Author Archives: admin

About admin

Born and raised in Lower Macungie Township in the village of East Texas. B.A. in Political Science from Slippery Rock University. Co-owner of Bar None Weddings & Entertainment. I love and care about my hometown and frequently blog about local issues that I think are important.

Lower Macungie Township Agenda Preview 5/1 Hamilton Crossings Hearing

Posted on by

FYI –  In these previews I may indicate thoughts on an issue, but it in no way means my mind is set. During a critical hearing for the Jaindl issue, a Commissioner spoke before public comment outlining he was voting to move forward the project regardless of what people said during public comment. That was wrong. Public debate was circumvented when the Commissioner indicated his mind was made up.

My hope is by blogging I open the door for conversations. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was folks didn’t truly understand what was happening until it was “too late”. I plan on doing everything I can to make sure residents have background information on issues. This is one mechanism to do that. I hope people find it useful. Please contact me at ronbeitler@gmail.com if you have any questions or concerns about any issues.

3 hearings tonight. 2 Conditional use hearings and the big one. Hearing on Hamilton Crossings TIF district. NOTE: The TIF district hearing will begin no earlier then 8pm since we have two conditional use hearings before.

The two conditional use hearings are for:

1.) Billboard application for Schantz Rd: This billboard would be fronting the turnpike. While I do have concerns with billboards on Hamilton Boulevard, I see no issues with this. It is appropriate location for a billboard facing a highway. 

2.) Sahara Mediterranean Cuisine: The second application deals with a potential new restaurant to be opened at the shopping center at Krocks and Hamilton. This is the location formerly occupied by a tanning salon nearby the Enterprise rent-a-car. I see no potential issues with this application. Will be great see another independently owned restaurant option locally.

HAMILTON CROSSINGS HEARING – More information on Hamilton Crossings issue here.

Here is a link to my thoughts on the TIF I wrote in an op-ed in the Morning Call. 

Public Comment:

In public comment there are 4 letters opposing the TIF and 1 supporting.

A resident writes in support of a Jake Brake Prohibition on Hamilton Boulevard. I support this Jake Brake Prohibition as long as the prohibition meets Penndot safety requirements. 

Communication from the library of new vacancies. Interested in serving the community? Do you support our community library? Submit an application on the township website. We thank the two members Mr. Bob Wendt and Mr. Bill Cho who are leaving the board for there service.

Review of minutes: I will ask for an amendment of one item. I need to review the meeting video. Item 3.2 it reviews the solicitors report on Hamilton Crossings traffic impact fee. I expressed disappointment that the traffic impact fee was not going to be assessed on Hamilton Crossings. The minutes read “there was disappointment that the impact fee could not be used to demonstrate to the county township skin in the game”. My disappointment is based on the fact the fee won’t be assessed. I never saw it as a “chip in the game”. That was a policy of the previous board. Because of this I will ask for clarification. This seems like a nit-picky thing and yes the minutes are just a very general overview. But end of the day we answer to voters. And the minutes are one record of our positions that the public can review to gauge the effectiveness of elected Commissioners. So I want to make sure the record is clear. I never thought of the traffic impact fee as a chip. It was always something very seriously in play. And my disappointment was in the fact that this opinion came so late in the game. 

Committees

Public Safety: We have correspondence from the public safety commission regarding their support of exploring brake retarder prohibitions on state roads. Specifically this is in request for consideration on Brookside Rd near residential developments. I support a brake retarder prohibition for Brookside Rd. pending an evaluation by Penndot on the feasibility based on defined safety criteria. 

Just how loud are jake brakes? The answer is very loud. – “Anecdotally, it sounds similar to a jackhammer, however the loudness is between 10 and 20 times the sound pressure level of a jackhammer (10 to 13 dB).”

Here is a sample of a local ordinance in West Allen Township:

SECTION II
A. Section 209-46.1, Engine Brake Retarder Prohibition, shall be added as follows:209-46.1 Engine Brake Retarder Prohibition. No gasoline-powered or diesel-powered motor vehicle shall be operated using, as part of theoperation, an engine brake retarder without exhaust mufflers or with defective or modified exhaust mufflers, upon any street or portion thereof where such operation is restricted or prohibited upon any street or portion thereof designated as such in Schedule XIX: Engine Brake Retarder Prohibition (Section 209-68).

 Planning and Zoning Committee

At the last meeting the committee approved the East Texas Zoning Task Force participants:
Jim Lancsek, Ron Beitler, Tom Beil (Planning Commission), Trey Bianco (owner Smooth on), Ray Leibensberger (property owner), Irini Kousalis (small business owner in East Texas), Holly Hinkle (resident), Percy Dougherty (County Commissioner and LVPC member) and Jim Palmquist (chair of East Texas walkways committee)

 

Related articles across the web

Thoughts on East Penn School District and Hamilton Crossings TIF

Posted on by

I attended the School Board meeting last night as an interested taxpayer and watched the debate about TIF. The decision was disappointing but I felt the debate was moreso. Important points were completely missed. The board by and large failed to look at the situation from a big picture standpoint. Some compartmentalized the decision and limited the thought process to a single parcel instead of evaluating the economics of the decision regionally. End of the day the board voted 5-4 to remain a part of the Hamilton Crossings TIF. Earnshaw, Bacher, Ballard, Fuller and Rhoads voted for the TIF. Vinovskis, Munson, Donches and Heid voted against it. (for the motion which was a vote against the TIF)

The bottom line is Lower Macungie isn’t just growing an industrial and commercial base our base is pretty much about to explode. At the same time single family home construction the primary driver for school age kids has ground to a halt. Certain school directors seemed oblivious to that. I found it a bit alarming. How do you make a decision about the application of an economic development tool meant for distressed communities without considering the bigger economic picture? How can you make an economic development calculation when compartmentalizing the districts forecast to one parcel seemingly oblivious to what’s going on around it? This decision shouldn’t have been made considering one parcel in isolation. It should have been made considering the whole picture.

I’ve written here before about the objective criteria I apply when considering a TIF. For me it centers around the ‘but for’ test. The name comes from the expression, “Development in a community would not occur but for the use of TIF.”

To evaluate this criteria you have to look at the big picture of Lower Mac and ask without TIF do we have economic development in the East Penn School District? The answer is absolutely. Therefore by using a TIF when it’s not necessary we skew the market. By applying TIF in a healthy growing local economy we’ve hurt the development potential of other commercial sites. This matters for the school district because these other sites would have paid 100% of there tax burden. The mistake is compounded by the fact that millions of dollars in new assessed value is coming to the districts coffers from industrial projects immediately in the next 5 years. This isn’t speculation. We’re talking approved or nearly approved projects.

Bad decision. Plain and simple. I always felt this was a bad deal for the township but at first I actually thought it was at least an understandable decision for the school board. The more I thought about it my opinion changed over the last 6 months. Why? Because I started looking at the big picture.

Where I sit today as a taxpayer of 2 school district properties (my home and my business) I’m going to resent last night’s decision to leave money on the table the day directors vote to raise my taxes. This will unfortunately happen sooner rather then later. Big picture we never address underlying issues. We just chase development and bury our heads in the sand.

GET INVOLVED: Do you live in Lower Macungie? Township Commissioners will consider TIF next. The public hearing is this Thursday. Consideration of this topic will start no later then 8pm at the township building. More information here.

Related articles across the web

Words still have meanings

Posted on by

I posted the first “words have meanings” last August. Check out the original post here. It was a longer post with some pictures & examples. This is a followup. Still an issue so I’ll keep re-posting. Developers continue to mis-label projects to curry favor with local government officials who don’t know any better. Terms with actual meanings are definitely bent to suit marketing purposes. Making matters worse journalists happily regurgitate developer characterizations. This is unfair to the public that genuinely desires more responsible smart growth development.

“Main St.”, “Mixed Use”, “Village Center”, “Walkable” ect. are all terms that have meanings.

Developers and marketing teams use of these buzzwords demonstrates they understand people want better communities. Problem is when we allow developers to mis-use terms without challenge we let those we represent down who then expect certain end products.

Just because a project smushes together incompatible single use buildings that would otherwise be separated and buffered on a small parcel doesn’t make it a mixed use project. Walking from your car to a single use building on a sidewalk does not make a project “walkable”. To qualify for these labels projects need measurable qualifiers.

  • Appropriate density.
  • Functional street grids
  • Vertical mixed use buildings or in a horizontal project compatible uses and context sensitivity. 
  • Actual functional walkability. The presence of sidewalks alone don’t make a project walkable
  • Diversity of architecture that respects heritage of the neighborhood
  • Complete streets
  • A measurable positive municipal return on investment and cash flow over multiple lifecycles – mixed use uses land more efficiently. 
  • Low impact on existing neighborhoods. Should reduce traffic not increase.

Top 5 characteristics of mixed use. 

Here is what spurred this post today:
‘Main street’ concept takes shape at Sterling Ridge

Mixed use "Main St." Village center?

Mixed use “Main St.” Village center? Really?

Not a mixed use. This is a low density auto-centric strip development with (maybe?) some bells and whistles. This isn’t necessarily a terrible project for what it is. But please. Label it correctly. This is a dual use project. 

What’s really sad is this is actually better than some of the projects that have been mis-labeled here in Lower Macungie from 2009-2013. (Hamilton Crossings, Allen Organ Development and most absurdly and blatantly incorrect the Jaindl warehouse development) The Allen organ development is a “dual use” project. Meaning we took uses that under our old ordinance would have been separated and buffered and allowed them to be built much closer together. The project lacks the meaningful integration to make it mixed use. It’s not a “neighborhood”. It’s commercial slammed against residential.

Time to weigh in on Hamilton Crossings is now.

Posted on by

When I ran for office a promise I made was that I would do everything I could to let residents know important decisions were being made before they were made.

There is no doubt Hamilton Crossings is a huge issue. The township is being asked to defer 50% of future revenue over a 20 year period. The developer is seeking this money to pay back bonds needed to build the property.

On March 29th I outlined my thoughts as they stood on the issue. Here is a link to the op-ed. This was an effort by me to ensure residents were aware that no decision was made. Over the last 2 weeks I’ve gotten dozens of emails and phone calls. It’s my hope in the next week and a half we get many more.

Now is the time to weigh in. Whether you are for or against the project. for or against the TIF financing, for or against creation of the TIF district let us know!

How to voice your opinion?

  1. Write a letter to the LMT Board of Commissioners. This is the easiest way is through the township website contact form: www.lowermac.com NOTE: letters must be rec’d by Monday the 28th at noon to be printed on the formal township agenda. 
  1. The second option is to attend the May 1st hearing which will start at 7pm. (The Hamilton Crossings portion of the meeting will begin at 8pm)

My suggestion is to write and letter and also if possible attend the meeting. This way you will hear the discussion and be able to listen to your elected officials debate the issue. I hope to hear from more of you over the next week and a half.

Related articles across the web

Live blog: LV Business Matters – Fedex vs. NIMBY syndrome – what wins?

Posted on by

This is a “live blog” of sorts meaning that I re-watched the 3/30 taping of Business Matters and I sort of stream of consciousness blogged as I did so writing whatever came up.

Watch the show here: Business Matters – FedEx Jobs vs. NIMBY Syndrome – What wins?

Don Cunningham LVEDC – 2:30 minute mark – NIMBY. “A project is going to happen there”. I’ll throw Cunningham a bone here since I’m mostly critical of the narratives he utilizes. Made this point in a post couple weeks ago. Using the NIMBY term here has some merit. Why? Because the land has been zoned a certain way consistent with regional planning for years. It’s adjacent to an airport and close to the spine infrastructure. Very different from the LMT Jaindl issue where we had a rezoning fight. For 23 in LMT an area was zoned agriculture protected in accordance with regional plans representing smart growth boundaries laid out in the 80’s. People bought homes assuming it would remain agriculture. Also the LMT warehouses are significantly further from the infrastructure spine. Quarry threat plus local officials rolling over were the reasons zoning changed. In our case, arguments weren’t NIMBY but rather about the rights of a community to protect itself.

8:30 minute mark – Here Cunningham refers to a community needing to adjust infrastructure. He refers to Bethlehem Steel infrastructure on former Moravian farmland. Unfair comparison. Warehouses are different then a mega manufacturing hub located in a growing city core. When Bethlehem Steel was built new infrastructure served the city not just a single project. It was inevitable that Bethlehem would expand. New infrastructure serviced entire neighborhoods surrounding the plant. It was efficient use of community resources. Excellent ROI. The locations where warehouses are often built is often the very definition of sprawl. They are frequently directly (or indirectly) subsidized by taxpayers at a premium since the infrastructure serves only one purpose. I get where Cunningham was trying to go here. But using Bethlehem Steel was a major stretch. The political economy of sprawl.

Bethlehem Steel at its height employed over 31,000 people. It maximized the city’s infrastructure investment in a way we just don’t often see today. Allentown’s city center project would be today’s example of this kind of transformative project. The comparison of Bethlehem Steel to warehouses is totally ridiculous. 

Continue reading →

Mcall point counterpoint – Should Gov’t collect union dues?

Posted on by

“Pennsylvania lawmakers (HB 1507 – introduced by Bryan Cutler) are considering “paycheck protection” legislation to prohibit government agencies from collecting dues on behalf of unions. Supporters say taxpayer resources shouldn’t be used to help unions fund political activity; opponents say it’s meant to weaken unions.” – Here is link to the Morning Call point counterpoint. 

I want to talk about this a little more. Here are thoughts on the topic: First why do public unions so fiercely protect this practice? The obvious question is that this indicates a fear that without automatic deductions by the gov’t body then public union members may not voluntarily continue to pay dues? If the benefits were so clear then paycheck deduction shouldn’t be an issue right? Am I missing something here?

Another argument I’ve heard is that the cost to local bodies is very low and therefore inconsequential. Ok, so if that’s the case then why is it a big deal to ask the unions to take over the cost of collecting dues? Aren’t we then eliminating any question of conflicts?

I will say the one argument I’ve heard that makes sense in favor of status quo is the fact that automatic deduction isn’t required by law but rather bargained for during negotiations. So a local gov’t can simply bargain it out if they feel strongly. But on the other hand to negotiate something away a local gov’t would have to give something up. Should it be a chip?

I have always looked at private unions (where the market is a check a balance) differently then public sector unions.  In the private sector unions compensate for potential uneven bargaining power between owners and workers. Public unions don’t work that way. They aren’t bargaining against owners for a fair cut of jointly produced profits they had a part in creating. Public unions are bargaining against everyone who pays taxes. In the private sector I think workers have the right to organize. The public sector I am wary. They are two different animals. In the private sector if the consumer is unhappy with the costs passed on because of union labor then they can choose not to buy that product. In the public sector of course the taxpayer has no way to opt out.

This has always been the fundamental way I look at this issue. What if anything am I missing here? Either on this specific issue or my general thoughts on private vs. public unions.

FYI In Lower Macungie per collective bargaining agreements, both the Clerical and Public Works Dept use the payroll deduction for union dues. – FYI

Related articles across the web

Traffic impact fee suddenly does not apply to Hamilton Crossings.

Posted on by

This is extremely disappointing. First, here is an article the Morning Call posted tonight. And here is the WFMZ article which delves just a little deeper. We have two issues:

1. The fact that this just came out now. These fees have been discussed as part of the township narrative regarding Hamilton Crossings for almost 3 years. How on earth can we just be discovering now that the fees don’t apply? I am having trouble wrapping my head around that.

Was all the talk about waiving the fees purely theater by the former BOC? Was this always just a bullet point to try to convince County Commissioners LMT had ‘skin in the game’? Was this always just posturing by township officials on behalf of the developer?

2. The ramifications of the township traffic impact fee ordinance. (TIFO)  The 2009 TIFO was enacted by the first appointed BOC so that the township could address traffic issues associated with hyper growth on a global scale. The alternative is to piece-meal improvements together one development at a time. Credit should be given to Commissioner Doug Brown who was one of the drivers of the impact fee.

Traffic Impact Fees: Here is a great 101

What the impact fee theoretically should have allowed us to do was collect a dedicated fee that could be used in various township wide (the study breaks the township into two zones) to address big picture traffic problems on a township wide scale. The problem is the 2010 board never seemed to have buy-in. It should never have been waived for the Jaindl rezoning and the Hamilton Crossings deal should never have been struck without accounting for it’s collection.

As an example to how the fee works. Hamilton Crossings has to (no matter what) mitigate the traffic caused by the center to get certain required PENNDOT approvals. This is the baseline for any project. It has to happen. But these improvements rarely address the regional issues or the cumulative impacts of multiple projects.

If we would collect the full 2.7 million dollar fee from Hamilton Crossings we could use that money to address the half dozen or so “pinch points” identified in the 2009 impact study. This allows us to address not only the problems directly adjacent to the center but problems that are a result of hyper growth in general. This money could be used right away or banked for 10 years or until the study is updated. (an update which is sorely needed since we’ve grown faster then the plan predicted)

So now that apparently the impact fee is all the sudden moot, I believe this is more reason that the township should not participate in the TIF and lose 50% of the new revenue over the next 20 years. This is most certainly money we will regret giving up 10 years from now when the township is reeling from congestion issues.

UPDATE: Paraphrased from a conversation with a member of the 2008 Traffic impact fee committee.

The seeds of the issue were planted in early 2008 when the court-appointed commissioners, following the recommendation of Commissioner Doug Brown, started the process to generate a transportation impact fee. I think that the intent to establish the fee may have been advertised, but a resolution creating the Transportation Impact Fee  Advisory Committee (TIFAC) was never presented or passed. The responsibility for this major error was never assigned to the Commissioners, nor to the then solicitor, (Blake Marles) Interim township manager or the paid TIFAC consultants.  After the advertisement of the ordinance in March 2009, Atty. Zator discovered the error, and all of the previous action of the TFIAC and township was nullified.As a note, this fee then was much larger than the one now in place. The township scrambled to restart the process correctly by creating the committee anew on April 16, 2009, but before it could, many development plans flooded in during the window of opportunity, thus avoiding any future impact fees. I was not aware that Hamilton Crossings plans was among them.
 

Related articles across the web

Lower Macungie Township Agenda Preview 4/17

Posted on by

FYI –  In these previews I may indicate thoughts on an issue, but it in no way means my mind is set. During a critical hearing for the Jaindl issue, a Commissioner spoke before public comment outlining he was voting to move forward the project regardless of what people said during public comment. That was wrong. Public debate was circumvented when the Commissioner indicated his mind was made up.

My hope is by blogging I open the door for conversations. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was folks didn’t truly understand what was happening until it was “too late”. I plan on doing everything I can to make sure residents have background information on issues. This is one mechanism to do that. I hope people find it useful. Please contact me at ronbeitler@gmail.com if you have any questions or concerns about any issues.

*Very light published agenda again this week. We rec’d a memo today however that Hamilton Crossings Traffic Impact fee will be discussed. I suggest those interested tune in. I will wait til tomorrow to comment on the impact memorandum that will be outlined by the Solicitor tonight. It is significant.

No hearings, announcements or presentations.

Communication:
LMT Historical Society – Letter of support for HC’s Log Home upgrades in exchange for taking of park land.

LCIDA – Formal letter indicates that the Lehigh County Industrial Authority will no longer actively seek County participation in the Hamilton Crossings TIF. More information here.

1 letter in opposition to TIF – Cites traffic concerns

1 letter in favor of township enacting a Homestead exclusion. More information about Homestead exclusion here. Please take a moment to read this proposal I made in January.

Continue reading →

Don’t blame the Truckers.

Posted on by

I had another beneficial conversation with a trucker last week. It’s why I’m hyper active on social media. It’s a way to solicit this kind of helpful dialogue. This particular trucker is named John. I met him after he msg’d me in response to a post I made. John has worked on or around trucks his whole life.

John saw a comment I made and took it as an affront to truckers. That wasn’t my intention, but hindsight I can see how he took it that way. Below is the conversation we had. In the end John understood my position and I better appreciated his issues. He’s someone I’ll stay in tough with when I have a truck questions. Truckers are not the bad guys. The failure is a breakdown of good planning.

Continue reading →

Sprawl’s Hidden Subsidies

Posted on by

I’m away for the week with my business partners shooting back to back destination weddings in Bermuda then Jamaica. (plug for my business here)

Didn’t want the blog to go dark for a week so decided to pre schedule a cross post from James Bacon over at www.smartgrowthforconservatives.com

If you are right of center politically and you think that smart growth is just for tree huggers or crazily some wacky agenda 21 conspiracy theory to take over the world then you should spend 5 minutes to read this post.

Then if the argument makes sense purchase Pamela Blais’s Perverse Cities and read it. Conservatives are missing a tremendous opportunity to re-frame the debate over growth and development in line with the principles of fiscal responsibility and free markets. I never will understand why. But it’s never too late to change.

Sprawl’s Hidden Subsidies

perverse_citiesby James A. Bacon

If planning and regulation were the answer to sprawl, then the Toronto metropolitan region ought to be a smart growth paradise. Toronto has a sophisticated, multi-tiered planning process, starting with an regional plan, plans for 30 upper-tier municipalities, and plans for 241 lower-tier municipalities (towns and townships, mostly). Yet outside the city of Toronto itself, which is undergoing a condo boom, there isn’t much to show for it.

The various municipal plans, which are comparable to Virginia’s comprehensive plans, define urban boundaries, control densities and show where growth should take place. The goal is for 40% of all new residential units to be built in already-urbanized areas. “That’s not happening,” says Pamela Blais, a city planner and principle of Toronto-based Metropole Consultants. “All the plans said all the right things. … [But] the regulatory approach isn’t sufficient to bring about the change.”

pamela_blais

The failure of regulation to halt sprawling, auto-centric development was the basis for Blais’ 2010 book, “Perverse Cities: Hidden Subsidies, Wonky Policy and Urban Sprawl.” She had researched and written the volume to figure out how the planners’ plans had gone awry. If smart growth made so much sense, and if planners had the power to bring it about, why weren’t developers and home builders doing what they were supposed to do? Something else had to be going on, she reasoned, something that was not commonly recognized.

As she delved into the subject, Blais found that real estate development is guided by massive hidden subsidies that shift costs from inefficient, land-intensive development to efficient, compact development. These invisible subsidies work at cross purposes to the regulations. As it turns out, developers follow the dollar.

Blais describes herself as a pragmatist. “It’s not an ideological argument I’m making,” she told Bacon’s Rebellion. “I’m interested in getting better cities. I’m happy to talk to everybody on the whole spectrum.” But her approach to urban development is one that fiscal and free-market conservatives can appreciate. The system for pricing public goods such as roads, water, sewer, electricity and public services bears little relationship to the cost of providing those services, she argues, with the result that a tangled skein of hidden subsidies incentivizes low-density development.

“Everybody thinks [sprawl] is the the invisible hand of the market. It’s a highly distorted market,” she says. “I’ve been arguing, let’s remove the distortions and take it from there. Remove the distortions and you’ll get a different development pattern. That should be the starting point.”
Continue reading →