Tag Archives: harrisburg

Bloody Good Time: It’s a little twisted and a big mess, but Bloodbath Bash has become a holiday hit.

September 29, 2013 | by Trevor Pierce

What began as a fake crime scene with real police intervention has grown into one of downtown Harrisburg’s goriest traditions. For the past three Octobers, hundreds of partygoers have taken part in VeTour Productions’ BloodBath Bash, a Halloween party that has guests splattering themselves and each other in fake blood from head to toe.

“The BloodBath Bash is copious amounts of blood, booze and tunes all in one place,” said Sean Kunkle, executive director of VeTour Productions, the promotional group behind many of Harrisburg’s most ambitious social and music events. ”We try to create another world, a detour from the norm. It’s not the environment Harrisburg is used to.”

The first BloodBath Bash was held in 2010 as a house party on Reily Street, hosted by Kunkle and his roommates, Jon Robinson and Adam Brunson. “We had been throwing smaller parties every month or so and decided we wanted to throw a Halloween party,” said Kunkle. “Personally, I have always been opposed to dressing up. More than likely, the costume will hinder the drinking process, which is unacceptable. So, I proposed that we just have everyone wear white and do a blood theme.”

The group bought white sheets, water coolers and gallons of fake blood and began prepping the house with black lights and fog. Using the garage as a gateway to the party, guests dressed in white and received their splattering. “We hung a ton of sheets up in the garage and went nuts with blood: throwing it, spitting it and even flinging it with an old Civil War-style bayonet,” said Kunkle. “Once they had some fake blood on them, we’d send them on their way, and, thus, the BloodBath was born.”

The inaugural Bash was promoted in the manner of most VeTour Productions events, generating buzz for the concept through Facebook and word-of-mouth advertising. “VeTour Productions has always prided itself on our guerilla marketing style,” said Kunkle. “The turnout was insane. The party started at 9 p.m., and, by 10, we had over 350 people in our house and yard.”

The first BloodBath Bash was so successful at attracting guests that local police had the party shut down less than three hours after it began, prompting Kunkle and VeTour to look for an official venue for the Bash’s next iteration. “Not surprisingly, it was very hard to find a bar that would allow us to throw blood everywhere,” said Kunkle. “We got a lot of confused looks and quick dismissals.”

However, VeTour’s marketing continued well into the next year, again through the use of promotion on social media. By offering guests the opportunity to take iconic photos, images of bloodstained partygoers flooded social media feeds for weeks following the party and became staples of many users’ profiles. Eventually, the momentum was enough to attract consideration from bar owners, despite the party’s inherently messy theme.

“I got to sit down with Josiah Ferris of Ceoltas Irish Pub and go over the particulars and the numbers from the previous year,” recalled Kunkle. “With a little convincing, he eventually agreed to let us take over Ceolta’s second floor, the Raftery Room. We knew we needed to step our game up and make this something that random people would swoon over, not just our acquaintances.”

VeTour Productions adapted the house party’s splatter area for a public space by using plastic sheeting to create a “kill room” inspired by the television show “Dexter.”

“I remember scrubbing the ceiling after that one, but we had a turnout similar to the house party only without the police involved,” said Kunkle. “And with the success of the second BloodBath, we were given free reign to do whatever we wanted for the third.”

In 2012, the Bash expanded to both floors of Ceolta’s, adding a light show, blood-themed drink specials and a more sturdy and outdoor splatter booth, styled after Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho.”

“We had close to 400 at the last one and expect more this year,” concluded Kunkle. “We wanted to keep the classic horror film theme going, so this year we are doing a “Birds” theme. Expect blood stains, ringing in your ears, new friends and many pictures because your memory may be a bit foggy.”

The 4th Annual BloodBath Bash will be held Oct. 19 at Ceolta’s Irish Pub at 310 N. 2nd St., Harrisburg. Guests are advised to wear white clothes they are comfortable having “blood-splattered.” For more information, visit Facebook.com/VeTourProductions or VeTourProductions.com.

Not Perfect

September 17, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

Receiver William Lynch

“The Strong Plan is not a perfect plan,” Councilman Kelly Summerford said last night.

“It’s not a perfect plan,” echoed Councilwoman Eugenia Smith.

“Is this a perfect plan?” asked Councilwoman Susan Brown-Wilson before answering her own question. “No.”

And, with those words, City Council members gave the imperfect Harrisburg Strong Plan near-unanimous approval. Only Councilwoman Sandra Reid voted against what she perceived as several of the less-than-perfect elements of the imperfect plan.

The evening had started out solely focused on the plan’s imperfections, as city Controller Dan Miller–the lone Harrisburg official left standing against the plan generally–shared a PowerPoint slideshow entitled, “The Poor Pay More: No Shared Pain in the Receiver’s Plan.”

For 20 minutes, he assaulted the plan on many fronts: major creditors are made whole; assets are sold off; it infringes on residents’ fundamental rights, he charged.

“We’re trading our democratic rights for a few pieces of silver,” he biblically informed the packed City Council chambers to some applause.

Having made his points, Miller packed up his slideshow and disappeared swiftly into the night, the brief appearance his only one before the council despite nearly two weeks of hearings on the Strong plan. For the next three-and-a-half hours, residents, city officials, media–increasingly sweaty, punchy, hungry and tired–waited to see whether Miller’s pop-in would have any effect. It did not.

Steve Goldfield, the financial advisor for receiver William Lynch, was next up, refuting many of Miller’s points.

“I don’t think Mr. Miller’s presentation was factual,” he said, making perhaps the best effort at addressing an empty chair since Clint Eastwood.

In the end, Goldfield likewise conceded the non-perfection of the plan.

“You can’t get everything you want in a negotiated settlement,” he said with a hint of resignation.

After resident input, which revealed a split decision among those who spoke, it finally was time for council members to make known their views, which, in the end, were the only ones that mattered. Some read prepared statements; others spoke off the cuff.

Wanda Williams: “The work of fiscal recovery is hard. There is much to be done, and many people must do their part.”

Bruce Weber: “[The Strong Plan] will finally lift the dark, dark cloud of uncertainty that has hung over this city for far too long.”

Susan Brown-Wilson: “This plan will be one of the best plans we’ve seen. At least it gives us the chance to start new.”

Several council members went back into history, recalling the struggles of the past few years: the tussles with Mayor Linda Thompson over the prior Act 47 plans; the bounced bankruptcy filing; the initial hostility to a state-appointed receiver.

Arguably, Councilman Brad Koplinski best summarized why this night happened at all, why, over time, the council majority turned from pro- to anti-bankruptcy, from anti- to pro-receiver. The receivers, both David Unkovic and William Lynch, acted responsibly, he said. They tried to understand the city’s dilemma, getting creative in their solutions, asking council members’ opinions, keeping them informed and gaining their trust.

Because of this, “we have a much better and fairer plan” than previous plans, he said, with “shared pain,” creditor concessions and a reasonable chance for Harrisburg to regain its health both financially and as a community.

Months ago, Koplinski indicated to me that the tide had turned, that, after being briefed by Lynch, council members had begun to like what they heard. They’d come to think that the receiver’s team was an honest broker with far greater knowledge, expertise and resources than the city could ever have mustered without the state’s intervention. Bankruptcy, always over-sold as gain for no pain, had lost its tempting allure.

That’s why no last-minute slide shows or even speakers charging racism could sway the council. Most members had been in the fight for years. They had battled through it, made some good decisions and some bad ones, had even thought at one point they could end up in jail for contempt of court. And, now, after all this time, they had something they could live with.

“This plan, while not perfect, is going to allow the people of the city of Harrisburg to sleep at night and know that the city will have a brighter future,” Koplinski said.

So, not perfect. But, to council members, finally good enough.

Senior writer Paul Barker contributed to this article.

The Guns of September

September 9, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

“Pop. Pop. Pop.”

It had been six months since I’d heard that sound. Last February, if I recall. It was then that the guns were put away for the season, a time that most of us who live along the Susquehanna River welcome as surely as late winter’s first not-so-cold day.

Indeed, it is pleasant to be able to sleep past dawn on a Saturday without being startled awake by the pops and booms of shotguns being fired at passing flocks of geese and ducks. Six months had passed so quietly that I had forgotten all about the annual rush of hunters to Harrisburg’s waters and islands.

Only on Saturday, during a late-afternoon walk in Riverfront Park, did I realize it had begun again. It was a spectacular September day, the river full of small craft, their occupants not hunting, but having fun–drinking, eating, socializing–while anchored in mid-river, when the shooting began. I wondered if they all were aware what was happening and, if they were, if they still were startled, as I was.

With that in mind, I thought I would share a story that I wrote a year ago and that appeared in TheBurg last October, coinciding with the start of last year’s six-month-long waterfowl season. Two hunters kindly took me out with them so that I could experience the sport from their side of the sight. I can’t say that the experience changed my mind, which is that allowing hunting in the middle of a dense urban area may not be the wisest idea. However, I remain appreciative that they shared their day with me.

To update the story: The 2013-14 waterfowl season kicked off Sept. 2 with Canada goose season, which runs until Sept. 25. In the south zone, which includes the Harrisburg area, the more-popular duck season runs Oct. 19-26 and Nov. 15-Jan. 15. The resident goose season is Oct. 26-Nov. 30, Dec. 18-Jan. 15 and Feb. 1-28. You can find all the details, including bag limits, at the Pennsylvania Game Commission website.

Friends Chris Price and James Eirkson hunt on the Susquehanna River, with the Harrisburg skyline in the background.

Susquehanna River: Where City Bustle Meets Country Sport

“Here they come. They’re banking around that building.”

From his skiff, Chris Price sees the familiar V-shape of a flock of Canada geese heading for their overnight grounds shortly before dusk on a warm, late summer evening.

The flock never gets close enough for a shot by Price, who is joined in the boat by friend James Eirkson and Price’s golden retriever, Pearl.

Instead, the young men look on with disappointment as the geese fly past, high above City Island, with the state Capitol in the background, toward the shore in Shipoke.

Yes, City Island, the Capitol, Shipoke.

The friends are not hunting out in the country or in some remote swamp, but in the busy, densely populated city of Harrisburg.

From the boat in the middle of the Susquehanna River, one can see streams of traffic on Front Street, joggers along the river walk. Pleasure craft drift close by.

And it’s all completely legal.

To the surprise of many newcomers on both the east and west shores, the state allows waterfowl hunting in these Harrisburg waters, as long as hunters don’t shoot into the safety zone, defined as 150 yards from occupied structures on shore.

This situation is perfect for local hunters, as geese and ducks both flock to the numerous little islands and grassy patches that span the mile-wide river. In addition, the stretch of river is easy to navigate and, with numerous boat launches, convenient to reach.

Price and Eirkson, for instance, both live in Riverview Manor, the condominium on Front Street in Midtown Harrisburg. So they can put in practically from their front door.

Some people who live near the river, however, have a different take.

The waterfowl season is long. In the Harrisburg area, a three-week resident Canada goose season began Sept. 1, and geese can be hunted throughout much of the fall and winter until Feb. 28.

The even more popular duck season runs Oct. 13 to 20, then again Nov. 15 to Jan. 15.

Therefore, for about six months, volleys of gunfire often start at dawn, startling hard-working people who would rather not be jolted awake at 6 a.m. on a Saturday.

“It’s an annoyance,” said one Midtown resident who asked not be named. “People who don’t like to be woken up in the morning consider it an annoyance.”

In addition, over the years, some people new to the area have called 9-1-1 with reports of gunshots.

Just last year, one Olde Uptown resident put in a frantic call to police and then reported on Facebook that an all-out gun battle had broken out in her neighborhood.

In a way, this story is an old one, as hunters and homeowners long have had disputes about noise and safety on and near hunting grounds.

However, the situation here is unique, as the sheer density of the population on both sides of the river makes this truly an urban hunting experience—with its own set of benefits and challenges.

Even hunters Price and Eirkson expressed surprise that they’re able to hunt within eyeshot of downtown Harrisburg, with traffic streaming over the bridges that span the river.

“The first time I was out here, I was almost waiting for a police officer to come out because it just didn’t seem right,” said Eirkson. “You have the Capitol and the governor’s mansion and people walking around.”

Other than some noise complaints, there have been few problems between hunters and residents over the years, said Jerry Feaser, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

He believes that the far majority of hunters know and respect the law—that they don’t shoot into the safety zone, don’t shoot when it’s dark out, keep off of privately owned islands and respect bag limits.

To enforce the law, conservation officers patrol the river and cite hunters for unlawful practices, he said.

“You always have somebody who is going to go against the rules,” he added.

Kermit Henning, an avid local outdoorsman, offered some perspective.

He said that waterfowl hunting in Harrisburg goes back a long time, but has become more popular recently due to the decline in the area’s pheasant population, once a preferred prey, and because the river north of Harrisburg can be difficult to access.

“Hunting has really grown here,” he said. “Almost every island now has a hunter on it.”

In addition, in the 1960s and ’70s, Harrisburg police often chased hunters from the river, but the state intervened to stop the practice.

With the increased popularity of the sport, some problems have arisen, Henning said, including shotgun pellets that have fallen on cars and bridges. He said he personally has witnessed conservation officers arresting hunters charged with rules violations.

But, for the most part, the lengthy season proceeds without much incident. Even residents who, at first, are surprised—even shocked—that hunting is allowed in this congested area eventually seem to accept the loud wake-up calls at dawn as just another inconvenience of living in this always-challenging capital city.

“It’s strange that this presumably rural activity is allowed here,” said a Midtown resident. “But, given the menu of problems involved with living in this city, it probably doesn’t rise to the level of major concern.”

Harrisburg Strong Meetings Set

September 6, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

It’s been a busy week for Harrisburg City Council, which has begun discussing elements of the “Harrisburg Strong” recovery plan. Next week will be even busier, as the debate continues and the voting starts.

The following lists the remainder of the committee meetings related to the plan, as well as special legislative sessions on Sept. 10 (note early start) and on Sept. 16. The legislative meetings will include votes on such key elements of the plan as the incinerator sale, the parking lease and the earned income tax hike.

Administration Committee: Monday, Sept. 9, 5:30 p.m. (union-related legislation)
Special Legislative Session: Tuesday, Sept. 10, 5:15 p.m. (Council will vote)
Administration Committee: Tuesday, Sept. 10, 5:30 p.m (parking-related legislation)
Administration Committee: Wednesday, Sept. 11, 5:30 p.m. (water/sewer-related legislation)
Administration Committee: Thursday, Sept. 12, 5:30 p.m. (incinerator–related legislation)
Special Legislative Session: Monday, Sept. 16, 6 p.m. (Council will vote)

In case of an overflow crowd, the meetings will be aired live in the City Hall atrium, with additional seating available.

Back Taxes

September 6, 2013 | by Paul Barker

Fred Reddig and Neil Grover before members of City Council Wanda Williams, Eugenia Smith, and Brad Koplinski Wednesday night.

“Someone suggested that we think of the citizens of Harrisburg,” said former Mayor Stephen Reed, during a public meeting of the Harrisburg Parking Authority board in May of 2008. “Well, I can tell you that we have.”

The room was crowded, and the atmosphere was tense. The issue before the board was the long-term lease of the city’s parking garages, to the developer Jacob Frydman, in exchange for $215 million. Frydman had already given his talk, promising—unpersuasively, judging by the tone of Reed’s speech, which was half entreaty, half rebuke—that the authority’s union employees, many of whom were present, would not lose their jobs.

Reed spoke for ten minutes. Public approval of the proposal was waning, and his plea grew increasingly strained. “I’d have to be out of my mind to come to a press conference, to a public meeting of the parking authority, in front of all of you, and offer a transaction here that was bad for the city of Harrisburg,” he said towards the end. “Why would I do that? Why would any mayor of any city do that?”

In hindsight, it’s hard not to see that night’s speech as a prelude to Reed’s unraveling. Though the board narrowly voted for the deal, City Council would ultimately reject it; a year later, Reed would lose the Democratic primary. But at the time, it seemed almost possible that the lease would buy the mayor a fresh start. The Frydman deal, he pledged, would wipe out both the parking authority’s and the city’s debt. And best of all, it would mean lower taxes—including a 100% rebate to homeowners making less than $40,000 a year, and, starting in 2009, “an across-the-board rate reduction that becomes permanent.”

Five years later, another long-term lease of the city’s parking assets is taking shape. After months of delicate brokering behind closed doors, the state-appointed receiver’s roadmap for recovery, alias Harrisburg Strong, has surfaced for public review. A major component is the 40-year lease of the city’s lots and garages and on-street meters, in exchange for which, as promised before, the parking authority’s debt and much of the city’s debt—particularly debt related to the retrofitted incinerator, which will be sold—will be wiped clean.

The difference, this time, is what happens with the taxes. As one of the plan’s many legislative conditions, City Council must pass an extension of the hike to the earned-income tax, or EIT, to 2%.

Last night, at a three-hour committee meeting, members of City Council reviewed three bills linked to the implementation of Harrisburg Strong. Two of them pertained to the parking assets: one would add 88 meters in Midtown, and the other would raise on-street hourly rates. The third was the EIT ordinance. When it came time to discuss it, the reaction from most council members was predictably cranky.

Council President Wanda Williams observed that, when council voted to raise the EIT to 2% last October, they did so on the understanding that the increase would only last a year. “We’re still putting the burden on the citizens of Harrisburg who had nothing to do with this financial debacle,” she said.

Councilwoman Sandra Reid harped on the continued absence of a so-called commuter tax. Recalling that the state legislature expressly forbade Harrisburg from implementing a tax on nonresidents who work in town, she complained that the city was “not taking every revenue stream available.”

Resentment towards commuters, a time-honored tradition among urban voters, is a reliable whipping post for elected officials. (Reed, at the 2008 meeting, flogged it twice, at one point referring to the garages as “facilities that are largely used by non-residents who come into Harrisburg and at the end of the business day go out to the suburbs.”) Sympathizing with voter pain is likewise a standby. Even the council members who approved of the hike, like Bruce Weber, were keen to show that they understood the frustration. Throughout the night, a frequent refrain was that comments were “just for the record” or “just so residents know.”

This posturing on taxpayer pain—that it afflicts the blameless, per Williams, or that it’s unequally shared, per Reid—distorts reality. Nobody likes higher taxes, of course. But an increasingly common perception is that the ignominious incinerator debt, whipped up by a handful of politicians and professionals, is being settled on the backs of city residents by way of the EIT. As Neil Grover, an attorney for City Council who worked closely with the receiver’s team, explained at Wednesday’s meeting, this isn’t the case.

Though the EIT hike is included in the recovery plan, it’s only indirectly related to the debt solution. Even if there were no debt, the city would still face a structural deficit—that is, the rise in the cost of city services would still outpace, as it has for years, any growth in the city’s revenues. It would seem that the answer is to trim the services, but the city, having already gouged its payroll, can’t go much deeper without disrupting essential functions. “We’ve had cuts as close to the bone as you can get, and yet we’re still short on our budget,” Grover said.

The reason it’s a part of Harrisburg Strong, according to Grover, is that it’s a critical signal to creditors and investors that the city is willing to work “in good faith” towards a solution. When council adopted the hike for one year, he said, it “got creditors to come to the table and put their skin in the game.” Part of the continuing negotiation towards recovery depends on Harrisburg’s enduring effort to balance its own books. “Everyone has come to believe the city is capable of righting its own ship,” Grover said.

Beyond that, the increase to 2% would make Harrisburg’s rate comparable to other distressed cities. As Fred Reddig, with the state Department of Community and Economic Development, explained at the meeting, many other municipalities under Act 47 have EIT rates even higher than Harrisburg’s. (Reading is at 3.6%; Scranton is at 3.4%.) Deciding that further city services can be cut, of course, is one matter. But if residents want to keep the services they’re getting, the cash has to come from somewhere. And as Grover explained, there are virtually “no other legal means of raising revenue.”

Since the recovery plan was made public, many have rather cynically remarked—including here on the blog—that tax hikes, once passed, are never repealed. That’s true, and the idea that this one will actually expire at the end of 2016, as it’s supposed to under the ordinance, is probably fantasy.

But it’s nothing compared to the much worse fantasy that was peddled for years under Reed: that the city could somehow provide more and better services while its revenues stagnated. “Each of Reed’s deals,” the receiver recently said in an interview, “if you peel it back, was to fix a $5, $6, $7 million hole in the general fund.”

By 2008, when Reed promised a tax cut, people saw it for what it was. At the end of his speech, he remarked, sourly, that throughout almost everything he’d said, two members of the public at the back had been shaking their heads. “You just rejected out of hand—you don’t want to hear anything,” he said. “God help us if that’s how we’re thinking about the future of Harrisburg.”

He was right, at least, that the city’s prospects depended on a change in thought. The recovery plan seeks to replace wishful thinking with long-overdue accounting. Citizens enjoyed a cheap ride for years—and voted, against their better judgment, to keep it going. Painful as it may be, it’s time to pony up.

Harrisburg Strong, Once Again

August 30, 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. 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 what also happened: the bond insurance company (AGM) took an $89 million haircut, as well they should. And the commonwealth will have to contribute $5 million a year to the city budget (a dramatic increase over every year prior and one that they 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 call by Controller Dan Miller for an “independent” review— whatever that means. A review has already been conducted at the local, county and state levels, with further review coming from a commonwealth judge. What is Miller now suggesting? That the officials involved are not to be trusted in representing and negotiating for each party’s best interests? Or that they are to be trusted, but it is still not the outcome he wants? In which case, he needs to explain how an independent review and the costs and delays associated with it will somehow result in a better outcome for the city’s residents. And he needs to tells us who exactly will pay for that review. What exactly would this independent reviewer have the authority to do?

As much as Miller wishes it were so, we are not Detroit, and we are not going bankrupt if this plan is carried through. The only thing that further delay and dithering will do (after four long years) is cost us more money while preserving Miller’s central campaign theme of bankruptcy. But anyone who knows anything about business knows that all the parties have to agree to a deal, and, if one backs out, the entire deal falls apart. While Miller may want that in order to somehow prove he was “right,” the rest of us should reject it wholeheartedly. His attempt at a delay in disguised hope that the deal will fall apart in the meantime is exactly what is wrong with our political system. And it shows why Harrisburg voters rejected Miller’s failed candidacy for mayor in the recent Democratic primary. I suspect that Republican and independent voters who tend to understand business and how a deal comes together will see through this personally motivated charade, joining with the Democrats to vote for change.

Let’s move Harrisburg forward and not waste one more day or one more dollar of our citizens’ hard-earned money on personally motivated 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. This plan will help us become Harrisburg Strong.

Alex Hartzler is publisher of TheBurg.

Beyond Their Control

August 29, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

In the course of a long political season, outside events sometimes monkey with candidates’ best efforts to keep their campaigns on message and tightly controlled.

An extreme example is in New York, where another round of below-the-belt selfies seems finally to have sunk the campaign of Anthony Weiner, perhaps the Big Apple’s least camera-shy person.

On Monday, Harrisburg had its own major outside event, one that may override every other issue leading up to the Nov. 5 general election. Receiver William Lynch issued the “Harrisburg Strong Plan,” a comprehensive solution to the city’s financial crisis.

For months, Lynch had telegraphed that his plan was about to be filed with the Commonwealth Court, which is slated to hold a hearing on it on Sept. 19. However, the plan’s contents and creativity took many people by surprise, including, it seems, the city’s mayoral hopefuls.

At first, both Democrat Eric Papenfuse and Republican Dan Miller issued rather brief statements on the plan, but later expanded on their comments. Not surprisingly, Papenfuse gave it a qualified thumbs up, while Miller gave it a qualified thumbs down (here, here and here). Both men say they’d like more information as the process plays out, but the trend seems pretty clear and in keeping with their stances during the primary (Papenfuse, pro-receiver, anti-bankruptcy; Miller, anti-receiver, pro-bankruptcy).

When people step into a voting booth, many things cross their minds. Some vote on whether or not they like a person, which is a fair criteria, particularly in a small place like Harrisburg, where many voters know the candidates personally.

Other people may be influenced by what they’ve read in a newspaper or heard during a debate. In the mayoral debates to come, it will be interesting to see how the candidates respond to the inevitable charges that will be hurled at them. For instance, Papenfuse better have a good answer to the charge that he’s a lackey of big money, while Miller should brush up on his response that he’s a liberal Democrat opportunistically running as a Republican.

But, in the end, I suspect that the race will be won or lost on how the people of Harrisburg feel about the receiver’s plan come the first week of November. By then, the Commonwealth Court, almost certainly, will have approved it, and City Council likely will have passed a rash of enabling legislation. The plan should be well on its way to implementation.

If the general spirit has been uplifted by the plan, and it seems workable, Papenfuse should have a clear advantage in the general. On the other hand, Miller, who I believe starts this campaign at a disadvantage by losing in the primary and needing to run as a Republican, might be able to make up ground if the complex plan begins to unravel.

In the interim, Papenfuse will need to speak convincingly about why city residents will have to endure a multi-year increase in the earned income tax rate and a head-spinning parking meter fee hike. Miller will have to explain how municipal bankruptcy (a black box of unknowables that could take years to resolve at great cost) is a better deal for Harrisburg. He also needs to state clearly what, if anything, he could and would do to change Harrisburg Strong upon becoming mayor in January.

At the moment, my sense is that most residents are willing to give Lynch the benefit of the doubt. They’re tired of the dysfunction of the city and the disorder to their lives. Meanwhile, they’ve largely become (unhappily) accustomed to higher taxes as a price to resolve the years-long financial crisis. More than anything, they want a new beginning, a new era for the city and for themselves. That feeling, though, could change fast. If the plan gets bogged down or, worse, begins to fall apart, hope quickly could turn to anger and despair.

The candidates are staking their positions in this battle, giving voters a distinct choice. However, events beyond their control ultimately may decide who is right — and may well determine who will be the next mayor of Harrisburg.

Note: Independent Nevin Mindlin also expects to run for Harrisburg mayor. You can read his position on the Harrisburg Strong Plan here. His status as a candidate is unclear after a Dauphin County judge recently threw out his nominating petition. The hearing on his appeal is slated for Sept. 12 in Commonwealth Court. If he does not succeed in his appeal, he has said he may mount a write-in campaign.

Witness to History? In Harrisburg, hostility has been replaced by apathy.

August 29, 2013 | by Tara Leo Auchey

On the 600-block of Maclay Street is one of the city of Harrisburg’s most recognized murals. Spanning the entire side of a building, it colorfully depicts the 1847 visit of abolitionists Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison.

While the mural signifies the honor and prestige of the event, it was actually one of the most dishonorable happenings in Harrisburg’s history.

In a letter dated August 8, 1847, one day after a town hall meeting with the renowned abolitionists in downtown Harrisburg on the wrongs of slavery and the need for civil rights, Douglass described what happened.

At the start of the meeting, Garrison, who was white, was given attention and due respect when he spoke; yet when Douglass, who was black, took the stage, a bombardment of rotten eggs came through the doors and windows. The sounds of fireworks and obscenities filled the air from a mob that had gathered outside of the hall to violently protest Douglass’ visit.

There was no one there to stop what Douglass defined as a “fiendish rage.” Audience members became fearful for their own safety and pressed in panic out the exits. No police came. No one attempted to stop the brutal throng.

Seeing that the danger was too great, Garrison addressed the stench-filled room and told the audience that the abolitionists’ mission in Harrisburg had ended. He announced that he and Douglass would travel on where there was self-respect and where freedom of speech and the right to assemble were protected.

An attorney named Charles Rawen stood up and declared the people of Harrisburg did value liberty and that, if the mob could not be stopped, it was because the people of Harrisburg let it happen.

No one joined Rawen in message or action.

The meeting was closed with only a few words said by Douglass, and the abolitionists departed physically unharmed except for suffering the drench of rotten eggs and the disappointment of vanquish.

Afterwards, Douglass wrote, “The atrocious character of the proceedings is sufficiently palpable, and Harrisburg one day will be ashamed of it.”

Another Meeting, Another Time

Flash forward to July 24, 2013. Civil rights activists Martin Luther King III and Cylk Cozart came to Harrisburg to discuss education, parental involvement, youth violence and cultural empowerment at a community forum at John Harris High School.

Unlike 166 years ago, there were no demonstrations of protest or violence. There was no mob outside seeking to harm or drive the speakers out of town.

However, an analogy of shamefulness can still be drawn.

The auditorium that seats 1,200 people was scattered with about 500 to 600 attendees.

An hour before the event began, it was recorded that all but 54 tickets had been reserved. Free tickets, too. The only purpose of having to secure tickets was keeping track of how many were expected to attend the visit from these celebrated community organizers and activists.

There was anticipation that people would have to be turned away.

That was not the case.

The audience was meager. State officials were present, but numerous local officials were notably no-shows. Despite the fact that these national leaders of the black community arrived in a city with a majority population of black residents, that was not sufficiently represented in the crowd. By a show of hands, there were only about 15 city of Harrisburg students present even though there were groups of youth sitting idly throughout the neighborhood within bounds of the auditorium’s doors.

In juxtaposition to Douglass and Garrison’s visit, this time the people of Harrisburg didn’t fail to protect freedom of speech and the right to assemble. This time, the people of Harrisburg failed to witness it.

Issues of the Day

While he was here, Martin Luther King III said, “When women and men come together, we bring about change.”

The city of Harrisburg is clearly in need of change, and, while it’s the financial and governmental issues that make the front pages of local and national media outlets, there are lesser-discussed social changes to be had, too.

For various reasons that can be debated at length, Harrisburg is impaired by a lack of tolerance and collaboration. Slavery may no longer be the explicit topic on the table, but racism—both white to black and black to white—is well in evidence.

The insidious tangles of superficial bias and hate wrap themselves around the city and threaten it to a more severe degree than the empty coffers of City Hall.

The causes for this are many and are shared by urban areas across the nation, such as disinvestment, poverty, educational disadvantages, politics and ethnic and cultural prejudices.

When listed like this, these challenges seem too big and lofty to overcome. The virtue of Harrisburg, though, is that it is a small city. The problems it faces are much more manageable at this scale. It may seem daunting, but this capital city along the river can adopt effective models of change to realize its potential, succeeding not just financially but as a community.

Of course, that will only come with serious changes in attitude, action and leadership.

Step one is to work together.

This will be accomplished if the people of Harrisburg adjust their historical reputation by standing up and showing up for what is right and worthwhile.

Then perhaps the words of the great speakers who have visited Harrisburg for the common good will have resonance to those who live here.

Tara Leo Auchey is creator and editor of todays the day Harrisburg.

Right By Harrisburg: This community magazine is a different type of publication.

August 29, 2013 | by Lawrance Binda

Last month, I got into my first-ever Twitter fight.

I’m not proud of this.

I wrote a blog post for TheBurg’s website, a Patriot-News reporter took offense and off we went. One-hundred-forty characters at a time, which is no way to have a civilized, much less a thorough, discussion.

In fact, after a few tweets, I abandoned the argument because of the simple futility, maybe even the silliness, of it all. And, besides, I had a magazine to run and stories to edit, and the day, like most days, was flying past.

Fortunately, there still are other ways to make a point, such as good old ink-on-paper, an ages-old technology that frees me from the tyranny of having to cram complex ideas into 20-word posts.

What I most wanted to say was this: When I write a column or assign a story or make any decision, my general philosophy is that I try to do right by Harrisburg.

Now, I certainly understand that my idea of what’s best for Harrisburg may not be another’s person’s idea of what’s best for Harrisburg—and I don’t mean to sound presumptuous or paternalistic.

But TheBurg, from the start, was never meant to be a traditional newspaper. It was designed to try to reflect how life actually is lived here on a daily basis and, if it can, encourage positive change to make things a little better.

My journalism professors at the University of Missouri are probably rolling their eyes (or, for several of them, in their graves) at that approach. Twenty years ago, “objectivity” was taught, and reporters were trained to be little more than flies on the wall, a reporting method I tried to follow early in my career.

However, as I got older, bought a house and became invested in a close-knit urban neighborhood, I came to understand the role that a newspaper could play in tying together a community, helping to give it a sense of place and purpose. To do so, though, the fly on the wall had to be squished in favor of greater advocacy for my community.

Which gets me back to my fracas with the Patriot-News reporter.

In my blog post, I criticized PennLive because I believe it often feeds the melodrama in this already melodramatic city, to no one’s benefit.

He thought I was criticizing a colleague for her reporting on Harrisburg and expressed outrage for it. That was not my intention. Like a lot of people, for me, the name “PennLive” has come to mean the totality of that website, including, in large part, the often-inflammatory, even noxious, reader comments, which frequently eclipse the stories themselves. The comments, in my opinion, add little productive to the conversation, often serving as a forum to flog Harrisburg, perpetuating prejudices, untruths and preconceived notions.

As for the Patriot-News’ reporting—sometimes, I think it’s excellent, sometimes, I don’t. But that’s the nature of any newspaper.

Similarly, I was critical last month of the re-entry/re-re-entry of Controller Dan Miller into the city’s mayoral race. My reasoning was much the same.

I did not see Miller’s weeklong cat-and-mouse game over whether he’d run as helpful to Harrisburg. I saw it as a stage-crafted spectacle that made the city look petty and ridiculous.

I personally don’t understand how such a long-term, philosophically dedicated Democrat like Miller can run under the GOP label, but that’s his business. I only wish he’d made his decision with greater sensitivity to how his very public actions impacted this much-maligned city.

In that same vein, TheBurg recently has been critical of many city politicians, including Mayor Linda Thompson for her own vacuous, misleading press conference, former Mayor Steve Reed for the embarrassing spectacle of the Wild West artifact auction and mayoral candidate Eric Papenfuse for his refusal to candidly discuss challenges to the mayoral petitions of his opponents.

Going forward, I plan to continue to use my best judgment to advocate for Harrisburg and push for positive change. I don’t expect to always be right or that everyone will always agree with me. But, as I run this community magazine on a day-to-day basis, that’s my guiding principle, unchanged from the beginning.

Lawrance Binda is editor-in-chief of TheBurg.

Modernism, Modernized: Executive House zips ahead after major renovation.

August 29, 2013 | by Trevor Pierce

Downtown Harrisburg has numerous architectural styles: from federal to Victorian to art deco and more.

Like in most cities, modernism began to take root after World War II, and today, it may be best expressed by Executive House, a 14-story high rise at S. 2^nd and Chestnut streets.

But even “modernist” buildings age and change. So, for more than a year, Executive House has undergone perhaps its most extensive update since its construction as a mixed-use building in 1967.

“Executive House was one of the top buildings in the city when it was built,” said Regional Leasing Director Isaac Naon. “The way it was structured, the top floors were residential, and the first three floors were used as commercial space by the government. Within the past year and a half, the commercial space was vacated, and we decided to convert those floors into apartments.”

Designs for the new apartments utilize every inch of the former office space, now renamed the Executive Floors.

“We wanted a modern city look like you would find in New York,” explained Construction Superintendent Brad Zimmerman.

The Executive Floors have three different types of apartments: lofts that are a single open space, one-bedrooms and two-bedrooms. Each apartment has a different layout to make the most out of the available space.

“Executive House is truly a city building, for anyone who is used to living in the middle of everything,” added Naon.

Renovations to Executive House began in February 2012 with the complete demolition of the first three floors.

“It has been a really intense process where we’re re-doing everything,” said Naon. “When someone moves in, they’re not getting an apartment which has been touched up. This is real, top-to-bottom renovation.”

In fact, the rooms’ height is the only feature maintained from their original design, with 10-foot ceilings and 6-foot windows providing open, light-filled environments.

The apartments’ interiors are completely new. Kitchens feature porcelain-tiled floors, granite countertops and stainless steel EnergyStar appliances, while bedrooms are carpeted wall-to-wall, with granite windowsills and spacious closets.

“We tore the floors out, the heating and cooling units, all the windows, all the doors—everything,” said Zimmerman. “Everything has been removed and replaced with new, modern equipment.”

The renovations also extended to Executive House’s communal areas, including a business center, gym and lounge, as well as upgrades to the building’s entrance. These are the most dramatic changes to the building during the two-decade service of Ann-Marie Ramsey, the building’s property manager.

“The main lobby looks like a hotel now, with fireplaces, a fountain and designer furnishings, so visitors receive a high-end experience from the moment they walk in the building,” said Naon.

A second private entrance has also been installed in the back of the building, exclusively serving the Executive Floors. Residents also have discounted access to Executive House’s five-story indoor parking lot, as well as in-house storage options.

“People coming to us are not finding anything similar,” said Naon. “Executive House offers apartments that have unseen, unmatched quality for the area.”

Executive House’s transformation of commercial property into a modern living space highlights the ongoing revitalization of downtown Harrisburg as a desirable location to live as well as work, said Naon.

“In the past few years, downtown and 2^nd Street have definitely improved and keep getting better,” he said. “Our building is well-suited for professionals who need close proximity to work, the stores, the restaurants, the bars and the entire city life experience, all while living in a safe, nice, new environment.”

Executive House is at 101 S. 2^nd St., Harrisburg. Loft, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom apartments are available for rent, with the final phase of apartments opening within the year. Prospective residents can speak with a leasing agent seven days a week, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., by calling 717-347-4949. Find more at ExecutiveHouseHBG.com.

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