An invitation to reflect on civic life and the pandemic

logo Latest in a series of posts on the coronavirus logo

Gadfly:

Southsider is excited to share this open call to incorporate more community voices into their “Reflections on Civic Life and the Pandemic” Series. There is a lot happening in the world right now, and all of it is shaped by the pandemic. How should we as a community make sense of it all?

See a model from the series here, “Robin Lee on the Impact of COVID-19 on South Bethlehem.

Southsider 1

The Southsider Editorial Team

Gadfly invites you to browse the fine Southsider site, especially see the Women of Bethlehem Steel series.

Muraling the Southside

logo Latest in a series of posts on the Southside logo

One of the meetings Gadfly was sorry to miss was the Historic Conservation Commission March 16 discussion of additional murals to the several already on the Southside.

The Southside Arts District is working with several property owners and businesses to permanently install murals at various sites throughout the south side downtown. Each of the murals is approximately 4’ x 8’ and is constructed of Parachute Cloth adhered to an Alumalite panel that will be adhered to the mortar of the wall.

Gadfly really likes this idea. How about you?

mural 1

Mural 2

Mural 3

Mural 4

Lehigh goes all the way — online till end of semester: Packer closing study ends for now

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

Lehigh has bowed to the virus and decided to go online for the rest of the semester. The traffic study that began March 9 is scrapped for now. Interestingly, people such as Councilwoman Van Wirt suggested the study be put off till the fall while talks about use of the road space might develop. Ironically, that might happen now.

If the temporary closure of Packer between Vine and Webster is renewed this fall, these recent follower ideas and questions should be remembered:

  • A public meeting with the City/ Lehigh needs to occur during/ after the temporary closure. Notice of the meeting should appear on the electronic message board at Packer and Vine as well as in news and social media. (southsidenannygoat)
  • Wondering if Lehigh is going to take a look at the businesses along 3rd and 4th st, during, and after, the Packer ave closure, to see if there is an increase in business due to the closing. That’s one of Lehigh’s main talking points, that the closure is going to bring more foot traffic down to those businesses, and it’ll be more profitable for them. (Patrick Wirth)
  • Recently visited Marietta, Ga. I was interested that the town square was donated to the town by the first mayor John Glover, provided it was always used as a town square. If not the land would be returned to his heirs. Since apparently a vacated Packer Ave. would become property of Lehigh University, shouldn’t a similar provision be secured so they don’t turn it into dorms or some other unwanted use. (Jerry Diguilio)

————

To complete the record so far, here, obtained by Right-to-Know, is the Lehigh memo to City Council just before the February 18 meeting in which Council voted to support the temporary closing of Packer Ave. The memo repeats the same basic three reasons for the test and details changes made as a result of the public meeting at Broughal School on January 28.

Lehigh Packer 1

Uh-oh, unpromising start to the Packer close study

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

003

hmm! back to the drawing board

A Message from [Lehigh University] President Simon:

Dear Members of the Campus Community and Lehigh Families,

As of Monday, March 16, classes will be taught remotely and students are expected to return home or remain home to continue their coursework for the next two weeks. We will continue to assess developments during this time and provide further guidance. We are taking this extraordinary step in an effort to protect the health and safety of our community and to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. To be clear, the university will remain open, and we are confident in our ability to continue to deliver on our educational and research mission during this time.

While there are currently no suspected or confirmed cases on campus, given the uncertainties about the spread of the virus, medical professionals have advised us that it is prudent to take precautions and act on the assumption that the virus will reach our campus. The Governor of Pennsylvania signed an emergency disaster declaration late last week. Our decision is consistent with the “social distancing” recommendations from health experts, and we continue to follow guidance from the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PA DOH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the City of Bethlehem Health Bureau.

We understand this decision presents challenges, and we are confident our community will call on their collective resourcefulness, flexibility and creativity to adjust. In-person discussion and personal relationships are an important component of our rigorous academic environment. We thank our students, faculty, teaching fellows, teaching assistants, graduate assistants, instructors, and staff for their adaptability during this time.

Packer temporary closing Monday: log impressions with Gadfly

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

What is the official position of the City regarding the closure of Packer Ave? An agreement seems to have been made in secret to purchase the street from the city by Lehigh University. As a concerned citizen, tax payer and motorist I’m deeply worried that the public good has been yet again been forgotten in favor of some smoky back-room deal.
Edward Ballinger, Bethlehem City Hall Facebook page, Friday

Temporary closure of Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster to study the Lehigh University proposal to permanently close that stretch begins tomorrow, Monday, March 9.

As of noon today, Sunday, March 8, Gadfly sees no notice from the City in the news or on Facebook or Twitter. 014

Or on the City web site.

Maybe tomorrow.

Here’s what Gadfly was hoping for:

1) The City will put out a story not only with the technical details of the closure

2) but also full details of the Lehigh “ask” that is behind the study

3) as well as the means for citizens to record their travel experiences during the temporary closure plus their thoughts on a permanent closure

4) and concrete plans for a community meeting to discuss the results and steps forward, including at least a tentative date for such.

Here is what Gadfly is not hoping for: “the smoky back-room deal” that Mr. Ballinger speaks of above.

In absence of other options, Gadfly will gladly receive your thoughts and impressions and photos, which don’t have to be long, which can be multiple, and of which he will keep a running log.

Are “neighbors” and “community partners” the same thing?

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

We are committed to working together with our campus community, the City,
the Bethlehem Area School District, and other community partners to ensure
that any and all concerns about the closure are heard and addressed.
Lehigh University, February 20

Lehigh University information page on the Packer Ave. closing

Ed Courrier, “Packer Ave. 45-day closure detailed.” Bethlehem Press, March 4, 2020.

We move closer to next Monday’s temporary closing of a section of Packer Ave.

We see that Lehigh has opened a web page on the closing for their faculty, staff, and students. Which is good. But it does not exactly foreground an invitation to comment on the impact of the closing by the people who use and park on Packer as part of the information gathering essential for the study.

We see that Lehigh made a presentation on the closing to the Mayor’s Southside Task Force last week, that is, after the public meeting at Broughal and, most especially, after the discussion and vote at City Council. It does not seem that this community partner was alerted in an appropriate time fashion to have input on the idea and the decision.

“Community partner” — as one keen-eyed follower has observed to Gadfly — is a curious term. It’s a jargon term, isn’t it?  Does it mean the same as “community”? Does it mean the same as “residents”? Does it mean the same as “neighbors”? Who knows? Remember that there was some skepticism about how and how vigorously the surrounding neighborhood community was advised of the January 23 “community” meeting at Broughal. Lehigh really kinda skipped over a question about that there.

But maybe there are no “neighbors” left around Lehigh. Maybe only “community partners.” At City Council Tuesday a lady recounted looking for housing in that area for months but only finding student housing.

Sigh.

Healing as the goal of the Packer Matter

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

Gadfly loves to compare his thinking to our elected officials. Join him. The Council members gave us clear and substantial rationales. Remember, too, that one of the main reasons for the Gadfly project is to help you know your Councilpeople better so that you can be the most informed voter you can be. This is a good opportunity. Whom do you agree with, disagree with? Who makes you think? Who gave you something new to think about? Whom are you glad to see with a seat at the Head Table?
The Gadfly, February 24

As the opening of the temporary closing of Packer Ave. approaches on Monday, Gadfly would like to wrap up the series of posts he made on the individual comments from Council folk approving the measure 3-2.

Gadfly doesn’t always agree with Council decisions, of course, but what he looks for is good conversation — “Good conversation builds community” — and he thought there was good conversation from a variety of perspectives on the Packer Matter at the February 18 Council meeting.

So he hopes you took a few minutes to consider the range of statements and positions from the individual Councilpersons. Gadfly hopes you will be as much interested in why they voted as how they voted. The “why” is the indicator of the calibre of person we have entrusted with our public lives. You can respect a vote you don’t agree with if you respect the basis on which it was made.

What rises to the top as Gadfly thinks back on the good conversation at the meeting was Councilwoman Van Wirt’s use of “vision.”

Councilwoman Van Wirt spoke third, and the “vision” idea was picked up by Councilmen Reynolds and Waldron who followed her.

“Community” is an aphrodisiac word for Gadfly. “Vision” is another.

All the talk from Lehigh was ho-hum. Necessary. But ho-hum. For him their talk started at the wrong end of the rhetorical spectrum.

Give me the vision. Excite me. Then we can do the ho-hum.

Give me the song, the poetry, then I’ll listen to the engineers and bean counters.

Build the castle in the air. Then we can talk about the supports underneath it.

The collaborative past actions of Lehigh and the City in creating the Lost Neighborhood on the north side of Packer Ave. seem manifestly reprehensible. A power grab.

Gadfly’s sympathies were there with the ghosts of the past who for him still haunt the area from Packer to 4th St.

He remembers thinking somewhere along in the conversation about closing Packer that if it happens, Lehigh should be required, as restitution, to have a statue, a monument erected to the memory of the Lost Neighborhood at the center of the promenade.

No, better yet, not something required of Lehigh as restitution. But something done by Lehigh willingly as repentance.

Perhaps at the center of University Walk and the promenade — Lehigh might build a Southside Memorial Fountain of some sort by which people could sit, pause, and reflect come a summer day on the damage done when Power and Politics and Progress are out of control.

Silly Gadfly. A topic for a Thursday afternoon session with his therapist for sure.

But Lehigh’s Carolina Hernandez at the February 18 meeting was like a squirt of 3-1-oil on his tight lock on the grim past.

And then Councilwoman Van Wirt’s “I do have a vision of what this permanent closure could look like for Bethlehem, and it’s a great vision” was like an ice-cutter freeing a trapped cruise ship.

A vision of what could be done with the Packer Matter!

A “great vision”!

Gadfly came alive!

There were vision-teasers: a community fund, a business association.

And then with President Waldron, “is there a playground there, is there a community space . . . community programing?”

Not the whole vision. Not yet.

But enough to turn Gadfly’s perspective 180 degrees.

The word that came to mind was “heal.”

How might the Packer Matter become a “healing”?

If the closing of Packer Ave. could become an acknowledged healing ritual and not another grave stomping, then Gadfly’s on board.

It is good to have Councilfolk with vision.

Marijuana enforcement differential comes to committee tomorrow

logo Latest in a series of posts about the Southside logo

Nate Jastrzemski, “Southside marijuana charges uneven.” Bethlehem Press, February 17, 2020.

More than a year ago Bethlehem passed a marijuana decriminalization ordinance giving police the discretion to charge people arrested for possession of a small amount of marijuana either under the harsh federal statute or the less severe City ordinance comparable to receiving a traffic ticket.

‘Twas wondered from the beginning how the ordinance would be applied since the Lehigh County District Attorney wanted all cases to be charged under the federal statute. Creating the potential for a boundary dispute. Charged one way one side of the street, another way on the other.

But there’s another issue too.

In December Southside District Judge Nancy Matos Gonzalez published a letter calling attention to the fact that Lehigh University police were charging Lehigh students under the lesser penalty while by-and-large the Bethlehem police were using the federal statute — what she saw as a problem for her dispensing fair and equal justice.

Lehigh students get off with a slap on the wrist, Southside residents get hammered.

Gadfly has written about this here and here.

The Judge’s full letter is printed here.

On January 6 the Mayor said that the Police Chief would investigate the county differential, and on January 13 Councilman Reynolds called also for information on application of the laws in the different geographical regions of the City.

The issue in the Southside is particularly crucial because of the racial and social class discrimination implications if there is an uneven application of the law between, for example, Hispanic residents and “privileged” white students.

We would assume that necessary information gathering for tomorrow’s Public Safety Committee meeting would necessitate contacting the various magistrates and gathering statistics. And, like the Bethlehem Press reporter above, Gadfly tried 2-3 weeks ago to do a bit of investigating himself to see if that was happening.

The other Southside Judge had not been contacted by the police but reported to Gadfly that during a several month period before Judge Gonzalez’s letter was publicized, the Bethlehem ordinance was not used at all in 117 cases. Another Judge met with me only to say that there had been no contact from Bethlehem police and no statistics were gathered. All other judges would not talk with me at all.

The information from the two Southside judges makes you wonder if Bethlehem police practice is undermining the intent of the recent ordinance decriminalizing the use of small amounts of marijuana, as well as wonder if the ordinance is applied differently in different parts of the city — especially in the heavily Hispanic Southside.

We are hoping for a good discussion based on solid data tomorrow.

The Public Safety Committee is chaired by Michael Colón, with members Grace Crampsie Smith and Olga Negrón. The meeting is 5:30 in Town Hall, before the regular City Council meeting at 7PM.

Communicating with the communities

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

Here’s Lehigh announcing the temporary closing of Packer Ave to the Lehigh community.  Feels a bit strange to Gadfly that no mechanism is identified for Lehigh community members to register thoughts on a permanent closing. Feels a bit strange that nothing was addressed to the people who park there. The photos in the previous post were taken c. 4PM Saturday afternoon, and Packer was parked up the whole length on both sides. Maybe something was going on, but it didn’t look like it. The campus felt deserted. Where are those cars going? — I guess the study will tell us.

But this is Lehigh announcing the closing to the Lehigh community. There was some skepticism about how and how vigorously the surrounding neighborhood community was advised of the January 23 “community” meeting at Broughal. Lehigh kinda skipped over a question about that. Should Lehigh be addressing a statement like this to that other community? Or is that the City’s responsibility?

Followers will recognize that Gadfly is more and more taken by Lehigh’s reason #3. Can you imagine Lehigh writing to the neighborhood community directly and saying, “We recognize there are long-standing cultural issues that can make our campus feel
inaccessible to you, and we are trying ease those issues by_____________.”

Wow, that would be neat (does anybody say “cool” any more?).

Does the neighborhood community have any idea of reason #3?

Isn’t one of the long-standing issues poor communication?

February 20

Dear Members of the Campus Community,

Earlier this week, the Bethlehem City Council approved the temporary
closure of Packer Avenue from Vine Street to Webster Street, beginning
March 9 and continuing through April 30, 2020. No vehicles or parking will
be permitted during this time. Pedestrian traffic will be allowed and
encouraged.

This test closure will allow the university, the City, and our partners in
the community to gauge the long-term feasibility of a permanent closure of
that portion of the street. At this point, no decisions have been made by
either the university or the city regarding a permanent closure. We will
conduct independent studies of vehicle traffic and pedestrian usage to
assess the impact on neighboring streets and the surrounding neighborhoods.
We will also assess the impact on Broughal Middle School.

More than 1,200 pedestrians cross the affected portion of Packer Avenue
each day. We are proposing the test closure for three reasons: 1) to
enhance the safety for our community and the pedestrians that cross
primarily at University Walk; 2) to knit together the Lehigh campus, which
this street bisects, and strengthen the connections to the South Bethlehem
business district; and 3) to create an attractive pedestrian walkway for
both the Lehigh community and the Bethlehem community.  We recognize there
are long-standing cultural issues that can make our campus feel
inaccessible to the Bethlehem community and we hope this closure might
address that by creating an amenity that serves both Lehigh and SouthSide
Bethlehem.

We are committed to working together with our campus community, the City,
the Bethlehem Area School District, and other community partners to ensure
that any and all concerns about the closure are heard and addressed. During
the trial period, Packer Avenue will remain open for emergency access, and
studies will be conducted to assess the impact of the closure on traffic
flow, parking, and safety. The results of the studies will be made
available to the public.

More details will be forthcoming on the closure in the coming weeks.

Sincerely,

Fred McGrail
Vice President
Communications and Public Affairs

Adrienne McNeil
Assistant Vice President
Community and Regional Affairs

Brent Stringfellow AIA
Associate Vice President of Facilities & University Architect

Packer Ave: pre-pare to de-tour

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

The signs are up!

Packer between Vine and Webster
closed March 9 for 45 days

Here’s what we’re hoping:

1) The City will put out a story not only with the technical details of the closure

2) but also full details of the Lehigh “ask” that is behind the study

3) as well as the means for citizens to record their travel experiences during the temporary closure plus their thoughts on a permanent closure

4) and concrete plans for a community meeting to discuss the results and steps forward, including at least a tentative date for such.

In reference to #3, Gadfly will gladly receive your thoughts and impressions and photos, which don’t have to be long, which can be multiple, and of which he will keep a running log.

Happy trails!

The Arts in Bethlehem: another offer you can’t refuse!

logo Latest in a series of posts on the Arts in Bethlehem logo

The weekend! Thank god! And a wonderful day it is!

Where are you spending your recreation and entertainment time and dollars this weekend?  touchstone 2

On the local arts and/or the local arts establishments?

Gadfly has told you in a previous post that he is making a commitment not only to patronize the local arts more but to promote them here when he can. Arts of all kinds.

So have you been to Touchstone Theatre?

Founded in 1981, Touchstone Theatre is a professional not-for-profit theatre dedicated to the creation of original work.  At its center is a resident ensemble of theatre artists rooted in the local community of Bethlehem. . . . The Ensemble . . . transforms audiences through community-based theatrical productions and community-building projects.

On Sunday March 8, 2PM Gadfly’s going to Edith Piaf: Hymn to Love at Touchstone.

Piaf (1915-1963) was a famous French “chanteuse,” night-club singer, cabaret singer. She’s a cult figure, a legend, an influence.

Gadfly now has another two tickets to the Piaf show that he can’t use.

So he makes his offer again:

Gadfly would like to give the two tickets free to someone who has never attended Touchstone Theatre in return for a short post on Gadfly about the show or the experience of going to Touchstone.

Discover Touchstone.

Don’t let the post scare you — he’ll accept a selfie taken at the theatre!

What say? Contact Gadfly via the Contact link here on Gadfly or at ejg1@lehigh.edu.

Let’s support the local arts and arts institutions!

Touchstone Theatre
321 E. 4th St.

Buckets of questions about the Packer Ave. closing

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

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 would note that Kim’s substantial work was referred to approvingly several times in the February 18 City Council meeting. And rightly so! This is what it’s all about, good followers!]

Gadfly:

Re: Proposal to do a temporary closure of Packer Ave with an impact study

Many of us who attended the public meeting about the Packer Ave closure [Broughal Middle School January 23], and a number of my neighbors whom I’ve talked to about it since, have concerns about how any study of a temporary closure might be approached so that the most useful and accurate data would inform decision-making in the city, and so that pedestrians (and drivers) would be safe during the duration of the study. 

So this is what I asked city council and the mayor and his administration to consider before authorizing the temporary closure.

The questions are in two buckets: #1 is whether the city wants/needs to consider this closure (permanent or study period closure) at all, and if so, whether the time is appropriate now.  The #2 bucket is “if the city decides to do the temporary closure/study” questions. 

Bucket #1 –should the temporary closure/study be done and why?

1) What does the city hope to achieve with the proposed closure of Packer — not just with the short-term study time, but what is the city’s key objective for the proposed long-term closure of that section of Packer? Who will benefit? What will be gained? Who may lose? Do the gains outweigh the losses as we contemplate this closure?

2) [This was answered, mostly, or at least the accident data was. Without comparison to other locations it’s hard to know if this is a key dangerous intersection or one of many, or what . . . ]  One item we are still missing is data about how unsafe or safe that Packer Ave. crossing really is; no one has produced that data yet, despite Lehigh’s assertion that it appears to be an unsafe crossing. LU spokepersons have repeatedly and publicly said safety is part of what drives this closure idea. Can we learn more from existing safety data before diving into a study?

3) The other key reason cited by LU for the closure of Packer is that this would encourage students to feel the campus extends all the way to New, and could help them get closer to the commercial area and venture into it (on 4th and 3rd).  We already know that students tend to feel ill at ease going into the Southside, and that when they venture down they often go there by crossing (a) Morton, down New, and (b) across 4th St.  Isn’t it more likely that their Southside psychological boundaries/barriers are those streets rather than at Packer (hence the New Street revitalization plan to lure them past Morton and 4th, and down New)? How would the Packer closure affect Morton, in particular, with increased traffic and pedestrian movement? Will the closure adversely affect student movement north toward the commercial area, or will it encourage that foot traffic, as Lehigh asserts?

  • How and who will assess all of that — the study’s traffic consultants, a city business study, or another Lehigh study? If that student movement to the business district is a key objective in closing Packer, how will we know if the goal of increased pedestrian movement into the commercial area has been achieved, and when would we expect to know that?

4) Morton Street and the upper campus road are currently very congested due to university construction projects. Is this the best time to undertake a temporary or permanent closure, while those roads are narrowed, and there are flaggers, trucks, and equipment entering and exiting the construction sites all day long?

  • If the study goes forward, will the consultants measure pedestrian (and car) safety, not just at intersections but along that whole block of Morton where the street has been narrowed for construction, and the effect of the sidewalk closure on the south side of the street?
  • Will pedestrians really be safe during the study, while construction is ongoing?
  • Will the consultants measure the car traffic before and during the study to know the effects on the upper campus-E/W route across the Southside (including effects on the nearby neighborhoods)? [key issue of concern to my neighbors and me, over here!]

BUCKET #2 –if the temporary closure and study go forward

 But if one does think a temporary closure and study is a good idea, what is/will be written into that consulting contract? Is there language in the contract spelling out what the consultants must study: what exactly is to be studied, and how?  How will the results be made public, and will those results be shared before the decision is made to close Packer for good, or not? Will the public have an opportunity to provide their feedback on the temporary closure to Lehigh and the city? More specifically, then:

1) Will the consultants be studying the effects on pedestrians (and if so, is this something they know how to do, or do they need help from consultants who are more familiar with that kind of work)? We should be careful to use consultants who are experienced in pedestrian studies, and wary of using ones who may only specialize in vehicle traffic; I have no idea what these consultants are known for, but their performance in the public meeting at Broughal indicated to me that they had not thought about pedestrian studies much, if at all. It appeared that they only had focused their plans on the vehicle traffic.

Among the things we should know are

    • how do they plan to track Broughal student walking patterns and safety, and changes in those patterns and safety (if any)
    • and how do they account for safety issues as they study pedestrian movement in the extended area including Brodhead, Summit, over to Montclair and Carlton, down to 4th Street and perhaps 3rd as well; and eastward on Webster, 4th, 5th, and E.Packer.
    • What will Council learn about safety issues in the whole study area, by the end of the study?

2) [This was kind of answered, although it will be a shorter data collection period than folks first assumed when it was first announced.] How would the consultants plan to account for the traffic and pedestrian data in the earliest days of the study and closure, which will be done when Lehigh students and most faculty are on spring break: will that data be averaged in with the rest, thus skewing the results?  Studying traffic and pedestrians over spring break would definitely not provide representative data, although I see why Lehigh wants to start putting out blockades when students aren’t around and perhaps traffic is lighter. But that time should not be averaged into the data that is collected when the usual school year traffic (cars and pedestrians) is in full swing.

3) As my neighbors and I have shared with the mayor and the Lehigh Public Affairs VP, many of us suspect that W.8th to University Dr, and across campus, will become an even more appealing way to traverse the Southside (E-W and W-E) if/when Packer would be closed. Yet there will be even more construction up there on University Drive next year. The consultants should measure the before and after closure effects on that route, and also consider what could change when the next phase of dorm demolition and construction begins this summer through next year. Do we know if this is being considered in the study? I hope that the city will request a clear answer, and consider the following as well:

  •  Is the upper campus route going to be part of the city study, or would that be left to Lehigh to do separately from the consultant study? Would they include the surrounding neighborhood streets and what happens to traffic there? Will they share the data and seek community feedback?
  • Will the city be able to study the W.8th street entrance to campus and whether traffic is increased on that rather congested street that runs from Wyandotte into campus? What will be the impact on the streets to the east side of campus?
  • Would the data from a Lehigh campus road study be something accessible to the public, and would it be incorporated into city decision making?

4) Also, how will we know the effect of the closing when it snows? I mentioned at the public meeting that most of us over here are definitely aware that one doesn’t drive on Morton Street when it’s snowy; the city has never been able to maintain that street effectively; it is usually covered in slush, ice and/or snow for a number of days before things melt away- not ideal for Broughal kids and parents! That may be because of the way the buildings on the street shade the road surface, but I’m not sure.  Local folks just all try to avoid driving there when the weather gets bad. It’s a safety issue without any additional added traffic, whether for cars, buses or pedestrians; more traffic in snowy weather is a scary thought.

5) Finally, IF the trial closure and study are authorized by Council, you all, as well as residents and those who work in the area also should know how the final decision about long term closure would be made:

  • who besides the consultants will give or collect feedback
  • when
  • where
  • and how

…before the final decision is made?  What key issues will the mayor deem relevant to his recommendation?

I guess I don’t see all these questions as insurmountable, but as many of us see it, answering these questions in Bucket #2 (all of them) should mean that the planning for the traffic/pedestrian study would be quite careful, the study itself quite extensive, and both should include voices from the community.

  • Planning and contracting with consultants should also mean investigating their expertise in pedestrian studies.
  • And there should be a plan in place, before the study begins, to present the results of the study and hear from the public before any final decision is made.

Gadfly would note that Kim’s substantial work was referred to approvingly several times in the February 18 City Council meeting. And rightly so! This is what it’s all about, good followers!

Yet more construction updating: “why we are so bullish” on more residential on E. 3rd St.

logo Latest in a series of posts about the Southside logo

More and more apartments. 74 this time. Peron Development at 600-block E. 3rd St. Complementing the “sister” apartments in their 510 Flats bldg.

But are they the “affordable” kind we need?

The planned office use for this property is being changed because of the success filling the apartments at 510 Flats.

Particularly striking Gadfly’s ear were, for parking, the use of the Polk Street Garage, a parking lot on Evans St., and 61 new metered parking spaces on 3rd St.

That’s 61 new metered parking spaces on 3rd St.

Planning Commission February 13:

506-510,600-630 E. 3RD Street—Revised Land Development Plan (Bldg.B) and Waiver Requests, Ward4, Zoned IRR, Plan dated July 15, 2014 and last revised January 22, 2020. The applicant proposes the removal of a parking lot on Lot B (610Flats) and the construction of a 5 story building containing first floor retail/restaurants and 74 apartments on the upper floors. The prior approved use of the upper floors was offices. The waiver/modifications requested pertain to minimum lot area requirements and off street parking requirements.

Here’s Peron describing why their success with 510 Flats changed plans for 610:

Here’s more detail on the variances required:

And specific discussion of the parking arrangements:

Council folk speak up about the temporary closure of Packer Ave. (4)

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

President Waldron (votes for the temporary closure)

Above, courtesy of YouTube’s choice, is Lehigh administrator Brent Stringfellow
not President Waldron

  • This is an opportunity where we can see how it will shake out.
  • My concern is how are those data used after we do receive them.
  • How is it disseminated to the community and the stakeholders . . . what mechanisms for feedback will there be to communicate concerns.
  • If this were the full-time street vacation I would not be supporting it, however I am in support of the temporary closure.
  • I really have to agree with Mr. Reynolds, Dr. Van Wirt about some of that conversation how the community is drawn up to Packer Ave. and feels a little bit more welcome on the campus.
  • I’ve spent some time just walking around Lehigh’s campus and it’s tremendous, a wonderful asset to our City, and I think to expose that to other people is only a good thing for Lehigh and the community.
  • I would like to see more in the conversation about how you bring the community up to that space.
  • And if Packer Ave. is eventually vacated . . . I would hope for a kind of all-in approach from Lehigh, some thoughts especially from Dr. Van Wirt about how we can make that space feel more inviting — is there a playground there, is there a community space . . . community programing?
  • That should be a major consideration in a potential vacation of the street.
  • Ultimately, this has to be a partnership between Lehigh, the City, and the community as well.

In conversation with Lehigh and City administrators, President Waldron asked about why the dates were picked, consideration of other traffic calming measures, who owns Packer Ave. if it is vacated, whether Lehigh could build on that space, what about utilities under that road, the financial value of the land, and loss of parking revenue.

All good president-type questions.

Council folk speak up about the temporary closure of Packer Ave. (3)

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

Councilman Reynolds (votes for the temporary closure)

  • You look at somebody with a private interest coming forward, of course . . . there are reasons that they want to do it.
  • The key in the decision the governmental agency has to make is whether or not there’s overlap between the private interest and the public good or the public interest.
  • We’ve heard from some citizens, we need to hear from more citizens.
  • We are very fortunate here, in that a lot of time we have to deal with hypothetical benefits or hypothetical negatives . . . that is not always the best way to make decisions.
  • The best way to make decisions is when you have rational, qualitative data.
  • That’s what this is really about, giving the City and the public an opportunity to see whether or not there is a public interest in doing this.
  • The real boundaries . . . are not physical.
  • I really do give the Lehigh community a lot of credit for . . . directing more and more of their interest and energy toward how do we bring the Southside together in a way . . . how do we bring people up.
  • How do we bring people together.
  • What we’re not as good at is bringing people together that have different identities . . . to interact in that way that creates community.
  • If this is done well, it is another step in that direction.
  • Those two goals especially have an overlap between the City of Bethlehem’s public good and Lehigh University’s self-interest.
  • But that all has to be proved before anybody’s able to take that next step.
  • If this was just good for one group of people, it wouldn’t make sense to do.
  • It’s really about how is this going to be done and whether or not the important questions are going to be done, some of which we don’t even really understand yet.
  • Often times the groups that are most affected, they’re not here because they don’t exist yet.
  • We often talk about how we don’t have more information to be able to make decisions, and this is an opportunity to gain information.
  • The decision we make tonight is much smaller than the decision we are going to make, at the earliest, several months from now.
  • It is people and institutions coming out to saying we see this or we don’t see this as a good thing.
  • I think that there is an opportunity with this to really kind of go about doing this the right way.
  • For me it will come down to do I think this is a step in the right direction for bringing the Lehigh community together with the Southside community that has often been at odds.
  • We’re breaking down those kind of emotional and economic barriers one at a time, and that’s going to be the big question for me at the end of the day.
  • Is there a public good here that is worth us closing down or vacating the street, and does that interest work for both the institution that is before us as well as our community and the public good?

Council folk speak up about the temporary closure of Packer Ave. (2)

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

Councilwoman Van Wirt (votes against the temporary closure)

  • My first concern is why is this being done.
  • I’m not convinced by the safety argument.
  • The first thing that comes to mind is not vacation of a city street.
  • The real reason . . . Lehigh wants to consolidate their campus, and that’s not inherently a bad thing.
  • But it has to be addressed in the correct way so that the citizens who are giving up city-owned land have faith in the process that all the data was transparent.
  • I would ask that the Mayor and Lehigh make the contracts with the consultant transparent.
  • This study must have a plan in place to disseminate the results.
  • I thought more people could have been brought in by a more robust campaign to get the word out about what was going to be talked about.
  • What was good about that meeting was that a lot of the stuff brought up was incorporated into the plan.
  • There was a lot of people calling out that this was not being done for safety.
  • I think that you can engender trust in the community of South Bethlehem if we’re pretty frank and candid about why we’re doing this.
  • We’re doing this to make Lehigh stronger . . . that’s why we are doing this.
  • The primary reason is for the university.
  • That is citizen-owned land . . . steep price.
  • The traffic concerns are real.
  • What are we doing with the dollars we’re given for that land? I would like to have some discussions now.
  • What does it physically look like?
  • Are those crossing guards going to be permanent for the Broughal students?
  • How do we draw the citizens up into this space that was formerly theirs?
  • How do we make it more like the citizens of Bethlehem feel they are more pulled in to?
  • How do we create better bike and pedestrian experiences?
  • How do we pull South Bethlehem back up in to the campus so that we can really integrate it?
  • What I really would encourage Lehigh to do is postpone this.
  • There’s too much that needs to be done before the March date.
  • Have this study happen in the fall.
  • I do have a vision of what this permanent closure could look like for Bethlehem, and it’s a great vision.
  • I think that it could be a great thing for South Bethlehem if it’s done correctly, and that means it has to be a slower process with the community involved.
  • I would advocate for a citizens’ steering committee.
  • Maybe the money we get for the land itself gets put into a community fund dictated by the committee for what it’s used for.
  • Maybe Lehigh can help start a South Bethlehem Business association . . . Maybe that could help with some of the problems we are having drawing students down the 3rd and 4th streets.
  • I have a vision that this can work., I just ask Lehigh to slow down.
  • . . . a community process that better addresses the problems brought up here.
  •  . . . fully pulls the community in to this so that they believe the process instead of feeling that it’s being jammed down their throats.

The Council folk speak up about the temporary closure of Packer Ave. (1)

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

Ok, you are not new to the question about a test of the closing of Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster.

And you probably don’t need to be reminded that the issue here is control over your neighborhood (though this issue does have ramifications for all of us who drive in Bethlehem).

Lehigh is asking “us” to conduct a test whose end result is, if positive, in effect, to end the main function of a busy, healthy street on the Southside. Is their reason compelling?

Even if you don’t live in this area, you need to be alert to the kinds of things that could happen in your neighborhood.

Gadfly loves to compare his thinking to our elected officials. Join him. The Council members gave us clear and substantial rationales.

Remember, too, that one of the main reasons for the Gadfly project is to help you know your Councilpeople better so that you can be the most informed voter you can be.

This is a good opportunity.

Whom do you agree with, disagree with? Who makes you think? Who gave you something new to think about? Whom are you glad to see with a seat at the Head Table?

Councilman Colon (votes for the temporary closure)

  • I’m curious to see what comes out of the temporary closure.
  • We’ve already vacated a couple streets that we didn’t have this opportunity to test.
  • I remember how big deal it was when that street (Broad Street) was closed and then reopened.
  • We have an opportunity to have a temporary closing and then come back to the table and see what happens.
  • Now is a good time . . . to do the study. (students there, unlikely weather event, construction conditions on Lehigh campus)
  • Where I stand on permanent closure, who knows.
  • I’m encouraged by the Mayor’s comments about having another public hearing.


Councilwoman Crampsie Smith (votes against the temporary closure)

  • I do have concerns about the temporary closure. One is the proximity to Broughal Middle School.
  • I worry about their [Broughal students] maturity level.
  • There’s also St. Peter’s Church . . .
  • Also is the concern that the Southside is so congested already.
  • For many walkability is not an option [people with physical disabilities, an aging population] impeding people attending Lehigh events.
  • I wonder [from the community perspective] if this isn’t an extreme jump.
  • Sophisticated crosswalk like done at Moravian . . . overpasses, walkways.
  • I wonder if we’re not taking an extreme leap.
  • I just have a lot of questions. Perhaps in the future I would be more inclined to agree.

Van Wirt and Reynolds next–

Gadfly says Lehigh might want to lock Carolina Hernandez in her office

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

Before we look at the interestingly different ways Council voted on the proposal to do a pilot study for closing Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster, let’s wrap up by looking once again at Gadfly’s stance.

Gadfly is a first premise, first cause, begin-at-the-beginning kind of guy.

He is very often most interested in the “why” kinds of questions.

Lehigh is proposing to close a section of Packer Ave.

Gadfly is neutral on the proposition. He stands to be convinced. As he assumes the Council members should be.

To Gadfly’s observations, the conversation about the pilot study moved too swiftly to the details of how a pilot study will be implemented. And that blurs the why question. It assumes the why question has been answered satisfactorily.

For instance, in the initial 4-minute Lehigh presentation at Council last Tuesday (there were four Lehigh speakers), one minute was spent on the reasons for wanting to close Packer, three for how the study will be conducted. Gadfly would reverse the percentages. He would not go to how the study will be done till he was reasonably convinced there was a compelling reason to do it in the first place.

So Gadfly rivets on the question of why Lehigh says it will be a good thing to close Packer.

Recognizing the similarity in the deliberative process so far to the process in which he participated hundreds if not thousands of times over five decades as a writing teacher, Gadfly notes that the Lehigh proposal has gone through three drafts: at the January 23 Broughal meeting, at the February 4 Council meeting, and last Tuesday at the February 18 Council meeting.

As one would expect, the drafts are somewhat different. As one would hope, the latest draft is somewhat stronger.

But, in Gadfly’s mind, the Lehigh proposal is “not there yet.” And as a Council member, he wouldn’t be ready to accept it, or even to accept the seemingly harmless first step of a free traffic study.

There are three points to Lehigh’s case that have shifted somewhat but remained basically the same over the three drafts. In the language of draft #3:  1) pedestrian safety 2) pulling the core of the campus farther in to the Southside 3) an improved pedestrian amenity for the campus and the community at large.

Listen to fussy, crotchety old prof Gadfly at the February 18 Council meeting calling for a yet stronger 4th draft before the Lehigh proposal is in shape to present to Council for their deliberation.  (If you want to see fussy, crotchety old prof Gadfly from his best viewing angle — the back — go to the City video min. 49:45.)

1) pedestrian safety: this third draft produced statistics on accidents and injuries at “the crossing” on Packer. But a) the crossing has been there for years. If conditions were so bad, why hasn’t the City done something/said something? Where is testimony from the City traffic and safety people? That would have more legitimacy than “partisan” testimony from the Lehigh officer. b) Still nothing addressing less nuclear traffic calming measures. As Gadfly said a few posts back, he feels that possessing that space is the prime reason for the proposal. The other options would not enable closing, would not enable possession of that space. The traffic rationale is a necessary means to possession. Lehigh has, in fact, said several times that safety is not their prime reason for proposing the closing but one of three “overlapping reasons.” So what bothers Gadfly is that the pilot traffic study is not addressing the main reason for the closing — which is the underdeveloped reason #3.

2) changing the face of Lehigh, pulling the core of the campus closer into the Southside: Sorry, Gadfly is not overpowered by the logic here. Closing Packer is not the same as moving Lehigh offices to the Flatiron building or to 3rd and New. Closing Packer is not the same as funding the Southside Ambassadors. We are talking here about moving the symbolic center of the University from the University Center flagpole/lawn to Packer Ave — about a one minute walk apart. Spitting distance. Gadfly agrees with the Mayor’s goal of more University and student involvement in the Southside but doesn’t see this move relating in virtually any way to that goal. On its own. But Gadfly must remember that Lehigh is talking not about three separate reasons but about “overlapping reasons,” which puts interesting emphasis on their third reason. Read on.

3) an improved pedestrian amenity for the campus and the community at large, providing a safe and welcoming east-west access for the community: go back and listen to the video of Lehigh’s Carolina Hernandez, the last of the four Lehigh presenters at last Tuesday’s Council meeting. She talked of programs in which Lehigh brings students to campus. Wow! thought Gadfly when he got up to talk — even smacking the podium table over this point (so dramatic, he is). This flips Lehigh reason #2. Not taking campus farther into the Southside. But bringing community members uphill, on to campus. Yes. Yes. Yes. This is the part of the conversation from Lehigh’s Tuesday night draft #3 that caught Gadfly’s attention — as well as Councilwoman Van Wirt’s, as we will see in the next post or so. Yes, yes. yes. Let’s think of how this vacated space might be used to blur lines, to bring more Southsiders over physical, symbolic, or emotional (an interesting term used by Lehigh in a past meeting) borders. So Gadfly ended up saying that the most important addition for the 4th draft of Lehigh’s proposal would be specific examples of boundary-blurring programing that Lehigh could institute in that space. If I were a Councilperson, such examples would make my mouth water and satisfy my need to consider approving such a proposal for the public good of the City. If I were Lehigh, I would lock Carolina Hernandez in her office till she developed two or three specific programs that would turn a vacated Packer Ave. into a truly shared space. Put as much detailed thinking about the use of the public space as has been given to the details of the traffic study. (We pretty much know where every traffic cone is going to go in the traffic study, but we get zero information about reason #3.)

So Gadfly urged Council not to approve the proposal for a traffic study. Yet. Wait for a 4th draft, he said. And then make your decision. (At such moments in conferences asking for a 4th draft, Gadfly had to keep sharp objects away from his students.)

But Council approved it.

Gadfly is not devastated.

The Council rationales were good. The Council rationales were clear. We’ll dissect them next. That will be instructive on several levels.

The idea of a test pilot is always good. The urban planning guru Jeff Speck whom Gadfly spent the last summer reading (you might remember he battered you with post after post of Speck’s ideas) strongly recommends such when possible.

But Gadfly says we shouldn’t think that the results of a test on traffic will touch the main issues here.

And debate about these three rationales will continue if the test pilot passes the test, so the thinking we do here and now is not wasted.

And maybe then Carolina will have been sprung from her office, 4th draft of the proposal in hand.

“Will you incorporate residents into some of the final decision-making process?”

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

Gadfly has had occasion to say several times over the course of his tenure that “done deal” is one of the most terrifying phrases in the English language.

Gadflies have a penchant for exaggeration.

But “done deal” is the death knell to citizen participation.

You are invited to participate, you participate, then you find out the decision has already been made or that the decision is made without you.

Screw it, you say, and turn into one of those who lose faith in the democratic nature of city government.

There is still some concern about genuine and widespread community knowledge of and involvement in the “conversation” so far. Of course that will change big-time March 9 when the barriers go up!

Breena Holland and Kim Carrell-Smith are familiar and, Gadfly jokingly says, “professional” commentators at Council meetings. Otherwise, though Carrell-Smith presented the results of some polling she did of neighbors, there was only one near-by resident voice at the meeting — Gail Domalakes.

While attracted to the uses that Lehigh might make of that space, Domalakes “uses Packer Ave. a lot” both car-wise and walk-wise and finds the street “very pleasant” and does not “feel unsafe.” Au contraire, where she feels “on very high alert, adrenalin-rush” is at Brodhead and Morton and Vine and Morton, and to push more traffic down there might not be a “responsible thing to do.”

Holland and Carrell-Smith (and Domalakes too) support the pilot study. But both women make the clear point that data collected in the pilot study be shared with the community before a decision is made to go ahead with a permanent closing of that section of Packer.

The Mayor himself was clear at the January 23 Broughal meeting that he wanted the widest range of information he could get. So we’re hoping/expecting that there will be an open meeting for the public to share data and ideas about it and other salient and significant issues with Mayor and Council before any final decision is made.

Let’s try very hard to avoid the mutterings of “done deal.”

Sending cars to Morton, the main way students might go home, is a little bit nuts

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

Resident Al Wurth raises three main objections to closing Packer Ave. at last Tuesday’s Council meeting: closing because of pedestrian concerns is overkill, it sends a bad signal to residents of the Southside, it endangers Broughal students.

Only one of Wurth’s concerns — the last, about the Broughal students — will be addressed by the pilot traffic study.

Though a pedestrian study now is more clearly articulated as part of the pilot, Gadfly’s worry from the beginning has been that the proposed — and now approved — study will not be studying all that needs to be studied. And it may not even be studying the main thing or things that need to be studied. For instance, though suggestions were made at the January 23 Broughal meeting about how to receive or collect resident commentary, nothing concrete has been heard about that yet.

Gadfly is a bit haunted by a comment Lehigh made at the January 23 Broughal meeting, that their preliminary study indicated that driving around the vacated area (for instance, Vine to Morton to Webster back to Packer) would only take 13 seconds more than the direct route between Vine and Webster on Packer. As if time on the road is the prime criterion for a decision. So that if the east-west/west-east delay for skirting the vacated area is reasonably modest, then the proposal would be acceptable.

Must be on the alert for that kind of thinking.

  • You only really need to be concerned about the pedestrian interaction . . . during a few hours of the daytime.
  • To close the road permanently would seem to be unnecessary.
  • The smartest thing to do here is some sort of traffic calming.
  • I’m a little bit anxious about the signal that it sends to say to the residents of the Southside that the road is closed and now it’s Lehigh only.
  • When you take all the cars that are now crossing at Packer and send them deliberately past Broughal . . . I’m guessing the junior high school students are even less careful than Lehigh students.
  • Pedestrian-car interaction and enhancing that by sending cars down Vine to Morton and Morton being the main way students might go home is also a little bit nuts and probably is unnecessary.
  • To invite more cars to go by Broughal . . .?
  • It seems to me that there’s a simpler solution.
  • We’re going to have a road there, and we’re gonna have the run-off, and we’re actually turning the cars and the pollution down the hill to the community and away from the campus.
  • I’m thinking of the kids at the school, and we really ought to pay more attention to the impact on them.
  • I’m not sure the road needs to be closed and certainly if it’s closed 24hrs. all the time.

Lehigh moves Council to approve the pilot traffic study

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

Charles Malinchak, “Bethlehem closing Packer Avenue to study impact.” Morning Call, February 19, 2020.

As previously reported here, Lehigh made a presentation to City Council Tuesday supporting their request to do a pilot traffic study on the closing of Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster. Council approved the traffic study 3-2. It will begin March 9 and last 45 days.

As Gadfly also said previously, he thought it was a good meeting: improved Lehigh presentation, good resident comments, good (and diverse) Council comments.

Let’s take 2-3 posts and appreciate what went on.

First, the Lehigh presentation. This is the 3rd time Lehigh has presented its 3-part rationale: pedestrian safety, the changing core of the Lehigh campus, and a pedestrian walkway for the campus and wider community. Lehigh has already done a traffic study that shows “minimal impact” from the street closure, and the proposed pilot study will enable “proof of concept.” This particular point, as we will see later, seemed especially appealing to some Council members. Details of planning with the school district and the Bethlehem Parking Authority and other logistical matters were also covered.

The Lehigh consultant performing the study outlined such things as 1) observations morning, noon, and afternoon at Broughal for the safety of the students (a major concern raised at the public meeting on January 23), and 2) studies of 20 different traffic points, the goal being to document the changing traffic patterns.

Here the Lehigh Chief of Police addressed in more detail than ever before point #1 in the Lehigh proposal: pedestrian safety. He gave “numbers” for the first time about “pedestrian-vehicle conflicts” along that stretch of road, numbers that are “some of the highest I’ve seen in my law enforcement career.” (Where did your video of the Chief go, Gadfly?)

Here in support of the third point in Lehigh’s proposal, the Lehigh rep outlines the considerable community service work that Lehigh does on the Southside that is “blurring the lines” between the campus and the community and provides a basis to explore the possibility of closing the street (Lehigh has little flat surface on the campus itself) to offer other options for this worthy work.

Followers will remember that Gadfly has been grouchy at the quality of Lehigh’s presentation in its previous two stages. But this was definitely a better presentation. You will see Gadfly’s interesting generally supportive response to this third iteration of the proposal later.

Resident response to the Lehigh presentation was excellent. Going there next.

Resident voices. Gadfly loves them.

Council gives go-ahead for pilot study on closing Packer Ave.

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

Gadfly a bit pressed by other obligations this morning and just trying to get you the headlines from last night’s City Council meeting.Thus, the Mayor’s statement in the previous post and the Packer Ave. business in this post.

Council enabled the pilot traffic study on the temporary closing of Packer between Vine and Webster by a 3-2 vote (Councilpeople Negron and Callahan not present). The temporary closing will begin March 9 and last 45 days.

Gadfly thought it was a very good meeting. Lehigh made a more detailed proposal/explanation, there were a half-dozen resident comments, the Mayor made a statement, and each Council member gave a detailed comment supporting his or her vote. Lots of information, ideas, opinions flowed in a collegial way. The way it should.

Gadfly much pleased (ha! even though his “side” lost).

Gadfly will come back and break the discussion down for you when time permits, but he recommends going to the primary source (as always) first: go to the City video min. 9:40 to start.

 

Reposted from February 11: Gadfly thinks Lehigh strikes out on the Packer proposal

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

“Gadfly is not demanding that Council completely reject the street closing. He’s asking they demand Lehigh make a compelling case. A case that compels them.”
Gadfly, February 11, 2020

City Council tomorrow night will vote to enable the closing of Packer Avenue between Webster and Vine for a traffic study that will be a key determinant in the decision about a permanent closing. Gadfly has taken some heat for opposing the street closing. He hastens to say that he has an open mind on that decision. What he opposes is going ahead in even a preliminary fashion without a compelling case. Council needs to require convincing argument before it acts. Gadfly could fashion such a convincing argument. He challenges Lehigh to do so. And he challenges Council to withhold approval for the pilot study till they do so. And thus he reposts his thoughts from February 11.

————–

As you can see from the video in Gadfly’s previous post, at the February 4 Council meeting Lehigh presented three rationales for the Packer street vacation as it did January 23 at Broughal, but the rationales were not the same. Rationale #2 was different February 4. But rationales #1 and #3 were no stronger.

Lehigh presented “three major issues overlapping one another”:

1) safety of pedestrians:

Lehigh simply presented some facts about the number of Lehigh pedestrians who cross Packer Ave. The number is “substantial.” But the number of pedestrians crossing a street, even though huge, doesn’t logically prove there is a safety problem. What would prove there is a safety problem? Facts. Number of accidents. Number of injuries. Number of deaths. No data has been given. Where are the facts? Has the City recognized the central crossing of Packer as a danger? If so, why have they not recommended some remedy? Even if the data backs up a significant safety issue, have any number of other traffic calming tools been applied? Why go immediately to the most drastic option? The answer probably is that the three rationales are “overlapping,” and the most drastic option enables goal 3: a Packer Promenade of some sort. Without the successful completion of rationale #1, there can be no Promenade. Gadfly sees the promenade as Lehigh’s main goal.

2) the changing face of the Lehigh campus as it shifts downward toward Southside:

The downward shift is partly due to projects on campus but partly due to “our investment in the city.” Investment. That is, we have put money in. Note that this rationale #2 is not the same as the rationale #2 that was presented at Broughal. At Broughal, the stated rationale was “Better connecting Lehigh with South Bethlehem to have more [foot] traffic supporting the businesses” — the change is a recognition that no logical connection could be made between Packer open or closed and foot traffic at Southside businesses. Now no mention of impact on business is made. What is mentioned is money Lehigh has spent. That’s a big difference. Lehigh had to shift the argument. (Maybe they were reading Gadfly!)  And in the shift we find a bald quid pro quo (wheee!). Now Lehigh reminds the City of their “investment” in the Southside and their “partnership” in developing it. In effect, they are saying remember what we’ve done for you and with you. Now it’s time for you to do us a favor. In addition, there is the completely new element of opening up a “point of connection” with the Southside but not in the north-south direction of the prior rationale #2 but in an “east-west” direction. This is the first time we hear of an east-west connection with the Southside as a Lehigh or City goal. But what is there to connect east-west? North-south was connection with businesses and other understandable aspects of city life. What’s the point, function, goal of an increased east-west connection even if it could be shown that closing the street would effect one?

3) improving the pedestrian experience not only for the Lehigh community but the public at large:

Value for the Lehigh community is obvious. But for the public at large — which should be the Mayor and City Council’s prime concern — it is not. How much east-west “public” foot traffic is there? Gadfly is tempted to say virtually none. But are there any facts? Is there any data? There is no expansion on this third point. No rhetorical support. No elaboration. No description. No argumentation. No example. No persuasion.

Which for Gadfly adds up to no reason for City Council to approve even so preliminary and costless a step as a traffic study.

In Gadfly’s view, Lehigh has demonstrably not made a case with enough mental rigor for even a baby step to be taken toward closing Packer Ave.

It’s hard for Gadfly to see that closing Packer Ave. was on any City agenda in the same way as, say, refurbishing South New St. But let the case be made. Strongly. Before any action is taken.

(Gadfly wants to note among all his negativity that Lehigh indicated response to concerns about Broughal safety and expanding the area of the traffic study raised at the January 23 meeting, as well as commitment to shutting down the study/closure early if things aren’t working out. These are good things.)

to be continued . . .

The search: what triggered the search, and when did it happen?

logo Latest in a series of posts on Bethlehem Police logo

DiLuzio and Meixell to Greene 11 20 19
Englesson to Greene 11 29 19
Englesson to Donchez 12 20 19

So let’s talk about this incident.

What do we know, and what do we not know as we attempt to evaluate this situation of dueling complaints about a serious matter regarding racial profiling by a police officer or what we might call abuse of power by a district judge?

We’ll take it in small chunks. Think along with the Gadfly. And let him know your thoughts as we go. As always, contrary opinion invited.

Witnesses:

  • We don’t know if there are any “corroborators.” The arresting officer seems to have been alone at the traffic stop (the officer who made the second statement seems to have only been at the conversation with the Judge). Both officers say that the Judge “raised his voice” during their conversation, which the Judge denies. We don’t know if any of the Judge’s staff could weigh in on this point of contention.

The search:

  • We need a clear time line of the traffic stop events. For instance, when did the information about the warrant arrive, before the search of the car or after? The stop was for a traffic violation, which, on the face of it, would not seem to trigger a search of the car. The officer would write a ticket, and the driver would be on his way. It might not even necessitate the driver getting out of the car, which happened here at some point. What triggered the search, and when did it happen?
  • The officer described the search as a “consent search.” What exactly does that mean? The Judge indicates that a reason is normally given for such a consent search. The officer did not give one on his Affidavit of Probable Cause. Should he have? What was the probable cause for the search? We don’t know. In any event, the driver (through his conversation with the Judge) says he was not asked for nor did he give consent.
  • If the search happened after knowledge of the warrant out for a deported felon, would consent to search the car be necessary? Would that warrant constitute probable cause to search the car? Again, the question is what triggered the search, and when did it happen?
  • The wording of the arrested officer’s statement suggests that the arrest for marijuana came before the knowledge of the warrant (“was arrested for possession . . . his name also came back for a warrant”). The statement of the second officer more clearly indicates the marijuana arrest came first: “the male was in custody because of a drug arrest. While in Custody a deported felon warrant came back to the male’s name.” The Chief’s letter also seems to indicate that the man was “in custody” (synonymous for formally arrested?) for the marijuana violation when the warrant info arrived. The timing needs to be clarified. But we are brought back yet again to what triggered the car search, and when did it happen?
  • It appears that the marijuana arrest came first, came before knowledge of the warrant, and thus the legality of the car search is of paramount importance.
  • And that legality seems problematic because of the uncertainty about the officer’s motivation and the driver’s consent.

The charge:

  • The marijuana is several times referred to as a “small amount.” We have a recent ordinance that permits the officer to treat possession of a small amount of marijuana as a summary offense along the order of a traffic violation. Why did the officer not choose that option? (Maybe he did — Gadfly is not clear on this point from the available documents.)

to be continued . . .

Closing Packer Ave.: what would be a similar situation on the north side of town?

logo Latest in a series of posts on City Government logo

Gadfly:

I was just talking with one of our retired police captains who thinks Packer Avenue should not be closed. As we were speaking the thought came to me, what would be a similar situation be on the north side of town. What I came up with was closing Goepp Street between Center and New Streets. Goepp isn’t the primary east/west route like Union Boulevard or Broad Street, or Union Boulevard and Elizabeth Avenue, but it provides relief for those roadways. It’s an alternative, which is exactly what Packer Avenue is in an even more densely compacted area. Very few people would support closing that stretch of Goepp Street either. Or, how about Moravian College asking to have Main Street closed from Ettwein Street to Elizabeth Avenue. It would still leave New and Center Streets to handle north/south traffic. I’m sure there are even more parallels. Again, a request for traffic calming measures I understand. Street closure I don’t.

Dana Grubb