About Me

My photo
Nazareth, Pa., United States

Thursday, October 01, 2009

Bethlehem Township Nixes Treatment Center ... and Cameras, Too!


Chalk one up for the NIMBYs.

Last night's meeting of the Bethlehem Township Zoning Hearing Board was certainly no surprise. Once again, they've rejected an Abe Atiyeh request for a 300-bed county treatment and work release center, located nearly a mile from the nearest home. That's a real shocker from a municipality that refused to contribute a dime towards homeless shelters. The only Bethlehem Township zoner to support this proposal was Robert Furst, who also supported it in Round One.

Last night's hearing was supposed to include testimony about traffic concerns raised by neighbor Meals on Wheels, but they were mollified by concessions made by developer Abe Atiyeh, and withdrew their objections. Incredibly, ZHB Chair Stephen Szy still nevertheless raised those concerns in voting against the treatment center.

Before they started deliberating, Solicitor Larry Fox warned zoners that there were disgusting bloggers and reporters in the room, who might actually film them. "You shouldn't be distracted by that form of media retention." In other words, don't let those bastards film you as you blow this call.

I had to turn my flipcam off. I considered defying them, but I seem to be on bad terms with law enforcement personnel lately and forgot my toothbrush and rubber underwear. You can see Chairman Szy magically conclude they've unanimously decided to shut the cameras down, even though no vote was taken.

Naturally, Abe Atiyeh is going to sue everyone. He's not called the Rajah of Rezoning for nothing. In addition to reversing the kangaroo court known as the Bethlehem Township ZHB, he's going to spite everyone, build a full-fledged prison in Bethlehem Township, and give the inmates their own keys. He's going to sue zoners individually for "abuse of power." He's drawing up a complaint against zoner Jennifer Sletvold for wearing designer glasses, although she insists they're off the rack. Last, he's going to sue Solicitor Larry Fox for managing to use the most words anyone has ever heard to say absolutely nothing. He'll win that last one.

The only real question right now is how long it will take Northampton County Court to reverse Bethlehem Topwnship zoners.

It's coming.
Update: From his perch atop Valley 610, Morning Call reporter Michael Duck now wishes he had brought his camera. Would he have thumbed his nose at the zoning gods? "I'm not sure why the board should be so scared about Internet users in Australia finding out what they're doing; it's not as though the baby-dances-to-BeyoncĂ© clip is ever going to be knocked off its viral video pedestal by a recording of board deliberations. Recordings can only make reporters' accounts more accurate and help the public — maybe even the public in Australia! — learn what public officials are doing with public money, public laws and public policy."

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another win for the people. I guess Stoffa will have to come up with another campaign payoff to Atiyeh for all those huge Stoffa signs he erected. All the work and signs Stoffa never declared on his expense form. I hear the ethics commission had that one sent to them.

Of course Atiyeh will sue this sweetheart money deal he,Stoffa and the treatment crew worked out will be a loss of money to him.

Fortunately Bethlehem Twp., has officials who are not duped by this "harmless", prison nonsense. Thank you for not being in the bag for Stoffa and his corrupt practices and his croonies.

Bernie O'Hare said...

This ruling will be reversed. The only question is how long it will take.

Anonymous said...

Bernie,
How is Beth. Township allowed to forbid cameras?

Anonymous said...

In your last blog on this issue it was pointed out that Atiyeh does not own this land. Doesn't that make the "hardship" rule considered in such zoning variances moot? Please advise.

Anonymous said...

The PA sunshine act precludes them from prohibiting cameras. You are expressly allowed to record the meeting. Question is, did the prohibition void the vote under the Sunshine Act.

Anonymous said...

65 Pa. CSA 701, et. seq. And Section 711 in particular.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Anon 7:14, This is a special exception, not a variance. oreover, Atiyeh does have an interest in the land, having it under option.

LVCI said...

Cameras??? Was this or was this not a 'Public Meeting'?

So we're saying newspapers received favor since print media works from notes. No TV media clips allowed. What The.....!!!

If government wishes to do their work with a black out, those in attendance can put whatever spin they want on it. VIDEO is the 1st hand accounting witness to the truth. One which we all may judge for ourselves unbiased by the spin of news or blog sources. If I were they, I'd far prefer video over a 2nd party's take on what transpired. I know they want to avoid BS, but by blacking out 1st hand knowledge all we will hear will come 2nd hand sources.

So were the 'minutes' of the meeting also squelched?

Everyone talks about 'open government' at election time, but in the end it's the deeds done that speaks volumes in which words can never expunge.

Bernie O'Hare said...

NLV Logic & 7:05, The Sunshine Act has no application to ZHB deliberations. That is one time in which a municipal blody can shut the people out. Here, they dliberated publicly, but shut out the cameras. If I had a claim under the law, I would have defie them, even if it resulted in a body cavity search from deputies.

Anonymous said...

Bernie,
If you have a minute, why not call PA Press Association in Harrisburg.

Bernie O'Hare said...

LVCI, As I mention above, a ZHB may deliberate privately. In this case, they deliberated public, but were within their rights to ban cameras. But as you point out, it is a stupid decision that was actually urged on them by a meddlesome lawyer.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"If you have a minute, why not call PA Press Association in Harrisburg."

Actually, I recall reading cases that expressly state ZHB deliberations are private. And even the Pa. Newspaper Ass'n takes the position that a ZHB may deliberate privately.

If I felt I had a legal right to film them, they would have had to call the cops.

Anonymous said...

Bernie:

I understand the ZHB deliberated publicly. Had they recessed for an executive session to deliberate in private, presumptively to hear advice of their solicitor, or use their quasi-judicial deliberative privledge thats one thing. Because they were not in executive session cameras must be allowed. At least thats my reading. Besides, I thought you liked cavity searches!

Bernie O'Hare said...

Good point!

Anonymous said...

bernie, I'm not versed in all the sunshine rules, but I know that every deliberation that I've done on Allentown's zhb has been done publicly and open to cameras, etc. our practice is never to go into executive session, the only place, I believe, that the meeting can be closed. I think you would have been within your right to defy the order and dare them to go into executive session.

geoff

Bernie O'Hare said...

And you would have laughed your ass off as I sat in the can. I know what you're up to.

Anonymous said...

Geoff

How do you feel about the Mayor's office, which frequently sends letters to the Allentown ZHB in leiu of appearing as objectors in contest matters? Those exparte and/or hearsay letters shouldnt reach the ZHB, but most frequently do. Once there, the cats out of the bag. Even if the letters are not admitted by objection, I find it a very poor practice by the City. That practice should be curtailed, methinks anyway, for whats thats worth:-)

Anonymous said...

Bethlehem Township is a tacky aluminun sided imitation colonial little pink houses swamp that attracts mediocrity.....no sense of community.....

Bernie O'Hare said...

Hey, I like pink houses.

Anonymous said...

My personal thought bernie is to treat it as if somebody came and testified to their objections or support. Sometimes when people object they do so with perfectly reasonable concerns in mind but over something that is not related to the zoning questions at hand and I see the letters that come forward in the same light... it is a person's account, written, that is entered into the record, subject to cross examination by anybody who is party to the case. I ask the person seeking the variance if they have a response to the letter and most of the lawyers just allow the letter to speak for themselves. If there are objections in the letter that have bearing on the case (as in it helps to establish fact), I try to determine if there is debate over any facts contained in the letter. I find a mixed record in whether any of the facts presented in such letters even have bearing on the case. Some are objections that have nothing to do with the criteria to grant variance or special exception (examples: it's ugly--except where design standards exist--, I don't like the owner, there are too many businesses like that). Just as a jury is instructed to omit hearsay when it comes up, I do the same. And if I can't "unring the bell" of damning testimony, I'll excuse myself from the hearing and ask the chair to grant the applicant a new hearing with one of other members or alternates in my place.

For what it is worth, when residents submit letters in support or opposition, I treat them the exact same way. I don't care who it is that sent them (elected official or citizen), my job is to establish facts and then render a decision based on the options available under the city zoning ordinance and the Municipality Planning Code. It's common practice in communities across the state to accept lettes under advisement and to my knowledge, there is nothing in state laws or caselaw to prohibit such practice. This is where I admit that I'm not a lawyer, have some limited legal training and base my practices on the materials provided by the Center for Local Government Services and caselaw that I researched while in grad school and working for Bob Freeman.

I guess if I have an inherent bias, I do give more weight to the testimony of somebody who has made the effort to attend a 2 hour meeting that is extremely boring, sit through the process of presentations and questions and then agree to be sworn in.

Until I hear differently from the chairman, solicitor or a court of appeals, that's how I'll act, which I think is fair. It may not be the same practices of a court room, but that's why zhb's are quasi-judicial I guess.

Geoff

William Penn said...

They want the cameras off because they're embarassed. It's so obvious the motivation. NIMBY...Let Easton do all the dirty work. Shame.

Chris Casey said...

Larry Fox has written some very entertaining books. Check him out on Amazon! Maybe he is planning a book on ZHB's!

Anonymous said...

Dream on, 1:38

Anonymous said...

First of all - who cares. The prison is a bad idea to begin with especially in this economy. Too much is put into social liberal ideology on rehabilitation. These prisoners need to be punished and prison made to be somewhere no one ever wants to step foot in. Good for the ZHB. Its good to see a community stand up to the County and a enterprising developer. Second - who cares about cameras and video. The plan got denied and thats the end of it. What will really stink is a Northampton County judge overturning the hard work this zoning board did.

Anonymous said...

They abided by the law that Atiyeh as usual tried to end run. He finally ran into a Board not afraid of his tactics.

This was a stupid plan from the beginning but of course what would you expect from the Sofa Administration.

Anonymous said...

Bernie,

If i'm from easton can i speak at this public meeting?

Bernie O'Hare said...

Only parties and their witnesses were supposed to be able to speak. They allowed someone from the township to address them, and i don't know whether he was a party. I doubt very much they would let anyoe from Easton speak.

Anonymous said...

WaW, I'm from Easton and this is NIMBY!!! WAH!!!

Hell if the County left, the employees leave, the lawyers leave. You get the land back and since you can't sell what is vacant now you end up a double loser.

This is and was always a dumb plan wraped in Stoffa pretend populism.
Easton needs the County and the County should work with Easton.

noel jones said...

William Penn is right. They didn't want to be recorded making a really selfish and irresponsible decision. Easton, and in particular, the neighborhood of the West Ward which hosts the County jail, has carried far too much of the crime burden in the Lehigh Valley for way too long, and it is insulting and self-serving to reject taking some of the responsibility for a more progressive solution to the Valley's addiction and crime problems. On the Morning Call interactive map, anyone can see that there is at least as much crime if not more in Allentown or Bethlehem than there is in Easton, and yet with the ever-expanding jail in the middle of the most densely populated neighborhood in our City, Bethlehem continues to whine about hosting a treatment facility for those trying to turn their lives around, on the outskirts of an industrial park. They rejected cameras out of shame, because they know what they are doing is morally reprehensible, and having clearly already made their decision beforehand, I can't say as I blame them for being ashamed of themselves. But I do blame them for their decision. It's time for Northampton County to set them straight.

Anonymous said...

Yo Noel, read your comments they make no sense. On one hand you call the center progressive and the people just good folks wanting to turn their lives around. Then you also say west Easton has borne the problems of the Prison and work release, what problems?

Either it is a dangerous evil thing and Bethlehem Township should be frightened or it is a wonerful progressive thing and no problem in Easton.

You goo-goo government types are always about do as I say not as I do.

People aren't buying the crap anymore. sell it back to Stoffa.

Phil Carnnes

Bernie O'Hare said...

Phil,

You've got a little problem and that's the Pa. Zoning law. You can't stop it. It's coming. So you know, the county would put it in Easton if it could. There's no room. There is room in Bethlehem Tp and the zoning is right. Believe it or not, many of the residents there will be from beth Tp.

Anonymous said...

Phil, there is plenty of room. ohare deleted my first statement so you couldn't see the truth. Maybe this one wil last a little longer so you will see.

With the right planning the work release could be part of a new prsion complex on site.

Of course that takes insightful, intelligent planning and working with Easton, something we have yet to see from this administration.

Anonymous said...

Agreed, this is a BS proposal that only serves to pay off campaign contributors.

Bernie O'Hare said...

I will delete and have dleted anonymous personal attacks. The anony claim at 8:32 is a knowing lie. Stoffa had NO campaign contributors. His campaign was self-funded. He owes no one. Yet this lie is posted.