Mike Fleck Proposes to Raise Taxes and Expand Government for the NID, and Dennis Lieb Saves the Day

Mike Fleck, West Ward rep on City Council, left, describes "Option 3" (raising taxes) in addition to dipping into general fund to create a new Community Development Fund to support programs like the Easton Ambassadors and struggling local nonprofits. Dennis Lieb, right (the guy Fleck beat in the election), proposes an option that funds the Ambassadors without raising taxes at all.

Posted by: Noël Jones


Next time I endorse a candidate, please listen to me. In our first ever election for West Ward rep on City Council a few years ago, Mike Fleck was elected over Dennis Lieb, who I endorsed for the breadth of his knowledge with regard to urban planning, parking design, mass transit, urban ecology and new urbanism in general. He is, in my opinion, one of the most wasted human resources in our community. He is one of those rare citizens that is not only truly passionate about this city, but also has the knowledge base to back that passion up with  creative (and well-researched) solutions when Easton needs them most. And he manages to come up with these solutions without wasting taxpayer money. The smartest thing that Mayor Panto has done since taking office, in my opinion, was to get over Lieb's "watchdog" reputation and appoint him to the Planning Commission. The smartest thing, in my opinion that Esther Guzman has done since taking her position as Manager of the West Ward Neighborhood Partnership (and she's done a lot of smart things) was lobbying to hire Lieb. So his brain is not nearly as wasted as it was a couple of years ago, but Tuesday night, at the special meeting called at City Hall to discuss the proposed Neighborhood Improvement District--after full hour of officials and residents bandying about different ideas and concerns about the proposal, Dennis Lieb made it obvious to everyone that this city would be way better off, if we had elected him to council. 


The upshot of it was, that Mike Fleck and Ken Brown (but Fleck was clearly leading the charge) decided to propose a tax hike on business
owners downtown (a BID [Business Improvement District], instead of a NID [Neighborhood Improvement District]), but to create an entirely new fund, called the Community Development Fund, which would seek to get some funding from regional banks in our area, a new PILOT [Payment In Lieu Of Taxes] program, and increased parking fees, but would also siphon casino tax money, amusement tax money and CDBG funding out of the general fund to create the new fund, which would be administered by the GEDP, rather than the city.


Vice-Mayor Elinor Warner objected to a) taking money out of the general fund when the city is struggling to cover road repair and gas and water line work while balancing its budget as it is, and b) setting up another layer of administration to the process. Mayor Panto echoed these concerns, and both Warner and Panto were in favor of approaching banks and instituting a PILOT program, but saw no reason to take money out of the general fund. At that point Fleck said, "I'm also in favor of Option 3, but no one wants to talk about Option 3--Option 3 is raising taxes, but nobody wants to talk about that."


Anthony Marracinni, owner of Connexions Gallery downtown, voiced concerns over the strain that both a tax hike and raising parking fees would have on his business. Downtown resident Bill Marley pointed out that no one on council lives in downtown, and expressed his concerns about the potential for a tax hike on residents to drive good residents out of downtown altogether. Councilman Roger Ruggles responded that his church is downtown, and that they would gladly donate to the NID. Downtown property owner, Letty Eisenhauer, spoke up to suggest that perhaps Easton could cut costs by instituting a welfare-to-work program the way New York City did, and save money that way. Councilman Jeff Warren made icky faces at that idea.  Fleck kept insisting that "the city needs to pay their share" (and since the City has no money of its own, but rather our money, that means that he thinks residents should pay for it--it meaning the new fund he's proposing, which would not just be to pay for the Ambassadors, but funding several nonprofits in town, who are struggling after federal and state funding cuts).


Roger Ruggles brought up the fact that a parking study had already revealed that raising parking revenue could produce $300k, and that $300k was the cost of the Ambassadors. Fleck didn't like that, because he didn't just want to cover the Ambassadors, but the other nonprofits as well, to the tune of $700K. A long discussion ensued between the council and the public about the various ways that parking could be handled. I kept looking at Dennis Lieb's back, wondering if he was going to say anything. Lieb's been telling me for at least a year now about a thing called a Neighborhood Parking District, and how the parking problem can be solved while  raising revenue that goes directly back into the neighborhoods where the meters are--in other words--the revenue goes to the blocks it affects, and the residents can decide to spend it however they want to improve their area--whether that be contributing to a program like the Ambassadors, or anything else they have in mind.


After everyone else was done talking, Lieb finally spoke up, and said, "This meeting is already long, so I'm going to try to keep this short. I've never heard the issue of parking come up at a council meeting, so I've never bothered to speak up on the issue, but I'm pretty sure that I know more about parking than just about anybody in this room, and I just want to say that there is an answer to all this that has been successful all over the country." At that point, he lifted a hard-backed tome heavy enough to kill a small animal, and said, "This is The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup. It's 605 pages and anyone who would like to borrow it is welcome to. It basically it explains that a successful parking plan is one that always maintains 15% of its parking spots open. This ensures that customers of businesses in any particular area will always be able to find a spot. Parking is a product, that earns revenue, and it should be treated like a business. If you give the product away for free, it doesn't work. People just park in the spots all day when it's free, and residents and customers can't find parking." Lieb went on to explain the concept of the Neighborhood Parking District, "The meters should be charging at all times. People initially scream at that idea until they realize that it keeps spots open for their customers,  and that the meters are making them money, and that all of that revenue is going directly back into their neighborhood parking district, to fix up their blocks in any way they want to--whether it be facade grants, sidewalk steaming and repair, planting trees, signage, etc.--whatever they decide as a neighborhood district to do. If the residents have parking passes so they don't have to pay the meters, and they're in a neighborhood parking district, they're less likely to get upset if there isn't a spot open right in front of their house--because they know at least that that meter is making them money for their block. And if they wanted to use it to pay for something like the Ambassadors, they could."


Everyone on council, except for Mike Fleck, looked impressed and nodded their heads. Mayor Panto's expression seemed to say, I could get a lot done with this guy on board...


Outside on the street after the meeting, I asked Lieb if he had really read the whole 605 pages, and he said, "Actually, I read it twice. You can borrow it if you want to."


Being a very slow reader myself, 605 pages on something as dry as parking sounds like a death sentence. I don't want to read 605 pages. I want people like Dennis Lieb to read 605 pages and implement what he's learned when he's been hired by the city to actually be able to do that.


And one last thing for those who have their doubts about the value of public meetings in forming legislation, policy and good planning. The few residents who attended that meeting and spoke up, offered the best suggestions in the house, and that is a big part of what public meetings are for--not just objecting when people feel the city is going astray, but contributing creative problem-solving ideas and vision to a process that would otherwise just have tax hikes on the table. 


The public is a human resource. Let's use it. And please, for the love of parking, can someone please start a bidding war over Dennis Lieb's brain?