At the Wednesday, May 27, County Commissioners’ Meeting, the Commissioners passed a resolution to urge the Pennsylvania General Assembly to adopt a reasonable and “responsible” budget for 2009-2010. As stated in the resolution itself, the Commissioners’ primary concern is the shifting of “costs onto the local level.” In other words, the adoption of an overly stringent State budget would merely “pass the buck” down into local government budgets.

Commissioner Craig Lehman, who once served from 1992 to 2007 as a Budget Analyst at the PA House of Representatives, elaborated on this message being sent to his “former bosses.” He urged State politicians to come out of their “political silos,” putting “rhetoric aside [to] do the right thing.” As Lehman put it, “the wrong thing is boxing yourselves in, not willing to compromise,” instead of coming up with a bi-partisan solution that avoid pushing expenses down to the local level.

Commissioner Scott Martin echoed Lehman’s sentiment, noting that many proposed budget cuts would relate to mandatory public services that, ultimately, will have to be paid for, whether by the State of by the Counties.

A copy of the resolution will be sent to every member of Lancaster’s delegation to the General Assembly, to Governor Rendell, and to the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania. Similar statements are being issued this week by other Boards of Commissioners across the state.

According to a May 26 article headed “N. Y. Times dropped tip on Watergate”, a reporter had lunch with acting FBI director L. Patrick Gray on Aug. 16, 1972 and was told point blank that former attorney general John Mitchell was implicated into the recent break in at the Watergate headquarters of the Democratic Party and was given to understand that President Richard Nixon was also involved. The Times editor, whose book reveals his gaff, did little if anything to follow up!

WATCHDOG: This is instructive on three accounts:

First, it gives evidence that former associated FBI director W. Mark Felt was acting with the consent of Gray (and thus the FBI) when he adopted the role of “Deep Throat” and provided clues to Washington Post reporters that eventually led to the resignation of Nixon.

Second, what was then an incredible blunder by the Times editor, today would be normal practice.  Newspapers, many of which are either in bankruptcy reorganization or trying to avoid it (including the Times), have little if any money for investigations. No matter how large the corruption apparently taking place in Lancaster, the Philadelphia Inquirer would no longer be likely to take note.

Third, in Lancaster the conduct and abuses of the Big Four are not subject to investigation or even questioning by their member, The Lancaster Newspapers.

The May 24th article by LookingAtLancaster.com titled “Projects concealed from taxpayers until too late” touches upon the root cause of so much that has and is yet going wrong in Lancaster.

It groups the current streetscape improvement program, the proposed streetcars, and the convention center project as “Significant but unnecessary projects costing huge sums of taxpayer dollars have been constructed without any meaningful input from the people who must pay the bills, and will forever live with the consequences.”

We would add the questionable dump site location chosen for the relocation of the Norfolk Southern rail yard.

A common device among the four pillars of the Establishment is to feign some sort of crisis—claiming a funding shortfall for the convention center project that discouraged bidding competition, a dubious charge of violation of the Sunshine Law to unseat political opposition, and claims of ground water being polluted by the Brick Yard dump to justify $25 million in extra government spending.

First we are told about the carefully crafted crisis; then the so called solution is sprung on the gullible public to the benefit of the manipulating sponsors.

Moreover, when the vital interests of Franklin & Marshall College, General Hospital, the High Group or the Lancaster Newspapers are involved, the real news is often ignored, buried, or skillfully spun to serve special interests.

When the next big crisis is announced, and it may be soon, NewsLanc will carefully monitor the print media for accuracy and candor. And where we detect ignorance or deception, we will speak out.

“To say that it gives KFC a run for its money would be a serious understatement.”

The above statement is oddly out of place in this review. How in the world does a soul food restaurant end up being compared to a KFC at all?   Fast food fried chicken versus home cooked, lovingly prepared meals?

You’ve done Brothers and Sisters a grave disservice by utilizing this comparison.

In a May 24th Letter to the  Editor of the Sunday News headed “Ballpark ambush”, Joy Schwanger writes: 

At the front gates people approach you, stating that if you give them your name and phone number you will be entered to win a free car.  What they don’t tell you is you give them your information, it will be sold to a company called Sundance Vacations, which will relentlessly call you trying to ‘give’ you free vacations.

While  handing out news and commentary at Clipper Stadium, NewsLanc observed representatives with “Sundance Vacations” on their shirts collecting names and addresses. So long as NewsLanc is on public property, it is exercising its “Freedom of Speech” rights protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. But we know of no similar Constitutional protection for conducting a business on public property.

The Barnstormers should take appropriate action before the ball park becomes a flea market.

I have a request – please stop saying the convention center [project] cost taxpayers $140 million.  It’s $177.4 million in tax dollars.

Taxpayers own the entire project and are on the hook for the entire amount.  The newspaper and High have not paid a red cent [towards the real estate.]

To give them credit for paying every month [on the 'lease'] for the next 20 years as though they have already invested is just crazy.   They have to do it 240 times and then we can say they paid $35 million- until then?  They paid/invested ZERO!

Courtesy of LookingAtLancaster.blogspot.com

For the past decade, Lancaster has seen more dramatic changes than at any time since the disastrous “Urban Renewal” projects of the 1960s and 1970s. Like “Urban Renewal”, these changes will have a lasting impact on Lancaster for decades to come. Also like “Urban Renewal”, these projects were implemented without any meaningful input from the taxpayers and voters whose money is being spent to create these changes.

An example of this kind of project is the “streetscape improvement” program which is currently under way in downtown Lancaster. Several years ago, Lancaster City borrowed well over $100 million to finance Federally-mandated improvements to its water treatment system. Without public debate, this bond sale included millions of additional dollars for unrelated projects. For example, desperately needed fire trucks have been purchased, to replace old equipment that had become expensive to maintain. Several million dollars have been put aside to repair or replace the more than a century old City Hall, which fails to meet many building codes. These projects were described in general terms to City Council, which approved the bond sale without knowing the details of the city administration’s plans.

There can be no doubt that our public safety depends on police and fire personnel having equipment that works reliably when needed. City employees (like all of us) function best when working conditions are safe and adequate. And it is the responsibility of City officials to make certain our City government serves the needs of its residents as cost-effectively as possible.

But “streetscape improvements” are not a requirement of local government. Sidewalks are normally the responsibility of the property owner; local government only has the responsibility to set safety and maintenance standards, and to make certain that those standards are maintained. In the only public review of this project, an outline of the “streetscape improvement district” along with a few conceptual drawings was presented to City Council, which easily approved the proposal. But once construction began, the shortcomings of the “streetscape improvements” quickly became painfully apparent: most downtown intersections are receiving “bulb-outs” that restrict the movement of traffic, something that was barely mentioned in the brief presentation to City Council. These “traffic calming” devices (a favorite of the current administration) are designed to make crossing the street easier for pedestrians, but existing downtown traffic congestion has already been made much worse as a result.

Should local government officials be permitted to make such radical changes to the appearance and traffic flow of downtown Lancaster without public involvement? After all, it is the residents of Lancaster City whose tax dollars are being used to make these changes. Don’t the people have any say at all about how their hard-earned money is being spent for a non-essential project that significantly impacts their lives?

Another project where the public has been kept at a distance is the proposed streetcar system in downtown Lancaster. When questions about its operational funding became a significant stumbling block, a “private” non-profit corporation (made up primarily of government officials and civic leaders) was formed to take ownership of the project. With no involvement by City Council, three antique trolley cars were purchased; one was repainted, and in October of 2008 was parked on City-owned property at a major downtown intersection for all to see (as of this writing, it is still there).

Then there is the taxpayer-financed hotel and convention center project, where serious questions raised by Lancaster residents were met with ridicule and attacks from the public officials and private interests that support the project.

There has clearly been a pattern of restricting public input about potentially controversial taxpayer-funded projects in Lancaster. Significant but unnecessary projects costing huge sums of taxpayer dollars have been constructed without any meaningful input from the people who must pay the bills, and will forever live with the consequences. The political leaders of Lancaster have demonstrated time and again that they believe their pet projects are more important than the people who they were elected or appointed to represent.

On May 24, the popular “Perspective” section was packaged with the pre-printed and separately bundled display advertisements.

WATCHDOG: Good move. Why would advertisers spend their money to appear in a separately bundled portion of the newspapers that many, if not most, subscribers simply toss in the trash! ‘Perspective’ is a section were a later deadline can properly be sacrificed to generating revenue.

In his weekly column, Editor Marv Adams advises readers:

“Any person who is out of work can have an ad printed for fours weeks under ‘Situations Wanted.’ You can also have your resume posted on LancJobs.com. Also free….The company did it in the 1970s during a tough economic period, at the behest of publisher John F. Steinman.

“”Mr. Steinman believed that the newspaper was in the best position in the community to help out-of-work Lancastrians find a job, and he wanted Lancaster Newspapers to lead the way,‘ said Harold E. Miller Jr., president (sic) and CEO of LNP.”

WATCHDOG: Three wags of the tail for the Lancaster Newspapers!