OUR CUP, OUR COMMUNITY,

OUR FUTURE
Community Survey Preliminary Findings

Armando Moritz-Chapelliquen
February 2, 2023
Acknowledgements
The author of this report would like to thank the over 100 survey respondents who completed this
survey, the small businesses who volunteered to hang up flyers, and the residents in municipalities
across Northampton County who have supported efforts to equitably redevelop the Dixie Cup site.

Executive Summary
• Survey respondents overwhelmingly support the redevelopment of the
Dixie Cup site in Wilson Borough into a community hub that balances
the need for affordable housing, community facilities, and job
opportunities.
• Not all uses for the site are equally supported; respondents strongly
oppose most industrial uses, citing noise, pollution, and traffic as major
concerns.

Introduction
The Dixie Cup site, located in Wilson Borough right off of Route 22, has been underutilized and
deteriorating since the departure of the Dixie company in 1983. In the subsequent 40 years, numerous
attempts at redevelopment have been attempted and all have failed. While community residents have
had opportunity to weigh in on proposed redevelopment plans, this community survey was designed
with no particular plan in mind. By starting from what the community desires, as opposed to the plans of
a given developer, it is the author’s hope that this survey will inform policy and financial decisions from
elected officials and ultimately guide the future of the Dixie Cup site.

Methodology
The community survey was drafted and designed in the summer of 2022. The terminology for the use
options presented in the Residential, Commercial, and Industrial sections of the survey were drawn from
the Wilson Borough’s zoning code1. Given the site’s current zoning, General Industrial (I-1) with a
Planned Residential Development (PRD) overlay, presenting residential, commercial, and industrial
options—all allowable uses in a future development—was considered appropriate.

The survey was first shared on August 20, 2022, immediately following Northampton County Council’s
rejection of a LERTA for the site. Emails linking to the survey were sent to members of Northampton
County Council, the County Executive, and municipalities across Northampton County. Flyers and
leaflets were printed and shared with Wilson Borough and City of Easton residents and small businesses.

1
Borough of Wilson, PA Code, Part II, Chapter 170: Zoning. https://ecode360.com/11718930

1
Corridor tours and door-knocking were the primary forms of direct outreach. Because the survey was
online, respondents were welcome to complete it on their own time. No surveys were completed in the
presence of the report author.

A total of 121 survey responses were collected between August 20, 2022 and January 14, 2023, with
most responses coming from Easton (37), Wilson (16), Williams Township (7), Forks Township (7), and
Northampton (7). When asked the provide their zip codes, the top three zip codes were 18042 (53),
18045 (13), and 18040 (9).

2
Findings
The majority of survey findings relate to the support and considerations for given uses at the Dixie Cup
site. However, in addition to use-specific results, respondents were asked general questions to gauge
initial thoughts regarding redevelopment of the Dixie Cup site in Wilson Borough.

The first question asked respondents to indicate which uses they would personally want to see at the
site. Three options were provided: “Residential”, “Commercial”, and “Industrial”. “Other” was also
available with space for respondents to elaborate.

• Residential (apartments of various sizes, including for particular populations—like senior

housing): 94
• Commercial (office, retail, community facilities, etc): 69
• Industrial (production, storage, small-scale manufacturing, etc): 20

25 respondents also submitted their own answers; some notable examples include the following: “A
park”, Haunted House”, “Costco”, “A free shelter for all of the homeless in Easton and Wilson and the
surrounding areas”, and “Museum”.

When asked if respondents would support seeing a mixture of the above uses in a redeveloped Dixie
Cup, 99 respondents said “Yes”, 11 said “No”, and 11 answered “Not Sure”.

Respondents were then asked to share the three most important factors for them in a redeveloped Dixie
Cup site. 115 respondents provided answers.
The word cloud captures the most
frequently words; the five most frequently
used words were the following:

1. Housing (45)
2. Community (38)
3. Affordable (34)
4. Building (14)
5. Traffic (13)

3
The remainder of the survey findings can largely be divided into two categories: Preferred Uses and
Important Factors.

• The Preferred Uses were determined by asking respondents to select which uses they strongly
oppose, oppose, were neutral towards, supported, and strongly supported. Each option was then
assigned a point value:
o Strongly Oppose: -2
o Oppose: -1
o Neutral: 0
o Support: +1
o Strongly Support: +2

While bar graphs can visually present a level of support for a particular use, providing a numerical
value across all uses can give more precise insight as to which uses are acceptable and which are
broadly opposed across all categories. The higher a use’s net score, the more strongly supported it
is; the lower a use’s net score, the more strongly opposed it is. Uses with net scores close to 0
represent uses that respondents were either neutral towards or uses that had almost equal levels of
support and opposition.2

• The Important Factors were determined by asking respondents to provide any information or
context they personally deemed significant with regard to the three zoning categories: Residential,
Commercial, and Industrial. These factors may overlap with some of the feedback in the preferred
uses, while others are distinct. For example, a major factor for several respondents in the residential
section was affordability.

2
The former most closely applies to “Research”. The latter most closely applies to the following uses: “Office” and
“Trades (including job training and apprenticeships)”

4
 Residential Uses
Preferred Uses
Respondents were generally supportive of residential uses. The use subcategories provided were
“Studio & 1 Bedroom Apartments”, “2 Bedroom & Condominiums”, “Senior Housing”, and “Supportive
Housing”. The bar graph shows levels of support for each of these use categories:

When assigning point values to levels of

support, “Studios & 1 Bedroom Apartments”
are the most supported, with a net support Among respondents, “Studios & 1 Bedroom
value of +116, followed by “Senior Housing” Apartments” is the most supported residential
(+92), “2 Bedrooms Apartments & use, followed by “Senior Housing”, and “2
Condominiums” (+90), and “Supportive
Housing” (+86). The following bar graph and
Bedroom Apartments & Condominiums”
spreadsheet includes vote totals and scores
across all residential uses.

Strong Opp (-2) Oppose (-1) Neutral (0) Support (+1) Strong Sup (+2)
Studios & 1 10 4 19 36 52
VOTES

2BR & Condos 12 9 23 31 46

Senior 10 8 31 24 48
Supportive 15 8 26 20 52
Net Support
Studios & 1 -20 -4 36 104 116
SCORES

2BR & Condos -24 -9 31 92 90

Senior -20 -8 24 96 92
Supportive -30 -8 20 104 86

5
Important Factors
When asked to provide other important
factors to residential uses, respondents
provided a wide variety of responses.
Recurring themes were captured via
word cloud. By word count, the five
most frequently used terms across all
responses were the following:

1. Affordability (17)
2. Walkability (17)
3. Housing (17)
4. Affordable (14)
5. Income (12)

Commercial Uses
Preferred Uses
As with residential uses, respondents generally supported commercial uses across all use options. The
use categories presented were “Retail (food)”, “Retail (non-food)”, “Office”, “Community Facility”,
“Non-Profit”, “Recreational Uses”, “Library or Museum”, “Athletic Facility”, and “Care Facility (child or
adult)”.

When assigning point values to levels of

support, the three most supported uses
across commercial uses are “Community Among survey respondents, “Community
Facility” (+117), “Recreational Uses” Facility” is the most supported commercial
(+109), and “Non-Profit Space” (+103). use, followed by “Recreational Uses”, and
The following bar graph and spreadsheet
“Non-Profit Space”.
includes vote totals and scores across all
commercial uses.

6
 Strong Opp (-2) Oppose (-1) Neutral (0) Support (+1) Strong Sup (+2)
Retail (food) 13 10 20 40 38
Retail (non-food) 18 11 29 37 26
Office 16 17 38 31 19
Community Facility 9 3 18 44 47
Non-Profit 8 7 23 40 43

VOTES
Rec Space 9 7 21 37 47
Library or Museum 7 9 29 34 42
Athletic Facility 12 16 33 34 26
Care Facility 9 8 25 45 34
Net Support
Retail (food) -26 -10 40 76 80
Retail (non-food) -36 -11 37 52 42
Office -32 -17 31 38 20
Community Facility -18 -3 44 94 117
Non-Profit -16 -7 40 86 103
Rec Space -18 -7 37 97 109

SCORES
Library or Museum -14 -9 34 84 95
Athletic Facility -24 -16 34 52 46

7
Care Facility -18 -8 45 68 87
Important Factors
When asked to provide other
important factors to commercial uses,
the vast majority of responses involved
varied concerns about traffic, either
from automobile, bicycles, or
pedestrians. Recurring themes were
captured via word cloud. By word
count, the five most frequently used
terms across all responses were the
following:

1. Traffic (23)
2. Parking (6)
3. Access (6)
4. Public (5)
5. Space (4)

Industrial Uses
Preferred Uses
For the first time across the use subcategories, almost all net support scores were in the negative,
indicating more overall opposition than support for given uses. The use categories presented were
“Manufacturing”, “Trades (including Job Training & Apprenticeships)”, “Repair Shop”, “Automotive Body
Repair & Paint”, “Car Wash”, “Research”, “Storage & Warehousing”, “Equipment Storage”, and “Food
Processing”. The following bar graph and table demonstrates the level of support for each use.

When assigning point values to levels of

support, only two industrial use “Trades (including Job Training &
categories had a net positive score. The
Apprenticeships)” and “Research” are the only
three most supported uses are “Trades
(including Job Training & industrial uses supported by survey
Apprenticeships)” (+28), “Research” (+6), respondents
and “Repair Shop” (-54). The below bar
graph and spreadsheet includes vote
totals and scores across all industrial uses.

8
 Strong Opp (-2) Oppose (-1) Neutral (0) Support (+1) Strong Sup (+2)
Manufacturing 45 27 25 17 7
Trades (incl training) 22 8 29 44 18
Repair 32 27 31 25 6
Auto Body Repair 44 33 27 13 4
Car Wash 46 33 27 13 2

VOTES
Research 22 11 43 29 16
Storage & Warehouse 65 32 13 8 3
Equipment Storage 56 35 19 9 2
Food Processing 46 28 28 13 6
Net Support
Manufacturing -90 -27 17 14 -86
Trades (incl training) -44 -8 44 36 28
Repair -64 -27 25 12 -54
Auto Body Repair -88 -33 13 8 -100
Car Wash -92 -33 13 4 -108
Research -44 -11 29 32 6

SCORES
Storage & Warehouse -130 -32 8 6 -148
Equipment Storage -112 -35 9 4 -134

9
Food Processing -92 -28 13 12 -95
Important Factors
When asked to provide other important factors to industrial uses, jobs and traffic were frequent topics.
Recurring themes were captured via word cloud. By word count, the five most frequently used terms
across all responses were the following:

1. Jobs (14)
2. Local (13)
3. Residents (9)
4. Noise (6)
5. Workforce (5)

10
Conclusion
In ranking net support across all uses, it is USE NET SUPPORT
clear that commercial and residential uses Community Facility 117 Key
are the most strongly supported across all Studios & 1 116 Residential
survey respondents. Rec Space 109 Commercial
Non-Profit 103 Industrial
When considered alongside overwhelming Library or Museum 95
support (81.8%) for a mixture of these Senior 92
uses, one can conclude that respondents 2BR & Condos 90
from the communities surrounding the Care Facility 87
Dixie Cup site desire a mixed-use Supportive 86
development that Retail (food) 80
Athletic Facility 46
1. Provides a compatible and Retail (non-food) 42
accessible community asset for Trades (incl training) 28
the neighboring schools and Office 20
residential areas Research 6
2. Adds new affordable housing for Repair -54
Manufacturing -86
local residents
Food Processing -95
3. Strengthens the local economy by
Auto Body Repair -100
providing job training and/or Car Wash -108
good-paying jobs for local Equipment Storage -134
residents Storage & Warehouse -148
4. Minimizes or resolves existing
vehicular congestion on surrounding roadways

While perhaps not statistically significant, a number of survey respondents did emphasize their strong
desire for the Dixie Cup itself to be preserved (whether they meant the building as a whole or just the
water tower is unclear). At the same time, there was at least one respondent who suggested the whole
site should be levelled. These diametrically opposed responses seem indicative of a broader frustration
at the lack of progress on this site’s redevelopment over the past four decades. In spite of that
frustration, there was enough interest in this building’s future for over 100 county residents to complete
a survey created by a county resident.

With this information in mind, any developer looking to redevelop the Dixie Cup site can begin to
consider viable mixed-use strategies that would address the needs of community residents. Additionally,
any elected officials, whether at the municipal, school board, county, or statewide level, can utilize the
findings of this survey to determine whether a proposed development for the Dixie Cup site is deserving
of tax benefits or policy initiatives. While it is abundantly clear that the Dixie must be developed, it is
also obvious that only the right mix of uses will meet the general needs, aspirations, and priorities of the
community.

11