Build where the jobs are needed and returns highest. The Allentown re-industrialization plan.

Posted on by

Allentown city officials unveiled the second phase of a long term plan to bring industrial and manufacturing companies back to the region at a public meeting Thursday. The plan is being crafted by Camoin & Bergmann Associates.

This is important on multiple levels: Smart growth is creating new jobs where people need them the most and where the infrastructure already exists.  When we do this we get the highest ROI on investments. When that happens we keep taxes lower.

With a documented (albeit slow) return of manufacturing jobs to the US, Allentown must position itself to compete. We can help accomplish this by removing the costly array of state, local and federal programs built into the development process that encourage growth in costly locations where taxpayers inevitably directly and indirectly subsidize sprawl.

From the WFMZ link – “Bergman Associates’ planner Dan Sundell says ‘You get a lot of tax incentives and assistance by building [in Allentown],” he said. “It’s a big advantage over open land outside of the city.” – This is true, but the problem remains that we now also massively subsidize greenfield sprawl. And by doing this, the taxpayer return on investment is alarmingly low. 

My preference of course is to remove all development subsidies especially ones that culminate at the federal level. If we would do this and allow the market to work then cities would naturally benefit because of their inherent strengths some of which I mention above. (location, efficiency, services ect.) But a nice first step forward would be to simply reduce sprawl subsidies which currently provide more incentive to build on a virgin greenfield by artificially making it cheaper to do so. Developers have the right to build where they see fit, but they do not have the right to subsidies.

Continue reading →

Corporate Welfare

Posted on by

Last night at the township BOC meeting one colleague fellow Commissioner Ryan Conrad asserted that participating in the TIF is not “corporate welfare”.

It’s important residents understand where Commissioners stand on issues. This issue in particular outlines stark philosophical differences and approaches to land development, development subsidies and who should shoulder the costs of impacts both immediate and projected. Therefore it’s crucial residents understand very clearly without semantic interference where each Commissioner stands. Every four years we receive a job review in the form of an election. Therefore, I would be remiss if I didn’t clearly state that I fundamentally disagree with Mr. Conrads assertion in the strongest of terms. 

“Corporate welfare” in this instance has been used as a rallying cry for residents who by and large support the project but without the 20 year tax forfeiture. Some institutional supporters have tried to use semantics and word games to insist this doesn’t qualify as corporate welfare or that the townships decision on participating in the TIF could somehow derail the project. This is a disingenuous game and unfair to residents.

The facts remain:

1. If Lower Macungie participates in the TIF 50% of the developers incremental taxes will be siphoned away from the township.

2. The money instead is siphoned back to the developer and other private interests through LCIDA where it would be used to pay back construction bonds for basic improvements that are required of all developers seeking to do business in the township.

3. With this TIF, tax money is forfeited and instead used to pay for what otherwise would be the responsibility of the developer. In other words the normal costs of doing business. Infrastructure costs every other developer has to pay for themselves. In this case it is the bare minimum infrastructure improvements required by Penndot to build a shopping center of this magnitude.

4. The bottom line is that this mechanism pads the developers bottom line. TIF will increase profits of private business interests and decrease the return received by taxpayers. It is preferential treatment for one chosen business. It is a subsidy of both of the sellers flawed piece of land and of the buyer. It is a distortion of the market that will hurt other local businesses.

5. While you can argue that creating the TIF district could pull the plug on the entire TIF, (including the school district) the townships participation (remember they are 2 separate ordinances and two separate votes) is purely symbolic and will have absolutely zero impact on the developer building the project. In other words, with or without the township participating in the TIF this shopping center is coming. This is a certainty. I can’t be anymore clear about that. There have been attempts to blur this line. 

Lower Macungie’s participation in the TIF is giving one developer receiving special treatment for purely symbolic reasons. We are a relatively affluent township with a healthy and robust economic climate, therefore TIF is unnecessary and borderline egregious to even consider.

A vote for the TIF is a vote to take money out of the pocket of Lower Macungie residents and funnel it to private interests over a 20 year period. This is compounded by the fact some Commissioners seated on this board just recently voted to raise taxes.

If any Commissioner believes this is the right thing to do, then they should stand by that decision and not try to rationalize it by making statements like “The developer still pays 100% of it’s taxes” while ignoring the fact that half those taxes are siphoned away from the township back to the developer by padding their bottom line through the Lehigh County Industrial Authority. The other misleading notion I’ve heard is no “corporation is receiving a direct subsidy. Last time I checked TCH development and The Goldenberg group are in this to make money. They are indeed both private businesses who will benefit from TIF subsidy in terms of increased profits. No, the “nameplates” Costco and Target aren’t the direct beneficiaries but they are indirect beneficiaries. No matter how to slice it private interests are the gov’t sponsored winners in this shell game and taxpayers and other local businesses are the losers.

 

Guest blog – Jim Palmquist: Walk this way: Lower Macungie becoming pedestrian friendly

Posted on by

The following was submitted by Jim Palmquist the chair of the LMT walkways group. You can view the website here. It also appeared as an op-ed in The Morning call.

Surprise, surprise. Lower Macungie Township, the place where almost everyone drives wherever they go, has a major section that is almost completely walkable. About a quarter of Lower Macungie residents live in a walkable community! Who knew?

Lower Macungie is a place where thousands of people can walk or ride bikes on walkways to a drug store, grocery store, state liquor store, medical and dental offices, banks, churches, convenience stores, restaurants and other merchants and services.

walk way

 
But wait, there’s more!. Continue reading →

Got a phone call from owner of a business today….

Posted on by

Got a phone call from a business owner today. He owns a business in the Giant shopping center. I will let them name their business should they choose to if they publicly address the Lower Macungie BOC which I encouraged them to do. If you have been following this issue for awhile they attended a county meeting and spoke out.

They honestly believe their small business will absolutely be hurt by Hamilton Crossings. When you own a small eatery in a shopping center you count on foot traffic to drive customers into your place of business. The “Giant shopping center” is located just blocks away from Hamilton Crossings and is clearly struggling.

Now please understand one thing. And this is my opinion but I think the business owner shares it. Competition is one thing. Business owners accept this. As a township Commissioner I encourage it. It’s survival of the fittest thing. The problem is when the playing field is skewed. Plain and simply TIF’s when abused and utilized in a community that isn’t distressed disrupts the free market. Utilizing this TIF in this area where an existing inventory of businesses have not benefitted from the same treatment will hurt other business owners. Many small businesses in the “Giant” shopping center will now have to compete with potential new business in a government chosen shopping center on an uneven playing field. At least one owner is certain this will hurt him and his employees.

Does anyone out there believe that this is fair? If so I’d love to hear why.

Competition is a fact of life for small business. It leads to more options and better pricing/service. When this happens the consumer wins. My problem is it’s fundamentally unfair to choose the winners with this kind of government intervention in a community that isn’t distressed. Hardworking people will be hurt by this TIF. Does anyone out there believe Lower Macungie is a distressed economy?

Above is a picture of 5 empty storefronts in the Giant shopping center. This is just one corner. In total there is over a dozen vacancies.

Above is a picture of 5 empty storefronts in the Giant shopping center. This is just one corner. In total there is over a dozen vacancies.

*Additional note: Some have said “well this shopping center is run down” “That’s why no one wants to shop there”. I don’t disagree. The “Giant/Redners” shopping center is one of the worse “Strip Malls” in the whole Lehigh Valley. It’s dated. Ugly. Terrible. Traffic flows poorly. Some locations the parking lots are downright dangerous.

To that point, note that the same company owns the “Kohls” side. And they did acknowledge this. At least in terms of spending some major money on recent renovations of. This included new landscaping and a facade renovation (Kohls). From what I understand more improvements are coming and they are slowly making there way to the “other” side where giant is.

the point is, this is the natural order. Your shopping center is crummy and because of that you can’t attract good tenants? Then invest money and fix it. Or fail in the open and free market. What isn’t natural is when a gov’t chooses a winner. Then that new shopping center which “needed” the special treatment succeeds because it’s allowed to divert 50% of it’s taxes to repay bonds for 20 years. 

Related articles across the web

Time to sign kids up for playground program

Posted on by

Registration is May 28th for the LMT playground program! Connections to neighborhood parks create a vibrant sense of place. They are one of the quickest and most effective ways to cultivate a sense of community and improve our quality of life. The extremely successful Lower Macungie playground program has been doing this for years. I remember participating in a version of the longstanding playground program as a kid many years ago. My neighborhood playground was and still is East Texas Park. These connections to my hometown are a big reason why I decided to stay here in Lower Mac in the same neighborhood I grew up in. In fact this summer I’ll be getting married in the ET park gazebo.

How to enroll:
LMT residents may enroll children, ages 6 to 11, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Wednesday, May 28, into the 7 week summer playground program. More information here.

The cost is $110, and the program is open to LMT residents and runs from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., Monday, June 23, to Friday, August 8 at the community center 3400 Brookside Road. The program offers arts & crafts, games, sports and a few pool days. Each program includes a series of special events including:

  • Special Game Days
  • Pizza Days
  • ‘Rita’ Days
  • Complete the Playground Season with a fabulous Round-Up Day.

The program is offered at the following parks: Quarry Park, Church Lane Park, East Texas Park, Wild Cherry Park and Hills At Lockridge Park.

Pictured: East Texas Park Gazebo

Pictured: East Texas Park Gazebo

Connect with Lower Macungie:
Official LMT Facebook Page
My Commissioner Page 
Follow on Twitter
Sign up for LMT email alerts

Seattle and Mininum wage

Posted on by

“A state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” – Brandeis 

The quote above very succinctly sums up a fundamental notion why I am right of center politically. I believe there is no more important conviction then that of our bottom up system of gov’t paired with a system of checks and balances on the power of the federal gov’t.

This is related to why I support Seattle’s right raise the local min wage even though I disagree with the policy and think the impacts will be adverse.

Why?  As a nation of state and of local Govt we are the great laboratory of democracy. The federal gov’t should not overstep it’s bounds and dictate what a local minimum wage should be set at. Seattle has the right to raise it’s min wage if they choose. Even though I personally believe in the end it will hurt their economy that jobs will be lost and it will hurt small business. Seattle has the right to self govern. 

The fact remains, I can’t say that with certainty that Seattle’s efforts will end in failure. We can only model, predict and forecast the affects on the local economy. There is always a chance I and others who draw the same conclusions are wrong.  If the increase does indeed work out in Seattle then other cities/places should be able to freely choose to adopt or not to adopt. If enough places in Washington have success then eventually the state would consider. That incremental change would be a symptom of success. Success breeds success. Failure stops an idea in it’s tracks.

A philosophy where policy is experimented on at the state and local level first, before it is on the national level is the basis for my politics. I believe in the 10th amendment. Federal gov’t responsibilities are outlined by the constitution. This allows for a diverse patchwork of lower government policies and practices. This is the great laboratory of democracy that is the United States. It’s what makes us special. Unfortunately, the tenth amendment has been eroded over time.

Continue reading →

Public Comment from TIF Hearing

Posted on by

Here is the youtube video of the meeting. Public Comment on TIF happens from 1:12 to 2:18. My comments are 2:20-2:31

There were different reported tallys of speakers and positions in the papers. This is understandable as trying to keep track as your processing the comments is tough. Here is my best shot at an accurate tally after re-watching the comment this AM. This includes very brief synoposis of each speakers content. *Updated this AM adding two more in the FOR TIF column. They were very quick comments that I initially missed when fast forwarding through the comment portion.

29 TOTAL 26 residents 3 non-residents
12 AGAINST TIF
7 *For TIF
8 Neutral regarding TIF
5 Other project comments unrelated to TIF
1 Cemetery concern
1 For Project no comment TIF
1 On the fence
2 Special interest

*5 organized Labor in favor of TIF

CLEAR AGAINST TIF (12)
1. Charles Rhoads – Resident, “Picking favorites” “Retail Crime”
2. Natalie Kravitz – Resident, “What is TIF?” Never defined. “Costco over 100/share, Why do they need TIF”
3. Ira Lehrich – Resident, developer – “I’m for No TIF” Costco stockholder. “Costco claims TIF is developer business Costco has no input” “welfare” “support project, not TIF”
4. Arlene Dabrow – Resident, “Other centers have vacant space” “fairness – justify giving money to one developer over others” “EIT may leave township” Word games by developer unfair –  “Average income to median income”
5. Chris Donatelli – Resident, “Project state of flux last 5 years.” “Current school board split” “Realtors voted out of office” “I am for development, but taxpayers not bank” “I disagree with tax program”
6. Dave Greff – Resident, “definitely against breaks” “Concerned traffic”
7. Donald Richards – Resident, “100% in favor of project 110% against creating TIF district” “Financing concerns” Equity vs. private debt ratio’s changing”
8. John Donches – NON RESIDENT EMMAUS, “Stiffthetif” “ok with land development” “no ok using tax money” “Contingency fund”
9. Richard Perry – Resident, “Traffic” “No objections to growth” “against TIF” “Traffic beyond project. Feeder Rds”
10. Charles Patrel – Resident, “Shepherd Hills” “Project going to go through either way” “Traffic impact instead of granting TIF use money to address traffic” “remember the citizens”
11. Mike Catcher – Resident, Roads “Beitler hit nail hit” “feeder roads” “Used to live in whitehall and that’s what he sees” “how pay for future impacts”
12. Mike Scalanti – Resident, Organized Labor – For the project “but not at the reduced rate”.

Other project related issue. No TIF opinion (5)
1. Tom Hess – Resident, “500 yds from N. Krocks” “sees Boulevard pictures, but fears Mcarther Rd.” No mention of TIF
2. Mike Siegal – Resident, “Increased grants” “money coming in is fluid””New grants yet we cannot get second opinion on traffic impact fees” “Concerned with how money being spent”
3. Joe ? – Resident, Engineer – “history of bypass” Nuetral on TIF “signal concerns”
4. Peter Ryan – Resident, “no evidence the bypass can handle the traffic associated with development”. “let everyone else argue about TIF or no TIF”
5. Mike Frazier – Resident, “Talking about Traffic”

CEMETERY (1)
1. Ken Guldin – Resident – “People dying to have a place in cemetary”

CLEAR FOR TIF (7)
1. Scott Forbes – Resident “Urge board to accept TIF” “Tax revenue is worth the investment”
2. Mark Spengler – Resident “for the TIF”
3. Kevin Lewis – Resident Organized Labor “Jobs””For TIF” “For Project”
4. William Mcghee – NON RESIDENT Organized Labor – Jobs
5. Eichenberg – Resident former Commissioner Economic Development
6. John Iobst – Resident Organized Labor “For the construction jobs”
7. Sharon ??? – Resident “Keep money local” “It’s an eyesore why not beautify the area.

For Project (1)
1. Jim Reilly – President LV Building Trades – Organized Labor  No Address”Not here to talk about TIF” “Jobs”

FENCE (1)
1. Jane Bachman – Resident – “not as bad” “wants to see ice skating rink” Comment related to something else on property..

Special Interest (2)
1. Jeremy Hugg – Lawyer Cedar Realty
2. Lucious LCIDA

Related articles across the web

Continue reading →

Lower Macungie Township Agenda Preview 5/1 Hamilton Crossings Hearing

Posted on by

FYI –  In these previews I may indicate thoughts on an issue, but it in no way means my mind is set. During a critical hearing for the Jaindl issue, a Commissioner spoke before public comment outlining he was voting to move forward the project regardless of what people said during public comment. That was wrong. Public debate was circumvented when the Commissioner indicated his mind was made up.

My hope is by blogging I open the door for conversations. One of my biggest issues with the Jaindl debacle was folks didn’t truly understand what was happening until it was “too late”. I plan on doing everything I can to make sure residents have background information on issues. This is one mechanism to do that. I hope people find it useful. Please contact me at ronbeitler@gmail.com if you have any questions or concerns about any issues.

3 hearings tonight. 2 Conditional use hearings and the big one. Hearing on Hamilton Crossings TIF district. NOTE: The TIF district hearing will begin no earlier then 8pm since we have two conditional use hearings before.

The two conditional use hearings are for:

1.) Billboard application for Schantz Rd: This billboard would be fronting the turnpike. While I do have concerns with billboards on Hamilton Boulevard, I see no issues with this. It is appropriate location for a billboard facing a highway. 

2.) Sahara Mediterranean Cuisine: The second application deals with a potential new restaurant to be opened at the shopping center at Krocks and Hamilton. This is the location formerly occupied by a tanning salon nearby the Enterprise rent-a-car. I see no potential issues with this application. Will be great see another independently owned restaurant option locally.

HAMILTON CROSSINGS HEARING – More information on Hamilton Crossings issue here.

Here is a link to my thoughts on the TIF I wrote in an op-ed in the Morning Call. 

Public Comment:

In public comment there are 4 letters opposing the TIF and 1 supporting.

A resident writes in support of a Jake Brake Prohibition on Hamilton Boulevard. I support this Jake Brake Prohibition as long as the prohibition meets Penndot safety requirements. 

Communication from the library of new vacancies. Interested in serving the community? Do you support our community library? Submit an application on the township website. We thank the two members Mr. Bob Wendt and Mr. Bill Cho who are leaving the board for there service.

Review of minutes: I will ask for an amendment of one item. I need to review the meeting video. Item 3.2 it reviews the solicitors report on Hamilton Crossings traffic impact fee. I expressed disappointment that the traffic impact fee was not going to be assessed on Hamilton Crossings. The minutes read “there was disappointment that the impact fee could not be used to demonstrate to the county township skin in the game”. My disappointment is based on the fact the fee won’t be assessed. I never saw it as a “chip in the game”. That was a policy of the previous board. Because of this I will ask for clarification. This seems like a nit-picky thing and yes the minutes are just a very general overview. But end of the day we answer to voters. And the minutes are one record of our positions that the public can review to gauge the effectiveness of elected Commissioners. So I want to make sure the record is clear. I never thought of the traffic impact fee as a chip. It was always something very seriously in play. And my disappointment was in the fact that this opinion came so late in the game. 

Committees

Public Safety: We have correspondence from the public safety commission regarding their support of exploring brake retarder prohibitions on state roads. Specifically this is in request for consideration on Brookside Rd near residential developments. I support a brake retarder prohibition for Brookside Rd. pending an evaluation by Penndot on the feasibility based on defined safety criteria. 

Just how loud are jake brakes? The answer is very loud. – “Anecdotally, it sounds similar to a jackhammer, however the loudness is between 10 and 20 times the sound pressure level of a jackhammer (10 to 13 dB).”

Here is a sample of a local ordinance in West Allen Township:

SECTION II
A. Section 209-46.1, Engine Brake Retarder Prohibition, shall be added as follows:209-46.1 Engine Brake Retarder Prohibition. No gasoline-powered or diesel-powered motor vehicle shall be operated using, as part of theoperation, an engine brake retarder without exhaust mufflers or with defective or modified exhaust mufflers, upon any street or portion thereof where such operation is restricted or prohibited upon any street or portion thereof designated as such in Schedule XIX: Engine Brake Retarder Prohibition (Section 209-68).

 Planning and Zoning Committee

At the last meeting the committee approved the East Texas Zoning Task Force participants:
Jim Lancsek, Ron Beitler, Tom Beil (Planning Commission), Trey Bianco (owner Smooth on), Ray Leibensberger (property owner), Irini Kousalis (small business owner in East Texas), Holly Hinkle (resident), Percy Dougherty (County Commissioner and LVPC member) and Jim Palmquist (chair of East Texas walkways committee)

 

Related articles across the web

Thoughts on East Penn School District and Hamilton Crossings TIF

Posted on by

I attended the School Board meeting last night as an interested taxpayer and watched the debate about TIF. The decision was disappointing but I felt the debate was moreso. Important points were completely missed. The board by and large failed to look at the situation from a big picture standpoint. Some compartmentalized the decision and limited the thought process to a single parcel instead of evaluating the economics of the decision regionally. End of the day the board voted 5-4 to remain a part of the Hamilton Crossings TIF. Earnshaw, Bacher, Ballard, Fuller and Rhoads voted for the TIF. Vinovskis, Munson, Donches and Heid voted against it. (for the motion which was a vote against the TIF)

The bottom line is Lower Macungie isn’t just growing an industrial and commercial base our base is pretty much about to explode. At the same time single family home construction the primary driver for school age kids has ground to a halt. Certain school directors seemed oblivious to that. I found it a bit alarming. How do you make a decision about the application of an economic development tool meant for distressed communities without considering the bigger economic picture? How can you make an economic development calculation when compartmentalizing the districts forecast to one parcel seemingly oblivious to what’s going on around it? This decision shouldn’t have been made considering one parcel in isolation. It should have been made considering the whole picture.

I’ve written here before about the objective criteria I apply when considering a TIF. For me it centers around the ‘but for’ test. The name comes from the expression, “Development in a community would not occur but for the use of TIF.”

To evaluate this criteria you have to look at the big picture of Lower Mac and ask without TIF do we have economic development in the East Penn School District? The answer is absolutely. Therefore by using a TIF when it’s not necessary we skew the market. By applying TIF in a healthy growing local economy we’ve hurt the development potential of other commercial sites. This matters for the school district because these other sites would have paid 100% of there tax burden. The mistake is compounded by the fact that millions of dollars in new assessed value is coming to the districts coffers from industrial projects immediately in the next 5 years. This isn’t speculation. We’re talking approved or nearly approved projects.

Bad decision. Plain and simple. I always felt this was a bad deal for the township but at first I actually thought it was at least an understandable decision for the school board. The more I thought about it my opinion changed over the last 6 months. Why? Because I started looking at the big picture.

Where I sit today as a taxpayer of 2 school district properties (my home and my business) I’m going to resent last night’s decision to leave money on the table the day directors vote to raise my taxes. This will unfortunately happen sooner rather then later. Big picture we never address underlying issues. We just chase development and bury our heads in the sand.

GET INVOLVED: Do you live in Lower Macungie? Township Commissioners will consider TIF next. The public hearing is this Thursday. Consideration of this topic will start no later then 8pm at the township building. More information here.

Related articles across the web

Words still have meanings

Posted on by

I posted the first “words have meanings” last August. Check out the original post here. It was a longer post with some pictures & examples. This is a followup. Still an issue so I’ll keep re-posting. Developers continue to mis-label projects to curry favor with local government officials who don’t know any better. Terms with actual meanings are definitely bent to suit marketing purposes. Making matters worse journalists happily regurgitate developer characterizations. This is unfair to the public that genuinely desires more responsible smart growth development.

“Main St.”, “Mixed Use”, “Village Center”, “Walkable” ect. are all terms that have meanings.

Developers and marketing teams use of these buzzwords demonstrates they understand people want better communities. Problem is when we allow developers to mis-use terms without challenge we let those we represent down who then expect certain end products.

Just because a project smushes together incompatible single use buildings that would otherwise be separated and buffered on a small parcel doesn’t make it a mixed use project. Walking from your car to a single use building on a sidewalk does not make a project “walkable”. To qualify for these labels projects need measurable qualifiers.

  • Appropriate density.
  • Functional street grids
  • Vertical mixed use buildings or in a horizontal project compatible uses and context sensitivity. 
  • Actual functional walkability. The presence of sidewalks alone don’t make a project walkable
  • Diversity of architecture that respects heritage of the neighborhood
  • Complete streets
  • A measurable positive municipal return on investment and cash flow over multiple lifecycles – mixed use uses land more efficiently. 
  • Low impact on existing neighborhoods. Should reduce traffic not increase.

Top 5 characteristics of mixed use. 

Here is what spurred this post today:
‘Main street’ concept takes shape at Sterling Ridge

Mixed use "Main St." Village center?

Mixed use “Main St.” Village center? Really?

Not a mixed use. This is a low density auto-centric strip development with (maybe?) some bells and whistles. This isn’t necessarily a terrible project for what it is. But please. Label it correctly. This is a dual use project. 

What’s really sad is this is actually better than some of the projects that have been mis-labeled here in Lower Macungie from 2009-2013. (Hamilton Crossings, Allen Organ Development and most absurdly and blatantly incorrect the Jaindl warehouse development) The Allen organ development is a “dual use” project. Meaning we took uses that under our old ordinance would have been separated and buffered and allowed them to be built much closer together. The project lacks the meaningful integration to make it mixed use. It’s not a “neighborhood”. It’s commercial slammed against residential.