☀ The Call’s Big Scoop: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Jarrett Renshaw, the Call’s only dedicated Allentown reporter (!), is an ambitious muckraker. In my view, his gotcha zeal translates into coverage of City Hall that is, in tone and in the pattern of story selection, unfair. (Easy for me to say: my wife, executive director of the Redevelopment Authority, works in City Hall.)1 Still, I’d much rather have a reporter on the Allentown beat who is gunning for the above-the-fold scoops than a lazy lapdog.
This is the background to my reaction to Renshaw’s “Exclusive Report” that screams, just below the masthead and across four columns, “Player in Plaza site banned from banking.” The story tells us something new–that a partner in the team set to redevelop the long-empty Corporate Plaza lot at 7th and Hamilton has major legal and ethical problems stemming from worse-than-unsavory behavior. This is indeed well worth reporting, and represents real sleuthing on Renshaw’s part.
Still, and as I said, in tone and in the pattern of story selection, Renshaw and the Call are often unfair. The Plaza story is a case in point. The Call hasn’t yet covered the underlying development plans. In other words, this is the first article to mention the 54-unit structure to rise in the ashes of the ill-fated Corporate Plaza office tower.
Hence Renshaw’s need to provide an explanatory paragraph 12 grafs into the story:
The proposed development of the site includes 54 affordable housing units and artist lofts, ground-floor retail and a solar-paneled roof. The project, which sits in a tax-free zone, depends on public support in the form of federal tax credits and other measures.
Regardless of your view on the planned development, including the public support question, you deserve to read about it in a stand-alone story. Instead, we get Renshaw’s sprawling gotcha—and only a paragraph or two on the development itself. In journalism, that’s called burying the lede.
UPDATE: The Call has followed up with a more detailed story about the development, including critical comments from Seventh Street Main Street Manager Peter Lewnes and City Councilman Michael Donovan.
Comments enabled.
- The Redevelopment Authority is also involved in the Corporate Plaza deal I discuss below. ↩
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:59 am
the last thing this town needs is 54 more low-income apartments, which will be free from property taxes, to add insult to injury. we certainly also don’t need to add more competition to the existing empty storefronts on hamiton street. we already have more “artist lofts” than artists. lastly, spare me from more solar panels, we only get three days of sun in allentown.
The highest and best use for that parking lot, at this point in time, is a parking lot.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:11 am
Jeff,
When I first read this today I thought I missed the feature story on the new 7th Street development. I do believe there was a brief afternoon mention on the Call’s website one day but very little detail. I would be eager to read about those details if they were published.
Based on the little information I have read I must agree with MM. Fifty-four additional low-income housing units at 7th & Hamilton does not sound like a healthy addition to the core of our city.
If a group of investors believe they can turn a profit building and leasing lofts or apartments at market rate (or above) I am all for it, even if tax abatements are involved at that difficult site. Other lofts such as Auburn Station, P&P Mill, and Hyman have proven there is demand in other Allentown neighborhoods (many artists do live in these).
Personally, I think leveraging other public incentives that will place income or rent restrictions on units at this location is not in the best interest of our city, or is it particularly socially responsible.
Best, Damien
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I agree that the exclusive focus on low-income housing–if indeed it represents all 54 units–is a mistake. My guess is, if the project is completely low-moderate, that it reflects requirements of some of the funding streams–which isn’t a good enough reason. But the point of my post is that we don’t know what the project, as planned, will look like: we haven’t had an announcement story.
(Damien: I didn’t see that web-post–just a passing mention in a budget-related story about real estate deals. I can’t find a story on the Corporate Plaza deal in the Call’s archive either.)
Thanks, Jeff
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
I tend to agree on the affordable housing concerns. I live in Old Allentown where there are plenty of affordable housing options. PLENTY. You can find a house for 80-100k. They require improvements, blood, sweat and tears (trust me, my fiance and I know). But they are affordable and, when improved by the homeowner, represent the American Dream (increased value, equity, etc). So the development of more housing just doesn’t seem right to me. I might be more inclined to support additional housing initiatives if there was more focus on rehabbing properties on the same scale as is being proposed for new development.
I am also concerned about the fact that other development projects within two blocks of this site haven’t been developed (old Colonial Theater, furniture building next to Zion, etc) and even the parking authority structure was never rented out as intended (although it appears the authority will be moving its offices there. The underlying concern that I have is that it doesn’t appear ANY of these decisions are including a reflection of the market realities. I know the staff at AEDC and the RDA. They are trying and doing their best to make this all come together, but there is a point at which we may have to explore the underlying reasons why these projects aren’t happening and find solutions that the city can influence to make it possible. The economic incentives are present (grants, loans, tax abatements, marketing, etc), but there is a point at which the social, physical and political influences (the other forces that influence real estate value) have to be fully considered by policy makers. Right now, they aren’t happening.
As far as the story goes, it doesn’t sound like there was much homework done on the broker. When that isn’t done, then the story is what the story is. Personally, I think combative reporting is the only thing that holds public officials accountable. Knowing that I might someday be the target of such reporting, I think that is part of the business. Since the article doesn’t attack the quality of life of an allentown neighborhood, I am inclined to call it fairplay. If it attacked a group of volunteers or a neighborhood, I’m willing to cry foul.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Jeff,
You are right we really don’t know anything at this point. If the building turned out to be something along the line of 10% reserved for low-income I think I could live with that to see it get off the ground.
To address Goeff’s question, the reason many of these retail/restaurant initiatives don’t come together is because downtown Allentown doesn’t have a large enough potential market in the neighborhood or direct highway access.
If the American Parkway is ever finished it will help the latter (sort of) so I think the answer to your question is the former, more residents with disposable incomes. Old Allentown should be/is a big part of that idea. Lack of a market makes retail or entertainment is a huge risk down there right now.
Many think that a dense population is the problem downtown. I see it as the solution with a proper socio-economic mix.
Damien
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I agree completely with Damien’s points.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
yes and no in my agreement with Damien. I don’t think there is sufficient strength in the regional economy to cultivate a downtown with the scale being proposed for downtown Allentown. While transportation access would have an impact, I am not convinced it would be the seismic shift that I think needs to take place for downtown Allentown. Perhaps I am wrong (though my research and understanding of regional economies suggests I am probably right), but the LV regional economy has taken a beating in the last 5 years. It would have to grow to pre-2005 levels and grow more to present that kind of market. Aggregate spending patterns in house hold spending reports, opportunity/gap reports and income tax reports by county show that there is less disposable income in the LV today than in 2005. Build the roads. Yes. Improve the neighborhoods. Please. But even with those improvements, there needs to be more income available in the region to support market-based initiatives on those properties.
I agree with your comment about density, with the proper pscho-profile could being an asset. 7th Street is living proof of that. Hamilton Street, however, is billed as a destination downtown. Population density in the downtown is less consequential (though it would help the marketability of the surrounding neighborhoods).
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Geoff: “I don’t think there is sufficient strength in the regional economy to cultivate a downtown with the scale being proposed for downtown Allentown. “
Fair enough but there’s a hell of a lot of distance between the current downtown and whatever utopian visions get bounced around. If the basic set of intermediate goals–transportation access, neighborhood improvement, Hamilton St. density–are kosher, then that’s agreement in my book.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Yup. Allentown can still be great, but it is going to be great outside of those utopian visions. The market-based approaches supported by improved neighborhoods and transportation can lead to a fantastic city. Thanks for raising the issue.
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Renshaw’s piece was outstanding investigative journalism. I don’t consider it “gotcha’” or even muck-raking, just fine work.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:32 am
all,
I’m thrilled this story got any play whatsoever. I would love a story that actually shows the community on 7th wasn’t really involved. As a property owner and someone involved with 7th street’s revitalization efforts, I’ve been against the development of low to mod housing on this scale in center city, especially that location on 7th Street. It is counter productive to the efforts on both Hamilton and 7th and too important a property to develop for development’s sake.
I met with HDC’s Andre Perry – he would not guarantee any artist housing so that’s just a way to wrap a pretty bow around the project – using the arts to mask the fact that this will be just another rental low to mod housing development. The Farr Lofts are rented, the Auburn Station lofts are expanding, P& P is doing ok although definitely feeling the effects of opening in a soft market…these are all market rate. If you need low to mod – and I am not against them or helping people that need help, build something 70/30 or a different ratio.
I have stated that the property has been vacant for decades…it can wait another 5 years or however long it takes for a more solid development proposal to come to fruition.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Whatever happens here will be there for years. Let’s do it right. MM may be right: highest and best use may be a few more years as a parking lot. B/c it is in a tax free zone, I am not sure there is a compelling municipal benefit other than to say a project got done.
That the 7th Street Development Committee staff is concerned about the project, to me, is telling. It is enough for me to encourage, at the very least, a pause.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Bernie: I agree, and I meant (and mean) “muckraker” as a compliment. As I wrote: “The story tells us something new–that a partner in the team set to redevelop the long-empty Corporate Plaza lot at 7th and Hamilton has major legal and ethical problems stemming from worse-than-unsavory behavior. This is indeed well worth reporting, and represents real sleuthing on Renshaw’s part.” My complaint is about, more than anything, a sin of omission. Where’s the story on the development itself? I don’t know–and it seems like none of us does–what the ratio of low-mod housing is for the development, or any other details about it. I agree with Geoff: it is enough to give me pause that 7th Street Development Committee is opposed to the deal. And if it is all low-mod, then I think it’s a mistake. I’d like to know more details.