Industrial park is key issue in the supervisors race
Here’s where the Upper Mount Bethel candidates stand
With residents fired up about a massive industrial complex planned for 725 acres of undeveloped land near Interstate 80, opponents in Upper Mount Bethel Township managed an unusual feat. Two candidates won their primary races, and — thanks to write-in campaigns — primary races on the opposite side of the ballot.
That means November’s race for two spots on the board of supervisors will feature one Republican and one Democrat on both parties’ ballots, as well as an independent.
All three candidates were motivated in some way by the controversy over the River Pointe Logistics plan, which calls for 13 manufacturing and distribution buildings. Supervisors in September 2020 approved a text amendment that increases building heights and square footage in the industrial zone, allowing developer Lou Pektor to move forward with River Pointe.
John Bermingham, a Republican, was the sole no vote. He waged a write-in campaign in the primary with fellow candidate David Friedman, a Democratic newcomer who is part of a group that sued the township over that zoning amendment, ensuring both men
appear on both parties’ ballot in the Nov. 2 general election.
Bermingham and Friedman will face independent candidate Wayne Smith, an engineering supervisor
and former chair of the planning commission in Knowlton Township, New Jersey, who is running on a platform calling for more open dialogue and civility among township leaders at public meetings. Tense meetings about River Pointe Logistics over the summer gave the final push for him to run.
Developers argue the complex would bring about 5,700 jobs and potentially $2 million annually in taxes and revenue to the township. Opponents fear it would harm the rural character of the township,
Each candidate spoke about his approach should he win election:
The Morning Call: What are your ideas for balancing the preservation of the township’s natural scenery with development and the revenue and jobs it can bring? John Bermingham:
Revenue and jobs are a good thing, but it should be mom-and-pop shops,
manufacturing, food-processing and environmentally friendly. It should be businesses wanting
to be part of our community
and give back, exercise corporate social responsibility and put our
township first. Warehouses bring minimal jobs, lots of truck traffic and high structures. In conclusion, I represent the people, so the people should have a say in what kind of businesses they want in our township and what businesses they do not. Development is good when it is the right
kind of business and one the people welcome here.
David Friedman: By its nature Upper Mount Bethel Township is not conducive to large-scale industrial development. There are small areas in the township in
which development is practical, but all development should have to adhere to existing zoning ordinances. Any development should take into consideration the unique and diversified features of the township. The proposed 10-story, 1 million-square-foot buildings are detrimental to the rural atmosphere of our township.
Wayne Smith: The township’s master plan is over 20 years old and was never done correctly, to
start with. It should be updated and residents should be allowed to be more involved in the discussion and decision-making process. Knowlton Township hired professional planners, which Upper Mount Bethel should’ve done if they didn’t. Upper Mount Bethel supervisors sincerely believe they’re doing the right thing, but on a totally flawed premise of needing more money for more spending. I also don’t see the need for farmland to be in neighborhood improvement districts, which are meant to restore mostly urban areas.
Morning Call: Do you believe commissioners’ decision-making and the township government is open and transparent enough? If not, what would you do to increase transparency?
Bermingham: We need better transparency and communication with the people. We’re not listening to them. I hold monthly office hours at local restaurants to listen to the people, not to try to sell or convince them of something. I tell them what I’m able to do. I’m also on Facebook receiving people’s input, and available by email, phone and visits to my home. People are comfortable approaching me. I listen to their ideas. I am not the smartest guy in the room, but I am good at making things happen. I thank the residents for that.
Friedman: Unfortunately, many of our supervisors neither seek nor listen to advice that pertains to the numerous important matters that are affecting our township. They have ignored advice given to them by the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, experts that live
in the community and their own engineer. They are allowing a developer to dictate the terms
of a major development that will affect the township and neighboring communities forever.
Numerous right-to-know forms need to be submitted to obtain information that should be readily accessible to the citizens of
the township. Many times these requests are denied for various reasons.
Smith: Transparent? Absolutely not. I’d make sure anyone with a question is addressed
directly in public at meetings, in front of everyone instead of off to
the side, and not just blow them off. We also should have more community meetings that are not official board of supervisors meetings, and just sit down and talk to the people.
Morning Call: How can supervisors foster more effective, mutually respectful communication and dialogue with each other and with the public?
Bermingham: Supervisors must understand we’re elected because the people trust us. We must listen, not talk. Respect that residents attend meetings because they care. Additionally, hold ad-hoc meetings, town halls,
Zoom meetings, so people know you’re doing what they want. The only time a supervisor communicates with residents shouldn’t be at a supervisors meeting. It’s not local government vs. the people, but working with the people. Regardless of your party, if you care about our township and have a good idea, I’ll listen and do my best to make it happen, even if we sometimes disagree.
Friedman: By necessity, the format of the board of supervisors’ public meetings does not allow open and frank discussions between the supervisors and the public. More “town hall” type meetings would encourage the citizens to ask and get answers to questions on matters that affect the township. Many of the issues that will concern the township in the future involve legal matters. These issues should be explained and discussed with the public. An open forum is necessary for the public to comprehend the effects of these complicated issues.
Smith: Each supervisor should have office hours where any citizen can just come in and ask questions, and those hours should be at town hall. Residents, not supervisors, should decide if they want development. Let people into the room before the meeting starts. Whatever’s discussed should be in front of the public, so people know what’s going on. And meetings should be civil, not adversarial.