Are locals getting Hamilton Crossings construction jobs?

Posted on April 13, 2015 by admin

I want definitive answers to these questions:

1. How many construction jobs will there be vs. the estimates provided in the TIF narrative.

2. And of these jobs, how many and what % are going to locals? Locals defined by residents of the Lehigh Valley.

I have now heard from two people who work in trades that the jobs might not go to locals. Ok. Wasn’t this one of the reasons that some who voted for the TIF cited? “X00” construction jobs for the area?

If this is the case I sincerely hope that those who used this rationale to justify the public subsidy are doing whatever they can to encourage and influence the development team to use local labor. It’s my understanding bids are happening now.

My argument was always the shopping center would have been built without the TIF. (an argument justified by the County vote) BUT those elected officials who used the jobs argument as reasoning not to in their words “gamble” (silly word to use since there was never a question whether the center would get built) should be following through on this. Also why wasn’t there a project labor agreement put on this tied to the TIF? Couldn’t that have been something the 2010 township BOC negotiated if they were truly interested in local job creation?

I criticize public unions often. (that’s a lengthy convo we desperately need reform) But I have ZERO problem with private sector unions. Esp. trade unions. And in this case since public dollars were used to finance this project we should have absolutely REQUIRED local labor.

Wherever possible these jobs should go to Valley residents. I will monitor this.

I need to learn more here and confirm what I’m hearing. More on this soon.. If anyone else has insight here please contact me. Ronbeitler@gmail.com

death by 1000 cuts

Posted on April 6, 2015 by admin

Couple months ago Republican County Commissioners moved forward a budget with an 8 dollar tax decrease. This was by some derisively called a “Happy Meal” tax cut and subsequently vetoed by the Democrat executive. Later that veto was over-ridden by a 7-2 margin along party lines.

One of the supporters of the cut Republican Mike Schware stated: “It was less about the dollar amount being saved and more about sending a message that taxpayers will not be forgotten when the county has a good year.”

The more I think about the Happy Meal characterization the more it bugs me. Look at it this way. As a resident of Lower Mac that cut put 8 dollars in my pocket. So ya, the cost of 2 happy meals. But take it another step and pair that decrease with the savings from the townships newly adopted homestead program that I proposed last January. On average the program saves homeowners 19 dollars.

Another $19 in a vacuum? 5 Happy Meals. Add it to the County cut? Now we’re talking a swing of $27. That’s 7 Happy Meals. Year after year adding up. For me? I don’t eat at Mcdonalds but I drive. $27 is a tank of gas.

Let’s go one last step. Add onto our figure the last EPSD tax increase. Averaged $58 per per household per year. I own a property within the avg. So for me, the cumulative swing is $85. Here are all the local tax increases and cuts together:

Cumulative impact for Lower Mac residents across all 3 taxing bodies.

Had the district held the line that would be $85 in my pocket. 3 tanks of gas over a year. Do we now see how the phrase “death by 1000 cuts” pertains?

Let’s consider another perspective. I live within my means but I’m lucky to have a successful small business. My wife also has a good job. We’re lucky. What about folks who aren’t? Stats show that Lower Mac has a poverty rate of 4.9%. Very low. Still we have around 1500 residents trying to get by day to day at or below the poverty line. Also a large population of seniors on fixed incomes.

For these folks 85.00 isn’t a laughing matter. They certainly aren’t looking at it in terms of Happy Meals. According to this USDA food costs chart for folks under the poverty line: (using the thrifty plan) At or below the poverty line 85.00 means:

FOR SENIORS: 85.00 feeds two seniors on fixed income for one week.

FOR A SINGLE MOM: 85.00 helps a single mom feed a newborn for 4 weeks, a 9 year old for 2 weeks.

I could go on with other examples but you get the picture. Bottom line is 8 dollars might mean a happy meal for most of us. But for others if we look beyond the one-liners and consider the cumulative tax liability that compounds year after year the impact increases 10 fold. This is where the mindset of “oh it’s just a small tax increase” gets dangerous. These add up.

*Note: Incumbent County candidates Brad Osborne, Amanda Holt and Vic Mazziotti all supported this tax cut before it was vetoed by the Democrat Executive. They and other Republicans needed a super-majority to over-ride.

Republicans saw a $2.3 million dollar surplus and believed as Commissioner Schware stated that when the county has a good year, taxpayers should also. This thinking also sets us up for another measured decrease next year. Maybe it’s another Happy Meal decrease? But as we can see from above, that’s fine by me. It all adds up.

Lehigh County ended 2014 with a $2.3 million surplus

death by 1000 cuts

LVPC Jaindl nomination

Posted on March 28, 2015 by admin

The nomination of David Jaindl by the County administration for a seat on the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission is a bad idea. The benefits of developers serving on the LVPC make sense, but with all due respect to Mr Jaindl he is not the right choice. Lots of others would be better suited.

County Commissioner Percy Dougherty who represents Lower Macungie outlines some good arguments why the nomination isn’t a good idea. Some I agree with more than others but we come to the same conclusion.

For me the biggest problem with Mr. Jaindl is too often his projects directly and substantially conflict with the regional comprehensive plan. Here in Lower Mac we understand this better than most. Residents have and will continue to pay the price for maneuvers he made over the years that circumvented both the regional comprehensive plan and local comprehensive plans.

When appointing someone for the LVPC we have the opportunity to find a developer who consistently builds projects within the framework of the plan as opposed to someone who for years has quite literally run rough-shod over it.

Nominees should at minimum consistently demonstrate a belief in regional comprehensive planning. For developers that means their body of work should reflect key development concepts of the plan. Jaindl’s greenfield projects too often represent quintessential sprawl. Lots of responsible land developers out there. Once a year I get to spend time in DC with members of LOCUS. LOCUS is a smart growth oriented national coalition of conscientious land developers. Business people who recognize pent-up demand for a market shift toward high quality, sustainable, walkable smart growth oriented development.

Check out LOCUS here on twitter.

If Commissioners proceed with consideration of this nomination at minimum Mr. Jaindl should have to publicly defend why his projects so frequently clash with the comprehensive plan. Basically, Commissioners can and should request a public interview. I would have a number of questions I would ask.

David Jaindl’s 700 Spring Creek properties development directly conflicts with both the LVPC comprehensive plan, the southwest regional comprehensive plan (Alburtis, Macungie, Upper / Lower Milford and LMT) and also Lower Mac local plans. The project is the result of a 2010 rezoning of previously protected farmland. This project represents a blatant disregard for growth boundaries. Aside from the loss of farmland that was protected for 23 years, this will also negatively impact township residents both financially and in terms of quality of life.

Read Mr. Jaindl in 2010 got 700 acres of preserved farmland (over 1 square mile) rezoned.

Disclosure: In the past starting 3 years ago I expressed interest in the LVPC including a formal statement of interest most recently in February. I don’t see this as relating to critique of this nomination. Mainly because for this cycle I do agree seeking a developer and someone from Northwestern Lehigh makes sense for 2 open slots. I just don’t think we have the right developer. Personally, I’ve waited 3 years for consideration. I can wait another. Applying just made sense for me since regional planning issues are an interest of mine. I also think Lower Mac should have an elected official on the board since we are the 3rd largest municipality in the region and so many of our projects are of regional significance.

Pedestrian fatality epidemic

Posted on March 18, 2015 by admin

This week we had another local tragedy involving a pedestrian on a STROAD. We have a national epidemic of pedestrian deaths in this nation. And unfortunately Pennsylvania is heading further backwards.

According to the Governors Highway Safety Association Pennsylvania had the second highest increase in pedestrian deaths from 2013-2014:

Here in the Lehigh Valley a woman lost her life walking on the shoulder of Airport Rd. when she was hit by a drunk driver. The drunk driver will be punished as he should be. But the local officials, planners and engineers who designed and allowed a dangerous STROAD that mixes restaurants, movie theaters, pubs and retail (things people want to and should be able to walk to) with zero pedestrian accommodations will not.

This death like most could have been prevented through better policy, design and practice. There was a crosswalk near this accident because it’s mandated by the state. But like most STROADS there are no sidewalks or any facilities at all to get people from places of business safely to the crosswalk. In fact, the whole environment was built to be completely abrasive and dangerous for anyone not inside a metal cage. So, people react naturally and they walk on the dangerous shoulder.

More than half of all pedestrian fatalities occur on arterials, and over 60 percent of these tragedies occur on roads with speed limits of 40 mph or higher. These are the STROADS. Here in Lower Macungie Brookside Rd., Lower Macungie Rd., the “bypass” and Hamilton Boulevard are all STROADS. Locally, along these STROADS we have built a library, pool, parks and schools. We’ve zoned for places of business including daycares, restaurants and retail. Naturally, people want to be able to and should be able to walk to these destinations. If we continue to plan to put commercial uses on these roads, we need to expect people will walk and bike on them and design accordingly.

This includes:
Bike Lanes
Sidewalks
Pedestrian scale road geometry
Appropriate design speed that correlates with appropriate posted speed
Context sensitivity: Neighborhood commercial form, street trees, etc.

STOP #dangerousbydesign

Economic gardening vs. economic hunting. How can we help?

Posted on February 27, 2015 by admin

Economic Gardening is the opposite of Economic Hunting. Economic gardening is an entrepreneurial based approach to economic development that seeks to grow the local economy from within. Its premise is that local entrepreneurs create the companies that bring new wealth and economic growth to a region in the form of jobs, increased revenues, and a vibrant local business sector.

Economic Gardening is an inside-out strategy while Economic Hunting or as recently in Lower Macungie chasing strip malls with tax gimmicks is very much an outside-in strategy.

Oftentimes politicians prefer the hunting approach. With the hunt/poach approach comes large projects, ribbon cuttings, inflated job forcasts. (oftentimes with quantity, quality suffers) etc. Nice things you can put on campaign lit. But oftentimes these projects over the long term are contingent upon subsidies, abatement programs, special treatment, long term obligations and major government intervention akin to an escalating arms race.

The issue is the downsides to the hunt are substantial vs. the rewards.

Economic gardening is a much more resilient approach where benefits play out over the long term. For better or worse the Lehigh Valley and Lower Macungie have been very good recently at the hunting game. The long term liabilities of this approach unfortunately only will become clearer over time. Check out this article: Economic gardening is growing but what is it?

I believe it’s time to put equal emphasis on a gardening approach. One strategy is taking a good hard look at our sprawl zoning code which as currently written actually presents barriers to local entrepreneurs. That is step #1. That’s an action item that we’ll hopefully tackle of the next 3 years. But other strategies are more long term. Tending an economic garden doesn’t provide an immediate feather in any one politicians cap. It’s hard work.

Another step I want to concentrate on is just asking the right questions. For example:

If you’re a local entrepreneur in Lower Macungie or a small business with less than 100 employees what can we as a community do to help you grow and expand your existing small business keeping it in Lower Mac? ‘

Recently, we’ve invested significant money in low value hunting schemes. My question is moving forward what can we do for everyone else?

Economic Gardening in Emmaus

Update on executive session abuse legislation.

Posted on February 13, 2015 by admin

I originally wrote about this here. I believe executive session abuse is unfortunately rampant at the local level of Gov’t. This is amplified locally based on the process which led us to the Jaindl Rezoning. The latest bill HB 340 is an update to the original HB 1670. I would encourage local Representatives to co-sponsor this legislation which I see as essential to open and transparent government.

Below is a quick 3 min overview where Rep. Saccone talks about his bill:

Could a tax break be coming to East Penn?

Posted on February 9, 2015 by admin

Looking into the crystal ball the answer is… possibly. But it all depends on Lower Mac. This is based on the districts summary of outstanding debt. My friend Mark Spengler presented an outline of the school districts outstanding debt last week. Here is a summary:

East Penn School District Summary of Outstanding debt.

2017: $13,998,754

2018: $13,498,225

2019: $7,972,918

This shows the school districts debt payments will drop dramatically in 2019. Basically, what Mark was demonstrating is that long range strategic planning has for a long time accounted for another major capital investment in a second High School or other major academic building. However the most recent demographics report compiled by the Pennsylvania Economy League shows that East Penn will likely experience declining enrollment over the next 10 years.This means that if we can avoid having to build a new school that in just a few years the East Penn School District would have a $6 million reduction in the budget.

Whether or not major capital expenses can be avoided depends primarily on… Lower Macungie Township. Our land use policies will dictate whether we need major school construction or not. This is why the current conversation about open space preservation must be centered around strategies to take developable residential land off the table. Farmland preservation is the best strategy for keeping local Lower Mac taxes predictably low and stable. But it’s also clearly the best chance we have to set the table for East Penn to actually lower taxes in 2019. Lower Macungie can help even more by focusing efforts on more valuable neighborhood commercial mixed use (vs. low value strip commercial) and incentivizing over 55 communities with a new conservation cluster ordinance.

Now admittedly, all this accounts for alot of variables falling into place. As we know school districts are at the mercy of the state year to year. But the fact remains two predictable variables are debt and enrollment. We can by and large control these two items. Based on that alone we have the potential for a golden opportunity. That is, if Lower Mac doesn’t go off the rails again.

The best DOT…. Tennessee

Posted on January 27, 2015 by admin

Here we have a head of a state DOT putting these concepts out there very publicly. He identifies fundamental problems. This needs to be shared, applauded and celebrated.

The following video is only a 4 minute investment of time. I think it’s critical for anyone who cares about transportation reform to watch. Tennessee and Commissioner John Schroer get it #transportationreform

Commissioner John Schroer – “1.8 Billion dollar a year business with 4000 employees” “We broke the department down and built it back up” “Top to bottom review. Looked at everything we did”

Fundamental issue is (paraphrase) – “Alot of places did a poor job of long range planning and took very little consideration into transportation mode – oftentimes these places would call us (TDOT) and say how do we fix this?”

The fix of course is to throw more and more and more money at the problem. “Can’t tell you how many times I’ve been asked to build a bypass of a bypass” “It would be alot cheaper for a school board to buy a better piece of property with existing transportation infrastructure from the get go, than it would be to buy the really cheap (short term) property but one where the state needs to come in build a 30-40 million dollar access road.”

How do we avoid these pitfalls? What’s the bottom line? “We need localities to make better decisions. This helps the state save money.”

STOP WHAT WE’RE DOING! Re-evaluate assumptions. Identify alternatives. TDOT gets it.

Back to homepage.
How to keep taxes low? Preserve Farmland.

On referendums

Posted on January 24, 2015 by admin

I support most forms of ballot initiatives & referendums. Specifically on the local level and especially relating to local tax and spend decisions. Access to these tools should be expanded. Unfortunately, ‘Citizens in Charge’ a foundation that monitors initiative access ranks Pennsylvania one of the lowest in terms of ballot initiative rights.

The subject came up frequently here in Lower Mac over the last couple months in relation to open space funding and 3.3 Million dollar discretionary spending line for synthetic fields in the 2015 township budget.

In Pennsylvania:

We can’t recall elected officials
We have zero statewide initiative or referendum rights
We cannot propose state constitutional amendments via amendment
Silent majority has no access to final check & balance on Government through putting acts passed by legislators to a vote of the people.
It is currently muddy in PA if citizens can even legally petition for non-binding advisory questions. Even if to simply to gauge resident sentiment.

We are one of the worse states in the union in terms of local referendum rights. Is it coincidence we suffer from some of the same issues as other states who also have very low referenda access scores?

Elected officials tend to dislike initiative processes because they see it as infringing on their monopoly authority to legislate. This often takes form of dismissive statements such as “I was elected to make the tough decisions“. This is one we heard recently. Another is “most people don’t vote“. Which kind of puts the person making that statement in a hypocritical position since they simultaneously discredit the very electorate that put them into a position of power in the first place. Not sure exactly how that works.

Of the many advantages to initiatives at the local level one of the most important is they create rigorous inquiry on questions of policy by placing issues squarely in front of voters. Rigorous vetting of major spending decisions was certainly something missing in Lower Macungie’s 2015 budget process which included a major discretionary capital spending plan. Studies have also consistently shown that ballot initiatives result in more people voting. So again, back to the claim that “not enough people vote”…Initiatives are actually one of the most sure fire ways to address voter apathy by giving residents a direct voice.

Although it’s definitely a bi-partisan sentiment many conservatives see initiative access as a much needed core reform. This includes Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich.

Weyrich who passed away in 2008 wrote of critically needed reforms: “Conservatism should promote increased use of ballot initiatives and referenda, term limits, putting ‘none of the above’ on the ballot and ending legalized bribery under the name of campaign contributions.” – Paul Weyrich. (I just happen to be reading one of his books currently)

It’s certainly not just conservative groups. Many groups advocating for better government across the political spectrum openly advocate for initiative access. Typically those who take the biggest issues with initiatives (this includes activists on both sides of the aisle) are people who champion viewpoints that run counter to the silent majority. Obviously, these folks would not support the great public check and balance available in our system.

Our referendum question was laid to rest last thursday in Lower Macungie accompanied with the usual statements of “we were elected to make decisions” and “not enough people vote”, however I still enjoy the conversation about this issue and will remain an advocate for good Government.

If your interested in more information check out: citizensincharge.org/

Roundabout FAQ’s

Posted on January 21, 2015 by admin

Roundabout FAQ’s in Lower Macungie:

Why are roundabouts being discussed now: Penndot policy is that at intersections where roundabouts could be built on state roads municipalities must now prove why a roundabout won’t work before constructing a traffic signal. The driver is safety. Roundabouts are statistically safer for both pedestrians and automobiles. There currently is no township plan for a roundabout. Just a discussion. The driver of the conversation at Willow and Sauerkraut is the planned Allen Organ supermarket and apartment complex which will add 200+ more units at Willow & Rt. 100. Developers are required to study all intersections that will be impacted by new projects. In this case Willow/Sauerkraut is one.

Federal Safety Statistics:
This is the key statistic: By converting from a signalized intersection to a roundabout, a location can experience a 78 percent reduction in severe (injury/fatal) crashes and a 48 percent reduction in overall crashes. (FHWA safe roads for safer future)

There are literally volumes of research on the internet. But the generally accepted bottoms lines are this:
1. Accidents are reduced over time
2. Catastrophic accidents (fatalities) for both pedestrians and automobiles are drastically reduced.
3. In some cases the frequency of “fender benders” increases immediately after construction. This is the “learning curve”. This is rare, but could happen. Critics often point to this (while ignoring all other data). Almost every time it levels off and decreases to below pre-roundabout levels.

The same is for pedestrians. Pedestrians and cyclists have far less risk navigating roundabouts vs. typical intersections primarily because of the lower speeds. A pedestrian has an 85% chance of being killed by a vehicle traveling at 35MPH. This drops to 15% when the vehicle is traveling at 20MPH. There are also less conflict points (see below) the crossing distance is shorter, and there is oftentimes a refuge spot in a splitter island.

Roundabouts are not traffic circles: Nor are they rotaries (New England) or neighborhood circles. Immediately as an almost knee jerk and hysteric reaction folks claim “Jersey is removing their roundabouts”. Not true. Jersey primarily has had traffic circles. These are not roundabouts. The two have almost nothing in common. At one point New Jersey had over 100 traffic circles. Many circles have been removed or slated to be. These are not roundabouts. According to the Penndot presentation last night NJ has 4 actual roundabouts and is considering more. In fact most states are.

Roundabouts are NOT Traffic circles. Traffic circles and Roundabouts are not the same thing. A traffic circle is not a Roundabout. 🙂

These are are examples of Traffic Circles:

Marlton Circle: Traffic Circles are massive high speed mechanisms employed on arterials or interchanges.

The former Brielle Circle Wall Township, New Jersey, Formally located where Route 34, Route 35, and Route 70 meet. Replaced in 2001 with an at-grade intersection with jughandles

New Jersey is removing circles not roundabouts. Here is the the former Brielle Circle Wall Township, New Jersey, Formally located where Route 34, Route 35, and Route 70 meet. Replaced in 2001 with an at-grade intersection with jughandles.

Below is a small single lane Roundabout: (This would likely be a proposal in Lower Mac) A roundabout is a compact one-way, circular intersection in which traffic flows counterclockwise around a center island. They DO NOT utilize signals in any way. (The Easton Traffic circle is not a roundabout, it is a large traffic circle with signals). The purpose of the design is to slow the speed of vehicles, keep traffic moving and drastically reduce conflict points. (see below)

Small low speed single lane roundabout in a suburban setting.

Roundabout not only statistically see crash data drop for cars, but also pedestrians.

Conflict points reduced drastically for automobiles: (FHWA)

One of the indisputable advantages of roundabouts is the drastic reduction in conflict points. Roundabouts have ZERO vehicle crossing conflict points as opposed to the 16 vehicle crossing conflict points at signalized intersection. This is where most of the safety benefits arise from.
Accidents are A. reduced in number over the long term and B. accidents that do happen are fender benders not fatalities.

But also for pedestrians: (FHWA)

Pedestrians are faced with simpler decisions at a time and they travel shorter distances.

COST: Roundabouts are the same cost to install and cheaper to operate long term. Frequently, roundabouts save money over the long term because they do not require signal equipment to install, power, and ongoing re-timing. Smaller roundabouts may require less right-of-way than traditional intersections and often less pavement is needed because additional pavement width is not needed for turn lanes. (FWHA) The advantages come long term, but the cost to install is roughly the same. This varies location to location according to PENNDOT.

Why do people oppose them? Public attitude: Roundabouts are almost always resisted. Oftentimes the resistance is almost hysteric. The public usually has an initial fear or negative opinion of roundabouts, but almost always after installation that opinion changes rapidly. This is after they’ve experienced the benefits.

Dark green is before. Light green is after. This is a compilation of before and after sentiment surveys conducted by the FHWA. People oppose roundabouts before they are installed, but after installation opinion rapidly shifts.

Please note: I tend to have a favorable opinion about roundabouts since I am a data driven person. Therefore I can’t ignore the safety benefits. But I am very interested in how Lower Mac residents feel. In roundabouts I see a way to statistically reduce accidents. I also love the notion of keeping traffic moving as opposed to ANOTHER traffic signal.

I rank my preference for Willow/Sauerkraut as follows:
1. *Status quo (4-way stop) 2. Roundabout. 3. Traffic signal.
*To change anything on a state road we need to meet warrants. This can only be determined after a study.

RonBeitler.com

A Blog about State & Local Government

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Are locals getting Hamilton Crossings construction jobs?

death by 1000 cuts

LVPC Jaindl nomination

Pedestrian fatality epidemic

Economic gardening vs. economic hunting. How can we help?

Another step I want to concentrate on is just asking the right questions. For example:

Update on executive session abuse legislation.

Could a tax break be coming to East Penn?

The best DOT…. Tennessee

On referendums

Roundabout FAQ’s

Related articles across the web

Another step I want to concentrate on is just asking the right questions. For example: