Tag Archives: harrisburg

Sage Advice

October 11, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

Almost four years ago, Linda Thompson entered the mayor’s office vowing to work closely with the Harrisburg City Council.

As former council president, she seemed to understand how vital it was to forge alliances with council members, who had felt alternately ignored and attacked under former Mayor Steve Reed.

Therefore, it’s more than surprising that Thompson’s rocky relationship with council may have been the Achilles’ heel of her administration, a fact she seemed to acknowledge at this morning’s State of the City address at the Harrisburg Hilton.

During the question-and-answer period, she advised her successor as mayor and members of City Council to tend to their relationship, to put in an effort to work together to get things done. Excellent advice indeed. But then why did Thompson have such a continual problem with the legislative branch of the city’s government, the very body she headed for several years?

As with so many things in this city, the root of the problem lies in the near-dictatorship of Reed’s mayoralty.

In his collection of columns, “City Contented, City Discontented,” former Patriot-News writer Paul Beers describes the early years of Reed’s administration. Beers, who ceased writing his column in 1984, appeared optimistic about the young man’s prospects, but sagely noted his combative, take-no-prisoners approach to governance.

Beers lived long enough to see Reed continually bump up against and do battle with council through multiple terms. When he couldn’t co-opt council members, Reed sought either to go around or through them, regarding them more as an impediment than an ally.

By the time Thompson beat Reed handily in the 2009 Democratic primary, the consequences of years of unchecked executive power and profligate spending were becoming clear. So, if anyone should have understood the necessity of working with, not against, council, Thompson should have been that person.

But, bizarrely, she wasn’t.

Almost from day one, Thompson adopted Reed’s combative style, going to war with council after a majority rejected her first budget, which called for large increases in property taxes and water rates to cover incinerator bond payments. She followed with battles over Harrisburg Authority appointments, her ombudsman, her spokesman and, most importantly, various financial recovery plans. She fought with members of her own staff, the public and the press.

When asked why council opposed her, she usually responded harshly that it was all political, that a majority wanted Controller Dan Miller to replace her as mayor. But those of us who attended every council meeting knew that ambition and political spite weren’t what drove them.

The council wanted to be consulted, not dismissed; respected, not rolled over. In addition, the council was adamant in tossing aside any remnant of Reedism. It rejected the notion that residents should pay the price for the former mayor’s financial chicanery and buckled every time Thompson proposed hiring another group of high-priced consultants.

So, yes, Thompson offered excellent advice this morning (even though she stuck most of the blame on council). It is absolutely vital that the next mayor establish and nurture healthy relationships with council. How might he do that?

To start, the next mayor must attend every City Council meeting, even if it means just sitting there in the audience. It sounds so simple, but is something that neither Reed nor Thompson did, evidently believing it to be beneath them.

Doing so, the mayor will learn so much: the airing of issues behind legislation; what makes various council members tick; the challenges members face; what the public cares about; which issues in the city are emerging that haven’t yet hit the mayor’s radar.

It would also would give the mayor valuable face time with council members, who, busy with their daytime jobs and lives, typically only see one another at meetings and see the mayor even less often.

Otherwise, the mayor should be respectful of council members and their positions, friendly, willing to give and take. He should keep his door and phone lines open and get to know their interests and concerns. He needs to regard them as a vital part of the Harrisburg community and the city’s future.

The next mayor needs to build alliances on City Council, doing all the things that Thompson didn’t begin to do until it was too late. Things that, just maybe, would have given her the second term that she’s been denied.

What Parties Do

October 4, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

So, Nevin’s gone. Officially.

The decision that came down today from the Commonwealth Court ensured that independent candidate Nevin Mindlin will not be on the November ballot.

Furthermore, he stated that he will not run a write-in campaign, calling it “the ploy that political parties use to fake democracy and political participation and to dupe the unsuspecting public into believing that they have choices.”

Indeed, the political parties do control the process, though it seems surprising to me that this would be news. The two major parties have had a lock on power in this country for about 160 years. After savaging one another, their next priority is to preserve their duopoly.

I have repeatedly stated that Harrisburg is worse off for not having Mindlin on the ballot, and I continue to believe that. I had hoped the court would rule in favor of ballot inclusion. That said: not filling out a section of a nomination petition that says, “All nomination papers shall specify,” is a ticket to getting kicked off.

Why? Because, following a nomination deadline, the first thing that party operatives and candidate supporters do is drive down to the county courthouse and examine the nomination papers of opponents. If they find an error, a challenge invariably ensues.

You may not like this; I don’t like this. However, it’s a basic fact of running for office in this country. Heck, Dan Miller ran unopposed for city controller in 2009 after his presumptive primary opponent, long-time Controller James McCarthy, had his petition challenged and then denied for missing a deadline by three days. And petition challenges have sunk several other would-be candidates, just in this town, just in this election cycle.

So, you can believe, as Mindlin does, that “moneyed interests” and “the established regime” are behind his ballot access woes. You can believe that Mindlin just made a mistake. You can believe that the Dauphin County Bureau of Elections gave him bum advice on filling out his petition.

But, really, it doesn’t much matter. If you want to run for office, and a petition asks you to name a “committee to fill vacancies,” name one. When it says to file by a certain date, file by that date. When it states a residency requirement, make sure you meet it.

Know that, if you hope to be a candidate and don’t follow the law’s strict guidelines, you will get challenged. Political pros and party operatives would consider it the height of malpractice not to challenge a petition when they’re able. That’s just what happens; that’s just what they do.

A Debate Debate

October 2, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

Alan Kennedy-Shaffer (left) at a Harrisburg Hope forum earlier this year with Geno Veno, the school district’s chief recovery officer.

Note: Just after this was posted, Republican candidate Dan Miller announced that he would take part in tomorrow’s Harrisburg Hope mayoral debate, which now will be moderated by Destini Hodges, vice president of Harrisburg Hope. The event starts at 6 p.m. at HACC’s Cooper Student Center.

Candidate debates are supposed to inform and enlighten voters, not become issues themselves.

Unfortunately, in Harrisburg, the latter has happened repeatedly, as debates in the primary–and now in the general election–have become infused with personal and political drama that threatens to overshadow the substance of the events.

Tomorrow night, Harrisburg Hope holds the first highly anticipated mayoral debate of the general election season, and it now seems that, instead of a spirited exchange of ideas, Democratic candidate Eric Papenfuse may have the room largely to himself, delivering comments unchallenged by others.

According to organizer Alan Kennedy-Shaffer, Republican nominee Dan Miller still has not said if he plans to attend (he also has not officially turned down the invitation, so Kennedy-Shaffer isn’t sure whether or not Miller will be there). Meanwhile, independent Nevin Mindlin said late yesterday that he had changed his mind and would not participate.

In turning down the debate, Mindlin focused on Kennedy-Shaffer’s support of Papenfuse, in addition to the role of the Democratic Party in challenging Mindlin’s nominating petition.

Indeed, Kennedy-Shaffer is a Papenfuse booster, as well as a party activist. But he’s also president of Harrisburg Hope and, in that role, has proven himself to be a highly capable, fair moderator who is sincerely interested in helping to inform the people of Harrisburg on a wide range of public policy issues. Through the years, Harrisburg Hope has capably hosted other candidates’ nights, as well as held forums on subjects as varied as the city’s debt crisis and the legal status of marijuana. In fact, Mindlin and Miller both have participated in past Harrisburg Hope events.

As I’ve written previously, I respect all the mayoral candidates and believe it’s a tragedy that Mindlin was thrown off the ballot after his nominating petition was successfully challenged (his appeal is still pending before the Commonwealth Court). However, without Miller and Mindlin attending, the real losers will be not Kennedy-Shaffer or Harrisburg Hope, but the people of this city.

In a month, residents of Harrisburg will go to the polls to elect a new mayor, and they need as much information as possible to make the best decision. Debates provide the opportunity for voters to hear the candidates speak unscripted, perhaps even field unexpected questions. Otherwise, voters are left with little more than canned campaign rhetoric and toxic direct mail, neither of which is very helpful.

In a representative government, debates are vital tools in helping voters decide who will lead them, who will make public policy, who will better spend their tax dollars and more efficiently provide their services. Debates should be an instrument for the common good, a way for candidates to reach and inform voters. Instead, they’ve become another sign of the city’s division, another casualty of its highly personal politics.

Lawrance Binda is editor-in-chief of TheBurg.

At Home, At Last: Forced out of their country, a group of Nepali Bhutanese has found refuge in Harrisburg.

September 29, 2013 | by Andrew Dyrli Hermeling

Like many cities, Harrisburg’s population is dynamic and diverse.

People of various ethnicities and nationalities continue to add intricacy to the cultural tapestry of Pennsylvania’s capital. But for one group of recent immigrants, ethnically Nepali Bhutanese refugees, Harrisburg represents much more than better economic prospects. These people have come to our small city in search of something that has eluded them for more than 20 years—a home.

Coming to America

For the sake of context, I connected with Laura Beltle, the assistant director of programs at Church World Services in Lancaster, to get a better sense of the political situation that created this refugee crisis. Beltle works to place refugees from various locations across the globe, including many from the camps housing the expelled Bhutanese.

She first made sure to explain what distinguished refugees from other immigrants.

“Refugees are people who have been forced out of their country of origin because they faced persecution or fear of persecution due to one of five reasons: race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a specific social group,” says Beltle.

One such refugee, Dhan Saru, lives on Allison Hill. After I knocked on the door to his apartment, he invited me into his living room and introduced me to his wife Meena and his daughters, Anjana and Monita. As I sat on his couch, he began to tell me his story.

Dhan was born in Bhutan. For three generations, his people had lived peacefully in the south of the country. However, in the 1980s, the King of Bhutan and the Bhutanese ethnic majority, the Druk, began to grow concerned about the growing population of ethnic Nepalis.

“We had no human rights,” says Dhan. “Women could not wear their hair long; they could not put tika [a spot of red pigment] on their forehead. In Nepali culture, we pray to Hindu gods, but the Bhutanese government would not allow it.”

Beltle provided some historical context. Nepalis had immigrated to Bhutan in the 1800s, forming a distinct ethnic community known as Lhotsampas, or “People of the South.” They were granted citizenship in Bhutan in the 1950s, and many became more integrated into Bhutanese society. However, the Lhotsampas maintained their language, religion and customs. In the 1980s, the government in Bhutan instituted a program of Bhutanization and attempted to force the Lhotsampas to convert to Buddhism, speak Dzongkha, the official language of Bhutan, and wear Bhutanese-style clothing.

Dhan informed me of one aspect of Bhutanization that was even more radical. In fact, through his thick accent, it took me a few moments to fully understand what he said.

“They wanted Nepalis to marry Bhutanese people,” says Dhan. I re-stated what he said, asking him if they were forced to intermarry with the Bhutanese. Dhan replies, “Forced. Pushed to marry Bhutanese and become Buddhist.”

In the midst of an outcry and political organization by the Lhotsampas, the Bhutanese government stripped them of their citizenship. In December 1990, tens of thousands fled Bhutan back to their traditional homeland of Nepal.

Unfortunately for these refugees, the Nepali government was not any more hospitable.

“The Nepali government did not recognize the Lhotsampas as Nepalis either,” says Beltle.

Denied citizenship again, countless Lhotsampas became a people without a home. The U.N. quickly set up refugee camps in eastern Nepal, seven in all. Dhan met his wife, Meena, in Nepal. Unlike Dhan, Meena is a Nepali citizen. However, even marriage did not grant Dhan admission into Nepal. Without any other options, Meena moved with Dhan into a refugee camp, Beldangi 1.

Not surprisingly, life in the camp was difficult. Dhan and Meena’s children were born there. The children attended a school run by a non-governmental organization, where Dhan taught the Dzongkha language, a reminder that, despite the harsh treatment, many refugees still considered themselves Bhutanese. Dhan also created hand-painted signage for customers in Damak, a Nepali city in the region of the refugee camps. Meena made handmade tablecloths and traditional men’s hats, called topi.

For four years, Dhan and his family waited while their application for resettlement in the United States was processed.

No Resources

In 2008, the U.N. began the resettlement process. Neither Bhutan nor Nepal were taking the necessary strides to rectify the refugee crisis, so the U.N. turned to the United States for help. Cities across the country began receiving refugees.

“Resettlement is designed to be permanent,” says Beltle. “They are granted refugee status for one year. At that point, they can apply for a green card and be granted permanent residency. Finally, after five years of residency, refugees can apply for citizenship.”

However, prior to being granted a green card, refugees receive a special immigrant status.

“Most immigrants who come to the United States have to prove that they have connections and the resources to survive in order to be granted a visa. Refugees don’t have any resources,” says Beltle.

Instead, the United States immediately grants refugees the right to work and gives them access to welfare services. Even without a green card, refugees receive a Social Security number. Furthermore, the United States grants funds to charitable organizations, like Church World Services or Catholic Charities, which facilitate refugee resettlement.

Point Person

The resettlement process requires a lot of groundwork. Much of that work falls on the shoulders of volunteers.

Harrisburg resident Charity Roberts has dedicated her life to refugee resettlement. She began while a student at Messiah College. It was there that she met her first Nepali refugee. She then began working with Church World Services as an intern. Because CWS is based out of Lancaster, she became a point person for their placements in Harrisburg. She also teaches English as a Second Language for Catholic Charities.

Considering how convoluted American bureaucracy can be, such work is essential for refugee survival.

“I helped refugees navigate a lot of different issues,” says Roberts. “I took them to the Social Security office and helped them make appointments. I made sure they knew who to contact in an emergency.”

Many refugees do not speak English and, considering the challenge of education in the refugee camps, many are illiterate in their native language as well. Thus, coordinating appointments and making necessary connections to basic health services can be very difficult. It is easy to see how invaluable volunteers like Roberts are.

Still a Struggle

Dhan and his family were excited about arriving in Pennsylvania. After a first wave of refugees settled in a place, subsequent families often would go to cities where they already had family connections. Such was the case for Dhan and his family.

“Our family helped us find an apartment,” says Dhan.

However, despite speaking English and having a network of support, Dhan still struggled when he arrived.

“In Nepal, I was an artist, and I had a job,” says Dhan. “When I came to Harrisburg, I was jobless.”

Eventually, both Dhan and Meena found work at a meat processing plant. There, they work the second shift. Although the work is not ideal, they are very thankful to be able to work together on the same shift.

Dhan and Meena are most thankful that their children get to attend school. Although they attended school in the camp, their classes contained as many as 50 students.

Monita, who attends Marshall School, is especially happy about the opportunity. At school, she has many other Nepali friends. She is so enthusiastic about her classes that she quickly scrolls through the pictures in her phone to show me a picture of her ESL teacher.

“I am glad they can be in school and get knowledge,” says Dhan.

Despite Harrisburg’s reputation for underperforming schools, Dhan and his family remind us that just having access to education is a privilege that many around the world do not have.

The Nepali refugee community has already begun to leave a mark on the city. New stores, such as Nepali Pasal, have opened to meet the needs of the community.

However, their experience in Harrisburg has not been wholly positive. Already, Dhan has been robbed. With a limited understanding of the appropriate procedures in such an occurrence, refugees can be easy targets for exploitation.

“It can be dangerous here,” says Dhan, referring to the area of Allison Hill where he and many other Nepalis live.

Harrisburg Home

Despite countless difficulties, Nepali refugees already consider themselves lucky to be in a place like Harrisburg. Yet there is still so much more that the city can do to be welcoming to them.

“The best thing Harrisburg can do is understand the Nepali refugees’ background,” says Roberts. “People see the refugees walking along the river but don’t know why they’re there. One of the things the Nepali refugees suffer from is isolation. But once you have a connection with one refugee, you become part of the whole Nepali community.”

I asked if there are concrete things residents can do to connect with the community.

“Volunteering with an ESL class is an easy way to help,” says Roberts. “Places like Catholic Charities are always looking for volunteers. Individual churches can volunteer to sponsor a family. Refugees arrive without any furniture or other essentials, so donations can be a huge help.”

While I speak with Roberts, it becomes clear that her work with the Nepali community has benefited her as much as it has benefitted them.

As Roberts states: “There is a solid attitude about family life that we can learn from the Nepalis. The way they take care of one another. They have a lot to teach us about community.”

In my short time interacting with the Nepali community, I would definitely agree. I was graciously invited into a Nepali home. Before my interview was complete, Dhan pulled out a camera so that I might be included in a family photo.

Perhaps most importantly, “We, as Americans, can learn a lot about contentment from Nepalis,” Roberts says.

Again, thinking back to my conversation with Dhan, I have little doubt that Roberts is right. Despite being mugged and living in an apartment that most Americans would describe as cramped, Dhan is shy about saying anything negative about Harrisburg. Dhan has waited 20 years to find a home. Halfway around the world, in a place he often struggles to understand, it is obvious that he feels that his family has finally found one.

A Welcome Re-Development: Late to the game, Harrisburg begins to see value in preserving its historic legacy.

September 29, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

“Why can’t we . . .?”

When people tell me they’ve just returned to Harrisburg from a trip, they often approach me with one type of question. They’ve gone to D.C. or New England or—God help us—Europe, and they want to know:

Why can’t we have the charming houses and shops of Georgetown?

Why can’t we have a great public transit system like Boston?

Why can’t we have the clean streets and rock-solid infrastructure of Munich or Geneva or Amsterdam?

I have that thought too. I sometimes have it even when I’m just down the road in Lancaster, a small, midstate city like Harrisburg, but one that has had much greater success in reviving its fortunes.

Recently, that thought hit me hard when I was in Baltimore, a city that, in some ways, reminds me of a supersized version of Harrisburg. Baltimore is also a water town that suffers to this day from post-industrial decline. It has made some forward strides, but much of the city remains poor, troubled and gritty.

Baltimore has made the most progress reviving residential areas near the Inner Harbor. Walking around Fells Point, I remembered when that neighborhood was just beginning its comeback, a renaissance that now has spread to surrounding blocks. Today, who can walk around the winding, colonial-era cobblestone streets, hard against the harbor, and not be charmed by the restored brick houses, narrow sidewalks and 200-year-old taverns?

Imagine this: Fells Point was nearly smashed into extinction. In the 1960s, an elevated highway plan almost destroyed the neighborhood until a revolt by residents killed the project. Today, it’s the very preservation of those old houses, shops and streets that has allowed Fells Point to become a beachhead in the re-population and revival of the city.

Other American cities, of course, have followed a similar pattern. Manhattan was almost cut into ribbons by three highways that were planned, east to west, through the borough. In D.C., the “inner loop” expressway nearly doomed chunks of Capitol Hill and other neighborhoods. Like in Baltimore, the people there, already angered by other road projects and misguided attempts at “urban renewal,” which leveled large parts of their historic cities, finally fought back. Then the rebuilding began.

Which circles me back to Harrisburg.

Harrisburg’s history follows a similar path, but we’re very late to the game of preservation and revival. Yes, we had the post-war disasters of highway construction, including the widening of Forster Street, which may have harmed the city more than any other single project. We also experienced the leveling of historic buildings and blocks, which has given us eyesores as varied as the Town House and state Archives buildings, among many others.

But Harrisburg suffered an additional wave of destruction, well after most other cities had wised up to the importance of preserving their historic legacies. During the 1980s and ‘90s, the razing continued so that, today, Harrisburg’s largely Victorian-era downtown has been broken up into a confusing mess of architectural styles, too-big buildings and surface parking lots and garages.

But now we finally may have learned our lesson.

The announcement last month that Gamut Theatre had purchased and will transform the historic First Church of God into its new home was a singular event in the history of this city. The church’s congregation had become too small to support the circa-1854 building. So up stepped Gamut, which had been looking for a place to buy (almost moving to the suburbs in the process) after renting in Strawberry Square for 20 years.

Gamut’s purchase builds upon a trend that has been rapidly gaining steam in this city. Just in the past few years, the buildings that have been saved, renovated and often repurposed read like a who’s who of historic structures from historian Ken Frew’s seminal study of city architecture, “Building Harrisburg.”

Riverview Manor. The Governor’s Hotel. The Kunkel building. The Furlow building. The Gannett Fleming building. The Glass Factory. William Seel building. Tracy Mansion. As I write this, Brickbox Enterprises is finishing up its conversion of the Barto building to the LUX condominiums; WCI Partners is repurposing the once-deteriorating Moffitt Mansion on Front Street into a new home for WebpageFX; GreenWorks is turning the old Keystone Bank building into a new home for the Susquehanna Art Museum.

Coming soon: the renovation of the Stokes Millworks building into a farm-to-table restaurant and, we’ve just learned, the repurposing of another building into a home for Alter Ego Brewing Co., both due to open next year.

These conversions give the lie to the Reed-era claim that Harrisburg had to destroy itself to save itself. It’s been said that Steve Reed never met a bond deal he didn’t like. I would add that he rarely met a demolition permit he didn’t like. The losses of historically important buildings during his lengthy administration are their own type of tragedy.

Urban renewal in places as varied as Pittsburgh, Washington and Kansas City worked only when these cities embraced their history and stopped flattening it. People want to visit, dine, shop and spend their money in places that are visually appealing, charming and walkable. They may even want to live in them. They tend to avoid cities and neighborhoods that are, for lack of a better word, ugly—whose historic charm has been stripped away, replaced by urban highways and by hulking, cold, unwelcoming buildings too large for their 200-year-old streets.

Certainly, it’s not all roses in Baltimore, which has lost many historic buildings due to misguided urban renewal and road projects there, particularly in and near the central business district. Perhaps that’s why, while historic Fells Point was bustling during my recent visit, downtown was, as it typically is on weekends, a virtual ghost town—empty, almost eerily quiet, unpleasant to be in and walk around.

To its fortune, Baltimore is big enough to absorb and partially recover from past mistakes. While some areas may have been ravaged, the city has other colonial and Victorian neighborhoods that, still largely intact, can act as anchors for future growth.

Tiny Harrisburg does not have that luxury. The state already has gobbled up several historic downtown and near-downtown areas, and road and building projects have consumed much of the rest. As a result, the city has just a few downtown streets that retain their Victorian-era allure. Midtown has more of a legacy to build on, but it also has lost much of its historic character, with too many blocks fallen to empty lots, bland housing complexes and general dilapidation.

The half-full side of this issue is that Harrisburg seems finally to have reached a point where other cities were 30 years ago. The mindset appears to have changed from a preferred option of leveling historic buildings to one of wanting to save and re-use them.

Concern for the city’s history finally seems to have migrated from a few preservationist “nuts” into mainstream thinking by developers, officials and residents. Perhaps that’s because the city government no longer has the capacity or money to lead large-scale re-development projects. Maybe it’s because people have become more conscientious of preservation or are at least willing to consider the idea that renovated and re-purposed buildings can continue to serve a function and be good for business.

Whatever the reason, it’s a welcome development. Harrisburg has lost so much that its downtown may never have the charm of renovated areas of downtown Lancaster or York, much less the appeal of desirable neighborhoods in larger cities. However, it retains enough of its legacy that, with a little fixing, scrubbing and streetscaping, the city could be a far more desirable place to visit and live in. And that’s good and that’s timely because, in this country, urban living is where the arc of history is bending.

Playing Now: Change unfolds at a rapid clip at Midtown Cinema

September 29, 2013 | by Trevor Pierce

Maybe it’s been awhile since you last visited Midtown Cinema, Harrisburg’s very own art house movie theater.

That wouldn’t surprise Adam Porter, the cinema’s new director of operations. Since he took the helm a few months back, lots of folks, often people from the neighborhood, have popped their heads in for the first time in years.

“A lot of the local people have made a point to see what’s new,” said Porter. “We’ve been getting rave reviews for what we’ve started.”

So then, what is new? Plenty, as it turns out.

Perhaps most significantly, Midtown Cinema is undergoing a general upgrade, along with a transition from 35mm film to digital projection. The adoption of digital will greatly expand the cinema’s access to film libraries, allowing it to offer themed series throughout the year.

“We’re going to start several series that people can buy packages for,” explained Stuart Landon, the cinema’s new director of community engagement. “We’re hoping to acquire the rights to the films from American Film Institute’s ‘100 Years… 100 Movies’ list, we’re looking at bringing a series of documentaries in, and lastly, a children’s series of Saturday morning cartoons so we can get the younger crowd in here, as well as children of all ages.”

The most dramatic transition will occur from Oct. 18 to 24.

“On top of transferring to digital, we’re going to be upgrading our facilities. The screens, the curtains, the acoustics and the sound system all will be improved,” said Landon. “We’re looking at getting better lighting, as well. It’ll be a really fun week for us with a ton of work to do, and our membership program will be kicking off at the same time.”

Membership will provide customers with discounted tickets, as well as perks including vouchers for free popcorn, gift passes and invitations to VIP events.

Midtown Cinema will keep at least one screen open at all times during the work, holding a mini-festival of B-movies.

“While we’re moving to digital, we’re going to have a whole week of double features at a low cost,” said Landon. “We’d love for everyone to come out and help celebrate our future at the Midtown Cinema, as we show all these fabulous films from the past.”

Porter and Landon have been running the show since June, after owner GreenWorks Development changed management teams.

“It was apparent that there needed to be a team instead of just one individual at the helm,” said Porter. “I’ve known Stuart personally for a long time, and our combined skill sets should result in quite a big change here.”

Porter‘s experience in creating environments suited to customers’ needs has informed Midtown Cinema’s renovation efforts. The team has already begun responding to customer requests through rescheduling the theater’s show times.

“We have loyal patrons, and we’re listening to what they ask for,” said Landon. “Some have asked for earlier matinees, specifically on weekends, and it was difficult for others to get from work to a 5:15 showing. We’re making the adjustments, and have moved our second showings to 6 or afterwards.”

“We want to make it so folks can come to the Midtown Cinema for more than just the movie, using this as a community space,” added Porter. “We want this to be a relaxing, fun and important place to be.”

The cinema café has focused on becoming a destination in its own right, with free wi-fi and an extensive and unique in-house drink menu. “Our fantastic barista Rachel Boone has developed about a dozen signature drinks that are ridiculously fun,” said Landon.

One of Boone’s most popular creations is The King, an Elvis-inspired blended combination of coffee, peanut butter, bananas and bacon. The café has also sourced products from several local eateries, including the Yellow Bird Café, Little Amps Coffee Roasters and Karen’s Krunch.

Community integration also has played a large role in the Midtown Cinema’s new programming schedule.

“We are really excited to be partnering with other local organizations to utilize our open nights,” said Landon.

Recent events include an exclusive screening of Sara Bozich and GK Visual’s new series, “What’s on Tap with Sara Bozich,” and the launch of the theater’s “3^rd in The Burg” series, which features a low-cost movie after-party for every 3^rd in The Burg.

In the end, the “new” Midtown Cinema aims to be more community-focused, welcoming to patrons and pleasant to visit.

“Independent film is an important resource for the community. You get to hear the voices of filmmakers from all over the world,” said Landon. “We still offer the same quality independent film. Our core value is that those voices can be heard right here in Midtown.”

Midtown Cinema is located at 250 Reily St., Harrisburg. For more information, including show times, membership programs and special events, call 717-909-6566 or visit MidtownCinema.com or Facebook.com/ReilyMidtownCinema.

Harrisburg Stronger: A Q&A with Harrisburg Receiver William Lynch

September 29, 2013 | by TheBurg Staff

TheBurg recently sat down for an interview with Harrisburg receiver Gen. William Lynch and his financial adviser, Steven Goldfield, to discuss elements of the Harrisburg Strong financial recovery plan. The entire, unedited interview follows. An excerpted version of the interview appears in our October issue.

TheBurg: The Harrisburg Strong Plan is very complex. What would you consider, from the perspective of residents, to be highlights of your plan and what would you like the residents to get from it?

Lynch: The thing that pleases me most about the plan—and you need to know that this isn’t even close to being a one-man effort. We’re fortunate to have world-class representation on this team. In fact, most of the writing was done by others. This is an interesting thing, I think. I am surrounded by people, each of whom knows far more about part of this than I do. On the other hand, there aren’t too many who know something about all of it. I kind of get something from everyone’s perspective. My role in all of this has been pretty much keeping the puppies on the paper and making sure we’re going in the same direction.

So, getting back to your question: The thing that pleases me most about the plan is that it’s readable. It’s not a legal brief. It’s not written by accountants for accountants. Normal people—and I put myself in that category—can read it and say, “Huh, OK.” I think the most important thing for people who live in this city or close by – and I will submit to you that it’s every bit as important for people who live close by, across the river in what we refer to as the suburban communities as it is to the residents. Harrisburg cannot succeed in a vacuum. Harrisburg cannot succeed without the input of the surrounding communities and the region, if you will. A successful Harrisburg will, in turn, lead to a regional success.

So, what’s in it for the city of Harrisburg? Number one, the city of Harrisburg can put this awful incinerator debt behind it. I am a big believer in you are who you think you are, and the incinerator debt and all of that ugly history has become kind of the symbol of the city of Harrisburg. We need to get away from that, and this plan offers us that opportunity.

I think it’s important for you and your readers to know also that ignoring the incinerator debt—if it had never occurred—the city would be in big trouble. The city’s income does not match its expenses and, for some 30 years, it hasn’t. What you see in the deals that people uncover—when you peel that back, it’s almost always the same thing. There’s a $5, $6, $7 million hole in the general fund budget (how we pay cops and firefighters and municipal workers) that generated some cockamamie scheme, for lack of a better word, borrowing of money that, over time, has come back to be significant.

So, forget about the incinerator debt. Let’s talk now about just managing the city’s finances so that we can meet expenses with income. This plan offers a balanced budget through 2016—through the term of the plan. It offers income to the city through the lease of the parking assets, which will take it beyond 2016 and out into the future. And it offers the city the opportunity to craft for itself a predictable, stable financial future. And I emphasize “for itself” for a very good reason. All we can do, even with some of the no-kidding geniuses we have working with us, is to provide the tools that we believe will give the city that opportunity. It’s up to the city then to use those tools in a way that creates that future. Money from the parking—initial proceeds will be set aside for various things like economic development, capital infrastructure improvement, a trust fund to pay post-employment healthcare benefits for past employees, which is an albatross around the neck of any municipality, because those costs increase geometrically.

TheBurg: Harrisburg has a particular problem with post-employment healthcare because of the generous deal that former Mayor Reed reached with the unions before leaving office.

Lynch: Even under the best of circumstances, there is almost no municipality that can fund those costs or plan for them because there’s no way to plan for them. They increase geometrically.

So, it’s hard to find anything good in this situation, but, if you are looking for something good, I believe it’s been an action-forcing set of circumstances that require the city of Harrisburg to face these issues in a way that most cities can’t, at least not yet, and in a way that’s dramatic and gives some cover for the incumbent politicians, who really had nothing to do with this. The situation demands some difficult political choices. There isn’t a politician on the face of the planet who wants to raise taxes, for example. And these things are going to be necessary. The next administration will have to manage it astutely and well and seek ways of simply doing business better. Frankly, that’s a target-rich environment. There’s lots of opportunity here. But we have to come to grips with who’s responsible for this and who’s going to use these tools that I think this whole receivership has been able to provide and move into the future.

TheBurg: When you say, “who’s responsible,” do you mean in the previous administration?

Lynch: No, I don’t mean “responsible” in a, “it’s your fault that we got here.” The fact is there’s nothing we can do to change the past. And that past is unfortunate, perhaps illegal, based on, at best, some instances of professional malpractice. But there’s nothing that you or I can now do to change that past. So, we can work with the future to make that future the best we can and deliver us from this present, which I believe is unfair, caused by that unfortunate past that we can’t change. So, I believe we’re a lot better off looking to the future. I understand there are others who will investigate these things and decide if punishment is warranted and how that should be meted out. But that’s not within our purview.

TheBurg: Is there any particular element in the Harrisburg Strong plan that you feel proud to have accomplished? Alternatively, is there something you wanted to make happen, but couldn’t?

Lynch: We would like to have made all this happen six months ago. The fact is that sometimes things like this just take time, and it’s hard to define why that is. But sometimes, things need to mature. I believe the city of Harrisburg is ready to put this past behind itself and get on with business. I sense that. I know this sound ridiculous, but, at least twice a week, somebody comes up to me on the streets and says, “thanks.” I find that astounding, but it happens enough—and they’re all kinds of people. Really, it’s intriguing.

So, what are we proud of? I’m very proud of the fact that, for example—and don’t misunderstand, I’m proud of the things that our team and working with the mayor’s office and City Council and the state government and the Department of Community and Economic Development—there are a lot of heroes in this. But I’m very pleased with the fact that we were able to deal with the incinerator property that, frankly, isn’t worth very much as it sits there as a business proposition when it’s burdened by $350 million in debt. There’s no businessman who is going to take that on. What we were able to do was increase the value of that asset, number one, by seeking out a strategic buyer. And Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority is a strategic buyer, and they wanted that property because they have a state-of-the-art facility in Lancaster County. They were growing, and they wanted to expand. Purchasing our facility is much more efficient than trying to build a new one from scratch in today’s environment. So, that made sense to me.

Then, we were able to increase the value of that—you may or not know this, but the resource recovery facility burns trash and makes electricity. So, we were able to increase the value of that—and I mean increasing the money that’s on the table at closing—by brokering a contract with the commonwealth to purchase the electricity. But not purchase it on the spot market, which is what they normally do, but agree to a long-term contract. That gave LCSWMA some predictable income, which they like. But, much more importantly, it allowed for tax-free financing of the bonds that will have to be issued to take that old debt off the market. And that made for a lot more money at closing on the table. Not nearly enough, however—if you assume that we’ve increased the value of that to somewhere in the neighborhood of $130 million—not nearly enough to satisfy $350 million in debt.

TheBurg: You have so many players involved. I’m picturing your role here. It’s like you have to have eight arms and get everybody to shake a hand and promise to you that this is going to go through. Can you take me through the process here?

Lynch: And sometimes eight is not enough. We spent months and month and months, and, when I’m frustrated, I refer to it as negotiating with ourselves. And basically, we like to think of ourselves as the honest broker, though I could find a lot of people who might disagree with that. We piqued the commonwealth’s interest in doing this. Then we had a serious job of convincing the commonwealth that this was an OK deal, because this is not the way electricity is normally purchased. So, part of that sales job, if you will, was to point out the value of a long-term agreement, and there is some value in predictability. And the way some of the geniuses crafted that—and our marching orders, by the way, when we went to the commonwealth to say, “Hey, we’d like you to do this,” was to say, “There are public policy issues here with our capital city. We should, the state government, should be helpful here.” On the other hand, you can list off 20 or 30 other cities to include Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Altoona, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Reading, all of which are in difficulty. So, what we couldn’t do is just have largesse visited upon Harrisburg.

So, the deal with a quid pro quo, where the commonwealth buys something and gets something back, was what we were looking for. And the deal was that because of the public policies and issues involved, we didn’t think that that had to be the best-ever, face-of-the-planet, never-been-a-better electrical purchase deal ever. It just had to be OK. And, at some point, it had to go from being just OK to back below the projected curve to where it was a little better than OK so that, over the life of the agreement, we’re not paying any more than the market would demand. And that’s what we’ve done.

Now, the bottom line is this is based upon projections and everything else, so who knows? We believe predictability, on behalf of what the commonwealth is getting, has value. I think largely, because of our efforts, the commonwealth agrees with that. Built in this, there is something called a clawback provision. And, if electrical rates drop to next-to-nothing and the amount the commonwealth is paying is outrageously absurd, the commonwealth can claw back some of that. So, the bottom line here is we think this is going to be OK. And what’s in it for the purchaser is predictable income, but what’s really in it for the deal is the way of the financing, which requires a lot less money on the table.

TheBurg: Which portions of the plan did you find most troublesome to put together and which were the least problematic?

Lynch: I was going to be a smart aleck and say, “there was no part that was easy,” and I don’t think that was an exaggeration. I found it very, very difficult to deal with some of the entities and some of the people we’ve had to deal with. And I think—and Steve (Goldfield) sitting here is a numbers guy, he’s a financial guy. And, if you’re a journalism major, an English major, you’re probably built the same way I am. I don’t do math in public; I don’t understand it. My stepdad could add up his golf score in his head, and he could never figure out why I couldn’t do that. So, I’m leading up to this: even for me, the math part of this is easier than the people part. I think that people ignore the people part. If you have lived in Harrisburg for any amount of time, I think you sense, in the pit of your stomach, the people part. You know, “those so-and-so’s outside the city are out to stick it to us. Why should we pay back the bond insurers? We didn’t do this. Somebody else did it—in the name of the city—but it wasn’t us.” There’s a strong sense that somebody else should somehow bail us out of this.

One of the things that I have found very difficult is by enacting Act 47 and the receivership provisions, the legislature has given the impression, if you choose to take it, that the state has somehow taken over this problem, and it’s no longer our problem. It’s somebody else’s. That is grossly erroneous. There is nobody who sees it that way except people who choose to. The only way for the city of Harrisburg to work its way out from under this problem is for the city of Harrisburg to take ownership of it and work its way out of it.

Go back to what I told you a couple of minutes ago: I think this plan provides the tools to make this possible, and it is a far superior outcome than bankruptcy. Everything we read and see, and I’m sure you guys have done your homework. All you have to do is Google the California cities or Central Falls, R.I., or now, God help us, Detroit. None of that is anything we want to emulate. We have had really good coverage in the national press and in some of the more esoteric publications that people like Steve read, the Bond Buyer, that, in general, praised this collaborative solution as being far superior.

So, what am I most pleased about? That’s probably it. Not the press coverage, but the fact that we’ve been able to somehow pull this off—I think. We’re not quite there yet. But, to go back to what’s most difficult—the getting over the biases because they’re very real. And, if you ignore that, say, well, “That doesn’t make any sense; it’s just stupid.” Then you’re screwed. You have got to understand what it is, and you’ve got to deal with the people part. To me, the math should be so good that it outweighs those biases, and there is no rational alternative than, “I just want to get even. And I’m willing to burn it down to do that.” And we have run across some of that.

It’s a very real thing. And, if you don’t, at least, know it’s there, you’re doomed to failure, I think, because it would be very easy to get frustrated with this.

TheBurg: Some people have been surprised at the creditor concessions in this agreement. Can you provide insight into how those negotiations went with the major creditors and how eventually you were able to reach agreement with them?

Lynch: Yes, but before I do that, you’ll be disappointed, but we will not discuss concessions, and here’s why. That becomes emotional. It becomes personal. What we decided sometime ago to do was to concentrate on what’s in it for us. So, I’m happy to tell you what I think is in it for the city. I would recommend that you check with the others involved, you know who they are. My belief is that each of those entities found something that was in it for themselves. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have agreed to it. So, when you say, “Boy, we really stuck it to so and so,” you make an enemy, and we choose not to do that. This was never anything we discussed in a group. What we did do was we tried to appeal to each entity’s self interest and demonstrate that this was far superior to bankruptcy.

Now, there are some who aren’t sure that’s correct. We believe that some were more interested in just maintaining the status quo. We believe there were some who were much more interested in getting the deal done, and I put the city in that category. The city simply will have trouble paying the bills even more than we have had. So, we need the income from parking, the parking lease and other things we discussed. We need the infusion of capital that we’ve discussed. None of which appears in bankruptcy, by the way, and none of which appears until after closing of these various deals.

So, I guess to answer your question in a sentence or two: the art in this was being able to find something in it for the various parties. And one of the more difficult parts was getting some of the creditors to work together. One of our, I guess, techniques was to say, “There’s x amount of money, and I don’t care how you guys divide that up.” And that seemed to work OK. It created some weird partnerships.

TheBurg: You mean Dauphin County and AGM as partners?

Lynch: Yeah, and others. There’s a whole herd of lesser creditors. Those are the ones we think of, but there’s Covanta, CIT, JEM, Metro Bank, SunTrust, others.

TheBurg: On a slightly different topic: Reading the plan, a lot of it seems to hinge on the replacement or substitution of some fresh faces for elected officials, to remove things from the reach of the mayor and City Council.

Lynch: Like?

TheBurg: The Harrisburg Authority separation, regaining control over the water/sewer and employees who are going to run that. Also, the creation of a task force to do the OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) trust.

Lynch: Let’s do water and sewer first, because they’re not even close to being the same. I understand your question.

When I first got here, the concept was that we would sell the water and sewer, or at least would monetize it, which is the fancy word for it. Or at least hire a private entity to come in and manage those assets. And we changed our mind. The reason we changed our mind was that we were beset by people from Washington who came to help us—the EPA, the Department of Justice. Those guys who come in and say, “I’m taking your computer.” You may recall the issue with the suburban communities and overpayment and misuse of those funds. So, all of that sort of met me as I entered the office on day one or two.

What we discovered was that all of those Washington people who were threatening to fine us if the city did not undertake a $55 million required fix to the sewage treatment plant to make it comply with Chesapeake Bay and other issues. And your first reaction is to laugh right out loud and say, “The line for paying fines is over there.” But then you realize it isn’t funny, and they’re very serious. And they really don’t have a mechanism other than to levy fines.

So, we made a conscious decision to work with those folks and kind of co-opt them. I don’t know if you should say that in your newspaper. It may offend them. But what we didn’t want was them correcting our homework later. So, we brought them in at the beginning, again, with some very good people who worked with us to represent the (Harrisburg) Authority and the city. And what emerged was a Washington, D.C.-style plan. Washington, D.C., is considered to be a turnaround poster child in the way they did the water and sewer system. It’s deemed to be the best. So, we unabashedly set out to copy that. We brought in some people who were active in that, who knew what they were talking about.

So, here’s the deal. The Authority should be an operating authority. The Harrisburg Authority should run the water and sewer business, and that’s it. Over the years, the Authority has gotten into all kinds of stuff that you know better than I do, that has nothing to do with anything. So, we wanted to bring them back to their core business and give them the assets and the authority and the responsibility to do that business and take some of that away from the city because, if those employees work for the Authority, it brings the city closer to a balanced budget. If the Authority is in that business, they should provide that service better, more efficiently. Oh, and by the way, the Authority will then take on the responsibility for those pipes that have been in the ground beneath the city streets since 1898. So, there’s a lot of potential liability there that now becomes the Authority’s, and the Authority still has—or will have—the ability to borrow that the city does not to enter into some kind of a capital improvement periodic maintenance system that frankly needs to start today.

So, the Department of Justice, the EPA, state DEP and all those folks sat in on these meetings, and there was a consensus that this was the way to go. So, that’s what we’re doing. My personal bias was to start all over again with a new authority, but that’s just too hard to do. And this authority will be transformed. We’ve already signed the papers. The mayor and the authority have agreed on how this will take place. The authority will now get to do the water and sewer, and the city won’t. And that includes billing, etc. Now, there will be a transition period to go from here to there.

Immediately, that makes the Authority eligible for a $26 million loan from PENNVEST. Are you familiar with PENNVEST?

TheBurg: Yes, the state infrastructure improvement authority.

Lynch: Yeah, so that loan frankly was contingent upon it going to the Authority, rather than the city.

TheBurg: Yeah, I heard that in the press conference (announcing the agreement between the city and the Authority).

Lynch: No comments necessary. So, that’s half, we think, of what will be required for the sewage treatment facility upgrade. We have already have had some private financial institutions making inquiries. That’s unheard of in Harrisburg. Steve and I would go to banks for a year, and they’d laugh right out loud at us. So, this is—there are a couple of good things that have happened lately, and this is one of them. We also think we perhaps can go back to PENNVEST and tap that yet again.

I left out the suburban customers—and I’ve forgotten what percentage of that business they are.

Goldfield: Between 40 and 50 percent of the revenues in sewer alone.

Lynch: So, that’s a big deal. And there’s also some water transfer there, as well.

So, one of the things that we discovered is that nobody had ever met with those guys—ever. Steve brokered a meeting with them. We all got together. We had never had all of those folks in a room before. The relationship with the city was, dare I say, adversarial. They thought they’d been done wrong by the city. They were astounded that anyone was willing to listen to them or talk to them. They believed they had overpaid by a whole boatload of money. We negotiated that with them, and we’ll make sure they get some of that back. On the other hand, their real interest is to be invested with the city in this. Oh, and by the way, they have far better credit ratings than anybody you know. So, we can, we think, tap into that in the future.

So, that’s the benefit to all that. I would frankly like to see them get even more involved. They’re not there yet. They’re not sure. But the fact that we welcomed them to look over our shoulder will make things go a helluva lot better in the Authority than it has in the past.

TheBurg: Now, on the task force?

Lynch: We decided, as a negotiating position, we decided that I would assume the role of judge, whatever. And I would be an advocate for a solution, not necessarily just the city’s advocate. Now, that annoyed some people in the city—ask me how I know. But that seemed to work pretty well in discussions with the creditors. So, we said, from that exalted receiver position, I, with a lot of good advice, would determine a certain amount that was absolutely necessary for the future success of the city. Because, if we just sell off the incinerator, lease the parking, and don’t fix this $8 to $10 to $13 million hole in the city’s budget, what do you got? And the answer is nothing.

So, we decided it would take $40 million, plus or minus. And I say the numbers are bad because they change on a daily basis. Anytime you mention a number, you’re wrong. Again, ask me how I know. So, just in round numbers, we said we wanted to put about $10 million into a silo for economic development. And we wanted to put about $10 million into another silo that was focused solely on infrastructure improvement. And we wanted to put some money into a trust fund that would begin—begin only—to fund post-retirement benefits for people. People we’ve already made deals with, who have labored in this city for a long time. Nobody else has done that. That’s basically just seed money, appropriately invested, and the city needs to kick into that in the future. And, eventually, that will be self-sustaining as that population will diminish, of course, over time—but not for a long time.

And we wanted to set some money aside for paying down the city’s bills. Remember when we had the big sinkhole on Maclay Street? I’ve forgotten the name of the contractor, but the guy said, “Yeah, I’ll come and fix it for you, but not until you give me a check first.” And that’s the problem with the city’s reputation.

TheBurg: There’s no trust.

Lynch: Well, with good reason. I mean, we had $4 or $5 million of basic things that hadn’t been paid for. Tires for police vehicles—those kinds of everyday, mundane stuff. We’ve done a pretty good job of whacking that down because of the increased earned income tax, for one thing. And we’ve made some pretty stiff employment decisions, or non-hiring decisions generally, that have freed up some money. So, that’s down to a meaningful level, but what we wanted to do was pay off an old SunTrust loan on police cars and stuff like that—and two or three of those other things for several million dollars—and start fresh. And that’s what I mean by putting the city on footing where it can be successful.

OK, what about who is going to administer those monies? The trust fund is easy. You hire a trustee and let some bank do it. The other stuff: I’ve come to decide it’s best to look at that as a grant. It’s a funding for grants to be used for specific things, but they’re grants that only the city can access. But, like any other grant, there are strings attached and people who have to be convinced, and that’s the point here. We want that money to be hard to use. We want you to have to demonstrate that the need is there, that it’s the best possible use. And we want that to be governed by a diverse group of people with various interests. That’s what that is all about. This is not normal city income. It’s not. It comes from the proceeds of these sales.

The fact is we carved this out of the settlement, and the fact is we wanted it to be controlled in a way that would be above reproach. It’s going to be purer than Caesar’s wife. And that’s the point of it. If you have a plan for money you think will further economic development, and you come before this board or committee or whatever it winds up being—and you can make your case, they’ll go along with it. But they won’t go along with just because your brother-in-law is the contractor.

TheBurg: It does strike me as very historic plan compared to other cities, both in Pennsylvania and nationwide. You are in this new territory. Part of it that seems historic, as well, is that you could look at this and say: the city’s own elected officials were not able to govern. They were not able to come up with these ideas and administer them in a way that outside bodies found trustworthy. And that happened over enough time that a higher level of administration, the state-appointed receiver, had to corral some experts and even create institutions to take of this where the city elected officials couldn’t and now can’t.

Lynch: I don’t know that that’s wrong, but we’ve gotten a fair amount of that from our friends down the street here in City Hall. I think the point here is, if you want to look at problems writ large, it’s easier for someone like me to come in who doesn’t have any baggage or not emotionally tied to it, to see the fixes. It’s like when you have somebody inspect your house. There’s a water stain on the ceiling. Well, jeez, I’ve been living with that for 10 years, and I didn’t even know it was there.

So, from that perspective, an outsider, I believe, is helpful. From the perspective of how do we control this money, the point is that we want to make sure, doubly sure, that the concept is executed. None of this changes City Council or anybody else’s normal legislative role with respect to normal city income taxes, business taxes, fines, all that stuff. All of that will be going along. And we think, if the plan is confirmed, the budget will be balanced through 2016. After that, there will be an opportunity to keep that going. Lurking along the side is this money in those various pots, which can be used for additional economic development, and also I see it as an easy way to double the money. Are you familiar with an RCAP grant?

Goldfield: It’s a commonwealth of Pennsylvania revitalization capital grant program.

Lynch: So, you can get, if you have a project that’s deemed worthy by a group similar to the ones we’re talking about over in DCED, you can get money. But you have to have matching funds. So, now, if the city applies for one of those grants, it now has the opportunity to match that and double that money. Harrisburg University, for example, spoke to me the other day. They have some RCAP money, but they don’t have a match. If this is the kind of thing that the city deems is good for the city, you can match those funds. But the point of the outside oversight is to remove any questions, doubt, whatever. This is a new beginning, which, I believe, the next administration, the next mayor, should be able to manage for the benefit of the city.

TheBurg: What do you think are the takeaways for the people of Harrisburg with the parking aspect of the plan? What should they be most concerned about?

Lynch: I might change that around to say what they should be most pleased about. What do you think parking brings in for the city? Last year, it brought in only $250,000. Why? A lot of reasons that have to do with the past you’re so familiar with, a whole lot of bad deals. Bond service on the Harrisburg Parking Authority is about $100 million in bonds out there.

So, what people in the city should take away from this: the plan restores that income to the city, that historic $3½, $4, $5 million—it gets up to about $6 million by 2016. Even if it weren’t for the incinerator debt, this would be a good deal for the city of Harrisburg. The parking assets are leased. They will eventually come back to the city. They’re managed by a nationwide leader in this business—Standard Parking—the biggest in the country. Standard Parking has some 30 outlets in Pennsylvania, one of which is right down here at the airport. Well-respected company. They know how to do this business. So, all of that will bring money back to the city. And there’s lots of bits and pieces to this agreement, but the basics are that it returns the normal parking revenue to the city, in a way that hasn’t been there literally for years.

You will hear that they want to raise parking rates in the garages and stuff like that. What we want to do is bring some order to parking meters, parking garages. You can park at a meter for less than you can park in a garage. So, if you come in here from across the river and you’re going to spend the day, you park out front here all day long because it’s cheaper than the garage. That means your customer can’t park and walk into your store. So, what we’d like to do is force people to park in the garages. You can view that as a commuter tax if you want. And that generates more income. This is a public/private partnership. Standard Parking does well only if the city does well. This has not been done anywhere else.

TheBurg: How do you force people to park in the garage?

Lynch: By enforcing the parking meter fines. It should be more expensive to park on the street than to park in the garage.

Goldfield: One of things about the meters, and we’ve talked to City Council about this. First, it’s going to be upgraded to all electronic. Secondly, there are all kinds of ways throughout the country now where merchants can give a token or give a code so that, when a resident wants to drive up to the hardware store or over to the shoe store to get their shoes, they get the first 15 or 30 minutes free. So, it’s going to go from whatever it was to zero for people who live in the city. But I don’t think a lot of people who live in the city pay $150 a month per space for parking. That’s people from the outside. Those fees going up means more money into the city because the city gets 20 percent of every dollar that comes in for off-street parking. One of the things that I really like about this, as Gen. Lynch was saying, is that the city gets the upside of this—unlike in other places where you do a concession and private equity or other people from out of town get the upside. The city gets the upside of this. So, moving people into the garages means more people are 20 percent taxed, and the residual cash flow eventually comes back to the city, as well.

TheBurg: Slightly off-topic: Do you expect to stay on until a time when the receivership is no longer needed?

Lynch: I would hope the receivership would not be needed sooner rather than later. I don’t have any inkling of how long I will stay. I think it’s in everybody’s best interest to get the city out from under the receivership for the reasons I stated when we started. I think it’s very important that city elected officials make this problem their problem and assume responsibility for fixing it. I think they need to get people like me off their back and get on to their appropriate business.

TheBurg: The plan has a section regarding civil claims against professionals, which is rightly separated from the deal-making part of the plan, which is the majority of it. Certainly, residents are eager to see that brought to fruition. It says the receivership reserves the right to carry that forward. How does that reconcile with the desire to get the city out from under the receivership as soon as possible?

Lynch: That’s a good question, and the answer is that I don’t know. We believe that those questions need to be answered. Not from a criminal—we don’t have the ability to do anything from a criminal perspective. But we think that there may be some civil opportunities for us to explore—civil remedies. I don’t know whether we could pass that on.

The best way to say this is that, if the receiver goes away, the city of Harrisburg will still be in Act 47. The city of Harrisburg was in Act 47 and chapter 6 and 7 were enacted when the city of Harrisburg failed to agree to a recovery plan. That’s when the governor declared a state of fiscal emergency. That’s what generated the receivership. So, if, for example, the governor would declare that state of emergency over, I don’t know if that would automatically terminate the receivership or not. You have seven lawyers in a room, and you get 12 different opinions. So, we don’t know. But, no matter what, that would put Harrisburg back in the normal Act 47 process. There would be a coordinator. Every Act 47 city has somebody in there. And my assumption would be that that person could assume some or all of the rights and liabilities of the receiver, maybe not have as much authority. I don’t know. But one way or another, we’ll figure out how to do this.

Goldfield: That how I envisioned it, as well. If you start that process, and then the governor says, “financial emergency over, no need for a receiver”—and this is the first time it’s happened—it’s not like the last 20 times that we did it, this is how we did it. But I always envisioned that the legal team would shift over to the coordinator. That would be their client. It wouldn’t be that the financial emergency is over, so therefore all bets are off on any litigation that you started.

TheBurg: The plan seems to indicate that there’s at least some basis for litigation?

Lynch: I frankly don’t think there’s a lot of money in it, which is why we didn’t spend a lot of money pursuing it. But I think that some type of statement should be made. I don’t know how successful we’ll be. Well, if I say much more, I’ll screw it up. But there are some institutions—it’s more institutions than individuals.

Goldfield: There are all different strategies and different things you can do. But it’s something that Bill (Lynch) has very clearly understood is important to the people of Harrisburg.

Lynch: The parking is the secret to this, because it brings us closer to the amount of money needed to somewhat satisfy the creditors.

TheBurg: The parking solution was a very complex and creative way of putting that solution together.

Goldfield: It had to be because it had to get rid of the creditors and do annual re-occurring revenues for the city for the structural budget, and deals usually aren’t done that way. It had to fix two problems that had mutually related concerns.

Lynch: Usually, when municipalities sell their parking assets, somebody buys them and then says, “Don’t bother me anymore.”

Goldfield: And that’s what they had with Jacob Frydman a couple of years ago. They were on draft 19, and it was going to be upfront money, and these guys bid. And they wanted to pay money and say, “See you in 75 years. We don’t want to hear about it.” If the city had done that deal, we never would have been able to fix this.

TheBurg: That was another one of Steve Reed’s magic bullets to plug another hole.

Lynch: Each of Reed’s deals—each one—if you peel it back, it was to fix a $5, $6, $7 million hole in the general fund. Each one. It’s amazing.

Goldfield: The Verizon building, which we didn’t get to talk about, is a classic example.

How Did This Happen? Harrisburg Strong’s mission: to clean up a big mess that never should have occurred.

September 29, 2013 | by Tara Leo Auchey

It was a creative mess made. Therefore, it will take creative means to clean it up.

The city of Harrisburg’s debt crisis is a national story, but one with still a bit of local confusion. Undoubtedly, the public understands there is a mess—a complicated, contemptible one at that. But, truth be told, there are still so many of us wondering: How did this happen?

There are several theories and quite a few facts.

The long and short of it is this—a public project went bad combined with normal urban municipal fiscal challenges, overlaid with antiquated systems of governance and tinged with political perversions.

However, to say the incinerator is a public project gone bad is an understatement. In 1972, the incinerator was built as the region’s answer to its waste. Ideally, the facility would convert trash to steam and electricity, which the city would sell. Ideally, the trash would be flowing in from places local and afar. Ideally, the whole thing would run cleanly, smoothly, efficiently and profitably. That was the public message.

In reality, that hasn’t happened as planned or promised. Never quite right since it was built, the peak of the incinerator’s troubles came in the 1990s, when massive disrepair plagued it, and Dauphin County decided it was cheaper to use a landfill for 10 years instead of the city’s facility. With that county decision, the incinerator lost immense value.

Environmental and operational problems exacerbated the situation. In 2003, the incinerator was $104 million in debt. At that point in time, the options were either to shut it down or fix it up. It was decided to do the latter.

In order to enable the modernization and retrofit, the county agreed, upon completion of the construction, it would bring all of its trash back to the incinerator. The county committed to guaranteeing some of the retrofit bonds. The city did, too.

Both received upfront guarantee fees for doing so.

The construction didn’t go as planned. Barlow Projects Inc. was unable to finish what it started. More funds needed to be taken out. In 2007, the Harrisburg Authority, which owned and operated the incinerator, borrowed more money. The city and county stepped in again to provide loan guarantees and again received guarantee fees for doing so.

As with the first guarantee agreement, this one was voted on by the Authority board, county commissioners and the City Council, brought together by then-Mayor Stephen Reed, with only one dissenting vote among 10 elected officials. Current Mayor Linda Thompson in 2007 sat on the council for this guarantee and voted in favor of the borrowing. By 2008, the incinerator carried $230 million in debt, was delayed in reopening and generated less revenue than anticipated.

While all that was occurring, the city faced year after year of structural deficits.

To combat this common municipal problem, the so-dubbed mayor-for-life Reed didn’t raise taxes or services fees to meet the increased cost of running government. Rather, he located people and arrangements to devise injections of money, closing the holes that continually popped up. That money came by way of various refinances, funds and firms.

Professionals and consultants were brought in to help and paid well for their assistance.

As a result, Harrisburg residents are on the hook for what has become an accumulation of principal, interest, penalties, legal fees, consulting fees, advisory fees and more. Harrisburg is the first and only full guarantor of the incinerator’s debt. As second guarantor, Dauphin County guaranteed $144 million of it, but the agreement states that, for any payment the county makes, the city will pay it back. Neither the Authority nor Harrisburg has been able to make any of the incinerator’s debt payments. For that reason, both the city and the Authority have suits filed against them by the county, bond insurer and trustees.

On top of that, the city has skipped multiple general obligation debt payments and vendor payments. City government has been cut to bare bones, and liabilities for a variety of inventive financial transactions loom on the horizon.

Taking what probably should have been a private business and attempting to make it something to generate revenue for the city, the incinerator is what makes Harrisburg’s financial crisis so distinctive and serious.

While several parties facilitated the debt of the incinerator over 15 years of debacles, it is the city that’s left holding the bag. The details of the incinerator saga tell a chronicle of political maneuvering, creative financing, cronyism, bad business and citizen apathy.

The city of Harrisburg has a population of just below 50,000 people and about 35 percent of those people live below the poverty line. It’s estimated that 50 percent of the city’s assessed property is tax exempt. Government buildings, hospitals, colleges and universities, churches and non-profits are concentrated here since it is both the capital of the state and the core of the region. This contributes to a daytime commuting population that doubles the total residential population.

Because of the incinerator fiasco, Harrisburg residents pay $200 a ton to dispose of their own waste at a facility within city limits, one of the highest trash rates in the country. Contrary to popular notion, the city’s taxes are not the highest in the area nor are utility fees besides trash rates extreme.

All of these dynamics have come into play as the state-appointed receiver and his team developed the plan to confront the task they’re charged with—clean up this mess. As much as can be done.

Tara Leo Auchey is creator and editor of today’s the day, Harrisburg.

Give It a Twirl: Pastorante noodles around with Italian cuisine.

September 29, 2013 | by Danielle Roth

Sri Kumarasingam is fixing Harrisburg’s deficit, the deficit of freshly made, Italian pasta, that is. A passionate chef and lover of pasta, Sri entered the Harrisburg restaurant scene in June with Pastorante where—you guessed it—pasta is the main attraction.

Although he enjoys experimenting with all types of cooking—Thai, French, Italian—he thought Harrisburg lacked a restaurant that exclusively sold pasta, an idea that gave birth to Pastorante.

His fresh pasta is produced from his pasta machine, located center stage behind a glass pane that separates the kitchen from the dining area. “We make the pasta right up front so people can see it. It’s an open kitchen. A lot of people have not seen pasta being made, so that’s an attraction,” said Sri.

The contemporary and simple elegance of the space reflects European style, a continent that Sri used to call home. “With the tables and chairs outside, it feels like a European café,” he said.

His menu features exotic rarities to central Pennsylvania, including squid ink fettuccine with shrimp and pappardelle with oxtail ragu. The squid ink pasta noodles are black, looking like a cluster of little, lineless highways on a plate. It has a distinct seafood taste, and the perfectly seasoned shrimp complement and complete the dish.

“This one lady said this is the most disgusting-sounding thing she’s ever heard, but she tried it and said this is the best thing that she’s ever eaten,” said Sri.

The pappardelle with oxtail ragu is a plate of flat noodles, similar to fettuccine but wider, with a meaty sauce that has oxtails that were slow cooked for eight hours before being added to the sauce.

Sri plans on infusing different cultures into his menu, as well. His latest project is discovering a way to incorporate edamame, an immature soybean often found in Japanese cooking, into a dish. Also, be on the lookout for lemon grass, beetroot and chocolate on the menu in the coming months. “If I eat something somewhere, I’ll be thinking, ‘How can I make this into a pasta?’” said Sri.

The classics, like macaroni and cheese and spaghetti and meatballs, are also represented, albeit with a delicious, fresh twist that distinguishes them from their boxed, grocery store cousins.

The dessert menu features staples like Key lime pie and chocolate lava cake, but a pasta-lover like Sri can’t help but experiment with pasta desserts, as well. A recent sweet was chocolate pasta topped with a crunchy peanut butter caramel sauce. Every chocolate-lover needs to give this dish a try.

After opening his first restaurant in the college town of Oxford, England, Sri is used to young people eating experimentally, but he is very receptive to the tastes and needs of an urban American audience of Midtown locals and suburban working commuters.

The Midtown location is within walking distance of downtown offices and is central to the residential community. Sri started offering a lunchtime menu during the summer to appeal to the commuting lunchtime crowd. Pastorante will be selling prepackaged noodles and sauces for those who stop in at lunchtime and want to have a quick meal for dinner, as well.

Residents and businesses of Midtown alike have welcomed Pastorante into their neighborhood. “It’s a good place to live. It’s good for business. The city is coming back up. This area is coming back up,” said Sri.

Pastorante is located at 1012 N. 3^rd St., Harrisburg. Call 717-232-7050 or check out the daily specials on their Facebook page, PastorantePA.

A Strong Path Forward: Receiver’s plan allows us to recapture our city’s glory.

September 29, 2013 | by J. Alex Hartzler

Something very important happened in our political system recently in Harrisburg.

Led by receiver Bill Lynch, officials across the political spectrum came together to solve a very difficult fiscal problem for the city. In doing so, they demonstrated that our political system still works and that seemingly intractable problems can be solved through hard work, persistence and a willingness to trust and cooperate—the essence of leadership. This is the best that we can ask from any of our elected and unelected public officials.

Hard as it may be to believe on the surface, Democratic Mayor Thompson worked cooperatively with Republican Gov. Corbett and a bi-partisan team of Dauphin County commissioners to put together a negotiated plan to solve the Harrisburg debt crisis while avoiding the crushing prospect of bankruptcy, which the City Council then reviewed and voted to approve. All of those leaders deserve our thanks and appreciation.

Is the plan perfect? Of course not. By its very nature, a negotiated solution will leave every party wanting, as is the case with this plan. All parties are taking a “haircut,” so to speak, to make the deal work. No doubt there is shared pain required by the city’s residents. The extension of the 1 percent increase in the EIT will cost the median family making $30,000 a year an extra $300 annually. However, if a tax increase had to happen, which under any scenario it certainly would, this is the fairest tax and far preferable to any increase in already high real estate taxes.

But look at what also happened: The bond insurance company (AGM) took an $89 million haircut, as it should have. And the commonwealth will have to contribute $5 million a year to the city budget (which it will be under tremendous pressure to continue) and has helped to guarantee the parking revenue and price for the sale of the incinerator. Yes, parking rates will go up about 15 percent (or $23 per month for a space in a public garage), but even this is a good thing from the perspective of Harrisburg citizens. This is one of the few ways that we have to raise money from people who do not actually live in our town (in other words, a commuter tax). A few more people may carpool or take the bus instead—for the sake of the environment, I hope so—but the rest will pay their small part.

Despite this favorable progress, not all city leaders are willing to demonstrate the spirit of good faith, cooperation and optimism required to get things like this done. An example is the recent presentation by Controller Dan Miller during City Council’s public hearing on the Harrisburg Strong Plan, in which he called on council members to reject the plan and opt instead for…what exactly? Putting aside for the moment that many of Miller’s facts and assumptions were simply wrong (as pointed out by several stakeholders and officials in attendance at the meeting), Miller failed to offer any explanation for how rejecting the plan, and all the uncertainty and costs associated with it, will somehow result in a better outcome for the city’s residents. Even City Council’s own independent review by Alvarez & Marsal, which Miller had previously recommended, indicated that the Harrisburg Strong Plan was the most promising option available for the city.

As much as Miller wishes it were so, we are not Detroit, and we are not going bankrupt if this plan is carried through as proposed. The only thing that further delay and dithering will do (after four long years) is cost the city’s residents more money while preserving Miller’s central campaign theme of bankruptcy. While Miller may want that in order to somehow prove he was “right,” the rest of us should reject it wholeheartedly, as our City Council did with its votes in support of the plan. For that, our council should be applauded for exhibiting tremendous leadership in the face of complex and difficult proceedings.

Let’s follow the receiver’s, the mayor’s and council’s lead and continue to move Harrisburg forward and not waste one more day or one more dollar of our citizen’s hard-earned money on politically motivated attempts at delay and obfuscation. There are many more issues the city has to deal with, including finding ways to attract more residents and businesses so that we can turn our city around and begin to grow our population base. Issues of safety, economic competitiveness, infrastructure and schools are high on the list of our problems to solve, but we can solve them if we finally get this crisis behind us.

Nearly 100,000 people lived in Harrisburg a half-century ago, almost twice as many as today. However, if we get back to work and focus on growth and opportunity for jobs, housing and investment, I believe that Harrisburg has the potential to rediscover its former glory and rightful spot as a leading capital city.

J. Alex Hartzler is publisher of TheBurg.

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like

You May Also Like