On August 14, 2023, eight Lower Saucon Tp residents filed suit against Lower Saucon Township and the Bethlehem Landfill to protect the 275 acres of forest from landfill destruction. In their suit, residents Bruce and Ginger Petrie, Andrew and Tina Krasnansky, Bob and Elizabeth Blasko, and Bob and Cindy McKellin claim Lower Saucon Township and the Bethlehem Landfill are violating the Donated and Dedicated Property Act by rezoning and attempting development on forest lands above the Lehigh River.
At one time, the City of Bethlehem owned and operated the Bethlehem landfill. It also owned surrounding tracts. In 1994, it adopted two conservation easements and a woodland easement. The conservation easements preserve 208 acres of landfill property for scenic and conservation purposes and specifically exclude landfills. The woodland easement, which applies to 8 acres, is intended to preserve undisturbed woodland. It was binding on both the City and future owners to preserve the Delaware and Lehigh Canal Heritage corridor as well as "the original character and scenic nature of the land."
Most of these residents live next to or near the buffered land/ In his lawsuit, Attorney Gary Asteak refers to them as third-party beneficiaries of the easement. He seeks to enjoin expansion into this conserved area.
Why Bethlehem, which has adopted a Climate Action Plan, has failed to enforce these easements itself is anybody's guess.
I would guess that if Bethlehem no longer owns the land in question, which is located in another municipality, it has no jurisdiction to enforce the easements.
ReplyDeleteThis is is correct. The city sold the property (at some crazy low price, if I recall correctly) to the landfill company. The two parties to the easement then are the landfill and the township. This would allow them to dissolve the easement in theory, if both parties were interested. This is why newer easements typically have a third party, usually a land conservancy, actually holding the easement. This prevents this kind of attempted 180 if a municipal board became hostile to preservation efforts.
DeleteGuess
ReplyDeletethe assholes in the city never should have sold the landfill in the 1st place!!!!
ReplyDeleteSave the trees, pay more for disposal of your trash.
ReplyDeleteWhat does any of this have to do with Puerto Rico? Stay focused, Bethlemites.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the Beatles song
ReplyDeleteMaxwell's Silver Hammer
Bernie, this would make an interesting Right To Know request for someone invested, but I've been told that the City of Bethlehem Administration told Bethlehem City Council in executive session that the City cannot intervene or oppose the expansion because the City agreed to support the expansion when it sold the landfill. The agreement is part of the contract to sell the land, and the landfill has threatened legal action to enforce the Agreement of Sale provisions.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is definitely something else to that sale. According to county tax records, the city sold approximately 200 acres to the landfill for $10,000. Not $10,000/acre, just a straight $10k. That's $50/acre! Meanwhile an adjacent parcel was just sold to the landfill in 2020 for $8.5 million, or nearly $100,000/acre. I've yet to see why the city sold off this land for such a stupendously low amount. What were they promised?
DeleteWhat were they promised?
ReplyDeleteI would guess airspace in the expansion area. That space is finite and isn't getting any cheaper!
Mayor Reynolds silence is deafening. He must be to busy on his Paternity leave to discuss something that will affect Bethlehem and the surrounding area for the next 50 years. He needs to go!
ReplyDelete