"The truth will set you free. But first it will piss you off."

Gloria Steinem

Friday, September 1, 2017

The Chester Valley Trail Will Be Good For Bridgeport

I’m suspending my blog series on Immigration yet again, to discuss an exciting proposal that has been presented to one of my eight subject towns, Bridgeport, Pennsylvania.The proposal offers a great deal of potential, but it comes with a catch, a big one.  The task is to find a way around this catch, because the opportunity should not be wasted. 
I support the routing of the Chester Valley Trail through Bridgeport to connect with the Schuylkill Valley Trail, and encourage residents to view this not as a problem, but as an opportunity.  I am not saying accept the proposal as is, but find a way to get it done with as little damage as possible.  It will be worth it.
No, I don’t drive the bridge or DeKalb Street anymore (although I used to, on a regular basis); this is an outsider’s perspective, one that I believe can contribute to the discussion.  My point is not about the present, but the future, based on a study of the past.
What’s needed is a refocusing, from the personal and the present to the community and the future.  The former sees largely loss, while the latter offers opportunity.  And the key to shifting focus from the present to the future can be found in the past.  History can help you gain this perspective, if you understand history as CHANGE, and look for patterns rather than just memories. 

Here the historical pattern to understand is importance of access to and location along the dominant transportation networks of the day.  Bridgeport, and the other towns along the Lower Schuylkill River, once possessed both.  Each river town was founded around the intersection of the early roads and the Schuylkill River.  The 19th Century railroad network nurtured the river towns, Bridgeport most definitely included, for a century and a half, and underlay their development into true communities. 

But that changed.  The coming of the new post-WW II road network bypassed these same towns, Bridgeport again included.  Today, only the Conshohockens have a direct connection to this network, and the consequences of that have literally transformed both towns.  Pottstown has access (more or less), but its location along the road network tends to isolate it.  Norristown is getting a connection, and hopes are high.
And Bridgeport?  Well, Bridgeport has always sort of benefitted from the prosperity of Norristown, and I am already on record that Norristown’s chances for future prosperity largely derive on that new connection to the road network, so maybe.

But if you're looking for a vehicle to haul Bridgeport out of the sloth of stagnation onto a faster track, don't bet on the automobile.  The automobile played a crucial role in the destruction of old Bridgeport, and shows no sign of altering that role in the future.
The proposal before Bridgeport has nothing to do with the automobile, or road networks at all.  In that peculiar way of history, it represents both the past and the future, based on CHANGE.  One of the routes of that old, long-abandoned railroad network that nourished both Norristown and Bridgeport is now hosting a new network, one still in development, whose potential cannot yet be guessed.  They aren’t going to recreate the old Bridgeport, but they will play a part in shaping the new.

The future, especially for old river towns, doesn’t lie in the automobile, but in what is broadly called “alternative transportation.”  That’s what this old/new network is all about (that and the current obsession with fitness, of course).  And that is just a component of the larger question, i.e., how to get outsiders to learn about Bridgeport/Norristown—and others—and see the opportunities they offer?

A network of trails offers at least a partial answer.  People have been traveling through both Bridgeport and Norristown by automobile for some time now, and not many have seen either as the town of opportunity.  Why don’t we add a different mix of people, particularly when that mix is weighted toward exactly the type of people a reviving town hopes to attract?

One of those commenting on a Facebook post about the proposal questioned how many people in Bridgeport will actually use it.  He may well be right, particularly in the immediate future, and he brings up the central point, the reason why you want this trail to pass through Bridgeport.  It isn’t about local residents using it, but about “outsiders.”  They’re the ones you want to attract to your town, and a heavily-utilized bike connection can only help.

The outsiders who will use these trails have been given many names, from intensely supportive to rather derogatory, but as people, the vast majority have one thing in common:  they possess "disposable income," as evidenced by their bikes and gear, which are pretty costly.  These are exactly the people you want to come to Bridgeport, or at least be aware it exists.  Awareness of the Borough if you are driving through on Monday through Friday is minimal, but passing through on a bicycle (not to mention walking) over the weekend will impart a whole new understanding of the trail's surroundings, the Borough of Bridgeport.

But you don’t just want people passing through on their way to someplace else, you want them to see something locally and be attracted to it.  What is there for them to see, be attracted to, and begin to think more about the area?  There are some small, specific answers to that question, but the broad answer is obvious, if often overlooked: the riverfronts of both towns.  Both Norristown and Bridgeport possess unexploited riverfronts; proper development can make them area attractions.  I thus repeat my earlier thesis that Norristown’s—and Bridgeport’s—return to prosperity will derive from their relationship to the Schuylkill River.

That means you must get outsiders to the river, to experience its new beauty.  Cars are only one method; important, to be sure, which is why I promote the Lafayette Street Project’s potential.  Cars must be accommodated but accommodating them must not dominate the process.  Alternative Transportation—the whole gamut—is a wave of the future, and one that both Norristown and Bridgeport should ride.    

Bridgeport Borough Council favors the Chester Valley Trail project, subject to some changes.  I commend Tim Briggs, State Representative, 149th District, for recognizing the Trail's potential and supporting it.  The necessary changes can be made.  Don't let a loss-focused myopia block the kind of creative thinking this proposal represents.  A better future depends on it.

Friday, August 4, 2017


This month, I am suspending my series of posts on illegal immigration in order to respond to the recent wave of gun violence in Norristown, Pa., my favorite town.  Since January 1, there have been ten incidents where people have been shot.  This culminated in early July with two fatal shootings over the span of four days.  One victim was sixteen years old.

Amidst the community grief, Norristown Police Chief Mark Talbot has spoken the crucial truth that needs to be addressed:

“I can guarantee, unless you’re in a situation that’s a complete aberration like the D.C. sniper, rarely do you get shot by somebody, (and) they don’t know your name, you don’t know theirs, ….Let’s focus on the people who are using guns to commit violence, those who choose not to talk about their relatives and friends who they know are carrying guns. That’s the crowd that really needs the tough conversation.”

I couldn’t agree more.  That’s why I am reprinting a slightly abridged copy of my post of October 16, 2015.  It discusses what I consider to be the central issue in this complex web of factors necessary to keep “peace on the streets,” the relationship between the people and their police department:

“….A municipality has two—and just two—real priorities, that are head, shoulders and torso above everything else.  This week I write about the first, the most important one of all, and I will continue to use Norristown as my example.

Let’s call that most important priority “security.”  Far and away a municipal government’s most important task is to ensure that its citizens feel secure in their homes and out in public.  Thus, there is no more important relationship within a municipality than that between the people and those who provide their security, the police department.  In case you haven’t noticed, that relationship has been the subject of much disagreement (although little true discussion) after some horrific events nationwide.  I’m going to add a historical perspective (surprise!) to the issue, because there is nothing new about it.

A long time ago, in a country far away, I was a participant—at a very minor level—in an intense disagreement about the relationship between people and security.  This was actually the biggest issue of the several extant in that place at that time, although this was not fully appreciated.  Simply put, the question was this: must you bring security to the people, or do the people themselves bring security?  We ended up trying the latter because we could not accomplish the former.  At the very local—hamlet and village—level, the people were organized into part-time soldiers and assigned to guard their own villages.  Sounds logical, right?  It didn’t work.  They remained inside their vehicles during the day and their compounds during the night, looking to themselves and pretty much ignoring what was happening in the nearby villages they were supposed to be guarding.  An additional issue was that they looked on the people as a source of revenue and extorted whatever they could.  So the people, left on their own, cooperated with them during the day, but with the insurgents during the night.  Getting information was hard, and that information was unreliable.  “Don’t snitch” is not an American invention.

There is a parallel to the situation in our nation’s urban areas today, and it is not terribly far-fetched.  Many residents dwell in what we used to term “contested” areas.  That meant that the other side’s influence was well established among the people.  Now, residents fear the gangs and the bad individuals, not guerrillas, but as it was then, have no particular love for the authorities either.  So, because the bad guys live nearby, and can move about amongst them—and their families—people keep their mouths shut, the police grow more frustrated and the downward spiral continues.  The more things change…

Today, we sort of encourage people to protect themselves—through Town Watch, for example—but arming them is a very different matter on this side of the Pacific.  We thus depend on the professionals, the full-timers.  That’s a huge difference, but here’s where the parallel comes in: our professionals today tend to do the same thing today as our armed private citizens did over there back then.  They live largely in their vehicles and their stations, both day and night, which makes them strangers

We all lament the demise of the “cop on the beat,” and for good reason.  I had the privilege of touring Main Street, Norristown, Pa. with Hank Cisco, a former police officer and current town “ambassador.”  He brought home to me just much interaction took place between the beat cop and those on his beat, and how daily familiarity made cops much more observant and aware of their surroundings.  He—and they—exemplified the opposite approach to what we see today.  That daily, casual, friendly contact bred an understanding and a trust, and that paid off in information offered by a grateful citizenry.

Today, by contrast, the average resident in a “contested” area mostly sees the police just cruising by, looking at him.  They interact personally with a police officer only when he (or she, now) gets out of their car and approaches them.  They are automatically suspicious (“It increases my paranoia, like looking in the mirror and seeing a police car”) and their attitude will depend largely on what the cop then pulls out, from citation book to club to gun, but to them each represents only varying degrees of bad.  This is an unhealthy relationship, and the tragic results of such unhealthy relationships have played themselves out in many cities in recent months. 

That’s why I am pleased to commend Norristown Police Chief Mark Talbot for taking major steps to increase friendly contact between his department and the local residents.  His campaign has several facets.  The Norristown Police Department now has a presence on social media, and it goes far beyond a Facebook page.  The Department actively utilizes such popular sites such as Facebook and Twitter, along with focused and relevant sites, primarily  Nextdoor.com (which I have previously praised).  Cooperation between the residents and the police using this secure site has enormous potential to improve the community.  That’s a huge step forward, but social media cannot replace face-to-face contact, and Chief Talbot emphasizes that also.  It can be an event, such as “Coffee With A Cop,” held last June, but I particularly like the full time policy he initiated of offering the police station and its parking lot as safe zones to undertake transactions such as those on Craigslist.  The list goes on, and Chief Talbot is only just beginning.

Let’s hope more such innovative ideas to improve police/community relations make their appearance in Norristown.  They will go a long way to building that trust that true revival depends on.  Let’s also hope other local police jurisdictions—urban ones in particular—also take steps to reverse the decades-long decline in the relationship between people and security.  If people feel secure in their homes and out in the community, then all else can follow.  If they don’t, then nothing positive can follow.

I believe Chief Talbot is on the right track, and that this tragic run of events is an aberration in an otherwise upward course for Norristown.  The recent tragic events have only strengthened my views expressed above.