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.

Rt. 222 bypass: Road, Street or Stroad?

Posted on December 12, 2014 by admin

Originally written in 2014, I revisited this post a decade later as the bypass resurfaces again in LVPC discussions and in the news. The problems have become worse. The road is as inefficient as ever and much more dangerous.

For roadways to yield the highest return on investment, we must clearly define their intended purpose and design them accordingly. Generally, two options:

Pictured is the Rt. 222 Kutztown bypass. A well designed ROAD with on/off ramps and low accessibility paired with highway geometry allows for 55 mph speed limit. It safely moves automobiles quickly and efficiently through the corridor.

ROAD

High speed by design
Highway geometry
Low accessibility
A place for automobiles only. This facilitates safely moving them at high speeds.

East-Blvd-After-Dual-Left-Hard-Turn-Lane-e1357934233263

This is the Hamilton Boulevard vision outlined in a 2013 corridor study. It’s multimodal in nature creating a higher value environment. Traffic travels at safer speeds due to calming measures. This is much closer to a STREET generating higher returns on investment for the community.

STREET

- - Safe by design
  - Complex environment
  - High accessibility
  - A place to capture value and encourage commercial development
  - Designed for all modes of transportation. A generally pleasant environment.
  - Facilitates high value development

So which type is the the bypass and which is the boulevard? I argue side by side STROADS. Similar to how a futon serves poorly as both a couch and a bed, a STROAD moves cars too slowly for efficient travel yet too fast to attract meaningful private investment. This leads to a costly failure that doesn’t excel at anything. As taxpayers why do we spend public money on very expensive things that don’t accomplish any goal particularly well?

*Update: In 2015, I spearheaded a letter-writing campaign supporting Lower Macungie’s LVTS funding request to address the issue and attempt to fix the mess. Unfortunately, that request was ignored and today almost 10 years later the situation is even more dangerous.

Here is the Macarther Rd. Classic STROAD. An obviously dangerous place for pedestrians. But despite highway geometry, does not move automobiles quickly or efficiently either. Lots of accidents. Dangerous for automobiles. Dangerous for people. Very expensive to build and maintain. Jarring environment. Not a pleasant place.

STROAD

- - - Does not move automobiles quickly or safely
    - Dangerous for pedestrians
    - Expensive to build and maintain
    - Encourages low value development.

Side by side stroads is the direction we’re headed today.

STROADS are the futon of the transportation network.

The 222 bypass today is a dangerous STROAD built with highway geometry but with traffic signals instead of on/off ramps and artificially limited to 45 mph. The “bypass” doesn’t move cars efficiently or quickly. It’s also very dangerous. The whole thing is quite frankly a speed trap since the posted speed doesn’t correspond to the design speed. Therefore: STROAD *Note in 2019 the speed limit was increased to 55mph.

On the the boulevard we have a developing STROAD. As of late township staff worked hard to require higher quality development. Still, most PENNDot road improvements have been of a STROAD nature directly conflicting with stated goals of safety, value and walkability. It fundamentally encourages low value strip or “power center” development. For ex. planned driveways off Hamilton Crossings will be super sized and dangerous. That will not make it a very safe place for people. Therefore businesses will respond rationally and over build parking lots, oversized signs, supersized driveways ect. As all this compounds we may wake up one day with Macarther Rd. west.

To fix this we need to STOP and all get on the same page, deciding once and for all what purpose we want these roads to serve. Try to be both and you will fail at both.

Keys:
Bypass – Purpose to move cars efficiently and quickly between clusters of destinations

Grade separation on the bypass. Get rid of the signals and build ramps.
Raise the speed limit to 55 (THIS WAS DONE IN 2019)
Prioritize through movements.

Boulevard – Purpose foster a vibrant community center. A multi-modal corridor.

Calm traffic using techniques/strategies outlined in Penndots smart transportation manual.
Transit corridor
Make safe for Pedestrians
Fix zoning code to allow high value development (as opposed to only strip malls)
Neighborhood Commercial

Synthetic fields facts & research – Answers to common questions

Posted on December 6, 2014 by admin

Over the next week on this page I will be compiling to the best of my abilities answers to many common questions we have received from the public regarding the Quarry Park turf field proposal. Recently, I voted against earmarking 1.5 Million Dollars in surplus money (total cost of line item 3.3M) to fund a proposal for turf fields as part of the 2015 budget proposal. At this time I am not convinced that the synthetic field aspect of the concept plan is the best way to address township field use issues. As an alternative I have proposed informally that we should instead concentrate on less expensive alternatives to address current field use issues. For example, more lights on existing grass fields and a natural grass field expansion plan.

Volumes of information are available on the internet regarding this topic. However, I am limiting links and information on this page to:
1. Academic research or pieces that directly cite academic research. (Focus on Penn State Materials since this was the program who presented in front of the township)

2. Research through the Township Manager
a. In most cases this is the opinion of our hired consultant

3. Utilize current information. The so called 3rd generation of turf fields have made major advances in safety. It’s important to consider only the latest information available.

4. The costs for Synthetic fields include *concept plan proposed vs. Township natural Grass fields with native soils. The costs for fields are taken out of overall budget proposal. I support both lights and upgrades to existing facilities including additional parking using developer money. I do not support synthetic fields.
*amenities have been removed. This is just comparison of playing surfaces.

Much of the information you find during cursory web searches is often produced by companies trying to sell the products. Therefore it takes a little effort to find un-biased information.

Backgrounders
*Concept plan overview by Lower Macungie’s paid consultant. D’huy engineering. The township incurred 4,000.00 cost to draft concept plan

Was the option to build additional grass fields on township property considered by staff as a less expensive alternative to synthetic?

“No” – Twp. Manager

Specs:

What is the specific brand proposed:

“This is typically part of the design process during which the surface is chosen by the Township. Commonly several different manufacturers and models will be reviewed for both quality and cost.” – Twp. Manager

Proposed infill:

“Infill for turf fields is most commonly crumb rubber mixed with silica. There are alternatives made from cork and other products but they have not been on the market for very long, have very few US installations, and have been found in some cases to have a lower level of performance. Colors and mixes vary between manufacturers. Field Turf offers an infill product made from ground up sneakers that comes at a premium cost. There is also a coconut husk product recently installed in Maryland (http://towncourier.com/city-hits-home-run-with-organic-infill-synthetic-turf/). There isn’t much performance data available yet on these alternative products. Both come at a premium cost and could easily be bid as alternates on your project.” – Twp. Manager

Rendering: See Below

Lifecycle Costs & Benefits
Q- Initial costs to install Synthetic Field vs. Natural Grass (according to Penn State research)

Synthetic 6.50-11.00 per sq ft. according to Penn State. (need proposal specific information)

Natural Grass with native soil 2.25-5.25 per square ft. (Will get actual cost for LMT to install a new grass field cost/square ft.)

Q- Q- Initial costs to install Synthetic Field vs. Natural Grass (according to concept plan and LMT public works)

Synthetic: 850,000 for two fields according to proposal. Includes lining for multiple sports.

Natural Grass: Cost to install one natural grass field is 10,000 dollars according to LMT public works department.

Q – Annual Maintenance Costs (according to sports turf managers association)

Synthetic Infill 6,000 per year in materials and 375 labor hours per year. (need proposal specific information) *sports managers association

Natural Grass – According to LMT public works “The yearly costs to maintain a typical field (180’ x 360’ =64,800 sq. ft.) would be around. $ 3,275.00 depending on the number of *cuts required.” This is based on yearly average of 35 cuts

Q- Replacement costs in 10-15 years for Synthetic Field (10-15 years is the stated timeframe in the concept plan presentation – Link above)

Replacement costs for two fields is 800,000-900,000 in today’s dollars. (Twp. Manager) Add 3% inflation = 1,142,328.92 (amount * (1 + inflation rate)^number years)

Q- Revenue projections over 10 year lifespan

According to township manager this is a board decision and has not been taken into account yet. “ This will be a policy established by the Board of Commissioners.” – Twp. Manager

Q-Will final draft of field use agreement apply to Quarry same as any other township field?

Currently LMYA gets usage of Community center gym rent free. Will this same policy apply to Quarry field? – Draft in progress

Health/Injury issues Grass vs. Turf
Q- Long Term Health Risks
coming soon

Q- Does synthetic field increase injury risks vs. grass?

Answer – Concern risk is Low with correct footware but Medium to High with incorrect footware.

Bullet Points: (source Pennstate center for sports surface research)

Most critical is right shoe for the surface. The correct shoe on synthetic turf dramatically reduces risk. Without the right foot ware injuries on turf fields increase dramatically.
Compared to grass fields not maintained to optimal conditions or very dry, synthetic fields can actually reduce risk of serious injuries although incidents of minor injuries (mainly abrasions) increase.

Q- Does synthetic field increase risk of staph infections? Answer – Concern risk is Low.

Bullet Points: (source Pennstate center for sports surface research)

The sun acts as disinfectant.

Surface and Air Temperature issues related to Synthetic Turf.

Q – What are the health issues related to surface heat? Answer – Concern risk is High.

Bullet Points: (source Pennstate center for sports surface research)

Children are less able to adapt to changes in Temperature – Higher potential for heat related injury.
In central Pennsylvania surface temperatures have been measured up to 175 degrees on synthetic fields measured on days when the surrounding air temperature is 79 degrees.
Generally synthetic turf registers 35 to 55 degrees hotter than natural grass.
Techniques to reduce surface temperature on hot days add labor and cost considerations.

Unknowns/future policy decisions to be made by the board if project moves forward:

What is the best and worse case scenarios for completion of the Sauerkraut punch through? (Completion of this planned project will allow for access to quarry park from a signalized intersection.)

Township engineer has been working with all parties methodically through each step and would not want to guess on a completion date. – Twp. Manager

What is the projected revenue stream that will be used to fund replacement costs? Are user fees being considered?

This will be a policy established by the Board of Commissioners. – Twp. Manager

Will LMYA be able to utilize the fields for free similar to the arrangement for the community center?

This will be a policy established by the Board of Commissioners. – Twp. Manager

Digging deeper into Lower Mac results.

Posted on November 5, 2014 by admin

Statewide Tom Wolf won handedly. This was expected. Here in Lower Macungie however, Tom Corbett squeezed out more votes with high turnout at all polls edging out Wolf 52%-48%. With just under 10,000 votes cast Corbett won 9 out of 10 voting precincts in Lower Mac. The only one edging out for Tom Wolf was LMT 6 representing areas south of Rt. 100 and including the Hills at Lockridge. The biggest win for Corbett was LMT 8.

In the other contested race in the township for State Senator across the 16th district Sen. Pat Browne won easily 62% to 38%. The 16th is very diverse including a large part of the City of Allentown, Upper Macungie, Lower Macungie, Macungie, Alburtis and up into rural areas of NW Lehigh. Here in Lower Mac the moderate Republican had one of his best showings winning with nearly 70% of the total vote.

What’s the takeaway? Lower Macungie remains very Republican but tends to prefer moderates. The State Senate race demonstrated that township Democrat voters are willing to support a moderate Republican who is strong on education and growth. (I spent alot of my time talking to voters at LMT 1 about Browne’s NIZ) For example this is most clear in LMT 6 the only precinct Wolf (D) won but where Sen. Browne (R) still won with over 60% of the vote. In this precinct many who voted for Wolf split their ballot and also voted for Browne.

I think that this reflects voters in LMT by and large do not just pull levers based on party but rather look closely at candidates. That is a very good thing. We have in both parties sophisticated high information voters.

My thoughts working a poll:
I worked LMT 1 for Sen. Browne for about 8 hours one that went 70% in favor of him.

The weather was awesome so many people wanted to stop and chat. Not many wanted to talk about state issues. Most were well informed and asked questions about local. This is very nice to see.

One takeaway is people still want to talk about Hamilton Crossings. Opinions are wide ranging on the merits of the actual center. Many are excited for it while others are nervous about it specifically traffic issues. This makes sense since district 1 is closest to the center. Most are still confused why we authorized a TIF with an opinion that the center would have still come without it. I think this represents very high information voters who really took time to understand the issue.

No surprise also lots of questions about Quarry Park which has gotten some newspaper coverage. The comments largely mirrored those of the residents who made public comment at the last budget workshop. Most aren’t against spending money on parks but question the value of synthetic fields vs. other higher priorities. Fair questions.

Clearly, LMT residents are very plugged in to local issues. This is not the norm and a reflection on our informed and engaged residents.
Lastly, and as always HUGE thanks to poll workers! These volunteers are amazing and are a huge part of our democracy. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!

Tuesday is Election Day

Posted on November 2, 2014 by admin

Below are some of my thoughts on local races including some links to resources. As always I encourage folks to do their own due diligence. I’m an active member of the local Republican party however I do not pull levers based on party alone and encourage others not to as well. This has gotten me in trouble in the past with former party leaders. I believe strongly in voting for the best candidate for the job. Most times for me that is a Republican but I have supported Democrats before who were better candidates.

Here is a run-down of local races of interest and my thoughts:

Governor of Pennsylvania I will be reluctantly voting for Tom Corbett on Tuesday. This is based on Corbett’s pattern of inaction on issues I care about. I would have seriously considered a moderate or Blue Dog Democrat. Tom Wolf is not that. Corbett has been an ineffective leader. This includes liquor store privatization and pension reform. These are issues where Corbett had the support of a Legislative majority and most Pennsylvanians but failed to get things done.

Inaction on other issues where Corbett has expressed support but again no action for include Rideshar – Uber/Lyft.

Lastly, Corbett has been completely against a severance tax while many other moderate Republicans have started to consider one. Personally, I support more revenue from drillers in line with other states but not as another band-aid in the same vein as gambling or other gimmicks to raise revenue as an alternative to fixing fundamental underlying problems.

Again, I am for more revenue on drillers in line with other states but that money should be returned to the communities impacted. Not thrown into the general fund. I’d also be ok with using the money to fund new infrastructure. This could set Pennsylvania up for the next great energy boom which should be an advanced clean green energy initiative. The money should be used for something forward thinking. Use our nat gas strength to further diversify our state economy as a green energy leader. Point is, let’s initiate a severance tax but use that money to make investments and help the communities impacted and advance PA’s economy not feed a pig funding a broken and unsustainable pension system. The pension issue has to be addressed for the fiscal health of the state. And we also owe it to teachers to make sure they are taken care of for the long run 10-20 years down the line. Wolf doesn’t even acknowledge the problem.

One last thing I’ll mention that I was very critical of was one aspect of Act 13 that would have allowed drillers to circumvent local zoning laws which was championed by Corbett. Thankfully this was overturned by the courts. My friend Scott covered this issue on his blog.

Bottom line for me is I am not excited about either candidate. However, as a centrist I see Wolf as being a little too far left for my comfort. It also boils down to pension reform. Wolf exhibits total ignorance of the problem and that frightens me. End of the day I have go with the ineffective leader who at least acknowledges the problem even though he hasn’t been a leader on the issue.

No confidence: Neither Wolf nor Corbett has earned our support

PA Senate
I am an enthusiastic supporter of Sen. Pat Browne who enjoys broad bi-partisan support and should win the race by a large margin esp in the suburbs. I expect him to get 60+% or more of the vote in Lower Macungie.

As a smart growth advocate Senator Browne’s innovative and groundbreaking NIZ was the catalyst for revitalization in the city. Fundamentally it allowed Allentown to keep state money local to jump start re-development. (when to use ABC tax gimmicks the “but for” test) The NIZ is successful because it’s so much more than just the arena and that is the beauty and key of its current and future success. Yes, the arena is the anchor but the success of the project is because it’s grounded in great land use planning and smart growth urbanism. It’s a true mixed use city core featuring a robust mix of office-space, commercial including retail, residential and entertainment.

Beyond the NIZ success the Senator has broad bi-partisan support in education which is a key issue for Pa voters including earning the endorsement of the education voters action fund.

I will mention I was very disappointed with Brownes vote on HB1565 which eliminated important protections for streams. I still support him. That’s the way it is with members of the State House or really any politician. They vote on 100’s of bills a year. No one is going to match up with your views 100% of the time. Be wary of people who tell you what you want to hear 100% of the time. We have to get over that mentality as a voting public. Though discouraged by that one vote I believe in looking at a legislators entire body of work. Over the years Senator Browne has been one of the best legislators in the state house.

Continue reading →

Chuck Marohn’s new book: A world class transportation system.

Posted on October 8, 2014 by admin

So excited for Charles Marohn’s new ebook “A World Class Transportation System“. It’s a short ebook but nonetheless a great value at 2.99 on Amazon. You’ll finish it in one night.

As a member of strongtowns I got an email tonight with my free copy. I jumped right into it. Out the gate the very first sentence is so spot on. This book deals with transportation but you can take the first sentence and apply it to so many issues we face in this nation.

America is having a one-dimensional discussion on *fill in the blank. The central question – how do we get more money to continue with our current approach – fails to adequately explain why our current approach has left us lacking funds in the first place.

*Applies to education, transportation… you name it. This is the fundamental problem in America. I highly recommend this book and also Marohns first “Thoughts on Building Strongtowns” to any elected official struggling with the status quo and soul searching for answers.

Downtown on a night the arena is dark.

Posted on September 18, 2014 by admin

Naysayers: “The arena will only bring people downtown on game nights or when events are planned at the arena”

Pictured below is a random Wednesday. The arena was dark this night. This is the Hamilton Kitchen & Bar. There were 50 ppl dining al fresco on new outdoor patio. From the outside looking in it looked like most tables were full inside. Up and down the street around the arena people were everywhere. Downtown feels like a city again. People who haven’t spent much time there last 20 years are now doing so again. Will it last?

Yes, the city still has issues. But it’s tough to say this isn’t a step in the right direction.

The NIZ will be successful because its MUCH MORE than just the arena. If it was just the arena, or an entertainment district or a convention center or any of the usual “magic bullets” it wouldn’t have worked.

The NIZ is mixed use, residential and commercial all integrated together in the time tested traditional urban form. That was always the key.

On a night the arena is dark, Hamilton Kitchen was packed.

Arena thoughts on opening week.

Posted on September 14, 2014 by admin

Read about from afar about the opening of Allentown’s arena since I’m out of town. From what I can tell, the concerns about a traffic and parking apocalypse were much ado about nothing. I didn’t see first hand but will Tuesday at the Tom Petty concert. I’ll take pictures & blog.

Couple thoughts. NIZ, hypocrisy & Traffic.

Last year suburban politicians threatened litigation concerning the loss of earned income tax revenue (earned in Allentown) associated with the NIZ. At the time Commissioner Roger Reis was quoted “We don’t feel any communities should be compelled to pay for something in the city of Allentown.” His board at the time voted unanimously to send a letter to Sen. Pat Browne expressing opposition.Ok, that’s fine. But enter the hypocrisy…. ALL these same politicians who were upset to lose a couple thousand dollars to Allentown are the same people absolutely giddy to accept over 6 MILLION dollars in state taxpayer money to build a strip mall. (a project that would have likely been built someday in some form without state money…)

Personally, I support rolling back most top down subsidies that skew local markets and leave communities strapped with long term liabilities. But in this case it’s pretty much the height of hypocrisy to complain about losing a tiny bit of EIT (which is earned in the city of Allentown) but on the other hand gleefully accept taxpayer money to induce a strip mall. I can’t stand hypocrisy. This is the height of it.

I’d be interested to look at the other NIZ objectors and how much state money they have or are soon accepting to induce development projects. Hanover Township and the Fedex project I suspect would be pretty interesting.

Lower Macungie officials weigh in on NIZ.

Second, the parking and traffic apocalypse predicted by naysayers didn’t materialize. I think this is why. A city arena with an interconnected street system will always handle event traffic better then a single use suburban arena served by one entrance in and out. Think a system of valves. Yes, we saw a spike before and after the event. But that’s a symptom of success. In Allentown concert-goers have a dozen options to get in and out of town on an already existing grid network. There will be increased traffic on some main routes but a savvy driver can find alternate routes. In a suburban event center the norm is usually one supersized and super expensive road. One way in and one way out. No matter how many lanes we build, the induced traffic will fill the lanes leading to gridlock immediately before and after an event. What makes this worse are 6 lane mega access roads are typically used to capacity only a few days a year. The ROI is very low for these single purpose roads.

Blogging Strongtowns gathering day 2

Posted on September 13, 2014 by admin

Blogging Strongtowns Day 2.

Just listened to the unveiling of the newest strongtowns traveling discussion. Chuck Marohn will begin to deliver it in towns across America over the next few months. The discussion is in the mold of the very successful curbside chats.

Chuck delivered the presentation to a room full of dynamic people who will then critique. The purpose is for the group to “sharpen the steel” so to speak and improve the presentation. Fascinating to watch. This is truly less of a conference and more of a working gathering. This session was for me the highlight so far. Below are my thoughts, stream of consciousness style. (The critique aspect comes in the very entertaining parliamentary style!) I write this as I listen and participate in the discussion. Though I do much more listening vs. participating here. The parliamentary style is an energizing way to synthesize the thoughts of 30 ppl, but better suited to those who process things much more quickly then I do. Today I do more listening than talking.

Transportation in the next American city. Reactions how it relates to Lower Macungie and the problems we face.

Across the suburbs of the LV the math of dumb growth is wholly contingent on an availability of cheap open space and green-fields and the ability to expand outward onto them with subsidized infrastructure. This is accomplished via institutionalized top down systems. These systems and the money made available through them mainly relate to bran new single purpose infrastructure needed to support an outward pattern of growth. This is inherently artificial in that without the subsidies, the infrastructure would prove unaffordable and likely not be built since it is so expensive. Even when it’s not directly subsidized, it is indirectly subsidized since the cost to maintain these systems always exceeds the value they create.

LMT’s unique situation is further compounded by the fact that currently we rely on state taxpayers to fund police protection. Someday we’ll have to fund that ourselves and someday (sooner rather then later) we will run out of open space. As it stands what we’ve built overtop of our former greenfields is woefully unproductive since we inherited the long term financial obligations to maintain. This low return on investment growth pattern was only made possible in the first place by artificial (meaning not financially sustainable over the long term) means. This is the math of dumb growth.

There is a life-cyle of sprawl. It’s a cycle that we’re (for now) locked into. For a decade we were on the height of that curve. Here, one time and temporary revenues associated with hyper growth led to a bloated rainy day fund. For a decade we lived on these funds and had no property tax. That was the height of the curve since money (one time) coming in exceeded liabilities. Only recently have we started the decline. This began a year ago with the first property tax in Lower Macungie in over 12 years.

The choice today is break the cycle, or continue pave over our last remaining open space. Doing this might delay the inevitable but eventually we’ll have to address issues related to long term financial health. Delaying further will only dig a deeper hole.

So how do we get away from the math of dumb growth and get back to a formula that allows us to maintain our existing system over the long term? This correlating to a sustainably low tax rate. How do we transition away from relying on mechanisms like one time monies, other people’s money (OP$) and surplus money and get back to financial productivity, sustainability and resilience?

Big part of the problem is that our top down system loses all sense of nuance at the local level. This isn’t because local leaders are incapable of making nuanced decisions. It’s because the top down heavily bureaucratic system doesn’t allow for it. It forces square pegs in round holes. The current system rewards dumb (or at least shortsighted) decisions with massive amounts of money. For example: Locally, millions of dollars of state grants were rewarded to induce development along the Rt. 222 “bypass”. A massive expenditure of money for a band-aid that we could have never afforded locally. (everything short of grade separation and getting rid of the signals on the bypass is a band aid) Problem is, this will lead us to spend more money down the line as it will compound underlying issues and delay the real end game. Do I even have to mention again the true insanity of believing we need to induce any kind of development in Lower Macungie township? Yet alone a strip mall. We remain one of the fastest growing townships in the state…

*Above I refer mostly the the millions of dollars of state grants (direct gov’t subsidies) rather then the TIF.. Eventhough I voted against TIF, I acknowledge the argument is more complicated.

In other words, how do we at minimum build a system that pays for itself and at best a system that creates value/wealth instead of eroding it? How do we flip the system on it’s head? How do we transition from top down to bottom up? Measure success on quantity instead of quality. What’s the metric for high quality of life, sustainability low taxes, good schools and affordable transportations?

First and foremost local leaders must lead they cannot be followers. Let local leaders make decisions based on local needs. Don’t accept one size fits all. Question assumptions and systems. Build what we can afford to maintain. Accept we can’t change this overnight, but we have to start somewhere to incrementally changing the underlying system. The current system at worse does not allow this. At best does not make it easy.

Random thoughts and great one-liners

Our land use policies need to respond to congestion. We have to stop throwing money at the problem. (OP$)
Today we have socially engineered a society. We want to unplug this. Our engineers need to lead the charge. – Joe Minicozzi.
Police giving out giving tickets same spot every day, day in and day out. (“bypass”)That doesn’t mean you have a ppl breaking the law problem. It means we have a design problem. #dangerousbydesign
ROI over the long term… address diminishing returns. Create more systems that hold value. MATURE OUR RESPONSES! (stop throwing money at problems, esp OP$)
People are not obstacles in the clear zone and recovery area on a street designed to capture value (vs. a road) People are shoppers, neighbors and commuters.
The challenge was presented regarding state roads outside local control. This is a common excuse given in LMT. Enough. We have to stop accepting boilerplate designs on our state roads when they contradict local planning goals. We need to stop taking up front “free money” and build roads that will cost us more down the line. (the ponzi scheme). It’s ok to say. “You will not do this in our town”. In fact I would argue that is a local officials job. Penndot is slowly talking the talk, but in my observation less inclined to walk the walk. It takes a local muni defining and defending it’s local goals. In our top down system change is painfully slow.
Partisan politics is irrelevant to these issues. Period. The room I am in right now is filled with people from across the spectrum.

RonBeitler.com

A Blog about County & Local Government

Category Archives: Uncategorized