Category: Serious Issues

What’s this “variable rate pricing” all about?

(125th in a series of posts on parking)

So we said Council is going to consider two topics from the Bethlehem Parking Authority tonight at the Public Safety meeting:

1) increasing the parking fine structure

2) adopting variable rate pricing

We discussed the fines, now variable rate pricing.

Here’s the report on variable rate pricing prepared by the BPA consultant Kimley-Horn:

BPA Variable Rate Memorandum 8-28-19

Right now, Gadfly believes, the meter parking rate of $1.50/hr. is universal — all places, all times — throughout the City whether you are out on West Broad, in front of the Moravian Book Shop, or tasting a dainty at Lit.

Variable rate pricing —also known as demand-responsive pricing, or performance pricing—means setting curbside parking meter rates based on demand in a block or zone at a particular time of day. The goal is to make sure there are always a few open spaces per block and encourage people to park only as long as they need. Theoretically, this arrangement should enable more customers to shop or eat in a business district.

In other words, parking could be cheaper on West Broad than at the Moravian Book Shop or cheaper Tuesday morning at Lit than Friday night.

In other words, a parking space might be worth more on the 500 block of Main St. on a summer Friday evening than it would on a Tuesday morning.

In other words, the same parking space might even cost different prices at different times of the same day.

Get it?

The question is, should the Bethlehem Parking Authority adopt variable rate pricing?

This concept of variable rate parking entered Gadfly’s wordhouse before he was Gadfly, in the middle of 2018 when there was public discussion of the major parking study done by DESMAN for the Bethlehem Parking Authority.

As part of his approval of the increase of parking meter rates that went into effect January 1, 2019, the Mayor requested that the BPA “consider” variable rate pricing. The Mayor was responding to urging by some members of the public and of City Council in doing so.

The corollary and more basic question is, what current problem would variable rate pricing address?

Gadfly is not sure what that problem is.

Gadfly wishes that problem were identified, isolated, and presented for the consultant to specifically address in the report.

As is, we have a general report on variable rate pricing that is not specifically focused on any reason for the inquiry in the first place.

So Gadfly finds it hard to judge the consultant’s report, which does not recommend the City adopt VRP.

Gadfly remembers these things relevant to VRP from that 2018 public discussion:

  • criticism that the DESMAN report did not investigate or include the potential application of innovative policies and strategies like VRP when we already had the technology to implement it
  • possible usefulness in the Northside downtown
  • laments from Westsiders

That said, these sections of the consultant report stood out to Gadfly:

  • “While system-wide on-street parking occupancy levels never exceeded 60% and 48% in the Northside and Southside, respectively, occupancy on certain streets and block faces did reach or exceed 85% which is a general measure of parking stress. In Northside, the three blocks bound by East Broad Street, E. Market Street, Main Street, and North New Street had peak weekday occupancy percentages between 75% and 100%. Interestingly, the Walnut Street Garage, which exists within that block and has 777 spaces, only achieved a 69% occupancy rate and had 240 available spaces.”
  • “The pattern of peak on-street parking utilization in Southside was erratic with one side of the street exhibiting low occupancy percentages while the other side of the street exhibits high occupancy. The only consistent pattern of parking occupancy was along East Packer Avenue between Vine Street and Ryan Street/Fillmore Street, an area that is clearly influenced by Lehigh University. According to DESMAN’s report (see Lot T and Table 10 from that document), the 602-space parking garage in that location was only 10% utilized during this same period.”
  • “Curbside parking is best when managed to serve short duration, high-turnover activity and uses such as retail, restaurant, and theater are particularly dependent on that supply of spaces. In turn, the management and pricing of those spaces is quite relevant.”
  • “Regarding meter performance data, the IPS meters do not have the sensor (occupancy/vacancy) feature which further encourages parking compliance, short-duration of stay, and higher turnover through effective enforcement, and the BPA’s sensor puck pilot program did not prove worthwhile. As such, the BPA cannot collect real time data on parking utilization and turnover.”
  • “Parking utilization as reported in the 2018 study did identify fourteen (14) of the seventy-two (72) block faces in Southside and five (5) of the forty-one (41) block faces in Northside had occupancy percentages at or above 85% [indicating stress]. But as a system, the two areas achieved only 49% (Southside) and 64% (Northside) occupancy during the peak hour.”

Without a specific problem to address, Gadfly is not sure how to judge the consultant’s conclusion that VRP is not recommended for us:

Based on our review of the Desman report and on our own research conducted as part of this project, Kimley-Horn does not believe that performance-based, dynamic, or progressive on-street parking rates should be implemented at this time. This opinion is based on the fact that curbside utilization is relatively low, there are no large concentrations of intense demand, current monthly and hourly rates are low and offer no variability between on-street and off-street transient rates, and the level of effort and cost required to collect the necessary performance data is prohibitive given the size of the BPA and its budget. The City and BPA could pilot test variable rates based on location and/or time of day for specific streets or blocks but significant surpluses on adjacent streets/blocks and within nearby off-street lots and garage would suggest that the increased rates would simply drive parkers to these other areas of lesser utilization.

Perhaps a pilot program?

Gadfly is just not sure where discussion of this issue will go with Council or if there is an issue here that we should be concerned about.

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

At least a tree with each new build

(11th in a series of posts about 548 N. New St.)

Kate McVey is a concerned citizen, 30-year resident of Bethlehem, professional organizer, dog owner, mother of two children, been around, kosher cook . . . explorer.

ref: Who’s in charge of beauty in Bethlehem?

Gadfly,

As you will notice, there is not a tree or any other living thing in front of the building [548 N. New]. Also if you look at [the developer’s] property on Union (Black Box, 124 W. Union), there is nothing but a weed here and there.

I listened recently to a speaker from PHS (PA Horticulture Society) speak about the importance of trees to a city. I wish I could remember the statistics, but the de-forestation of PA is a real concern. Bethlehem likes to put up signs about being Tree City USA but does nothing, requires nothing of builders, to support the citizens who have trees on their property. There is nothing to encourage a person to plant a tree.

I think this should be mandatory on any new building that there be some sort of greenery and at least a tree with each new build.

Kate

And the Union building is not a “bungalow,” which is defined as “a one-storied house with a low-pitched roof.” Just sayin’.

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

Gadfly’s voodoo economics

(124th in a series of posts on parking)

Fine Recommendation Memo 8.20.19

The July 2 pro forma

Gadfly was expecting disappointment.

So he was not disappointed.

It would have been nice to have awoken this morning to a mailbag full of solutions to the math homework problem he posed yesterday afternoon.

Is there a way to re-vision the mix of meter rates and fines to put the onus on the violators through even heavier fines, while easing the recent meter increase on the law-abiding residents?

Put more simply, the goal was to see if it were feasible to roll the parking meter rates back to $1.00/hr. while voting on a new fine structure:

penalizing the law-breakers,
giving a break to the law-abiders,
and providing the Bethlehem Parking Authority a fair financial shake.

In its proposal linked above, the BPA estimates that their fine recommendations will produce a meter revenue increase of $75,000‐$100,000 annually.

In the “pro forma” the BPA presented at Council July 2, also linked above, that figure for meter revenue increase is $292,378.

Gadfly doesn’t understand the difference (and wonders if he is misunderstanding the chart), but let’s use the higher figure for our mathematizing here.

Now listen up everybody. Let’s see if Gadfly is thinking straight.

Here’s how he states the proposition.

The goal is to keep the meter rate at $1.00/hr. How much would the fine revenue have to be increased to enable that to happen and still produce $292,378 in income for the BPA?

Whew!

Now for some voodoo economics.

Here is an image from the pro forma linked above showing columns from 2018 (when the meter rates were $1.00/hr.) and 2019 (when the meter rates are $1.50/hr.). The 2019 column also shows the proposed fine increase, though it actually hasn’t gone into effect.

The bottom circled section shows the increased meter revenue of $292,378.

BPA fines 2

The top circled section shows an assumed number of violations as 62,942.

According to Voodoo Gadfly’s thinking, if you divide 62,942 into $292,378, you get the amount you would have to raise the fines on each violation to break even.

$4.645197165644562

(If we used BPA’s lower figure of, say, $100,000 as a target figure instead of almost $300,000 in the pro forma, then presumably the fine increase on each violation would only have to be 1/3 of $4.645197165644562.)

Now Gadfly pauses to see if he gets slapped upside the head for faulty thinking here.

If this thinking passes muster, then the question is would rolling the meter rate back to $1.00/hr. and raising the fine for a meter violation to at most $20 be ok?

BPA is now proposing raising the fine for a meter violation to $15. Would at most $20 be ok or seen as excessive?

Maybe worth a conversation. Gadfly can see arguments on both sides.

Remember this from Desman, the BPA consultant: “Parking industry standards suggest that the fine for non‐payment of a parking meter or other parking meter violations be priced at least 10‐15 times the hourly parking rate.”

The BPA proposal before Council raises the violation rate (from the base of $1.00/hr.) to 15 times the hourly parking rate.

But “at least 10‐15 times” would seem to indicate that at most 20 times wouldn’t cause apoplexy.

Gadfly, of course, may be way, way, way off in his mathematizing here. But his purpose is simply to stir thought about options to the BPA proposal.

The prime reason, says BPA, for raising the rate is that the present fine structure is not a deterrence to bad behavior. A good reason. So let’s punish the bad behaviorers.

To Gadfly, raising the rate because we will not look bad in comparison to our peers is not so good a reason.

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

Peter punches! Pow!

(The latest in a series of posts relating to the environment, Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan, and Bethlehem’s Environmental Advisory Council)

Gadfly and Kate:

Might be a good stress reliever.

Just a reminder that spreading to new areas is common for most species; in the era of global warming, that will increase as temperatures exceed the range in which they can survive.

There is, of course, no contest for what is probably the most invasive species of all time — humans.

Peter Crownfield

So, Gadfly, show us 11 and 15 W. Garrison!

(6th in a series of posts about 11 and 15 W. Garrison St.)

The proposal to re-zone 11 and 15 W. Garrison as part of a major project taking up the entire 700 block of New St. is up for a first reading at Council tonight.

We have a substantial thread on this issue already.

But here are some visuals!

Be thinking about what factors you would weigh in making the decision facing Council tonight.

What would you do if you were at the Head Table?

We’ll come back and discuss.

City Council meeting tomorrow night Tuesday October 1

Our next City Council meeting — the “face” of Bethlehem City government — occurs tomorrow night Tuesday, October 1, Town Hall, at 7PM.

This meeting is video-recorded and can be viewed LIVE or later at your convenience on the City’s website after the meeting at http://www.bethlehem-pa.gov > Quick Links > City Council Meeting Agendas and Documents.

The YouTube channel is “City of Bethlehem Council.”

The City web site is inactive because the new version is being aborn’d.

So find the agenda here: City Council Agenda 10 01 2019

Of interest to Gadfly followers will be discussion and vote of the Parking Authority matters we are in the midst of discussing here and the 11 and 15 W. Garrison re-zoning, which we have thread on, and which Gadfly will post again on tonight and/or tomorrow.

As always, as long as he has flutter in his wings, Gadfly urges attending, one way or the other.

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

Wanted: people with math skills to think about the BPA proposal to increase parking fines

(123rd in a series of posts on parking)

So Council is going to consider two topics from the Bethlehem Parking Authority tomorrow:

1) increasing the parking fine structure

2) adopting variable rate pricing

Let’s take them one at a time, the fine issue first.

Here’s the proposal cum rationale prepared by the Desman BPA consultant for increasing the fines:

Fine Recommendation Memo 8.20.19

To keep it simple, let’s use this one specific example. Meter parking is now $1.50/hr. The fine for a violation is now $10. If you work an 8hr. day in downtown Northside and want to “squat” in a valuable space, instead of feeding the meter $12, you can not feed the meter and pay a fine of only $10. The new proposal would raise the fine to $15. And if you want just to park for a short time to do some quick shopping but let the meter run out, then you would pay $15 instead of the current $10, a 50% increase.

Here are the main points of the Desman/BPA proposal for the increases.

Background:

  • “Parking citations and fines are a method to make parking as equitable as possible for those that following the parking regulations and those that do not.”
  • “The purpose of this memo is to review and evaluate the City of Bethlehem’s parking violation fines in comparison to peer cities.”
  • “Parking industry standards suggest that the fine for non‐payment of a parking meter or other parking meter violations be priced at least 10‐15 times the hourly parking rate.”

Rationale:

  • “The current fine schedule is not penal enough to encourage motorists to simply pay for parking instead of breaking the law [because] the number of parking violation tickets issued over the past five years has increased by more than 300%
    by the end of 2018.”  [Breaking the rules is now not being deterred.]
  • “In Bethlehem, the fine for parking at an expired meter and the fine for parking in
    excess of the posted time limit in non‐metered spaces (such as in residential permit parking areas) is less than half of the average of the cities examined.”  [Raising our fines would not be excessive.]
  • “These increases will bring the fine amounts for parking meter violations in Bethlehem closer to those of the peer cities examined.”  [We would no longer be an outlier on the lower end.]
  • “The Authority is responsible to provide reliable services to the general public on a continuous basis and shall be financed by costs recovered primarily through user charges. As such, the Authority has the fiduciary responsibility to ensure its properties are properly maintained to generate necessary user fees to cover operational costs and debt service.”  [The BPA has a responsibility to raise its operating expenses.]

Financial impact:

  • “This could result in $75,000‐$100,000 annually, roughly a 2‐3% increase, in additional parking meter revenue.”

Things to consider:

  • The goal in all this should be to help the resident as much as possible (cost-wise as well as quality-of-service-wise) while, of course, maintaining the fiscal stability of the BPA.
  • Does BPA need the $75,000‐$100,000 annual revenue increase? In the draft “pro forma” presented to Council on July 2, the BPA says it doesn’t need the increase in fines to finance the Polk Street Garage. It has enough revenue just with the meter increase.
  • Does BPA need the $75,000‐$100,000 annual revenue increase? The BPA just gained $200,000 by choosing what some (many?) people thought was a less desirable bid for the retail/residential aspect of Polk Street.
  • In fact, no, BPA does not make its case in its own proposal on the need for money: the purpose of the Desman study is focused on comparison with peer cities, with whom we are out of step.
  • So, if BPA doesn’t need the money, why should we care that our rates are low — since low rates are a good thing for our residents?
  • In fact, no, the point BPA prioritizes is the lack of penal power in the fine structure, which may be fostering an injustice against those who follow the law and which may be adversely affecting the circulation of available parking spaces.
  • So, as has been suggested here in these pages by Dana Grubb, is there a way to re-vision the mix of meter rates and fines to put the onus on the violators through even heavier fines, while easing the recent meter increase on the law-abiding residents?
  • Or is that a bridge too far?

What would it take to reduce meter rates?

Gadfly — whose claim to specialized knowledge ends at the fact that he knows 9 uses of the comma — is way out over his ski’s here.

But here goes . . . humbly.

Desman says that raising the fines “could result in $75,000‐$100,000 annually, roughly a 2‐3% increase, in additional parking meter revenue.”

The “pro forma” BPA presented at the July 2 Council meeting — IF GADFLY IS READING IT CORRECTLY — has a different figure: $292,378.

See line 30, page 3:

$2,268,925: 2019 projected meter revenue @ $1.50/hr.
$1,976,547: 2018 (presumably) actual meter revenue @ $1.00/hr.
—————
$292,378: increase as a result of raise in meter rate from $1.00 to $1.50

So, if in the pro forma financial scenario the meter rate is roll-backed to $1.00/hr., how much would the fines have to be increased to bring in $292,378 and break even?

Of course, if we take Desman’s figure of a $75,000‐$100,000 annual increase, the amount of the fine increase would be even less.

So, in the Desman financial scenario, if the meter rate is roll-backed to $1.00/hr., how much would the fines have to be increased to bring in $75,000-100,000 and break even?

Is Gadfly making sense? Is he thinking logically? Math people, speak up! EEL, are you out there?

Is anybody still awake?

Herewith find Gadfly trying, trying to open up some options to the BPA proposal that might help residents . . . trying valiantly.

Gadfly just cannot see raising the rate just to get in step with our peers, which seems a kind of never-ending cycle, nor can he see why if the main reason for the increase is violators, others are swept in.

But he admits budgets and statistics and math mystify him, and he waits for a well-deserved slap upside the head.

And this took more time than the lunch hour, dammit, and he just missed yoga.

Namaste

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

Council to consider both increasing parking violation fines and variable rate parking

(122nd in a series of posts on parking)

So 5:30pm tomorrow the City Council Public Safety Committee (Colon, Negron, Van Wirt) will entertain not only the Bethlehem Parking Authority’s proposal for an increased fine structure but also consideration — suggested by the Mayor as a result of public and Council interest — of variable rate meter pricing.

And it looks like there will be discussion and voting on them in the Council meeting that immediately follows the Committee meeting.

As always in Gadville, we go to the primary sources with (as best we can) an open mind.

So here are the two pertinent documents from the BPA:

Fine Recommendation Memo 8.20.19

BPA Variable Rate Memorandum 8-28-19

As best Gadfly can tell from his own so far only quick perusal of the fine document, the increases are the same as proposed in 2018.

Gadfly will only note at this point that he has heard no outcry in the 3/4’s of a year that the fines have been out of line with the meters about public disgruntlement at and/or loss of revenue by the BPA.

Doesn’t mean there hasn’t been any, just that same has not reached his ears.

Now variable rate pricing might be unfamiliar to many followers.

Here’s a definition by the BPA consultant:

Variable rate pricing —also known as demand-responsive pricing, or performance pricing—means setting curbside parking meter rates based on demand in a block or zone at a particular time of day. The goal is to make sure there are always a few open spaces per block and encourage people to park only as long as they need. Theoretically, this arrangement should enable more customers to shop or eat in a business district.

I understand it to mean that the BPA has the technological ability to vary the meter rates at different locations and different times of the day. Pretty cool.

Here is the consultant’s conclusion:

Based on our review of the Desman report and on our own research conducted as part of this project, Kimley-Horn does not believe that performance-based, dynamic, or progressive on-street parking rates should be implemented at this time. This opinion is based on the fact that curbside utilization is relatively low, there are no large concentrations of intense demand, current monthly and hourly rates are low and offer no variability between on-street and off-street transient rates, and the level of effort and cost required to collect the necessary performance data is prohibitive given the size of the BPA and its budget. The City and BPA could pilot test variable rates based on location and/or time of day for specific streets or blocks but significant surpluses on adjacent streets/blocks and within nearby off-street lots and garage would suggest that the increased rates would simply drive parkers to these other areas of lesser utilization.

So, let’s chew on these two good topics over lunch!

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

The “fine” situation comes to a head

(121st in a series of posts on parking)

It may not be the Gunfight at the OK Corral.

But it’s important.

And it should be interesting.

Tomorrow Tuesday October 1, 5:30pm, Town Hall, the Council Public Safety Committee (Colon, Negron, Van Wirt) will consider the Bethlehem Parking Authority’s proposal to increase their fine/violation $$$ structure.

Followers will remember the conflict between Council and the BPA during the last half of 2018.

We live under the strange, arbitrary, and probably changeable situation in which the Mayor governs meter rates, Council the fines.

The Mayor approved BPA’s request to increase meter rates as of January 1, 2019, but Council did not approve their proposal to raise the fines on that date, a contentious process well covered here on Gadfly. Take a look at the archives. (What will future city historians do without the Gadfly archives?)

So, since January 1 the meter rates and the violation rates are severely out of balance.

Tomorrow is the time to straighten things out.

Looks like the issue will come up to full Council immediately after the committee meeting tomorrow because it is an agenda item.

We should think about this.

Prepare by taking a few minutes to review previous Gadfly posts on this specific fine issue.

These posts are in reverse chronological order.

Another idea relating to the Parking Authority proposal to increase the fine structure

Why not reward Bethlehem residents with a meter-rate rollback?

The proposed increase in parking fines

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

Require future mega-warehouse developments to dedicate rooftop space for solar generation

(The latest in a series of posts relating to the environment, Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan, and Bethlehem’s Environmental Advisory Council)

Bill Gontram is a Philly transplant happy to find a nice quality of life on the Southside.

Gadfly:

EAC’s solar panel entreaty got me thinking. Given that the Lehigh Valley and especially Bethlehem with close proximity to I-78 is such a desirable (profitable) location for mega-warehouse development, it should be a requirement for future developments to dedicate rooftop space for solar generation. The added cost should be minimal (or zero with a PPA ) and well within the developer’s feasibility requirements. It should also be possible to purchase rooftop easements on existing buildings to allow installation by solar companies as well as municipalities.

Bill

Hmmm, Gadfly seems to recall an article or study on this subject that passed through the blog, but he can’t find it now. Can anybody give us a reference?

And isn’t the sentiment Bill provided in his by-line sooooo good!

The mayor needs to hear more than the developers’ voices

Peter Crownfield is officially retired but spends most of his time working with students in his role as internship coordinator for the Alliance for Sustainable Communities–Lehigh Valley.

Gadfly:

Great series [Peter means the Kim Carrell-Smith 4-part series on thoughtful planning; see part 1 here], although asking the City administration & council and agencies like BPA to pay attention to common sense and evidence of greater economic vitality seems to be a lost cause when all they hear is the developers’ voices.

I remember Mayor Donchez once assuring people that he met weekly with key developers. A weekly meeting with you & Karen Beck Pooley & Breena Holland would have been a better use of his time and of greater benefit to the city.

Peter

Yiii, does the Mayor meet weekly with key developers?

Sounds of the student strike

(The latest in a series of posts relating to the environment, Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan, and Bethlehem’s Environmental Advisory Council)

Gadfly’s a shy guy. Not much for public speaking. Seeger

And really not a strike, rally, demonstration kind of guy.

Except for the singing, that is. He would sing along.

Like with Peter, Paul, and Mary (Peter was at Sellersville yesterday!).

And with Pete Seeger. Whose spirit will visit us next Saturday.

But, as Gadfly realizes, strikes / rallies / demonstrations have an important role to play in empowering and consolidating change agents, galvanizing public opinion, and fostering political change.

And such activity by students is especially noteworthy.

Gadfly couldn’t get to the student Global Climate Strike at Payrow Plaza week ago Friday.

So he’s glad that follower Dan did and provides us with some audio that captures the bubbling passion the issue of climate change generates.

The chants:

The demands:

The danger (storms):

The apocalypse (pre-teen):

The political action group (Sunrise):

The environmental group (Sierra):

The elected official (Tara Zrinski):

The things you can do (10 ways):

The religious perspective (Muslim):

Gadfly knows that climate change issues are dear to the heart of many followers.

If you were there on Payrow Plaza or at some such other gathering, what would you say to gain the attention of the crowd when the mic was passed to you?

Interesting thought experiment.

Gadfly invites your comments.

It’s Sunday, September 29, do you know where your local Climate Action Plan is?

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

The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) follows up with the Parking Authority and gets good news

(The latest in a series of posts relating to the environment, Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan, and Bethlehem’s Environmental Advisory Council)

Lynn Rothman chairs the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC).

9/25/19 Bethlehem Parking Authority

Good afternoon. My name is Lynn Rothman, speaking on behalf of the Bethlehem EAC.

I’m here today so that we can both put faces to the names in the EAC’s July letter to you. As you may know, the City of Bethlehem is embarking on a Climate Action Plan with the goal of reducing our ghg emissions for the health, well-being and sustainability of ourselves and future generations.

To help our City achieve this goal, we entreat the BPA to put solar panels on the proposed
Polk Street Garage, as well as existing and future garages. As shown in the photographs of other garages that were included in our letter, solar panels do not appear to inhibit the
available parking area.

The Authority could purchase solar panels, and through energy savings, recoup the initial investment over a period of years, thereafter reducing or eliminating the cost of electricity.

The EAC also wants to be sure you are aware of financing options for solar systems that
require no upfront costs.

A Power Purchase Agreement, or PPA, requires no upfront costs and entails having a solar provider own and maintain your solar system. The PPA provider may qualify for tax credits and accelerated depreciation. Under this scenario the Authority would agree to purchase electricity from the provider for 20 yrs. During that time the provider is responsible for all maintenance. After 20 yrs. the Parking Authority would have the option to continue or to purchase the solar system. Depending upon the size of the system, the price the PA would pay should be close to the going rate for electricity.

Even better, you could apply any excess power generated at the Polk Street garage to other garages within 2 miles. This is called virtual net metering.

Detailed information is available from solar providers that work with financial institutions.

Another possible option would be Commercially Assessed Clean Energy or C-PACE. No
upfront cost is required, rather a loan for the solar system would be tied to the property.
It’s unclear whether the Parking Authority would qualify for C-PACE, but you can find out by speaking with a representative from the Sustainable Energy Fund. SEF will be
overseeing the C-PACE program and is currently working with Northampton County on a
cooperative agreement.

As stated in our letter, we also recommend that new structures use a sustainable design
and LED lighting. We advise that trees be planted as densely as possible on the property to sequester carbon, help clean the air, provide cooling and aesthetically enhance the entire development.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Lynn hadn’t heard anything after the July letter to the BPA. She found that the letter had somehow gone astray, but the BPA exec director told her, “The BPA is working towards sustainability. 100% of the BPA facilities should have LED lighting by next yr. At least 90%  of facilities are currently equipped with LED lighting. BPA has a consultant looking at solar comprehensively for all garages as opposed to a singular garage. EV charging stations are also prominent.”

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

Need independent thinkers on the authorities, boards, and commissions (the ABC’s)

(120th in a series of posts on parking)

Dana Grubb is a lifelong resident of the City of Bethlehem who worked 27 years for the City of Bethlehem in the department of community and economic development, as sealer of weights and measures, housing rehabilitation finance specialist, grants administrator, acting director of community and economic development, and deputy director of community development.

Gadfly:

First, thank you for going and presenting these thoughts. To coin a familiar phrase, “You’re a better man than I, Mr. Gallagher” (Gunga Din).

Second, the fact that nobody on that board would move and second that your thoughts as a resident be included in the meeting minutes speaks volumes about the rubber stamping that appears to be the norm with this and other authorities, boards and commissions in Bethlehem.

What we need to happen is for Mayors with City Council’s approval to begin appointing independent thinkers to the ABCs, so that thoughtful and considerate decision-making takes place within the periphery of city government. Only then will the community be placed first instead of special and personal interests.

Dana

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

The real threatening “toxic dust cloud” approaching is not political

(The latest in a series of posts relating to the environment, Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan, and Bethlehem’s Environmental Advisory Council)

Peter Crownfield is officially retired but spends most of his time working with students in his role as internship coordinator for the Alliance for Sustainable Communities–Lehigh Valley.

Gadfly:

An invisible “toxic dust cloud” is indeed approaching, but it’s not the political noise from DC. The underlying corruption is nearly a constant. Sometimes it’s more visible / blatant, sometimes almost invisible or concealed by “civil” manners.

The real threat right is the threat from less-visible, more-fatal systemic changes. I’ll just give two examples:

1. Our industrialized food system relies on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, undermining our health and destroying the web of life on which we all depend.

2. Global warming & climate change threaten the future and the Sixth Great Extinction is underway, with entire species dying off at an estimated 1,000 times the normal background rate.

Two things, however, are very visible: an exponential increase in extreme weather events and widespread failure to take action to mitigate GHG emissions and to adapt to the changes that are on the way. Greta Thunberg’s comparison was apt — people are watching the latest entertainments & news distractions while the house is on fire.

Peter

It’s Friday, September 27, do you know where your local Climate Action Plan is?

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

Past climate change due to natural feedbacks

(The latest in a series of posts relating to the environment, Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan, and Bethlehem’s Environmental Advisory Council)

Benjamin Felzer is an associate professor at Lehigh University in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. Ben has expertise in climate and terrestrial ecosystem modeling, and his research focuses on biogeochemical cycling of carbon, nitrogen, and other substances between the land and atmosphere.

Gadfly:

The reason why the terminology changed from “global warming” to “climate change” has nothing to do with the science. Rather, Republican pollster Frank Luntz, based on focus groups, determined that “climate change” was less threatening politically than “global warming.” What we are experiencing now is, in fact, global warming. That does not mean there is warming at every location on the earth or that every year is warmer than the preceding year (as there is interannual variability due to things like ENSO), but that on average, global temperatures over climatic timescales of 15-30 years or so continue to increase.

What past climate change tells us is that almost every major climate change in earth’s history is either caused by or amplified by changing levels of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide or methane). When greenhouse gas levels go up, the world warms; when they go down, the world cools. Glacial/interglacial cycles were amplified by changing CO2 levels, the warm Eocene (55 million years ago) saw an outburst of methane, the warm Cretaceous (100 million years ago) had high CO2 levels, snowball earth was caused by fluctuating CO2, and even the early earth, when the sun was less bright than today, was warmed by high CO2 and methane levels. Obviously, in these cases, the elevated greenhouse gases were not caused by humans but by natural feedbacks. But we know what effect adding greenhouse gases has on the climate!  And today it is humans who are adding these greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

CO2 levels have fluctuated between 200 and 280 ppm between glacial/interglacial cycles over the last million years. In the year 1860, they were at 280 ppm. Today, they are at 400 ppm, and still rising. There is no question as to why they have risen – it is due to human activity that began with the Industrial Revolution – burning of fossil fuels (as well as cement production). There is also no question that based on current socioeconomic trends, CO2 levels will continue to increase, with reasonable projections above 700 ppm by the year 2100. So, we have not yet even doubled CO2 concentrations since 1860, but will surely do so in coming decades. Global temperatures have already risen 1oC, but with even greater increases in atmospheric CO2, they will rise even further (projected another 2-4oC by 2100).

It is so important to understand attribution – why climate changes at different times.  The Little Ice age was a relatively minor cooling event that probably was due to an extended 80-year period without sunspots, known as the Maunder Minimum, as well as relatively larger number of volcanic eruptions. Changes in sunspots normally have very little effect on the climate as there is an 11-year sunspot cycle, so only when sunspots shut off for a century or so would they have a discernible effect on the climate. That is not the case now.  Differences in radiation between maximum and minimum sunspots in the cycle are simply too small to account for the warming we have witnessed. In fact, while the lower part of the atmosphere, the troposphere, has warmed, the stratosphere has cooled. That is a unique greenhouse warming signature that would not have occurred if the warming were due to the sun, as greenhouse gases are essentially keeping the heat near the surface.

So, yes, climate has changed in the past.  But we have a pretty good understanding of why past climate change occurred, and the larger ones all involved changing greenhouse gases due to natural feedbacks. Climate is changing now, and humans are the primary culprit. We know what we need to do in order to slow it down – reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere. How, or if, we choose to do so is up to us.

Ben

It’s Friday, September 27, do you know where your local Climate Action Plan is?

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

As we approach the future in Bethlehem, could we look to the value of the past?

(4th in a 4-part series of posts on thoughtful planning by Kim Carrell-Smith)

Kim Carrell-Smith is a 31-year resident of Bethlehem’s historic Southside, where she taught public history at Lehigh University for almost two decades. She is also an aspiring gadfly, buzzing in on issues of historic preservation, public education, city government, and other social justice issues. She tips her wings to the master gadflies who have served our community for so long!

Gadfly:

Part 4 

So last time we looked at key findings from a study of three large cities, when it comes to “Older, Smaller, Better: Measuring how the character of buildings and blocks influences urban vitality.” Those findings:

  • Older, mixed-use neighborhoods are more walkable.
  • Young people love old buildings.
  • Older business districts provide affordable, flexible space for entrepreneurs from all backgrounds.
  • The creative economy thrives in older, mixed-use neighborhoods.
  • Older, smaller buildings provide space for a strong local economy.
  • Older commercial and mixed-use districts contain hidden density

But how do we employ this knowledge? In the section “Principles for Other Cities,” the authors cite some key ideas any cities could follow:

  • Realize the efficiencies of older buildings and blocks
  • Fit new and old together at a human scale
  • Steward the streetcar legacy

As cities seek to re-establish transit corridors and foster mixed-use development, the armature of streetcar-era commercial districts provides a head start

  • Make room for the new and local economy

. . . research confirms . . . a correlation between a higher concentration of creative jobs and older, smaller-scaled buildings and blocks. These areas also support higher levels of small businesses and non-chain business, helping to keep dollars in the local economy, and providing more resilience against future economic storms.

  • Make it easier to reuse small buildings

It’s the city’s job to make this simpler. In the study the authors cite particular barriers, how to streamline some procedures, and some incentives cities can offer.

Yes, “Older, Smaller, Better” is just one study, but it is one of many from 1999 to 2019 that have looked at the efficacy and economic impact of promoting and supporting the historic look and feel of cities. Historic preservation, and places that look and feel historical clearly pay, both economically, and in terms of quality of life, making cities attractive, sustainable, and resilient.

So as we approach the future in Bethlehem, could we look to the value of the past? Could we more intentionally blend our new buildings and development to harmonize with, and enhance, what is good for our economy –that which we possess in Bethlehem, which other cities may not? We have three centuries of historical architecture and building stock composed of diverse historical materials; we have great old storefronts, historical vistas, and a compelling industrial/urban vibe, thanks to the presence of the blast furnaces and older industrial buildings. Why use our mistakes of urban renewal  –e.g., the Rooney Building, the City Hall complex, the One Broad Street Plaza building–as measuring sticks (literally and figuratively), when making choices for new design and construction? Why not embrace the ideas in “Older, Smaller, Better?”  Upgrade, paint, and tweak the exteriors of older structures to enhance the historical vibe. And build new infill that is “context-sensitive.”

With every development proposal, ask the questions: does it honor and complement the historical value that its proposed setting may already possess? How might we blend in the new with the old,

  • through compatible scale and massing
  • by creating a complementary aesthetic
  • using compatible materials

We don’t want to create copies of existing buildings or even keep every old building. But we definitely need to find ways that the new may peacefully and profitably coexist with the old, while maintaining Bethlehem’s historical vibe.

SO MANY studies show that it’s worth a try!

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

Resolving some of the confusion about natural gas

(The latest in a series of posts relating to the environment, Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan, and Bethlehem’s Environmental Advisory Council)

Peter Crownfield is officially retired but spends most of his time working with students in his role as internship coordinator for the Alliance for Sustainable Communities–Lehigh Valley.

Gadfly:

I don’t want to have a big debate on climate science, but I might be able to resolve some of the confusion about natural gas. Just this morning, I was working with a student at Lafayette looking at just this question, and we found the answer at the Energy Information Administration.

When it is burned, natural gas has far lower GHG emissions than other fossil fuels, so it is marketed as a “clean” fuel. Unfortunately, the “upstream emissions” — from the wellhead, transmission pipelines & compressor stations, and even the gas mains that deliver it to homes — are, on average, higher than the combustion emissions.

According to the Cornell engineers who studied this in detail, the total emissions from natural gas rival those of coal.

Peter

(In conjunction with the student strike last Friday, Bruce Haines has kicked off an important thread here, but Gadfly would still like to invite posts directly related to our local in- process Climate Action Plan.)

Gadfly at the BPA

(120th in a series of posts on parking)

Gadfly just had to get this off his chest.

Deliver’d the following prepared statement during public comment at the Parking Authority Board meeting yesterday. (The audio of the meeting will eventually be available on the BPA web site.)

Asked that a member of the Board make a motion to include it in the minutes or to attach it to the minutes. No one did.

By the way, the BPA still did not publish the agenda for the meeting beforehand.

Cranky ol’ Gadfly.

Still pursuing the white whale. (in joke)

———-

Ed Gallagher
BPA Board meeting
9/25/2019

I am puzzled by the Board chair’s immediate response to the “technical review” of the Nova and Peron proposals at the August 28 Board meeting: “Basically two 5-story buildings, retail on first floor, apartments above.” That response — without any appreciation of subtlety, without any appreciation of nuance in the City evaluation — flattens the two proposals into undifferentiated clones, thereby justifying the higher purchase price as the determinative factor. If the proposals are the same, yes, certainly, by all means, take the higher offer by Peron. Makes perfect sense.

But in my judgment, a judgment based on the City evaluation that the Board requested, the proposals are clearly not the same. The proposals, in fact, are significantly different. Here, according to the City evaluation, is what we lose by favoring Peron:

  • possibly 45 apartments instead of 32 (whether Nova proposed 5 floors of residential as indicated in the City report or 4 was, strangely, not resolved)
  • “a mixture of market rate residential apartment sizes, presenting a potentially more resilient residential product”
  • “a rooftop restaurant concept, providing greater use of the building by the public and potentially driving more transient parkers to the Polk Street Parking Garage”
  • a design “emulating elements found on the former Bethlehem Steel site”
  • a design that “not only encourages the pedestrian interest in the Third Street corridor, but also draws interest down Polk Street”
  • a design adding “a variety of building styles to the corridor and . . . inclusive of more desirable design elements”
  • “overall aesthetics, including the stone arches reflecting the ruins and the steel elements, [that] provide an overall stronger relationship to the place in which the building is located”
  • “proposed use of the building [that] is more comprehensive, providing commercial opportunities beyond first floor retail and greater opportunity for use by the general public”

To me, this positive mix in Nova of the practical, financial, historical, aesthetic, and architectural — this mix of novelty and beauty — this appeal to City goals of a walkable city and the link to our heritage — was surely worthy of discussion.

But the BPA sped to approval of Peron in one minute, fifty seconds.

Was there not one point in the City analysis worthy of discussion?

But as the motion-maker said, “I looked at both of those projects closely, and they’re similar, but there are differences, but I can’t get past the difference in price.”

The BPA Board saw its chief purpose in this decision getting the greatest amount of money for itself. At the end of the day, “It’s dollars and cents,” said a third Board member.

A decision based on money without evaluation of the financial aspects of the proposals because of “significant variances in contract parking spaces and some uncertainty around the potential for CRIZ increment generation.”

It would have taken great courage for one of the Board members to say even, “Whoa, hold on a minute. We owe it to common decency to hear from the City Committee we asked to take a look at this and who are here at the meeting. And we owe it to the public to make sure we have thoroughly considered all perspectives in making our decision.”

It would have taken even greater courage for one of the Board members to say, “Let’s put the money aside for a few minutes, we can always come back to it, but our purpose here is not simply to make money for the Parking Authority, and the question we should be front-loading is how do these proposals align with City goals — which proposal is best for the City at large.”

I was looking for someone on the BPA Board to say, “At the end of the day we have the opportunity to advance City goals of a walkable City, to have a building that speaks of our Bethlehem history, the opportunity to do something special, exciting, unique. Let’s see if we can take advantage of this opportunity and still be fiscally responsible to the Parking Authority.”

adapted from a post on the Bethlehem Gadfly blog September 9, 2019.

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

Here’s a study that seems particularly applicable to Bethlehem’s current development climate

(3rd in a 4-part series of posts on thoughtful planning by Kim Carrell-Smith)

Kim Carrell-Smith is a 31-year resident of Bethlehem’s historic Southside, where she taught public history at Lehigh University for almost two decades. She is also an aspiring gadfly, buzzing in on issues of historic preservation, public education, city government, and other social justice issues. She tips her wings to the master gadflies who have served our community for so long!

Gadfly:

Part 3

Did I hear someone say, “More evidence, please?” Coming right up!

I offer up one study that seems particularly applicable to our current development climate: comprehensive, yet succinct, the 2014 study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Greenlab,  “Older, Smaller, Better: Measuring how the character of buildings and blocks influences urban vitality”  focuses on Seattle, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. But as the authors note, there are some general principles that can be extrapolated for cities of any size. Hang in there, I’ll get to those.

  • From the Executive Summary:

This study demonstrates the unique and valuable role that older, smaller buildings play in the development of sustainable cities. Based upon statistical analysis of the built fabric of three major American cities, this research finds that established neighborhoods with a mix of older, smaller buildings perform better than districts with larger, newer structures when tested against a range of economic, social, and environmental outcome measures.

Key Findings:

  • Older, mixed-use neighborhoods are more walkable.
  • Young people love old buildings.

In Seattle, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., the median age of residents in areas with a mix of small old and new buildings is lower than in areas with larger, predominantly new buildings. These areas are also home to a significantly more diverse mix of residents from different age groups. Nightlife is most alive on streets with a diverse range of building ages. San Francisco and Washington, D.C. city blocks composed of mixed-vintage buildings host greater cellphone activity on Friday nights.

  • Older business districts provide affordable, flexible space for entrepreneurs from all backgrounds.

 In Seattle and Washington, D.C., neighborhoods with a smaller-scaled mix of old and new buildings host a significantly higher proportion of new businesses, as well as more women and minority-owned businesses than areas with predominantly larger, newer buildings.

  • The creative economy thrives in older, mixed-use neighborhoods.

In Seattle and Washington, D.C., older, smaller buildings house significantly greater concentrations of creative jobs per square foot of commercial space. Media production businesses, software publishers, and performing arts companies can be found in areas that have smaller-scaled historic fabric.

  • Older, smaller buildings provide space for a strong local economy.

In Seattle and Washington, D.C., streets with a combination of small old and new buildings have a significantly higher proportion of non-chain restaurants and retailers, and in Seattle, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., areas of the city with older, smaller buildings host a significantly higher proportion of jobs in small businesses.

  • Older commercial and mixed-use districts contain hidden density

In Seattle, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., streets with a mix of old and new buildings have greater population density and more businesses per commercial square foot than streets with large, new buildings. In Seattle and Washington, D.C., these areas also have significantly more jobs per commercial square foot.

Hold on, and in Part 4 we will finally hear about specific principles that cities could adopt to guide development, so that historic preservation and the historical look and feel of cities work as economic drivers for everyone.

Kim

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

Common ground even though differing views on climate change

(The latest in a series of posts relating to the environment, Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan, and Bethlehem’s Environmental Advisory Council)

Bruce Haines is a Lehigh graduate who returned to Bethlehem after a 35-year career at USSteel. He put together a 12-member Partnership to rescue the Hotel Bethlehem from bankruptcy in 1998 and lives in the historic district.

Gadfly:

I truly respect Breena Holland & enjoy debating our polar opposite positions on virtually everything EXCEPT bad government in Bethlehem, where we come together on local issues.

Clearly I have not been brainwashed in school by liberal faculty pushing for control over our lives by using climate change as a vehicle for such control.

Climate science has evolved from the Global cooling scare in the 70’s/80’s to global warming at the turn of the century to simply climate change more recently as the facts failed to support their mantra along this road.

Climate change has been occurring for thousands of years as a natural phenomenon, including global warming ending the ice age long before fossil fuels were ever conceived.

The fossil fuel industry does not deserve demonization & to deny that natural gas isn’t more favorable to Breena’s cause vs coal or oil is simply bizarre.

While we will continue to differ on this subject, I will continue to look forward to working with Breena where we can find common ground. Defending neighborhood preservation or bad economic development decisions by our local government officials will bond our otherwise diverse opinions.

Bruce

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

Gadfly #1 seeks cure for insomnia

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

(Latest in a series of posts about the Southside)

Imagine Gadfly #00 moderating a local Jeopardy show.

The contestants are the Mayor, the Director of Community and Economic Development, and Gadfly #1.

Under the category “Bethlehem Zoning Code,” the answer is five unrelated people.

Gadfly #1 pounces on the buzzer first, as he has been doing for decades.

“The question is, what is the definition of a family.”

Thus, the root cause, according to Gadfly #1, of the developer lust for student housing on the Southside surrounding Lehigh University.

Followers know that according to Gadfly #1’s research, Bethlehem is the only college town in the state with such a definition — others have the less aphrodisiac number of 3, 2, or 1 student permitted.

And he keeps asking, why us? Why this number here?

And keeps getting no answer.

(A follower passed on the information that Bloomsburg defined a family as 4, and the courts upheld it against developer suits.)

Here is “ailing” Gadfly #1 appealing to the emotions of the power structure once again at the September 17 Council meeting.

Now the Mayor answered the South Bethlehem Historical Society letter about conditions on the Southside.

But poor sleepless Gadfly #1 keeps getting ignored.

Sigh.

Now maybe Gadfly #1’s question is too complex, controversial, and cantankerous to answer (Ha! adjectives some might say that apply to Gadfly #1 himself too!) — too hard.

So maybe yours truly Gadfly #00 might suggest something easier to at least help make those “neighborhoods” around Lehigh feel more like neighborhoods and to help assuage (good SAT word) el primo Gadfly’s insomnia.

Like taking the rental and rental company signs off the homefronts and windows.

The signs cluster on homes like lanternflies on trees. See the videos in Gadfly’s infamous Tour de Rentz: from Hillside to First Terrace back in July.

Perhaps video 3 as a good example:

Surely in this modern world there’s an online resource that efficiently directs prospective student renters to rental agencies and rental addresses — rendering these old-style signs — these badges of a kind of urban colonialism — well, old-style and unnecessary.

Surely, there must be a City ordinance against this kind of mercantile trashing of block after block after block after block on the Southside around Lehigh.

Very tacky, like streetwalkers parading their wares.

Perhaps an ordinance like zoning 1320.08 (a) (4): Signs advertising the sale, lease or rental of property, provided that the area of any such sign shall not exceed 6 square feet and not more than one such sign shall be placed on property held in single and separate ownership unless such property fronts on more than one street, in which case, one such sign may be erected on each street frontage. All signs shall be removed within 7 days after an agreement of sale or rental has been entered into. In addition to the foregoing, one open house sign shall be permitted subject to the conditions listed under 1320.08(b)(3). Two off premises signs shall also be permitted as stated in 1320.08(b)(3).

One could look at the Northside too, 12 E. Market, for instance. That yellow is very pretty.

001

Let’s get rid of these signs. And maybe plant some trees on Hillside and elsewhere on the Southside avenues while we’re at it.

At least give Gadfly #1 some satisfaction!

Festival UnBound

Historical preservation pays in a number of ways

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

(2nd in a 4-part series of posts on thoughtful planning by Kim Carrell-Smith)

Kim Carrell-Smith is a 31-year resident of Bethlehem’s historic Southside, where she taught public history at Lehigh University for almost two decades. She is also an aspiring gadfly, buzzing in on issues of historic preservation, public education, city government, and other social justice issues. She tips her wings to the master gadflies who have served our community for so long!

Gadfly:

Part 2: The evidence mounts

Okay, so if you don’t want to read all of those regional, state, and city studies from the last installment, how about a summary of key ideas from a number of reports? You don’t just have to take my word for this: in her 2012 study “The Economic Impact of Historic Resource Preservation,” author Mimi Morris, the Executive Officer of the California Cultural and Historical Endowment,  examined a host of data-based studies, and summarized:

The dozens of reports written on the topic of the economic impact of historic preservation all identify these three main economic impacts resulting from historic preservation:

  • Increased Property Values
  • Job Creation
  • Increased Heritage Tourism

 Related social impacts that have a lesser but still important economic impact include decreased criminal activity, increased housing supply, better quality of life, and increased pride in cultural assets and communities.

Pretty convincing.

But what about a couple of specific studies that Bethlehem can really learn from, given our city’s historical “branding,” our current historical building stock, and the powerful and predominant aesthetic impact of our historical architecture and views, in both downtowns?

At the risk of some repetition here (full disclosure: I bring this up a lot at City Council’s courtesy of the floor in hopes that someone will hear me), one study that could be very useful for Bethlehem planners and developers is the fascinating 2017 project conducted by Edge Research, and funded by American Express, called “Millennials and Historic Preservation: A Deep Dive Into Attitudes and Values,” which specifically discusses the economic and social impact of historic preservation when it comes to millennial consumers and residents in US cities. There is very powerful data here indicating the clear preference of millennials to live, work, and spend their time and money in places with a historic feel.

Aren’t these young people the future of our city? Don’t we want this generation to spend their (rent, play, and tax) money in our commercial areas, and nearby?

So our stockpile of evidence is beginning to grow: historic preservation pays in a number of ways. Maintaining the historical vibe of a community is good for jobs, tourism, property values, and feet on the street for retail, dining, and business growth and sustainability . . . and we know it appeals to young people, in particular!

But there is one more study, which is most significant, when it comes to thinking about scale, aesthetics, mass, and context in city development or redevelopment.

Part 3 coming soon . . .

Kim

Festival UnBound

The strikers’ generation has been taught climate science

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

(The latest in a series of posts relating to the environment, Bethlehem’s Climate Action Plan, and Bethlehem’s Environmental Advisory Council)

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

Gadfly,

What my friend Mr. Haines fails to admit is that the golden egg is actually not golden. Its yoke turned out to be a slow-release poison, which the climate strikers clearly have learned a lot more about. Their generation was taught climate science, and because of that, they don’t view the problems of transitioning away from fossil fuels as something that can avoided while rich fossil fuel companies continue to externalize their costs on the rest of the world. What’s the point of a strong economy if it slowly kills the planet that all species need to live?

While every one of Mr. Haines’ claims can be contested on empirical grounds — natural gas is not resulting in dramatic emissions reductions, and the price of it will go up in PA because it will be exported thanks to frackers’ abuse of eminent domain to set up pipelines, etc.—what his comments reveal is simply that he has not familiarized himself with the science of climate change and its consequences. If a person denies the seriousness of the problem, then the strikers look unreasonable. But if you take the problem seriously, then it’s obvious why the crisis can’t wait for fossil fuel companies to clean up their mess, and why we need to start talking about real alternatives rather than appeal to 20th century economic ideas that favor endless growth at all costs. The strikers are choosing life over growth, in part because they have a lot more of it ahead of them than me and Mr. Haines. If he doesn’t get that, then he needs to pick up any serious scientific journal that publishes actual data on the science of climate change. Climate change is still an inconvenient truth.

Breena

Festival UnBound

Sunrise on the SouthSide (6): Neighborhood Revitalization

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

(Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside)

Sunrise on the Southside

Chapter 4: Neighborhood Revitalization


We continue to look at the Southside through Lehigh University’s promotional “Sunrise” video. Their project came to Gadfly’s attention just as we have been spending a lot of time on the Southside, a focus especially stimulated by the moving letter from the South Bethlehem Historical Society and the formation of Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development.

  • Just steps from the university, on streets that are predominantly to the east and west of campus, are row homes, apartments and small homes that juniors and seniors and graduate students opt to rent. About a third of undergraduates live off campus.
  • With the neighborhood in transition, university and city leaders grew concerned about rental property conditions. In response, with financial support from Lehigh, the city now designates two of its city code enforcement officers to regularly inspect South Side rental properties, including off-campus houses where students reside.
  • “We want to make sure that the housing stock continues to be strong, safe and stable,” says Bethlehem Mayor Donchez, who acknowledges a number of “very good landlords.”
  • Lehigh also purchased a number of properties near the west end of campus that were blighted, in poor condition or had earned a reputation of bad student rentals. . . . The university renovated those properties in an effort to improve the housing stock, making them available to faculty, staff and graduate students.
  • The goal is to make sure that we feel that the neighborhood has stabilized to a certain extent, that you don’t have a great level of turnover . . . The goal [is] to have more people, even not associated with the university, have homeownership so that it becomes much more of the family neighborhood that it once was.
  • Those strolling the Greenway pass Esperanza Garden, a community garden that grew out of a collaboration among Lehigh, its students and the city, and the Harmony Pavilion, part of the Lehigh Chinese Bridge Project.
  • Neighborhood revitalization is happening on a bunch of different fronts.
  • The kids are so important—just as important as the tourists coming in from New York [for the Wind Creek casino]. . . . The amount of money they spend on the South Side is a tremendous boon for the economy.
  • Now there’s a lot of pride in ownership, and people have reinvested in their own investments. The South Side has some tremendous projects that have gone up recently. We’re definitely the jewel of the Lehigh Valley.

Festival UnBound