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.