NewsLanc has twice inquired of Ernest Schreiber, Editor of the Lancaster New Era, as to whether he intends to continue to publish morning exit poll results in his election day afternoon edition.

The League of Women Voters is critical of such practices and national and state exit polls are embargoed until after polls close. This is to prevent early reports from discouraging voter turn out and influencing how people vote.

NewsLanc has received no response.

I don’t know if you noticed that the Christian Science Monitor has now stopped all their print editions. From this point forward they will only be online. Neighborhood papers that have a local following will survive longer in a print edition because they have a local economic anchor — department store ads.

Print editions are all going the way of the dinosaur sooner or later. It could happen as soon as something like OLED thin-film flexible displays come on the market, probably some time in the next five years. At that point, displays could be routinely put on any surface, or carried like a folded sheet of paper in your pocket. Internet web browsers will be literally everywhere. Paper will be superfluous, even a nuisance.

At that point, the media, how people read, and how we keep track of it all could change dramatically and very quickly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/business/media/29carr.html?hp

It’s budget time for the county. Over the next couple of weeks, the county commissioners will be holding a number of meetings to discuss and finalize the 2009 budget.

So NewsLanc asked on Wednesday what their priorities are and what citizens should expect to see in the upcoming budget.

While being nonspecific, all three of the commissioners strongly hinted that significant spending cuts are in the works.

Citing a “tough economy” and “a [state] trend toward pushing costs down on to counties,” Commissioner Scott Martin said, “There’s going to be a lot of belt tightening. There has to be.”

Craig Lehman, the lone Democratic County Commissioner, said, “I firmly believe that in tough economic times, government needs to set the example and show restraint. But they need to show restraint in a fiscally responsible way.” He went on to suggest that now is not the time to raise taxes and that multi-year planning is necessary for the county to save money.

That point found disagreement with Martin, who called multi-year planning “pie-in-the-sky thinking” since so much of the county’s budget is contingent on the annual state budget.

“I’ll be much more forthright, blunt and, brutal,” Commissioner Chairman Dennis Stuckey began. “We’ve given [County Administrator] Charlie [Douts] one word to say – and that word is no.”

For his part, Douts noted that he is working with departments to improve efficiency by cutting costs where possible, and to “implement a budget that reflects the views of the commissioners.”

In which specific areas the economic times will be felt, and the county’s promised fiscal conservatism will manifest itself, remains to be seen in the coming weeks.

The commissioners have scheduled meetings to discuss the proposed 2009 budget on Wed, Nov. 5 at 2:00 p.m., Friday, Nov. 7 at 9:30 a.m., and Wednesday, November 12 at 3:00 p.m.

These will ultimately be followed by the traditional evening presentation of the finalized budget to the public towards the end of the year.

Lancaster mayor Rick Gray’s statement regarding the proposed streetcar project is nothing more than an attempt to distract people from their legitimate concerns over its promotion.

The wording of this statement makes it quite clear that Mayor Gray is very much in favor of streetcars in downtown Lancaster. It was Mayor Gray who permitted the placement of a streetcar on Lancaster City property at a highly visible intersection; Gray’s statement completely avoids addressing either the legality or the propriety of doing so.

Gray’s statement that claims ‘at each juncture, public input from City residents would be invited’ does not ring true. Specifically:

Point 1: Any study which would analyze the economic impact, user benefits, and/or community benefits of a streetcar project would be performed by a paid professional organization, most likely one that has already performed similar studies in other cities. Although a few select individuals could be interviewed as a part of any such study, there would be no opportunity for unbiased public input as a part of the presentation of any final report.

Point 2: Any engineering study would most certainly be done by a professional engineering firm. Public input would not be a factor.

Point 3: A financing plan would be put together by the Lancaster Streetcar Company, and presented as a package to Lancaster City Council for approval. The promoters of the financing plan would have their supposed facts and figures to back their claims, while the general public would have little more to present than their opinions and personal experiences.

In an open discussion between slick professionals and concerned citizens, recent history has proven time and time again that City Council will give far more weight to the opinions of the professionals than to the opinions of the people it is supposed to represent. Besides, for the last three years Lancaster City Council has on every occasion given mayor Rick Gray practically everything he has asked for.

In addition to legitimate traffic and safety concerns, Lancaster City taxpayer dollars are also at risk. Any financing plan for this project is likely to include large amounts of corporate sponsorships and other donated funds. Who would be held responsible when insufficient revenue is available to keep the streetcars running? Would a future City Council allow the streetcars to stop running, or would yet another City guarantee and tax increase be used to subsidize the project’s ongoing operations?

There appears to be little or nothing that the people of Lancaster City can do to stop the proposed streetcar project in its tracks. All the concerned citizens of Lancaster City can do is hope and pray that a new City Council or Mayor with a more realistic perspective about downtown Lancaster is elected before this project can proceed.

[Not renovating the library] is bizarre. The Dow closed up over 10% yesterday, so maybe it’s not the end of the world after all!

I guess if it doesn’t involve High and huge public grants it just doesn’t get done. Or maybe the timing of a key go/no go decision was bad.

I feel sorry for Karen Field.

The proposed “home rule” charter’s limited provision for “citizen initiative and referendum” is nothing more than a false promise. This particular proposed “home rule” charter includes far too many exclusions and limitations to make this concept effective.

For example, consider this passage from the proposed “home rule” charter:

*Section 6.02 Subjects of Initiative.

a. Each proposed ordinance shall be germane to County government and limited to one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title.

b. The power of initiative shall not extend to the current budget or capital program, to the appropriation of capital program, or to the salaries of those employees of the County in collective bargaining agreements.

c. An initiative seeking to limit tax increases shall be permitted only when an increase in the rate of any tax proposed by the County for the upcoming year equals or exceeds seven (7) percent of that imposed during the previous year.

In “Library says no to quick fixes”, the Intell reports: “The Board of Trustees of the Lancaster Public Library, by a 6-to -2 vote Tuesday, opted to forgo a quick renovation of the aging facility by the end of 2009, hoping to undertake a more comprehensive upgrade at some future date.”

WATCHDOG: The report was a competent distillation of an hour long drama. The “quick renovation” of the library would have been, by and large, the same as planned had the 18,000 square foot addition been simultaneously constructed. The addition, which Karen Haley Field was proposing as a second stage to be funded later, would enable library functions to be spread out and additional features provided. Editor’s note: Karen Haley Field is the wife of NewsLanc’s publisher Robert Edwin Field.

When Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray first proposed an ordinance a few weeks ago to penalize gun owners who do not report missing firearms in a timely manner, he exuded a brazen confidence about setting an example and challenging the state to do the same – almost challenging opponents to try and stop him.

But after further consultations with the city solicitor, Gray isn’t so sure anymore.

On Tuesday he withdrew the proposed ordinance from consideration pending the outcome of a state court case that will hopefully clarify whether there is a defensible legal ground for a municipality’s passing such an ordinance.

Opponents have suggested that the proposed ordinance would violate the rights of gun owners and may run afoul of section 6120 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, which states that “No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammuni­tion components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth” (known as “preemption”).

Which is precisely why Gray has withdrawn his ordinance – which would impose penalties on gun owners who fail to report a missing firearm within 72 hours of discovering that it is missing – pending disposition of state court cases that will clarify whether or not the city can reasonably pass such a measure without making itself vulnerable to litigation.

Gray did not know the name of the court cases off-hand and offered to share that information with NewsLanc later in the week.

“The state should have the guts to step up to the plate [and pass a law themselves],” he insisted. For now, the city ordinance is on the back burner.

After over an hour of spirited discussion, the Board of Trustees of the Lancaster Public Library voted 6-2 to reject Board President Karen Haley Field’s proposal that the library move forward with a renovation-only plan as opposed to its earlier intention to both renovate the existing building and add a two story, 18,000 square foot addition to the rear of the aging Duke Street facility.

Karen Field described her renovate-only proposal as a “fall back position” since “$2.5 to $3.5 million in State RCAP grants that had been anticipated for funding the complete project have not materialized, putting the feasibility of the full project in doubt.”

Her proposal was to forego the addition for the time being and renovate only the existing space, including new bathrooms, an access ramp for the physically challenged from Duke Street, a fire sprinkler system, major repairs to mechanical systems, and replacement of furnishings and fixtures through most of the library.

The renovations were projected to cost approximately $2.3 million, start in March, and would be completed by December 2009.

She indicated a $500,000 State Keystone Library Grant was available provided the board agreed immediately to the reduce scope of the project, but otherwise the library would have to re-apply for a Keystone grant for 2010, without assurance of it being available. There was also on hand a private commitment for $500,000 as a matching grant that also would lapse.

She said remaining funds would be raised in a capital campaign with any shortfall borrowed from the endowment within the next year.

Board member Bob Miller said that he considers the period of time in which the board would have to raise the remaining funds “too slim.” He added: “I’ve never seen a fundraising campaign work after-the-fact.” Gary Weaver, also on the board, agreed. “Rushing into a renovation… would make it much more difficult to raise money for endowment [and] makes the whole project more difficult to accomplish,” he said.

Karen Field and Robert Edwin Field, the project manager and publisher of NewsLanc, disagreed. Robert Field argued that project would draw attention to the library within the community and that a campaign to raise funds for the renovation of the existing building would generate new supporters, thus making it easier to raise funds for the later addition.

Karen Field said that it would not be the end of the world for the library to borrow part of the funds from its endowment in order to cover any shortfall.

Weaver at the outset of the meeting accused Karen Field of overstepping her authority by negotiating with the State to try to salvage the Keystone Grant by having it apply only to the existing building. Karen Field read excerpts from the minutes of prior meetings indicating authorizations to salvage the Keystone Grant.

In a heated moment, board member John Havrilla alleged that it was inappropriate for Karen Field to have sent out an alert to the press about Tuesday’s meeting, without first sharing its contents with the other members of the board.

Karen Field response to such criticism was “If the press chooses to write an article regarding the Board’s decision not to pursue the building project at this time, it can only bring more public attention to the difficult decisions the Library is forced to make due to funding concerns. And that is what we need.”

Concern among the board about the state of the economy was used as an argument against moving forward.

On an average day, 1,500 Lancastrians visit the downtown library on Duke Street, making it one of the busiest libraries in the nation for its size. From September 2007 to September 2008, circulation has increased 19 percent, according to Executive Director Debra Rosser-Hogben.

Following questioning from concerned citizens and from NewsLanc at the October 14 meeting of City Council and his public statement at that meeting that the streetcar on display at the corner of Chesnut & Prince Streets is “public art,” Mayor Gray on Tuesday read into the record the following statement, of which NewsLanc has obtained a paper copy:

Mayor’s Report To City Council
October 28, 2008

Report On Status of Possible Streetcar in City of Lancaster

As you are aware, the Lancaster Streetcar Company, a non-profit entity led by a cross-section of dedicated community volunteers, recently placed a streetcar on the City property located at the corner of North Prince and West Chestnut Streets. The streetcar will be there for several months in an effort to encourage discussion regarding the possible future use of streetcars in the City. Due to its placement, some have wrongfully concluded that the City of Lancaster will now have streetcars without the prior study or public discussion necessary to make that determination. The following calls to the public’s attention the facts as to the actual current status of streetcars in Lancaster.

Needless to say, at each juncture, public input from City residents would be invited and discussions will be held as to the advantages and disadvantages of such a system. As shown, there is much work to do prior to any final decision regarding the construction of a streetcar system in the City of Lancaster. I continue to support moving ahead with the aforementioned studies, believing that if these steps are taken and questions are answered in the affirmative, such a system would be not only a great transporter of people, but also a significant economic development driver. I hope our City residents take the time to examine the streetcar currently on display and think about whether such a new/old form of transportation has a place in today’s Lancaster.