(12th in a series of posts about 11 and 15 W. Garrison St.)

Douglas Graves, “Zoning map remains same.” Bethlehem Press, October 9, 2019.

Nicole Radzievich, “Bethlehem scuttles rezoning proposal after hearing impassioned pleas from Garrison Street residents.” Morning Call, October 3, 2019.

Sara Satullo, “These Bethlehem residents fought to save their vibrant city block . . . and won.” lehighvalleylive.com, October 2, 2019.

 

Connell photo Douglas Graves

October 1 City Council meeting video
minutes 22-1:08:00

Followers will know that the petitioner sought approval to rezone 11 and 15 W. Garrison as part of a mixed-use residential and retail development to encompass the entire 700 block of N. New St.

The vote-taking here at the October 1 Council meeting was pretty dramatic. Gadfly has presented this part of the meeting below in the order in which it occurred. Note that there were three straight “no’s” followed by three straight “yes’s” — so Councilman Reynolds cast the breath-taking final “no” vote after seeming to lean the other way.

Remember that part of Gadfly’s mission is to help us know our elected officials better, so that when it comes time to vote, we are making informed choices. Probably all of current Council will be running again, and it would surprise no one if one or two (or three) current members run for Mayor in two years. Take the opportunity to hear them and how they think.

No: Olga Negron (video min. 1:12:18)

• [It was] very refreshing to hear from the requestor that he wanted to hear from you.”
• “What is best for Garrison St. is not to be rezoned.”
• “The side of the building on New St. . . . could be commercial as everything else down there is commercial. But Garrison St. .  . . should stay residential.”

No: Grace Crampsie Smith (video min. 1:13:31)

• “One concern . . . I think parking is an issue.”
• “Two driveways entering into the building . . . I think that poses a real safety issue.”
• “Mr. Connell mentioned that the City has been recently issuing more building permits for apartments than homes and that’s the direction of the City, I I have to say . . . that direction is not where the City needs to go.”
• “We need to really enhance our neighborhoods, our communities.”
• “We have to get away from just expanding into apartment bases and look at building more single-family homes.”
• “I think that our City was built on the backbone of working men and women who wanted one thing and that was a home and a safe neighborhood for their families, and I think we as a City need to really support and enhance that.”
• “I think that the reason our great City feels more like a small town is because of our neighborhoods.”

No: Paige Van Wirt (video min. 1:15:30)

• “I was so impressed by the community that came out tonight . . . It is exactly what we are striving for.”
•  “I cannot imagine us doing anything that would harm that dynamic, gouging into your neighborhood.”
• “I have not been convinced that he cannot build this building without changing the zoning.”
• “I think you should be so proud of what you have.”

Yes: Adam Waldron (video min. 1:16:27)

• “This is a tricky situation where you have a vibrant, healthy neighborhood . . . On the flip side we also don’t see a developer who seems as receptive as the one who comes before us to feedback from people in that community.”
• “Often there is a kind of blank, nameless face, a name where we don’t see the person who has spent years living in this community . . . and plans to live in the community after the development as well.”
• This is a unique position for us where we have a lot of very genuine people coming to us and asking for very different things.”
• “From what I’ve seen, I think the plan presented to us is a positive one.”
• “I think there could be some growing pains. I also think Mr. Connell is receptive to the idea of continuing a dialogue and working through some of the issues.”
• “This could be a net positive for the neighborhood by bringing in some fresh new families, new potential friends and neighbors to your community.”

Yes: Bryan Callahan (video min. 1:19:44)

• “You’re not going to like what I’m going to say, but I want to lay out the truth first.”
• “We can’t stop him from doing that development.”
• “He doesn’t have to come back to the City to knock those two buildings down.”
• “We have a lot of developers who do not take into consideration neighbors, and it seems like Mr. Connell has tried hard to do that.”
• “A lot of people have verified that he is a very good landlord.”
• “My concern is this . . . he has the ability to knock those two houses down . . . could put a flat lot there . . . could put garbage dumpsters there . . . could put a buffer there . . . could do a cantilever project.”
• “My preference is that he work with all of you.
• “Don’t shoot me. [Gadfly loves this!] I’m going to vote for this tonight . . . That doesn’t mean I’m voting for it two weeks from now.”
• [Volunteers to meet with residents and walk around the neighborhood.]
• “I would prefer that we work with him on a plan that all of you would like.”
• “I know it’s not that you want to hear.”

Yes: Michael Colon (video min. 1:27:07)

• “I’m not going to speculate on a lot of what if, what could be.”
• “Full transparency. My brother lives in your neighborhood.”
• “A lot of times when we are making these decisions it is not a matter of all eggs in one basket or the other.”
• “Taking all things into account . . . I think this project . . . will be a net positive with some disruptions.”
• “I also fully believe that Mr. Connell will stand behind his comments . . . [not] making a liar out of a few us . . . we believe he has every intent to work with the neighbors.”
• “Never do we make everybody happy.
• “And really what his background and history are in connection to this neighborhood, to his tenants, I’m going to support this project.”

No: J. William Reynolds (video min. 1:29:21)

• “This is not the end of the conversation. Yes or No tonight is not the end of this conversation.”
• “Whatever happens here tonight, it’s still going to require the cooperation of the neighbors, of Mr. Connell, of the City Planning Commission, of the City Administration.”
• “A lot of the issues tonight that came up are issues that I don’t believe fit exactly into a zoning conversation.”
• “Those questions . . . should not go into conversations about . . . zoning.”
• “You hear a lot of different things that people want from those neighborhoods . . . those business on Broad St., they want more people, and they want more people living downtown, and when you look at kind of why we struggle there along Broad Street, a lot of it comes down to the fact that we don’t have more people.”
• “Whether or not two parcels here get rezoned or not, I think it’s safe to say that in some way, we are going to get more people here on this lot.”
• “And we do need commercial development, and I always bristle when somebody uses that word ‘commercial intrusion’ . . . we want those mixed uses.”
• “With that being said, I do realize that there is a spirit here of what people want . . . It’s a spirit you don’t find everywhere in these neighborhoods.”
• “I’m not convinced here that there is not a project that is not going to help out the Northside, that’s going to help out Broad Street, that’s going to help out the neighborhood that doesn’t necessarily include these two properties.”
• “There are a lot of options here that don’t require different zoning.”
• “It’s also entirely possible that Mr. Connell can build a building here that doesn’t include these two properties that people are not going to like either.”
• “With that being said, I’m not convinced that he needs these two houses to be rezoned.”

Where did you stand? How did your views compare to our Councilpersons?

Lots interesting to chew on here.

Next time . . .

Festival UnBound
Ten days of original theatre, dance, music, art and conversation designed to celebrate and imagine our future together!
October 4-13

(11th in a series of posts about 11 and 15 W. Garrison St.)

It was a week ago that Gadfly presented the petitioner’s position in the case of the rezoning of 11 and 15 W. Garrison. In the meantime and ongoing, Gadfly’s attention has been on Touchstone Theatre’s Festival UnBound. However, we need to complete our train of thinking on this case before the next Council meeting even though Gadfly understands that there will be no second vote. For now, the rezoning of 11 and 15 W. Garrison died with the 4-3 vote against the petitioner at the October 1 Council meeting, but the petitioner does not have to return to Council for any plans he has for the rest of his properties on New and North Streets. The project itself is not dead.

October 1 City Council meeting video
minutes 22-1:08:00

A few posts back, Gadfly asked you to role play being a Councilperson weighing your decision on the rezoning of 11 and 15 W. Garrison.

You have heard the petitioner fairly presented. Now below let’s hear the neighbors.

Gadfly could boil these 11 testimonies down to a succinct paragraph or two. But what he loves to do — and what the ample space on a blog provides that a newspaper can’t — is enable you to hear the actual resident voices in full.

This is what the Gadfly project is all about — honest, healthy dialogue from all perspectives.

People speaking out and up. People enacting their right to petition their government. Democracy in action.

——

Gadfly apologizes if he didn’t catch names correctly.

Barbara Diamond (video 22:00)

• “Although development is essential to the growth of the City , I hope you will not lose sight of the considerable capacity of neighborhoods to produce well being among their residents and factor this in to your decision.”

Lauren Miller (video 27:15)

• “Community is the answer. And more people doesn’t mean community. Relationships are community. More floor space doesn’t mean community. . . . It very much can mean their isolation. . . . My question for Bethlehem is what matters most to us? . . . For me it’s people.” [Brings garden products to share, shows poster with pictures.]

Julie Codero (video 37:30)

• “This house is love, and I’m going to make it love. I’m going to turn it around, and I’m going to make you see this neighborhood is not shit, this neighborhood is not trash. . . . We have so much hope in that neighborhood. . . . I’ve always felt just loved and safe there. . . . I never envisioned when I purchased that house, that we would be thrown away so easily. . . . You are transforming a neighborhood into a disposable neighborhood, turning off the lights, and so many lights in that neighborhood.”

Sara Heidibrink-Bruno (video 42:05)

• “I didn’t think that I was necessarily going to not just own a home at this point in my life but also live in a community and a neighborhood that would organize in that way [throw a block party]. It was amazing. . . .That’s what you are dealing with here. . . . I want [my son] to grow up here.”

Jim Shofstall (video 44:45)

• “I’m a 3rd generation Bethlehemite living in the same house. . . . The City has done so much for our community. . . . It’s a different generation of love, a different generation of something special. This kind of building that’s proposed is going to tear down that genuine feeling of togetherness that we have. . . . Parking is at a premium. . . . a love in the neighborhood. . . . Traffic. . . . Our kids are at jeopardy. . . . We are afraid. . . . I’m so afraid that we are going to regress. . . . . It’s a life-giving place. . . . We’ve gone from baseball bats and knives . . . to a beautiful neighborhood.”

Lisa Robinson (video 49:10)

• “I used to live on _____ St. . . . I wouldn’t trade all the money in the world for what I have now. in what some people call the ghetto. . . . I want to stay there, I want to live there, and I want all these people to stay because we all get along”

Mr. and Mrs. Rafael Toledo (video 53:42)

• “We’re here because we care. . . . We just love where we live. . . . As a community we just don’t feel that it’s right. . . . Mr. Donchez, dig deep inside your heart. . . . Maybe somewhere else, but not here.”

Lita Medina (video 56:30)

• “We don’t mind progress, we don’t mind having more neighbors . . . but to put who-knows in there because there is no real plan. . . . Why does it have to come into W. Garrison St.? . . . We truly are a community. . . . We don’t see anything wrong with progress. Storefronts on our street really doesn’t belong.”

Bruce Haines (video 58:50)

• “Quite frankly I’m shocked that in-between the hearing and this meeting that the City Administration didn’t change your position. There’s no reason that the developer can’t build what he wants to build in the commercially zoned area of the City. . . . I implore you Mayor before there is even a vote tonight to change your position . . . and force the builder to build what he wants to build, which is reasonable, on the commercial space on New St. . . . It doesn’t put the City in a position where you are intruding into a residential neighborhood. . . . I think you need to start acting with the integrity to preserve the zoning ordinances as written.”

John Rothschild (video 1:04:08)

• “From my perspective, this looks like a clear example of spot zoning. And this would potentially change the character of this neighborhood in a negative way. . . . Something like that could go on my street. There’s no reason for this . . . rather than gouging another chunk out of this neighborhood.”

——

Now Mr. Morales took another approach and should be separated from the rest. Gadfly senses, in fact, that his approach was shared by some of the Council members.

Chris Morales (video 50:30)

• “Instead of always opposing new projects, figure out a way how we can invite that into a prosperous community we already have and how can we let more people in to our circle . . . how can we bring this project in to the current neighborhood and plug it in to what’s already there versus we don’t want anybody else to join our secret circle. . . . figure out a way that everybody wins.”

—–

Ok, now think like you were at the Head Table. There was a lot of emotion here — as one neighbor pointed out. There was crying, worry about kids, about friendships, about investments at stake that were not only financial. And this wasn’t just one or two neighbors, but probably as many as Gadfly has seen testifying in a case like this except for the 2 W. Market St.

In short, the neighborhood position is “Community Matters,” as Lauren Miller titled her poster.

Perhaps a classic confrontation, as one neighbor suggested, between economic development and community development.

Now let’s take a look at the decision.

Festival UnBound
Ten days of original theatre, dance, music, art and conversation designed to celebrate and imagine our future together!
October 4-13

(10th in a series of posts about 11 and 15 W. Garrison St.)

October 1 City Council meeting video
minutes 21:50-1:08:43 and minutes 1:11:13-1:34-30

So, as Gadfly hopes you witnessed by watching the video as he suggested in the last post, in their first reading, City Council defeated the proposal to rezone 11 and 15 W. Garrison by a 4-3 vote. Second reading will take place at Council October 15.

Gadfly is going to begin reflection on the Garrison decision presenting the petitioner’s perspective.

(Gadfly will avoid calling Mr. Connell “the developer,” a term that brings with it some baggage and has made him uncomfortable.)

You will remember that in the role-playing exercise two posts back, Gadfly opined that the petitioner had not “made his case.”

Well, then, the petitioner did make his case in this letter to Council, which it is very worthwhile for you to look at it detail:

Petitioner Letter on Garrison rezoning

Here are some of the things that Gadfly sees:

• his cordial, engaging tone
• his 50yr residence in Bethlehem
• he lives and works onsite
• he plans to continue to do so
• he is not an absentee landlord
• he’s a hands-on landlord
• he sees himself as a good landlord
• he sees himself as part of the community
• he is not “a developer”
• the project is for the good of the City
• he has done and does City public service
• the proposed building height is only half of what is allowed
• no commercial enterprise on Garrison St.
• no skimping on the buffer on Garrison
• the purpose of the sketch plan is to open dialogue
• the concept will evolve
• a promise that citizen concerns will be taken into account
• re-zoning is better than variances
• safety is  factor in project success
• he has supported community building on Garrison
• there will be a “community room” in the proposed building
• he is adding parking that he’s not required to do
• only 2 or 3 commercial spaces on New St., which has typically had 4 or 5
• sinkholes are very unlikely
• alignment with the City’s Comprehensive Plan
• the letter is very well written

The petitioner did not say much at the meeting. He and his attorney spoke at the end of a long train of powerful, almost entirely negative resident voices — an unenviable position.

(Parenthetically, the petitioner’s comical self-reference to the devil incarnate with horns at the beginning and end of his short remarks probably refers to Gadfly’s depiction of the stereotypical perception of developers in an earlier post.)

• I created the environment that these people are enjoying, and I am 100% behind what is happening in this neighborhood.
• No one is going to be displaced because of what I am proposing.
• Community is good for me, it’s good for my tenants, it’s good for the neighborhood, it’s good for the City.
• I have shown through 36 yrs of ownership of property in this neighborhood that I can create an environment and support the tenants that are there and the neighbors that are there.
• I don’t intend to change that, I intend to encourage that.
• I’m approaching this from the standpoint of an open dialogue.
• The feedback at the hearing last week and the feedback tonight is a part of that dialogue.

The attorney reiterated the evolving process and the petitioner’s desire for dialog, his commitment to community, and his plans to live in the new building.

• A re-zoning request does not actually commit [the petitoner] to the project everybody is talking about.
• If we make promises to the Council, it would be something called contract zoning.
• We request this as a rezoning to enable us to move forward and have a dialog with the City and with you and to allow us to incorporate that into the overall plan.
• If approved, this would still have to go through the Planning Office.
• [The petitioner] really does care, he intends to live in the apartment he will construct.
• He doesn’t want to see the neighborhood being destroyed.
• He wants to help you and promote the continued growth and happiness in the neighborhood .
• We are happy to listen to any requests.

Gadfly has not been around all that long. He still considers that he’s participating in his first rodeo.

But he certainly has not yet seen anything close to this petitioner’s mode of “making his case.”

And Gadfly appreciates his sense of humor — saying in private communication that he was going to have to start calling me “spotted lanternfly.”

Now that tickles Gadfly immensely.

Gadfly likes a guy with a sense of humor and who writes so well.

Let’s move on to a similarly closer look at the public testimony and then to the fullish reasoning behind each of the Council member votes in that tight 4-3 decision.

Festival UnBound
Ten days of original theatre, dance, music, art and conversation designed to celebrate and imagine our future together!
October 4-13

(9th in a series of posts about 11 and 15 W. Garrison St.)

The portion of the October 1 City Council meeting dealing with the re-zoning of 11 and 15 W. Garrison was rather amazing.

Gadfly hasn’t seen any newspaper stories about the decision (did he miss?), so maybe you haven’t heard the decision.

All the better.

In the previous post, Gadfly asked you to role play being a Councilperson with him, going over all the things that might be in your head as you approached a decision.

Ok, now let’s see what happened, and how the end result (though there will be a second vote next meeting) matched your thinking.

As always, Gadfly likes you to consider the primary sources and make up your own mind before we analyze here.

Gadfly thinks you will find the testimony and deliberation very, very interesting.

So look at minutes 21:50-1:08:43 and minutes 1:11:13-1:34-30.

(A great time to thank President Waldron and other members of Council and the Administration for providing the video capability for us!)

Festival UnBound
Ten days of original theatre, dance, music, art and conversation designed to celebrate and imagine our future together!
October 4-13

(8th in a series of posts about 11 and 15 W. Garrison St.)

Gadfly loves to role play. It’s the English major in him.

Play along.

Pretend you are a Councilperson at the Head Table tonight.

What’s going through your mind when the Garrison St. rezoning comes up?

You are going to give somebody pain.

A neighborhood rests in your hands.

Think it through.

Quality of the physical environment:

The 700 block of N. New St. and the top of W. Garrison: pretty nice area, well-maintained homes, clean, no blight, certainly not an eye-sore, not close to needing rehab, the one missing tooth is the result of a sinkhole. The home on the corner of New and Garrison is really kind of interesting architecturally. Nothing crying out for change here. So, is the proposed development so strong as to overpower a stable status quo?

Quality of the resident environment:

A cluster of Garrison residents testified — both highly emotionally and more straightforward — to the powerful sense of community in the Garrison neighborhood and to the beauty and unique elements of their homes. They raised concerns about the destruction of that community feeling, about the impact on their children, and about scale, security, safety, the impact of construction in a sinkhole area, and so forth. But how many neighbors must come forward to sway me? What about the other hundred people in that block? And what if those testifiers don’t come to the first and second reading? What am I to make of that? Does that mean I can discount them? How do I truly know if I am feeling the pulse of the neighborhood, of the community?

The developer:

Hmm, seemed like a good guy. I sense the neighbors feel that way about him. His name and other work (if he has any) are not familiar to me — I know of no baggage as comes with some developers. But I can’t approve his proposal because he’s a good guy. He’s the one proposing the change. He’s the one disrupting or destroying a neighborhood seeming stable architecturally and community-wise. He’s got “to make a compelling and convincing case.” What is his case? He said he’s following the Comprehensive Plan about building apartments in the downtown area. He said he may look into housing for veterans. But his plans were very vague. He said he’s just at the beginning of a long journey. He was definite about a limit on the height of the building. But the rendering he exhibited may not represent the final project. And I’m sensitive to the strong point made by an audience member that it would be a mistake to approve without a clear, definite idea what the end game is. There should be no blank check. I’m not sure the developer’s “made a case.”

The City:

What has the City to gain from approving the rezoning? Why should the City see rezoning to commercial as desirable? One answer might be more tax revenue. The City could always use it — pensions and public services like police and fire that can’t really be cut dominate the budget. We’d like to have money for a new this and that. Our list of deferred budget items is long. But I’d like a figure, even ballpark. I remember the example CM Callahan keeps making of the way the Zest building at 3rd and New — built on a minimally taxable vacant lot — has enriched the tax coffers. But this situation is different. These are tax revenue properties on Garrison and New. What will be the tax consequence, even in ballpark terms. I’d like to know what the price for disrupting or destroying a stable community is. Is it worth it? What does “the property will generate more tax revenue” specifically mean? Another answer to what the City might get out of this project is more apartments close to downtown, more people spending money downtown. Now that is an oft-expressed goal. The project could be good for business. But  we have Skyline, Boyd, 548 N. New, Martin Tower — getting close to a thousand new apartments coming online. Do we need more if it means disrupting or destroying a neighborhood?

This is fun, isn’t it?

The politics:

I know a common sentiment — true or not — is that the City and Council favor developers, are in the pocket of the developers. I don’t want to be seen that way. I’m an independent thinker. But the developer has rights and the City has goals and needs.

Your decision:

Ha! so where are you on the issue of rezoning 11 and 15 W. Garrison St.?

Let’s see what happens tonight. With luck, Council members will give us an inside look into their thought processes and we can compare.

Remember that the Council meeting can be followed live as well as seen later in the archived video.

A neighborhood at stake maybe.

And Gadfly will report back, perhaps with some audio and video as well.

Festival UnBound
Ten days of original theatre, dance, music, art and conversation designed to celebrate and imagine our future together!
October 4-13