Tag Archives: Jaindl

Sycamore Trees and the Trexler Business Center

Posted on by

Lots of feedback on the Hamilton Boulevard Sycamore issue on social media. The Morning Call did a good piece that raised awareness. I wanted to reiterate to those concerned that township staff, planning committee and planning commissions position on the sycamores is that they must be preserved and protected.

The legacy of the sycamores is an invaluable asset to the corridor and the township. That cannot be stressed enough. They are without question the defining characteristic of the area. The historic tree canopy must be protected as a natural and historic resource. In this case the shopping center developer is also in agreement with us.

The problem remains PennDOTs requirement for a highway scaled deceleration lane. Beyond the tree issue the deceleration lane is also problematic on other levels as well. It directly conflicts with the vision laid out in the LMT/UMT corridor study that lays out a vision for a Boulevard concept. I’ve written alot about the need to de-stroadify the Boulevard & “bypass“. When we have PennDOT officials referring to the Boulevard as a “highway” in quotes in the papers to me that demonstrates that we have a fundamental disconnect.

In making argument against the deceleration lan, in our favor is that just down the street a we fought off a highway scaled deceleration lane associated with Hamilton Crossings. This was done to protect the LMTHS log home at Wescosville park. So here we have an almost identical situation except this shopping center is smaller.

Below, is the township planners review letter. In it you can read about a number of concerns with this project as a whole including the sycamore issue. The letter marks the beginning of the land development process. Review letters are completed by the township zoning officer, planner and engineer very early in the process to outline concerns.  We hope to work with the developer to address them.

Screen Shot 2016-03-06 at 11.50.16 AMScreen Shot 2016-03-06 at 11.51.23 AMScreen Shot 2016-03-06 at 11.51.38 AMScreen Shot 2016-03-06 at 11.51.48 AMScreen Shot 2016-03-06 at 11.51.59 AM

Screen Shot 2016-03-06 at 11.52.10 AM

BOC meeting review. Big conversations about long term liabilities.

Posted on by

I didn’t do a preview of the last BOC meeting so I will do an overview focusing on one of the biggest conversations we had. We had two related topics and related discussions that in my opinion were of great “big picture” importance. 

They both deal with township ownership of long term public liabilities related to new development.

Backgrounder: In the past the township didn’t seem to be interested in looking at new development in terms of new revenue (beyond the windfall) vs. long term liabilities. Like many communities stuck in feedback loop mode of the growth ponzi scheme we only saw the short term but shortsighted windfall and rewards of sprawl.

Slowly but surely we’re starting to have the right conversations. We’ve always had a basic understanding that too much residential development creates a revenue shortfall. We’ve known that taking on new roads and storm water infrastructure costs us. So over the years we even demanded escrows from developers to help defray the cost. Again, not a permanent solution. Just a bigger band-aid to delay the inevitable. We’ve sought more commercial development to balance our residential. Unfortunately instead of high value corridor development and neighborhood commercial we’ve induced (at high public cost) low value warehouses. Another low revenue high liability land use.

So today we really still haven’t addressed underlying issues. But with at least one conversation last week took a definitive stand. In my opinion, at it’s core smart growth is ensuring that development pays the true costs of doing business in the township so those costs aren’t passed on to or subsidized by taxpayers.

This is: Smart Growth for Conservatives.

Two items related to development and public vs. private infrastructure.
The first conversation last meeting related to residential development. With this issue a developer was able to talk 3 commissioners into paying for perpetual long term stormwater maintenance exclusively associated with a new development. Developer used some convoluted argument that the water was coming from a public roadway. Nonetheless, any increase in runoff volume is a direct result of the new development therefore long term cost should not be shouldered by the taxpayers. So I chalk that one up as a loss as far as common sense is concerned. But grand scheme its small potatoes.

While that decision was disappointing on the other hand a big victory for taxpayers was in relation to over 55 private (in some cases gated) developments and new private cluster developments. One of the major reasons Lower Mac has been able to keep taxes so low and for so long is that in addition to temporary windfalls associated growth Lower Macungie has been lucky to secure a very large amount of private developments.

When a new development maintains it’s interior roads and storm-water facilities as private the inherent budget shortfalls of residential development are somewhat negated. Last week the township solidified an informal policy that it desires private roads and stormwater in new residential development. I believe we should go further and incentivize it.

If you recall one of the biggest victories for taxpayers to come out of the Jaindl settlement a result of resident attempts to overturn the rezoning was that the developer took on a major access road serving exclusively the new warehouse zone as a private facility. Turns out taxpayers are still paying for/subsidizing a huge chunk of the costs. But at least locally we’re not on the hook for long term maintenance. (Although we are for many of the stormwater facilities)

Bottom line is this. In our quest for more balanced growth we need to continue to get more strategic. Chasing ratables for the sake of chasing ratables with no reconcilation of the long term costs will leave us with deficiencies when the gravy train leaves town. The township needs to balance the books. And we have to start now.

Rail never really in play to move freight in Lower Mac….

Posted on by

Why isn’t rail used more to transport freight form Lower Mac warehouses?

Excellent question. One I get frequently. Most recent by an old friend on facebook. I thought I’d post the answer here since it’s a pretty common (and good) question. Every rail car takes a half dozen or more tractor trailers off the road.

Rail transportation is safer, more efficient and better for the environment than trucks. Reality though is, trains were never in play to service warehouses in Lower Mac. To ever say they were was misleading.

Rail transportation is safer, more efficient and better for the environment than trucks. Reality though is, trains were never in play to service warehouses in Lower Mac. To ever say they were was misleading.

Why isn’t rail utilized more to transport freight in Lower Macungie? Afterall, this was one of the flawed reasons used by both the developer and then parroted by certain Commissioners in 2010 to justify the 700 acre negotiated rezoning from agriculture protection to largely industrial warehouses.

Here is the problem:

From the LVPC: (Lehigh Valley Planning Commission) – “The freight and freight-related business growth in the region has been significantly e-commerce and quicker turn around type companies (Amazon, Trader Joe’s for example). Since customers buying products from these companies expect 2-day or less delivery or the business deals in highly perishable goods, the longer time transfer rail lines are not viable to these companies.”

 

Basically, certain types of freight have a high percentage likelihood of being transported by rail. Others don’t. So, had Lower Macungie been serious about inducing rail usage leaders in 2010 could have negotiated assurances into the rezoning agreement guaranteeing it.

Most who opposed the 2010 rezoning understood rail was unlikely and that using it as justification for the re-zoning was lip service. (This was mentioned many times in public comments by those opposed, unfortunately as most followed closely understood the decision was already made.) Bottom line is pressure for these warehouses locally was always e-commerce and other types that exclusively use tractor trailers.  So justification that properties had rail access made no sense and was in my opinion very much misleading.

To date there are ZERO rail sidings that will be built on “Jaindl” warehouses off Spring Creek Rd. In fact there isn’t a warehouse with current rail access in the entire township. There is one siding “ghosted” onto one new plan. But, there is a low likelihood it’s ever built. 

Lastly, and ironically a material distributed at a very high percentage by rail is quarry rip rap. So essentially, Commissioners in 2010 took a proposed use (a quarry) where a significant portion of the output (rocks and materials) would generate a high likelihood of rail usage and they negotiated a different land use with literally zero likelihood of using rail.

Yes, a quarry has a numbers of negatives obviously. But traffic standpoint only, Commissioners in 2010 actually negotiated a far more traffic intense outcome.

 

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.

 

How do we safely move freight in Lower Macungie/Greater Lehigh Valley?

Posted on by

For better or worse we’re now in the business of moving freight in Lower Macungie Twp. Much of our former agriculture land (which was at one time very high ROI, low impact and great for property values) is now or about to become warehouses. (very low ROI and extremely high impact terrible neighbors)

Moving freight is now a huge part of our local and regional economy. Because of that, local governments have to address the issue.

How do we achieve balance between the needs to move freight and safety/quality of life?

How do we achieve balance between the needs to move freight and safety/quality of life?

In Upper Macungie distribution warehouses probably always made sense due to a location directly adjacent to I-78 with direct highway access to all points N, S, E & W. In Upper Macungie they have the ability to separate the trucks from residential portion of the township. Here in Lower Macungie we are much further from interchanges. Therefore, trucks coming in and out of the township to and from the warehouses are frequently ending up on local residential roads. Day and night trucks rumble through Macungie and Alburtis intermingling with pedestrians and residential neighborhoods. In Lower Macungie we see them on local roads such as East Texas Rd, Spring Creek Rd, Sauerkraut Ln, Willow Ln ect.

In the next 10 years the amount of warehouses will double. The biggest of these mega warehouses are forecasted to generate up to 40 trucks an hour 7 days a week and 24 hours a day. The problem will only get worse.

We need answers. Moving forward how do we balance the needs of a safe, livable community with the need to efficiently move freight? I’m not sure there is a blueprint. Are there any other examples of areas that have gone this far overboard with distribution warehouses? 

Continue reading →

Letter to Planning Commission 8/13 – Jaindl

Posted on by

Below is the letter I wrote to Sara Pandl our township planner and the Chair of the Planning Commission yesterday. The Spring Creek Subdivision is on tonight’s agenda. The meeting is 7pm in the township building. There are unresolved issues with the project and plenty of opportunities for the public to weigh in. Tonight is one of those opportunities. My letter focuses on defining the form/function of the landscaped berms which were a part of “Plan B”

It’s critical “watchdogs” continue to monitor this project as it progresses through the planning process. I strongly encourage anyone interested to attend tonight’s meeting. I’m guessing Jaindl will be discussed no earlier then 730pm.

Here is my letter:

Planning Commission,
Some thoughts on Jaindl prelim/final subdivision on tomorrows agenda. I really wanted to be at this meeting but I’ll be away at a conference.
Sara indicated a note about the bermed buffer areas in her letter. I believe it’s critical to define the size/scale/context/look of these berms very early in the process. We should really be pushing every step of the way for above and beyond buffering.

Below is a side by side comparison I made of two examples of landscape banking on warehouse projects. The “beefy” example is located in Quakertown. The other LMT. Our goal should be to exceed both.

Side by side warehouse landscaping

Defining the tone of this early in the process is important. Mr. Jaindl promised the community the cadillac of warehouse projects and planners have an obligation to push him to deliver. He remains and has been open to constructive criticism.
In addition to physical form, I think it’s also important to define what these berms are supposed to accomplish. In my opinion that goes above and beyond the obvious visual screening but also containing noise pollution. I’ve read multiple studies that conclude berms reduce noise by approximately 3 dB more than vertical walls of the same height. Most quarries have extensive earthen buffering. It’s my opinion distribution warehouses should be treated the same way since their impact on a community is comparable.

Those who live near warehouses in the Alburtis area cite the noise of tractor trailers backing up (beeping) as the one of the negative by-products of warehousing. 
Thank you
Ron Beitler

 

Mr. Jaindl explains plan ‘B’ at a public meeting.