(Twenty-sixth in a series)

By Christiaan A. Hart-Nibbrig

The $15 million grant from the Commonwealth, and the revenue from the hotel room tax, provided the LCCCA with millions of dollars to defend the project in court, and to acquire property for the proposed development.

After buying the Oblender furniture store and properties at 45-49 S. Queen Street and 21 and 23 E. Vine Street for about $1.3 million, the Authority found itself presented with another public relations predicament.

The poorly maintained, but structurally sound, buildings at Vine and Queen Streets were not every day buildings. They happened to be the former home and business of one of the greatest Americans in the country’s history—Thaddeus Stevens.

Stevens, a severe-looking, bald (due to disease), club-footed, republican Congressman during the Civil War and Reconstruction Era, was the moving force behind of the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Those amendments—emancipating African-Americans, giving African-Americans citizenship, and providing African-Americans with the right to vote—are as historically consequential as any in the nation’s history.

Thaddeus Stevens is also credited with establishing widespread free public education in Pennsylvania. For decades, he ran a successful law practice in Lancaster from the Queen and Vine Street location. Arguably, Stevens is the most impactful American to call Lancaster home, far more consequential than the feckless James Buchanan, the country’s 15^th President, whose former residence (Wheatland) just west of the city has been lovingly restored.

Another of the buildings acquired by the authority belonged to Stevens’ longtime confidante, the mixed-race Lydia Hamilton Smith who, apart from being a pioneering black businesswoman, was also said by historians to have been a ‘conductor’ on Harriet Tubman’s Underground Railroad network, helping fugitive slaves escape the slave holding South.

The issue confronting the convention center authority was that the location, where the great American Stevens made his home and business, was directly in the way of where they wanted to build their convention center.

Randolph Harris was the Executive Director of the Historic Preservation Trust during these years. Harris, a conscientious historian, was acutely aware of Stevens’ historical significance. Harris was also cognizant that the Trust owned easements on those properties, requiring the Trust’s approval for any alteration done to the buildings. In 1983, the easements had been signed over to the Trust by the last owners of the buildings.

In December, 1999, soon after the LCCCA board was formed, Harris wrote a letter to Pickard advising him of this fact. Pickard did not respond, and by June, 2000, all of the properties were purchased by the Authority.

In early January, 2001, the Trust announced a proposal to create a ‘Thaddeus Stevens and Lydia Hamilton Smith National Historic Landmark’ on the properties. The Trust recommended that the LCCCA restore all of the buildings and create a museum around the Stevens/Hamilton theme.

In February, 2001, Pickard announced the authority would preserve the building facades. Those facades, at the very least, will have to be incorporated into the architecture of the convention center building,” he was quoted in the Lancaster Newspapers. “Overall, the aesthetics will fit in. Even though it’s going to be a new building, we want it to reflect the heritage of Lancaster.”

Pickard clearly bristled at having to address the Stevens property issue. He stated the authority was unaware of the easements when it purchased the buildings in March, 2000. Pickard blamed the company overseeing the sale, Commonwealth National Title Insurance Co., for not making the authority aware of the easements. The authority originally planned to raze the buildings, until Harris objected, citing the easements.

The authority and Trust explored the possibility of integrating the historic buildings into the convention center design. But center planners objected, concerned that it would reduce the size, and jeopardize the viability of the project.

In April 2001, after negotiating with the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Lancaster (RACL), the Convention Center Authority board voted unanimously to invoke eminent domain and relocate, as in physically transport, three of the historical buildings across the street to a vacant parking lot behind the Swan Hotel. Most historians, including Harris and Robert C. Wilburn, president and chief executive officer of the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum, thought the idea was a bad one.

“For one public body to be making a decision with another public body in a vacuum, without consulting with people who know about historic preservation law, is not wise,” Harris fumed after the meeting to move the buildings.

“This was scripted, orchestrated, ad infinitum,” Harris continued, “(Authority members) wanted to make the perception we were all engaged in this discussion. But it’s a smokescreen. It’s bogus.”

Even staunch project proponent State Sen. Gibson Armstrong objected to moving the buildings. Armstrong, whose wife sat on the board of directors of the Historic Preservation Trust, publicly questioned moving the buildings. “We don’t need any more lawsuits and we don’t need any more problems,” he said to the New Era.

The rhetoric and public relations campaigning on both sides of the historical building issue got heated.

In May, 2001, Pickard sharply criticized a mayor from South Carolina who publicly spoke about preserving the buildings where they were. Pickard blamed the Trust for “lobbying” for its side.

The issue was effectively resolved on May 22, 2001, when the RACL board voted unanimously to nullify the Stevens/Smith easements held by the Trust. The Intelligencer Journal reported “Nullifying the easements on the historic properties is valid, as long as the convention center authority buys the Swan Hotel, said Thomas Weber, chairman of the redevelopment authority.“

The Authority now could do what it pleased with the properties, and it did.

###

Chapter Twenty-Seven: Uncommon management: PSP flexes muscle

It is the job of good journalism to notice that the “emperor wears no clothes” and report that. But “the emperor” has many uncritical followers.

Such is the case with policies. It was immediately obvious to NewsLanc that the placement of the proposed Lancaster Township fire station/emergency services structure across Atkins Avenue from a residential neighborhood would be bad planning, would kick up a huge protest, and was of questionable zoning legality. But when we stated this, acknowledging that our publisher had a vested interest in the matter, we were scorned by some local fire fighters and one, impervious to facts and reasons through private correspondence, impugned our integrity.

So what did we learn? There had been a misunderstanding and the newspaper report was not accurate. It was not the intention of the Township to propose a location fronting on Atkins Avenue, but rather to place the building adjoining the rear of Planet Fitness and other commercial properties fronting on Millersville Pike. (NewsLanc had proposed placing it alongside Planet Fitness but the alternate makes equal sense.)

A private drive way will permit emergency vehicles access to both the Millersville Pike and Atkins Avenue. A portion of the park will remain as a buffer from the residential neighborhood.

We need to listen with an open mind and respect to those with whom we disagree, perhaps even more so than we do those who share our views! (We read NewsMax.com first thing each morning and rarely read The Nation.) Then we can work together to find approaches which are, for the most part, mutually acceptable. Or, after a good attempt, we can respectfully agree to disagree. (We should never acquiesce to predators and deception.)

There will always be benighted individuals who will refuse to note that the emperor is naked and attack those who say so. These people seldom recognize, let alone acknowledge, that they were wrong.

A report headed “Financial News Gets Worse for Newspapers” stated “Newspapers’ financial woes worsened in the second quarter as advertising sales shrank by 29 percent, leaving publishers with $2.8 billion less revenue than they had at the same time last year… The magnitude of the industry’s advertising losses have intensified in each of the last 12 quarters….Some newspaper industry executives are hoping the slide bottomed out in the second quarter.”

WATCHDOG: We hope that  advertisers will soon return to the newspapers, but we anticipate a much smaller percentage of their dollars being invested in the print media.

I would like to express my gratitude for your efforts in covering this 3 part series presented by Mr. Vonderheide. For many years, this issue received absolutely no coverage by the press and consequently countless children lost their fathers because of the powers that be.

We live in a society where the fabrics of the “traditional” American households are unraveling at the seams. More and more families are relying on the court system to settle life’s disputes. It is with great contention that the Lancaster, PA Family Court System systematically targets men and unethically orders them to be “sperm donors and ATM machines” rather then FATHERS to their children.

It is with great appreciation that your organization realizes the severity of this issue and is assisting in the change that will change our CHILDREN’S lives forever.

A misunderstanding due to the publication of an outdated site location sketch was cleared up during a meeting with Lancaster Township Manager William M. Laudien.

The actual proposal is to locate the combined new fire house/emergency services building adjoining the rear of Planet Fitness with a private drive connecting the facility to both Millersville Pike to the south and Atkins Avenue to the north. Thus a portion of the park would remain as a buffer between the facility and the Atkins Avenue residential neighborhood.

The Intelligencer New Era had described Laudien’s proposal as “… in the northwestern corner of the park, behind Planet Fitness and other commercial properties and abutting Atkins Avenue.”

For the sole purposes of showing the layout of the facility and the amount of area required, Laudien had used an earlier, aborted sketch plan which happened to show frontage on Atkins Avenue.  Laudien says an accurate new location plan will soon be available.

Laudien further clarified that a fire siren may no longer be necessary in this day of cell phones but, even if needed, they would likely remain in their current strategic locations.

NewsLanc’s publisher, and part owner of the 276 unit Manor House Apartments, situated across Atkins Avenue, said he is supportive of the current concept and he thought that nearby home owners would be also.

I’ve worked in healthcare for over 20 years behind the scenes from Medicare chart review to transcription. It’s not because they can. Actually, it’s so they can get what they need from the insurance company.

It’s a negotiation game of appeals. You charge $90 because you know the insurance company is going to try to get away with paying $50, when your overhead is say, $65. You go back and forth and prove your point until you get the money to cover the cost.

I agree, there is no need for fancy stuff like Muzak, etc. I learned this lesson from watching, as well as had it explained to me with one of my personal doctors with whom I had a 20-year rapport.

Granted, they obviously make a hefty salary, but there is also overhead involved with running a business (I have to get paid a living wage) that we tend to forget.

I’ve also worked in the medical records department at 2 different hospitals in 2 different states. It’s the same game. Coding is who does the billing, and that falls under my department. Many times, it’s all about the documentation…Is it right?

We could discuss ethics all day. Both systems need an overhaul. Because insurance companies try to deny honest health care, the providers feel they need to manipulate the system in order to get the bills paid.

I go to what is considered to be an ‘Amish’ medical practice.  (many Amish and horse & buggy Mennonite go there.)

They do NOT accept insurance and all services are paid in cash, credit card or by prior arrangement.

They know that YOU are writing a check and earning the money to pay them.  Consequently they are sensitive about cost and do not order unnecessary tests etc and charge reasonable rates.  While there are some of the ‘modern ways’ they don’t do – no fancy office, no muzac while you are holding etc… they are superior in many ways:

Example One:  I went to see doctor for a problem and he spent 30 minutes interviewing me BEFORE he even touched me!

Example Two:  I went for a physical and the Doctor suggest that he’d like me to take an EKG.  ‘How much is that?”  I asked.  “Oh we do it right here and will have the results immediately.  It’s $30.” !!!

Now in the ‘real world’ and EKG would require a visit to some other place and then a follow up visit to discuss the results.  Besides the extensive time involved in that way, I am certain it would cost a lot more than $30!

The big problem I see is that hospitals charge those without insurance 2-3 times as much in some instances.  Why?  Because they can.

An article “Pitts holds Lancaster town hall on healthcare bill” with photos thoroughly covering the event appeared shortly after 10:00 PM, about an hour and a half after the completion of the meeting.

WATCHDOG: The wife suggests that NewsLanc syndicates its news ariticles to the Intelligencer New Era so that their coverage could be more current.

This evening was the last scheduled meeting of the board of the Lancaster County Convention Center Authority for Ms. Julianne Dickson. Leaving the meeting, Ms. Dickson took the opportunity to ream me out. Royally.

I was accused of many things, including (among others) not getting the facts straight, telling lies, and misinterpreting the truth. She did say that she has been waiting for a long time for her term to end, so she could tell me what she really thinks about me.

I feel privileged to be in good company.

After a LCCCA committee meeting some weeks ago, several of us witnessed Ms. Dickson viciously attacking another board member for asking pointed questions. We clearly heard her say “I don’t care what your opinion is!”. We found out later that this was not the first time this had happened.

Of course, there were no witnesses to Ms. Dickson’s tirade this evening, other than a City employee who heard a part of it. And, I do believe that Ms. Dickson would have walked right past me without saying anything, had I not said to her, “Julianne, take care.”

I believe that what made the verbal attack much worse was the fact that I simply stood there and said nothing. I didn’t argue, I didn’t walk away. I just stood there and looked at her.

Over the years, Ms. Dickson has been the recipient of some of my more biting sarcasm. I always reserve my strongest criticism for public officials who try to stifle dissent, and while Ms. Dickson was City Council president she was particularly brutal in keeping public criticism to a minimum. So yes, I do plead guilty to picking on her, but only because her actions deserved it. I find it interesting to note that Ms. Dickson has obviously been reading both Looking At Lancaster and TalkBack for quite some time.

One lesson that I learned the hard way some time ago is the need to separate what I feel about someone’s actions from what I feel about that person. I’ve met a number of public officials whose actions were clearly counterproductive to the best interests of taxpayers, who are actually nice people when you get to know them.

I hold no grudge nor anger against Ms. Dickson, who has selflessly served the people of Lancaster for over a decade. My only problem with her is the bad attitude that she occasionally exhibits in the face of dissent.

One of the last things that Ms. Dickson said to me is that I should be ashamed of myself, standing there with a smile while she verbally tore me apart. The truth is, I’m rather proud of the fact that I maintained my composure in the face of a brutal attack on my personality. I really hope that Ms. Dickson will some day learn that lesson for herself.

At Conestoga Valley High School, on the evening of August 27, about 500 local citizens gathered for a town hall discussion with District Congressman Joe Pitts. The topic for the evening: HR 3200—the health care reform bill that has lately held center stage in Congressional deliberation and national debate. The Thursday evening meeting, in its peak attendance, nearly filled the 800-seat auditorium, but, even in its most contentious moments, did not reach the level of ferocity encountered by Democratic Senator Arlen Spector in his August 11 town hall in Lebanon, PA.

Pitts began the meeting with a thirty minute speech to establish his rationale in opposing the bill. Early on, he brandished his own personal copy of the document, heavily marked and dog-eared, to use as a visual aid in describing the amount of money at stake in HR 3200: “This bill is 1,017 pages long…that page right there [will] cost you $2 billion.”

The congressman contended that the creation of a cheap, non-taxable public health insurance plan would steadily erode competition from private providers. He cited one recent study that projected 114 million Americans being “dumped” from their existing insurance plans if a cheaper public option were introduced to their employers: “And that,” Pitts asserted, “Is our fear—that the public plan will be the first step down the slippery slope toward single-payer national healthcare. And we do not want that in the United States of America.”

Pitts argued that, due to a lack of statutory limits in the terms of the bill, a proposed Health Benefits Advisory Commission would be empowered to, in Pitts’ words, “tell you what the minimum health care plan must be in every insurance plan—public and private—in America. And so, if they say…that basic health care…includes abortion coverage, then abortion will be mandated in every insurance plan—public and private—in America.”

Pitts said that he and his colleagues had offered an amendment for more specific statutory limits; however, Pitts said, the amendment was defeated: “If [abortion] is not covered, why wouldn’t they want the amendment? All we said was, ‘you can’t use taxpayer funds for subsidizing abortion.’”

Later, Pitts encountered some brief outbursts from opponents in the audience when he attempted to cite alleged failures of single-payer or universal health care systems in Canada and Europe. While he spoke, several members of the crowd persistently argued against Pitts’ assertions and shouted, “that’s not true.” Finally, the congressman paused and stated, “I can go on and on with these statistics, but it doesn’t sound like you want to hear them”—to which the audience burst into a sharp applause, ambiguous in its allegiance.

When the floor was opened to public questions and comments, supporters of the bill showed a surprisingly strong presence. A least half of the speakers were at odds with Pitts’ position.

One man, whose wife is a doctor at Lancaster General, argued that unified, national health coverage would produce the same efficiencies and savings that one finds when purchasing groceries in bulk. Another man, who owns an international travel company and has experienced many foreign health care systems, observed that America’s health care infrastructure “has great technology, but is a very poor system.” One woman, who works as a nurse, stressed the human element of these considerations: “We are talking about human beings who need to be cared for.”

Those opposing the bill also strongly voiced their concerns. One man decried what he sees as an inappropriate exercise of Executive power in the Obama administration. Another man, who used to sell Medicare supplement insurance, argued that, with $500 billion to be removed from Medicare under the bill, seniors will have to spend more on additional insurance to remain safely covered. The final speaker was a man who asserted that the proposed system is simply unconstitutional: “Any and all mandated health care is not an enumerated power for anyone in the government.” The man’s protest brought a large portion of the crowd to their feet in applause.