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.

Ebike deregulation clears transportation committee

Posted on by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle

Part of smart growth is advocating for optional alternatives to automobiles. Folks like myself don’t want to stop driving or stop others from driving cars.  I like my car. I just want alternatives so I’m not forced to spend such a large chunk of my life in it. This is a trend with young adults nationwide who have less interest spending a quarter of their life in commute. Communities that grow in a way where a family can get by (if they choose to) with 1 car will be at a competitive advantage.

By design I live close enough to work to walk or bike if I choose. It’s something I enjoy doing. Once there, my office is located on a traditional Main St. where services like our bank and accountant are each less then 3 blocks away. We also have a half dozen lunch options within walking or biking distance.

Think about your household. How many cars? Now calculate how much it costs to own, insure and maintain them. Imagine the money saved by getting rid of just one. Complete streets, walkable communities and mixed land use policies allow options. That’s what it’s all about.

Recently, I started exploring the option of purchasing an Ebike.  Ebikes have been surging in popularity over the last few years. Ebikes are used by people with disabilities and seniors who like the extra assistance, those who want to reduce their carbon footprint and those who simply want to save a little gas money. Ebikes are not mopeds. They are bicycles powered by pedals with optional electric power. Ready to ride or kits to convert regular bikes have come down in price to a point where they are a viable option for those who want a little freedom from the car. I’m perfectly fine with pedals, but on a hot day the extra electric boost is great.

The issue I and others have run into is that ebikes are highly regulated in Pennsylvania. Most states treat bicycles with power assist as bicycles. Pa’s dated law classifies electric-assist bicycles as motorized pedalcycles or mopeds and therefore requires them to be licensed, titled & insured.

Federal law is very clear and treats Bicycles with electric assist of less then 750 watts of motor output and <20 mph top speed as bicycles and laws apply as such.

Last year state Senator Matt Smith proposed legislation legalizing pedal-assist electric bicycles. Senate Bill 997 deregulates pedal-assist electric bicycles treating electric bicycles the same as regular bicycles, meaning riders are not required to have insurance or register the two-wheeler. This would bring PA law in line with federal law which draws a distinction between ebikes and mopeds. Most smart growth policy is about deregulation and common sense reform. This falls squarely into that category.

SB 997 cleared a hurdle passing in the transportation committee by unanimous vote on Feb 4th. The measure now moves to the full Senate for consideration.

Read more:
Proposed Pennsylvania law would allow electric bikes without insurance, registration

 

Related articles across the web

Act 111 reform is needed in Pennsylvania

Posted on by

Last night, the Lower Macungie Board of Commissioners (BOC) voted unanimously to continue with Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) as our primary police provider. This decision came after conducting a comprehensive crime study. Results show we have the 7th lowest crime rate of Pennsylvania’s 35 largest townships. Our rate is 1/3 of Lehigh County’s average.

We have the luxury of basing a decision on data. We’re statistically a safe community and PSP does an outstanding job. Someday however, our community will have to address the method by which we secure coverage. This will happen either when A. crime data rises or B. state requires municipalities pay for PSP. This may happen in 5 years or it may happen in 20 years. No one knows.

Understanding some day we’ll face this decision we must consider all the factors involved. One of those factors is efforts to reform Act 111. Act 111 outlines how municipalities are required to negotiate legacy costs that make local police/fire departments financially unsustainable. 41 percent of Pennsylvania’s population live in municipalities facing fiscal distress. Local police/fire services are the single biggest cost item in many local budgets.

Act 111 arbitration awards contribute to escalating costs by handcuffing local governments. The act requires unions and municipalities to engage in binding arbitration during contract disputes. While the intent is good, the mechanism is 45 years old and needs reform. Act 111 gives unions unfair advantages – reaping large settlements that cost us all.

Until reforms are addressed as one member of the 5 person BOC I am wary about taking Lower Macungie down a path where issues like this are front and center where unelected outside arbitrators have so much power. Someday we’re going to have to address the potential of a local force. Until then it’s a concern that we don’t enter the township into a flawed system 

Here are two examples where Act 111 has led to financial stress and tax increases:

1. In 2013 after a 19 month Act 111 process paid for by Borough taxpayers, an unelected “neutral” arbitrator with no ties to the community rendered a ruling that forced Chambersburg to hike taxes. Here, Act 111 prohibited a locally elected council from managing their paid fire department in the best interests of their residents.  Read more here: From town council to the citizens of Chambersburg Borough.

2. Last year Bristol Twp. was forced into Act 111 Arbitration seeking relief from $85.8 Million in unfunded liabilities including $77 Million in Post-Retirement Health obligations. Bristol received nothing from an unelected arbitrator to help reduce crippling legacy costs. The union was awarded 4% and 3.5% raises. Today the township has 10 less Police officers than it did in 2012. Unfunded liabilities have now increased to $91 Million. The can was kicked down the road and the underlying issues were left.

Act 111 has serious consequences for communities. It removes what should be exclusively local decisions from residents and their elected officials. The system requires municipalities to negotiate in good faith but unions don’t. Everyone wants to see fire and police professionals treated fairly. The intent of Act 111 is good, but as it stands today it’s a 45-year-old outdated law in desperate need of modernization.

There are those seeking fair reform of Act 111. I support these efforts. Our State Senator Pat Browne (R) 16 is one of them signing on as a co-sponsor of SB 1111. The bill was crafted by Sen. John Eichelberger, (R) Blair, chairman of the Senate Local Government Committee.

Senator Browne addressed his position in a statement: “After 45 years, it is appropriate that the General Assembly take a comprehensive look at the local government collective bargaining process to ensure it strikes the proper balance between the rights of our important municipal police and firefighters and the taxpaying public,” Senator Pat Browne said. “We should ensure that when labor contract decisions are taken out of the hands of local elected officials and placed in arbitration that the process maximizes transparency and thoroughly considers the implications that any prospective reward will have on both municipal financial sustainability and public safety employment attraction/retention.”

This is a large part of what SB 1111 addresses. Highlights of SB 1111 reforms include:

  • Penalize either party for failing to engage in good faith bargaining;
  • Must show ability to pay through justification and consideration of new costs;
  • Start arbitrator selection process between both parties by coin toss;
  • Expand the list from which a neutral arbitrator is selected from 3 to 7;
  • Require the cost of arbitration be shared equally between both parties;
  • Codify the avenues of appeal of an award by either side.
  • Require evidentiary hearings to be open to the public (sunshine law);
  • Prohibit post-retirement health care and pension benefits from being subjects of collective bargaining.

These reforms will inject much needed fairness into the Act. 111 process.

As an elected local municipal official I often have to deal with mandates that take away our ability to make the right decisions for residents of Lower Macungie. I believe that Act 111 reform is essential. The effort currently has widespread bi-partisan support from municipal leaders, business leaders and community development organizations such as the Pennsylvania Economy League, Coalition for Sustainable Communities and the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Commissioners.

Related articles across the web

Lower Macungie Commissioners Agenda Preview 2/6/14

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.

Another light agenda this week. Most committees are meeting for the first time since reorganization last week, this week and next week. The next meeting will likely be a beefier one.

Announcements & Presentations – None

Hearings & Approvals – None

Public Comment on non-agenda items
-Two statements of interest for Zoning Hearing Board. (What is zoning hearing board?) Folks interested can still apply. Apply here.

-Two statements of interest for Audit Advisory Board and one for Public Safety Commission.

-LMT Planning Commission – Recommendation for BOC approval to create a steering committee to establish a Capital Planning roadmap modeled after Penndot’s 12 year plan. A capital improvement plan is a tool used to assess the long term capital project requirements of a government entity. The purpose for LMT is to evaluate requests for capital items such as maintenance of parks, trails, sanitary sewer, storm water management, open space preservation, public works and fire equipment. The written plan would hopefully identify and describe capital projects requests,rank priority, forecast the years in which funding each project is to occur and methods of funding. I support this initiative. Without a long term capital projects roadmap smart growth planning is incomplete. At it’s core, smart growth is important because it lays out a sustainable financial roadmap for our township. Planning ahead for capital needs is critical.

There are 3 letters dealing with snow removal this week. 1 suggestion, 1 complimentary and 1 complaint.

1 request for installation of walking path at Church Lane Park. (see above capital improvements planning!)

Lastly, we have a letter from a resident concerned with tractor trailers turning right onto East Texas Rd. off of Brookside. This is a major concern. One of the biggest priorities over the next 4 years is establishing how we’re going to proactively deal with Tractor Trailer traffic in the township. With the proliferation of warehousing in the township due to the unfortunate tragic rezoning of 100’s of acres of farmland to industrial we face no bigger safety and quality of life issue. I consider this a planning, public works and public safety issue.

Appointments to Boards – None

Planning: Approved MS4 Permit.  OVERVIEW: The federal Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into waterways without the appropriate permits. Pennsylvania’s Stormwater Management Act MS4 Program, Chapter 102, and NPDES Permit Program for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities are amongst the Commonwealth’s methods for meeting the runoff-related requirements of the Clean Water Act. For all practical purposes, though, implementation of stormwater management efforts in Pennsylvania occurs at the community level because individual municipalities are ultimately responsible for adopting zoning ordinances, subdivision and land development regulations, and other programs that keep their locality’s runoff under control. Note: this is an area I am familiar with but need more information about. I will hopefully be meeting with staff tomorrow for a primer on this subject prior to the BOC meeting.

There will be a joint workshop of the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners on Feb 18th. I will post the agenda when it is set.

Committees:  Here is a link to a list of committees & corresponding responsibilities.

At first meetings of the year the Committees will be establishing goals for the year. This was a request by President Conrad. I will outline these goals in a future blog post.

Planning & Zoning – The planning and zoning committee will meet Feb 12th.

The planning commission has nominated Barry Isett and Associates to conduct the East Texas comprehensive planning. We rec’d a 10,000 matching grant from the county to pay for this. The purpose of this study is to explore zoning and planning options for the East Texas area of the township.

We will explore adopting a new Village Zoning District for East Texas that allows a mix of lower-intensity commercial and residential uses. The idea is to use Traditional Neighborhood Development principles as part of infill construction or any redevelopment of parts of any portion of Day-Timers not utilized by a future tenant.  Zoning should help preserve and enhance the historic character and walkability of the village.

These concepts as they relate to LMT are also outlined in the townships draft smart growth plan.

Authorize to advertise: Ordinance prohibiting trucks beyond scenic view on Gehman Rd. I want to see where the signs will be placed. I believe it’s important to avoid signage placed in a way that we encourage trucks to use Scenic View (through a residential neighborhood) as an “out” when they realize they cannot proceed further towards Mountain Rd.

Approval of Street Sweeper and Truck Bid: This is to replace public works equipment. This was reviewed by the prior board as a part of the 2014 budget process.

Work order process for engineering projects: This came out of a recommendation by the Audit Advisory Board to review internal policies for engineering projects.

Review Board/Commission appointment policy regarding the need to interview incumbents. I feel strongly that incumbents should interview each time they are up for re-appointment. Some boards (such as zoning hearing board and planning commission) have people turned away due to lack of open spots. Appointments can sometimes be for up to 4 year terms. I absolutely think incumbents should re-apply for open positions and be interviewed in person at a public meeting.

 

Mackenzie – Increase penalties for municipal theft

Posted on by

We know all too well in Lower Macungie the damage a crooked public official can cause…. A former supervisor was accused of stealing $2.5 million in township sewer funds over a period of seven years. She later died before she was prosecuted and the township never recovered the full amount stolen. This disaster ended up being the driver for a successful resident led effort to convert Lower Macungie to a 1st class township since the 1st class code prohibits Commissioners from also being township employees.

Also this: Former South Whitehall Employee, Husband Charged with Embezzling Nearly $1M from Township

This is good legislation by Representative Mackenzie who represents Lower Macungie and South Whitehall in the 134th.  Elected officials who abuse the public’s trust should receive most severe penalties.

From Rep. Mackenzie’s facebook page. Mackenzie explains why he feels increased penalties for those who steal from municipalities make sense.

Smart Growth for Conservatives

Posted on by

Proud to be a contributor at a new blog called “Smart Growth for Conservatives“. 

“Smart Growth for Conservatives provides analysis of transportation and land use issues from a center-right perspective, with an emphasis on fiscal conservatism and market-based solutions.”

Smart growth is an issue conservatives should rally around. At it’s core it’s a blueprint for building long term fiscally sustainable places. So why has it gotten such a bad rap from some in the conservative movement? I’m going to borrow heavily from some of Jim Bacon’s writing here. It’s largely Jim and Strongtowns Chuck Marohn who really hooked me on the underlying conservative rationale. Conservatives mistakenly equate smart growth with intrusive government intervention in the economy, with regulations, subsidies and  boondoggles. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

First, while conservative intellectuals are spot-on in their critique of mass transit subsidies, they are blind to subsidies for roads and highways. While they hit the bulls-eye in their critique of land use restrictions, they ignore the systemic subsidies for green-field development. Their critique runs only one way. – Why Conservatives (mistakenly) hate smart growth – Bacons Rebellion

Bacon identifies 4 broad propositions. Here are the problems and reasons conservatives should be concerned. 

(1) The pattern and density of development has tremendous impacts on the prosperity, livability and fiscal sustainability of our places.

(2) The post-World War II pattern of disconnected, low-density, suburban-oriented development was largely the result of government interventions in the marketplace at the federal, state and local levels. 

(3) That pattern is increasingly dysfunctional, creating congestion and driving up the costs and liabilities of government. (Esp local gov’t!) When up front costs for new development are paid for with transfers of state and federal dollars down to local governments this leads to an illusion of wealth. The problem is when one time windfalls lead to long term liabilities for maintaining the new infrastructure. This exchange — a near-term cash advantage for a long-term financial obligation — is one element of a Ponzi scheme and is the centerpiece of the Strongtowns message. There is no denying we have a ticking time bomb of unfunded liabilities in our communities. We are dealing with this issue in Lower Macungie today.

(4) While many people do prefer auto-oriented communities, there is a pent-up demand for walkable urbanism with access to mass transit. 

Two patterns of Commercial development. 1. Strip Mall, 2. Traditional Main St. One efficiently capitalizes on public infrastructure and public investments, the other is a resource hog, consuming large amount of of land usually in a towns most precious areas.

Two patterns of Commercial development. 1. Strip Mall, 2. Traditional Main St.
The traditional Main St. efficiently capitalizes on public investments in while the other is a resource hog consuming a large amount of of land in what should be a  towns most financially productive area but what ends up being the least efficient.

So we identified the problems and acknowledge why they are of concern to conservatives. What are the conservative solutions? Here are a few: (and relevance to Lower Macungie in gray)

1. Use the market. Market based open space preservation as a mechanism to keep taxes low. Programs such as Transferable Development Rights. Currently, in LMT we preserve open space primarily with agriculture protected zoning. This is fundamentally unfair to landowners and has failed catastrophically in LMT since it can be overturned by politicians. A TDR program pays landowners for voluntarily severing their development rights by creating a market for density. In a market, the community preserves valuable farmland which in turn keeps taxes low, land owners are fairly compensated for their property and lastly developers are able to purchase density to build in appropriate locations where the gov’t doesn’t need to subsidize their project.

2. Deregulate zoning codes and encourage value capture. We’ve largely regulated ourselves into the our current problems with Euclidean Zoning Codes. The opposite would be a form based zoning code. There will always be a need to separate certain uses. Warehousing is one that comes to mind. Unfortunately here in LMT we’ve allowed a proliferation to an extreme. Warehousing is one example where it’s in the public interest to mitigate impacts with regulations, buffers and costly super-sized infrastructure. But many of the uses we separate with unnecessary regulations don’t have to be if we allow developers to build in the traditional pattern. Think of Main St. Macungie. Here we have residents who live next store to banks, accountants and Doctors.  That’s the traditional pattern that worked for hundreds of years. It’s only recently that we steered away from it when we started building isolated pods. 

3. Do the math. Perform lifecycle cost and benefit analysis to see if development projects are being subsidized by taxpayers or if they “pay their own way” and indeed generate more revenue then liabilities they create. We’re currently considering subsidizing a massive strip mall project. We assume that it will be a tax benefit. Has anyone actually done the math over multiple life cycles? Sure looks great up front. Shiny new boxes and traffic signals. But what happens when the township has to pay for future improvements and maintenance of infrastructure when the bypass is inevitably so congested that it needs to be widened or we have to build a bypass of the bypass. Shouldn’t we be squeezing every bit of revenue out of our most valuable spaces rather then subsidizing the least efficient pattern? (see photo above)

4. Bottom up government. Build only what we can afford to maintain. As mentioned above top down gov’t distorts what a local municipality can actually afford to build with one time subsidies and windfalls. We need incremental economic development grown organically rather then artificially. We must ensure we can afford to pay for new infrastructure over the long run. (Do the math beyond the windfall) Here in LMT we’ve done a great job of securing millions of dollars in Gov’t grants over the years. I’m not arguing that was bad strategy. We’d be foolish not to seek top down money. But over the years we’ve avoided tough conversations about what happens when that money dries up. This conversation came to a boiling point this past Nov. during the tough tax conversations. We came to the realization that we must account for the long term fiscal sustainability of our township if we want to avoid lump sum huge tax increases in the future.  

Interested in learning more? Add www.smartgrowthforconservatives.com to your RSS feed.

About SGFC: Editor Jim Bacon publishes with financial support from Smart Growth America. A life-long journalist, Jim was editor of Virginia Business magazine before launching Bacon’s Rebellion, a blog dedicated to building more prosperous, livable and sustainable communities in Virginia. 

Smooth On a great fit for Community

Posted on by

Commissioners unanimously voiced support for Smooth On at our last BOC meeting ahead of tonight’s 7pm Zoning Hearing Board meeting. (What is a Zoning Hearing Board)

Smooth on Logo

Smooth on Logo

Here is why I support Smooth On based on smart growth principles: 

First, by encouraging a company to move into an existing empty building we help to preserve precious open space and farmland. Infill and true mixed use is the alternative to greenfield development. Churning up our open space is costly both in terms of providing new infrastructure but also by hurting our quality of life.

Smooth on projects to have 1/7th the impact (parking, traffic, deliveries) of Daytimers when they were operating at their peak. As an example, the projections are for 20 trucks total daily limited to Mon-friday. These deliveries will also be limited to certain times and will not occur on weekends. Contrast that to distribution warehouses which generate 20-40 trucks an HOUR 24/7 and 365 days a year. Sounds like a pretty neighborhood friendly deal to me compared to other alternatives. Remember, part of Daytimers facility is a huge warehouse. There was a real fear a distribution outfit would have tried to purchase the property. This would have generated up to 10x the truck traffic.

Secondly, Smooth On will bring over 150 good paying jobs. They’ve already stated they would like to hire former Daytimers employees who lost their jobs when the company relocated. This is contrary to distribution warehouses which typically hire alot of seasonal and part time employees at much lower wages.

Lastly, Smooth On has expressed an interest in being a partner in future smart growth visioning projects including taking a look at East Texas. This is wonderful, because without an anchor who buys into community vision it’s hard to move forward with ambitious planning projects. Smooth On encourages a culture where employees live, work and play in the surrounding neighborhood. The folks who work there likely will live here, spend money here and send there kids to school here. This was similar to Daytimers where a large percentage of folks who worked at the facility lived here in Lower Mac.

Yes, with any large manufacturing facility there are concerns. This is no different. But as someone who always looks at new development with a critical eye, personally after 2 meetings with company officials I feel confident issues will be addressed. I have seen residents asking the right questions. That’s important! And great to them engaged. I hope to see many at tonight’s meeting. I am confident our staff, fire and emergency professionals and of course smooth on will be able to address any concerns residents have.

I grew up next to daytimers and today I live in a home in the same neighborhood 2 houses down. So not only do I look at this from the standpoint of a Commissioner, but also as a direct neighbor. Daytimers even at it’s peak was always a fantastic neighbor. It’s important we get another good neighbor in this building. Smooth on will have the same restrictions and 1/7th the impact in most measurable ways. To be honest it kept me up at night worrying the “wrong fit” may have expressed interest in the building. There are still questions to be answered tonight, but overall it’s fantastic that we have what looks to be the right fit.

 

Related articles across the web

Our evolving relationship with the automobile.

Posted on by


New love is always most intense and passionate at first. No, America is not abandoning the car. But the love affair has plateaued. Don’t expect a breakup though. There will be no nasty divorce. What has happened is we’ve slowly settled into a new comfortable perhaps less obsessive relationship with our cars.

Most people will tell you that love can make you do some funny things. Our initial  love affair with the car was reflected in our reactionary 1950’s planning policy. At the time we were so blinded by the intensity of our new relationship that we abandoned traditional neighborhoods. We installed compartmentalized Euclidean zoning codes which led to isolated, disconnected pods of development. We weren’t thinking straight, but it was all good at the time cause the relationship was still shiny and new.

That love has unfortunately led to some unanticipated side effects. Communities became isolated lacking a sense of place.  Folks lived far from the places they worked. People spent huge chunks of their day isolated in cars commuting back and forth. And the new pattern was also very expensive and the only way to fund it was to double down on it. So we got trapped in a cycle. But blinded by love we didn’t see. Or more accurately we didn’t want to see.

No, there will be no divorce but today we are returning to a more healthy balance. Most people will tell you for any relationship to last you need balance. Young professionals are returning to the cities and 1st rung walkable suburbs in droves. Folks no longer want to spend a quarter of their life in cars. Survey after survey show people want connectivity. They want to live in places, not nebulous collections of isolated pods. They want options. It’s a lifestyle choice but also it’s a financial reality.

No, America is not breaking up with the car. We’re simply moving on to the realistic sustainable phase of our relationship with the auto. We now want other options in addition to our cars. We don’t want to spend every second with them.  We want a life outside of them. In the end this will lead to a much healthier relationship with the auto. The trend is undeniable. It’s time for governments both large and small to acknowledge it.

The chart below shows vehicle miles traveled, forecasts vs. actual. The black line represents the plateauing of miles driven. The colored lines are predictions by various levels of gov’t. Driving habits have changed but government remains locked into development patterns that reflect a love affair that’s cooled. 

Chart from Eric Sundquist of the State Smart Transportation Initiative. For the past decade, state and federal governments have consistently overestimated future growth in U.S. road travel.

Chart from Eric Sundquist of the State Smart Transportation Initiative. For the past decade, state and federal governments have consistently overestimated future growth in U.S. road travel.

 

 

Related articles across the web

County BOC directs administration to remove County as agent for Unions

Posted on by

Last night, the Lehigh County Board of Commissioners directed the Administration, in all future negotiations between the County Of Lehigh and employee bargaining units (including meet and discuss units), to remove the County as dues collection agent for any third-party membership organizations. The motion was sponsored by Commissioner Mike Schware and was approved by a vote of 6-2. The vote was along party lines.

Related articles across the web

Which Gov’t will take ownership of Homeless issue?

Posted on by

I went to the County meeting last night to hear discussion on homeless shelters in the City of Allentown. A spotlight has been on the issue in recent weeks. Partially because of record low temperatures but also because of the work of a handful of devoted activists who seem frustrated.

I won’t comment on specifics since it’s an issue I need to learn more about. I learned alot last night. One item though seems pretty clear. Between the County and the City of Allentown one body needs to take ownership of the issue. When Commissioners responded to folks in attendance one eluded to homelessness being an Allentown issue. It wasn’t a callous remark but rather a statement of what was believed to be fact. Not moments later a friend handed me the Allentown memo. Much has been written about the memo. It very clearly states that in the cities opinion homelessness is a County issue.

Clearly we have a disconnect here.

Secondly, we need to deal with this issue 365. Not just the coldest month of the year. Yes, it’s highlighted now because lives are in danger now. It was 5 degrees this morning at 5am.

While I sat and listened I wondered what it was like at one of the shelters on a night like last night. I learned this morning that apparently 3 Commissioners must have wondered the same thing. Apparently Lisa Sheller, Vic Mazzioti and Scott Ott quietly went to the shelter after the meeting. These meetings often go to 11 at night. I left early so I have no idea how late it went last night. But I heard this morning a handful of Commissioners visited a shelter late last night.  An exceptionally cold night. I appreciate that. Puts a face on a problem.

Now, let’s work to find solutions. Committees can be great. But not when there is urgency with an issue. Let’s hear ideas at the next county meeting.

Related articles across the web

Twp. goes above and beyond to notify residents.

Posted on by

Lower Macungie Snow Emergency

After last night’s snow emergency was declared Ben Galliardo our man of many hats, (referring to his multitude of job titles and responsibilities) took to the streets and flyered cars in LMT neighborhoods. This was a one time courtesy and another example of our fantastic staff here in Lower Mac going above and beyond.

At the Jan 6th meeting I was sympathetic to those who showed up whose cars were towed during the Jan 2-3 emergency. Mostly because of the 400 dollar bill they rec’d. One household with two cars faced an 800 bill. If I got a hit with a 400 dollar bill out of nowhere it would certainly sting. I felt the rate charged by the towing company was exorbitant.

Last week our township manager negotiated a lower fee with the private company who does the towing. (Remember, the township doesn’t make a penny off towing cars) The result is a more appropriate pricetag with a little less sting.

On both accounts I think the township responded appropriately. That being said, I do not think the township has a responsibility to go any further in terms of notification. To talk about robo calls or text message alerts is overkill.

There is an issue of personal responsibility here. It is not the government’s job to hold your hand every time it snows. If you see it’s snowing outside and you park your car on a public road you then have the responsibility to find out if a snow emergency is declared. That’s on you. It’s part of the responsibility of owning a car and parking it on public streets in the winter.

When you see it’s snowing you can: Turn on the TV or a radio, go to the township website, facebook, twitter… You can pick up the phone and call the township. Call a neighbor. Call the PSP. We will make the information available in every reasonable way possible but the responsibility in the end falls to the resident.

Yes, we had issues. Part of it was we haven’t towed regularly in the last couple years. Remember, the twp. doesn’t seek to tow. Recent towing was the result of residents in  neighborhoods asking us to do so. We have an ordinance on the books and residents asked us enforce it.

Oftentimes governments over-correct. Elected officials want to help people. At least the good ones do. When people come in front of us we want to make situations right. I know I do. We just have to careful not to get caught up in an issue and must remain measured in  response.

Conversations about spending 20k+ on a robo call system would be an example of overkill. Residents have to take some personal responsibility here. 99% of township residents seemingly have no problem doing so.