Category: Southside

Reflections on Southside Bethlehem, Part 4: The Specter of Student Housing

(Fourth in a 5-part series of posts on the Southside by Anna Smith)

Anna Smith is a life-long Southside resident and Director of the Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem, a non-profit dedicated to improving the quality of life in south Bethlehem by fostering economic opportunity, promoting community development, and empowering residents to actively participate in the decision-making process regarding the future of our diverse community.

Gadfly:

Campus-community tensions are an inevitable component of any college town. South Bethlehem and Lehigh are no exception to the rule (if you can find an exception anywhere, I’d love to hear about it!). Once again, your perspective depends on your location (in this case, physical location matters), and your frame of reference. Here are a few of the things I’m thinking about these days.

Going back at least a decade, the expansion in off-campus housing for Lehigh University students drastically changed the face of Fifth Street, Hillside Ave, Birkel Avenue, and Montclair Avenue. Once home to families and homeowners, portions of these streets are now almost exclusively student housing. This transition was painful for the remaining homeowners who feel that the community where they bought their homes has disappeared. They can probably sell their homes for more money now, but the emotional component of losing a neighborhood has to be recognized, and we can’t deny that the look and feel of a community has value for those that call it home. Backyards once home to meticulously tended rose gardens have been converted to parking lots. Remnants of student parties are piled high on trash day, and old couches continue to appear on front porch littered with beer bottles. Neighbors who have witnessed the transition from Bethlehem Steel retirees to students are entitled to their frustration. Not all students are bad neighbors, but that’s not the point.

Like development, however, the student housing expansion did not occur in a vacuum. Without student housing, what would have happened to these properties? Overall economic trends in south Bethlehem and similar deindustrializing communities would suggest that many of these properties would not have been purchased by homeowners following the relocation of their original owners. The neighborhood would have experienced change with or without students—what that change would have looked like is difficult to say, and value judgments are beyond the scope of this discussion. However, the lack of a resident voice—the lack of choices—in what happened to these neighborhoods was enough to create a sense of impotence among those left behind. That frustration can be difficult to understand for those focused solely on the economics of the situation, but taking some time to listen to the stories of our neighbors brings the aches and pains of neighborhood change into view.

For those living on the outskirts of the student neighborhoods, the student housing discussion is quite different. Give them Birkel and Fifth, my former neighbors on Carlton plead; just don’t let them take over my neighborhood. The students are generally fine people, but they just have different hours and lifestyles that don’t mesh well with raising a toddler. Doesn’t it make more sense to concentrate the students close to one another and to campus? What family wants to live across the street from a student dorm, anyway? The conversion of single-family homes to student housing feels threatening to residents on the outskirts of predominantly student neighborhoods who are watching their blocks change more rapidly than they ever had before. What will they do if they are the last homeowners on the only block they have known for the last 50 years?

Anna

Reflections on Southside Bethlehem, Part 3: An Alternative Approach to Development

(Third in a 5-part series of posts on the Southside by Anna Smith)

Anna Smith is a life-long Southside resident and Director of the Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem, a non-profit dedicated to improving the quality of life in south Bethlehem by fostering economic opportunity, promoting community development, and empowering residents to actively participate in the decision-making process regarding the future of our diverse community.

Gadfly:

Instead of starting with nothing, why don’t we start with something? Community-driven, asset-based development is an alternative approach that some community organizations have taken in south Bethlehem, and that can be applied to any potential development project. Working with residents and other stakeholders to identify a neighborhood’s strengths and assets and then creating a plan for development that builds off those strengths ensures that development adds to a neighborhood’s character without erasing the elements that attracted development in the first place.

A classic example is the South Bethlehem Greenway—a defunct rail line was converted into a community park that connects south Bethlehem commercial districts, improving walkability in an already walkable community.

On Hayes Street, the historic architecture of St. Stanislaus church was adapted into a multi-purpose space for the Southside Lofts affordable apartment community.

In both examples, a community need or challenge was identified and a strategy was developed to address that challenge by building off existing assets.

This approach brings its own challenges, and no development project will ever be supported by everyone. However, making an effort to engage community members tends to make for a better project in the end.

Anna

Reflections on Southside Bethlehem, Part 2: “Ten years ago, there was nothing here”

(Second in a 5-part series of posts on the Southside by Anna Smith)

Anna Smith is a life-long Southside resident and Director of the Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem, a non-profit dedicated to improving the quality of life in south Bethlehem by fostering economic opportunity, promoting community development, and empowering residents to actively participate in the decision-making process regarding the future of our diverse community.

Gadfly:

“Ten years ago, there was nothing here”

This refrain is a classic remark at grand openings and ribbon cuttings throughout the Southside these days. I know why it is used—perhaps there was nothing here that attracted your attention, money, or time. However, as a lifelong resident, it’s hard not to take this personally; I was here. My family was here. We shopped, ate at restaurants, went to school, and played at parks here ten years ago.

We erase the livelihoods of thousands with a single phrase when we speak of development as if it has occurred on a blank canvas. Development never occurs in a vacuum—“nothing” may have been a vacant lot where neighborhood kids played or a makeshift community garden. Good, bad, or somewhere in between, I doubt it was nothing. In fact, there was a reason that someone chose to invest in this area to begin with—if there were nothing here, why would you spend time and money to build something new here?

History and perspective matter, and they inform the decisions we make and our evaluations of their potential impact. I don’t expect someone who doesn’t live in my neighborhood to truly understand its assets (how could they?), but I do expect them to try. Listening is a good place to start.

Anna

In these first two posts, Anna nails something important to me as I think of the “divide” between CPs Negron and Callahan on visions of the Southside. I tend to use their expressed views as my frame of reference. What I hear in BC is measuring change “in investment dollars, new construction, jobs created, businesses opened—the bigger the numbers, the better.”  ON measures change in a totally different way (though in her long remarks at the last Council meeting, she is certainly appreciative of and even proud of some of the things that BC talks about). “Listening is a good place to start.” Yes.

And check out the Southside Multi-Cultural Fest this weekend too

courtesy of CW Negron

HOLY INFANCY MULTI-CULTURAL FEST

Come join us for food, music and fun for the whole family!

 When: Friday, June 14th from 5:00-10:00 pm and Saturday, June 15th from Noon-10:00 pm, 2019.

 Where: Holy Infancy’s School at 4th and Webster Streets and extending into the beautiful Greenway behind the school.

 What: Come and enjoy delicious multicultural ethnic foods throughout the two-day family-friendly affair like no other in the Lehigh Valley.  Experience a variety of music from multiple cultures and ethnic dance performances, including community resources, museum displays, and children’s activities.

Please plan on coming and bring your neighbors, friends, and family!

For more information visit: www.holyinfancychurch.com or call at 610-866-1121

Check out this “Southside” web site!

Gadfly calls your attention to this important project out of Lehigh University with which we plan to collaborate:

 Southsider: Celebrating Bethlehem’s Southside Culture

The Southsider Vision

Southsider focuses on celebrating our vibrant arts district by creating a forum for reportage on arts programming and local artists on the South Side of Bethlehem. With funding from the Mellon Digital Humanities Initiative and the South Side Initiative of Lehigh University, Southsider reporters compose articles that include reviews of theatrical performances, musical shows, films, and gallery openings. We also provide interviews with area artists and discussions of the ongoing arts programming and arts organizations on the South Side of Bethlehem.

We envision a website in which residents of Bethlehem can reflect upon the power and import of local arts events, artists, and cultural organizations. While Southsider staff will continue to pen articles for the site, we hope that community members also will take time to write pieces that discuss South Side arts and culture.

—–

Please put this one on your speed-dial!

Reflections on Southside Bethlehem, Part 1: Economic and Community Development

(First in a 5-part series of posts on the Southside by Anna Smith)

Anna Smith is a life-long Southside resident and Director of the Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem, a non-profit dedicated to improving the quality of life in south Bethlehem by fostering economic opportunity, promoting community development, and empowering residents to actively participate in the decision-making process regarding the future of our diverse community.

Neighborhoods change. And they have always changed. There’s no question that change continues in south Bethlehem, and, value judgments aside, most folks living in the City will agree that change is happening faster these days.

Recently, a colleague asked me what data points I track to measure economic development over time in south Bethlehem. Number of apartments? Rental prices? Number of employees? Commercial vacancies? Median sale prices of single-family homes? New investment dollars?

In the world of government and big business (under a neoliberal system), change tends to be measured in investment dollars, new construction, jobs created, businesses opened—the bigger the numbers, the better.

In my experience, however, when you ask neighbors what they think about their neighborhoods, they never cite these numbers to describe change. Changes in quality of life are measured in terms of friendly neighbors who stay put, trash on the street, dogs barking, leaving doors unlocked, walking to work or school, parks and green space, street lighting, police activity, graffiti, and safe places for children to play.

I think a lot about what quality of life means for our community as the director of an organization tasked with expanding economic opportunity and promoting community development in south Bethlehem. How do we identify quantitative and qualitative measures of “progress” that resonate at all levels with diverse stakeholders—local government, corporate funders, neighborhood organizations?

The indicators we track and how we interpret them shed light on our values, our priorities, and our goals as a community, and they will inevitably vary depending on the angle from which we are examining south Bethlehem. I don’t expect us all to agree—sharing different perspectives, debating their merits, and coming to collective decisions is what participatory democracy is all about.

From my perspective as both a lifelong resident of south Bethlehem and as the leader of an organization tasked with improving the quality of life in our neighborhoods, here are some of the things I’m thinking about as we debate neighborhood change and its winners and losers.

Anna

What we want is reinvigoration rather than gentrification (5)

(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)

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

Gadfly:

Thought you might like a little light reading on Gentrification. I think it helps give perspective to what we are seeing on the southside. See the sub-links to each header.

5 Must-Read Perspectives on Gentrification

I think there is a way to retain southside residents, and the great, funky quality of life in South Bethlehem, while attempting to minimize displacement of residents, while creating a more stable housing stock  and stronger local economy.  It’s tricky, but I think it can be done.  But it must be acknowledged by the administration that not all development is “good,” especially if it changes a neighborhood’s fundamental identity. I think the right word  for what we want is reinvigoration, rather than gentrification.

Paige

Density bonus for developers who do affordable housing (4)

(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)

Olga Negron is a member of Bethlehem City Council.

Gadfly:

When I spoke about using the Zoning ordinance to incentivize developers to include affordable housing when constructing, I was referring to our Zoning Ordinance Article 1307 (copy attached), where it details how the city can incentivize the developers allowing them to use a density bonus. The city has been giving bonuses without using the ordinance in the books! Maybe that’s we are called “the Christmas City”!

Zoning Ordinance Article 1307.Workforce Housing Incentive

“This Article 1307 shall only be available if a development will include 20 or more new dwelling units. If a minimum of 10% of the total dwelling units in a development will be sold or leased as workforce dwellings, then a density bonus shall be allowed. If more than 30 percent of the total dwelling units in a development are workforce housing units, the density bonus shall only be available for that first 30 percent of the total dwelling units. The density bonus shall be that for every workforce dwelling unit, 1.5 additional dwelling units shall be allowed in the development beyond the number of dwelling units that would otherwise be allowed. However, in no case shall the total density of the development exceed a minimum average lot area of 1,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. The restrictions of this Article shall be established and enforced by lease and by deed. The bonus may be rounded to the nearest whole number.”

Olga

For affordable housing, public and private partnerships need to be forged (3)

(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)

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:

I didn’t say that developers aren’t the answer, what I inferred is that because they are profit-driven they are looking to make money and that the construction of affordable/blue collar/workforce housing is not a huge revenue-generator. However, I feel they could be part of the solution if policies, ordinances, and community pressure induced them to provide a mix of housing types and affordability. Over many years there have been a number of affordable housing developers in the Lehigh Valley, all non-profits. At issue is that for-profit developers build larger projects (think about the 528 upscale rental units proposed for the Martin Tower site) versus smaller one to ten unit projects that non-profits generally undertake. That ration isn’t a good one and neither is the ratio of rentals to owner-occupied units. Home ownership helps greatly to stabilize neighborhoods, with an optimum ratio of 70% owned and 30% rented deemed the best approach for accomplishing this. That ratio is being skewed tremendously by all of the upscale rental units being proposed and built.

This why public and private partnerships need to be forged. One can’t do it on its own, and the other won’t.

Dana

What can be done to provide affordable housing? (2)

(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)

Taking up here one of the two questions provoked by CW Negron’s response to the South Bethlehem Historical Society letter about detrimental effects brought about by “progress” on the Southside.

What can be done to provide affordable housing [on the Southside]?

You know Gadfly by now. You’ve seen him “in action” before. He starts answering a question with a series of questions. He starts way back. Trying to understand a question or a problem.

But he has seen you “in action” before too. He knows he has an audience that knows things. So have at it! Jump in!

1) What exactly do we mean by “affordable housing”? How define it? We are talking about housing and rental prices that people in a certain income bracket can afford, right? What is that bracket? And therefore what housing and rental prices are we targeting as “affordable housing”? We need more houses in what price range? We need more rentals in what price range?

2) These terms are tossed around, but how would we define low-cost housing? moderately priced housing?

3) What data or anecdotal reports do we have on housing and rental costs on the Southside now? What is the average sale price? Rental price? What is the rent at 510 Flats and other new — “luxury” — sites?

4) What data or anecdotal reports do we have on housing and rental availability right now? Scarce? Abundant? Buyer’s market? Seller’s market?

5) What are the forces driving up the price of existing housing?  What are the forces driving the development of primarily “luxury” housing?

6) How much a part of the expressed desire for more affordable housing is connected with a desire to have more families living on the Southside?

7) What are we doing now to increase affordable housing? Is there a plan in operation? Is it on some agenda?

8) How does the rehab program of Southside Vision 20/20 fit in to this desire for more affordable housing? Are there other such City programs?

9) CRIZ and such incentive programs are probably not applicable, right?

10) Who has the power to make affordable housing a higher priority? The City? Council? Shared?

11) How does the development process work in general? Is the City passive/active? If affordable housing were to be a higher priority, who would be the point person? Mayor? Community and Economic Development?

12) Is affordable housing on the Mayor’s radar? Is it in the State of the City address, etc.?

13) Is anyone right now charged with seeking to cultivate sources for affordable housing?

14) CW Negron says there is an ordinance that the City can use to gain affordable housing, but CM Callahan says developers cannot be forced to build affordable housing. Who is right?

15) CM Callahan has offered to “team” with CW Negron in looking for developers — does that collaboration have potential?

16) But in these pages, Dana Grubb has said developers are not the answer but non-profits. Like whom? How do we get them involved?

17) We are certainly not the first or only City to face issues of affordable housing and gentrification — what other cities are we/should we be looking at for ideas?

18) Who used affordable housing as a campaign issue that we should be looking to for leadership and action? Whose feet do we hold to the fire?

19) Should we be looking for candidates in the next election round who will make affordable housing  a major issue?

Now the Gadfly mailbag shows followers have already begun to fill in answers to some of these questions, so look for Gadfly to bring in their posts next.

 

 

A plea for affordable housing (1)

(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)

The scene:

Remember the long night meeting on the Martin Tower demolition at Nitschmann?

30-some speakers. Some very animated.

Things wound down.

Discussion fatigue enveloping the hall.

The Mayor made concluding remarks, thanking all concerned.

There was generous applause.

There was the rustle of exiters.

It was over.

We were done.

When an elderly gentleman — oblivious to the fact that last call had been given and the lights were going out — approached the stage-left mic.

To make a plea for affordable housing.

And received the loudest applause of the night.

  • I’ve been here in the Valley since 1965.
  • It’s getting to the point that we can’t afford it.
  • We can’t afford what the new housing costs.
  • I would like to see at least a portion of this property [Martin Tower] be put into something that elderly people who don’t have the strength . . . the money . . .
  • We could move . . . but then we have our doctors here. We can’t afford to drive back and forth.
  • You talk about luxury apartments . . .

One minute and ten seconds. But unforgettable to Gadfly.

The sun was setting on his life.

The sun was setting on the meeting.

But the audience was roused from Tower torpor, mightily aroused.

Gadfly wanted to run for office so we could act on that plea.

Let’s keep that muffled elderly voice and the vigorous chorus of audience support in mind as we think about what the City can do to remedy the lack of affordable housing.

There is a problem, and “we” know in out guts something has to be done about it.

Chewing on SBHS concerns: identifying the source of the pain (6)

(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)

“Good conversation builds community.”

Let’s see about that.

So we have been laying out the 3-part interchange kicked off by the letter of concern about the future of the Southside from the South Bethlehem Historical Society delivered by Lou James at the May 22 City Council meeting, spurring comments by Councilpersons Negron and Callahan at the June 4 meeting.

SBHS asks the City leaders “to consider the history that is being destroyed in the name of progress.”

Gadflies respond to pain, to citizen pain.

They instinctively want to heal.

To heal, you need to know the source of the pain.

CW Negron helps this gadfly focus on the source of the pain.

Two things:

1) disregard for rules

2) lack of affordable housing

Ok, now Gadfly can formulate questions to think about.

1) What can be done about the fact or the perception that rules pertinent to safeguarding the historical character of the City are being broken?

2) What can be done to provide affordable housing?

Want to help Gadfly think about each of these questions?

 

The Councilman’s memory is rather selective

(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)

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:

The Councilman’s memory is rather selective. The rectory to the church (still standing thankfully) in the unit block of West 4th Street was demolished at least 5, possibly 10 years ago. Residential units (affordable?) were demolished so that the New Street parking garage could be built. A row of retail structures was demolished so the 6-story office building could be constructed at Third and S. New Streets. The former Bethlehem Steel Hammer Shop was demolished so that SteelStacks and the ArtsQuest Center could be developed. Several structures including the former Laufer’s Hardware Store were demolished to make way for a suburban designed CVS drugstore. A developer has plans to construct a high-rise building at West 4th and Vine Streets that will require demolition of 2 buildings. So, demolition has taken place and is projected to take place. The former Boys & Girls Club building on East 3rd Street seems to be in jeopardy based on the rumor mill.

Let there be debate about whether or not demolition needs to or should take place, but make no mistake about it that demolition has taken place.

The Councilman’s offer to find developers who will build affordable housing seems commendable on the surface, but affordable housing is generally not built by for-profit developers. It’s built by non-profits who in many cases receive public subsidies to develop.

I’m not quite sure how teaching in a middle school with students from low/moderate income families who reside in public housing really correlates to the issue. They are already residing in affordable, albeit public housing.

Nearly every rental housing development completed, underway, or in planning stages has been described as upscale in the last few years. A recent rollout for affordable housing projected a handful of units, although it is hope that a revolving loan fund can be established to continue that initiative.

I welcome City Hall’s involvement, and particularly any elected official’s commitment, but until public entities and private developers work hand-in-hand and commit to create a broad range of ownership and rental housing opportunities, it’s my opinion that gentrification will continue in certain areas of Bethlehem.

Dana

Chewing on SBHS concerns: CM Callahan’s response (5)

(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)

Gadfly has pointed out – very recently, in fact — that CW Van Wirt and CM Callahan, literally sitting at the far ends of the Head Table, are North Pole and South Pole.

One might think of CW Negron and CM Callahan as North Galaxy and South Galaxy.

Gadfly has written of the Great Divide between them on visions of the Southside.

Whether you were in attendance at the June 4 Council meeting or watching on tv, you just knew that CM Callahan was going to respond to CW Negron’s 10-minute emotion-laden commentary on the South Bethlehem Historical Society’s May 22 letter.

Low-hanging fruit.

But to Gadfly CM Callahan’s response was – happily — different than expected.

Yes, he showed the usual defensiveness and fact-checking: no demolitions occurred on the Southside for new construction, you can’t force developers to do lower cost housing, Lehigh University has done the necessary.

But his tone was even, not angry or aggressive, or, I thought, condescending, and he recognized the validity of perhaps the key problem CW Negron identified – affordable housing – and volunteered three times to “team” with her – yes, yes, though not with a tremendous amount of confidence — to find developers interested in providing more affordable housing.

Gadfly found that something to behold.

And told him so (he doesn’t follow the blog).

Listen on the City video at min. 1:58:01 or here below.

As usual, leave the soundbites for later review. Listen to the primary source.

  • I read Mr. James’s letter, and I agree with a lot of it in there.
  • I think it’s also important to know that . . . the two new properties down there . . . nothing demolished there.
  • I’m not sure that we can force anybody through ordinances . . . you can’t force someone to build low income, or middle income, or high-income housing.
  • You can’t do that – you pass the zoning, you can say high density, low density, or whatever.
  • But if a developer wants to build higher-end condo units and that’s what the market is bearing, then that’s what they’re going to do.
  • I’m sure it will come a time – I hope it’s soon – that some developer – or, Ms. Negron, I’d be happy to work with you if we could find some developers – I don’t know where – but through my contacts I’d be more than happy to reach out to some of them and maybe we can find some property on the Southside where we can build more moderately affordable housing over there .
  • But, you know, I’m not sure the City can tell a developer that you can’t build housing, residential units that are high-rent.
  • That’s just what the market’s bearing right now.
  • So I don’t think I’ve ever voted on a historical structure other than Martin Tower . . . that’s ever been ripped down in the City.
  • All the other development over there was on empty land.
  • But I agree with you that the affordability is a huge issue.
  • I teach at Northeast Middle School, I think 75% of the kids there are from Marvine and Pembroke Village, and a lot of those kids are really struggling every day, and I see it, I live with them every day.
  • And I’d be more than happy to team up with you [CW Negron] and see if we could find some developers – maybe you have some people that you might know that might want to do low-income or moderate income housing on the Southside.
  • I do know for a fact, though, that Lehigh University does have Graduate housing for married couples.
  • I think Lehigh has done what they’ve had to do as far as graduate-level, married couple housing.
  • I would be more than happy to team with you and try to find builders.
  • I’m not sure we can force them to do that, but it’s worth a try.

Heckuva 3-part interchange we’ve chronicled here. SBHS, ON, and BC. Let’s think about whether we’ve made any progress on important issues here. Next.

Chewing on SBHS concerns: CW Negron’s response (4)

(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)

Council watchers know that Councilperson Negron rarely speaks at length.

When she does, it’s time to listen-up.

One of those rare times was June 4 when she elaborated on and extrapolated on the South Bethlehem Historical Society letter.

Gadfly finds her emotional commentary very compelling, very revealing.

In fact, Gadfly finds the combination of the SBHS letter and CW Negron’s response perhaps the most powerful eloquence he’s heard in his 18 months of Council watching.

Gadfly laments that waning journalistic resources leave it to a blog to make sure that at least some small number of people outside Town Hall hear what was said.

You must listen or watch (City video beginning at min. 1:48:40). I suggest listening. Shut your eyes. Lean back. CW Negron has a wonderful, intimate radio voice. Leave the text soundbites below for review later.

  • I felt that was my voice being repeated for some many years, even before I was on Council.
  • I am not known for being a tree-hugger or a historical-building hugger.
  • However, I was raised in a way by my parents in Puerto Rico that we have rules and the rules are there to follow, to follow by everyone.
  • When it comes to historical areas, the City, the people, the government decided to have a historical area . . . and people got together and implemented rules different than the rest of the City.
  • I would never chain myself to any building.
  • I believe that there are rules, and that the rules are there to be followed by everyone.
  • Again and again we have allowed . . . developers to break those same rules that others . . . have had to abide by.
  • And that is wrong, and every time I complain about this, it was just about that.
  • I lived in Southside Bethlehem for the last 23 years . . . everything happened on the Southside.
  • Living in there every day and dealing with everything every day, it is not the same.
  • And talking with neighbors and walking up and down the streets every day is not the same.
  • Nobody can tell me otherwise.
  • And I’ve seen the change . . . and it’s sad.
  • I had to plead with the historic board because we didn’t have the money to fix [the Hispanic Center], and we were not supposed to tear down a historic building.
  • It took a long time and a lot of begging for them to allow us to do something.
  • But that is not what is happening now on the Southside, and it’s outrageous, it’s outrageous.
  • If that is the direction we want to go, fine, change the rules so everybody follows the same.
  • That was, has been my point.
  • I was on the Board for Community Action for over 12 years, and I was part of setting the Southside vision . . . and did a lot of work. And I am very proud that I was part of it . . . sidewalks, acorn lights, the facades . . . I’m proud of that, and I’m glad.
  • But there are a lot of changes that are causing people to not being able to afford living in there.
  • We have ordinances to protect affordable housing . . . and we’re not using them.
  • We are allowing developers to build without keeping affordable housing, and individual, I deal with this every single day when I go to the Hispanic Center twice a week, and all I hear is that I cannot afford to pay my rent.
  • It is sad when you hear individuals that are hard-working and they can not afford to do that, they cannot afford to pay their rent.
  • And all we worry about is to build luxury apartments.
  • And that is wrong.
  • Especially when rules are broken.
  • When individuals like me and you have had to abide by all those rules with the winds, with the color.
  • And anybody with a lot of money can put a shiny object, and that is fine.
  • And that is the piece that saddens, that saddens me driving around the Southside, and all I see is Campus Hill, to rent student rentals.
  • Is not family-occupied any more.
  • Why can’t Lehigh figure that out?
  • Why can we have to keep on changing our Southside . . . displacing families, not to be able to afford living there any more.
  • Beautiful building has been built that my people cannot rent, that I cannot afford to rent.
  • I couldn’t afford to live in a place decent enough that I wanted to live at.
  • I’m a Councilwoman, I work for a lew firm – think about that for a minute.
  • Our people can’t afford it any more – that is wrong.
  • Especially when it happens without us using the ordinance that we have on the books already that should force the developers to build affordable housing and that is allowing them to break so many of the ordinances in the historical area that other small businesses and homeowners have had to abide by.
  • That has been my complaint.
  • And that is why when I read the letter, it broke my heart.
  • His plea: please, listen, where are we taking our city?
  • Is that’s what we want to do, is that the vision?
  • Ok, but, then, don’t call it historical. Don’t. Forget about those rules. Same rules for everybody.
  • And we’ll have shiny buildings everywhere.
  • And that is why when I read that letter, it really broke my heart.
  • Because I heard his plea.
  • His begging to say, please, do not give up what we have.
  • I am not against re-development. I love what happened to the Steel, ArtsQuest, Sands . . .
  • But we have an historical area, the rules should be abided by everybody, and we haven’t done that.
  • Please, let’s think about where we want, we are taking our City.

Councilman Callahan responded. We’ll consider his comments next. You know it’s the Gadfly practice to lay out all the primary sources first so we can begin to form our own opinions. Then we’ll talk about what this now 3-way interchange means.

More than three National Register Historic Districts in Bethlehem

(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)

Gadfly:

There are three National Register Districts under local ordinance, Bethlehem HD, South Bethlehem HD, and Mount Airy HD. There are, however, several other National Register Historic Districts in Bethlehem, Pembroke HD, Elmwood Park HD, and Fountain Hill HD. These are not “protected” under local ordinance. Of course, there are many individual buildings/properties that are also listed.

Dana Grubb

Thanks for the heads-up, Dana! Whom I affectionately call the Answer-Man.

Chewing on SBHS concerns: Gadfly’s response (3)

(The latest in a series of posts on the Southside and Neighborhoods)

Gadfly’s interest in Bethlehem history is not “academic.” Though he was by trade a literary historian.

Bethlehem is the scene of much significant history. Bethlehem has three historical districts. Bethlehem has made history part of its cultural identity as well as commercial identity – and commercial vitality.

And yet history is a source of tension in this town.

A lot has been done to preserve our history.

And yet a significant segment of our residents feels that when it comes to respect for history there is a fissure between rhetoric and practice.

There is a lot of rhetoric.

But Gadfly wonders sometimes – seriously – how deeply respect for Bethlehem’s history actually runs among some of our City’s leaders.

This suspicion – that respect for our history is only skin deep – accounts for the Bethlehem Moment project.

I started thinking of the need for a project of that sort after attending only a few City Council meetings during the Gadfly internship period.

But that is another story.

This post is about chewing again on the emotionally powerful letter from the South Bethlehem Historical Society delivered by president Lou James to the Mayor and City Council at the May 22 Council meeting.

Gadfly cannot shake that letter.

The developer-quoted statement, however benevolently meant – “in ten years you will not recognize South Bethlehem” — haunts him.

Write that line on a sticky and paste it to your bathroom mirror.

At Council June 4, Gadfly called the SBHS letter “sad.” At Council June 4, Gadfly said that it would be a “sin” if the letter were not answered.

“Sin”? A bit much, yes – Gadfly taught for 50+ years, mostly without prepared lectures. Sometimes passion gets the better of him. Sorry.

But Gadfly was appalled by the possibility that such a carefully crafted, calmly delivered letter on so serious a concern would evaporate in the Town Hall rafters.

And just become another case in point for cynical residents who believe it matters naught to bring your concerns “to City Hall.”

Gadfly fights that cynicism. Gadfly believes that a reasonable answer could be made to that letter. That there is a legitimate other perspective.

Gadfly believes that good conversation builds community.

He was afraid no conversation would happen. Opportunity lost.

Let’s read/watch/listen to the May 22 SBHS letter again. Then go on to Gadfly’s comment about it on June 4. And you be the judge.

Here’s Lou James, president of the South Bethlehem Historical Society:

See also the video of the May 22 Council meeting at min. 4:02.

005

Now here’s Gadfly at the June 4 Council meeting (video at min. 16:25):

  • I hope that letter gets answered somehow.
  • It’s a sad letter.
  • James was “imploring” you. He was the unempowered asking the powerful people to listen to his pain and his plea.
  • If that letter goes up poof into the air and doesn’t get a response, it’s kind of a sin – kind of a political sin.
  • Somebody’s gotta respond to that letter.
  • The tension between history and development . . . has to be straight out addressed somehow, not just left to a vote which makes one side win.

Gadfly was happy that there was a pointed response to the SBHS letter late in the June 4 meeting under New Business in a significant interchange between Councilpersons Negron and Callahan.

Let’s take that up next time.

No issue between the 2 sides of the river; healthy that each side has its own identity

(the latest in a series of posts on Neighborhoods)

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 watched the May22 meeting on video, & I didn’t hear the Southside Historic District gentleman upset about any issue with the Northside. Rather what I heard is that the city is letting developers walk all over the SSHistoric Commission recommendations for the sake of growth.

As a Northside Historic District Champion, I don’t really believe there is any issue between the 2 sides of the river.

I think it is healthy that each side has its own identity & the city itself has divided it into the SS Arts & Entertainment District & Moravian Historic District. The marketing of each separately is healthy & trying to meld it into some amorphous blob to make us the same is a huge mistake IMO.

Each district marketing its strength is very healthy, & white Christmas lights on the Northside & color on the SS is part of our unique identity & heritage.

No animosity between North & Southside today IMO—that is old news!

Bruce

Chewing on SBHS concerns (2): Gadfly proposes that CM Callahan answer the James letter

(the latest in a series of posts on Neighborhoods)

“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
William Faulkner

Gadfly can’t shake off the letter Lou James delivered to the Mayor and City Council May 22.

It hit him hard. A man, an organization, fighting for their neighborhood.

An all too pervasive theme in Bethlehem. (Don’t think this is simply a Southside issue.)

The letter portrays so well on a local level the truth of Faulkner’s famous quote.

We know on a national level some people are still fighting the racial issue that prompted Civil War.

Here the tension is between North and South Bethlehem.

Our Mason-Dixon line is the Lehigh River.

I have heard over the past 18 months Stephen Antalics chronicle at Council meetings bits and pieces of the troubled relations between our river communities rooted in the past. It appears, as Stephen recently tells us once again, even in the history of the Christmas lights. (We need a single coherent account of the North-South Bethlehem relationship. It would be required reading for Administration and Council.)

Over those 18 months, I have been more than bothered more than once by the way Stephen’s attempt to keep our history in front of us has been flicked off – even visibly – by assembled City leaders.

I kind of get it. It’s easy to think of Stephen as some dogged ancient prophet from the CAVE era who has somehow lived into the present to plague us with unpleasant reminders of nasty doings and portents of doom.

But he’s right. Attention should be paid.

The truth is in James’s letter.

It’s the voice of a section of the City that feels it’s being snuffed out in the name of progress.

Snuffed out by a City that purports to value history.

Gadfly gets it.

Gadfly believes in the absolute value and necessity of community.

Gadfly believes that “good conversation builds community.”

The James letter cries out to be a topic for good conversation.

Gadfly will be eager to hear if the letter is answered.

But by whom?

When it comes to Northside-Southside relations over the past 18 months that Gadfly has been watching the City, the interactions between Councilman Callahan and Councilman Negron stand out.

Gadfly once described their views on the Southside as “The Great Divide.”

CM Callahan has been an outspoken proponent of the beneficent progress on the Southside.

Gadfly proposes that CM Callahan answer the James letter.

And he offers the pages of the Gadfly blog as one of the vehicles for distributing it.

Gadfly looks forward to the good conversation that such a comparison of views would foster.

Gadfly has more chewing to do. This is a topic that should not be lost. But enough for now.

Chewing on SBHS concerns (1)

(the latest in a series of posts on Neighborhoods)

implore:
1 : to call upon in supplication : beseech
2 : to call or pray for earnestly : entreat
  • The many construction projects along 3rd street, the expansion of Lehigh University, the closing of many churches, the closings and changes to streets, as well as the demolition of many historic homes, businesses and neighborhoods, is changing the historic character of the Southside.
  • We write to implore you to consider the economic impacts progress has on the residents of South Bethlehem and the changes to the character of the neighborhoods, which are still as vibrant and diverse as they were when many of our parents, grandparents and great grandparents made their homes here.
  • A developer once said at a council meeting “. . . in ten years you will not recognize South Bethlehem . . .”
  • We ask you honorable Mayor and City and Council members, to consider the history that is being destroyed in the name of progress.
  • Ask yourselves about the history of the architecture that is being demolished and if the new plans reflect the importance and beauty of what South Bethlehem was and continues to be.

South Bethlehem Historical Society concerns

(the latest in a series of posts on Neighborhoods)

At City Council May 22, Louis James, President of the South Bethlehem Historical Society, presented this polite but forceful letter to the Mayor and City Council in a likewise polite but forceful manner.

What’s going on here?

And will President James’s letter be answered?

Let’s chew on this.

005

Final observations on 2 W. Market – Part 4: the Great Divide (74)

(74th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)

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

To Gadfly, one of the most noticeable rifts between Council members centered on visions of the Southside.

Let’s remember that Gadfly #1 Stephen Antalics – a perennial Southside warrior – introduced the powerful cancer analogy in his testimony against the 2 W. Market petition. He pointed to the cancer that attacked Southside neighborhoods several decades ago by a small zoning change to favor developers – a change in the definition of family to include five unrelated persons. He raised the specter of the same thing happening in the Northside Historical District through an analogous seemingly small, seemingly innocuous zoning change.

CW Negron linked her negative vote on the 2 W. Market text amendment petition directly ONegron-Dipinito the image Antalics raised, recounting the sad feeling she felt driving with her daughters through the neighborhood from Hayes St. toward Five Points.

In the second statement supporting his yes vote at the December 18 meeting, CM Callahan vigorously denounced the consistently negative image of the Southside promulgated by Negron and Antalics and perhaps others — as well as, Gadfly feels, the implication that the City has not done enough for the Southside.

The rift is stunning. The Great Divide is stunning. Where CW Negron sees the Southside through the prism of neighborhoods sadly changed into student housing, CM Callahan sees the new life of charter schools, shops, restaurants, and so forth breathed into the Southside by huge amounts of development dollars.

CW Negron looks to the past, what was once there, what’s been lost. CM Callahan looks to the present and the future.

Put CW Negron at the corner of 5th and Polk and CM Callahan at 3rd and Polk — .2/mile and a 5-minute walk apart – and they might as well be on the North and South Poles.

The vision chasm between Negron and Callahan on the issue of the soul of the Southside is stunning.

And complex.

Because it’s tied in to money and seeming favors given to people with big money.

So discussion of the Southside here in this post bleeds into Gadfly’s next post on 2 W. Market and then into discussion of the recent 306 S. New case.

But for now let’s try just to parse out CM Callahan’s agitation about negative views of theBCallahan Southside. He sees such criticism almost as a personal affront. You can see here how developers and development money are wrapped up in his bruised feelings. Use the link at the top or bottom of this page to listen to the full second comment on December 18, for you should hear his urgency in his own voice. But here is a selection focusing on his Southside feelings.

“I want to say something that’s been bothering me for a little bit. So last meeting we had people criticizing stuff going on in the Southside, and as Mr. Waldron said, every time there’s a controversial topic there’s a variety of people who come out and start listing all these variety of uncertainties. . . . We spent $65m in investment in the last year on the Southside, and we have a regular speaker [Antalics] here who every single meeting rips the Southside about how terrible it is. We got a Councilwoman last week who was doing [Negron] . . . I went over there, the mayor of the Southside, Joe D’Ambrosio, been in business 55 years, lived there this whole entire time . . . tell me [speaking to Joe] when this euphoric state of the Southside was? Was it better 10 years ago? No. Was it better 20 years ago? No. [etc.] . . . . I don’t know when this utopia Southside occurred. . . . I’ve never seen in my lifetime . . . 45 years . .  . I’ve never seen the Southside better. It’s thriving, it’s vibrant. And there’s been a lot of effort on many administrations and many different people on Council to try to better that area — 3rd and New St, people against it. 510 Flats, people against it [etc.]. . . . I would hate to see where we would be as a City with some of the same people criticizing 1 E. Broad. . . . Sands bring in $9.5m. . . . Sands brings in more money per year than the Bethlehem Steel in its heyday. There were naysayers against it. . . . This stuff doesn’t just happen because it’s a sure thing. It’s because people are doing their due diligence and trying to do their best for the city. Who’s paying the damn bills? . . . . 300 people, professionals, with disposable incomes down to that corner, people complained and bitched and moaned about it. Some people call them CAVE people, Citizens against Virtually Everything. No matter what you do, no matter what you say, it’s always, there always a group that comes out of the woodwork.”

A couple things jump out at Gadfly.

Like “Who’s paying the damn bills?” That line stopped Gadfly short. He does not think of money first. He is glad that somebody (somebodies) does. Gadfly recognizes that he does not know nearly enough about how the City raises (and spends, for that matter) money. And could use several good tutorials on that score. CM Callahan sees himself as a man with eyes firmly fixed on the bottom line.

Like the CAVE people. Ugh. The undisguised scorn, the cynicism, the lack of understanding in that characterization is very disturbing.

Does the Great Divide matter? Is there hope of bridging the divide? Should anybody care about bridging the divide? Does the divide have operational consequences? Can CW Negron and CM Callahan work together?

Gadfly thinks their views on and values of the Southside sure tell us a lot about who Council-folk Negron and Callahan are.

What do you see, think?

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