Category: Southside

The Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem(CADCB)

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

Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem
409 East 4th Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015
http://cadcb.caclv.org/

“Empowering people and transforming South Bethlehem”

If you watched the Bonn Place Brewing video in the previous Gadfly post, you saw Anna Smith.

Anna is a Gadfly follower and contributor of some of our most thoughtful, fact-based, experience-based posts on the Southside, affordable housing, and related topics — most recently, “It’s time to move forward with some zoning or code changes to address student housing.”

Anna is also — in her day job! — director of the Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem (CADCB).

Gadfly has been trying to familiarize himself with the myriad organizations in and related to our City. And seeing Anna in the video reminded him that he visited her a month or two ago to get a better bead on CADCB.

Unfortunately, such time has passed that his notes have gone cold. But we can work from the very good CADCB web site to get an idea what’s up there. Gadfly’s betting that, like him, most of you, though perhaps having heard of CADCB (or Anna), couldn’t describe in any detail what they do.

Let’s take a post or three to walk through the CADCB web site. Please click and browse along with Gadfly.

The ambitious CADCB mission:

The mission of Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem is to promote social and economic change by fostering business and other economic opportunities within the community of south Bethlehem.

CADCB is a subsidiary of the Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley (CACLV). There will be a test on these acronyms! The mission of the CACLV is:

to improve the quality of life in the Lehigh Valley by building a community which all people have access to economic opportunity, the ability to pursue that opportunity, and a voice in the decisions that affect their lives.

Wow! Missions to die for!

The nature of CADCB and CACLV is spelled out in more detail here:

  • As an ADVOCATE, CACLV is the conscience of the Lehigh Valley.
  • As a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, CACLV values neighborhoods that are economically self-sustainable.
  • As a HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, CACLV values people.
  • As a NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, CACLV values responsible stewardship of the funds entrusted to us and the resources available to us.
  • As an EMPLOYER, CACLV values our employees.

Wow! You’ve got to like organizations that see themselves as the conscience of their communities.

CADCB organizes “a steering Committee of community residents, business owners, clergy, non-profit organizations, city government, and community leaders . . . responsible for implementation of Southside Vision 2020.”

More on the Southside Vision 2020 plan next.

CADCB: “Empowering people and transforming South Bethlehem”

Thank you Bonn Place Brewing, thank you TD Bank

(Latest post in a series about Neighborhoods and Southside)

You can watch TD Bank’s video of the Masottos at https://bit.ly/2YPijKH

Bonn Place

Morning Call photo

Building community is what the Gadfly project is all about.

You can watch TD Bank’s video of the Masottos at https://bit.ly/2YPijKH.

“Community” is literally the first word in this video, “Community means family,” says Gina Masotto. “This is the community we can change. What we can change is right here and right now.”

“Bonn Place is a catalyst for the regrowth of this community,” says TD banker Ryan Schuck. “They’re also now helping other young entrepreneurs get started. . . . How much they are committed to the growth of Bethlehem as a whole — that’s the real story. . . . The integrity of this community is real strong. This is just the beginning.”

Anthony Salamone, “Why a bank made one Bethlehem brewer the face of its ad campaign.” Morning Call, August 12, 2019.

The video opens with an introduction to the Masottos — Sam and Gina — who own Bonn Place Brewing Co. It heads into a bit of history about south Bethlehem, where Bonn Place is based, with Ryan Schuck of TD Bank highlighting how small businesses have led the charge in revitalizing the community from what was one of America’s greatest steel towns. The short film shifts back to the Masottos, who relate how they try to give others advice about starting a business.

“This is the community we can change,” Gina says. “What we can change is right here and right now.”

That change they hope to bring is what led to TD Bank recently honoring the Masottos and their brewery in an ad campaign about companies giving back. Bonn Place was one of three small businesses recognized throughout the bank’s eastern U.S. footprint; TD, based in Canada, honored seven in total covering North America.

TD is also donating $10,000 to Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley in the Masottos’ name toward a business program. . . . The money will be earmarked toward an arm of CACLV aimed at helping female-owned entrepreneurs and others who aspire to open a businesses.

Community Action, through its Rising Tide Community Loan Fund, loaned the Masottos $130,000 when they embarked on Bonn Place in 2015. That, and a boost from city officials and neighbors, they say, helped them launch the brewery in 2016. “We needed a bit of help to get this place opened … and everybody needs help,” Gina Masotto says on the video.

“I think the biggest thing that stuck out for us was their desire to help other local entrepreneurs and the transformation of Bethlehem at large,” said Orpello, senior vice president of brand channel and field marketing.

You can watch TD Bank’s video of the Masottos at https://bit.ly/2YPijKH

Info on the proposed market at Riverport

(Latest post in a series about Neighborhoods and Southside)

Ahhh, now here’s the info Gadfly was looking for when news of the state grant came out the other day.

Sounds good!

Nicole Radzievich, “Here’s how fast developers expect to open shuttered Starters Riverport as a public market.” August 7, 2019.

Bethlehem’s shuttered Starters Riverport, once the Lehigh Valley’s largest restaurant, could be home to a public market by spring.

The developers cast the Riverport Market as having a “clean, urban, industrial vibe” with about 35 vendors, a demonstration kitchen, anchor restaurant and a brewing tasting room sprawled across 24,000 square feet in part of what was once a former finishing mill that housed Bethlehem Steel’s alloy and tool division.

The market is expected to feature culture, music, art and culinary events daily. The hours would be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday, with the restaurant and tasting room to be opened later.

The project, owned by Lehigh Riverport Investors Fund LP, is being developed by Lou Pektor of Ashley Development in Bethlehem. He was behind the Riverport redevelopment project 15 years ago. The old industrial building was converted into a multiuse project that included a garage, 172 condominiums and commercial space, including Starters. Starters closed six years ago and has been vacant since.

Mayor Robert Donchez said he believes the market to be a good fit in a neighborhood that includes the Banana Factory arts and education center, which will be undergoing an expansion, and new office buildings.

State funds further Northside and Southside development projects

(Latest post in a series about Neighborhoods)

Gadfly has been snarky about certain aspects of development lately — like on the Southside and around Lehigh University — but this development news feels like very good news — financial support for apartments in the Northside downtown, a public market on the Southside, and expanding the Banana Factory.

Gadfly is facing the downsizing decision, and the idea of an apartment in center city has its appeal. The question is will he be able to afford one there. Or are we talking totally “luxury” apartments out of reach? Let’s hear it for housing affordable in his middle range bracket. And huzza for finally some activity on a key downtown section. Do we know anything about developer Jefferson — has he done work in the City before?

Gadfly hasn’t heard any details about the public market yet, but his first impulse is to think that’s a good use for that space and a good idea for the City.

And we’ve reported extensively here (see the Banana Factory thread on the sidebar) on the ArtsQuest project as it moved through City committees. There was some disagreement about demolishing a house on the property, but ArtsQuest seems to have worked with committee suggestions well, and their plans seemed to have met with generally high approval. See pictures and plans on previous posts on the Banana Factory thread.

Nicole Radzievich, “Storied Bethlehem projects just got a $2 million jump start.” Morning Call, August 2, 2019.

Bethlehem has landed $2 million in state grants to jump start a trio of key economic development projects: The redevelopment of the shuttered Boyd Theatre, a new public market at Lehigh Riverport and the expansion of the Banana Factory, according to state Sen. Lisa Boscola.

Boyd Theater:

Project details: The long-shuttered Boyd Theatre, once a beloved 98-year-old vaudeville and movie house in Center City Bethlehem, will be demolished to make way for a $22 million apartment and retail project under a proposal owner Charles Jefferson plans to submit to the city. The 120-apartment project would bring residents to a sleepy block just around the corner from historic Main Street, injecting more vibrancy into a downtown that grew up around the city’s original Moravian settlement. The first-floor retail would augment a stretch known as Restaurant Row.

Public Market at Lehigh Riverport:

Project details: A $3 million public market, building on the success of others like the one that Easton debuted in 2016, would replace the former Starters Riverport, where the Lehigh Valley’s largest restaurant once operated. The space would be home to 30 vendors and businesses.

ArtsQuest Community Cultural Center (Banana Factory)

Details: ArtsQuest, the nonprofit behind Musikfest, is planning an expansion to the Banana Factory, an arts and education center it launched in 1999 in south Bethlehem. The 80,000-square-foot expansion will include an arts-based preschool program, more classes for people of all ages, a black box theater and more.

Gadfly is interested to hear if followers see any pitfalls surrounding these developments.

Clarifying the development process

(Latest post on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside, Affordable Housing)

You know what you need to do:
Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development: Seth Moglen (moglen@lehigh.edu)
Mayor Donchez: rdonchez@bethlehem-pa.gov
City Council: c/o cityclerk@bethlehem-pa.gov
Morning Call letter to editor: https://www.mcall.com/opinion/readers-react/mc-letter-to-the-editor-ngux-htmlstory.html

Today is recycle day.

Gadfly would take you back to two of his “modest proposal” posts (for the full thread of modest proposals, see under Topics on the sidebar).

Both have to do with Gadfly’s hunger for information.

In “The more the merrier,” Gadfly modestly proposed “that the half-dozen or so ‘independent’ Authorities be requested to attend at least two City Council meetings per year, once in the first six months and once in the second, to report on current activities and future plans and to receive comments and questions from both Council members and the general public.”

And, building on that idea, in “An even merrier more,” Gadfly modestly proposed “that each [City] department head come to a meeting twice a year, once in the first half and once in the second, and briefly tell ‘us’ what’s happening in that department. . . . Our Council meetings are ‘live’ and on video now. We could announce a schedule of such guest appearances – ‘coming attractions’ — and promote them in a modest way. People with interest in certain areas could be alerted to attend or tune in or catch up later.”

Gadfly was thinking about these two proposals — aimed at greater exchange of information — aimed at greater transparency, visibility, accountability — in regard to what he called the “teachable moment” when the Mayor responded to the letter from the South Bethlehem Historical Society.

The Mayor said, ” I also hope you understand that there is a process that each developer has to go through. . . . There are various City departments, boards, authorities[,]*** and commissions that assist with development,” etc., etc.

“I also hope you understand” — well, not necessarily.

Lou James and the board of the South Bethlehem Historical Society have been around for a long time. Maybe they need no tutorial.

But Gadfly thinks most of “us” do need one.

To Gadfly — who sees himself as your average citizen — the development process is pretty much shrouded in mystery.

Here’s what Gadfly means by a “teachable moment” in this case.

This would have been a good opportunity to lay out and walk us through the generic development process in detail.

Gadfly has so many questions.

Where does a project start — with a developer or with the City? Are there conversations, arguments, negotiations over aesthetic as well as technical matters? What give-and-take goes on? What kind of projects are sought, what turned away? Who are the key people at the key junctures in the process? What sticky points arise, and how do they get reconciled? How much control does the City have? Where does “history” get on the table? That kind of thing.

A presentation about the steps or phases in a generic development process would be illuminating and would be sure to stimulate questions leading to a better understanding of how we get what we get.

Gadfly can see this as a valuable example of a department presentation at a City Council meeting he modestly proposes above.

*** Prof Gadfly — Conan the Grammarian to several decades of Lehigh students — is a proponent of the Oxford comma and just had to insert it here.

 

An easier way to contact

(Latest post on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside, Affordable Housing)

‘Tis very easy to email Seth Moglen (moglen@lehigh.edu) regarding the Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development (BRRD).

But Gadfly is also urging you to email the Mayor and City Council with Kim’s “We all need you to support viable neighborhoods on the Southside, NOW.”

Contact info is on the Gadfly sidebar.

Mayor is easy: rdonchez@bethlehem-pa.gov

But sending to all those Council members? A little less easy.

Suggestion.

Send one email to City Clerk Robert Vidoni: cityclerk@bethlehem-pa.gov

And ask that it be forwarded to all Council members.

One step.

Now that’s easy.

No excuses.

Something else you can do about the “existential threat” in South Bethlehem

(Latest post on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside, Affordable Housing)

Remember, Gadfly urges you — wherever you live in the City — to email Seth Moglen (moglen@lehigh.edu) as an act of solidarity and to get your name on the mailing list of Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development. But there’s something else you can do too — see below.

In his post about the Mayor’s teachable moment, Gadfly wrote:

“Hoping to not sound overly dramatic, Gadfly is starting to sense somewhat of a ‘crisis’ in regard to affordable housing on the Southside.”

Then, without literally using the dreaded “c” word, b’damn’d if Seth Moglen doesn’t put a solid foundation under Gadfly’s vague sensation in describing the state of his Southside neighborhood:

“Our neighborhood now faces an existential threat.”

An existential threat is a crisis.  A crisis is an existential threat.

Gadfly’s attention to this crisis/existential threat was triggered by the May 22 South Bethlehem Historical Society letter to the Mayor and Council and then the failure of the Planning Commission to actively respond to the concerns of residents of First Terrace.

The Mayor took action on the First Terrace situation — good — but Gadfly found the Mayor’s response to SBHS tepid, formulaic.

The Mayor’s letter didn’t match the emotional sense of urgency in the SBHS letter.

There was no recognition of crisis or threat in his words.

The message in the Mayor’s letter was that headquarters had everything under control. Don’t worry. Leave it to us. The situation is in good hands. Trust.

That’s not the way some residents were feeling, however.

And hence the Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development forms.

As natural a consequence in a town with conscientious citizens as a chemical process.

It had to happen. Political action. Resident pressure.

Gadfly hopes that those of you who haven’t emailed Seth Moglen (moglen@lehigh.edu) to register your support and get on the BRRD mailing list will do so like right away. It’s so easy to do. And if you forget Seth’s address, it’s on the Gadfly sidebar.

Do it. No matter where you live. This is not just for Southsiders.

As Dana said in response to a post by Kim Carrell-Smith recently: “[Irresponsible development] can happen in any corner of and neighborhood in the city.”

But there is something else you can do.

In that post, Kim gives us the clue. Kim gives us the cue.

Write to the Mayor and City Council.  Contact info can be found on the Gadfly sidebar.

And all you have to do is use Kim’s words:

“We all need you to support viable neighborhoods on the Southside, NOW.”

Simple.

Effective.

Political action.

Resident pressure.

Gadfly urges you.

Gadfly’s Tour de Rentz: from Hillside to First Terrace

(Latest post on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside, Affordable Housing)

Remember, Gadfly urges you — wherever you live in the City — to email Seth Moglen (moglen@lehigh.edu) as an act of solidarity and to get your name on the mailing list of Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development.

Gadfly had to see for himself. He had long heard tales of Southside woe from Olga Negron and Stephen Antalics. He recently heard resident fears of the spectre of “lower Hillside” spreading upward with devastating impact. There was even talk of “existential crisis.” How could this be?

Time for Gadfly to follow his own principle. Time to look at the primary sources.

Gadfly’s Tour de Rentz starts at the foot of Hillside Ave. (approx at 531 Hillside Ave.) alongside the Zoellner Arts Center Parking Garage. It proceeds up Hillside past Thomas and Selfridge, turning on Stoneman, and ending on First Terrace.

Join him. The videos linked below are only a few seconds each.

If you know this neighborhood at all, you probably know it speeding through in a car. Let’s slow down. The Tour de Rentz is on foot.

Tour map

1) Foot of Hillside Ave: looking up the hill, student housing as far as you can see. Just about every house “signed.” The few beautifully full trees left may be an indication that at one time this was a handsome tree-lined street.

2) North (east) side of Hillside: we begin moving up on “lower Hillside,” the heavily dense student-housing section that residents of “upper Hillside” fear is in their future.

3) South (west) side of Hillside: Gadfly is struck by the long string of interesting looking houses. One can easily imagine that they were once comfortable family homes.

4) Farther up on the south (west) side of Hillside: Gadfly admits to being something of a “romantic,” but he was taken by the look of these houses — big living room windows, nice porches, once tree-lined. And the porches up high. He talked with a guy perched far above the sidewalk as he passed — lord of all he surveyed. Gadfly had to crane his neck. A feeling of the first floor on the second floor. Interesting.

5) Turning right off Hillside, south on Thomas, uphill into the Lehigh campus: Gadfly quietly orgasmic at the beautiful double that meets him. What an interesting twin. A sense of size and sturdiness. Gadfly quietly admitting to himself that he expected not to be impressed by the original quality of the homes. Gadfly quietly feeling shame at what has happened here to what once were “homes.”.

6) Turning left off Hillside, north on Thomas: looks like an apartment house, was this relatively newly built? Looks out of place with surroundings. Looks clean and nice — but out of place. Doesn’t seem to blend.

7) Back up Hillside again: encountering a “pod” of rentals on the north (east) side, a whole block that collapsed from familytude. Gadfly imagines the male householder drifting down to the Sokols for a brew or two.

8) Turning right off Hillside, south (uphill) on Selfridge: 4 out of 5 houses on the block are rentals, the corner property owner looks to be holding on to a cute house. Gadfly imagines tension in that corner house.

9) Turning left off Hillside, north on Selfridge: look at the fence and stone work on the double next to the corner house. Interesting. Gadfly getting more of an appreciation for the art of building houses on hills. Steep hills.

10) We reach upper Hillside: now predominantly homeowners, but rentals have made a breach. A kind of border crossing here. Gadfly wishes his camera had lingered more on the northside homes along Hillside here.

11) Upper Hillside: (Lousy video.) Not dominated by rentals. Yet. Solitary rental property on the right with trash in front faces well kept, flowered home with a guy gardening on the left. Not a pretty composite picture. Like a spot on a lung of this stretch of neighborhood.

12) Turning right (south), uphill, off Hillside on Stoneman: houses owned by Lehigh Properties, of the recent case about a 40-student dorm on First Terrace before the Planning Commission.

13) Gadfly quizzed separately by an adult and two students about what he was up to. They are fidgety, guilty looking. Suspicious of me. And a bit snarky. Gadfly thought it best not to incite by filming the encounters. Gadfly life expectancies are short as it is.

14) Turning right off the top of Stoneman on to First Terrace: this the spot where Lehigh Properties wants to build a 40-student dorm, knocking down 4 homes to do so. Remember that residents made a determined argument against the proposal in front of the Planning Commission to no avail — but that the Mayor broke the norm and effectively shot down the proposal. But what alternative lurks?

15) Farther along on First Terrace past the 4 houses proposed for demolition to build a large dorm: privately owned homes, signs of care for the houses, signs of domesticity, flowers, gardens, neat lawns, this is a neighborhood. So clear that the proposed dormitory development was dead wrong. Did the developer have any regard at all?

16) Farther yet on First Terrace: view across the Valley, unfortunately not video’d, an exhilarating top of the mountain feel. More clear signs of home care, more clear signs that this is a neighborhood — clear signs of the domestic life endangered by the rental scourge creeping up from below.

Remember, Gadfly urges you — wherever you live in the City — to email Seth Moglen (moglen@lehigh.edu) as an act of solidarity and to get your name on the mailing list of Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development.

Please forgive Gadfly the poopy camera skills. He could name one faithful follower who should have had the job.

Time for Bethlehem residents from all parts of the city to join the Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development to help with this Southside crisis

(Latest post on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside, Affordable Housing)

Kim Carrrell-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!

Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development: contact Seth Moglen (moglen@lehigh.edu) to show solidarity and to get on the mailing list. (THIS IS SO EASY!)

Gadfly,

As you’ve heard, we’ve reached a truly critical time for the future of Southside neighborhoods within a quarter of a mile or so of Lehigh University. The very present and future danger to our neighborhoods generally come from newer investor/developers who haven’t done their homework and may not be aware that they are risking big investments in an already crowded student housing market in which the actual number of students is unlikely to increase in the foreseeable future. But as a South Bethlehem resident, my questions don’t concern how to help those investors save their shirts; I am concerned about how we may maintain viable neighborhoods in the face of this rapidly changing investor landscape, and WHO can help with that. What’s at issue?

* What happens to residential neighborhoods when they are overrun by young college students who don’t have a long-term investment in neighborhood relationships, and property?
*  What happens when an investor pays well over the median cost of a home, in anticipation of student-level rents (at least $3500/month for a five bedroom), and then students bypass those houses for another developer’s newer, flashier development?
*  What happens to empty, deteriorating homes, left behind by students seeking the latest luxury living, in what were once neighborhoods buzzing with children, their parents chatting on front stoops or sweeping the sidewalk?
*  What happens to the security and safety of a neighborhood that was once filled with eyes on the street and people on the sidewalks, with homes well-tended and maintained?
*  What happens to the family who can afford less than a third of that student-level rent, yet needs a home?
*  What happens to the reputation of local colleges and universities when nearby neighborhoods deteriorate?
*  What happens to our city when our neighborhoods fail?
*  What would happen if all this occurred in YOUR neighborhood?

I hope City Council and Lehigh administrators (and DeSales, NCC, and Penn State –why not invite them to the table, since their students live in these “regulated rental” houses, too) are ready to commit publicly to some hard work, RIGHT NOW –not in six or twelve months– WITH (and not just for) local residents,  to assure that “what happens” is not destructive, irreversible, and harmful to families and viable neighborhoods, to the reputation of our local institutions of higher ed, and even to those very students who want places to live off their campuses. We all have a lot to lose.

And I hope there are Bethlehem residents from all parts of the city who will want to join the Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development to help with this crisis, even if it is not happening now in your neighborhood. This is bigger than just a few homes, and a few people.

So what’s up now that is so urgent about these big pocket student housing investors?  First, a clarification about one of Stephen Antalics’ comments: Fifth St Properties is, in fact, located in Bethlehem and has a pretty good reputation for keeping up with maintenance and responding to complaints. But Fifth St. Properties recently sold 44 buildings in their portfolio to an out of state real estate group located in NYC, Stonebridge Campus Living; the latter is new to Bethlehem. Their investment in the 44 buildings they acquired from Fifth Street Properties averages out to about $485,000 EACH (real estate investors buy in group lots, so that figure is an average based on the total Stonebridge paid for all 44 buildings). And as folks have heard, the developer who owns the Lehigh Properties GP, LLC is not located in Bethlehem, either. The latter is owned by a young Lehigh alum who wants to demo four of his properties to create a big luxury student housing complex on First Terrace; he paid an average of $240,000 for each of the four homes he wants to demolish (a rather extraordinary sum for Southside homes!), when he acquired the entire portfolio.

So housing prices are going nuts (compare the investor purchases to other recent home purchases by individuals around here!), as developers fail to study the market, and fail to understand Lehigh’s intention to keep the number of off-campus students steady, even as the university’s overall student numbers increase. As Anna Smith, the director of CADCB, noted in her last post, one result of that failure to study the market will probably lead to companies poaching student renters for their newer luxury student rental developments. That constant shift in student housing is a precarious situation for neighborhoods, as financially over-committed investors will want to find ways to maximize their profits. It seems highly unlikely that these investors would want to shift their attention to work on sensitive neighborhood development, or rehab older housing stock to rent it at reasonable prices to families, when they’ve sunk small fortunes into buying up portfolios of high-priced student rentals  . . .

On the Southside we increasingly see student rental signs going up on what were privately-owned homes, indicating ownership by large investment/management groups, which indicate that those rentals are no longer welcoming (or affordable) to families and individuals. But there are still more “regulated student rentals” (see Anna Smith’s recent Gadfly post), which are owned by local individual investors who may have as few as one, or as many as 15 properties. Investors buy in groups, so the latter groups of properties may currently be at particular risk of being swallowed up by those big players with so much money to spend in the local market.

Time to focus, city leaders and Lehigh (and maybe DeSales, Penn State and NCC) administrators! We are at a critical time for the future of the Southside. The Southside Vision Housing Committee is leading the way, and (along with the city’s DCED folks) has the data, but residents need participation and commitment from those other institutional leaders –at the highest levels– to head off a greater housing crisis, and the destruction of viable neighborhoods. And deep pocket investors and developers threaten to drive an even bigger wedge than already exists between Lehigh and its nearby neighbors, and between City of Bethlehem leaders and Southside residents.

We don’t have to let this happen. But we ALL need to work together on the problem now, through zoning, planning, heavily publicizing Lehigh’s actual intentions about student housing through public and private presentations to current and potential investors and landlords, and by recognizing current neighborhoods that are strong, and identifying those which may be faltering. We can support and build strong neighborhoods. We can bring back balance in local development. But we can’t do it if we can’t get folks to work together, and FAST, to demonstrate a genuine — and public — commitment to those goals.

Please contact Seth Moglen (moglen@lehigh.edu) to join forces with BRRD. Please contact City Council members to say, “we all need you to support viable neighborhoods on the Southside, NOW.”

What would happen if all this were going on in YOUR neighborhood?

Kim

Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development: contact Seth Moglen (moglen@lehigh.edu) to show solidarity and to get on the mailing list. (THIS IS SO EASY!)

Anyone can join for a term or a year is not a “family”

(Latest post on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside, Affordable Housing)

Gadfly:

As I would expect from Tony, this article makes some really good points. People in non-traditional families or communal living arrangements should not automatically be excluded. However, I think the idea of the article is to allow arrangements that are long-term in nature, not transient ‘anyone can join our group’ arrangements for a term or a year, which is the norm for student housing.

Peter Crownfield

It’s time to move forward with some zoning or code changes to address student housing

(Latest post on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside, Affordable Housing)

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:

On student housing –

Last year, following a rapid increase in the average sales price of single-family homes in south Bethlehem and an increase in speculative investment in student housing, the Southside Vision Housing Committee worked with a consultant from Philadelphia who is an expert in housing policy to study the student housing and development issue in south Bethlehem. Throughout several months, the committee worked with the consultant to explore best practices for maintaining mixed-income neighborhoods and examined potential changes to ordinances and policies that could effectively address the expansion of student housing in south Bethlehem. The committee included representatives from the City, Lehigh University, local residents, and even a student-housing provider. A final list of five prioritized strategies was provided at the end of the process, and zoning changes emerged as the first priority of many of the residents on the committee.

Since then, City officials have been examining the different codes and ordinances that regulate student housing and development in order to determine what changes will best address the changing nature of our neighborhoods. As many have stated, a single line in an ordinance can make a huge difference; whatever changes are made now need to be well thought out if we expect them to truly make the desired impact: preserve diverse, mixed-income neighborhoods.

Currently, student housing falls under the City’s regulated rental ordinance (see: https://www.bethlehem-pa.gov/ordinance/articles/ARTICLE1739.html#01). This is not part of the zoning code, but, rather, the ordinance establishes basic conditions for the occupancy of properties that house 3-5 unrelated individuals on a single lease. There is no limit to the number nor location of these properties; as long as a property owner complies with yearly inspections, registers the property with the City, and provides copies of the lease with all tenant information (among a few other basic requirements), then the property can function as a regulated rental.

Changes in zoning and ordinances could take a number of forms—here are two of the main changes that we explored on the committee:

  1. Alter the regulated rental ordinance to include fewer unrelated occupants. This approach has been used in Allentown near Muhlenberg’s campus, and the logic behind it is that you limit the financial incentive for property owners to rent to students. If you can only make rental income from 2 or 3 students, is it worth converting your property to student housing?

While the creation of the original regulated rental ordinance has been cited by some as the source of the Southside’s student housing issues, I’m not sure that reducing the number of students allowed in each home would help us to achieve our goal. Lehigh has repeatedly confirmed, in public and private conversations, their intentions to maintain a stable off-campus housing population—the number of students needing off-campus housing will remain consistent throughout Lehigh’s expansion, so there is no need for additional student housing. Similarly, Lehigh does not intend to bring any additional students on to campus, so there will be no reduction in the number of students needing off-campus housing. What would happen if we changed our codes to say 2 or 3 students maximum per house? Well, we would need A LOT more student housing off-campus to accommodate those students. Given the Southside’s housing stock (single family homes with 3-5 bedrooms), this sounds to me like an incentive to build giant towers with student apartments close to campus. Is that more desirable? Some might argue yes, but I’m not so sure. We could grandfather in the existing properties, but not sure how that would stand up legally—we would providing a huge economic benefit to existing housing providers while effectively shutting out any new competition.

  1. Create a zoning ordinance that limits the number of regulated rental homes in a particular area. This could be done through minimum distance requirements between homes, or percentages by block or zone. Different zones could have different rules—closer to campus, you could allow up to 100% student housing, while neighborhoods further away could have more restrictions.

While I prefer this option, there are certainly some downsides to consider. How do we draw the lines? How many homeowners will we be giving up on if we allow a neighborhood to be targeted for up to 100% student housing? (I will point out that 100% student housing is currently permissible in any neighborhood, so this wouldn’t be a change from the status quo). However, can we ask the last 4-5 families on lower Montclair to sacrifice what remains of their neighborhood in order to protect upper Carlton? It’s a hard decision to make.

Other things to consider when we talk about changing codes and ordinances:

— What happens to homes that investors have spent $400k+ on if we significantly alter the housing market in south Bethlehem? These purchases were made anticipating revenue from 5 students paying a minimum of $700 per month each. If the investor can’t get the money, will they sell? Leave the property vacant? Rent to families? The future of many Southside neighborhoods could depend on how student-housing providers answer that question. Our fate as a community is wrapped up in the consequences—not just the housing provider’s bottom line.

— Many student-housing investors are purchasing and renovating homes in hopes of stealing students away from other student housing providers. Competition encourages student-housing providers to keep up their homes if they want to stay in the market and charge top dollar. If we remove or significantly reduce competition, will we remove incentives for upkeep?

I’m glad to see that the conversation on Southside neighborhoods is continuing, and thanks to the Gadfly for providing a forum to share these ideas! The more folks involved in researching, proposing, and analyzing policies, the better. It’s clear to me that it is time to move forward with some zoning or code changes to address student housing, and there’s a lot to think about as we design a new policy. I’d encourage anyone interested in getting more involved in the discussion to join us at the Southside Vision Housing Committee—send me an email at asmith@caclv.org and I’ll get you the details!

Anna

Anna always gives us a lot to chew on.

The latest on defining a “family”

(Latest posts on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside, Affordable Housing)

Big thanks to Tony Hanna!

Copied entire article instead of link because you might need a subscription.

Argues for widening definition of “family” but note the bolded section about  rejecting students as such. Interesting.

Gadfly does not see 5 college students as commited to each other in the way a family should be, nor does he see them as a “functional family.”

The housing plans released by the Democratic presidential candidates Cory Booker, Julián Castro and Elizabeth Warren rightly recognize that only bold federal intervention can fix a problem as entrenched as housing segregation. But by offering towns financial incentives to change their zoning codes — the most powerful force dictating where and how people live — and little else, the plans miss the mark.

In many communities, zoning codes prohibit apartments, require people to live on large lots or set minimum square footages for dwellings. These rules have the effect of excluding low-income people, regardless of the intent of the people who wrote the laws.

But wealthy towns with the most exclusive rules do not need the money. Mr. Castro has offered a second idea, suggesting a commission to establish national guidelines for zoning. Guidelines, though, are just advisory. They will not actually force a change.

Instead, their plans should target one of the most significant, insidious and legally vulnerable barriers to flexible and inclusive zoning codes: the definition of “family.”

Almost every zoning code across the country defines “family” in a traditional way: people who are legally related by blood, marriage or adoption. Sometimes, the definition allows a small number of unrelated people (say, two or three), who are functioning as a “housekeeping unit” to be considered a family.

Such definitions exclude people just as committed to each other as members of “traditional” families, but who don’t satisfy legal conditions. These “families of choice” consist of unrelated adults who decide to share finances, child-rearing responsibilities, home repairs, chores and meals. They include groups of single moms, households that have merged and older adults forging new lives together after the deaths of their spouses.

The definition of family matters because zoning codes typically have a “one family per housing unit” policy. These policies are most strictly enforced in the neighborhoods with single-unit detached homes — 64 percent of neighborhoods, according to the 2013 American Housing Survey. It’s in these communities where housing affordability tends to be low, and racial segregation high.

Some cities, like Minneapolis, have started making plans to reduce or eliminate the amount of land devoted to single-unit zoning. But other cities, like Plano, Tex. — where more than 4,000 residents have mobilized to overturn similar plans — have taken steps backward. The amount of land devoted to single-unit, detached dwellings is not likely to change greatly in the places that need it the most. Other aspects of zoning, like lot size controls and minimum square footages, would also be hard to override.

But definitions of family appear to be more ripe for change. Four state supreme courts — California, Michigan, New Jersey and New York — have already struck down zoning ordinances that failed to allow “functional families.” They found that such ordinances violate rights to due process, privacy or both. They also found that communities can still achieve a “residential character” without delving into the specifics of the relationships among residents. And they said that traditional family definitions flunk the “rational basis test” courts use to determine whether a law is constitutional.

These decisions make sense. The 1950s, when nearly 70 percent of children were raised in married-couple, male-breadwinner households, are long gone. (Today, only 22 percent of children have the same arrangement.) Similarly, nonmarital cohabitation and high housing prices have resulted in an unprecedented fluidity of family structure and living arrangements.

Moreover, there is no evidence that a traditional family and a true functional family differ in land-use effects. The fact that zoning codes allow an unlimited number of related people to live together (while limiting unrelated people) is not rational, either.

Justice Thurgood Marshall raised this point in his dissent in a 1974 case, Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, when he said that the definition of family being upheld by the court would allow a family of 12 in a small bungalow, but that “three elderly and retired persons could not occupy the large manor house next door.” In other words, the communal living arrangement in “The Golden Girls” would be a zoning violation. (Dorothy and Sophia were related, but Blanche and Rose were not.)

Four state courts are not 50 state courts, and federal courts have not definitively ruled on the matter. The Belle Terre case upheld a definition of family that excluded a group of six college students from living together, but that group of college students was not a functional family. A 1977 Supreme Court case, Moore v. City of East Cleveland, struck down a zoning code that prohibited a grandmother and her grandsons from living together in their home. But that decision applied only to “related” people in traditional relationships.

Presidential candidates should loosen these restrictive definitions. They could propose thoughtful federal statutes that articulate how local governments can regulate the family. There’s precedent for that: The Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act overrode local controls to improve access to wrongfully closed-off places. Candidates could also commit to appoint judges who understand this issue and take a broad view of family structure.

Championing this issue would promote progressive ideals. And it could unite both sides of the political aisle. Conservatives may come to realize that limited definitions of family erode property rights and freedom of association in the home.

As a zoning official, I’m usually the last person to advocate for federal intrusion into local decision-making. But the problems of housing inequality and segregation are too big for localities to tackle piecemeal. Every presidential candidate should incorporate into their housing plans a definition of family that better reflects how we choose to live today.

That simple line is destroying our Southside!

(Latest posts on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside, Affordable Housing)

Olga Negron is a Bethlehem City Councilwoman.

I agree with your suggestion Gadfly. The line: “up to 5 unrelated individuals who maintain a common household with common cooking facilities and certain rooms in common” was added to allow student rentals, and it’s what both Gadfly Antalics and I have been talking about. That simple line is destroying our Southside! Yes, I agree we should “unmake” and delete that line, that might be the only way to save our community.

Olga

We need facts for fights

(Latest posts on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside, Affordable Housing)

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

Gadfly:

As I sat recently at a City Council meeting [July 2] listening to the heartfelt pleas of the residents from Hillside and around, I couldn’t help but think: are we re-inventing the wheel?  Surely this has happened everywhere there is a university. So this is not new. So what has happened to those communities where developers want to take over the properties of thriving neighborhoods? There must be statistics. Look at Ann Arbor, look at Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Philly.

What I feel is that everyone loses their homes, but the universities win. More students, more revenue, someone at the top is making money. Unless we become like Aspen where city workers could not afford to live in Aspen and the town ended up building affordable housing units for their workers, which are awarded through lottery. Could this become Bethlehem?

There have to be statistics somewhere. The Council is not going to listen to heartfelt stories and cries from the residents. But they might listen to statistics and maybe facts. What has happened in those cities where the students/universities have taken over? Has it been good for the towns?

I think we need facts for fights.  That is all I’m saying.

Kate

Kate importantly reinforces Gadfly Antalics’ basic question — “How do other communities with student populations address the issue?” — as well as Councilwoman Van Wirt’s oft-repeated call for data.

What City Council has wrought, City Council can unwrought

(Latest posts on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside, Affordable Housing)

The point of Gadfly’s July 17 “More Night Sweats” post was that what City Council has wrought, City Council can unwrought.

The section of City ordinance 1302.43

Family. One or more individuals who are “related” to each other by blood, marriage or adoption (including persons receiving formal foster care) or up to 5 unrelated individuals who maintain a common household with common cooking facilities and certain rooms in common, and who live within one dwelling unit.

could read:

Family. One or more individuals who are “related” to each other by blood, marriage or adoption (including persons receiving formal foster care) and who live within one dwelling unit.

Too drastic?

Gadfly Antalics has shown that other college and university communities have managed with an ordinance containing a “3 unrelated individuals” provision.

That at least would be something.

Though the language purist in this Gadfly wonders why we have to muck up the definition of “family” with any trailing “or” provision that stretches its meaning and simply have a clean separate category for “student housing” or some such.

The “5 unrelated individuals” stretch as a definition of family (though a google search shows it is not unique with us) might have made sense at some point.

Gadfly would like to hear someone make the argument for it now.

Preferably in a locked room with Gadfly Antalics, Councilwoman Negron, and the Board of the South Bethlehem Historical Society.

But, again, the point is that what Council has made, Council can unmake.

“Our neighborhood now faces an existential threat”

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

Contact for the Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development is Seth Moglen: moglen@lehigh.edu. This group is open to all, not just 1st Terrace area residents. The more membership, the greater the power. And the issue here is not limited to one neighborhood.

Continuing here the thread started with the May 22 letter from the South Bethlehem Historical Society and reinvigorated Saturday by Gadfly Antalics’ essay in the Morning Call.

“Our neighborhood now faces an existential threat.”

Gadfly quotes from Seth Moglen’s presentation at City Council July 16 in which he describes the situation in his Southside neighborhood, describes what he and his neighbors want from the Mayor and City Council, and announces the formation of Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development.***

Gadfly wants you to listen to Moglen. No pulling soundbites to make it easy for you this time. Always go to the primary source. Listen. Takes but six minutes.

Gadfly is depending on you to have listened.

He wants to focus on and play off one element.

The assertion of political power.

“What we are asking you for now is this. We want you  . . . to develop the tools that City government requires in order to stop this kind of predatory real estate speculation. . . . That’s what we are asking you to to do now, not years, months. There are dozens of us who have joined in an organization [Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development], we hope there will be hundreds of us soon. We will vote in the next election. . . . We are not going away.”

The nascent Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development has thrown down the gauntlet.

“We want . . . We will vote . . . We are not going away.”

Sounds like the BRRDers are telling the politicians that action on this Southside “existential threat” may determine the way they vote.

Gadfly urges you — wherever you live in the City — to email Moglen (moglen@lehigh.edu) as an act of solidarity and to get your name on their mailing list.

Bodies on board count.

And have you emailed the Mayor and City Council? Sent a letter to the Morning Call?

*** Gadfly focuses on Moglen’s presentation here, but that City Council meeting featured a half-dozen moving resident comments. Please find complete audio here.

Time for some citizen action

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

Why was nothing done in the 7 years since the original 2012 Antalics article?

The Mayor politely tamped down the South Bethlehem Historical Society letter of May 22.

There’s been no formal response from Council, though CMs Negron and Callahan did have a kind of “conversation” about it at the June 16 Council meeting.

Do you sense that anybody will step up now when we just have news of a newcomer developer making a big investment in the Southside?

I’ll bet not.

What to do?

Rattle City Hall and Council. Somebody has to step up. Email contact info for the Mayor and Council members can be found on the Gadfly sidebar. Your responses don’t have to be particularly involved. Go for it if you want to. But simply saying you agree with the point Stephen makes, and you’d like to know what’s going to be done would do it. Expressing a legitimate sense of urgency would help immensely.

And how about follow-up letters to the Morning Call? Let’s show this is an issue that has to be addressed. Unfortunately, Gadfly just had a letter published last week and will fall under the MC once-a-month rule.

So Gadfly needs you to step up.

Remember, this is a general “neighborhood” issue — it affects us all, not just residents of the Southside. We all need to pitch in.

A good Sunday afternoon assignment: https://www.mcall.com/opinion/readers-react/mc-letter-to-the-editor-ngux-htmlstory.html

The sections in italics below were edited out of Stephen’s recent letter that we published yesterday.

It appears that the 40% higher rental profit margin in student housing possible in Bethlehem is not missed by big business.  Seventy one student houses in Bethlehem are owned by Campus Hill Enterprises whose home office is located in Hong Kong.  Another non-resident company owning a large number of student houses as indicted by the number of signs reflecting its name is Fifth Street Properties.  It is also rumored that pressure is being placed upon single families still owning their property to sell their homes to accommodate more student housing conversions

Bethlehem has commissioned a number of studies, such as the Sasaki Report, to determine best city designs.   The consensus of most studies was that the single family was the key ingredient for stability.  Why was the Southside overlooked?

Might Bethlehem’s planning officer consider amending the family definition to reflect the wisdom of other college community planners?  Also, might this potential revision possibly help allay the suspicions of many citizens that the interests of non-resident landlords and developers are higher than those of the community?  An opinion often expressed by concerned citizens at council meetings.

Time to read that May 22 South Bethlehem Historical Society letter again

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

This letter started a chain of Gadfly thinking that you have seen reflected in the blog, as well as a series of significant responses, the latest of which is Gadfly Antalics’ recent letter to the Morning Call.

This letter should not be forgotten, should not be dusted over. Gadfly is thinking about reposting it periodically.

Lest we forget.

“We ask you honorable Mayor and City Council members to consider that history is being destroyed in the name of progress.”

“The economic impact of such progress is making it difficult for some to find affordable housing.”

005

“Lehigh’s major expansion plans” motivate major Southside development deal

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

Brian Pedersen, “Group of student housing properties sells for $21.3M.” LVB.com. July 25, 2019.

 

A New York City-based family office bought a group of student housing properties near Lehigh University in South Bethlehem for $21.3 million.

The portfolio includes 44 properties totaling 219 bedrooms.

Ken Wellar, managing partner at Rittenhouse Realty Advisors of Philadelphia, said the buyer, whom he declined to name, bought the properties from Fifth Street Properties.

The high-net-worth buyer from New York City is new to the student housing market, Wellar said. He and Luke DeLuca, senior associate at Rittenhouse Realty, represented both the buyer and the seller in the transaction.

“The attraction [for the buyer] is really the strength of the university and the rent growth and also the demand for student housing in these locations,” Wellar said.

The properties, under the portfolio name Fifth Street Properties at Lehigh University, have modern, updated finishes. They include properties on East Fifth Street, East Packer Avenue and Carlton Avenue.

Another attraction for the buyer is Lehigh’s major expansion plans for the next decade, which include increasing enrollment and opening a College of Health.

Over the next decade, the university plans to increase its undergraduate population by 1,000 students, or roughly 20 percent, while increasing its graduate student population by 500. The expansion will also bring 100 new faculty members to the campus.

Gadfly followers might remember that testimony during the 1st Terrace case made the point that Lehigh plans will not create the need for off-campus housing and that the City has to get that word out to developers. This unnamed buyer — “new to the student housing market” — didn’t get the memo. Or maybe we are not getting the straight scoop from Lehigh. Or maybe, again as we learned in 1st Terrace, these properties are also being marketed to students from other colleges.

Antalics in 2012: “a very real and very dangerous condition exists on the South Side”

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

Stephen Antalics is Gadfly #1.

Bethlehem should revisit its zoning ordinance
Morning Call, September 4, 2012

For a city to maintain an environment of stability, safety and a sense of well-being in the community, its zoning ordinance must require a high ratio of family-owned residences compared to rental properties owned by nonresident landlords. This helps reduce transiency, and the high percentage of family homes also adds to a collective civic pride — an essential community element.

The Bethlehem South Side master plan in 2001 recommended that the area would benefit from more family-owned properties and fewer rentals. That hasn’t happened. The city’s zoning ordinance, adopted May 7, allows up to five unrelated people living together in one unit. This zoning designation encourages property owners to rent to Lehigh University students and others. Families, however, bring stability to a neighborhood.

When a real estate speculator can purchase a vacated South Side single-family row home for approximately $65,000, convert it into a rental student property and charge a monthly total rent to five students for $3,000, that is good business. For one New York City real estate company that owns 72 student rental buildings on the South Side, that becomes big business.

An inventory of South Side rental properties shows more than 75 “student-only” signs, which gives an ominous message to a single family wishing to live there. But a very real and very dangerous condition exists on the South Side. Reasonably affluent students who are on the streets late at night have become victims of juvenile predators, some of whom, according to city police, are gang members. Some of these juveniles live in nonresident, landlord-owned rentals, according to property records. Remember, according to the zoning ordinance, the city is required to view them as a legal family.

Radnor Township, a suburban Philadelphia community with a population of approximately 30,000, is the home of Villanova University, which has a student population of approximately 10,500. Its zoning ordinance reflects a family definition restricting it to only the traditional family. It also has a definition for student housing, and it defines students as transients and limits a student rental property to two students.

The City of Easton, the home of Lafayette College, defines a family as the traditional family but also allows three unrelated individuals to share a rental property. The City of Allentown, the home of Muhlenberg and Cedar Crest colleges, defines family in a similar manner but allows four unrelated people to live in a rental property. Allentown has a student housing definition along with a clause that includes a Student Residence Overlay District subject to stricter regulation.

Why does the Bethlehem administration not change its recent zoning revisions to be in line with other communities? Could not the South Side have a limited student overlay district immediately adjacent to the campus allowing five students, while rental properties outside that district are restricted to two unrelated persons? This would make rentals available to traditional families and possibly put rentals financially out of reach of gang members?

It is incumbent for Bethlehem City Council members, who had the final responsibility of approving or rejecting this zoning ordinance, to listen carefully to the public whose welfare they are elected to protect; comments of the public should guide council members in their actions.

The great public outcry at a number of council meetings concerning this zoning ordinance revision, an outcry supported by intelligent and researched reports, was a clear message — a message that council ignored. We citizens know what is best for us. Therefore it is imperative that council listen to us and not submit to political pressures.

Stephen

An oldie but goodie from Gadfly #1. Let’s examine our consciences — have “we” done enough to back Gadfly #1 and put the pressure on the City and Council?

Disincentivize student-housing conversions on the Southside: change the definition of “family”

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

Stephen Antalics is Gadfly #1.

YOUR VIEW: Student housing conversions harming Bethlehem’s South Side
Morning Call, July 27, 2019.

In the late 1980s, Bethlehem revised its zoning code to allow up to five unrelated individuals to be recognized as a family and live in one housing unit. According to Jeffrey R. Zettlemoyer, who at that time was the fair housing and labor compliance officer for the city, the increase was an incentive for more student housing conversions.

Most recently, a developer expressed a desire to replace four single-family homes on Bethlehem’s 1st Terrace with student housing consisting of two four-unit houses with five bedrooms in each unit. Similar conversions over the years have had a profoundly negative impact on the South Side.

If one were to time-travel back to the mid-1980s prior to the zoning revision, and drive the streets of the core residential section of the South Side, streets such as Carlton, Montclair, Birkel, Vine, Webster, Polk, Morton, Summit, Fillmore, Thomas, Taylor, Adams, Hillside and Pierce, you would see predominantly well-kept pristine single-family homes resplendent with grass green yards of flower and vegetable gardens and well-appointed porches.

Taking that trip today would reveal houses with large placards stating “Student Housing,” backyards with macadam surfaces to allow for overflow parking, alleys such as Boyce and Boyer streets appearing to be massive parking lots and two or three industrial-sized refuse containers on sidewalks before most houses.

Sidewalks are littered with cups and food containers after loud weekend parties. Bed sheets with messages are strung from second-story windows rallying athletic teams to victory over rivals, creating a college campus atmosphere on the city streets. A rather depressing annual sight is to see groups of people scavenging through piles of discards left by students who have departed for summer vacation. The absence of students and the absence of cars parked on the street gives some streets the appearance of a deserted city.

How do other communities in our state that are homes to institutes of higher learning address the student housing issue? Easton, with Lafayette College, State College, home of Penn State and Radnor Township, home to Villanova University and two other colleges are located, are examples where the number of unrelated individuals in their family zoning code definition is limited to three.

Calls to change this discrepancy of a family have been presented on a number of occasions before Bethlehem City Council. In an article published in the opinion section of this newspaper on September 4, 2012, I called for Bethlehem to revisit its zoning ordinance. The city has ignored all requests.

Bethlehem has commissioned a number of studies, such as the Sasaki Report, to determine best city designs. The consensus of most studies was that the single family home was the key ingredient for stability. Bethlehem’s planning officer should consider amending the family definition to reflect the wisdom of other college community planners.

Stephen

Gadfly #1 hits another home run.

Looking at BPA numbers (5)

(99th in a series of posts on parking)

A Gadfly tip o’ the hat to Dana and several others for answering questions and filling in gaps of Gadfly ignorance on previous posts in this “BPA numbers” series!” Much ignorance! Much appreciated!

Mrs. Gadfly is happy that we’re having internet trouble.

She says this series of posts on BPA numbers is killing her.

She fears Gadfly followers are catatonic.

She’s probably right.

But bear with Gadfly for one more post as he tries to read closely the BPA financial documents.

He’s trying to figure out if he trusts the BPA on the Polk Street Garage or not.

Always remember that this is a $16.8m project with another like price tag for the Walnut Street Garage tagging along right behind. It behooves us to look at the numbers. And think about them.

—

One thing Gadfly doesn’t see in the numbers.

The Desman Parking Study (page 54) suggested setting up a $200,000 capital repair and replacement line item:

Historically, the BPA has paid for new equipment and repairs to its parking garages and surface lots from operating revenues. However, DESMAN typically recommends that parking owners set aside funds annually to be used for future capital repair and replacement projects, as opposed to financing these projects with debt. If the BPA chooses to follow this practice, that would mean setting aside more than $200,000 annually to pay for these future costs.

Gadfly may have missed this in the budget details, but he doesn’t think the BPA has acted on this good suggestion.

—

And Gadfly wondered about the Mayor justifying need for the PSG on the basis of unnamed future projects in the eastern corridor of 3rd Street. Gadfly wondered if indeed there were actually more projects in the pipeline.

DESMAN (pages 54-61) says it “consulted with the City’s Community and Economic Development and Planning and Zoning departments in order to establish a realistic picture of development” and found there was significant anticipated development, although, of course, still unnamed in the report.

Desman speaks of plans for a 600 space PSG. The current working plan is 475 spaces (which would be significantly filled by current commitments), though a larger building was discussed at the last BPA Board meeting and seems still possible.

—

Contract parking rates have been a vexed point in discussions Gadfly has witnessed. Are institutional users getting a deal on the backs of the average “Joe and Josephine” who feed the meters? Are, for instance, Lehigh University and St. Luke’s getting a “deal” at the New St. Garage?

The contract rates are $65/month, and $5 increases are planned in 2020 and 2024, and that rate is standard across all contract users in all the garages in the system. In the DESMAN study (page 52), we find “Monthly parking rates in public garages in these municipalities [the comparison cities] range from $65-$275, with an average of $117, compared to $65 in Bethlehem.” At the July 2 meeting we learned that Allentown is $75 and Scranton is $95.

Our $65 compared to an average of $117? (Well, to be fair, there are some outliers in the comparison group, so that average number is no doubt inflated.)

Our $65 compared to $75 in Allentown?

How’s that feel to you?

Increases are planned, but we will still be at the bottom of the scale. There does not seem to be an attempt to make us comparable in this specific area.

At the July 2 meeting the BPA Board chair said the low rate was a good thing. But without substantiation. Gadfly would like to hear the argument for that.

Our low rate ranking was part of the argument for raising the meter rates from $1/hr. to $1.50/hr.: “parking rates charged in Bethlehem are too low and an argument can be made for increasing parking rates to more closely align with the rates charged in comparable cities” (page 52).

The meters went up 50%.

Would not the same logic apply to the garage rates?

—

Lastly.

The significance of the so-called “Ruins lots” adjoining SteelStacks is a persistent thread in the DESMAN report. Those lots now provide free parking for approximately 300 cars. If the lots are not available, the study indicates significant parking problems on eastern Southside. DESMAN recommends either a PSG or an agreement with the owners, now Wind Creek, about the Ruins lots (pages 69-70).

As noted previously, the combination of new development and an unreliable source of existing parking on the east side of the southside downtown has the potential to create a significant parking shortage within the next few years. The nearly 300 vehicles parking in the Ruins East and Ruins West lots during the weekday peak period could be displaced, if and when restrictions are imposed on parking in these facilities. In addition, development which is expected to be completed by 2019 is anticipated to generate demand for approximately 180 more parking spaces than are being constructed as part of the projects. Finally, additional future development on this side of the southside downtown has the potential to generate the demand for hundreds, if not thousands, of additional parking spaces.

For these reasons, it is recommended that a plan be developed to manage the impending parking shortfall on the east side of the southside downtown. This plan could include a new parking structure, which has been discussed in the past for the corner of E. 3rd Street and Polk Street, or a formalized agreement with the Sands Corporation [now Wind Creek] to ensure that the SteelStacks parking lots will remain available for public parking in the long-term.

Councilwoman Van Wirt is suggesting, Gadfly believes, that no decision on the PSG be made before clarity about the Ruins lots. Which is reasonable. As far as Gadfly can see, no “official” statement about the continued availability of the Ruins lots has been made. The statement of their unavailability by Councilman Callahan at the July 16 meeting would be considered hearsay by Judge Judy. Can we do better than that? What can we know “for sure”?

Can the City seek clarification from Wind Creek about their plans for the Ruins lots?

Can the City negotiate a plan with Wind Creek providing enough lead time for the construction of a garage if Wind Creek decides to revoke public parking there?

Perhaps naive questions by the Gadfly but worth asking he thinks.

As always, Gadfly invites your comments on what you see in the BPA documents or on his ramblings in the past several posts.

On the menu, a Roasted parklet: another space to beautify South Bethlehem

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

Those who have hacked into Gadfly’s library account as well as those who read this blog closely know he has been reading Jeff Speck’s Walkable City.

When just having read that “street life” is among the “central qualities” in improving city life, he comes across this project from one of follower Karen Beck Pooley’s classes:

Mary Ellen Alu, “Parklet Pops Up on South Side Bethlehem.” Lehigh News, July 17, 2019.

There’s a colorful interlude for passersby on Fourth Street in Bethlehem—a pop-up Parklet outside Roasted restaurant built by Lehigh’s Engineers Without Borders outreach committee and Professor of Practice Karen Beck Pooley’s Lehigh Valley Parklets team.

The colorful parklet, a sidewalk extension that fits within two city parking spaces and strives to improve pedestrian and customer experiences, will be in place until Oct. 31.

“Our hope is that more people will come out to the South Side, especially Lehigh students, and integrate more with the community,” said Annaliese Cunniffe ’19, who chaired the outreach committee. “And to beautify the South Side too.”

The Parklet outside Roasted, which cost about $1,000 to construct, is 34 feet long and 7 feet deep and filled with color—red, yellow and orange. A bench stretches across the back wall, allowing for different configurations of tables. The gray flooring is made of pallets, and a mural was added to the back wall.

The students, who received trained in woodworking to complete the project, built the Parklet inside Building C at the Mountaintop campus, then transported it in sections to Fourth Street. The students consulted with Roasted owner Derek Wallen on design.

“It’s great from our perspective because we got to do a hands-on project,” said Cunniffe. “From the community’s perspective, it brings in another space to beautify South Bethlehem, offers people another place to visit and provides more space for Roasted.”

Lehigh students have designed, constructed and tested other Parklets throughout Bethlehem.

Karen is the Professor of Pop-Up at Lehigh University.

Numbers can lie, and the Mayor can speak

(Latest post on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside,
1st Terrace, Affordable Housing)

Gadfly:

If “data-driven” means making decisions based on fact rather than assumptions or favoritism, I’m all for it. But I think we all know that statistics data can be shaped to prove almost anything, so that approach can be dangerous as well.

The ABCs should not be mere puppets, but for the Mayor to be silent on important issues is also inappropriate. He is, after all, an elected representative of the people, and silence communicates agreement. (Too often, he has used his platform to speak out in favor of developers, even when proposed development clearly violated the city’s own ordinances.)

Peter Crownfield

Two Councilpersons respond to the Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development

(Latest post on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside,
1st Terrace, Affordable Housing)

Contact for the Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development is Seth Moglen: moglen@lehigh.edu. This group is open to all, not just 1st Terrace area residents. The more membership, the greater the power. And the issue here is not limited to one neighborhood.

So Gadfly has covered in detail the forceful first appearance of what he thinks we can now call the “Bethlehem Residents for Responsible Development” at City Council Tuesday night. A group that he feels can accomplish much good.

But there were two meaningful responses by Council members that we should note as well.

First, Councilwoman Van Wirt.

In reference to the 1st Terrace issues that the residents spoke about, PVW wants data and seemed to get into a slight bit of tangle with the City rep over getting it. Nothing serious. But I don’t think the rep got the importance of what PVW was asking.

PVW has described herself as data-driven. She’s a doctor. A “fixin’ doctor,” a term Gadfly’s kids used to differentiate their father’s degree.

Data-driven — Gadfly likes that.

PVW wanted “firm data,”  a “firm study” to show “actual need” for housing around Lehigh. She wanted “something to refer to.”

(Ha! Gadfly would “fix” that ending preposition to “something to which she could refer.” See, kids, your dad is a “fixin’ doctor” too!)

Gadfly likes that. Glad we have a person like that on Council.

Second, Councilman Reynolds.

JWR thanked the Mayor for weighing in strongly on the 1st Terrace proposal, but his more general point was the power that Mayor has in such situations, implying, Gadfly thinks (he almost literally talked directly to the Mayor at one point), that the Mayor/Administration should wield that power more often.

“One of the lessons going forward here is the power the Administration has to weigh in on these projects publicly and privately. . . . when Administrations take positions on any of these things, it is extraordinarily rare for these Authorities, these Commissions, these Boards to necessarily say no, no, no, we disagree with what the professionals say, we disagree with what the full-time people say, we disagree with what the elected officials say about this. . . . and I want to say thank you to the Mayor for weighing in on this, but at the same time it’s also a model. We can pass all the ordinances we want. But the strongest thing that we have is that we have an Administration that will stand up and say we like this project, we understand some people disagree, we understand some people don’t like elements of it. . . . I just think that going forward . . . as we talk about other development projects throughout the City, all of our voices are important, but the most important one is siting there [the Mayor], and I have confidence, I have faith, and I just want to say thank you.

Gadfly thanked the Mayor too. He didn’t trust the Zoning Commission to have any more “No” than the Planning Commission in this 1st Terrace proposal that seemed so obviously wrong. Gadfly liked that the Mayor saw it his way.

But how would he feel in the opposite case.

Which, Gadfly feels, has happened in the not-so-distant past.

JWR seems to literally argue for a strong Mayor (Administration). But does that tilt the ABCs toward puppet rather than independent status?

Gadfly needs to chew on this some more. You are welcome to help.