Big Box becoming more of a terrible deal.

Posted on by

From the Institute for local self reliance: About ILSR
For Cities, Big-Box Stores Are Becoming Even More of a Terrible Deal.

#DoTheMath – Couple of takeaways from this:

1. We have a potential dark store issue in Lower Macungie. Since.

“It’s an established part of the big-box retail model that the boxes themselves be custom-built, cheaply constructed, and disposable. If retailers decide that they need a bigger space, it’s cheaper for them to leave the old one behind and build a new one.“

This is happening in Lower Mac right now with Weis. They are currently in the process of abandoning their current store to build a new one – across the street. This opens the possibility for Weis to argue the “dark store” method for calculating tax assessment.

Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 10.37.28 AM

2. Even without assessment reductions box retail isn’t a fiscal winner for local communities. The reduction strategies happening in some states just make it worse.

When eight communities in central Ohio looked at the fiscal impacts of big-box retail, they found that the stores actually demanded more public services than they generated in revenue, and created a drain on municipal budgets to the tune of a net annual loss of $0.44 per square foot, or about $80,000 for a typical Walmart supercenter. 

Mark my words, our increasingly boxy/strippy Hamilton Corridor will be the driver for local police and a massive unavoidable tax increase: 

“Higher demand for police departments is one example. In Port Richey, Fla., nearly half of the town’s crime emanates from the area Walmart. “The taxes that come from Walmart are not even enough to cover two police officers’ salaries,” Police Chief Robert Lovering told Vice.”

It’s happening in Lower Mac today.

3. With Hamilton Crossings we are beginning from an even bigger hole. Throughout the HC discussion it was parroted that the windfall was worth the tax gimmick. The narrative was: “There is nothing now, when something is built we can tax it”. Problem is what we approved costs us much more then what’s there now – fallow open space. And the new tax revenue won’t cover the long term liabilities. Our problem is the fatally flawed short term way we look at municipal finances.

“Cities and towns continue to buy into myths sold to them by the mega-retailers themselves, that big-box stores spark economic development. In service of this myth, local and state governments across the country have granted at least $2.6 billion in subsidies to just six large retailers, including $160 million to Walmart and $138 million to Lowe’s, according toanother study from Good Jobs First.  That’s without factoring in the cost of services, which as Marquette, Mich., saw, can pile up”

We got to start thinking beyond the windfall and look at lifecycle sustainability. That is: Lifecycle costs (liabilities) vs. revenue (tax base). I am not arguing for a valuable corridor to be vacant. This isn’t about NIMBY. My argument is a financial one. We need to build better. Smarter. Patterns that create positive value. But since at least with Hamilton Crossings that ship has sailed….

4. Living in reality. What’s done is done.  Can’t change the fact 3 members of the current BOC opted to hand out a 20 year tax subsidy. So, moving forward our strategy has to focus on repair and triage. We accomplish that with balance. First by preserving farmland and open space concentrating on places where expensive infrastructure would have to be built and maintained by taxpayers to support greenfield growth.

Second, we encourage better/smarter growth in patterns that creates higher value in locations where infrastructure exists. We get there by fixing our terribly archaic and restrictive zoning code. By instituting aspects of a form based code we allow and even incentivize more “Main Street” oriented walkable neighborhood mixed use devleopment on Hamilton Boulevard.

The land development alternative – What does that mean? Lower Mac is working on a vision.  Here is an outline: Lower Mac’s Hamilton Corridor vision study. If we adopt and follow this plan we will induce more high value growth on Hamilton Boulevard. This is essential to balance the low value. More positive growth will help balance the net negative financial development.

“Locally owned retailers provide value to a community in many ways, but one of them is to the municipal accounting books. In a study that found that big-box retail generates a net deficit for taxpayers in a Massachusetts town, the researchers also discovered that specialty retail, like Main Street businesses, are the ones with a positive impact on public coffers, generating more revenue than they require to service.”

One thing to watch is avoiding falling into the pitfalls of “smart growth light” like we have in the past. #WordsHaveMeanings.

Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 10.49.55 AM

The taxing alternative – Shift the burden off residents and onto warehouses and box stores.

Watch Lower Meetings Live on RCN starting tomorrow.

Posted on by

Another step in the right direction transparency wise. There is now one less excuse not to follow your local government here in Lower Mac.

Lower Macungie commissioners taking meetings to live TV

We’re going live! Proud to be the first Valley municipality to take this step. Tomorrows meeting (6/18) will be the first broadcast live in real time on RCN cable at 7pm on channel 66. Here is a link to the agenda. Best of all costs us nothing thanks to RCN.

Can’t watch tomorrow? No worries, meetings are repeated on a regular schedule on the public service government channel. And as always, you can watch the meetings on your own schedule always at the township website and youtube. Link to the LMT youtube channel.

Other muni’s do it live on webcast (Easton SD and Northampton County Council) but we’re the first to do it on TV! Each year more and more webcast. (What are we waiting for EPSD!!)

We hope to get the broadcast on Service Electric Company soon also. Let’s get it done Service Electric!

Lower Mac to talk official map as preservation tool

Posted on by

In the coming weeks the township will be considering an official map. This is something I support since the official map tool greatly increases the likelihood that key conservation resources are protected.

Designation of a Official Map allows a municipality the ability to delay development of a property for up to a year so the municipality can inquire about acquisition of the property for preservation or other public uses outlined by a comprehensive plan.

Designation of a Official Map allows a municipality the ability to delay development of a property for up to a year so the municipality can inquire about acquisition of the property for preservation or other public uses outlined by a comprehensive plan.

An “official map” is an ordinance and map designed to carry out a community vision set forth in comprehensive plans. As a preservation tool the teeth of the official map lie in the powers granted by the state which give a community essentially what amounts to as a “pause” button. This can be used when poorly planned development contrary to the comprehensive plan is proposed on land designated on the map. The map outlines planned future public lands and facilities including transportation, parks, trails, and preserved open space. By utilizing the “pause” button functionality of the map the township gives itself the ability to delay a poorly planned development proposal for up to one year. This gives us valuable time to investigate acquisition or preservation. Another way to put it is the map represents a “first dibs” option on an identified piece of land for public use. 

Currently, 65 municipalities in 15 counties utilize official maps. Locally, Upper Milford and Upper Saucon have adopted map ordinances. I believe it is one of the critical 3 tools that Lower Macungie needs to pursue an aggressive preservation program. The 3 tools are:

  • Comprehensive planning – To outline priorities. We have these.
  • Official map – To protect outlined priorities from bad development proposals by giving the township time to negotiate when faced with a poor development proposal.
  • Funding mechanism – To acquire or purchase development rights. Purchasing development rights or outright acquisition is the only fair way to preserve farmland and open space.

According to the MPC, and a little common sense designating a property on the official map does not constitute a taking. This is a concern sometimes expressed by developers and landowners. The official map doesn’t take property it just gives us the opportunity to negotiate purchase or preservation of a property before poorly planned development occurs. It is up to individual municipalities how best to accomplish goals. In most cases it happens through fair market compensation. Exceedingly rare is it for a municipality to ever use condemnation. When it does come up it’s usually to secure new roadway right of way. It’s not something I would ever support.

Nuts & Bolts:
1. Reserving land for future public use on an official map does not affect the property’s ownership. Landowners still own and control their land.

2. The “pause button” is only invoked if a poor development proposal is made on a property on the official map and the proposal is counter to comprehensive planning.

3. After notification of intent is sent by the township the powers granted by the state allow them one year to act. During the one year time span, the municipality may opt to put together a plan to acquire or preserve the land.

4. In the vast majority of cases acquisition or preservation is accomplished by paying fair market value. This is the only fair and permanent way to preserve.

5. The municipality also maintains the option to not acquire or preserve the property and allow for the property owner to move forward with proposed development plans. However, the official map can be an effective negotiation tool that the township can use to encourage a better more friendly proposal. It can help to ensure development – when it occurs – is compatible with and supportive of community goals.

Local example Upper Milford: Our neighbors to the South in Upper Milford have an adopted official map. Recently, they had a land development proposal for 200 units on a property off Mill Rd. Since the property is on the townships official map and the township expressed interest the project can now be delayed one year as Upper Milford investigates preservation options. It’s unknown whether they will or not, but what’s key is the ability to have time to explore options. If Upper Milford decides not to acquire the property, the development proposal can move forward as planned. The township can also negotiate a much more community friendly proposal like a true conservation cluster project using the acquisition leverage of the official map.

written comments sent to PA DEP – Lower Milford Quarry application

Posted on by

Colleen Connolly – Community relations coordinator DEP, NE regional,

This correspondence is in regard to a recent public hearing on 127 acres in Lower MilfordTownship that was the subject of a DEP hearing last week relating to a quarry application. Please consider this a formal submittal of comments related to the Geryville materials quarry application hearing.

My name is Ron Beitler and I am a Township Commissioner in Lower Macungie Township. I am speaking from my position but not for the entire board. While others share my viewpoint, our board as a whole did not take formal action.

As you may know, Lower Macungie is a regional planning partner of Lower Milford. As a community we are well aware and sensitive to the fact that air and water quality matter across municipal boundaries. Therefore the DEP ruling – pending the outcome of the local proceedings – will impact Lower Macungie in addition to all our municipal planning partners.

First it’s important to note that the courts have upheld time and time again the notion that a community has a right to protect its natural features. Not only is it a local responsibility, but an obligation outlined in the state constitution. Therefore the issue of Lower Milford being permitted to protect it’s natural resources is, I believe, a matter of regional concern.

Article I Section 27 of the Pennsylvania constitution states: The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.
Here are two of the most important points to consider:

  • The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission has listed the Mill Hill area as a high priority preservation site in the regional Comprehensive Plan as well as in the Natural Features/Greenway plans. Mill Hill has over 600 acres of contiguous woodlands with deep woods and wetlands.
  • Bog Turtles as well as several types of breeding trout have been found on or directly adjacent to the site.
In addition to very clear regional implications a quarry at this location would also adversely affect our neighbors to the south of us in terms of compatibility with Montgomery Counties comprehensive plan.
 
For these reasons and others to numerous to list I urge the DEP to reject Geryville materials quarry application. 

Furthermore, Geryville materials should be ordered to cease any activity on the land with the potential to disrupt the regionally significant natural features located on the site.

Thank you for your time,
Ron Beitler – Lower Macungie Township Commissioner

CC:
State Rep. Hon. Ryan Mackenzie 134th district
State Rep. Hon. Justin Simmons 131st district
State Sen. Hon. Pat Browne 16th District

Do cyclists pay their fair share?

Posted on by

I have to applaud PennDOT efforts to raise awareness about cycling on the road network lately. In PA, on our roadways responsibility is a two-way street. Both cyclists and motorists need to be aware of and follow the rules of the road relating to cycle safety.

Last couple months I’ve noticed once a week PennDOT has been making really nicely crafted social media posts aimed at cycle law awareness issues. Here is an example:
Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 12.26.23 AMUnfortunately whenever a post like this is made a very small but vocal and extremely uninformed minority of commenters always follows with a litany of silly posts.

One of the most common and most uniformed narratives is usually along the lines of: “Cyclists should have to pay for plates, registration, inspection and insurance like every other vehicle on Pennsylvania roadways“. 

Couple problems with this sentiment:
First, cyclists do pay their share. Actually they pay a far disproportionate share. Here are the facts:

  • User fees (license, registration etc) pay for only 34% of the costs of roads in Pennsylvania. The rest comes from general funds that cyclists also pay for.
  • 80% of cyclists also own cars so 80% also pay the user fees associated with those cars.
  • A bike has 1/20th the impact of a car on the roadway. This includes funding for bike facilities. (which usually just involves moving paint around)

Essentially, when a motorist makes the decision to bike instead of drive they are saving us ALL. Because 1.) They also pay the bulk of costs to maintain roads. Pair this with 2.) bikes require significantly less expensive specialized facilities and 3.) cyclists create a fraction of the impact.

So basically, as a driver and taxpayer… next time you see a cyclist take a moment to thank them. They are mathematically doing their part to keep your tax burden lower in a number of measurable ways. If it were a fair world they should probably get a rebate for cycling since they save everyone alot of money when they ride.

The true costs of the Lehigh Valley Warehouse Economy.

Posted on by

Lots to chew on in this eye opening post from Joe Cortright, President and principal economist of Impresa, a consulting firm specializing in regional economic analysis, innovation and industry clusters. The subject – the true costs of a high concentration of freight traffic – is ultra relevant to a Lehigh Valley that has gone “all in” on logistics warehouses.

Remember, in the next 5 years we’re planning on spending 250 million+ dollars – strike that guess we are up to 800 million+ dollars – to widen Rt. 22.  When it’s all said and done the nearly – and likely eventually to be over – billion dollar mega-project is a response to projections that the Valleys freight traffic will double in the next 20 years.

Focusing on that freight traffic a moment…According to the Congressional budget office: “Truck freight movement gets a subsidy of between $57 and $128 billion annually in the form of uncompensated costs, over and above what trucks pay in taxes”

The widening of Rt. 22 is a big part of that taxpayer subsidization of the warehouse industry. Remember, the bulk of 2.5 billion coming to the Valley is a result of the +.28 gas tax bandaid and other increases in other user fees in Pennsylvania. Increasing gas taxes is a well I’m convinced we’ll be perpetually pressured to dip into over and over until we fundamentally reform the way we fund roads. It is a short sighted bandaid that I’m happy many local reps voted against.

Smart growth is making sure the balance of land uses in your municipality generate enough revenue to mitigate the costs of liabilities. This is a fundamental way to keep property taxes low long term. With the Valleys warehouse economy we unfortunately have a concentration of buildings that not only don’t pay for themselves but rather generate massive un-funded liabilities. Now, school districts salivate over these mega shell buildings of course. (A rational but also desperate response to a broken and inequitable education funding system.) Problem is, in the grand scheme chasing warehouse revenue is basically robbing Peter to pay Paul since the decrease in school taxes is negated with a disproportionate increase in municipal and other taxes. Here in the East Penn area warehouse developers actually double dipped since the East Penn School District was hoodwinked into paying for a major multi million dollar local road expansion.

What’s the answer? Well for one right sizing the revenue we collect from high liability land uses. Problem is in PA we have very little in the way of tools to do this locally.

Now someone inevitably always says, “well you shop Amazon”. Yes, I am guilty. Love Amazon. But as Joe Cortright points out if the subsidy plug was pulled then shipping companies would naturally and creatively respond. That’s how the market works. Personally, I would gladly pay a little more for my weekly amazon packages. The doorstep convenience would still be well worth it.

I’d also realize savings elsewhere since it’s likely any cost increases to my Amazon bill would also be offset since massive subsidies:

  “-borne by all of us – would go down by a comparable amount. And there would be important savings in costs for freight either moved by other modes (especially rail, which is about two-thirds cheaper), or sourced from closer locations.”

“If trucking companies paid the full costs associated with moving truck freight, we’d have less road damage and congestion, fewer crashes, and more funding to pay for the transportation system.”

In other words, take away the subsidies and force the shippers to get more innovative and efficient. These innovations are coming someday anyhow but with the massive subsidies in place the industry is not motivated.

 

Considering TIF at Lehigh Dairy site – use the “but for” test

Posted on by

Lehigh County Commissioners heard a presentation by the Whitehall Township director of Industrial and Commercial Development outlining a proposal to consider utilizing a TIF on the long vacant Lehigh Dairy site.

Without a TIF would we see desirable economic development on this site?

Without a TIF would we see desirable economic development on this site?

I don’t know much about this site other then it’s the potential centerpiece for redevelopment of a long declining section of Whitehall corridor that serves as a gateway to the City of Allentown with immediate highway access.

As for TIF’s I’ve outlined in detail here over the last year what fundamental criteria for their application should be. That is the “but for” test. The name comes from the expression, “economic development would not occur but for the use of TIF.” In other words do you get desired development in a municipality, or a more specific corridor unless support is available from TIF.  (or insert whatever ‘ABC’ tax tool)

If desired economic development (justified by dollar and cent calculations *not to be confused with a specific proposed development) will happen without TIF, then TIF should not be considered or used because it would cost taxpayers over the long run.

As an example, in Lower Macungie the TIF for Hamilton Crossings was very clearly not at all necessary to induce desired economic growth in our community. Certainly not at all along the Hamilton Corridor. *Note, that today without any TIFs we have sketch plans floating for 2 more new large strip malls. One that could rival Hamilton Crossings in size. Both without using government assistance. Furthermore, after the County refused the Hamilton Crossings TIF and the project still moved forward it became crystal clear – at least for Lower Macungie whose portion was less significant then the county – that our fractional portion of the TIF would never have stopped the project had we not agreed.

Using this as a lesson, the first question County Commissioners need to ask is “but for” this assistance do we get desired economic RE-DEVELOPMENT of this gateway corridor? With Hamilton Crossings, the County got it right. They need to ask the same questions here. I don’t know what the answer to that is. But if the answer is yes, we stop right there. Reserve TIF’s (and other economic development tools) for where they are needed as a last resort. To use them otherwise is picking winners and losers. Not a business the government should involve itself in.

Latest quarry concept plan 2 phase line item budget.

Posted on by

The latest line item budget for the Quarry Park concept plan. Needless to say I have some major concerns. The total project over 2 phases is now potentially up and over 6M dollars.

If I am reading this correctly (I have asked for clarification) the turf component specifically (including items directly related to turf) is about 60%+ of Phase 1.

From day 1 my objection to this has been the financial justification for the turf component of the project.
Screen Shot 2015-05-20 at 12.11.57 PM

Lower Macungie Township Polling Places

Posted on by

POLLING PLACES for May 19th 2015 municipal primary
Lower Macungie 1st
Grace Community Church 1290 Minesite Rd.

Lower Macungie 2nd
Bethany United Methodist Church 1208 Brookside Rd., Wescosville

Lower Macungie 3rd
Clubhouse, Fairways at Brookside Whitemarsh Place, Fairways at Brookside

Lower Macungie 4th
St. Anne’s Episcopal Church 6667 Lower Macungie Rd.

Lower Macungie 5th
Lower Mac. Community Center 3400 Brookside Rd.

Lower Macungie 6th
Church of the Good Shepherd Penn Ave. and Quarry Rd., Alburtis

Lower Macungie 7th
Concordia Lutheran Church (lower level) 2623 Brookside Road

Lower Macungie 8th
Macungie Ambulance Corps 5550 N Walnut St, Macungie (behind Buckeye)

Lower Macungie 9th
Village at Willow Lane 6488 Alburtis Rd.

Lower Macungie 10th
Lehigh Commons Assisted Living 1680 Spring Creek Rd.

Be a farmland preservation voter

Posted on by

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.