This is part 2 of the post on the candidate debate conducted by the Allentown Coalition for Economic Dignity. On Friday, in the first part, I tried to be somewhat objective about what transpired at the debate. Although I made it clear that this wasn't the Chamber Of Commerce crowd cheering Reilly's NIZ success, I limited my opinion to revealing that I declined to sign the inclusionary zoning petition. That document is meant to require developers (i.e. Reilly's Stratas) to set a portion of the new units (10-20%) aside for affordable housing. I wrote against the NIZ before the first building was demolished to make way for the arena. I defended the former merchants before anybody else. I do not believe that privately owned buildings should be financed with public tax dollars. Everybody else went along, hoping for their own little taste of the promised prosperity. That said, I do not believe that any developer needs to provide new apartments at anything less than market rate.
It was pointed out by both the moderator, Rev. Gregg Edwards, and the candidates, that Allentown is now a minority majority city, with a sizable portion of the residents hovering near the poverty line. This reality was the predominate theme of the evening. All the candidates, both for mayor and city council, told those attending at the inter city church, that they felt their pain about any inequalities in the city. That ranged from housing blight, to not enough minority officers on the police force.
Among other recommendations advocated by the sponsoring Coalition ( a subgroup of POWER Lehigh Valley) is that if the city would compile a database of "good" and "bad" properties, it would be easier for tenants to navigate the rental process. Center city housing is challenged, but by whom, I disagree. I think that the city should compile a list of good and bad tenants.
I'm not running for office, so I don't have to pander to anyone. Actually, when I did run, I didn't pander then either.
photocredit:molovinsky
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThose of us who live in the city understand how difficult it is for landlords to find good tenants. All kinds of tricks are played to present the applicant was ideal and weeks or months later there are huge problems. While the city has a limited ability to control the human end of this business transaction it does have a duty to uphold building codes and standards uniformly. This it has failed for the last twelve years. The city looks the way it does as a result, the poverty climbs annually as well for the same reason. It is sad and troubling that a significant percent of the population in Allentown seems to have little respect for themselves or for others. This is the city Ed and his cohorts created.
It was pointed out by both the moderator, Rev. Gregg Edwards, and the candidates, that Allentown is now a minority majority city, with a sizable portion of the residents hovering near the poverty line.
ReplyDeleteIf the majority are at the poverty line - who is going to pay the taxes, to subsidize them?
“The idea of social justice is that the state should treat different people unequally in order to make them equal.”
Friedrich Hayek
Important points from the post:
ReplyDelete"...the inclusionary zoning petition...is meant to require developers (i.e. Reilly's Stratas) to set a portion of the new units (10-20%) aside for affordable housing.", and
"It was pointed out by both the moderator, Rev. Gregg Edwards, and the candidates, that Allentown... [now has]... a sizable portion of the residents hovering near the poverty line."
The stunning lack of economic knowledge in City Hall - and most of those running to work there - can be found in the points above.
City Hall policies have made Allentown a city where too many residents are hovering near the poverty line. High property taxes (worse now with O'Connell and Council's 27% tax hike), a new stormwater tax, high Earned Income Taxes (double the rate of most surrounding municipalities), and a maximum Local Services Tax make Allentown VERY unfriendly to homebuyers and workers. That list is by no means all-inclusive, as City Hall has worked hard to siphon every dollar possible from Allentown residents.
At the same time, City Hall has expanded programs that attract even more of those who are at or below the poverty line. I think most everyone has compassion for those who need help, but there comes a time when you have to step back and look at the overall effect of what you've been doing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the policies implemented by City Hall have been increasing poverty instead of decreasing it.
The Earned Income Tax rate is particularly hard to stomach, since City Hall only charges non-residents working in the city 1.28% (vs. the 1.975% tax on city residents). Think of that for a second - City Hall is actually creating an incentive for workers to live OUTSIDE the city. That's how backwards City Hall policies have become.
Municipal Economics 101 will tell you that if you tax something you get less of it, and if you subsidize something you get more of it. So why would any sane candidate for City office support policies that push workers out of the city and draw more poor into it? Your guess is a good as mine, but it all starts with the pandering that most of those running for office professed at last week's debate.
While I don't support the goals of those who held last week's debate, I'm happy they held it. It exposed those candidates who would do even greater damage to the city, all in the name of compassion and progress. The city's current course is not sustainable, and needs to change.
I would urge Allentown voters to do their research and vote wisely next month.