Jul 30, 2009

Jeanette At Bat


This past Tuesday evening over 70 Allentownians gathered in Council Chambers to express their dissatisfaction with the Cedar Creek Park Plans. There is a special bond between long term residents of this community and our nationally recognized park system. We see the park as perfection of design, requiring only dedicated maintenance. Unfortunately, the new Park Director sees it as a palette to make his mark. By now readers know my reverence for the parks, so lets get to the meat of the meeting. The meeting was called by Tony Phillips, both Chairman of the Park and Recreation Committee, but also Republican candidate for mayor. Although he was stonewalled by the other committee members, and the administration, councilwoman Jeanette Eichenwald joined Tony on the dais. She told the citizens that she fully believed a compromise was needed, and a plan could be reached which served the sensibilities of all involved. Enter Michael Donovan; although Donovan was not at the meeting, on his blog, called Inclusion*, he reveals that he will sponsor legislation to interrupt the project for proper public input. Proponents of the plan must realize that the Rose Garden hasn't had a wedding pavilion for 80 years, a month or two more of deliberation is reasonable. Although Tony may well introduce a similar bill, can democrat Eichenwald really support Pawlowski's opponent? There is probably nobody on council more conciliatory than Donovan, also a democrat. He's looking for someone to second his proposal. I'm confident Jeanette will seize the opportunity to put meaningful action behind her eloquent words.

www.donovanforallentown.blogspot.com

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

MM hope you are correct.

The bully in city hall needs to slow down and realize there are other people living in this city other than he and his goombas.

The park is a bad idea. I question though where the Trexler Trust is in this whole affair. What are they thinking?

Perhaps the years have caught up with them and they have gone a bit daft.

Do they ever say anything or have they also become moot cheerleaders of Ed?

BTW - Tony if you want support you are going to have to stand up to the king and display leadership.

Close to 90 days until election. Time to act!

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, election was over in May.

Tony is useless.

Our beautiful park is doomed.

Bernie O'Hare said...

City council members are part-time employees who are often expected by bloggers like me to know as much about what is going on inside the city as the mayor and other full-time workers. But in the end, they are only human.

Tony P, for example, drives daily to Philly so he can earn a living. Can you imagine how grueling that must be, day after day? Yet people who don't pay his bills expect him to be running full-time. I know the odds are against him, but do give him credit for trying to make a difference in the time he does have to campaign.

I will also say that, in my limited interaction with city council, I have found most of them to be attentive and to really care about the city. I would include each of the three members discussed here - Phillips, Eichenwald & Donovan - in that category.

In Jeanette's case, the city actually has two council members for the price of one. Her husband goes with her to all these meetings and sits in the peanut gallery. I'm sure he gives her a perspective she'd get from no one else.

These are good people who had every right to believe the mayor was being honest with them. They are now realizing that the mayor has not always dealt in good faith with them, and in a few cases, has deceived them.

LVCI said...

Bernie; My thoughts exactly. And all for $118 (gross) per week.

SOURCE: City Budget- Page 11

ironpigpen said...

"Bully in city hall needs to slow down and realize their are other people living in this city other than he and his goombas"

As we say in baseball, good eye, ANON 9:33!

LVCI - $ 118 a week is not so much BUT do you think SOME council people have their eyes on bigger prizes SOMETIMES?

Just a thought, not an accusation.

Anonymous said...

In 1942 The University of Chicago released a report, Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas. It concluded that the effects of poor economic and social conditions are the main causes of crimes committed by children.

Fast forward 50 years and a scientist from USC, Malcom Klien, commented on gang suppression programs and how they "do little to nothing about the forces that foster gang development" where we ought to be focusing. instead, according to him is "racism, under class poverty. fatalism in the face of rampant deprivation and the gross ignorance of inner-city America on the part of most of us who don't have to survive there"

Now a reasonable person might look at this whole issue and realize the wisdom drawn from these studies. The solution to the problems in Allentown, to improve the quality of life for everyone, is to focus resources in areas where they will do the most potential good.

As far as parks are concerned, I would conclude, is why invest resources in an area where no problems exists. The resources should be placed in the inner city parks and be used to foster a better quality of living in these areas. This whole issue simply sheds light on how self centered the Palowskis are in their approach toward "improving" Allentown. The saying goes "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". The vain glory seekers who exploit disabled children to build their resumes. Damn those 20 men. (A dark image isn't it?).

On top of that has there ever been any emphasis on developing programs to benefit the majority of the citizens of this city in this city. No. Most of the efforts seem to have been focused on benefiting the more privileged and less economically challenged at the expense of the "under class". Has the under class even participated in any of these processes or decisions? Now, I would like to know, how do we really define racism