.

One more observation that will, in fact, be a bridge to discussion of 306 S. New.

An observation about charges of

favoritism

rubber-stamping

pay-to-play

developer pockets

Heavy duty charges. We must be very careful about such charges. We must not throw them around lightly.

Gadfly has only had his wings three months. He has no history, no personal knowledge about such activity involving Mr. Rij or other investors/developers. He is a clean slate as far as stupid or unethical or criminal behavior of this type between elected officials and business people is concerned.

But you heard Mr. Clean Slate (or you can hear him for the first time by accessing the video in post #68) express worry December 18 over fairness, impartiality, and objectivity in the 2 W. Market decision – explicitly referencing CM Callahan’s very warm regards for Mr. Rij, very eager desire to please investors, and what felt like a chummy reference to petitioner attorney Preston’s boss “Jimmy” Broughal, who has been described to Gadfly as a power player in local politics..

Gadfly found such remarks perhaps innocently spontaneous but totally insensitive to a situation in which CM Callahan was acting as judge. The optics and the otics (good SAT word that I just learned) were bad even if there were no bad behavior.

In Gadfly’s opinion – Ha! speaking boldly as if he knew something about lawyering — Mr. Rij and the whole train of character testimony that followed him over the course of the three marathon meetings had absolutely no relevance to the core issue. If Jack the Ripper (retired) owned the property at 2 W. Market, the case should have been handled in exactly the same way! Justice is blind. To Gadfly, the character of the owner is irrelevant. If the opposition brings suit, I doubt the character of Mr. Rij will be considered at all in legal deliberations up the court chain of command.

CM Reynolds cut Mr. Rij out of his decision-making process – rightly so, Gadfly thought – and called for others to do so, but Mr. Rij-the-person factored in 3 of the 4 yes votes.

The optics and the otics (have you looked this word up yet?) were not good.

Let’s listen to the passionate voices of CW Van Wirt and CM Callahan December 18 on either side of this issue of favoritism. (Remember that you actually can and should listen to them in the flesh – there’s nothing like “being there” — by following the link at the top and the bottom of this page.)

CW Van Wirt:

I left the most previous City Council meeting feeling absolutely just sick in my heart, and it was because our Council meeting was capped off by a vote that allowed an illegal terrace on a restaurant in South Bethlehem [306 S. New: we’ll discuss this in the next post]. . . . There is a constant to decisions that have been made by this Council now and before my time, and it’s based on a woefully outdated concept that any development is good development. We have been told that the building at 3^rd and New St. is better than a vacant lot, as if that’s all the choice we have. . . . The rules in Bethlehem have become muddy. We give $800,000 grants to developers inappropriately. We let developers build an illegal terrace when they knew exactly what was allowed. We gave them 11 variances on the Armory project with no safeguards that the Armory would ever be protected and built. . . . So on this road where one or two developers get to blow out the red lights, we are in control, not the developers, and good community developers, people who want to invest in our city, stay away because the rules are ever changing, because the rules favor a few investors — be they developers, businesses, or home buyers, they want to know that the rules are clear, applied equally, and that their investment will be safe from changing rules. This Council and the administration has created an environment in which investors stay away due to exactly the thing we are talking about tonight, breaking the rules for a connected guy with the Benner terrace vote or the 2 W. Market vote. . . . This is our limited, parochial, swampy future we are creating here by eviscerating the rules that keep us on the road. We don’t have to accept just what the developers hand us; we can build our tax base by giving them straight rules to follow.

CM Callahan (combining selected parts from his two Dec. 18 comments):

The thing that’s upsetting me is that every time we have a debate or discussion there’s always people that have the opposite opinion and the thing that I find offending is that there’s accusations that we are rubber stamping, municipal ethics are being violated, that Mr. Rij is violating something, that he’s doing something illegal. . . . We got a letter from a resident saying it was pay-to-play. I barely know Mr. Rij, I’ve never taken a dime from him, nor would I, especially after this. But I’m making this decision based on what I see. . . . Nothing shady’s happened, there’s not this pay-to-play scheme that everybody’s trying to present. . . . There are some developers in the city. We are very fortunate that we have about six of them. I know Mr. Pektor, Mr. Ronca, Mr. Benner, Mr. Petrucci, Mr. Perucci – they’re two different people — and another developer with a property on Center and Dewberry [Atiyeh]. We don’t rubber-stamp like some people assume we do. Or accuse us of doing. We try to look at every single development on its own merits. And to accuse us of being in the pockets, or this was illegal. . . . We’ve tried to do our best with Mr. Rij’s property. . . . I think it’s a shame that developers are being attacked, Council people are being attacked, we’re on the take, there’s pay-to-play going on. . . . Stop it. It’s nonsense.

Claims of unethical or criminal behavior by elected officials may indeed be nonsense. And such claims, even innuendoes, should not be made capriciously.

But it is not nonsense – it is far from nonsense – to be wary of a vigorously stated position that could look or sound (optics and otics!) like it is willing to do just about anything to favor investment/development, using increased tax dollars as rationale.

It comes down to examination of behavior in specific cases.

Gadfly was ill-at-ease with the optics and otics (I’ve fallen in love with my new word) of the investor-friendly behavior in 2 W. Market.

Now let’s look at 306 S. New.

The actual words from the December 18 meeting on which these observations are based can be found in The 2nd round of supporting statements on 2 W. (69). Gadfly always suggests that you go to the unmediated source and make your own observations. Gadfly’s reflections on the first round of supporting statements can be found in Critiquing the votes (65)

(73^rd in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

Final observations on 2 W. Market – Part 2: The motion to table (71)

Gadfly obtained from the City a copy of the property info the City sent to CW Van Wirt and received by her and others on Council the morning of the December 18 meeting.

The cover memo: City memo 12-17-18

A color-coded map: City map 12-17-18

A spreadsheet (just one page here, total of 427 entries):

Gadfly thinks followers will agree that the info is not self-explanatory. In fact, generating even some provisional tentative useful conclusion from the data required further steps. CW Van Wirt needed a link to yet another map that she could blow up in order to count color-coded lots, and there were still uncertainties because of lack of clarity in the text amendment and inability to tell if all the color-coded lots were eligible.

Motion to table for further study in order?

Especially since no city official attended the meeting to answer questions and to help clarify.

Gadfly thinks so.

Easy call.

******************************

And here’s the text of the resident email that CW Van Wirt read during her December 18 statement leading up to the motion to table:

“One analogy that keeps coming back to me (as I think about this zoning case and the historic preservation case for the 3rd & New building) is the city’s haphazardly allowing a few people to run red lights.  Not in a systematic way (fire trucks with sirens get to run red lights) but just a few random unmarked cars. It doesn’t seem like a big deal; statistically, few people are likely to interact with those few cars at intersections.  But this means that everyone becomes less confident in green lights. As another driver, I’m now always going to check to see if some of those lucky few are about to blow a red light at any intersection I’m at — the whole set of rules (go at green, stop at red) suffers. While zoning isn’t life-or-death, most of the people investing in housing or neighborhoods like some reassurance that what they invest in is likely to stay the same or at least change in a way that they can foresee. (That’s one of the big points of zoning.)  Where there’s not that level of predictability, people become less likely to invest.”

(72nd in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

The 2nd round of supporting statements on 2 W. (69)

Let’s have a discussion about whether a Council member “owes” the constituents in a controversy as well as the general public a rationale for voting in a particular way. Council president Waldron correctly affirmed that most votes on Council are easy, ending 7-0. So Gadfly is not in worriment on those kinds of situations.

He means the tough cases – like 2 W. Market.

2 W. Market has rumbled across the city committee terrain and through several courts for five years or so. Neighbors have faced themselves over microphones and back fences. Hatfields and McCoys in the Northside Historical District.

In such cases, does a CM, especially a Cprez, “owe” everybody a rationale for the defining, deciding, swing vote?

Gadfly says yes. Most definitely.

Especially as was the case in the first reading where the Cprez’s vote would break a 3-3 tie after a draining 3hr. or so meeting.

Gadfly wrote that such a rationale-less vote by Cprez Waldron climaxing the first reading was “unconscionable.” Tough talk by ol’ Gadfly.

Another member of Council disagreed with his criticism.

How about you?

Gadfly feels the reason behind a vote is as important as the vote itself.

Gadfly feels the public has a right to know. The public has the right to judge the judge.

So, assuming that most likely the votes wouldn’t change on second reading, and assuming that the same situation building to the final vote would obtain, Gadfly looked forward expectantly to the concluding vote by Cprez Waldron.

Only to be stunned again.

Cprez Waldron gave a rationale this time. He based his yes vote on “faith,” faith in Quadrant (though he had just heard of Mr. Rij’s threat to a fellow Council member), faith that only a few properties are affected by the change (though agreeing to table the motion and study the list of properties might have eliminated the need to rely on faith), faith in the Zoning Board (which has had decisions reversed by higher courts), faith in the whole process (when in the previous Council meeting immediately preceding this one he had just presided over a process at 306 S. New that went to hell in a handbasket).

Gadfly would like to believe like Cprez Waldron. In a perfect world. But he can’t.

Gadfly is not sure that Cprez Waldron means “faith” in a theological sense, but that’s where Gadfly goes with it.

We live in a fallen world. People do not always do good. That’s why we have law. That’s why we need law. That’s why we uphold law.

We expect legislators/judges to act on facts not faith.

It is very, very, very hard for Gadfly to accept that “faith in the better nature of all of us” is the operative principle in the decision-making faculty of the head of City Council.

The Cprez recognized that some would call him naïve. Yes.

Gadfly finds his vote disturbing.

As usual, Gadfly is willing to be persuaded otherwise or whacked upside the head.

What do you think?

The actual words from the December 18 meeting on which these observations are based can be found in The 2nd round of supporting statements on 2 W. (69). Gadfly always suggests that you go the unmediated source and make your own observations. Gadfly’s reflections on the first round of supporting statements can be found in Critiquing the votes (65)

(71st in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

The 2nd round of supporting statements on 2 W. (69)

CW Van Wirt was on the losing end of the first-reading vote of 4-3 with CW Negron and CM Colon. How did she prepare for the second reading? How did she hope to influence at least one of her fellow councilpersons to change his vote?

• Like CM Reynolds, CW Van Wirt did considerable homework.
• She met with Mr. Rij, the patriarch of 2 W. Market.
• She asked the city for considerably more information on properties potentially impacted by the petition.

CW Van Wirt is a pro-active and (by her own admission, Gadfly believes) a data-driven person.

In her supporting statement, CW Van Wirt said that the meeting with Mr. Rij that she thought was collegial culminated in a “threat” regarding the future fate of the property if the petition was denied by this man canonized by his supporters on and off Council and the kind of behavior explicitly denied several times by his character witnesses. One would think this rather dramatic revelation might give people who praised Mr. Rij some pause. It certainly did so for Gadfly.

The information requested from the city – apparently citing 64 properties (Gadfly has not seen the information) – was delivered the morning of the meeting, leaving little time for Council to study and discuss it. And the city official who prepared the information inexplicably did not come to the meeting to answer questions about it.

The general impact of this text amendment petition on the city at large that originated from one property owner for the benefit of that one property owner was a sticky point as far back as the Planning Commission hearing, where both PC members voting against the petition cited their concern about this significant information gap.

Subsequently, the petitioner provided a list of 7 properties that might be affected. There was obvious concern about using only data provided by the petitioner. Thus, this request by CW Van Wirt for comparable data from the city — an understandable request for data that would seem necessary in order to make a firmly founded decision.

On the basis that there was as yet no analysis of the city-prepared list and there was no city official to answer questions about it (Gadfly shared her “flabbergastment” at this official’s absence from the meeting), and thus that the impact of this petition on the city at large was unexamined, CW Van Wirt made what Gadfly thinks was a perfectly reasonable motion to table the petition pending that analysis. The motion – not discussable — failed 5-2, CW Negron joining her, CW Colon joining the affirmative side on this vote.

Though voices on Council appreciated the data from the city and thanked CW Van Wirt for taking the initiative to obtain it, there obviously was no felt need to delay a final vote by discussing it.

Gadfly felt very disturbed by Council action here in defeating the motion to table. The question of impact on the city at large was an open one, new information became available, that information was not considered, the city official responsible for the new information was not present to guide consideration at this crucial moment in a long and contentious process, there was no menacing deadline, a 5-6 year process could certainly bear another two weeks, and so forth.

It would seem that majority minds were made up, however, possibly that the new info wouldn’t matter or that safeguards in the system absolved them of considering these new “facts.”

Not good, feeleth Gadfly. Not good at all.

How about you?

There is another dimension to CW Van Wirt’s supporting statement that we will pick up later with the CM Callahan commentary we have left hanging.

The actual words from the December 18 meeting on which these observations are based can be found in The 2nd round of supporting statements on 2 W. (69). Gadfly always suggests that you go the unmediated source and make your own observations. Gadfly’s reflections on the first round of supporting statements can be found in Critiquing the votes (65)

(70th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

The 2nd round of supporting statements on 2 W. (69)

Across the next several posts, Gadfly will share some observations about the resolution (for now, anyway) of the complex 2 W. Market case.

And, to repeat, one of Gadfly’s main goals in this project is to gain for himself and his followers a better sense of our elected officials by examining where we can and as closely as we can how they think, how they decide. Gadfly wants us all to know our Council members better.

The actual words from the December 18 meeting on which these observations are based can be found in The 2nd round of supporting statements on 2 W. (69). Gadfly always suggests that you go the unmediated source and make your own observations. Gadfly’s reflections on the first round of supporting statements can be found in Critiquing the votes (65)

From the standpoint of public participation, Gadfly rather likes the “two readings” system we experienced in the 2 W. Market. It gives the residents a chance to focus arguments directly on rationales expressed by Council on first reading before the crucial second reading. It also gives Council the opportunity to re-think positions based on receiving those focused arguments. In any event, what Gadfly hopes for at second-reading time is signs that Council members re-visited their positions between the two votes or did some new thinking. Gadfly looks for minds in motion, minds open not locked. That, he says, is what we want on Council.

Here are some examples of what he means.

• CM Martell made the same argument as he did on first reading, but his argument was clearer, stronger, and added a new element. Certainly there was re-thinking here. He enumerated his supporting evidence, and he offered a way to look at the disputed property lists in a positive way. His yes vote was more strongly based this time.
• CM Callahan made two comments in the pre-vote period on 2 W. In his first comment, on which we’ll focus here, he really didn’t offer any new thinking on the substance of the issue, simply briefly repeating that the neighborhood is mixed-use and the property always commercial. Gadfly found that disappointing, for he had — rather rashly, actually — tagged CM Callahan as a zoning-denier, trying to get him to think about the ramifications of replacing city law with Callahan law – in effect, putting himself above the law. But CM Callahan didn’t seem to understand or think about that challenge to his position and the dangers therein. He stood pat. He was content with his stated first-reading position as extra-legal authority and did not even restate it vigorously this time. In truth, the thrust of his comment on second reading was what he was upset by and offended by in the process by those who saw the issue differently – and we’ll come back to that in a later post when we pick up his second comment.
• CM Reynolds, in Gadfly’s opinion, is a model here for properly approaching a second vote. Remember that Gadfly chided CM Reynolds for his impatience with the controversy in the first reading and his strongly expressed, even intimidating desire to “move on.” He could have phoned in his second vote. Not only did CM Reynolds not move on, but it looks like he did considerable homework before the second reading – going back and reading in the records of discussions on the new zoning ordinance in 2012. Gadfly is a sucker for a guy who does his homework. In doing so, CM Reynolds advanced a new argument for his yes vote that made Gadfly stop and think. CM Reynolds gave “corners” a history in city zoning conversations and reminded us how distinct corners are, how positive corners are, how interesting corners are, how character-forming corners are. And on that basis he argued for flexibility in the zoning code. Gadfly might not have changed his vote on the basis of CM Reynolds’s rationale, but he was hooked. Well done.

These are three examples of yes votes on the petition. Remember that Gadfly was a nay. But even though he disagrees with their conclusions, in two of the three instances he can respect the quality of their arguments. Gadfly had significant trouble with the quality of CM Callahan’s argument after the first reading, and he continues to do so here.

(69th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

So the second-round vote was 4-3 in favor of the 2 W. Market petition, just like it was the first time. No change there in the final tally.

But, except for CM Colon, we have another round of supporting statements that give us a window into the voters’ minds. Which is precious information.

Gadfly has said that one of the goals of his project is to be a more informed voter.

All of the Council members will no doubt run again, and some may even have higher ambition. In fact, CPs Martell, Reynolds, and Van Wirt end their terms in 2020.

When it comes time to vote, Gadfly wants a better basis of judgment than he’s had before. Which was basically no basis at all. He wants to know better who is intelligent, thoughtful, visionary, fair, hard-working, articulate, caring for the City, and so forth.

And through me, some of you might have a better basis as well. I’m already being asked who’s good, who’s not so good. You know, “Gadfly, you go to all those meetings, who are the good Council people.”

So, as you listen to the supporting statements below (the dang video bummed out on me at voting time – no video), I’m suggesting that you look for the models of behavior exhibited by our Councilpersons, just like you looked for models of behavior in the residents making comments.

Who meets and exceeds your expectations of our elected officials, and who doesn’t?

And this doesn’t mean whom you agree with and whom not on this 2 W. issue. The vote doesn’t necessarily tell you anything. It might be totally mindless. That’s why Gadfly was upset at Council President Waldron for going completely dark in the first round as the swing vote in a tight, hard-fought controversy. Gadfly is perfectly capable of recognizing and respecting an argument that differs from his own. The supporting statement tells you the quality of mind. And that’s worth discovering. Regardless of what side of an issue a person is on.

In order of appearance. Note and don’t miss CM Callahan’s second commentary. He asked for more time at the end. So you’ll see a CM Callahan (2). Don’t miss it.

CW Negron

Speaks her mind and speaks on behalf of the people who elected her. Moved by Mary Toulouse’s statement to allow residents to decide about their communities, but that is what the Zoning ordinance is already all about – and many residents served on the committee that formed it, were part of that decision-making. All we have to do is follow them and the ordinance. What you want was done already. She lives on the Southside, and it has changed. Admires people who live in the Historical District who have enough money to buy there and maintain the houses and are doing it on their own without needing a text change. Playing off Beall Fowler’s comment that Zoning should be permanent – that’s what it should be, but not in Bethlehem, it seems. Depends on how deep your pocket is. Doing what I believe I was elected to do in voting no.

CM Callahan (1)

Mixed-use neighborhood. All Council has done due diligence. Upset by accusations of rubber-stamping, ethics violated, play-to-play, never taken a dime from Mr. Rij. Always a commercial aspect there on that property. Financial services on that block already. Mixed-use neighborhood. Nothing shady has happened. Psychoanalysis of his comments from last meeting and even of the Council member who made no comments. We try to do our best. This job is a tough job. Always try to do what’s best for the city as a whole.

CW Van Wirt

Asked Darlene Heller for list of potential properties (non-conforming + residential) affected. 64 possible. We have not done an analysis. Mayor put planning dept in a bad position. Council in a bad position of voting on something without full knowledge. Lots of questions for Darlene, “flabbergasted” that she’s not here. Advice from professional city planner indicates the language in the amendment can be construed in an opposite manner. She has many questions, not any answers. Did exhaustive homework then met with Mr. Rij. Mr. Rij, contrary to testimony, did make “threat” in personal conversation of a drug or rehab center. Should we be notifying the 64? What if Quadrant vacates or creates a subsidiary? No study of impact. Vote allowed on an illegal terrace in South Bethlehem. Asks Council to consider city as whole. Historical concept in operation is that any development is good development. Like the building at 3^rd and New is better than a vacant lot, as if that’s the only choice we have. Benner and Perron development are the only players. Other developers steer clear. Rules in Bethlehem have become muddy. Inappropriate grants. Illegal terrace. Variances with no safeguards. Reads citizen email about why rules are important. Developers blowing through red lights. Eviscerating rules. Don’t have to accept what the developers hand us. Makes a motion to table till there is the city analysis to determine the impact of the amendment. Applause. Failed 2-5.

CM Reynolds

2 kinds of people living in the HD, with differences of opinion. Thinking more about corner conversation. Must take emotion out of this. Don’t drive decision about Mr.Rij, whether positive or negative. Went back to conversations in 2012, what corners meant to the city. Corners are distinct and different – can look at them differently. Nobody back then argued that this would affect other properties on the street. What do we want on our corners and what is the process? Non-conforming uses make the city. Wonders about negative connotation. Some flexibility necessary. Looks at actual corners, and there is positive there. Planning Commission 4-0 against recommendations back in 2012, because the code was too restrictive. And not flexible enough. Council voted against the PC. Anecdotal evidence indicates a lot of the interesting things about Bethlehem relate to corners. Individual non-conforming uses create character. In front of us is an opportunity for flexibility that has a back-drop as far as the Zoning Hearing Board is concerned, as far as precedent, as far as a large community process talking about corners. Public process allows City, Council, ZHB to say yes or no. Need a system that allows flexibility to move forward while at the same time the ability to say no when need be.

CM Martell

All of us run our campaigns on protecting the neighborhoods. Look at the basics. Unique property on the corner of a busy intersection. It abuts a commercial district. It’s surrounded by non-residential uses. The Schadts testified how difficult it was selling the property. There’s a commercial and residential use tied to the property. Three arguments against passing the amendment: 1) detriment to the neighborhood, but the business has been operating for a year and there is no mention of detriment even by the opposition, 2) problems down the road, precedent, and 3) effects on other properties, but the language of the amendment is sufficiently strict, and any use would go to the Zoning Hearing Board where conditions would apply. We have several different lists of possibly affected properties, but they strengthen the argument because a large part of them are currently operating as respected businesses. A lot are obviously non-residential uses and are of value in the neighborhoods. It provides flexibility for unique properties and can promote smart and sensible investment. Benefit to the property, the neighborhood, and throughout Bethlehem.

CM Callahan (2)

Something bothering him. Last meeting some criticism about stuff going on in the Southside. Every time there’s a controversial topic there are people who come out listing uncertainties. Fortunate to have developers in the city: Pektor, Ronca, Benner, Petrucci, Perruci. We don’t rubber-stamp. We look at everything on its own merits. Mr. Rij has used the legal process. We are fortunate to have people who invest. We don’t have people jumping to develop in Bethlehem. Easy to attack Benner, etc. Know this – if it’s so sure-fire a deal, why did the property sit there for 10 years? Why didn’t you all get together, put your money up, and do the project? We spend $65m in investment in the Southside, and we have a regular speaker here who rips the Southside every meeting. A Councilwoman too. Talked to the “mayor of the Southside” Joe D’Ambrosio and asked when was the euphoric state of the Southside? Better 10 years ago? etc. When did the utopia Southside occur? In his 45yrs, never saw the Southside better. Thriving. Vibrant. Lots of effort by many people/administrations. People against 3^rd and New etc, what about 1 E. Broad? Sands bring in $9.5m. Naysayers. People doing due diligence for the city. Who’s paying the damn bills? 300 professional people with disposable incomes brought in and people bitched. CAVE people: citizens against virtually everything. There’s always a group coming out of the woodwork. Doing our best. Shame that people are being attacked. Stop it. It’s nonsense.

CM Waldron

Direct quote of entire statement: “Maybe I can put a bow on this conversation as we approach Christmas. I think it’s easy to sit up here or stand up at the microphone and speak in certainties and say if you don’t do this, this thing will happen that’s bad, or if you do take this action, I guarantee this other thing will happen. And I think that is a simplistic way to look at it. And it’s easy to say that the other side is wrong. What I am choosing to do is to approach this with the idea of faith. Do I have faith that Quadrant will be a good neighbor, and I think the answer to that is a resounding yes. Do I have faith that only a few properties are affected by this change? Again, I am choosing to look at that as a yes. And do I have faith that the Zoning Hearing Board will stand by to protect our neighbors in the event that somebody comes to them and, again, yes, yes, yes. I have faith in the process that has been laid out here, and I have faith for all those who are involved in that process. It may be a bit naïve, perhaps, and some of you may criticize me for that, but I am choosing to have faith in the better nature of all of us. And, for that reason, I’ll be supporting this amendment.”

The vote

As usual, listen, think, then let’s come back and share some thoughts.

(68th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

Two days ago Gadfly could only give you the headline:

City Council voted again last night 4-3, just like at first reading, to approve the text amendment regarding 2 W. Market St.

Now let’s start a few posts getting behind the headline. Usual procedure for Gadfly, you all will recognize by now (ho-hum), is to lay out all the information first.

So here Gadfly will give you the arguments pro and con presented to the Council members before their second and final vote. Gadfly will roughly summarize each testimony, but, as you also will recognize by now, Gadfly wants you to go to the primary source. So he’s making it possible for you to watch and to listen to the actual testimony.

It’s almost like being there!

Take advantage. When have you ever had the opportunity to do this on a Council decision? The video and audio lift the veil. Take advantage.

Gadfly has another motive, which you may not have yet recognized, in wanting you to watch and listen. A deeper motive that goes far beyond this, though quite important 2 W. Market issue.

Gadfly wants you to see models of democracy in action. The overwhelming majority of Gadfly followers have never been to a Council meeting. Some of you have said to Gadfly that you could never in the world imagine speaking in Council.

Gadfly wants you to engage in the political life of your city. Watch how some of your fellow residents are engaging. See how it’s done.

Imagine your butts in those seats.

Imagine yourself at the podium.

Supporting:

Speaking for the petition were Kori Lannon, Sue Glemser, Jerry Kindrachuck, Lorraine Schadt, Mark Schadt, Jean Sieman, a man from Bridlepath Rd., John Ruhle. Mary Mulder, Mike Gosling, Ken Atchison. All but two had spoken before. Several of the presentations were very short. Several character-witness type statements rather than argument per se.

To represent the supporters of the petition, Gadfly has included the presentation by Kori Lannon, daughter of the Rijs and principal in Quadrant, and Sue Glemser and Mark Schadt.

Kori Lannon

Three salient first-hand truths: 1) substantial opportunity for the house to sell but it didn’t 2) always a mixed-use property 3) fate of historic green building in your hands. There’s activity at the house all times of day, all days of week, all year. With luminaries the house made a beautiful continuum with other houses in this historic neighborhood. Amendment that encourages this kind of stewardship and investment in an awkward property is good for the house, neighborhood, historic district, and good for the city. Thank you for your realistic and level-headed consideration.

Sue Glemser

Quadrant has made no threats. House up for sale for two years with no buyers. One prospective buyer was chased away by the need for a commercial loan. Who is going to pay a commercial loan for a residential lot. Banks have determined it’s commercial. House on a busy corner in downtown Bethlehem will be maintained beautifully for the next 40 years. Even if somebody buys it now, they have to bethinking about the difficulty of selling it to the next person.

Mark Schadt

Mixed use, not sub-dividable, unique property. Doesn’t see an avalanche of problems as opposition does. Seems to be no middle ground. Others won’t be satisfied. Heels dug in. No compromise. Majority of neighbors have agreed by petition. Commercial area.

Opposing:

Speaking against the petition were Bruce Haines, Romeril father and son, Stephen Antalics, Barbara Diamond, Gadfly, Beall Fowler, Steve Diamond, Tim Stevens, Mary Toulouse, Ron Yoshida. As you might expect, faced with the previous vote against them, the presentations by the opposers were more vigorous, and Gadfly gives them all to you. Mr. Fowler’s has already appeared as post #67.

Mary Toulouse

Comparison with White Plains, NY. Don’t move into a city. No protections. Urban blight. People lost heart and sold out. Lost confidence in their government. People spooked by threat to most important investment. The city improved. Basis is a strong zoning ordinance. More of a covenant, a promise – governing body and community. Governing body must protect that covenant. In return, people have confidence to invest money and time. Right now the zoning code here seems to be up for grabs. Vote the petition down. Keep the covenant. If change necessary, ask city to put forward process where community is involved. Don’t autocratically make this change.

Ron Yoshida

Mr. Rij proceeded while suit still in process. Should have waited till case was adjudicated. We all make mistakes, things don’t turn out way we hoped. This is remedy to his poor mistake. An end around. Opportunities that can be exploited. Table it till investigated? Idea that there are safeguards violated by what happened later in Dec 4 meeting – the issue at 306 S. New. Contractor knowingly submitted plans in violation. Citizens dubious about claim that all will be well. Start of slippery slope, no, first step already taken.

Steve Diamond

Basic question: how many properties affected by this change? Still haven’t answered that question. Waldron himself called voting without this info would be irresponsible. Can’t take petitioner’s list. Did City do due diligence? No. Did Ms. Heller do the job? Why did City not attempt to answer the question? Wants to see how the study was done – Sunshine kind of info to see if the story was valid. Is city lazy or negligent? How could Waldron vote if his question not answered? Why did this not come through normal channels of city? City not truthful. Not giving you all information. Malfeasance. Not totally investigating.

Mr. Romeril

Schadts were meticulous keepers of the house. If chop up the house, yes, it will need repair. Painted every summer. Not completely surrounded by other things. Would make a very fine residential property. Sound piece of property, residential, in a residential block. Schadts raised 4 children there. You can raise a family in this lovely house.

Tim Stevens

Don’t want a lawsuit. Though sometimes necessary. Threats of group home, etc. Not neighborly. Heller’s Dec 3 memo focus – we differ from what she said. Not based on sound premise. Sees problem with current wording. Not fully vetted. Irresponsible. No clarification of true impact on wider city. Other properties are affected. Procedural defect. Other properties should have received notice.

Bruce Haines

Darlene Heller conveniently absent and cannot answer question. Not just one choice, the choice of rewarding of a saved property. Bullied, threatening, holding you hostage. This business doesn’t deserve special treatment. The unasked question is why an intelligent business man would buy this property after being defeated. Bad business. Only one answer: had to be another buyer who wanted to use it as a single-family home. Another buyer forced his hand. Political promises made as well to reinforce totally illogical business decision? Our neighborhood totally mischaracterized. Gives specific examples. Deconversions going on for years. Never gave the property a chance to sell. Destroyed the single-family character of the home. Asks for demonstration of integrity of the zoning ordinance.

Martin Romeril

Gave the Council a handout. About the zoning code not about people involved. Discusses list given to Council for December 4. Shows properties that would be affected by the new ordinance. Potential widespread use of the ordinance in many neighborhoods. List obviously deficient. Shows more properties that could be affected. Nothing to disqualify these properties under the new ordinance. Shows properties that can be converted to single family. Residential uses can be eliminated. New info presented each meeting. How vote under this situation? Disagrees with the city planner – shows evidence from his list. Can’t make property more non-conforming. Simple question: who is the 1% now.

Barbara Diamond

Ethics. Concerned about action tarnishing city reputation. Benefit for one well connected individual without due diligence about wider impact. 1) Quadrant turned down twice at Zoning but received approval a third time after making a substantial contribution. 2) Zoning ruling overturned by Commonwealth court and now operating illegally. 3) Proposed change eviscerates the Zoning proposition to make the one property fit in. 4) Mayor at a late time backed the amendment without study. 5) City did no extensive analysis. 6) Planning Commission did not recommend the petition, for the 2 approving members gave no reason. 7) Arguments are subjective, irrelevant to a decision to change Zoning. 8) Public will wonder how “business” is favored. Recent favorable decision to Benner at the same meeting. Questionable grants. Refusal to fight Mr. Brew and Airbnb. Distinct pattern of favorable treatment evident.

Stephen Antalics

Supporters of the amendment – not regular attendees at Council — based their views on work done and saw the opposers as attacking them. Opposers are independent, attend meetings, and their interest is welfare of the community. Interested only in negative impact. Used charts, maps, statistics. Never made personal or subjective comment. Those voting no did so with simple short confident comments. The yes votes are a study in elaborate rationalization. Yes voters not comfortable, long in justifying. Yes voters should examine conscience, place hand on a Bible. Urge you to recant and say no.

Ed Gallagher

Basis for a great movie. Mr. Rij is living exemplar of the American Dream. Came as immigrant in the bottom of a boat and has risen to great wealth. But this is a court of law, so to speak, and not a theater. And decision must be fair, impartial, objective. Decision must be based on quality of argument. Those opposed are far superior on that score.

Now we’ll move on to presenting the votes by Council members and, maybe even more importantly, their supporting statements. And we should be thinking about models of behavior there as well. Not that you might run for office. But you will be voting.

(66th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

Democracy in action. Gadfly loves that phrase. And some of you did too when he used it before and at the last Council meeting.

Well, here we are again. Voting time. Final Council vote on the 2 W. Market text amendment is tomorrow.

Since the first vote two weeks ago, we have worked once more through the issues, culminating in a close analysis of each Council member’s vote.

I’ll bet you never saw anything like that before.

But what now?

Gadfly has tried to make you all feel invested in this decision about the essence of neighborhoods whether you are involved in the case or not. But were the last two weeks just an exercise? Or is there something to do now? Something meaningful.

The two-vote system is great. But as Gadfly said even before this recent analysis, changing a vote at this time is hard. Decision-makers lock in, close down, shutter up, get defensive. It’s hard to admit you are wrong. It’s hard to admit that you made a mistake. It’s even hard to admit you had second thoughts. Normal. We all do it.

Experienced beat reporters may have the best insight of anybody, and Doug of the Bethlehem Press reported that “it is likely the vote will remain the same.” Even Gadfly, who opened himself up to as many perspectives as possible, ended up pretty much where he started, though more intensely sure of his position.

Still, it ain’t over till it’s over, and you have the opportunity to shore up those on your side or persuade those on the other side. You have their positions now as your targets for shoring or subverting.

And conscientious Council members should not have stopped thinking two weeks ago. They should have been open, if they are conscientious, to new thoughts – from themselves and others. In fact, in their supporting statements for their votes tomorrow, they should tell us about their further thinking.

But especially if you are challenging the yes voters, you should have a new tack. It might take some dramatic new tack to dislodge that first vote. No time for same old, same old.

You can talk at the meeting and/or you can write. If you write, do so directly to them (addresses below) and not to the Council clerk or the Mayor’s secretary, etc.

But so far Gadfly has been talking only to partisans in the case.

Now he talks to you non-partisans.

What about putting your democracy in action? What about a sort of write-in campaign?

Wouldn’t it just be out of this world if Council members and the Mayor got a flood of verbal and/or written contact from non-partisans? You know, saying something like “I’ve been following the controversy on Gadfly, and I recognize that the decision here is of great import to neighborhoods across the city not just those on Market St., as well as saying a lot about the qualifications of our elected officials, and here’s how I think the case should be judged.”

Post #65 and the links there should enable you to review.

O, my god! Think about that!

Gadfly doesn’t know exactly how many followers blessed him by donating for his Peace Walk, but several hundred dollars was raised.

It was a gesture of involvement.

Would you make a gesture of involvement here too? Whichever “side” you are on.

Let’s break some new ground in public participation.

If Gadfly knew that only one non-partisan “wrote in,” it would warm him for the winter.

And if you wanted to share your messages on Gadfly that would be great too but not necessary.

The meeting starts at 7PM Tuesday – message as early as you can. Or come and talk.

Bryan G. Callahan bcallahan@bethlehem-pa.gov

Michael G. Colón mcolon@bethlehem-pa.gov

Shawn M. Martell smartell@bethlehem-pa.gov

Olga Negrón ONEGRON@BETHLEHEM-PA.GOV

William Reynolds JReynolds@bethlehem-pa.gov

Adam R. Waldron awaldron@bethlehem-pa.gov

Paige Van Wirt pvanwirt@bethlehem-pa.gov

Bob Donchez bobdonchez@gmail.com

 (65th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

3^rd quarter of the Eagles game. Are you serious? Pray for Merrill Reese.

At first reading on Dec 4, Council voted 4-3 to approve the text amendment for 2 W. Market.

Gadfly’s looking right now at the story about that meeting in the Bethlehem Press. There we learn only who voted which way. Nothing more.

Gadfly’s trying to give us something more by enabling you to listen to our Council members and by analyzing the reasons they gave for their votes.

Gadfly has said he wants to be able to vote in a more informed way next time. And analyzing thought processes is a good way to help do that.

What do our Council members sound like? How do they think? Are they intelligent, thoughtful, fair, objective, articulate – and whatever other traits we value in our elected officials?

So here goes.

Gadfly is not happy with the reasons a majority of the votes were cast.

See what you think.

CW Negron “No”  (see post 47)
ON bases her no vote on a negative chain of events caused by a minor zoning change designed to accommodate a business interest that has actually happened on the Southside, a negative chain of events that is in her opinion likely to be repeated by this text amendment. She argues by analogy, one of the commonest and most reliable forms of human thinking and action. Gadfly agrees that the analogy is strong.

CM Colon “No”  (see post 48)
MC bases his no vote on the fact that this case has traveled through our legal system and been denied by the highest court in the state. It is an eminently reasonable position to take. Gadfly believes that the alternative “Local knows better” approach defies hundreds if not thousands of years of cultural wisdom, invites exactly the kind of random subjectivity that causes people to feel City Hall is for sale, and leads to chaos.

CM Callahan “Yes” (see post 49)
BC bases his yes belief in a blatant, defiant disregard for the zoning code and a blatant regard for the petitioner and the class he represents. Gadfly believes that there are such grave dangers to the trust in and stability of city government in such a position and attitude that if BC’s vote here is representative of his general subjective approach to city issues, he doesn’t believe that he could ever vote for him or recommend that others do so.

CM Martell “Yes”  (see post 56)
SM bases his yes vote on the quality of the renovated house, even though it is not clear that those renovations were performed during an authorized time frame. In doing so SM seems not to precisely understand the nature of the opposition. Gadfly also finds that the specific flaws that SM sees in the mode of opposition argument are themselves severely flawed. And the very fact of this long-standing suit would belie his view of a net-positive in the neighborhood.

CW Van Wirt “No”  (see post 59)
PVW bases her no decision on “hard” objective realities like the Court decision, the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning code (the function of borders as a “red line”), and the undeniable truth that “precedent is profound,” as well as significant examples on the ground of demonstrated commercial creep. Gadfly sees PVW providing the most comprehensive view of the controversy expressed in Council statements.

CM Reynolds “Yes”  (see post 61)
JWR seemingly (Gadfly is not totally sure) bases his yes decision on a belief that the opposers to the text amendment should be willing to accept commercial presences in their zoned-residential neighborhood, even to suggesting that they move out of their zoned-residential neighborhood if they are not so willing. Gadfly finds that attitude totally unacceptable as well the petulance and impatience JWR shows at his necessary involvement in the controversy

CM Waldron “Yes”  (see post 62)
AW does not identify the base of his yes decision. There is no way to judge his thought process. The swing vote in a dead-heat contest by the President of City Council is unsupported. That’s disappointing, that’s insulting – that’s unconscionable! Gadfly keeps hoping that there is some political strategy at work here that he as a novice doesn’t understand. But for now AW’s yes vote is — without a rationale — a “novote” and should not be respected but ignored.

Now after the game, we should talk about what this means.

Do you have some comments on Gadfly’s views?

(64th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

Half-time of the Eagles. Be still my heart.

Time for Gadfly to come forward in his own self on 2 W. Market.

Though he has done so twice before. See posts 26 and 39 in this sequence if you want a comparison.

Here’s his third shot.

Gadfly is still for denial of the petition for a text amendment.

Why?

Call Gadfly “Straight Arrow.”

He is a law-man.

For a “standard” by which to judge the petition, he looks for a basis in law or something like law.

Thus, Gadfly looks to:

• the Bethlehem Comprehensive Plan
• the Bethlehem Zoning Ordinance
• the decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

If specifically argued that the text amendment is a change in law, Gadfly feels that it

• has not been demonstrated to be a good for the city
• a fact he believes admitted by the petitioner’s attorney Dec 4 in reply to Mr. Walker

The various opposing arguments might be lumped under the general headings of positive characterizations of the petitioner and of the house itself.

The statement of the position against this position that most jumped out at Gadfly came from PVW:

We’re not in the business of judging on the merit to a change in our city zoning code based on someone’s aesthetics, their wealth, their access to connected lawyers. We are in the business of judging the laws we passed are in the best interest of all the city and all of the citizens of the city. Someone’s personal characteristics and aesthetics and impact on that corner and all of that is honestly secondary to what are we doing for the whole of the city.

That seems to Gadfly “right on”! The kind of view that promises fair and objective decisions, the kind that ensures City Hall is not for sale or for favorites.

The irrelevance of the entire set of sub-arguments springing from positive characterizations of the petitioner and the house is clear from this letter to Council from the atty representing those who oppose the petition. The case will be tried and settled on the basis of law.

Atty Stevens to Council Solicitor Spirk Dec 12 2018

Now, Gadfly has commented on the Council votes and supporting statements. That’s next.