35 year olds have no business trying to make diving outfield catches in beer league softball. As a result of those shenanigans I now have a broken hand . . . 2 fractured metacarpals. Hand Doc appt. Thurs.
Blogging/social media will continue but with much shorter and more concise posts. (That might be a good thing?!)
Anyone know good dictation software?
Softball Fail
Resulting in this….
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.
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.
But wait, there’s more!. Continue reading
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:
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
Connect with Lower Macungie:
Official LMT Facebook Page
My Commissioner Page
Follow on Twitter
Sign up for LMT email alerts
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
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)
When I ran for office a promise I made was that I would do everything I could to let residents know important decisions were being made before they were made.
There is no doubt Hamilton Crossings is a huge issue. The township is being asked to defer 50% of future revenue over a 20 year period. The developer is seeking this money to pay back bonds needed to build the property.
On March 29th I outlined my thoughts as they stood on the issue. Here is a link to the op-ed. This was an effort by me to ensure residents were aware that no decision was made. Over the last 2 weeks I’ve gotten dozens of emails and phone calls. It’s my hope in the next week and a half we get many more.
Now is the time to weigh in. Whether you are for or against the project. for or against the TIF financing, for or against creation of the TIF district let us know!
How to voice your opinion?
My suggestion is to write and letter and also if possible attend the meeting. This way you will hear the discussion and be able to listen to your elected officials debate the issue. I hope to hear from more of you over the next week and a half.
Followup to last night’s meeting which was covered in detail here by WFMZ’s Randy Kraft who always does an excellent job covering LMT.
We spoke about Tractor Trailers and ice issues at length both during the public safety meeting and full board. This issue has been front and center in our area recently:
This winter has generated many similar but less serious incidents. Steven Crouse of Palmer Township avoided serious injury Dec. 16 when ice from a truck came through his windshield on Route 22. On Tuesday night, a driver reported a similar incident on Route 22 in Upper Macungie Township, resulting in minor damage to his car.
The goal is to have ice and snow scraped from the tops of tractor-trailers before they leave warehouses, because sheets of ice can fly off and slam into vehicles driving behind them, causing serious injury. Due to land use policies that have inundated our roads with tracter trailers we have to be proactive in dealing with safety issues. This is one of many.
Here is the action we took last night: We discussed briefly an ordinance but decided against it. This would be ineffective since we do not have a local police dept. to enforce local ordinances. Further no ordinance could retroactively require existing businesses to install ice scraper devices which I believe should be a goal. And lastly I prefer a strategy that doesn’t involve a regulation of an issue which really should be common sense.
So the second tact proposed was attempting to get local distribution warehouses to voluntarily install ice scrapers such as the units installed at Coca Cola facility in Fogelsville.
It was agreed unanimously to authorize staff to send a letter to all existing distribution warehouses that it is the townships formal stance that we strongly encourage distribution warehouses to voluntarily install ice scrapers and require trucks departing their facilities to utilize them.
Secondly as other warehouses (Jaindl Spring Creek) come through land development we will utilize the process to encourage new buildings to incorporate these structures into design. Unfortunately, the Jaindl MOU makes warehouses a ‘by-right’ use instead of a conditional use which would require a hearing where we could require scrapers. (yet another terrible aspect of the MOU) But still at this point we can appeal to landowners to take responsibility for their development.
The costs of these units pale in comparison to a lawsuit that would surely occur if a truck leaves these facilities and someone dies because of an ‘ice missile;. I would hope that managers at these facilities understand this really should be a no-brainer and even-though we aren’t requiring them to, that they voluntarily install ice scrapers. If they don’t and if it continues to pose a public safety issues the next step would be exploring a possible ordinance and/or supporting stricter state laws.
After last night’s snow emergency was declared Ben Galliardo our man of many hats, (referring to his multitude of job titles and responsibilities) took to the streets and flyered cars in LMT neighborhoods. This was a one time courtesy and another example of our fantastic staff here in Lower Mac going above and beyond.
At the Jan 6th meeting I was sympathetic to those who showed up whose cars were towed during the Jan 2-3 emergency. Mostly because of the 400 dollar bill they rec’d. One household with two cars faced an 800 bill. If I got a hit with a 400 dollar bill out of nowhere it would certainly sting. I felt the rate charged by the towing company was exorbitant.
Last week our township manager negotiated a lower fee with the private company who does the towing. (Remember, the township doesn’t make a penny off towing cars) The result is a more appropriate pricetag with a little less sting.
On both accounts I think the township responded appropriately. That being said, I do not think the township has a responsibility to go any further in terms of notification. To talk about robo calls or text message alerts is overkill.
There is an issue of personal responsibility here. It is not the government’s job to hold your hand every time it snows. If you see it’s snowing outside and you park your car on a public road you then have the responsibility to find out if a snow emergency is declared. That’s on you. It’s part of the responsibility of owning a car and parking it on public streets in the winter.
When you see it’s snowing you can: Turn on the TV or a radio, go to the township website, facebook, twitter… You can pick up the phone and call the township. Call a neighbor. Call the PSP. We will make the information available in every reasonable way possible but the responsibility in the end falls to the resident.
Yes, we had issues. Part of it was we haven’t towed regularly in the last couple years. Remember, the twp. doesn’t seek to tow. Recent towing was the result of residents in neighborhoods asking us to do so. We have an ordinance on the books and residents asked us enforce it.
Oftentimes governments over-correct. Elected officials want to help people. At least the good ones do. When people come in front of us we want to make situations right. I know I do. We just have to careful not to get caught up in an issue and must remain measured in response.
Conversations about spending 20k+ on a robo call system would be an example of overkill. Residents have to take some personal responsibility here. 99% of township residents seemingly have no problem doing so.
Did you know that here in LMT when waste management picks up your Christmas Tree it is taken to our yard waste center for recycling?
Why Recycle Christmas Trees: 33 million Christmas trees are sold in the U.S. every year. Compared to artificial trees, real Christmas trees are a renewable resource. 98 percent of trees are grown and harvested each year as a crop. 1000’s of locally owned and operated tree farms across the nation are supported. Real Christmas trees are carbon neutral and create biodegradable waste, making them the greener choice! It’s still important to keep Christmas trees out of landfills where they biodegrade slowly due to low oxygen levels. Here in LMT we’re doing our part by recycling trees into mulch/humus which is then available for pickup by residents at our yard waste recycling center.
Here is pickup schedule for Lower Macungie:
Remember: Trees will not be accepted if they are in plastic bags, bound with twine and/or have any ornamentation on them, including lights.
*Note: Christmas wreaths cannot be placed out with your tree or brought to the Yard Waste Center. Wreaths should be placed in with your trash.
