 |
| Steve Salvesen, 28 years of service to Hanover Tp |
After the robust dialogue before Bethlehem Township Commissioners' unanimous Neighborhood Improvement Zone (NIZ) vote on May 21, the May 22 meeting of Hanover Township Supervisors was almost anticlimactic. Sure, the meeting room was still packed, but half of the crowd was there for other matters. Two police officers were on hand to quell any possible disturbances, but everyone was polite.
Four trade union members sat patiently as Supervisors went through a few zoning matters. Sitting directly behind them were Paul Weiss and Tom Nolan, Bethlehem Township Commissioners. Often divided on Township issues, Weiss and Nolan have been united in their opposition to the NIZ.
 |
| Paul Weiss (L) and Tom Nolan (red) visit Hanover |
Hanover Township will continue to negotiate with actual parties to the NIZ litigation. That leaves Allentown out, as it is not technically a party.
Hanover, like Bethlehem Township, believes the NIZ enabling law must be amended to:
(a) Make it constitutional; andPreviously, Allentown has offered to make sure that money is returned through a "development fund" that would assess annual impact fees on NIZ developers. But Townships have balked at that proposal. A NIZ developer could challenge this impact fee as an end run around existing NIZ law. Surrounding municipalities would then be stuck with an unenforceable agreement.
(b) Remove all references to EIT and ensure they are not replaced with other sources of revenue generated by or from political subdivision sources outside of Allentown; and
(c) Reduce the size of the NIZ so it does not unfairly compete with non-NIZ venues.
The four Supervisors present expressed their agreement with this position statement. "It certainly is the consensus of this Board that the legislation is unconstitutional, and that the only way to fix it is to amend it," stated Supervisor Steve Salvesen, a 29-year member of the Board. Those sentiments were echoed by Supervisors Mark Tanczos, Jack Nagle and Walbert.
Chairman John Diacogiannis, unable to attend the May 22 meeting, nevertheless sent a statement. "I believe that no options exist to settle this issue except for amending the existing legislation to eliminate its impact on EIT or other local revenue sources outside of Allentown."
Filling in for Diacogiannis, Walbert stated they "gave it a fair shot to see if there was some common ground to resolve this outside of litigation., and the conclusion is, there is not. Hopefully, this matter is handled in an expeditious manner in the courts and everyone can get on with what they need to do."
Will Allentown respond with a countersuit, seeking damages for the delay this lawsuit causes? The City has already filed a $150 million claim against developer Abe Atiyeh, in response to his own legal challenge to the NIZ. But according to most legal experts, Allentown has to win first.
After Hanover Supervisors revealed their stance, they were commended by resident George Werkheiser.
"I think it's a crime what they tried to pull under the table," Werkheiser said.
No Allentown representatives attended Hanover's meeting.
The Township's third demand is very interesting in that it recognizes what many in the anti-NIZ crowd have been saying all along. The NIZ is powerful enough to distort and damage the Lehigh Valley's real estate market which, in turn, will adversely affect the tax base of surrounding municipalities. So, this isn't only about the EIT.
ReplyDeleteI cannot understand why more school districts didn't get involved. They will have their funds reduced from loss of EIT, and state money that will now be funneled into the NIZ. A day doesn't go by now,as i read the papers, that school districts are cutting jobs and raising taxes. If the NIZ is upheld by the courts or the law is resurrected the will feel the pain and loss.
ReplyDeleteThey will have their funds reduced from loss of EIT
ReplyDeleteHow so?
Lehigh and Northampton County should just pass a sales tax increase to finance the stadium like they did in Allegheny County. This is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThe EIT is the 1% that is taken out of paychecks. Half of that money goes to the municipality and the other half goes to the local school district. Due to their size compared to each municipality the school districts have a lot more to lose. That it is why it is surprising they have all not jumped in.
ReplyDeleteLet the courts decide. The townships keep changing/sdding to their demands so it won't help modifing the law. They don't want any NIZ and it eventually has to have a court decision.
ReplyDeleteIf the EIT issue goes away they will fight to shrink the zone or something else.
Tax increases.
ReplyDeleteYeah, good plan.
How about this : You wanna $ 220.0 million dollar Palace of Sport that bad ...
... then YOU and the NIZ CHEERLEADERS all throw your money in a pot and YOU PAY FOR IT.
Just tell the Brooks Brothers to come up with their OWN MONEY for THEIR HOCKEY RINK.
Because I'm sick and tired of reading letters to the Editor crying and wailing about how the State has no money for education.
No money to feed poor, starving children before and after school.
No money for this Social Welfare Program, no money for that Social Welfare Program. Blah, blah, blah.
Alright. Fine.
But then this means there is NO MONEY for a $ 220.0 million dollar Palace of Sport?
At least that's how I see it ... And I have always been a very big fan of the wonderful sport of ice hockey :
http://www.goironpigs.com
But, NO, I just do not believe that Big Government should be involved in the risky business of financing sports arenas, anyway.
"You'd be hard pressed to show that it's worth the investment ... the numbers just don't add up."
Professor CHRISTOPHER BORICK quoted in The Morning Call, April 22, 2009 --- "Explain It To Me : WHY ARE WE FINANCING STADIUMS?"
"The city is going to sue the shit out of them for this"
ReplyDeleteanother famous quote from FUTURE DOWNTOWN ARENA ATTENDEE, the gift that keeps giving
Technically the city is not even a party to this lawsuit!!
ReplyDeleteZoid:
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, which makes the City of Allentown's lawsuit against Atiyeh even more ridiculous and actionable when considering the underlying law is de facto unconstitutional.
The Allentown side has officially lost. Geeting is now resorting to charges of racism.
ReplyDeleteIt is amusing watching a radical left liberal foam at the mouth like a petulant 3yr old when he doesn't get his way.
I saw that. Ironically, he had no problem when one of the NIZ cheerleaders referred to the minority-owned businesses along Hamilton Street as a "cancer." All along, this has been a classist gentrification.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDHPqk2UelU&feature=fvwrel
ReplyDeleteSend in the Clowns. And by that I mean lawyers to the Commonwealth Court.
"THE RACIAL POLITICS OF THE NIZ DEBATE"
ReplyDeleteby Jon Geeting
-----------------------
Like I said yesterday, "NIZ Cheerleaders with a Democrat Playbook"!
Talk about blatant instigation and intentionally ordering players over the boards to escalate the brawl ...
Did you know that RACISM is why ...
ReplyDelete"there is so much clamor to put the arena at the IronPigs location where there is direct highway access and no brown people"?
I sure as hell didn't.
WOW!
I think it's kinda funny that they are fighting over a relatively small amount of money coming from a very inefficient tax. I have always been amazed that we have this EIT instead of just an extra 1% of income tax paid to the State and distributed down from the state level in the form of block grants. There would be more money available as the cost of collection would be essentially zero where now we have Berkheimer & Assoc. making a nice living collecting these taxes.
ReplyDeleteThe easy way to resolve this issue is to change the law, but not in the way that people seem to be focused on. If the problem with the law is that it is not inclusive enough, expand it out to cover all metropolitan areas above a certain size. If the problem is the specificity, simply make the law an available option for places like Scranton, Philadelphia, etc.
By making the law MORE inclusive the law would then be constitutional. And without a constitutional challenge to the law, it doesn't matter what Hanover Township, Bethlehem Township, or any other municipality thinks?
Just a thought.
Publius
Publius,
ReplyDeleteWrong ..... the EIT Revenue belongs to the municipality the individual resides in.
Sorry!
Hello Publius II @ 1:33. I have been advocating for the change you suggest for a while now--state wide collection of a 1% income tax that could then be funneled back to the municipalities. I don't know, however, if this would solve the constitutional issue. The state would still have to make a change in the law that certain funding would be directed toward Allentown in a way that would be inconsistent with the larger tax scheme. The primary benefit, however, is that it becomes much clearer that the state legislation only concerns state financing laws and not local laws such as are contemplate by Art. III, Sec. 32 of the pa. const.
ReplyDeleteChanging the EIT system would also be a massive legislative headache as so many other subsidiary laws refer back to it (like the NIZ for instance) it would take months to years to get it all sorted out. Not to mention that if Philly lost it's special Sterling Act protections this thing would be deader than a doornail.
@ 2:09. The EIT belong to whomever the general assembly says it belongs. End of consitutional story.
ReplyDeleteThe easiest way to resolve this issue is to have the BROOKS BROTHERS just go ahead and come up with OWN MONEY.
ReplyDeleteIf the magnificent $ 220.0 million dollar PALACE OF SPORT is such a "can't fail" proposition as advertised by the NIZ Cheerleaders such as Future Downtown Arena Attendee, then investors will be line-up around the block waiting to jump on board!
Right?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
ANON 2:09 PM,
ReplyDeletePublius here. The only reason the EIT "belongs" to the township one resides in is because of state law, and state law can be modified to meet the current environment and goals of the state government. That is exactly why we have the EIT to begin with.
My two points are fairly simple:
1. The EIT is a really stupid way to collect and distribute tax revenues. The current system is inefficient and has resulted in a poor allocation of tax revenues.
2. The constitutional argument against the NIZ in Allentown is that the specific provision in the 2009 law was designed to give a benefit to one specific municipality - Allentown. If the law is modified to become more inclusive that possible constitutional challenge is null and void.
If you have an argument beyond "it's my money and you can't have it" I would be very interested in hearing it. More likely you are Jay Finnegan or Steve Salverson and don't have a compelling argument beyond that. In the meantime the only people this is helping are Jim Broughal and his law firm who are fleecing the township taxpayers.
Publius
Publius,
ReplyDeleteSorry neither. Granted the law can be changed about only Allentown meeting the population requirement but taking another municipalities EIT is BS. What's next LST and Real Estate Tax. Give me an F'en break and for god sakes if you are going to try and blame someone for posting know how to spell their name Pubic!
951: just .... wow. Often wrong, never in doubt, I see.
ReplyDelete"2. The constitutional argument against the NIZ in Allentown is that the specific provision in the 2009 law was designed to give a benefit to one specific municipality - Allentown. If the law is modified to become more inclusive that possible constitutional challenge is null and void."
ReplyDeleteBingo. You get a pop tart. That's one of the changes HT and BT want.
I'd agree EIT is a dumb way to collect taxes, but that won't be changing any time soon.
Bernie @ 1:11am,
ReplyDeleteI know that is what they want, but I don't think they come to the same conclusions I do. If you expand the law to include other cities then, if I am understanding correctly, the EIT monies possibly staying with Allentown would still be valid. Which is what they are fighting over, right?
So either Hanover Township, Bethlehem Township, and their legal team do not understand that by getting the change they say they want the EIT revenues will stay in Allentown, or they really do not care about the revenues and are just being destructive.
I guess the other conclusion could be that Jim Broughal and Leo DeVito just figured they could take the townships for a ride and make some coin off of their fears, but ... well we all know they are not the sharpest legal minds in the valley, let alone the greater legal community.
Tank you for your time and consideration,
Publius
Publius,
ReplyDeleteYou give yourself a name, but the fact remains that you are anonymous. I respect that, but do not respect it when you hide behind that anonymity to launch a personal attack on the Bethlehem law firm of Broughal & DeVito. Let me clue you in because i know a little bit about the local lawyers.
I consider Jim Broughal the finest municipal lawyer I know. He is knowledgeable, very dedicated and serves his boards very well. In fact he's so good that I've advocated changing the Home Rule Charter to enable the County to select a law firm as its Solicitor. I believe that would be both cheaper and more efficient than the current system of part-time Solicitors.
My sole criticism of Broughal's firm is its penchant for campaign contributions. Most firms do that. I wish law firms would stop that practice.
Broughal is not a litigator, but DeVito is, so it's a very good and dangerous combination. They also have Jim Preston, one of the best zoning lawyers in the Lehigh Valley.
It is a very solid, medium-sized firm. I have no idea where you got your information, but you are dead wrong.
Also, the notion of taking the townships for a ride is ridiculous. Broughal has represented municipalities for decades, and does so because he does good work and acts with integrity. Unfortunately, like most of the NIZ cheerleaders, you are debasing yourself with needless attacks that say more about you than the objects of your venom.
As far as the substance of your argument goes, they want the law amended so that it is no longer a closed class and so that all references to local funding are removed. They also want the size of the NIZ reduced. Since NIZ advocates have argued that use of EIT is unnecessary and that the riverfront property is mostly undevelopable, townships are not asking for a lot.
Reasonable minds could come to agreement, but as this thing progresses, and the name-calling escalates, this will be impossible to settle.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to point out for the record that I was the first Publius and have the Google Account to prove it. Publius II does not necessarily speak for me esp. when s/he attacks the reputation of others in the community.
ReplyDeleteUnderstood. That did seem uncharacteristic.
ReplyDeleteActually Publius, I have been commenting here for a few years as Publius and could care less if you have a google account to "prove it." I prefer hushmail as it is based off- shore and away from the long arm of the government.
ReplyDeleteBernie, I know their long history in local government and I know their penchant for taking political contributions. Money is the root of the problems we have in government at all levels so, as far as I'm concerned, they are a part of the problem and not the solution.
I was not speaking a a proponent of or as someone against the NIZ. I was simply making the case that the law could be changed to expand the NIZ to other communities (as the townships would like) but not change the use of EIT monies. Regarding the size of the NIZ, I just do not see how they should even have a say in that matter.
As for Broughal and DeVito, these are the same guys who represented Abe Attiyh on the county work release facility while working towards becoming the solicitor for Bethlehem Township. They became the solicitor and continued to represent Attiyh, forcing the taxpayers of Bethlehem Township to pay another attorney to represent the township on that matter. I believe it was Joe Piperato who got that gig. Anyway, how much did that cost the taxpayers?
And I have seen Leo DeVito in action and have been less than impressed.
Publius