Close your eyes for a moment and just think about these two words - "open space." What comes to mind? Pristine woodlands bisected by babbling brooks? Fecund farmlands filled with growing winter wheat, the greenest stuff you ever saw? A bicycle path rambling alongside a lazy summer river? I can see them myself. That's what we all see when we think about open space. What's not to like?How about swimming pool repairs? Believe it or not, those are specifically included in Northampton County's Open Space Guidelines, first adopted in 2005. Open space money may be used to "rehabilitate existing municipally owned park and recreation facilities that are in need of improvement."
At the last meeting of Northampton County Council on May 21, Palmer Township was unanimously awarded $243,308 for repairs to its community pool, which consists of sandblasting, patching drain renovations, ceramic tile work, piping, etc. Williams Township was given $75,000 to replace climbing and play structures for the kiddies at Raubsville Park.
Both of these grants are for a good cause. Both comply with the 2005 guidelines. But I've still got three problems.
First, do these really seem like "open space" projects to you? Second, the larger townships seem to find out about these grants while struggling municipalities lack the manpower to play the grants game. Third, there is nothing in the grants process that gives a preference to municipalities suffering financial hardship. Williams and Palmer Townships, who can take care of themselves, get grant money financed in part by Easton taxpayers. Easton, which probably needs pool repairs and new playground equipment everywhere, is getting nothing.
28 comments:
On this one I agree with you. That is bullshit vote grabbing grants. With all the problems the County has and will definitely have in the future funding basic County services, this is simply bullshit.
How is it Angle didn't fight? Fishing for votes himself I guess.
These are great quality of life projects in two great townships. Charlie Dertinger is fighting to make sure all of our communities feel they have a stake in Norco's continued aggressive open space and farmland program. This program was going nowhere fast before Charlie came on the scence. Also, credit goes to Tim Merwarth and Nick Sabatine - both of whom were outspoken proponents of preserving open space and farmland, but neitehr had the political power to overcome Ron Angle. Way to go Charlie - top vote getter !
It's why open space opponents knew it would be ultimately abused.
This is another example of why I am happy I live in Lehigh County. While on its face it complies with the guidelines, these grants should never have been awarded under this program.
The Banker
Anon 7:21, Instead of telling me why Dertinger is so great, why not answer these questions:
1) Are swimming pool repairs what some to your mind when you think open space?
2) Why is it that these grants seem to go to the larger municipalities?
3) If swimming pool grants and monkey bars are open space, then why not give the money to communities with greater financial hardship, like Easton?
There are several areas where Northampton County guidelines for giving out grants and money to non-profits need to be strenghtened.
This is one of them.
The entire concept of "Open Space" funding is ridiculous in the first place so I'm all for this funding being used for something with purpose.
And I'm a liberal. I just favor the free use of property.
How is Palmer and Williams "larger" municipalities than Easton. Think.
Palmer and Williams have full-time staff who can take the time to make grant applications. Smaller municipalities like Chapman and Freemansburg are not on an equal footing.
My reference to Easton is on another point.
Exactly. Thats why we should not be funding pools for municipalities of 234 people. (Chapman)
Bernie,
Although swimming pools may be considered a portion of parks, I personally do not believe they constitute open space.
Generally open space is defined as a piece of land which is set aside to be protected from development. A national or state park is a great example.
However, this definition is not shared by all. Open space can be defined simply as public space as well. In this instance, a swimming pool would qualify as open space, regardless of whether it is part of a larger park program.
I totally agree with your point about the better staffed municipalities. However, it is the duty of the municipalities to apply for grants. I do believe it is a shame that some parks, like West Side in Bethlehem for example, are neglected while others like Hanover and Bicentennial are maintained as if they are country clubs.
Lastly, it is the duty of the people who give these grants to decide to use them in the most needed areas. Also, if they are aware there is a park in need of funding, they should consider providing a grant specific for that park.
Actually, Easton already was awarded grant money from this program for the Bushkill trail project. They could have spent it on municipal parks but chose not to.
This illustrates that open space is exactly what opponents promised. It's just another goody bag program for low life politicians (like Chucky Dertbag) to use for campaign purposes. Open space proponents really still do believe in Santa Claus.
A comparison with Lehigh County's program might be worthwhile. It has a process for approval of projects, a formula to determine how much money might be awarded, and a requirement that there be a substantial non-county match.
All grants are approved by the commissioners. Amounts awarded are determined by established criteria, so the distribution of funding to all municipalities is fair.
However, Banker, pools might still be eligible for $$.
Dertinger had nothing to do with open space. Now that the Union alliances are souring his re-election he's jumping on the bandwagon acting like he had something to do with Open Space. Retard.
To be perfectly honest, Charles Dertinger attended one meeting of the Green Future Fund/ Northampton County Open Space Committee. He may have done good things on County Council for open space, but he had essentially nothing to do with the effort to raise the funds.
As the Northampton County Co-Chair of the effort to raise $67 million for open space, I can tell you without hesitation that pool repairs were the sort of nonsense projects that we unanimously opposed as we were building this program in the county.
We promised voters that the funds would be designated as follows: protection of environmentally significant, sensitive, and threatened areas as identified by the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission; farmland preservation; acquisition and minimal development (access, trails, etc.) of open space in cities such as the greenway in Bethlehem, and upgrades to existing parks in our built-out older boroughs where open space was not an option.
Helping the suburbs with their pools was the farthest thing from our minds, and isn't why voters approved these funds. This is bait and switch and the voters and taxpayers should be outraged.
Karen,
While it is encouraging to hear you do not support these kind of nonsense projects, I am curious if you could provide some insight on how these projects are being funded without the intent of the legislators who helped create this open space initiative.
First of all, are these upgrades being funded because the county wanted to help with city parks and pools and was forced to include other municipalities?
Secondly, is it fair to use county money to work on these projects regardless of where it is? To be frank, it seems like some boroughs will be excluded or favored no matter what, which is completely unjust to some taxpayers.
Isn't spending millions so you can drive by a cornfield on the way to your suburban home the very definition of "nonsense projects?"
It is patently absurd that we have this overarching desire to hold on to the past. We must preserve corn fields so they we can drive by them occasionally. There are millions of acres of open space all around you. To save a cornfield between Bethlehem and Nazareth just so you can see it as you whizz by in your belching SUV is utterly ridiculous.
Progress happens. Now you understand why some citizens are viewed as backward thinkers in the LV.
Anon 9:59,
I believe the open space initiative is a more widely sweeping measure that affects more than cornfields. Preserving small forests and open fields is important so that the surrounding citizens are not choked by the overwhelming sense of suburbia that is constantly increasing in the Valley.
Joe -
Have you ever driven 10 minutes in any direction? There is plenty of open space all around us that will NEVER be developed. And if it is by some chance, there is yet more open space beyond that.
The entire notion is absurd and just allows people to feel they live in the country when THEY DO NOT.
William Penn urged that one acre in five be kept undeveloped. We could build for hundreds of years and not get close. There is plenty of open space.
Anyone that has driven across Route 80 knows how much open space their is in our state. I personally do not require a certain amount of scenery outside my car window. My back yard will do, thank you. Now use our money for the needy or give it back.
The questions posed by Joe and Anon 9:59 deserve answers.
The Northampton County Open Space Initiative was designed by a team of citizens -- Tim Merwarth and Nick Sabatine (Sabatine was largely absent) were our only elected officials although Ron Angle attended every meeting -- and although we are all alive, we are rolling in our graves over how this money is now being spent.
Concerns about corruption and justice in distribution of the funds were handled with a grants application and allocation plan that assured that all qualifying municipalities had a chance to receive funds for worthy projects. Swimming pool repairs, or the construction of soccer fields, were the types of projects that would not receive "grant points" on the application we approved.
As for Anon's argument that preserving farmland is simply an emotional tool that hypnotizes us as we drive by a farm into believing that we don't actually live in suburbia, the grant application system considered only farms that were large and preferably adjacent to other tracts of open space, enhancing the ability of wildlife to travel through strips of woodland and fields. Their closeness to roads used for pleasure outings was not considered.
Permit me some further responses to Anon's ideas: Food comes from farms, and those farms can be in Pennsylvania or Peru. The Lehigh Valley is waking up to the advantages of buying local food. Weiss, Wegman's, and Giant all focus on locally grown produce. Those fields are more than eye candy. Try a local tomato, an ear of corn, or a peach grown in Northampton County, if you haven't already: it's a world of difference.
Anon, you tell me farming is the past; we should accept progress. I love progress, and I believe that the protection of farm fields, instead of mindlessly turning them into condos while excellent housing stock is available in the boroughs, towns, and cities, is a good example of human progress: Fields are for growing food, and the cities, towns, and boroughs are for living. That's how humans have progressed for millennia. Which do you prefer? The great cities and enchanting villages of the world or any suburban enclave anywhere, particularly in this state?
Progressive Pennsylvanians are starting to catch on.
Karen,
Thanks so much for coming on here and dealing personally with the voters. You answered my questions fully, and I'm satisfied. You've got my vote next election barring any unforeseen events.
Karen Dolan - My argument is this. A tomato from Centre County taste just as good as one from Northampton county. What tastes even better is a tomato grown in my own back yard. I have absolutely nothing against farming - that was a straw man constructed by you. My posts have been perfectly clear. There is acreage as far as the eye can see OUTSIDE the Lehigh Valley. Because the valley is vibrant and developing is not a clarion call to save the farms. It's quite the opposite.
The resistance to development whether you think worthy or not is no reason to collect taxes and buy up empty land. Instead, we should develop smartly and reap the rewards to tax revenue instead of tax expense.
Let me rewrite that last paragraph. I had some crossed wires there. :)
--
The resistance to development (whether you think worthy or not) is not a reason to collect taxes and buy up empty land. Instead, we should develop smartly and reap the rewards of tax revenues instead of tax expenses.
Let me add too that if there was an ample stock of housing, there would be no demand for new development. What you call an adequate stock, many call antiquated and out of date houses surrounded by concrete. And yes, it is absolutely about urban citizens who feel the need to have corn fields surrounding them not for food but to preserve what once was.
Anon,
Sorry if I inferred that you had something against farming. Obviously, that's not the case. You do have something against using tax dollars to preserve farms in vibrant and developing areas, such as the Lehigh Valley.
(Does it matter if those tax dollars were approved by a county-wide referendum, which they were.)
You think "we should develop smartly and reap the rewards to tax revenue instead of tax expense."
I would agree except I've read dozens of studies that prove the ability of open space to increase tax revenues. Preserved open space increases property values of lots located as far away as 20 miles. People like it, and they are willing to pay more for houses that are near it, and even more for homes that are adjacent to it.
Plus it reduces traffic and tax strains on municipalities and school boards: open space doesn't require much, if any, police protection, and very few children are conceived (some, but very few) on open space. In the long run, it's a cheap and wise investment for governments of all sizes.
Regarding your statements about channeling growth toward the cities, boroughs, and towns, my argument is to promote development toward existing infrastructure because infrastructure is far cheaper to maintain than build new.
As to your last re-written paragraph (I SO respect you for aiming high in your argument and in your writing. And you succeed.), the suburban paradigm of living in a new home, far from amenities, relying on your car to access nearly all places of business, is a paradigm many humans adopted about 50-60 years ago; for tens of thousands of years before, few humans lived far from each other or from work and business. I think this new paradigm is impractical and is, in part, responsible for many of society's current ills.
I don't know where you live, but you should see how green, pleasant, and affordable most of Bethlehem's neighborhoods are. We have work to do, but Bethlehem -- along with many neighborhoods in the county's cities, boroughs, and towns -- are wonderful places to live, not at all like the concrete jungles with antiquated homes you describe.
My family and I live on an acre and a half along Monocacy Creek; our neighborhood is filled with trees, and we are not rich, not at all. I live in hope that the present and future are as pleasant and healthy as anybody's memory of the "good old days."
Suburban sprawl is not the answer.
Thanks for posting an opinion. I love the healthy discourse on this blog. Thanks, Bernie!
1. I don't believe this is about "preserving farms" but preserving nostalgia. The county does not buy land to farm it, do they? Yes, it certainly matters that the voters voted for this initiative. I think voters are often wrong on referendums and the popular choice is often not the wisest one. (See California)
2. The role of government is not to increase property values for private citizens. Nor is it to infringe on the property rights of others. The argument usually digresses to this and dovetails nicely with my opinion that these initiatives are nothing more than guilt and nostalgia and desperately trying to stifle progress.
3. I agree. That's why we should welcome development around the Rt 33/Rt 22 interchange, the new route 78. We should do it smartly though and not allow monstrosities like what happened at Rt 512 and Hanoverville Road.
4. The suburban sprawl debate would be a completely other thread. Suffice it to say that that ship has sailed. Citizens WANT to live in suburban landscapes. They want to live places with less noise, less traffic with larger plots. The beauty of the Lehigh Valley is that we have both AND we have ample parkland. (Actually Allentown is a shining example of using open space effectively.)
Post a Comment