By Cliff Lewis

On May’s First Friday (tomorrow night), Central Market may well be the hottest gallery in town. For the first time, the Market will be lined with original artwork in accordance with the monthly citywide tradition, Market Master Michael Ervin told NewsLanc.

The seven displays will range from photography to furniture, and all of the work will hold a special relationship to the Market itself: “I believe that all of these artists are standholders, employees of [standholders], or friends of standholders,” Ervin said. In fact, he explained, the entire event was coordinated by a collection of stand owners eager to get the Market involved with the First Friday artwalk.

Live acoustic music will be provided by Josh Gring, the son of the Blue Bandana Stand’s owner.

A pig roast, put on by relatives of the Grass Feed Beef stand owner, will be held at the Market entrance next to the Dispensing Company restaurant, and the owners of Stoltzfus Fresh Meats will be grilling hamburgers as well.

The Market which would typically close by 4:30 on a Friday afternoon, will remain open until 8:00 p.m. to welcome all of the evening’s Downtown art-walkers. According to Ervin, Central Market has dabbled in evening events a couple of times before, but never on this scale, and never as part of the Spring First Friday festivities.

In an article headed “Pot panned as medicine; Local lawmakers, doctors oppose measure”, State Representative Katie True states “Marijuana is not medicine. Marijuana is a bunch of burning leaves” and goes on to say that Marinol, which contains one of marijuana’s ingredient THC, has a “Much better delivery system.”

Pharmacist Charlie Smithgall opines that under federal guidelines, Marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic and thus is banned.

WATCHDOG: Rep. True, who at one point opposed syringe exchanges before seeing the light, again demonstrates superficial knowledge and dangerous bias.  www.DrugWarFacts.org reports: Organizations that have endorsed medical access to marijuana include: the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians; American Bar Association; American Nurses Association; American Public Health Association; American Society of Addiction Medicine; AIDS Action Council; British Medical Association; California Academy of Family Physicians; California Legislative Council for Older Americans; California Medical Association; California Nurses Association; California Pharmacists Association; California Society of Addiction Medicine; California-Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church; Colorado Nurses Association; Consumer Reports Magazine; Kaiser Permanente; Lymphoma Foundation of America; Multiple Sclerosis California Action Network; National Association of Attorneys General; National Association of People with AIDS; National Nurses Society on Addictions; New Mexico Nurses Association; New York State Nurses Association; New England Journal of Medicine; and Virginia Nurses Association.

Smithgall is correct concerning federal restrictions of schedule 1 drugs through pharmacies, but many states including California now permit sale through dispensaries.  Furthermore, the Obama administration has decided that the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will not interfere with dispensaries where operated under state law.

May True never have a dear one whose suffering can be alleviated by the intake of medical marijuana. But if she does, she may once again find enlightenment and again reverse her habitual knee jerk reaction in support of the often misguided War on Drugs.

By moving the rail yard out of Lancaster and having Lancaster General Hospital and F&M college take over the former Armstrong plant properties, exactly how much additional tax revenue will be lost to Lancaster?

The mayor complains about the high number of non-profit organizations in Lancaster but continues to give away more of the tax base.  Go figure!

(Tenth in a series)

By Christiaan Hart-Nibbrig

The story of the Lancaster County Convention Center begins with an obscure law called the “Third-Class County Convention Center Authority Act” that was passed in the Pennsylvania legislature and signed by Governor Robert Casey on December 27, 1994.

The Act permits local county governments of third-class counties (those with populations between 210,000-500,000) to create “Authorities”, taxpayer-subsidized bodies empowered to build and administer convention centers and to fund the projects through a hotel room sales tax.

Lancaster County, with a population of just under the half million at the time – with scores of hotels and motels, was a “Third-Class” county and thus authorized to tap new revenue through a hotel room sales tax for tourist promotion and convention center purposes.

The Convention Center Act was sponsored by house member Thomas Caltagirone of Berks County. The real authors – the ones who conceived and drafted the language and the ones who would benefit from its largesse for more than a decade — were attorneys at the law firm of Stevens & Lee, a powerful Reading-based corporation. Dealing in most forms of commercial law, the law firm is also an influential lobbyist in state government, representing a number of counties, including Berks. (Stevens & Lee will appear later and often in this series.)

According to political observers, the Act was later utilized in a trade-off involving a very expensive stadium bill for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that came a few years later, one strongly supported by Casey’s successor, Governor Tom Ridge.

The stadium initiative, passed in a lame duck, post-election session at the end of 1998, proposed to spend $600 million public dollars to build four new sports stadia: two in Pittsburgh; two in Philadelphia. The inducement for legislators outside of those specific counties and their immediate suburbs to fund this bill was to receive economic development grants that would flow to their communities throughout the state.

At the time, Lancaster County had two very influential senior legislators in Harrisburg: Representative John Barley and Senator Gibson “Gib” Armstrong. Barley was the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and Armstrong chaired the Senate Banking Committee. Together, Barley and Armstrong, both Republicans, had been in the legislature for decades.

It has been suggested that Barley and/or Armstrong made a deal with Governor Tom Ridge, also a Republican, that Lancaster be rewarded with state money for a downtown convention center, in exchange for political support for funding the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh stadia bill. Both Barley and Armstrong were closely connected to prominent citizens (all major political contributors and volunteers), who were negotiating to  purchase the large and centrally located, historic Watt & Shand building, which they believed could be developed into a hotel and an adjoining convention center.

Fifteen years – and almost two hundred million public dollars – after Casey signed the bill, we find the Lancaster County Convention Center has become a reality.

This is the story of how a project of dubious feasibility was pitched to the public as a $75 million, half private and half publicly funded investment and over the years evolved into its current $180 million form, with the taxpayers swallowing more than 90% of the cost and risk.

It is a project that has sharply divided the entire community. And it is a story that yet-to-be-written ending will likely define Lancaster for many years.

Footnote:  When the idea of a convention center for the city of Lancaster was first introduced Ronald Reagan was president.  In April 1986, Mayor Arthur E. Morris anounced a committe would explore whether the city could support such a project.  The tentative idea for the center was not particularly grand. “I don’t envision a big place seating 10,000 people,” Morris said.  No location for the project had been determined at that time.  When no private party stepped forward to finance a convention center in Lancaster, the idea lay dormant for several years.

By Cliff Lewis

At today’s public County Commissioners’ Meeting, Crystal Gingrich, Executive Director of the Lancaster County Children and Youth Agency (CYA), presented an overview of the current challenges facing the organization, as well as the steps that are being taken to improve services.

The CYA serves children and families threatened by abuse or neglect, with a stated mission to “protect the health, permanency, safety, and emotional well-being of children at risk….” Some of the key services provided are abuse and neglect investigations, in-home protective services, out-of-home placement services (foster care), adoption, and parent eduction support.

According to Gingrich, CYA case workers screen over 5,700 call-ins each year, and engage in over 1,100 child safety investigations. During the current fiscal year, 473 children have been placed in protective out-of-home placement, and last year, 92 children were adopted in Lancaster County.

The number of children in out-of-home placement is one that the CYA seeks to minimize, where possible. In this regard, the numbers for this year are positive, compared to the 568-child peak during ‘04-’05: “I think that shows a definite improvement in our area of providing supportive services to children in their home, with children returning sooner, and I think we are making safer decision for children and empowering families,” Gingrich said.

The child reunification rate has historically been low in Lancaster County; this means that the process of reuniting children with parents has taken longer than in other counties. However, in the last year, the CYA has increased the reunification rate by 10%, largely due to changes in policy that allow for more in-home supportive care. One drawback that must be noted is that this reunification rate increase has resulted in a slight increase in the number of children re-entered in foster care.

Currently the CYA is participating in the National Governor’s Academy, in which 16 counties have been selected to develop policy changes with the purpose of bringing a 20% reduction in Pennsylvania’s out-of-home placement rate by 2010. The CYA is also engaging in “local children’s roundtable” discussions, where agency representatives meet with local courts to talk about ways to make the system more effective

One area of recent CYA policy reform has been a new emphasis on family involvement in the out-of-home placement process: “We have made a tremendous change in our philosophy of using relatives and finding relatives that will be good options for our children to live with, if they cannot live with their parents.” Also, the agency has begun implementing new systems to contact estranged parents (typically fathers), in the event that a child can no longer live with the other parent.

John Fry, president of F&M, was quoted in the Apr. 28 issue of the Intelligencer Journal as saying that lights and cameras would be added to Race Avenue this summer.  Since the 600 – 900 blocks already have lights and cameras on the F&M side of the street, he had to be referring to the 400 and 500 blocks, where Buchanan Park is located.  F&M students park their cars on the Park side of these blocks.

In a conversation with a well-known and respected community leader, I said that I thought that the primary purpose of the additional lights that F&M plans to install is to protect students’ cars, since the park is already fairly well lighted (more than most city parks) by overhead street lights. Students’ cars are usually the only cars to be parked there overnight and these cars are frequently burglarized. This community leader commented:

“If F&M permits its students to have cars, then F&M should provide safe parking for these cars. Students shouldn’t have to park them on city streets. The police shouldn’t have to baby-sit cars. Most students have electronic gadgets. Where there is a student car, it’s a given that there is something in the car worth stealing.”

A parking garage or multi-level parking deck could provide secure parking and save land at the same time.

Recently I heard a complaint about “light pollution” in Buchanan Park. The person who said this certainly would not approve of more lights. Whether additional lights should be added is a matter for the Park neighborhood to decide. An opportunity should be given for them to express their opinions in an open PUBLIC HEARING held in City Chambers, and NOT at F&M where the comments and agenda can be controlled. This is because Buchanan Park is public property, maintained with city taxes. It is not owned by F&M, but by the City.

It’s so sad to see that someone that only went to a single game can easily pass judgement on the coaches.

The coaches are new to Varsity & JV at McCaskey and it will take them some time to get used to. Especially the head coach, because he doesn’t like to listen to suggestions.

I guess what I’m saying is that unless you know exactly what’s going on within the team you shouldn’t judge, even if you are right.

Yes, we do need to take a positive approach toward making Lancaster a success. However, to say “Let’s stop talking down about our city and county” as an excuse to not discuss the terrible costs of the hotel and convention center project will not make its one-sided agreements or numerous questionable deals and actions go away.

What will it take to make the hotel and convention center a success? All of the deals which shift so much of the hotel’s share of costs onto taxpayers MUST be renegotiated, fairly this time, even if it means that the Penn Square Partners be evicted and replaced with a true partner. And the wrongdoing that was used to create and build this project must be investigated, and prosecuted as necessary.

But most important of all, the hotel must start paying local real estate taxes. What other hotel has ever had well over half of its construction costs (and a large part of its operational costs) paid for by taxpayers, then gets to keep all of its profits without paying its fair share of taxes to the community in which it is located?

Pretending that these things never happened will do nothing to help lift the burden that this project has placed on taxpayers for generations to come.

By Cliff Lewis

On Tuesday evening, several dozen Lancaster City residents met for the first of four community meetings regarding a $3 million plan to introduce 105 new surveillance cameras in the city. The gathering was hosted by Joe Morales, City Council Member and Executive Director of the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition (LCSC). The LCSC is a private organization of citizens interested in pursuing the implementation of digital video technology to reduce crime in Lancaster City.

The meeting began with a presentation from Morales about the demonstrated benefits of public surveillance cameras that have already been installed Downtown. In one instance, according to Morales, an illegal firearm exchange was spotted by a camera operator who then immediately notified the authorities. Within five minutes, an arrest was made and the weapon was taken off the streets.

Morales also took time to settle some possible concerns. For those concerned about operators spying onto private property, he explained that the camera system is programmed to “patch” over the windows of every private residence, such that a camera operator can see nothing but black space in those areas. Also, for those concerned about the LCSC storing excessive volumes of surveillance footage, Morales explained that all footage is deleted within seven days of its recording, unless a particular segment is involved in a criminal investigation:

“So if you’re walking down Penn Square, buying a hotdog, and nothing happens that day, that video is erased and gone within five to seven days.”

When Morales opened the floor for public comment, the responses ranged from praise to protest. Some attendees complained that the proposed system could push crime out of “watched” neighborhoods and into neighborhoods without the cameras. One man expressed concern that such systems have not sufficiently been proven effective and could easily fall under abuse; he recommended that other attendees visit www.aclu.org/privacy/spying to gather a balanced perspective on the issue.

Other attendees were eager to see the cameras implemented in the City. Several community members expressed particular interest in seeing their own neighborhoods fitted with the technology as quickly as possible: One woman even asked how much it would cost to independently fund the installation of such a camera.

“I was disappointed in the coverage of the Lancaster County Transportation Coordinating Committee meeting published in the April 28 New Era.  A couple of dozen members of TRRAAC took time from work and other activities to come downtown for a 12:30 pm meeting.  We wanted the committee to delay voting to give $4 Million in our federal tax money to F&M until a real public hearing and opportunity for public comment would occur.  The newspaper originally erroneously reported that the committee had approved the $4 Million request two weeks ago.

“I am not usually active in local politics or issues, but I could not believe what I witnessed yesterday (Monday).  It was a farce beyond words.  Mayor Gray actually fed F&M official Keith Orris softball questions, such as:  Aren’t there going to be nursing schools and other businesses located on the vacated property that will help Lancaster’s economy?

“He actually had the audacity to tell us that Lancaster City’s been dealing with the train yard for a long time, and that it’s ok to put it in another area with FAR LESS POPULATION than Lancaster City.

“I am no expert, but I have been reading for two years how this project will eliminate 55,000 tractor trailer trips annually from area roadways.  But, the committee’s own staff consultant only came up with 7000 truck trips.  Something about different methodologies.  All I know is our lawyer raised some excellent issues, none of which were refuted by Mr. Orris.  The committee staff hemmed and hawed about modeling and population growth.  It was clear they did not consider the increase in traffic that will result when the former rail yard is redeveloped to include up to a thousand nursing students, retail, office, parking garages, etc.  Mayor Gray responded that nursing students will walk and not drive. Yes, that’s what he said!

“My favorite was Mayor Gray telling us that the existing yard is the same as the proposed yard.  When I called out that the existing yard has only two tracks and the proposed yard has FIFTEEN, I was told to be quiet.  Yes, I was out of protocol, but wasn’t the only one commenting from the peanut gallery.

“I was about 15 seconds away from asking him to recuse himself for his obvious bias.”

Bottom line: they voted ‘yay’ to allow the partners to continue applying for the CMAQ funding? SHOCKING? …  Not.

I am becoming far more cynical about politics and politicians after today’s show.  Not a single member of the committee voted ‘no’ or to delay the vote to enable real public scrutiny of the project.  Commissioner Martin let us down and we will remember that in the future.