The Boardwalk hucksters selling vegematic choppers would have been proud of Pawlowski and Weitzel last week. They convinced the citizens and media that they heard the people and modified the plans. Weitzel droned on for 45 minutes with his power point about the living document known as the Cedar Park Plan Phrase 1. Plans for the Wedding Arbor continue, there never was a Wedding Pavilion per se. They accomplished this bait and switch by limiting the public input to three minutes. In reply to my inquiry about the Arbor, after Weitzel paused for thirty seconds twice on my time, they gave the two dimensional front measurements illustrated by the drawing, and simply omitted the depth.
This evening City Council meets to approve grants for the restaurant in the Butz Building. Although the Council keeps repeating that there is nothing they can do about the park at this time, I think I know a way to bring Pawlowski back to the (restaurant) table about that (flexible living) park plan.
ADDENDUM: In the Mayor's recent letter to the westenders, he now refers to the wedding structure as an arbor, however, the accompanying drawing taken from earlier promotional material labels the same structure as the wedding pavilion. Last week, although he told Council and the citizens the wedding pavilion was dropped, he merely changed the structure's title.
address for letter; http://www.allentownpa.gov/Portals/0/files/Parks_Recreation/cedar-creek-renovations/CC%20MASTER%20PLANV4w.pdf
i received the following comment to an earlier post, and thought i would also cut and paste it here.
ReplyDeleteBlog Administrator
The Parking area referred to in Trexler Park is the site where the former Trexler Greenhouses in the park were located before they were torn down .... Now the Greenhouses were specifically mentioned in the Will of Harry Trexler with the intention that they be maintained in perpetuality ... But the Daddona Administration got this stricken outr of the Will and built the parking lot ... Then ordered that the road which was open to vehicle traffic on weekends be closed to vehicle traffic and used strickly for walking and Bike traffic.... A group was formed at that time to protect the Greenhouses and Allentown Parks ... But that group was not formed from the downward flow of the Mayor's Office and did not receive its moral support ... But Daddona was an advocate of a foundation being formed by his initiative to raise a #1,000,000 fund to help support the Park System ... Nothing much came out of that ... Now we have Friends of the Park with the support of Ed Pawloski ..
Sincerely --- Dennis Pearson
It sounds like you need a good pro bono lawyer to research this and take up the fight.
ReplyDeleteYes, it really does sound like one of the of thousands of lawyers in Allentown could take an interest in this whole thing. It would have to be an Allentown native form an old family who could appreciate the issues here. There are lots of attorneys making a good living down by the courthouse. It is indeed a shame that the vast majority of these lawyers seem too preoccupied by 'feeding at the trough' to have any time to help and do something to preserve an institution (the Parks) that made Allentown such a wonderful place to live in the years gone by.
ReplyDeleteAnon.
an injunction certainly wouldn't be inappropriate. city council has admitted that they didn't know what they were approving. the administration has admitted that the plans have changed several times since. who are these people to re-design our iconic park system without public consensus?
ReplyDeleteHope lots of folks show up tonight and every night from now on. If council has no control over anything city-related,
ReplyDeletewhat in the world are they doing up there!
A lawyer willing to help with this issue would do wonders to challenge the mayor because even his solicitor cannot find regulations allowing him to go forward.
ReplyDeleteFunny, without the blink of an eye, Daddona sold priceless park land to commercial interest.
ReplyDeleteNo local lawyer will do this because she/he will be destroyed in the process.
ReplyDeleteWhy wouldn't an injunction be appropriate? You have on tape city council admitting they voted w/o knowledge of what they were voting for and a mayor and his sidekick admitting they never even notified those nearest the project that will be most affected by the development impact. Even zoning offices notify residents w/o so many feet.
ReplyDeletewho are these people to re-design our iconic park system without public consensus?
ReplyDeleteAugust 19, 2009 11:47 AM
well said.
it would take a retired lawyer of independent wealth and standing.
ReplyDeletePublic Servant: Do watch Barney Frank's video available everywhere on the Web.
ReplyDeletewho are these people to re-design iconic park without public consensus?
ReplyDeletePROGRESSIVE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, that's who
PLD's know best for all of us.
ReplyDeleteThank goodness. Now I can become lazy.
Guys, know someone already wrote it but ya gota see Barney Frank's video. Says it all.
ReplyDeleteanon 3:18, i can tell you that those who oppose these plans span the entire gamut of political persuasion. i think the common link is that they realize our traditional park system has provided both recreation and serenity to generations without succumbing to every fad.
ReplyDeleteit's important to me to maintain the non-partisan support the opposition to the cedar park plan has established, it's grass roots and non-political. although most of the cedar park elements are now beyond public input, there are other aspects of the park plans which require public scrutiny. such as the plan to inter-connect all the parks. i appreciate the readership and the comments, but will no longer host OT political comments which may hurt the overall mission of defending the park system as it currently exists.
ReplyDeleteto me, this is ALL about grandstanding for popular votes and building resumes at the expense of a local icon
ReplyDeletei see alot of shell games, "hurry, hurry, hurry", lack of transparency / willingness to answer legitimate questions such as funding, and out-and-out use of political tactics (emails telling children to carry signs) that i see on the national level, too
but perhaps i am mistaken
Molovinsky, there will be more public meetings about the trail plan. You were not at the first one. The thing is still in the planning process and the individuals formulating the plan took nearly an hour of public input, had us fill out surveys and let us know that there will be an email sent out alerting us to when the next public meeting is. I will make sure you know so you can go to the next meeting. A tentative plan might debut later this fall. The implementation of it will take much longer.
ReplyDeleteForgive the double post but I forgot to mention that there is a website established about the planning process and a survey was available to take for a long time.
ReplyDeleteandrew, hope you don't mind if i don't call you kleiner, the new plan was just put up on the park website. at the top, near hamilton street is what looks like a road. from an email this morning from mr. weitzel, i believe it must be the 12 ft. wide cycling path being put in. it crosses ott st. and continues on the west side of the park. you seem to be out of the information loop. quite ironic that they are adding more pavement and more things to the plan.
ReplyDeleteandrew, the following from greg weitzel:
ReplyDelete"the plan for the Cedar Creek Parkway shows one 12-foot wide (spine) path running through the site from east to west."
this is an additional path to the existing ones, which will also be paved. it appears today on the new diagram for the first time.
Let me get this straight. Is the city continuing to make changes?
ReplyDeletebernie, i find it difficult to follow the small drawings, both old and new. i believe a 12 ft. wide bike path has been added, although supposedly the trail network study and input has not been completed for that plan. the skateboard is gone. the wedding pavilion has not been removed as indicated by pawlowski, instead it's name has been changed to wedding arbor. it's the exact same structure in the exact location as first indicated on the diagram last year. in pawlowskis letter last week, he calls it an arbor, right above a rendering calling it a pavilion.
ReplyDeleteTaking time out from bashing lawyers for the ills of society, we now ask them to work for free. I love it.
ReplyDeleteMM said, "the wedding pavilion has not been removed as indicated by pawlowski"
ReplyDeleteThis thing moves fast.
There is an update to yesterday's update ( an improved larger map ).
The wedding thing you referred to it appears is no longer there.
Do you mean a bike path is to be painted onto Ott Street? Suspect way, way back in some city official's mind is the closing of Ott similar to St. John's St.
ReplyDeleteMichael, unless I have suffered a complete lack of comprehension, nothing going on regarding construction at Cedar Creek Parkway at this time has anything to do whatsoever with the trail study. It is still a study they have no plan to implement yet. At the last public meeting, they had yet to even acquire grant money for the project. The timetable that was offered showed implementation not occurring until way after this year. Whatever is in flux on the city website has only to do with Phase One renovations.
ReplyDeletelvci, it's still very much there, now called "stone column arbor'. if you refer to the mayor's letter, you will see the same structure referred to as the wedding pavilion in the label on rendering. there has been a picnic pavilion removed behind the old fashion garden, across the creek. above the "new map" it still describes the "arbor" for small ceremonies. the gazebo's were for small ceremonies, the arbor will accommodate and encourage larger weddings. at the council meeting pawlowski said the wedding pavilion was gone, weitzel and the consultant tried to portray it as a thin structure, like a trestle. i believe they indicated it was two ft. wide. they disingenuously were only referring to the width of the front columns.
ReplyDeleteandrew, i will forward you email that i believe clearly shows that the trail portion of the trail network is already built into the cedar park phase 1 construction. although i'm sure nothing confidential would have been sent to me from the administration, it is my policy to not include private correspondence on this blog.
ReplyDeleteWell there's something that even concerns me more.. Coming off the crosswalk on Ott Street is something called a 12 foot Bituminous (blacktop) trail.
ReplyDeleteIs that code for have vehicles being able to make a right hand turn off Ott street (heading South) for future parking of cars in the grass in a crunch?
Notice what appears to be like a 'y' something like in/out roadways would use? It's not a 't' connector like an actual trail/bike path would only need.
I'd really like to believe it is not and hate being so suspicious, but it IS directly across from the current roadway through the park.. NOT lined up across from the present 8' walkway.
Currently we walk the older pathway under the Ott Street bridge.
ReplyDeleteIf we just wanted a pathway/"TRAIL" wouldn't walking under the bridge under the traffic make better sense?
Even more so since the bridge is eventually supposed to be replaced and could accommodate that change as well.
LVCI, that bridge is all on PennDot. I hope they see the opportunity to create a trail between Trexler and cedar Beach when they design the new bridge that has to be put there.
ReplyDeletelvci, the 12 ft. section will extend completely across the park from one end to the other, meant as the cedar park portion of the trail network plan connecting union terrace to trexler park. all other existing paths and connecting paths will also be paved. the 12ft. section is for two way bike lanes, skaters and walkers. the cyclists will stay off the narrower parts with the same courtesy expected by park visitors to pick up more litter than now, theory of greater pride.
ReplyDeleteconsidering the trail network plan is still suppose to be a work in progress, and still seeking input, one might wonder why this component appears in phase 1 of the current cedar park plan. imagine the dangerous juxtaposition of two way bike lanes, skaters and walkers
andrew, i sure hope they don't. first of all there are those of us who oppose the trail network plan. of course the notion of public input, much less "intensive" input as falsely claimed for cedar park is demonstrated by the trail network path already being included in phase one of cedar park. i don't know if that bride at cedar crest blvd. needs work or not., but it would be a crime to change it to accommodate a trail plan. the bridge would have to be raised, creating an unnecessary line of sight problem. have you ever seen the traffic there now at rush hour, and you want to complicate that so someone can walk from one park to another without crossing the street? let weitzel and pawlowski spend their time cleaning the park bathrooms, we need that more than these design changes.
ReplyDeleteThe park does have to be replaced. It is structurally compromised(as I understand) and the city can do nothing about whatever PennDot decides to do to fix and or replace it. I also suggest to those opposed to the trail plan, that they please attend the next public meeting and they city council meetings whenever it gets that far.
ReplyDeleteAugust 20.
ReplyDeletePromises, promises, promises.
At present in Lehigh Parkway the disc golfers are (at least according to official once posted now demolished rules) to delay play so anyone passing by on foot is given right-of-way and safe passage. Guess what!
Andrew Kleiner said... LVCI, that bridge is all on PennDot.
ReplyDeleteThe Cedar Crest bridge IS NOT on anyone's future plans. The Ott Street is on the table for the future and the one I was referring to and currently a pathway exists (even though an unofficial one)
michael molovinsky said... lvci, the 12 ft. section ... as the cedar park portion of the trail network plan .. is for two way bike lanes, skaters and walkers
So it is officially stated. Hope I'm wrong, but if not.. next May I will surely have my suspicious questioning answered.
LVCI has every right to be suspicious. Lehigh Parkway on a regular basis welcomes events where vehicles sometimes park 5-600 deep on once green meadow grasses, now so compacted from tons of vehicular weight, only barren earth is visible.
ReplyDeleteWhat bridge is everyone talking about? Where exactly? Thank you.
ReplyDeleteWhat is Andrew talking about when he says it is compromised? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteLVCI, at the first public meeting for the trails plan the folks who are doing the planning said that the Cedar Crest Bridge was targeted for replacement.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if anyone wonders what the path will look like in the Old Fashion Garden, it is being put it right now. Construction on the pillars in the Rose Garden is also going on and I have uploaded pictures of all of it onto my blog.
rememberkleiner.blogspot.com
I am sure the city will continue to make changes.
ReplyDeleteA living plan translates into "let's not make a commitment".
If you believe the mayor, why would anyone at this point, in time I am sure the park will be whatever anyone wants it to be.
IMO these guys are not honest. IMO they know exactly what they are doing. IMO they have become masters at obfuscation.
King Edwin needs to deal with the financial issues of this city if he can ever find his clothes.