“Yes, Lancaster County is only liable for $20 million of the $64 million in [Convention Center] construction bonds. But that does not tell the whole story.

“If ‘hotel [room sales] tax’ proceeds fall short of the amount needed to make construction bond payments, Lancaster County government is liable to make up the difference. About the only way that would happen is if hotel occupancy would collapse to about half of its current level; since ‘hotel tax’ collections have only slipped a few percentage points during the worst recession in decades, that is not likely to happen.

“*But what about the OPERATION of the convention center?* This is the issue that Craig Lehman has failed to address.

“It is obvious that the operational budget for the convention center is woefully inadequate. It is already clear that the convention center will need to generate more revenue than anticipated by the “pro-forma” estimates to make ends meet. This will be difficult, especially since utilization of the LCCCA’s spaces is booked at not much more than half of pre-opening estimates. And no major trade shows have been booked beyond the spring of 2010.

“Note that the LCCCA does NOT have any taxing authority; only the County Commissioners can raise taxes. Yes, the LCCCA can legally take the share of the ‘hotel tax’ that currently goes to the Pennsylvania Dutch Convention and Visitors Bureau. But would the County Commissioners willingly let the PDCVB lose such a large part of its funding? Especially since the ‘hotel tax’ funds the three full-time PDCVB employees whose job it is to promote the hotel and convention center.

“What will happen when the convention center needs additional funds to pay for its unanticipated operational losses? Would the County Commissioners really allow the convention center to close when it runs out of money?

“*Of course not.*

“Craig Lehman’s promises will quickly be forgotten, ignored, or rationalized when the LCCCA eventually is forced to come begging for more money.

“I challenge anyone to ask Craig Lehman exactly what he will do when the LCCCA needs additional operating subsidies. It will be interesting to see what kind of spin he puts on that answer.”

[In response to "Special health care report to NewsLanc from D.C. Correspondent," and "The road to Socialism"]

This is one of those many issues in our history that initially looks impossible but than becomes inevitable when the pressure mounts. Health care MUST be dealt with, not only because 20,000 die each year due to lack of health care access and most bankruptcies are caused by health problems even though people are insured, but also because the government at the national and state level cannot afford to let things continue. Health care guarantees deficits and debt for as far as the eye can see. Single payer is the only way to successfully address the issue. The politics will change—and that is our job, to change it—make the impossible the inevitable.

It is a transition that happens all the time. Just ask women who are voting, blacks who can drink at any water fountain and gays who are not marrying. All impossible, all inevitable. Difficult but it will happen.

I say that the CC is a County asset, whether or not there is a public authority sitting in between the County and the specific asset.  As such, all of its debts, obligations, and encumbrances eventually fall to the County whether a specific guarantee exists or not between the County and the LCCCA.

Could we possibly allow creditors of the LCCCA to seize assets within the CC  for unpaid bills?  The reality is that the CC is as much a County asset as 150 N. Queen and as a result all debts belong to us.

I have been following with great interest the story of the new hotel having been declared exempt from property, school, city and county taxes. I distinctly remember that the tax revenues from the hotel would benefit primarily the School District of Lancaster and this was one of the prime selling points from the developers.

I really did not and truthfully could not follow all of the endless twists and turns the project took over the years but is this exemption legal?

I found a document, a legal opinion, online dated April 11, 2005 from Kegel Kelin Almy and Grimm LLP to the Counrty Commissioners that states the hotel cannot be tax exempt. Here is the link:

COUNTY OF LANCASTER/CONVENTION CENTER – Memo on Tax Immunity Issue

I and several people I know were shocked when we read in the newspaper last Friday of this exemption. No one I have talked to knew of this either.

Can you give some insight?

Editor’s response: By selling the Watt & Shand site to the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Lancaster (RACL) and allowing it to be the nominal owner and, in turn, net lease the hotel to Penn Square Partners, High and the Lancaster Newspapers were able to achieve exemption from county, city, and school real estate taxes. Of course, this was in total contradiction to earlier representations.

“Dear Editor,

I saw in today’s Intell the article about the mayors convention and the call for cities to have the ability to raise sales tax to improve services to residents. I believe that Lancaster City would gladly support the Lancaster Public Library at the State recommended $5 per capita rather than at the rate they currently are which is $1.77. If the tax applied to the County, then the Lancaster Library alone would receive an additional $673,440 from it’s 14 municipalities to operate.

Economic development flourishes in a community/city/county and state because quality of life is higher due to the provision of human services. Therefore, while no one likes to raise taxes, they are necessary in a democracy. Attached is an advocacy piece written for the Pennsylvania Library Association. [Click here to read.]

Countywide, for all the libraries in the 60 municipalities, $5 per capita would be an operating increase of $1,270,000. The sum total of municipal appropriations in Lancaster County (does not include County Funding) is $2.46 per capita for year 2008 based on a population of 500,000 people.

For your information, Allegheny County does a RAD Tax which includes funding support for library services.

Susan L. Hauer, Administrator
Library System of Lancaster County”

[In response to "Special health care report to NewsLanc from D.C. Correspondent"]

I love how these socialists in DC support a single payer, government run health system, using the argument that only the government can effectively run such a business. I suppose it also makes sense to have the government to take over the housing and rental markets too – NOT!

And do these socialists believe that the public is so stupid as to not realize that those who are attempting to craft this “wonderful” system are exempting themselves and their families from having to participate?

Our congressmen and other members of the government will still have free choice. Only the poor chump public won’t.

At the Wednesday, June 24, County Commissioners’ Meeting, Manor Township resident Bonnie Miller offered a recommendation to Commissioner Scott Martin (also the Prison Board Chairman). Miller recently learned of an extensive work release program functioning in Massachusetts, where prisoners are outsourced as affordable labor to assist troubled farmers.

Miller explained how there already appears to be a place for such in program in Lancaster County: “I know there’s an organization that imports migrant workers to help the chicken farmers…in Mount Joy,” she said, later posing the question, “Why pay an immigrant when we can pay the prisoner?”

Martin responded by acknowledging that the prison currently runs a deficient work release program: “Lancaster County has about 30-70 people on average that are involved in work release…compared to surrounding counties that may have upwards of 300.” Martin further noted that the Prison Board would welcome the passing on of ideas; if they are “reasonable and feasible, we can look into it….I wouldn’t rule out any ideas.”

[Recently, NewsLanc publisher Robert Field visited San Pedro Prison in La Paz, Bolivia. Click here to read a description of the prison, and how it thrives apart from the common practices of its American counterparts.]

A June 22 article headed “Financial diagnosis: Hospitals healthy here” makes the following observations: “Both the increasing cost of providing health care services and increased investments in bricks and mortar led to the drop in profits this year at Lancaster General, said spokesman Kim Payne.”

WATCHDOG: The first lessons in elementary accounting teach that “bricks and mortar” are “capital investments” which do not add or detract from “profits.” (They do impact “cash flow,” but that’s a separate matter.) So what is Kim Payne and the reporter talking about?

This is not a “financial diagnosis” but rather a typical Lancaster propaganda handout which is regurgitated uncritically by the print media.

President Obama would have the same opponents to real health care reform as he does for the tinkering approach he is taking.

Failing to properly deal with health care means deficit spending for as far as the eye can see as health care is the main driver for budget shortages at the state and federal level. It is also the main driver for bankruptcy and most of the people going bankrupt have insurance but health coverage is usually inadequate when a real health problem hits. So, this is a serious matter for good government as well as health care for Americans. Obama is right to raise it but so far the solutions are inadequate, even counterproductive.

One thing that the Congressional effort to reform health care reform is showing is that a multi-payer approach, i.e. private insurance based approach, is not going to work. When the CBO came out with its report last week the two major issues failed: cost and coverage. On coverage, even the most robust Democratic plan, Kennedy-Dodd, left 37 million uninsured after ten years. If that is the case why bother? Especially when it is going to cost more than $1 trillion.

It is evident to those of us who work on this issue every day (for years!) that the current system is not reformable but must be transformed. We’ve created a system that is the most expensive and inefficient in the world, almost double per capita of any other country, and it results in 20,000 people dying annually due to lack of health care according to the NAS.

When you have hospitals with more billing agents to deal with insurance companies than they have nurses — it is not sustainable. It is crazy that some hospitals have one insurance administrator per hospital bed. And doctors, spending nearly a month a year personally dealing with insurance companies while 20% of their office overhead goes to dealing with billing battles with the insurance industry — no wonder doctors are leaving the profession, causing a shortage.

On top of that businesses have to deal with insurance and so do consumers — writing, calling, filling out forms. It all adds up to 31% of the cost of health care in the U.S. Obama and the Democrats are not confronting any of this with the plans they are putting forward so it is obvious why they will not work.

[A Senator] leaned over and whispered in my ear last week as he was leaving a hearing on health care, “I used to sell insurance. The rule is the bigger the pool the less costly the system. Right now we have 1,500 private insurance plans (he underestimated) and that is inefficient. If we had 700 it would be better but if we had one it would be the most efficient. That is why single payer makes the most sense.” I thought that was pretty good middle American common sense that most Americans would understand especially with an eloquent communicator-in-chief like President Obama.

The only thing the Democratic plans will do is add to the coffers of the insurance industry. It will be a multi-hundred billion dollar annual giveaway to them. They will get richer and as a result more politically powerful, donating to politicians, spending on lobbying and hiring political spouses to be on their boards. The pay to play corruption that prevents health care reform, real reform, will get worse.

I like the Obama circa 2003 when he was a state senator “I’m a supporter of single payer. But, we have to win the presidency, House and Senate before we can have it.”

We will be better off if this bill fails and they start over.

In early 2005, S. Dale High personally demanded that the “private” hotel receive some form of tax abatement, and literally threw a temper tantrum when he didn’t get his own way.  The “solution” arranged by Charlie Smithgall, Gib Armstrong, and Mike Sturla was for Lancaster City to build and own the hotel building, guaranteeing its tax exemption.

It was this action that cemented my opposition to the project.