Council to Consider Third Bond Issue
Bernie O'Hare

Some background on the bond issue:

Why the concern over this bond issue? In Pennsylvania, bond issues need not appear on the ballot. They are often decided behind closed doors by county Councils. Principal, interest, and administrative costs -not insignificant - are generally paid back out of taxpayer pockets. Administrative costs can cause the debt to escalate far beyond its face value.

The current bond issue is the third proposed by Northampton County Council over the last 14 months. The amount of the current issue was first packaged in with Bond Issue 1, a general purpose issue of $113 million that Council adopted on June 15, 2000. This bond was challenged by a lawsuit and subsequently rejected by the state's Department of Community and Economic Development on grounds of inadequate cost estimates.

Bond Issue 2, a rework of Bond Issue 1, was adopted by Council almost exactly a year later on July 19, 2001. It kept $111 of the original $113 and will be channeled to the General Purpose Authority (GPA) as originally proposed.

The difference between the state-rejected $113 million Bond Issue 1 and the $111 million Bond Issue 2 has resulted in Bond Issue 3. The $2 million deleted from the first bond issue went into the current proposal and would be channeled through the Industrial Development Authority (IDA). IDA chair Marilyn Lieberman hopes thus to satisfy her supporters in her bid for reelection to Council.

Once again, this bond's dollar figure would far exceed $2 million dollars and would include:

  • $3 million for the Williams Township BallYard alone

  • $2.35 million for a Hotel Easton parking deck

  • A possible $2 million for a Plainfield Township "shell" building, the purpose of which is to attract high-tech, high-salaried jobs. The County has already subsidized a similar shell building in Glendon Borough and, in fact, the building is being utilized as a warehouse.

    Wayne Grube is Northampton Council President. J. Michael Dowd is a Council member representing District 2, Easton. Jim Hickey is the County Administrator.



    According to today's Morning Call, Council expects to consider a third bond issue on 9/6 on projects that will include, among other things, $2.35 million for an expandable parking deck for customers of Hotel Easton and to alleviate an alleged growing downtown parking problem.

    The Hotel owners have magnanimously agreed to wait until mid September for county and municipal officials to prepare a bond issue. Grube states he will schedule separate hearings the week of September 11 on projects for the third bond issue. The earliest vote will be September 20.

    It was my hope that the current bond challenge would dissuade Council from proceeding with a third bond issue during an election year, but these folks are moving ahead. I now know why Grube has spent so much time at the courthouse lately.

    Will this third bond issue be IDA or GPA? I don't know. Will the enabling act be the MAA of '45 or the Industrial Development Authority law? I don't know. What specific projects are planned? I don't know. Our open government is hard at work in back rooms making the deals that it will announce in its supposed public hearings.

    I know there is majority support for Hotel Easton. That was confirmed to me by Hickey himself, who told me he brokered the deal to get Dowd majority support for Hotel Easton in exchange for Dowd's "yes" vote on the $111 million GPA bond.

    I oppose Hotel Easton for the following reasons: 1) It primarily benefits two NY aristocrats and their "luxury" customers at the expense of the taxpayer. 2) If it is to be done, it should be done with nondebt revenue bonds as opposed to general obligation bonds. If the cost for the project is paid by the revenue it generates, I would have no objection. 3) The Mayor of Easton goes out of his way to get handouts for these wealthy few while he literally evicts people from their homes if they fail to pay their water bills. This is hypocrisy 4) The City has sufficient funds to finance this project on its own. If Goldsmith thinks this is so fiscally prudent, he could float a bond thru Easton's parking authority.

    Because a deal has already been brokered for the Hotel Easton parking garage, we know that whatever hearings are scheduled will be a sham. I have no idea what other projects have been planned.

    Does anyone know a downtown Easton resident who is willing to state on the record that there is no parking problem in Easton that would be solved by planting a parking deck right next to the Delaware River?


    The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of billybytes.com


    [Home] | [Archives] | [Comments] | [Subscribe]

    © 2001 billybytes.com. All rights reserved.

    Home Archives Comments Subscribe