To TIF or not to TIF……

Posted on by

Trying to put together a comprehensive list of information regarding Hamilton Crossings from the last month. I’ve also included some opinion pieces outlining various positions on TIF’s in general. I hope this is a good starting spot for folks getting caught up on the issue.

Remember, all 3 taxing bodies EPSD, County and LMT must approve for a TIF to happen. The bulk of discussion this week has been on the county vote which will take place next week June 12th.

Contents:
TIF Guidelines
Opinions
Media
LVPC opposition
LMT rebuttal
Business opposition letters 

 

Development Watch: Costco/Target dealt blow by LVPC

Posted on by

Hamilton Crossings plan. Target and Costco could be anchors

The proposed Hamilton Crossings Plan

The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission (LVPC) voted 24-7 against the proposed Hamilton Crossings shopping center project in Lower Macungie Township. (LMT)

What is the LVPC?

These recommendations have no teeth and have been ignored in the past by LMT officials. In the past 3 years the LVPC has come out against aspects of the Jaindl warehousing project and aspects of the Allen Organ supermarket project.

With Hamilton Crossings however, the situation is different since the project is seeking TIF financing to pay for infrastructure costs. To approve the TIF mechanism the developer needs approval by all three taxing bodies. This includes the County, School District (already approved) and Lower Macungie Township (Hearing scheduled June 20).

Many feel eventhough it isn’t binding that the LVPC recommendation will carry weight with the County Commissioners when they vote on TIF financing on June 12th.

With the vote last night the LVPC board approved a draft letter. This letter will be sent to the County and Township indicating “strong reservations and objections to the proposal”.

A summary of some of the concerns outlined in the draft are:

1. The project is inconsistent with regional planning. The project represents strip style commercial. The LVPC opposes new strip commercial projects because strip commercial projects require additional traffic control mechanisms and increase the probability of accidents.

2. Effects on the Bypass. The bypass was designed as a limited access road to mitigate congestion on Rt. 222.  The road was not designed to provide direct access to new development. The LVPC feels as though the project will cause a “level of service” drop on the by-pass resulting in delays. The by-pass was built at a cost of 140 million.

3. Public Liability. The County Comprehensive plan has policies that state “developers, not the public should pay for the (traffic) improvements” Municipalities should enact appropriate impact fee ordinances to ensure this happens.

4. Intent of TIFs. The County Comprehensive plan has a policy stating public sector efforts to influence growth should give high priority to assisting economically distressed commmunities. They go on to cite the assessment offices assertion that Lower Macungie has the 3rd highest assessed valuation of taxable property in Lehigh County and the 4th highest median household income.

5. Affect on existing neighboring communities. The LVPC feels the shopping center will negatively affect neighboring residential neighborhoods.

Here is the WFMZ Story.

Incumbent callers mis-pronounce ‘Macungie’

Posted on by

Yes, the repeated calls from “Alliance for a better Pennsylvania” are definitely paid callers. Multiple reports the Alliance for PA callers have been mispronouncing the word Macungie as well as the incumbents last names. Dead giveaway they are paid out of town callers.

Does the incumbent campaign really have to pay people to make calls for them? Seems like it.

Alliance for a better Pennsylvania is the front group out of “Lemoyne, PA” for the PA Association of Realtors. This special interest PAC has funded the television commercials, misleading fake newsletters and the incessant annoying ROBO calls on behalf of Roger Reis, Ron Eichenberg and Ryan Conrad.

When it’s all said it done I wouldn’t be surprised if they spent over 25,000 dollars on this election.

Can incumbents buy election?

Posted on by

The Lower Macungie Township Commissioner race has heated up to the point where special interest money and misleading ROBO calls have now flooded the township.

Two items I want to address head on.

1. Special interest money is a major problem. Finance reports show an astronomical amount of outside the township money being spent on this local primary race. Over 20,000 dollars have flowed into the incumbents coffers from the Alliance for a better Pennsylvania. The group based out of Lemoyne, PA produced and paid for the “fake newsletters”, ROBO calls and television ads is a front group for the PA Realtor PAC.

Two reasons it’s critical to follow the money trail:

(a) For the past 3 years I’ve questioned various real estate conflicts of interest regarding development decisions. This proves who the incumbents answer to. It’s not residents.

(b) The PA association of Realtors is against traffic impact fees. I believe impact fees are an important protection for a community facing continued growth pressure well into the next decade.The levying of impact fees on large-scale greenfield developers is one of the reasons we have avoided a property tax. I do not believe there is any way to maintain a 0% property tax rate without impact fees.

The incumbents are selling the township to outside interests….Is your vote for sale?

Commissioner Race – Glaring Policy Contrasts

Posted on by

Below are 5 of the most glaring contrasts between the incumbents and myself. There are many more. These are just the most obvious. This election is a clear choice. By attempting to pull the focus off these issues, the incumbents are playing little political games. These are the issues that matter to residents.

Land development/Growth issues

1. Jaindl – The grandaddy of terrible decision making. Dissected at length over the last 2 years and deservedly so. No need to re-hash here. For those who want to read in depth my thoughts visit here. One decision that will change the tone of the township forever. Residents never had a voice in quarry vs. over 1 square mile of warehousing once the awful MOU was negotiated. The incumbents chose the urban industrial path vs. the rural quarry path. (Quarry = 1/10th of the truck traffic)

More:
Transperancy LMT style

2. Allen Organ upzoning/conflict of interest – Here is the elevator sypnosis: Weis wants to move across the street to new store with gas-pumps. Weis thinks they can then compete with the Wegmans and Giants of the world. Ok that is fine. No problem with a private business doing what they think they need to do to improve business. They have every right to do this since previously the parcel across the street was zoned commercial. Supermarkets are allowed in C-Commercial.

Now….Fast forward a little bit. A developer wants to facilitate project. The developer can’t make money off of just building a supermarket on this parcel with it’s many constraints that make it tough to develop. (railroad, floodplain, limited frontage) So developer asks board of commissioners to change the rules so they can also build up to 250 apartments. This way the developer can make money. So board unanimously rubber stamps a bran new zoning ordinance that will allow developer to shoehorn a supermarket and apartments on a small parcel. A parcel with one major entrance/exit that will create traffic nightmares on Rt. 100. The realtor on the property? Happens to be our very own president of the board of commissioners who will cash a hefty commission check off the deal.

More:
Supermarket and up to 250 apartments proposed with new zoning ordinance.
LVPC comments on Allen Organ Plan 

Solutions: How do we do better?
Cost benefit analysis of re-zoning
Transferable Development Programs.

Refusal to deal with traffic concerns

3. A Police Department to solve traffic concerns (which would equal a massive tax increase that I do not want) is NOT the answer. The answer is traffic calming measures. Such as the ones outlined here and here. The board has consistently refused to even explore these options. Now that we’ve set ourselves down a certain path thanks to decisions by the current board we need to consider these measures to control traffic and speeding issues. Traffic calming and walkability go hand in hand. 

Pennsylvania’s traffic calming handbook

Next, truck traffic. Decisions were made to go all in on warehousing. So now what? Now we need bandaids. Instead of beefing up signage and implementing no truck zones to funnel traffic to safe routes getting them to the highways safely and quickly the board does nothing. “We don’t want to stop commerce” – Roger Reis. I do not get this statement, no one wants to stop commerce. We want to stop trucks from using local shortcuts through residential areas. These trucks are not going from warehouses delivering to our local community. What they are doing is cutting through to get to the highways. We’ve gone all in on warehouses and not we have to deal with consequences and stop burying our heads in the sand. We also must prepare for the next “bypass of the bypass” project and others like it that will cost the taxpayers dearly for terrible decisions over the past 3 years.

Over-regulating homeowners and small business

4. Three examples of new regulations the current board has indicated will pass or already passed.

A. As part of the new Act 537 sewage plan, mandatory inspections of on site sewer systems will be required every 2 years. This is regulating household maintanence. Classic regulatory overkill.

B. New mandatory inspections of all of Lower Macungie’s business owners next year may have to pay for an annual fire safety inspection of their buildings. As a small business owner, I do not believe in imposing additional costs on small businesses.

C. New Tree harvesting regulations limit the amount of trees a private resident can cut down on their property. Two parts to this, first the commercial aspect of this ordinance is great. However, I think the residential limit of certain number of trees in one year was too intrusive.

Preservation of our character.

5. There is no more bigger issue moving forward then managing growth. The biggest recent example was a missed golden opportunity to explore taking land preservation out of the hands of politicians and putting it into permanent preservation mechanisms. The Kratzer farm is the prime example. 88 acres of farmland and open space in a central location providing a positive benefit to 1000s of adjacent homes. For the some reason the board refuses to apply it to the county easement program. (A program voted on and passed by county voters 2-1) 

Additional questions from LWV candidates night

Posted on by

I asked the League of Woman Voters for copies of questions we weren’t able to get to that were submitted at the candidates forum. Here are my answers to about half. I will post my answers to the second half next week. I’m inviting my opponents to do the same so that all the questions from the night can be answered.

What is your occupation?

I’m a local small business owner. My two business partners and I went to high school together. All three of us grew up in the area. Our business is a wedding entertainment, photography and film company. We primarily do weddings, but we also do all types of events including corporate, Bar and Bat mitzvahs and sweet 16‘s. Our film department also does some commercial work. We have an office on Main St. in Macungie. We’ve been in business for 3 years. Prior to starting the business I worked in Higher Ed. Administration.

 

Most residents agree that Jaindl “Plan B” is an improvement over the plan initially approved by the BOC. Do you think that Plan B would have been offered if there were no challenges and litigation?

No, ‘Plan B’ was the result of residents speaking out against the project. I can say that with absolute certainty. Without the litigation, there would be no plan ‘B’. With out plan ‘B’ we’d have double the houses, double the strip commercial, you’d have to drive through warehouses to get to the park and a wide interior road that will be pounded daily by tractor trailers (increasing the frequency of maintenance) would be the responsibility of taxpayers instead of the landowner.

 

Walmart is becoming a significant drain to our state police force and creating ever increasing crime statistics that is ruining the rural character of our quiet township. What steps would you immediately apply to force Walmart to correct this significant problem?

I believe businesses that become a consistent nuisance in terms of calls to police should be assessed an impact fee. I’m not sure what is and is not allowed in PA. I’ve reached out to Gary Cordner the gentleman conducting the police study about options.

Once we double the amount of warehousing in the western portion of the township you can bet it will add additional strain on police services. (yet another argument why quarry would have been better…) Just look at the number of calls certain distribution centers generate in Upper Macungie. Upper Macungie Township pays millions for police protection. This is a good question for the developer of the Costco and Target. I will be sure to ask how the developer hopes to alleviate the impact of calls to the state police for shoplifting and other petty crimes associated with a large shopping center.

 

Do you believe remaining open space in LMT should be made a priority to preserve? Such as purchasing development rights?

Absolutely. The answer is transferable Development Rights Programs. (TDR) This is one of the centerpieces of my platform and something I’ve advocated for at many township meetings. With a TDR landowners can voluntarily sell their development rights to another landowner or a real estate developer for use at another location. A municipality faciliates this by creating a land bank. This is a market based solution for land preservation. It’s voluntary. Landowners get compensated at market value. Developers can purchase density to apply it to appropriate locations and the community gets valued farmland/open space preserved. Everyone wins.

 

The township Act 537 sewer system requires on site sewer systems to be pumped at two year intervals. Do you believe this normal household maintenance should be regulated by the government? 

No. I do not. This is over-reacting and over regulating. I would consider a non-intrusive inexpensive visual inspection at 5 year intervals but absolutely not a mandatory pumping. This shows a complete lack of understanding how these systems function. You can actually damage a systems by pumping it to frequently. Yes, we need a way to address malfunctioning systems. But 2 year inspections is over regulation at it’s finest. Major issues can be identified with a visual inspection of a drain field.

Want to Help Replant Sauerkraut and Willow Lane Trees? Here’s How

Posted on by
After - Sauerkraut Lane in Lower Macungie Township

After – Sauerkraut Lane in Lower Macungie Township. After PPL tree cutting.

When trees were clear cut on Willow and Sauerkraut I was hoping residents affected would band together to spearhead an effort to re-plant in light of the township failing to take the reigns. The entire community is affected by the unfortunate decision to remove the streetscape buffer.

It comes down to property value. For me, a house is the biggest investment I’ll make in my life. That rings true for most people. Residents not only adjacent to affected streets but also nearby lost property value. Street-Scapes add value to our community.

There is alot of interest in residents taking matters into our own hands and addressing the issue. Residents I’ve spoken with are interested fundraising and coordinating an effort to replant the buffer with approved small trees and shrubs in appropriate locations.

Neighbors working together is critical. Streetscaping is only effective when it is coordinated. It’s a design issue but the most cost effective strategy. Compatible trees and shrubs can be purchased in bulk. A unified design will make the replanting more attractive and effective. Plus it’s a great way for residents to work together to take a disheartening situation and make the best of it.

We can take this situation and make the best out of it. Who knows, a new street-scape with flowering dogwoods, redbuds, ornamental grass, low lying evergreen shrubs and witch hazel would be beautiful all 4 seasons. (all these species are approved by PPL and endorsed by the EAC) We could make the street-scape even better then it was before.

I’ve talked already to one landscape service willing to discount or donate resources.

I live near but not directly adjacent to the cutting, but I feel strongly about the community wide benefit of replanting. I’ve spoken out at many meetings over the last 2 years regarding the benefits of a coordinated, attractive streetscape.

  • Traffic Calming. Studies show cars drive slower on tree lined streets. (Trees in travel perception)
  • Stormwater Management. Trees absorb 30% of precipitation through leaf and root system.
  • Safer walking environment
  • Softens the harsh features of utility poles.
  • Added value to all our homes. Up to 10% increase in nearby home values.

Do you live adjacent to the cut zone? Are you willing to volunteer time or resources to help restore the neighborhood to it’s prior charm? Winding Brook resident Randy Fritz is coordinating an effort to look into alternatives and options. Please contact him at GIJoe196910@yahoo.com.

Here is the before image. An evergreen stand went the length of Sauerkraut Lane adjacent to Winding Brook Manor in Lower Macungie

Inexplicable decisions…..

Posted on by

I commented on a proposal to preserve the Kratzer Farm property at the last BOC meeting. I’m going to capture video and post later on this week.

Read my full position here.

The board was asked if they would consider applying the 86 acre Kratzter Farm to a county conservation program that would permanently protect the open space. To sweeten the pot, the program actually pays the township to do it. $5000 /acre. So say 50 acres of farmland on the property gets accepted into the program thats 250,000 dollars directly to the township coffers. I can think of alot of ways this money could be used.

Friends LMT requested a free preliminary review of the property and it ranked very high indicating it is likely funding would be granted.

The response by Commissioners made no sense. Of the two that spoke up, Ron Eichenberg stated “We don’t have time to hold a hearing”. This demonstrates 1. He didnt understand the request, 2. He is clueless or 3. This just happened to the straw he grasped at to make the request go away. First, we only asked for the application to be filled out. It’s no different then any grant application. Second, the board doesn’t ever hold hearings before authorizing staff to apply for a grant.

Another Commissioner went on about the house, driveway and barn. They are earmarked to be sold off. My position is that the house and barn and specifically the driveway should not be sold until the Parks and Rec comprehensive planning committee has a chance to review the big picture. This issue of subdividing this 1.5 acre portion is completely unrelated to applying for permanent preservation mechanisms for the remaining 84.5 or so acres. Again, two separate issues.

Yes, perhaps it would be appropriate for a hearing once it comes time to actually take action. But for now the request was just to keep the door open for further deliberation by applying. To me it’s a no brainer that represents another failure to attempt to protect our remaining open space and farmland.

My position on the Kratzer Farm open space

Posted on by
Position Statement Kratzer Farm
Importance/overview: The Kratzer Farm is centrally located in Lower Macungie Township. It’s strategic centralized location makes it immediately accessible to thousands of township residents easily and safely within walking distance. The park was purchased by a previous Board of Supervisors 15 years ago for the intent of land preservation in a rapidly growing township. The scenic landscape and fertile limestone soil make this a community treasure. The adopted greenway plan will further improve walking access and functionality of the park making it a potential township “Central Park”. The Kratzer Farm should be a destination, centerpiece and focal point of the greenway system preserved permanently as a nature preserve, passive park, community garden and working farm.

The Kratzer Farm – Township Owned Open Space strategically located in the center of the township

1. The house, barn and driveway should not be sold until the results of the Parks and Recreation comprehensive plan is complete. The farm specifically should be the focus of an agenda item at a future parks and recreation comprehensive plan meeting. The committee should be the body that determines whether the house, barn or driveway presents any value in regards to the overall goal of a permanent centralized large passive park.
2. The farm should be permanently preserved as soon as possible. To accomplish this goal:
A. The township should apply to sell agricultural conservation easements to the Lehigh County. The annual deadline for submitting an application is March 31st. According to a representative from the program the parcel would likely be valued a high priority since it contains fertile limestone soil. Currently the program is paying up to 5000/acre for preservation. I am estimating proceeds of selling the rights (the township still owns the property) could net up to 250,000 dollars.
3. Proceeds from sale. If the house/barn and driveway are sold after a comprehensive evaluation of all potential uses of the property and specifically the driveways role in future greenway as either a trail section or entrance to a trailhead, then the proceeds should be earmarked for park improvements on the Kratzer farm.

Growth issues: The key is Free market solutions for land preservation

Posted on by

At the ‘smart growth workshop‘ meeting this past Tuesday one of our volunteer planners said point blank that he ‘has concerns with the current board of commissioners being too accessible to developers.’ That the process has become “backwards”.

I tend to agree with this assessment and feel as though the Allen Organ project is the prime example. After having attended or watched every BOC meeting either in person or via webcast over the last 2 years I have witnessed this first hand.

Our current board is consistenly deferential to developers. Why? There is a difference between handing out gifts and landowner’s rights. Ron Eichenberg and Roger Reis the prior two presidents of the board who in turn speak for the board have and will continue to attempt to blur that important distinction in the upcoming election. The residents having a voice in the way we grow is consistently circumvented.

Yes, landowners have rights. That is a fundamental American value. I have personally advocated for protecting them. The solutions I have proposed are market based. Solutions such as transferable development rights programs. I can’t think of a solution more soundly grounded in conservative principle then one that solves our open space preservation issues with a market based solution.

As a commissioner I will not vote to hand out intensity/density without proper rationalization and due diligence. I will not allow a sketch plan to dictate a critical new zoning ordinance.

Free market solutions such as a TDR program will eliminate even the appearance of cronyism. If the township creates a mechanism for landowners to be compensated for development rights in addition for developers to be able to purchase intensity, then the appearance of cronyism when we simply hand it out for nothing is eliminated.

The landowner get fairly compensated, the township has a mechanism to guide growth to appropriate places and finally residents have a fair way to encourage open space preservation and protect our school district and our community.