In this article Charles Marohn outlines the problem with the otherwise well intentioned Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The requirements when regulated and applied in a clumsy top down fashion leave little wiggle room for smarter more cost effective approaches. This “orderly but dumb” approach often results in forcing ADA compliant facilities literally in the middle of nowhere but leaves downtowns, town centers and other multi modal corridors neglected.

A local example? Throwing money away on walking facilities on the Rt. 222 bypass. I am a big supporter of multi-modal streets and sidewalk facilities as a long term value play for communities. Problem is obviously, the bypass is a place no sane person whether disabled or otherwise would (or should) ever walk. It’s fundamentally designed as an un-safe place for pedestrians. And it should be as a road designed (albeit poorly) to get cars through an area from point A-B quickly and efficiently.

Rt. 222 Corridor – streets, stroads and roads.

But here we have the expensive pedestrian facilities to cross a 4-lane divided highway. The result of clumsy top down policy leaving no room for nuance or interpretation in line with local land use goals.

Sidewalks to nowhere on the bypass, a place no one should be walking.

The problem:

“Like any top-down regulation, a lot of times [the ADA] gets boiled down to checklists and bureaucratic regulation,” Marohn told me. “There are a lot of times when MnDOT has standards about how a signal will go in. It will detail all the ADA elements, the lowered curb, the rumble strip, the different things for people with vision impairments. It’ll have all this stuff and they’ll go out and build it, but it’s out in the middle of a cornfield where there’s nobody walking anywhere.”

 

And the logical advice:

“While it’s easy to find places where ADA improvements seem silly, figuring out what to do about them can be difficult. One of Marohn’s key pieces of advice is that transportation engineers should spend more time listening to people with disabilities about what they want, and where they want it, instead of blindly following a top-down checklist. ”

 

25 years after the ADA, sidewalks still speak louder than words

First if ADA is going to mandate the curb cuts etc it should also require and make sure they go somewhere. And second roads need to be defined by contextual purpose. Let’s NOT put walking facilities on 4 lane divided highways. Let’s focus the money where we get the most bang for the buck. Where walkers are in danger today. Lastly, not building #dangerous by design roadways from the get-go is a much cheaper strategy then applying lipstick on a pig.

More information:

STRONGTOWNS: Chuck talks to Heidi Johnson-Wright, an ADA coordinator in Miami Dade County, about the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I’m probably nuts for writing about education cause it’s a hyper-partisan mine-field littered with special interests and an ingrained “team mentality”. As a township commissioner I have no influence on these conversations. I have no team and I’m not interested in joining one. I just want to step outside the echo chambers for a minute.

But here goes nothing. I try hard to remain agnostic. Step away from the partisanship and just look at the big picture. To that end, you can somewhat do so since in our American education system we have 49 relatively independent systems to compare. I always go back to how are we doing vs. other states as a baseline. In the US we have 50 laboratories to study.

I also understand that the broke system we have today has in the past affected the township. This is because as we scramble to apply band-aids to a system overly reliant on local taxing bodies to sustain the unsustainable by chasing ratables we’ve made some awful land use decisions “for the school district”.  As I often say it’s a rob Peter to pay Paul mentality. Low value development gives the district a band-aid windfall but hurts the township financially long term. But that’s what we get when we are constantly playing catch up. You can’t even blame the district for what is a rational response to a broken system.

So how do we fix it? First some things I know based on comparing our system to other states: (determining baselines) Often we look at PA in a vacuum. To me that is an irrelevant exercise that only serves the status quo. To do so when we have the ability to benchmark against 49 other states makes no sense.

1. Pennsylvania is among the tops in total education spending. Meaning we have one of the most expensive systems in the nation. (29 Billion dollars)

Full stop.

Again, we have one of the most expensive systems in the nation. Pennsylvania today also has some of the highest paid teachers in the nation. Not saying good or bad. I’m just saying what is.

Gov. Wolfs proposal represents the highest net tax increase in the nation. More and more revenue? A solution unrelated to the problem.

Other things I know: While we do not have a revenue problem, we definitely have a funding equality problem. Both state to local ratio but also district to district. We might also have a “bang for our buck” problem meaning a correlation problem. Higher spending does not necessarily mean better outcomes. There are other states that spend far less money and have far better outcomes. The Wolf budget ignores the structural problems that lead to our overly expensive (based on efficiency) system and doubles down on revenue. More and more and more money always.

There are literally a half dozen priorities that are more important than revenue. Revenue relating to total spend is NOT the problem in Pennsylvania. But there are also items Democrats are demanding that I haven’t heard Republicans willing to address. Cyber Charter reform is one example. I support school choice, but on equal funding footing.

As I’ve said in other posts I dip my toes into this topic from a viewpoint that both parties seem to have masters they are unwilling to upset. That’s a political problem we have to overcome. As I’ve also said I would support a severance tax on extraction of a state natural resource in line with other states. (a resource that we have a PA constitutional obligation to protect) But, only if it directly relates to property tax reduction on a revenue neutral dollar to dollar basis. Meaning shifting burden away from homeowners. What we have on the table today in the Governors budget is very simply the nations most extreme tax grab with some extra smoke and mirrors shell game property tax reduction.

Bottom line is structural reform means changes to the system. Not band-aids, not stop gaps, not windfalls but fundamental changes. Looking at things that are broken and fixing them. They can be transformative but also can be subtle.

Let’s get out of the echo chamber and find the middle ground. SB1 is critical reform. In some circles it already represents a compromise bill. But we must start somewhere. And we have to do it now. No signature on that bill is a non-starter since it is the structural reform we need. If that means Republicans need to cave on severance tax, so long as it’s tied to REAL property tax reduction and not a revenue grab I think it’s a deal that needs to be made.

Resources:
Teacher Salaries by state
Quality rankings of education in 50 states
Public Education finances: US Census

I make no bones about it. I am a smart growth and farmland preservation voter. If you care about the future of the township you should be also.

I write primarily on this blog about smart growth issues and specifically how I see it as a key to the financial resiliency of places. This includes Lower Macungie. If you want to keep taxes low over the long term you must preserve open space.

On May 19th I’m encouraging folks to be a farmland preservation voter. All these candidates are Republicans but any voter can (and should) write in pro farmland preservation candidates. I am looking forward to learning positions of Democrat candidates before the general election. RenewLV will be tackling this in a non-partisan fashion.

FACTS: Reasons to protect farmland
-Preserving farmland keeps taxes low
-Farmland is Industrial infrastructure and an economic resource
-Protecting farmland and open space increases property values!
-Protecting farmland is great for the environment
-Lehigh Valley residents overwhelmingly support open space!

COUNTY – VOTE: Marty Nothstein
I have endorsed others but one candidate stands out in the realm of preservation. That is Marty Nothstein. When asked the question at a recent event “Do you support restoring county funding of the preservation program” he answered in the most straightforward fashion of all the candidates. He stated unequivocally that we need to find a way to get it done. This is critical at the county level because for every dollar the county budgets for preservation the commonwealth matches it with 2.50. The county program and the ability to leverage state dollars is a critical component to balancing our land use issues in Lower Macungie.

TOWNSHIP – VOTE: Ron R. Beitler and Doug Brown
Over the last year we’ve made some strides. Not quickly enough for my liking but that’s how government works. Slowly.

First and foremost preservation tools that exist haven’t been promoted much or really at all from 2010-2013. There were seated Commissioners not even aware of mechanisms in place. By simply promoting what is already in place we’re about to get 50+ acres preserved off Mountain Rd. The landowner just needed to be introduced to the preservation program and other benefits. I personally worked to connect her with the county farmland preservation director.

Moving forward the remaining Commissioners slow to come to the table on preservation issues are now finally all on board. (conveniently, now that we’re in election season.) I think this is because I demonstrated with my election that farmland preservation is very popular with voters in the township. Better late vs. never I suppose? While I’m happy we are all in apparent agreement there are some differing opinions on how to fund the program. This was my initial proposals. Both used no residential taxpayer money. Other Commissioners want to fund with debt.  Here is an article on some issues with debt.

Moving forward we need Commissioners who will support preservation year round (not just before an election) and also one very important additional policy item. That is the adoption of an official map. This is an invaluable tool that Upper Milford just used to potentially preserve a 126 acre farm that if developed would exasperate traffic issues on Rt. 29. Here is an overview of the official map. What it is and how it can be utilized as a preservation tool. The EAC who has for the last year championed preservation issues has formally requested a discussion on the official map. This will happen in the next month. Both Doug Brown and myself support adopting an official map.

To keep the momentum going I ask that you be a farmland preservation voter on May 19th and cast your vote for my father Ron R. Beitler & Doug Brown. 

A word on Jim Lancsek and Ben Galliardo: I respect both Jim and Ben greatly as people. Jim is a great guy who I genuinely like. Ditto with Ben. Unfortunately, when it comes to land use, smart growth and preservation Jim and I agree on very little. He is about as “pro development” as it gets. There is no other nicer way to put it.

Ben is another great guy and longtime invaluable township employee. What worries me is that fact… I’ve seen it before where a longtime employee is too slow to change because “that’s the way the township has always done it“. Ben might be a great commissioner if the township didn’t require more outside the box thinking. But unfortunately status quo has in fact led to situations where we must have outside the box thinkers.

Ben is unfortunately to “inside the system”. We do not need anymore inside baseball. Alot of the embedded ways of thinking are why we’re in the situations we are in. Ben also has unfortunately been light on actual platform items. What I mean is, there is literally not one place I can look to or link to and see what he stands for and what his platform planks are. “Good guy” is not good enough reason to cast a vote.

About Doug Brown: Doug’s been criticized in letters being circulated around the township for being too hard on staff. For questioning policies and plans. For ruffling too many feathers. I see this all as positive traits in a Commissioner. We’re lucky in that we have a great staff. But our job isn’t to be buddies with them. Our job is to evaluate and set policy. To question status quo and to improve the township. I have a good relationship with staff. Particularly Sara our planner who I have immense respect for. But end of the day we can’t be afraid to “ruffle feathers” if that’s what needs to be done. If Doug has questions about issues it’s his job as a commissioner to ask questions during public meetings and that is exactly what he does. Sure, it might make meetings go a little later sometimes. But so be it. The public isn’t privvy to what gets “worked out before meetings”. The business of the public should be done in the public.

Doug also in 2009 right after he was appointed as commissioner proposed one of the most important pieces of policy in the township. The Traffic Impact Fee. Today we are using that program to address traffic issues in the township. Unfortunately, not all commissioners have had buy-in with the impact fee. It could be more effective if it had not been waived for the largest projects.