Oct 14, 2009

TeNSion in BLoGOsphERE



Despite the best efforts of some well intended intermediaries, there still exists tension in the local blogosphere. Bernie O'Hare goes banana's when I write about events I didn't attend, and he did! So here's another one Bernie, don't slip on the peel. According to O'Hare, there was no article in today's Morning Call, Tony Phillips owned the room last night at the NAACP Debate. But don't count Pawlowski out with that constituency. Last time, and I was there in 05, Pawlowski made pandering an art form. He pointed out to the audience and said, "If i"m elected, there's a man who will work at City Hall, that women will work at City Hall." They both now do work at City Hall, and they remember. I suspect when local black people get inside the booth, they will not be able to resist voting for Tony. I recall black republicans last year saying that the historic opportunity to vote for Obama was irresistible. I would suspect the real value for Phillips last night was to energize him for the remaining two weeks of the campaign.

Andrew Kleiner and I have been having issues. Now I realize he's been studying environmental science now for five weeks, but I still thing I know a thing or two about the park. According to Andrew and the Wildlands Conservancy, without the riparian buffers being installed, our streams are doomed. Now I know the creek isn't measurably wider than it was 70 years ago. I know this because they haven't lengthened the bridge at Robin Hood, yet it still spans the creek. I think the old timers knew more about conservation than their given credit for. Replace the willow tree's which have died out from old age, hurricanes and disease, and you will stabilize the banks and yet still provide both visual and actual access to the water. The Conservancy and other advocates for the riparian buffer remain mute about the paving over of large sections of Cedar Park and the digging of wells by the County at the streams' headwaters in Lower Macungie. Until they're willing to speak out against the real threats to the park and stream, they compromise themselves.

21 comments:

observer said...

Maybe the reason you have tension is that, like O'Hare, you are usually so convinced that you are right that you can't admit when anyone else knows something that you don't. You call people out for not having immediate answers to questions, while you immediately form an opinion on everything and just make up or pick and choose whatever facts are suitable to your case.

The science of 80 years ago might not hold all the answers to 21st century problems.

michael molovinsky said...

i consider you, like the "fisherman" who commented in the previous post, just another apologist for the administration or the conservancy, etc.

you mention me by name, and o'hare, why not put your name to this new "science"?

Chris Casey said...

I am curious as to what changed that made Tony Phillips decide to finally "rumble" with the Mayor.

He could have started the discussion months ago, and it would have helped deflect some of the negativity he had to endure.

Too little, Too Late, in my Humble opinion.

Anonymous said...

Now, we think you and Bernie are the best bloggers in the Valley.
Wow. That’s gota be a new "Best" category. But I digress. So you two gota get along.

Anonymous said...

So Observer. There is some science that does stand the test of time. You are not the only one in the know.

michael molovinsky said...

chris, one thing about these debates, in my opinion, is that everybody in the audience already made a choice, and is there to support that choice. so without some MSM coverage, what does anybody gain? bernie has a large audience for a blog, but i doubt if it could influence an election.

monkey momma said...

I took a look on google to determine any flaws with the riparian buffer theory. And...I couldn't find one article to support a conclusion that riparian buffers are useless. They've been universally applauded as a natural way to manage healthy rivers and streams. So, there's no way to really argue against the value of a riparian buffer, other than asthetics.

My understanding is that the riparian buffer would only impeded SOME of the view of the river, not all - isn't that the plan? It seems reasonable to me, esp. since there appears to be no argument about the environmental benefits of such a buffer.

I suspect our local conservationists know darned well there's not a thing they can do about either the park plans or the well drilling. If they've chosen to pick their battles, I can understand.

However, it is clear that the wells (more than anything else) will ultimately destroy whatever good the Kleiners and Pool Wildlife folks of the area do when they install buffer zones. If the river runs dry (and it may very well do so), then we're left with a riparian buffer surrounding a dirt ditch.

The answer involves removing bottling companies from Upper Mac, and that is NEVER going to happen. Too much tax money. While I admmire the folks who are trying to get the Lehigh County authority to see the error of their ways, I can't help but feel they are wasting their time. It's clear the almighty dollar is at work here, and out bottling companies will remain, and the new wells will (eventually) be drilled. And the park will be paved. It is sad.

I would say picking battles with the folks who actually care about the environment (like Kleiner) is not in your best interest. If you're serious about battling township and city governments, then you'll need all the help you can get. I see no need for other bloggers to pick "battles," when clearly they are only trying to do good in the world. That does not make them less dedicated to the cause, either - it only exemplifies their pacifist stance, and sometimes being a pacifist has distinct advantages.

If you have scientific evidence to dispute the value of riparian bufffers, then post it. Antecdotal evidence is fun, but not of real value. And, I do not think you'll find much in the way of disputing the ecological value of a riparian buffer.

Looking To Escape said...

He pointed out to the audience and said, "If i"m elected, there's a man who will work at City Hall, that women will work at City Hall." They both now do work at City Hall, and they remember. I suspect when local black people get inside the booth, they will not be able to resist voting for Tony.


Democrats can't resist the warm fuzzies even if the issuer of them is inept.
.
It has caused me untold amusement to see all the new black Republicans that are located in Allentown center city.
.
For myself, Phillips is a Democrat and shame on the Allentown City Republican Party for accepting him as a candidate. It would have been far more honest to run no candidate than sign on a candidate of convenience. The Republican Party should stand for something, not anything.

michael molovinsky said...

monkey momma, i appreciate both your readership and comments, but disagree with you on this post. first of all, my efforts are not directed at other bloggers, i attended all the city council hearings on the park and organized some of the counterpoints. secondly, the parks are parks, not farmland or private land. compare historic photographs of lehighparkway (with the willow tree's) to the current park. the stream has not visibly widened. the plan is to obscure most of the streams with riparian buffers, visual access will be limited to few places. I don't dispute the science, but the need for it in our parks. there are better solutions, such as planting hundreds of willows. (as general trexler did)

Andrew Kleiner said...

Micheal, while I appreciate you acknowledging that I am attending school, it was not the 5 weeks of schooling that have led me to the conclusions and opinions I post about on my blog. The post dates of my riparian buffer pieces will tell you that.

Hundreds of willow trees may secure stream banks but they do not address the multitude of other problems affecting our streams. Today, with upstream development, increased run off from city streets and many other issues, the planting of trees is not sufficient.

There are so many issues affecting our parks that it would be foolhardy for me to try and address all of them. I am not about to try and attempt to.

Again, I will meet anyone who has questions about riparian buffers at Cedar Beach Parkway, Jordan Park, or Trout Creek Parkway at any time.

And, for the record, one of the reasons that the Parkway is in such good shape is that for the majority of its run from Topton to the Parkway, it is surrounded by the natural vegetation creeks need to maintain their temperature, proper oxygenation and wildlife habitat.

Your suggestion of planting Willow Trees is the same as trying to plug a leaky dam with a finger. Things have changed and the issues affecting the streams in our parks are dramatically different than they were even ten years ago.

There are parts of the stream bank at Cedar Beach Parkway that have been significantly damaged just the summer. I can show you. It will get worse.

michael molovinsky said...

andrew, actually the parks did have hundreds of willows and they did secure the stream banks, so the analogy of a finger in the dike isn't correct in regard to stabilization. i advocate the willows as an alternative to the riparian buffer because they allow both view and access. what we really disagree about is our notion of a park. you talk about natural ecosystems and natural wildlife; this is a PARK, not state game land. but worse, you only talk that way about the stream, and seem willing to tolerated paving the paths, and adding more paths, right next to the riparian buffers. btw, the paths would prevent the buffer from being 25 ft. wide, which is what that science calls for.

A Democrat said...

Since I've seen how Bernie quashes dissent on LVR, I'll post this here first, so I won't have to re-type it. It's not totally off-topic because it also deals with Bernie's reporting.

I was at the candidates night last night. Something that Bernie failed to mention -- and maybe he missed this because he spent a lot of his time in the first row chatting with Tony when the Mayor was speaking -- was that after Tony gave his final remarks and the Mayor stood and began giving his final statement, about 15 of Tony's supporters noisily stood up from their metal chairs and stormed out of the room. Several of these people -- from Trinkles and the Down Low, I believe -- had been sitting in the front row all night loudly disagagreeing with whatever the Mayor had to say and occasionally interrupting him. As they petulantly stormed out of the room (along with Lou Hershman), two people who were standing in the back took their vacated seats in the front. These were Bernie's "young goons" -- one of them sober, non-smoking grandfather with a bad back. They would hardly intimidate anyone -- especially a hardened 20 year police officer who had just told us all how he had guns pointed at him and delivered babies -- hopefully not at the same time --and how he would die for anybody in that room. (I, for one, don't actually expect my mayor to die for me.)

I'd also like to note that Tony did not admonish these two "young goons" who were standing in the back. He looked at another person who was off to my right and said "do you have, um, antics?" It was not exactly a Clint Eastwood moment.

I don't know how Bernie missed the rude (and clearly staged) exodus of his candidate's supporters as the mayor stood to speak. Many of them were sitting with him in the first row to his right. Actually I thought Bernie might storm out too.

Bob Romancheck said...

To the "Democrat".
I was at the meeting last night and you must have been at a different meeting than I was. Your comments are completely non-factual (I don't know how to say it more nicely).
Even more interestingly, the only two people you were accussing of being diruptive were Tony and Lou. Give me a break.
Sorry but I have to stop now cause I only talk with people that are honest. Why Mr Democrat, don't you sign your comments?

Bernie O'Hare said...

Too bad we don't have a video to prove who is factually accurate. Thanks to you and Julio Guridy, we don't have that. Don't blame me for going by my own recollection, which necessarily is inferior to what you would have seen in a video.

The Trinkles left after Tony finished his statement and before Pawlowski started his, creating no disruption. The Trinkles did contradict King Edwin when he falsely claimed he answers all email and calls. He's never answered any of mine, and several people besides the Trinkles contradicted Hizzoner on that point.

The two people in the rear where clearly goons brought in to be disruptive and to create false support for King Edwin. I stand by everything I said about them. The stench of alcohol and toacco was nearly overpowering.

The truth of the matter is that Pawlowski has bought this campaign. He promises jobs and government work to those who support him. He could not get away w/ it last night before the NAACP. The leadership did its best to help him, but the rank and file were more interested in the truth.

Anonymous said...

Tonights debate is at 804-806 Jackson st allentown not sure if its at 6:30 or 7pm

A Democrat said...

Bob, sorry you don't want to talk to me. Were you one of the folks who rushed out with Lou when the mayor began to speak?

By the way, I never said Lou was disruptive, just that he walked out on the mayor. I wouldn't have done that to Tony or to you.

You say I accuse Tony of being disuptive. Um, what the heck are you talking about?

And Bernie, your so-called "young goons" were standing between Ron Manescu and Walter Felton all night.

I think if they behaved as you say they did, they would have been given a talking to, don't you?

ironpigpen said...

Can't agree with Casey more.

Phillips definitely should have made his appearance on the political battlefield to challenge Pawlowski a long, long time ago.

He was toast long before the Dolores or whoever thing came to light.

Anonymous said...

TO: 10:19

I was not there last night. But I did talk this morning with Lou Hershman who was there. Lou is an honest man, something that is in rare suply these days from within City Hall. Two of Pawlausky's union thugs were in the front row, both drunk, and being loud, disrespectful and exhibiting boorish (look the word up in the dictionary) behavior, during Mr. Phillip's time in front of the audience. This crude, thuggish behavior has never been a part of political discourse from this area... it is not Allentown 'old-school' behavior, but has been imported by the current mayor. It has been tolerated by the Morning Call, and thus encouraged. More reasons to stop one's subscription.

Anon

Anonymous said...

Looking to Escape said:

"For myself, Phillips is a Democrat and shame on the Allentown City Republican Party for accepting him as a candidate. It would have been far more honest to run no candidate than sign on a candidate of convenience."

Looking -

Here's a newsflash - the local Republican Party doesn't "accept" a candidate or decide to run "no candidate". The Republican voters choose from the CANDIDATES who DECIDE to run.

Why no other Republican candidates chose to run for Mayor is a topic for many other posts. But to imply that the local Republican Party organization played a direct role in choosing Tony is just plain wrong.

Maybe it's done differently on the other side, and that is the reason for the confusion.

An amused Democrat who WAS there said...

Now they are "union thugs"! Thanks for letting me start my day with a smile.

Anonymous said...

Tony could have campaigned all this year. He did not. Know for fact residents contacted him to come to their neighborhoods to showcase area concerns.