Mayor Edwin Pawlowski is learning the heard way that he's unable to push townships and boroughs around the way he does with his own City Council. They understand that their role is to serve their residents, not Allentown or two rich developers who contribute $20,000 to King Edwin in just one year.
Neither Hanover nor Bethlehem Township has scheduled an executive session this week to consider Allentown's re-hashed offer. Next week, during their regular meetings, both intend to take "official action."
That's code for a public vote.
Upset by Pawlowski's ham-handed tactics and the sense of entitlement expressed by NIZ supporters, I believe both Townships are going to stop smoking the peace pipe and let the courts decide.
Although their special law argument appears to be unassailable, courts are very reluctant to declare laws unconstitutional. They might be tempted to look for a way to decide the matter without reaching it on the merits.
One thing is increasingly clear.
Allentown can forget about a Phantoms hockey season next year at its yet-to-be-built arena.
What is going to happen is that this will end up going to the courts... this is the worst case scenario for the Plantiffs because if they do lose the city will counter sue... and counter sue in a huge amount that they will never be able to afford. When the court rules in favor of the state the Plaintiffs will be shaking in their boots. If the city is willing to counter sue Abe for $50-150 million the plaintiffs should be prepared to suffer much larger loses. I can imagine a $500 million counter lawsuit. This will devastate them... that initial $5-10K cost to join the lawsuit will look like the biggest mistake ever for them.
ReplyDeleteOooh there boots have fell off from shaking so much. Theft is theft, just because some legislation was drafted and some of the wording must be incoherant to all. What were they smoking when this was written I am sure the public would like to know.
DeleteWelfare people must submit piss test, and so should these type. The writers were probably smokin wet.
It's already in the courts. You don't get it. The surrounding municipalities ARE not going to be bullied by Pawlowski, and they certainly aren't going to be bullied by some anonymous blogger who is being paid to spew her disinformation.
ReplyDeleteAnd if Allentown counter sues, Mayor Ed and his supporters can kiss their already pathetic political careers good-bye. The unwashed masses already up in arms about this biased piece of legislation. The proper thing to do, would be to start back at the drawing board. But Mayor Ed doesn't have one shred of morals.
ReplyDeleteBernie, but they are gambling that they will prevail in the lawsuit... it is a huge gamble for them. I know that they believe that they are right... but that is not a for sure bet...if they lose the lawsuit it will cost them alot more than the initial investment that they made to join it. As for Pawlowski losing his political career, if the state wins he gains more traction as it proves that he was right.
ReplyDeleteFDAA, they are not gambling. The law is pretty clear. It's a winner on the merits, a special law for a closed class. The Governor's office actually agrees on this point. But anything can happen in a courtroom. That's why the Townships did attempt to negotiate a settlement. instead of good faith efforts, Pawlowski relied on idle threats, condescending letters and arm-twisting. His tactics don't work outside the limits of the city with no limits. Even if he wins, his political stock has been damaged outside of Allentown. Even in Allentown, someone needs to oppose him.
ReplyDeleteYou revel in the destruction of this project. You want to see the entire hockey project go down in flames to feed your sick ego. Your hatred is so deep. You are truely an unhinged person.
ReplyDeleteWell Bernie... lets see what to court says... if the state prevails then the townships and boroughs are wrong... if the state loses, then the law is wrong. However no matter what happens someone loses. If the Plaintiffs lose they will face a counter suit. If the city loses the plaintiffs still lose as their core city will continue to fall... if anyone is willing to say that the suburbs are there because of their own development and not because of the city of Allentown is very mistaken.
ReplyDeleteWhere on earth do you get the notion i want an arena to fail? I have never said that. Not once. I have several times listed scenarios under which i think a NIZ could be a good thing. but no, i don't like illegal legislation passed with no notice to anyone to benefit a few rich developers in Allentown's urban growth regime, Especially since it does NOTHING to address Allentown's real problems.
ReplyDeleteFDAA, You're nuts if you think that a court will entertain a lawsuit against someone for exercising his constitutional right to petition his government to redress grievances. Even in Pawlowskiville.
ReplyDeleteWe shall see Bernie... we shall see... for the future of the Plaintiffs I am sure they are hoping that the court wont entertain it... if they do the plaintiffs have to be nervous..... Even Abe who blows it off still goes to bed each knowing that he has a $50-150 lawsuit over his head... that is not a comfortable feeling no matter who they are.
ReplyDeleteWell, thank you for your concern or Abe Atiyeh and the townships.
ReplyDeleteBernie,
ReplyDeleteDon't the lawyers for the townships have real book learning? Maybe that information is lost to those who do Pawlowski's bidding for a living. Someone should explain it to them.
Scott Armstrong
Good Grief Bernie
ReplyDeleteDid you see the new TV Allentown arena commercials. What nerve.
Anonymous FutureDowntownArenaAttendee said...
ReplyDeleteWhat is going to happen is that this will end up going to the courts... this is the worst case scenario for the Plantiffs because if they do lose the city will counter sue... and counter sue in a huge amount that they will never be able to afford. When the court rules in favor of the state the Plaintiffs will be shaking in their boots. If the city is willing to counter sue Abe for $50-150 million the plaintiffs should be prepared to suffer much larger loses. I can imagine a $500 million counter lawsuit. This will devastate them... that initial $5-10K cost to join the lawsuit will look like the biggest mistake ever for them.
1:50 AM
And how long will this process take?
"Those unwashed masses." Those everyday Joes that go to work, care for their families, help with community fundraisers, and pay their taxes.
ReplyDeleteThe Townships' lawsuit is not frivolous in any way. The merits of their arguments are huge. They have an absolute right to protect their interests without any fear whatsoever of retribution from the City if they lose.
ReplyDeletePawlowski really fumbled this project. Sorry to use a football term, but he has completely lost all credibility. I'm sure either today, or in the near future, he'll make another stupid comment or offer.
ReplyDeleteHe just doesn't get it. The law is flawed and unconstitutional. I don't think PSATS would just join in as a favor. Their lawyers must see the unconstitutionality of the Act.
Even if the municipalities settle I'm sure the developers will be the next to file.
ReplyDeleteThey have their own Philadelphia lawyer, literally.
It's an easy and necessary gamble by the municipalities. Few of the township and borough votes to sue have been close. Only $5K for Bangor to fight the possibility of similar grabs for years to come? Money well spent and not much of a gamble. Counter suit? Really? Against your regional "partners" and potential arena visitors?
ReplyDeleteAnd these assholes wonder what's wrong with their plan? Enjoy yer hole. It's never going to be filled.
FDAA exhibits the City's reliance on scare tactics to get what they want. Any wonder why one of the recently fined businesses in the NIZ won't reveal their identity in a recent Call article? People have learned that this administration is vindictive.
ReplyDeleteThis whole mess is Browne and Pawlowski's fault. To blame the township's now is ridiculous. It is a terrible, dismal failure of leadership, and a complete lack of ethics and common sense.
Ask yourselves: Would a bank have issued a $250M loan to the city for this project? Was its premise strong enough to risk funding?
ReplyDeleteThis whole mess is Browne and Pawlowski's fault. To blame the township's now is ridiculous. It is a terrible, dismal failure of leadership, and a complete lack of ethics and common sense.
ReplyDelete7:01 AM
ditto
"And how long will this process take?"
ReplyDeleteThe state defendants might have lost the opportunity to fast track this matter, as they themselves sought a 30-day continuance to respond.
I imagine this is mostly a question of law, so it should be a few months. But I'd like to establish just how that law was drafted and for whose benefit.I'd want Reilly to explain what his lawyer had to do with drafting this legislation. I'm not sure whether privilege would apply to that.
"Did you see the new TV Allentown arena commercials. What nerve."
ReplyDeleteI did not. Don't watch TV.
" FutureDowntownArenaAttendee
ReplyDeleteI can imagine a $500 million counter lawsuit. This will devastate them... that initial $5-10K cost to join the lawsuit will look like the biggest mistake ever for them."
Ignorant lying shill and attempting to be a bully too.
Criminals and their minions are attempting to rule the domain.
The peasants are revolting.
King ED must abdicate his throne.
You revel in the destruction of this project. You want to see the entire hockey project go down in flames to feed your sick ego. Your hatred is so deep. You are truely an unhinged person.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Sports franchises are shown to be nothing but positives for communities. It's a shame the townships (one of which I unfortunately live in) are so short-sighted and jaded that this could all end in disaster. Oh well, we could all go to Nazareth on a Friday night and look in the windows of the closed stores. Good times!
I agree. Sports franchises are shown to be nothing but positives for communities. It's a shame the townships (one of which I unfortunately live in) are so short-sighted and jaded that this could all end in disaster. Oh well, we could all go to Nazareth on a Friday night and look in the windows of the closed stores. Good times!
ReplyDelete8:44 AM
You can look at the once popular Nazareth Speedway if you like.
Better yet. You could go to one of its successful sports franchises, the empty race track.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone asked National Penn Bank (KNBT) how they secured a $35M loan. Isn't this the same bank that took bailout money?
ReplyDeleteThey may be the ones with a bigger problem. Bernie?????
Yeah, I believe Scott Fainor (KNBT), Browne and Reilly all grew up together. This may very well be Fainor's downfall.
ReplyDeleteLittle ole Bangor could just be the straw that broke the camels back. Don't ever count out the Slaters!
ReplyDeletethere's nothing greater, than bein a Slater
NIZ Cheerleaders got nothing.
ReplyDeleteSo they attack, demonize and smear O'Hare personally.
How typically Democrat in an all-Democrat City With No Spending Limits!
JUST SAY NO TO THE NIZ
Can't make me buy tickets to Chairman Pawlowski's $ 220.0 million dollar Palace of Sport.
ReplyDeleteTake my hockey stick and shove it!
NOT A FUTURE DOWNTOWN ARENA DOOFUS SHILLING FOR CRONY CAPITALISM
The public relations nightmare continues ...
ReplyDelete... the NIZ Cheerleaders need some children to hold signs that play well for the media.
But the Chairman's wife can explain it much better than me.
OH YEAH I JUST SAID THAT
I think you put too much faith in judges. They are a special, superdooperintelligent, erudite and entitled breed of troughfeeder who have, over and over again, have "interpreted" and judged as they would have it.
ReplyDeleteSome connected, elitist goofball judge gets this, you never know what could happen.
Browne is publicly refusing to amend the law but I think that's where he's going...even if he doesn't want to.
ReplyDeleteIf it's between taking the chances having the law amended (take a look at where Topper is now spending influence money) or having judges review it, the safer bet is amendment.
If the law is found to be invalid, it's game over. Start all over. With amendment, it's a less dangerous process.
The only problem is that Browne probably burned through his political capital to get it passed the first time and any amendment to the NIZ will require horsetrading to get it through a second time. That trading will probably be support for other NIZ around the state in other legislator districts, something the state (and the governor) are probably dead set against happening.
Bernie, this case is not a slam dunk and it is easily differentiable from other "special legislation" cases that have previously been brought that are meant (typically) to directly control some aspect of school district governance. Read the actual constitutional provision Art. 3, Sec. 32(1). (By the way the townships, in their initial pleading, pled the wrong constitutional provision (they pled Art. 3, Sec 7 but didn't plead any facts to support a cause of action under that section)).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, special acts provision prohibits "The General Assembly [from passing any] local or special law in any case which has been or can be provided for by general law and specifically the General assembly shall not pass any local or special law[: (1) r]egulating the affairs of counties, cities, townships, wards, boroughs, or school districts." SeePa. Cost. Art. 3, Sec. 32(1).
A very strong argument can be made from the constitutional journals, and previous cases, that this has to do with direct interference in municipal governance, for example, telling Allentown they must spend money to fix CCC projects in their parks, stuff like that. What happened in this case is that the legislature changed how tax appropriations are distributed by state law (Act 32). There is a secondary effect to the legislation that some money may be shifted away from townships which may influence their policy choices, but that nexus of cause and effect is becoming proximally disconnected. Indeed, anytime Harrisburg passes a law it has some affect on local governments--where should the line be drawn? My guess the courts will say that's an issue for the legislature.
Also, the funds shifting could not have been achieved through local laws (as the a constitutionally prohibited action requires) instead the action (i.e. shifting the EIT tax collection scheme) had to occur through the amendment of a state law.
All this is to say, do the townships have a cause of action--sure. But, is it a slam dunk that they will win? Absolutely not, esp., as you you point out, appellate courts hate to throw out laws as unconstitutional that are being relied upon.
As a former lawyer, I would have hoped you would analyze the merits of this case better before saying the "special law argument appears to be unassailable." Particularly where, in the previous post you link to, the professor of const. law was also wishy-washy.
No matter how this case pans out in the courts, the people don't like it. Their voices, of many districts, will be heard. Mayor Ed definitely has a legacy.
ReplyDeleteThe lawsuit is not against the City of Allentown, but is a Constitutional Challenge of certain laws passed by the legislature of the Commonwealth that eventually spawned the NIZ for Allentown, which confiscated the EIT from the political subdivisions whose citizens are employees of the NIZ, were stealth legislation. I mean the legislation started out as innocuous two or three page bills dealing with the State Worker's Insurance Fund in the first months of their life, and then magically morphed into 87 page and 61 page mega-bills respectively, in the final considerations within 24 to 48 hours of the Governor's signature. Therefore the legislation that created the NIZ was created by the state legislature, and not any legislative body of the city of Allentown, and is the reason why Allentown is not a party to the litigaation. Not only is the City of Allentown NOT a party to the action, but neither is Mr. Pawlinski, nor any Agency nor any Department of the City of Allentown, nor any Municipal Authority, such as ACIDA or ANIZDA, nor the Center City Development Corporation, nor any of its Therefore, none of the above have any legitimate authority whatsoever to negotiate with Hanover Township, et al Constitutional Challenge of Acts 50 and 26 respectively, because they lack the authority, or the competence, to amend, annul, or otherwise disturb, or do violence to the enacted statutes of the state legislature that created the NIZ. The only lawful remedies to alter, amend, or abolish the statutes lie with a Court of competent jurisdiction to rule ACTs 50 and 26 null and void, or for the legislature to repeal or amend them to survive judicial scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, if the City of Allentown, in the person of its Mayor, who has no authority to negotiate, or threaten any political subdivision, or School District, or any member of any authority, or any person or agent of the City of Allentown, or the Authorities, or any of the principals of the developers may be vulnerable to a complaint by the Plaintiffs under the Hobbs Act, 18 USC Section 1951, among others, for using the power, authority, and resources of his office
to threaten or quash any valid constitutional challenge, under color of law; especially when neither he nor the City of Allentown is a party to the action.
Let's also remember that Philadelphia does not have to pay EIT to home-municipalities. How is that situation, as far as state law is concerned, any different from the Allentown situation. That scheme has been held explicitly constitutional.
ReplyDeletePublius, I have written about the law on this matter, and it is very clear that, on the merits, this is a winner. The Governor's own lawyers have conceded this. The Governor has vetoed similar legislation in the past. It is a special law for a closed class. The fact that some law professor is "wishy washy" is nothing new. He is hedging his bets so that he can claim he was right, no matter how the court rules.
ReplyDeleteWhat a public relations disaster.
ReplyDeleteBrought it upon yourselves, Bully Big Government.
Get out of my face. And stay out of my face.
I just don't want to buy overpriced tickets to Chairman Pawlowski's stupid $ 220.0 million dollar Palace of Sport.
And you can't make me, Bully Big Government.
What about all the good intentions of these out of control, power-freak Democrats (plus one Browne RINO) ... does that not count for something?
ReplyDeleteSHAMELESSLY SHILLING FOR CRONY CAPITALISM
We have to keep spending wildly or surely we will go broke.
ReplyDeleteALLENTOWN DEMOCRAT VOTER
Bernie, please link to where you have refuted the concerns I have just raised. You haven't. This lawsuit has the scent of legitimacy but not much else. Just because the courts have held other special legislation unconstitutional does not mean that this case, which is factually distinguishable, as I have just shown, is also unconstitutional. (For example in that attorney general opinion, that situation concerned the general assembly trying to co-opt a tax assessment, i.e., a local government function--not an amendment to state tax law as is the case here.)
ReplyDeleteAnd, as I also just noted, the courts have found the Philadelphia scheme, which only applies to one city, constitutional--how is that situation different from what happened with the NIZ legislation. Not to mention all the pleading issues which seriously subject the suit to a demurrer motion. As a former lawyer you should know that the nitty-gritty facts matter, you can't just throw out words like "special legislation" and think that applies to everything. Feel free to respond to my actual legal concerns, i'd be happy to see where I am making a wrong turn.
Publius, I have refuted your arguments and will go over it again. but before I do that, I am amazed at the cheerleading going on by supposed progressives, aimed at making rich Republicans richer. This is an anti-Democratic urban growth regime.
ReplyDeleteThe legislation is NOT like the legislation that applies to Philly. In those cases, it is possible that some other City can some day become a city of the first class. It is NOT a closed class. In this case, the legislation could only ever apply to Allentown. It is a closed class.
No less an authority that the state attorney general has ruled that this kind of legislation is unconstitutional.
Article III, Section 32 states in part that “The General Assembly shall pass no local or special law in any case which has been or can be provided for by general law and
specifically the General Assembly shall not pass any local or special law ... ."
That's exactly what has happened. the law created a closed class.
See https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8XWvlwz-ce1LUhIQ0JaUE9aNHc/edit?pli=1
As I pointed out before, Governor Corbett's office has conceded this law is unconstitutional.
http://lehighvalleyramblings.blogspot.com/2012/04/tom-corbett-niz-deus-ex-machina.html
I also wrote about this in my post concerning the first developer's meeting.
"Jim Preston explained that the legislation creating the NIZ can be distinguished from other legislation that applies to places like Philly. Those pieces of legislation could conceivably apply to other municipalities. But the legislation creating the NIZ applies to a "closed class," i.e. the oly place where it could possibly ever tke effect is Allentown."
http://lehighvalleyramblings.blogspot.com/2012/04/town-dced-director-hailstone-crashes.html
If the rink fails alot of folks will not get work that they desperately need...This is all so freaking stupid..
ReplyDeleteI might ceed to you that Philadelphia is not a "closed class" in the way the NIZ is a closed class, but, its largely an academic and metaphysical question. The Philadelphia class is effectively closed because whenever Pittsburg gets close, they up the population requirements for the first class.
ReplyDeleteYour other points are not legit. First of all, the governor did not concede the NIZ legislation is unconstitutional. Your article on this was the thinnest type of conjecture naming absolutely no sources and no official action has ever been taken to support your theory (and corbet remains in the lawsuit and is fighting for the NIZ according to the dockets).
Second, I just commented on the attorney general's letter and noted how in that case (and all other special legislation cases reported on westlaw) the issue concerned the state trying to preempt a local government function. Not, an amendment to the state's tax financing scheme that would only proximaly and remotely interfere with local government policy making.
That's really the issue in this case: whether special legislation about the state tax code that proximally effects municipal policy making is per se unconstitutional. There is no precedent on the matter (other than the Philadelphia thing) and, therefore, to claim that the case is unassailable is wrong.
1) Governor Corbett believes the law is unconstitutional. I cannot name my source. He might defend the law, but it will be half-hearted.
ReplyDelete2) The AG letter makes clear that a special law is a special law. You take a case referring to a school district and somehow conclude its application is limited to that. In the letter, you'll see that it was a reassessment issue, not a school issue. Also, taking a local government's EIT most definitely interferes with and "preempts" (poor word) local government.
3) You have conceded we have a closed class.
The law is unconstitutional.
Att'y Dimmich will be raising other issues.
"If the rink fails alot of folks will not get work that they desperately need...This is all so freaking stupid.."
ReplyDeleteWhat is freakin' stupid is indebting the Commonwealth for $500 million to pay for construction jobs that might last a year, and for as few as 240 permanent jobs.
Bernie says, "I am amazed at the cheerleading going on by supposed progressives, aimed at making rich Republicans richer. This is an anti-Democratic urban growth regime. "
ReplyDeleteI just cannot comprehend how you conclude that supporting the current suburban policies helps anyone but the middle class. Look, we have done it your way for 80-years now and what happened to the relative power of the city's vs. the townships in Pa.? Middle class money segregated, the townships got rich and the cities slid downhill. By promoting the current policies that is what you are advocating should continue. And, I might add, with suburban real estate developers continuing to get rich.
I don't deny that some people like Reilly will get rich in the redevelopment of the cities (just like suburban developers are currently getting rich). But, at least, development of the cities represents a optimal use of land and scare resources and an inflow of middle class money will help bring more options to people who already live downtown.
You are the biggest shill for vested power I've ever seen and you don't even realize it. It's frankly astounding.
Additionally I would like to add the following to my earlier post. I have over 40years experience in federal jurisprudence including a stint on the trial team of a US Senate special Prosecutor for Medicaid and Medicare fraud and abuse, and I believe, based on published news reports, and my experience, that other federal laws may have been violated by elected public officials, and appointed public officers and employees. Specifically, but not limited to the following: Title 18 USC § 1951 - INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY THREATS OR VIOLENCE a)Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or AFFECTS commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
ReplyDelete(b)As used in this section—
(2)The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under "color of official right.(AKA as "color of law" are terms of art denoting a public official such as a mayor, or possibly an employee of any government entity, which could include a member of an Authority such as ACIDA or ANIZDA). Also, Title 18 Sections 241 and 666(bribery); sections 1341 et. seq.;(mail fraud, honest services fraud); and 1961 et seq. the CIVIL and criminal RICO statutes. RICO Section 1964(c)provides for a private right of action and treble damages by ..."any person injured in his business or property"... Simply stated Mr. Pawlinsky may not threaten any person or entity who initiates litigation pursuant to the petition clause of the first amendment unless he wants to expose himself to challenges under the Hobbs Act, and/or open up a Pandora's box into the other federal challenges. However, he may be too late. Apparently the only person publically identified so far, who may have been injured according to the above statutes, is Mr. Abrahm Atiyeh. If he has filed an appropriate action against the defendants named in he NIZ action, and not Allentown, which is not a proper party, he was publically threatened by the Mayor so therefore he may have a cause of action that is ripe for civil action as noted above. There may be other potential defendants in the NIZ who are not aware of the federal statues noted above and their right to file an action for damages.
Re Bernie at 9:05 AM -- KNBT is the "local" bank I took my money out of Wachovia (now Wells Fargo) to get away from the Big Banks. KNBT is only giving me a stinkin' 0.75% on a recently renewed 2-year CD. I used to have a decent income from my CD's every year. What's up? They can't give an old lady a decent return on the money she has scraped together, and needs to supplement her Social Security, but they can mess around with low-lifes like Brown et al on some pie-in-the-sky rip-off of the taxpayers to make Reilly rich? Can anybody say the word "DISGUSTING"? Real loud now, all together: "DISGUSTING!!!!"
ReplyDeleteSo, where do I put my money now?
Nazareth has a white elephant of a closed race track. Thanks to the responsible in Nazareth, the rest of the Lehigh Valley is not on the hook for its construction or demise. Nazareth is indeed in need of revitalization. This is exactly why they should not be asked to fund Allentown's revitalization. A hockey arena in Allentown will do nothing for the struggling borough. The nasty slams at each other's towns are unfortunate. I suspect that most Nazarenes do not wish Allentown ill. Nazareth has its own problems, however, and precious little money to address them. Best of luck on your project. Just please don't ask me to pay for it. I will come and support you when it's finished the right way. This is not the right way.
ReplyDelete12:50, Good idea for a post! I'll throw it out there tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteBTW, did anybody see that pathetic slobberin' whiny article in Sunday's so-called newspaper, the Allentown Morning Crybaby? Tears were flowing from the reporter as well as from all the wronged persons in Allentown, suffering at the hands of those awful suburban municipalities who took exception to having their pockets picked by the Allentown pols with their middle-of-the-night law re the NIZ. I hesitate even to wrap the garbage in that sad excuse for a newspaper. Thank God the recyclers came the next day!
ReplyDeleteMaybe one of the reasons that small municipalities like nazareth and bangor are hurting is because there growth has been built on unsustainable federal subsidies like low gas prices and mortgage interest deductions. By distorting the free market, these subsidies allow low density residential growth without any real commercial or industrial infrastructure. As the subsidies become increasingly harder and harder to fund / maintain, residents of the low density housing get financially strapped; the tax base stops growing; and municipalities wither. That's the suburban model in a nutshell. What we need is higher density with mixed uses to create a self-sustianing tax base not dependent on subsidies from Washington or Harrisburg. When government distorts the free market, we all usually end up paying the price.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that the NIZ folks do not want to get back to the legislature to fix amend the current law because all the legislators that were hoodwinked into supporting the NIZ legislation originally wouldn't dare support it now since they now realize what a freakin' mess they created. No one read the original legislation or the amendment that became law this past June. No one paid attention. Now the problems and abuses have been exposed. Tinkering with the current law will open the matter up to debate. Therefore, it looks like the NIZ folks are going to have to gamble that they will prevail in the court room. Doesn't look like a good bet to me. If the NIZ folks lose, say goodbye to the NIZ.
ReplyDeleteFOR THE LAST TIME: Bangor is NOT the suburbs. It has HIGH density housing. It also has the LOWEST per-capita income in the county. Bangor needs revitalization MORE than A(hole)town!
ReplyDeleteBangor and Nazareth are as old or older than Allentown. They all share the problems associated with central planning. Addressing central planning problems with more central planning is probably not the best solution. None of these parties prospered at the expense of another. Their problems will not be addressed with a collective solution. They must address there a particular problems individually.
ReplyDeleteBTW, isn't First Star still locally owned and not clipping old ladies while lending kabillions to the connected and continuing to chain 49 cent pens to the counter.
Yeah listen to Bernie. His legal advice to John Stoffa on Gracedale was sure a winner. By the way, Jim Hickey is not that great a Corbett source.
ReplyDeleteMan would it be refreshing for Pawlowski and his ridiculous lackies (i.e. Mike Fleck/FDAA) to come out and admit that the process was flawed and commit to a not so grand ($200+ million!) arena and make a fair deal with the Townships so that the whole region could get excited about this project. Pawlowski's diplomacy skills are deplorable. He needs to check his ego and save this project fast.
ReplyDelete"Pawlowski's diplomacy skills are deplorable."
ReplyDeleteIndeed. His written communication would flunk fourth grade grammar. His writing skills indicate he's either lazy or just plain stupid. The IHM Sisters at my elementary school would have beaten him to death.
I know it is a little of both+ there is a lot of just plain ignarance.
Delete"Yeah listen to Bernie. His legal advice to John Stoffa on Gracedale was sure a winner. By the way, Jim Hickey is not that great a Corbett source."
ReplyDeleteNo, I would not expect Hickey to be a source on Corbett.
It's interesting in all of this that it is being blamed on Pawlowski and Browne, and rightfully so, it should be. It's curious that Lisa Boscola had her hands it this also along with former Governor, fast Eddie Rendell, but I don't see their names in the recent newspaper stories about this debacle. I do seem to recall Boscola's name when the NIZ was first conceived, but now it is conspicuously absent. Didn't she cosponsor the bill along with Browne? If so, she should be taking the political fall along with Browne I would think.
ReplyDeleteBoscola is up to her neck on this one.
ReplyDeleteBernie,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, however, no one is exposing that. I don't see it in the papers or on the blogs. What's up with that?
I have something but am waiting for the right time.
ReplyDeleteI love how bi-partisanship works. The Dems and Republicans work together on legislation, then when it goes sideways and the s**t hits the fan, the Dems walk away, the Republicans are left holding the bag and the taxpayer gets screwed.
ReplyDeleteFYI Bascola's husband works for an engineering company that is involved in the NIZ..
ReplyDeleteSeriously, this is what keeps you people up at night--talking smack on low-level elected officials. God this place is crawling with trolls.
ReplyDeleteyeah. Talking smack on high-level officials is so much more rewarding. Or watching American Idol.
ReplyDeleteI am amazed at the cheerleading going on by supposed progressives, aimed at making rich Republicans richer.
ReplyDeleteYes, people get rich. That's how it works. That's how it always has worked. Money makes money. From a progressive point of view, we see a few things: jobs, culture, community connection, and a chance to revitalize the very core of the valley. I know these things are unpopular to those who inexplicably hate Allentown because of envy or jealousy or just outright apathy but I personally would find many things that will make living in the valley more enjoyable despite the rich getting richer.
"You'd be hard pressed to show that it's worth the investment ... the numbers just don't add up."
ReplyDeleteCHRISTOPHER BORICK quoted in The Morning Call article published April 22, 2009 :
"WHY ARE WE FINANCING STADIUMS?"
by Christina Gostomski
-------------
Professor Borick's position appears to have evolved.
How very progressive of him ...