 |
|
| A GRASSROOTS EFFORT TO PRESERVE BETHLEHEM'S PAST WHILE ENSURING ITS ECONOMIC FUTURE | |
|
|
SOS In The NewsStatement of WILLIAM K. SCHEIRER before the BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL on the BETHLEHEM WORKSOctober 7, 2003 Mr. President, I fear that the City of Bethlehem is on the verge of losing some of the nation's important historical heritage. I am referring to the buildings still on the Bethlehem Works. As an example of what may be lost, I am conveying two images that were prepared to accompany this statement by Joseph Elliot, Professor of Photography and Art at Muhlenberg College. The first image is of the Bethlehem Steel No. 2 Machine shop in 1992. The second is a strikingly similar image of Machinery Hall at The Philadelphia Centennial Exposition of 1876 in Fairmount Park. It is not entirely a coincidence that equipment and artifacts from this building are now in storage in Bethlehem pending exhibition, after being exhibited for many years in the Smithsonian's Arts and Industries Building in Washington, DC. Philadelphia did not have the good sense to preserve Machinery Hall. Nor did Chicago have the good sense to preserve the Manufactures and Liberal Arts Building of the Columbia Exposition of 1893, another dazzling combination of natural light and cast iron. But the mistakes of Chicago and Philadelphia imply an opportunity and an obligation for Bethlehem. The obligation is obvious. The opportunity is to create a National Museum of Industrial History that could easily become the second most visited site in Pennsylvania, after Independence Hall.As I interpret the agreements that I have been allowed to see, the city has agreed that economic development will be paramount. I have not been allowed to see the collection of four agreements of 2000, collectively known as the Bethlehem Agreements, because I must submit a written request to the city solicitor that will be reviewed by an attorney within five days. Since my request would have to be reviewed, presumably it could be rejected. As a citizen and taxpayer, I must confess to feeling somewhat disenfranchised. Would it not be possible to place copies of these and other important agreements, which are public documents, in the Bethlehem Public Library, so that the citizens of Bethlehem can see what their government has agreed to? While I understand that the federal Section 106 procedural protections of the Programmatic Agreement of the Bethlehem Agreements are probably still in effect, they have been undermined by the three-page Cooperation Agreement of this past February 11, authorized by the City Council on February 18, which I received from your excellent Office of the City Clerk. This Cooperation Agreement is the principal source of my disquiet. It elevates economic development to primary consideration. In paragraph 4 it states "If the parties agree that the Bethlehem Agreements ... need to be adjusted because (sic) passage of time and the change of circumstances arising ... from ... change in economic conditions, they will negotiate in good faith to adjust or renegotiate the Bethlehem Agreements." And in paragraph 6 it states "The parties will cooperate to maximize the development potential of the Bethlehem Works." Who will decide if development includes historic preservation? Who will decide if economic conditions warrant adjustment of the Bethlehem Agreements? Probably the economic experts. And who will pay them? The city will have little money for this, so the developer will pay for them. Will the experts disagree with the developer? They might, but if they do their reports will be buried. The only reports that the developer will release will agree with the developer. So the developer will decide whether historic preservation makes economic sense. Even though there is ample room for both historic preservation and the usual kind of development, this is a dangerous course. Developers truly interested in historic preservation are almost an oxymoron. They do exist, but they are a rare breed indeed. Developers are builders, who are interested in relatively short-run gains so that they can move on to the next project. They are not often in the business of nurturing a project until it becomes an economic success, as will be the case with a tourist attraction, in this case an industrial museum housed in historic properties. The developer will very likely plead economic necessity as defined by him or her and there will be little if any historical preservation. What can be done? It seems to me that there are three things the city can immediately do to preserve this historic opportunity. First, the city should make it clear that it wants to see preservation of all the properties that have historic value. If this jeopardizes ongoing negotiations, then so be it. To feel that Bethlehem is in such a desperate situation that it must accommodate almost any developer that comes along is to sell short, in my opinion, the enormous potential that Bethlehem has. The second thing the city can do is explore now all avenues of using the power of eminent domain, if that should be necessary. This exploration should include immediate efforts to secure any necessary changes in state law. The third, and not necessarily the last, thing the city can do now is to prepare the papers necessary to file for injunctive relief, as a last resort. I realize that I am asking the city to really think outside the box. But the need is urgent and the time is short. It would be an awful shame if the city lost this opportunity of historic proportions. Thank you for your attention. 
|
