Last week, Northampton County Council introduced an ordinance that would repeal a tax break for an industrial development in Upper Mount Bethel Tp. This corporate welfare was approved last April by Republicans John Goffredo, Tom Giovanni and John Brown as well as Democrats Kerry Myers, Lori Vargo-Heffner and Ron Heckman. They bought the argument that this would bring jobs to an economically depressed area. Those who opposed it argued that it would also bring warehouses, increased truck traffic on Rte 611 and would destroy the natural beauty of Upper Mount Bethel Tp.
As tax breaks go, this is the least offensive. It is called a LERTA is an acronym for Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance.
Property owners inside a LERTA zone may apply for a tax break for improvements that increase assessment, upon which all real estate taxes are based. They will continue paying full taxes on the current assessment, but the increase in assessment resulting from improvements like a new manufacturing facility or warehouse can be phased in gradually over a period of ten years.
In his report to County Council, Executive Lamont McClure stated that the ordinance he drafted for consideration would rescind the current law and replace it with another that would enable Council to incentivize manufacturing.
"[I]t's good to incentivize manufacturing," he said. "Also, we want to incentivize brownfield development. ... What I don't think is appropriate to incentivize is warehouses.... We don't need any more warehouses in NorCo and we certainly shouldn't be incentivizing them. But this is not merely a repeal. We're going to have a replacement and we're going to replace the LERTA, but the difference is going to be that, when a permit is filed, you will decide if that parcel gets a tax break. No one else. Right now, under your current law, Upper Mount Bethel gets to decide which parcels get your taxpayers' tax break."
Lou Pektor, a developer of the site, argued that the LERTA should remain intact, noting it demonstrates the support of the local community.
Pektor said he is competing for tenants on a national and regional level. "This is not a site where we are pulling people out of the Lehigh Valley and moving them 35 minutes north. ... The world has changed and it's not about price. It's about infrastructure, the ability to grow. The changes in what's happened since COVID have accelerated consolidation, have accelerated thinking on plans about long term growth, No longer do you see warehouses removed from manufacturing operations. You see integration of activities, hopefully under one roof or very proximate to each other. Also, transportation between facilities has grown immensely. The cost of labor, transporting people back and forth, has grown immensely.. ... We've designed the site to deliver footprints that are bigger than what a lot of us are used to talking about. .... We believe we'll land one or two data centers at the site until we're done. ... We got great connectivity, we got a great location, we're close to population centers, we have most importantly, power. Power you're going to hear more about if you're attuned to the commercial and industrial world. We have the ability to get up to 400 megawatts. That's almost unheard of." He added the development is close to Route 80 and rail, and that he is putting in water and sewer. ,ned to maximize and compete at a high level.
Based on election results, it appears that a majority of Upper Mount Bethel residents oppose the LERTA. In fact, I wonder why their Board has failed to take steps to repeal it.
County Council members Goffredo, Giovanni and Brown all live in other parts of the slate belt. They argue that jobs are badly needed and people are leaving the area.
I am philosophically opposed to business tax breaks unless they are for a brownfield. What's your take?
Is a selective LERTA, like McClure wants, legal? Is the LERTA still in affect for other real-estate taxes if the County pulls out?
ReplyDeleteKeep it or get rid of th entire thing. The county is not in the Zoning Board business. Plenty of county core functions that need work. McClure wants to drag this out piece by piece for political grandstanding. Pector should sue. County officials that live there want it. The county has no definite take on what voters up there want. Raise property taxes or let Pector pick up your costs. Past and present Upper MT. leaders want it; ask Angle, Grucella and Emerick.
ReplyDeleteUpper Mt. should do a non-binding referendum and then council will get a true sense of the area. McClure only flip-flopped on this issue when the political winds shifted. Stick to the big problems in county services and stop pretending to know anything about business and manufacturing. County Council should stick to what the original plan was or get out.
Well- some of us believe the warehouse craze will turn ,and as other things develop in tech and sustainability- we will not need a warehouse as much. So in 20 years let’s say we will find reuse for the land after the structures are taken down or reduced in size for re application with the exception of “cold storage- refrigeration stuff” they will have sustainable futures. This location is with in one days drive by truck for about 40% of the U.S. population, isn’t that true?
ReplyDeleteThat percentage might shift as more people are allowed to invade the southern border.
DeleteI don't believe the Pektors. Let's stop picking winners and losers with tax money.
ReplyDeleteYou don't like business tax breaks, i.e. businesses paying taxes, just a bit less. OK, you *do* like welfare though, right?
ReplyDeleteManufacturing facility only. If a warehouse is attached to the facility as part of the operation; then consideration should be giving to it as well, but perhaps at a lower rate and the warehouse cannot be bigger than the manufacturing plant. It might actually be used as storage for materials that are used in the making of the product.
ReplyDeleteNever, ever trust a pektor or a mcclure or norco council member - they can't see pass their own egos.
ReplyDeleteAny "law" they put in place to incentivize the project for manufacturing will be bastardized and loopholes will be found. 7:28 poster is correct. To incentivize the manufacturing, but allow warehousing tied to it will create manipulation on the backs of the taxpayers. Pektor will get rich, taxpayers will get screwed. Happens all too often. Enough is enough.
ReplyDelete"You don't like business tax breaks, i.e. businesses paying taxes, just a bit less. OK, you *do* like welfare though, right?" There is a world of difference between a business tax incentive and welfare, which I of course support. Welfare is a reflection of our own obligation to care for those of us who are impoverished, ill, aged or too young. It is why government exists. Corporate welfare is completely different. In corporate welfare, the government is creating an uneven playing filed in what should be a capitalist country. It is giving one business a leg up over another. It is usually provided to companies whose principals are major campaign contributors. You can see that by scrolling through campaign finance reports. Moreover, once the tax break is up, the corporation moves away and looks elsewhere for the next tax break. The jobs promised never materialize, and those that do have cost us far more than if we would just let a business grow organically.
ReplyDeleteA good business idea should need no public money toi succeed. A bad business idea will fail no matter how much public money is poured in.
I support aggressive attempts by governing bodies to require any new developer first document that brownfield use was vigorously explored and also governments and planning commissions have a list of brownfields for developers to consider. No plans for new development should be accepted for review without this documentation. I can hear the developers and their cronies in local governments and planning commissions screaming already.
ReplyDeleteThis is simple..Pektor does not need corporate welfare incentives ….
ReplyDeleteCOUNCIL = POLITICAL BUFFOONS
ReplyDeletePEKTOR = LYING SNAKE BUFFOON
8:59 - You are correct. Currently involved with local feifdom, who decided they do not want warehouses in an PRE-EXISTING industrial site. NIMBY's, yet they cash the checks from these businesses, who have been there when the NIMBY'S developments were cornfields. Anyway, local council decides to change the ordinances in a back door Sunday night meeting. 2 projects already in process/WH's. This Sunday night meeting invoked some lame changes to local zoning. No WH's. Lawsuits start. Then WH's as an accessory use. The result? more lawsuits, all being won by the plaintiffs, due to the haphazard way the local yokels went about it. There is ALWAYS a loophole. WH as accessory use? Ok, what percentage is "light mfg" vs "wh"?. It is a joke. Same scam going on in Beth Twp by Wm Penn park n ride. Pektors large "Accessory use" WH project. When questioned about the ratio of mfg space to WH space, Council couldn't answer defintively. In fact their response was " oh, the amount of trucks will determine if the space is being used as a wh". I think I need to apply for the truck counting position when Pektors huge eyesore gets completed!!
ReplyDeleteIf a TWP/Municipality does not want WH's, the zoning must be changed BEFORE new projects are discussed.
Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance (LERTA)
ReplyDeleteHeere is the definitiin oif a LERTA. Tell me where the UMBT site has aging or deteriorating property other than the old poweer plant site. The only thing aging on the rest of the plan are the trees.
Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance (LERTA) is a tax abatement program created by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1977 authorizing local taxing authorities to provide tax exemption. The purpose of the legislation is to incentivize redevelopment of aging or deteriorating properties.
Why are we paving over the most fertile farm land in the county? This site sits along the scenic Delaware river and is steps away from the national park rec area and the Apalachin trail. This clearly does not fall into the category of "deteriorating" property.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is zoned industrial, but the scale of the proposed project is only allowable due to a questionable "text amendment" written by the developer and pushed through by the supervisors, even though the regular zoning process was bypassed and dozens and dozens of citizens spoke out in opposition.
Repeal the LERTA designation.
Can someone who knows what they're talking about actually answer these 2 questions that I posted before? Is a selective LERTA, like McClure wants, legal? Is the LERTA still in affect for other real-estate taxes if the County pulls out?
ReplyDeleteI can answer one of your questions with certainty. If the county pulls out, the LERTA is still in effect in the twp and school district. There is case law on this point. As to your first question, I do not know if it has been tested legally, but I certainly see the argument for what you call a selective LERTA. Municipalities will often offer LERTAs to homeowners for specific improvements.
ReplyDeleteRather impatient, aren't you?
We fund open space preservation while also funding the development of open space. Most people think this is crazy. Our government and stupid people are OK with it. You decide.
ReplyDeleteGood point. Frankly, except for a rusting power plant, this is all farmland. I do not know how a Council member can support a tax break for this while claiming to support open space.
ReplyDeleteTotally off topic and you don’t have to post this but Taiba Sultana just announced she’s going to primary Freeman. Can’t wait to see your post on this.
ReplyDeleteIt happens everywhere, but why is it that developers and politicians in the Slate Belt are full of bad ideas. I mean its a small town, rural area and they're adding or proposing 200 unit apartment buildings in these little communities with no fix to the already challenged infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteThen add to the fact that the WM/GKEDC landfill wants to double its size and Nazareth wants to dump their sewage in these communities, when does the economic boom happen that these politicians continue to promise? Never. Instead they sell out to these projects like Wind Gap council did. Build 200 unit luxury apartments then support landfill expansion a mile away that will stink these residents out. Great plan. That's small town leadership for you.
Time to stand up for what is best for the communities, not what's best for their pocket books.
Pector owns the land and has the Zoning. He can build what he wants. The politicians claiming they are saving greenfields are lying. They buildings will be built. The question is with what. McClure thinks he will plan what buildings can get a LERTA. He knows nothing about manufacturing.
ReplyDeleteTime for the county to either get out of the LERTA or keep it and let the township decide how it works with Pector. McClure is not the mayor of the county, or a zoning professional and county council is not a zoning board. Stay in your lane.
2:24, McClure is not a realtor. He is a county exec. He does not want to incentivize warehouse construction. That industrial development is on farmland. Pektor actually does not have the zoning he needs and is going to have to come back for more relief. I'd deny any LERTA, even for manufacturing, on a greenfield.
ReplyDeleteOpen space and farmland are prime targets for developers. Cheap land. Nothing is safe. And if you preserve it, municipal authorities, like Nazareth Sewer look at it as a great place to dump their pollutants that they can't discharge into our waterways directly.
ReplyDeleteWe just can't have nice things. Let's f them all up to make a buck.
So, if it is farmland why didn't someone buy it? If Pector owns it and cannot build on it what is the problem. If her can how can you stop him. The facts are muddles with the sermons.
ReplyDelete