At the heart of the debate was the resolution sponsored by council members, which if adopted, would have required speakers during public comment to identify themselves as either residents or taxpayers of Bethlehem. This move prompted a significant backlash from the public, with various speakers highlighting the resolution’s potential to infringe upon free speech and its discriminatory nature. Concerns were raised about the lack of clarity in defining terms such as “citizen” and “taxpayer,” which could lead to inconsistent interpretations and possibly exclude valuable input from non-residents who have stakes in regional issues.

Speakers also addressed the implications for those uncomfortable with publicly announcing their address due to privacy and safety reasons, such as fear of doxxing and harassment. The proposal was described by one speaker as “cowardly, spineless, and fascistic,” and it was suggested that the council’s actions, or lack thereof, in this regard, could reflect poorly on their commitment to the principles of democracy and human life.

Legal challenges to the resolution were contemplated, as well as the negative publicity that could ensue. Comparisons were drawn with other political situations, and the involvement of journalists in the speaker’s family was cited to underscore the importance of free speech and open dialogue.

While some residents supported the resolution, citing the need for the council to focus on city business without disruptions, others suggested alternative methods to facilitate public comments, such as separate open floor discussion nights. A council member responded to the public’s concerns by clarifying a quote from a previous meeting and emphasized the council’s readiness to engage with the public.

The meeting also tackled a variety of local issues, including the concern over an increase in aggravated assaults in the city. A speaker recommended the development of a website to inform residents about neighborhood crime, while another praised the city’s efforts in improving bike infrastructure. Concerns were voiced regarding the Bethlehem Parking Authority’s street cleaning policies and the perceived lack of council response during public input sessions.

Public comments further delved into international matters, with speakers discussing the conflict in Gaza and a call for the council to take action against an ongoing genocide. Additionally, concerns about a city council staff member’s alleged racist comments at Northampton College were brought to the table, along with criticism of the disruption caused during previous council meetings.

The council addressed practical local matters such as parking permits for part-time residents, the use of crime mapping software, and improved parking signage, especially in anticipation of upcoming summer events. A compliment was extended to the council for new lighting on Christmas trees, and discussions ensued about whether the lights should remain year-round.

On the administrative front, the council deliberated on the proposed destruction of records from the Department of Water and Sewer Resources, a $1.3 million grant application for Greenway Trail Gap acquisition, and event permits for future festivals. The appointment of Lucien DeBiasi to the Codes Board of Appeals was discussed, as well as ethics training seminars conducted by the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission.

In the realm of public safety, an update on an arrest related to an attempted homicide was provided, and the arrival of new body cams for the police department was announced. The Mayor highlighted the recent Trans Day of Visibility event, a streetscape improvement project, and an upcoming park funding announcement. The importance of budget discussion was also stressed, with an upcoming finance committee meeting slated to tackle this issue.

As the meeting progressed, the council considered the events of the previous meeting on March 5th, when they were unable to address city business due to disruptions. Proposals to move non-city business public comment to the end of the meeting were discussed, focusing on the need to maintain order and prioritize city-related issues. The council concluded after voting on various resolutions and discussing a certificate of appropriateness for signage on a particular property.