Community Members Meet With David Jaindl

At the last Board of Commissioners (BOC) meeting David Jaindl agreed to meet with anyone with concerns about the Spring Creek Development Plan.

It's important to note he's always been willing to talk to anyone.

As I've always said Mr. Jaindl is a businessman. He's working within the parameters allowed by our elected BOC when they approved the Memorandum of Understanding that laid the groundwork for Jaindl's new ordinance. 

I decided to take up his offer. I sat with over a dozen people at the turkey farm to listen. He began by outlining the business. As most know, the company has two divisions: Agriculture/turkey and land development. I'm speculating, but I guess land development has been far more lucrative then agriculture. It's just the way it is, I suspect. The company characterizes it's land development operation as going above and beyond to build quality projects. I personally believe, however that the greenfield development philosophy it employs perpetuates sprawl. 

After the video, the group created a list of concerns. Mr. Jaindl, his engineer and solicitor addressed each topic. I didn't hear anything new or anything that changed my perception of the project in general. Here is an overview of some of the issues discussed:

• STORMWATER: Interesting to hear Jaindl's take on the stormwater and how he would address them. He stated that his measures would go 'above and beyond' township standards. This is important because clearly our standards have not worked out too well for those who live near the floodplain over the past 2 decades. I remain skeptical. Already, he has requested waivers to reduce the side slopes of basins. He also stated he owns only 3% of the 13,400 acre watershed. But he's still the most powerful and influential land owner in the area and can greatly influence Lehigh & Berks County, LCA, LV Planning Commission, etc. to study, plan and act on a macro level to solve issues.

• PROPERTY VALUE: I was not impressed with answers given to the issue of property value and impact on taxpayers. I just can't wrap my head around how potentially building a four-lane highway or a district of towering warehouses each larger then a football field could ever raise the value of an adjacent properties as he claimed. This just doesn't add up. Oh, and don't forget flooding local roads with tractor trailers.

• TAXES: They continue to address concerns only looking at this project in a small box. There still is no proper lifespan accounting going outside of this tidy little box accounting for items such as state roads, police and fire services and long term mandates. We're addressing a lack of tax base diversity (a real issue) by going completely overboard with one specific type. Also, Jaindl and the BOC try to draw lines between township and state roads, as if we don't have to pay for state road construction. Penndot is not in a position to fund anything but the most critical projects. (Bridges) 

My position hasn't changed, though I appreciate Mr. Jaindl putting on this presentation. I can only imagine how much better this situation would be if our elected officials specifically Reis, Conrad, Brown and Eichenberg had engaged the public in a meaningful way prior to the MOU. 

I will continue to support the appellants and pray this zoning is reversed via the court decision. I then hope we can have an open and honest discussion about potential options. This including fighting the quarry or accepting a much smaller quarry in lieu of a warehouse district.  It's important the community remains involved every step of the way. It's clear Mr. Jaindl welcomes that. I have to give him credit for that. In this respect, I wish the BOC would take a lesson from him.