When certain establishment forces behind the Lancaster Alliance decided to bring back streetcars to again clog city streets, they created the Lancaster Street Car Company. It in turn had the Pennsylvania Dutch Convention & Visitors Bureau conduct a recent “poll” alleging that meeting planners support the notion.

First the recipients were told about six cities “where new streetcar systems have emerged during the last decades … and have proven economic development successes.” As has been related in a series of earlier NewsLanc reports, in some of these cities the street cars ran in their own right-of-ways rather than in streets, and, in fact, proved to be economic failures,  heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Then this so-called “poll” asked the following:

“If some of your hotel attendees stayed at hotels other than the Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square that adjoins the convention Center, how likely do you believe they would be to use the streetcar to reach the Convention Center (a 10 – 15 minute walk?)”

The 220 room Brunswick is two short blocks away, at most five minutes. And there is no other major hotel along the proposed loop that runs from the Southern Market to the Amtrak Station!

“How important is it that your meeting /convention is held in a walkable downtown with plenty to see and do?”

What does “a walkable downtown” have to do with a trolley route?

Concerning the need for transportation between the train station and the Convention Center, we already have trolley buses that run the route. And for the rare major event, buses can always be added.

Again and again, sponsors start off by promising privately funded projects which end up being built with taxpayer money and operated with taxpayer subsidies. And the Lancaster press uncritically, perhaps even conspiratorially, prints the sponsors’ propaganda. Rarely do they provide legitimate feasibility studies or impartial polls.

Is the bird brained streetcar project destined to be yet another such misguided boondoggle at tax payer expense?

At the June 9, 2009, City Council Meeting, the Council unanimously approved Administration Bill No. 9, “requiring prompt notification to authorities of lost or stolen firearms, and imposing penalties.” The new ordinance would require gun owners to report the loss or theft of any registered firearms within 72 hours of their discovery.

One city woman addressed the Council to express her concern about the ordinance, citing that, according to her understanding, the bill would violate a state ban on gun registration, compromise a state-sanctioned right to bear arms, and create legal costs for both taxpayers and gun owners.

Several city children also addressed the Council to state their support for the ordinance, reading prepared statements to describe the benefits of such controls. This presentation was followed by a public statement from Joe Grace, Executive Director of Ceasefire PA, a Philadelpha-based group that fights to reduce gun violence through public policies like the one being enacted in Lancaster.

Grace stressed that the new ordinance is not an infringement on anyone’s gun rights: “This is a civil responsibility. With rights comes responsibilities. If your handgun or firearm is lost or stolen, you report it to the police. It is truly that simple.”

Mayor Gray also took a moment to clarify the purpose and parameters of this new ordinance: “Law abiding people, if their gun is stolen, they’re going to report it. The reason that this is passed is not to have it reported; it’s to eliminate the excuse of the person who buys the gun legally and then sells it illegally….So, when [people] say, ‘only criminals wouldn’t follow this,’ they’re exactly right.”

Regarding an alleged violation of Second Amendment rights, Gray took a hard line: “[Recently,] the Seventh Circuit, which is a court right below the Supreme Court, in Chicago, with two judges that I know of—who are both very conservative—found that, specifically, the Second Amendment does not apply to states and municipalities. It only applies to the Federal Government.” Taking off the proverbial “Mayor hat,” and donning a lawyer’s precision, Gray explained that “the Bill of Rights, initially, did not apply to the states at all. And the courts, over the years, have done what we call ‘selective incorporation’ of certain portions of the Bill of Rights against the states and municipalities.”

Finally, addressing concerns that the cost of related litigation could fall on taxpayers, Gray noted that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has already committed to providing free legal counsel of event of future lawsuits.

After the Bill was unanimously passed, the audience burst into loud applause—not a common occurrence at meetings of the City Council.

When the lines were painted for new parking arrangements on College Ave, some locals were understandably confused. Many have encountered diagonal, side-street parking before, but these spaces often branch out with the flow of traffic, allowing drivers to pull straight into their spot. In the case of College Ave, however, drivers are required to back into these angled spaces.

The arrangement is rather counterintuitive at first glance; but, upon further investigation, the strategy makes considerable sense. (Back-in angle parking has already been implemented in dozens of US cities, including Charlotte, NC; New York, NY; Portland, OR; San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; and Washington, DC.) According to a report by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates,

Back-in/head-out angle parking is similar to both parallel and standard angle parking. As with parallel parking, the driver enters the stall by stopping and backing, but need not maneuver the front of the vehicle against the curb. When leaving the stall, the driver can simply pull out of the stall, and has a better view of the oncoming traffic.

People “back in” to their parking spaces all the time when they parallel park; the only difference between parallel parking and back-in angle parking is that the latter is a bit less complicated. And the only difference between straight-in angle parking and back-in angle parking is that the former requires one to blindly back out into a lane of traffic while the latter gives perfect visibility when exiting the spot.

According to the report, back-in angle parking also improves safety for bicyclists on the road. The city of Tucson, AZ, experienced a considerable reduction in bike-car accidents after implementing back-in angle parking. According to Matt Zoll of the Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee, Tucson “went from an average of 3-4 bike/car accidents per month to no reported accidents for 4 years following implementation.”

Of course, every city is different, and time will tell if this strategy works for Lancaster. To read the Nelson\Nygaard report in its entirety, please click here.

By Cliff Lewis

The First Friday of June ‘09 was a soggy one. The rains had persisted most of the day and pressed on through the evening hours; but the regular crowd of monthly art-walkers was largely undeterred. Sidewalks along Prince and Queen were clustered with open umbrellas, bobbing from one gallery to the next—and even spilling off beyond the typical track of Gallery Row.

Out on 257 W King St, the Latino- and Hispanic-oriented “Cosas Gallery” was running “The Magic of Black & White,” it’s third First Friday art display to date. The gallery was recently founded by Connie de Alva Higgins, an artist and resident of York, PA. Although over 30% of Lancaster City is Latino or Hispanic, “Cosas” is the first art gallery to represent this crucial portion of our local culture.

De Alva Higgins explained that, although she lives in York, she chose to start a gallery here because Lancaster City has a far more active art scene than does its White Rose counterpart. The founder herself, who hails from Mexico, displayed some work of her own in the gallery. De Alva Higgins’ pictures are created on sheets of metal through a complex etching and coloring process. The other artist represented was Pedro Arocho, a Lancaster resident from Puerto Rico. Arocho presented a selection of delicately lit charcoal drawings that depicted scenes from both Puerto Rican and Lancastrian culture.

The gallery was catered with a delicious spread of empanadas, plantains, cheese, fruit, and wine—most of which was provided by “Victoria’s Restaurante,” a Caribbean/Latino restaurant and catering service based at 509 E Strawberry St.

The video below provides a few snapshots of the evening’s festivities (music courtesy of Matthew Monticchio, performing at the Christiane David Gallery):

Or click here to the watch it through NewsLanc’s YouTube channel.

The following is excerpted from “Lords Of Finance, The Bankers Who Broke The world” by Liaquat Ahamed, Penguin Press, 2009. It sheds light on the emphasis on maintaining liquidity and credit availability that the Bush and Obama administrations and Congress have pursued over the past year. The foot note (*) will come as a revelation to many students of the period.

As it had been during the 1920s, the United States was a major haven for gold flows. Far more damaging than the effect of the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act was the collapse in capital flows. After a brief revival early in the 1930, U.S. foreign investment into Europe suddenly dried to a trickle. American bankers became risk averse and cautious and, claiming that it was hard to find creditworthy borrowers, pulled in their horns. With American capital bottled up at home and U.S. demand for European goods shrinking—a result of the weak U.S. economy and of higher import tariffs imposed in June 1930 by the Smoot-Hawley Act—Europe could only pay for its imports and service its debts in gold. During 1930, a total of $300 million in bullion was shipped across the Atlantic into the vaults of the Federal Reserve system.*

*Many popular accounts of the Great Depression attribute a large weight to the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act as a cause of the economic collapse. Tariffs shift demand for imports to domestic goods, so if anything, it should have had an expansionary effect. Retaliation by foreigners did hurt the U.S. economy, but exports were a small percentage of Gross Domestic Product—less than 4 percent—so the total effect would have been small. Changes in capital flows dwarfed the impact of trade.

As a substance abuse counselor, I work with the population who is afflicted with this dependency and it is heart-wrenching that only a small percentage of this population has availability of services provided to them by either the county’s lone Methadone clinic or by physicians who prescribe Suboxone (Buprenorphine HCl/Naloxone HCI dehydrate).

NewsLanc has stated that an investment of $250,000 (of their $113,000,000 recent profit margin) will provide considerably improved services to many, more of the opioid-dependent population. At first, this outlay of $250,000 may seem considerable, especially in this time ofeconomic turmoil. However, it should also be noted that to offer preventive services (i.e. proposed Suboxone clinics within Lancaster General Hospital and their many satellite clinic sites) to this population will actually cost less to medical community.

It does not take considerable accounting skills to recognize that an investment of $250,000
(or 0.0022% of Lancaster General Hospital’s recent annual profit margin) would provide much-needed medical services to this population.

With stabilization of a patient’s health via opioid-dependent treatment, it has been described in peer-review literature that decreased death rates (KreekJ et al., Subst Abuse Treatment, 2002), decreased HIV rates (Metzgar etal., Public Health Reports, 1998) and decreased crime rates (Gerstein DR et al., CALDATA General Report, 1994).

For those Christian citizens of the Lancaster County who read that death rates are decreased with treatment and feel that the opioid-dependent population deserves to die as that individual’s dependency is their own choice, please consider this ill-fated thought process next time an offertory at your next church service is made.

I would also suspect that many Lancaster County citizens state that it is not the financial responsibility of the entire population to treatment the opioid-dependent. So, I’ll reiterate my objective argument, with a less that ¼ of a one-percent investment by Lancaster General Hospital from their recent annual profit windfall, a many-times-over savings to the county will be made by avoidance of unnecessary emergency healthcare services as well as the monopolizing of the county’s police services to thwart, respectively, this population’s health needs and criminal behaviors.

Subjectively, Lancaster General Hospital’s family practice residency program would greatly benefit from the $250,000 investment toward services and the establishment of Duke Street and satellite clinic offerings. Family practice residents would greatly benefit from exposure to the opioid-dependent population and the experience of offering treatment such as Suboxone. Lancaster General Hospital has boasted that their family practice residency program is viewed very favorably from a national perspective. An inclusion of an opioid-dependent treatment educational tract to this residency program would only fortify this program nationally.

And with the increase of our population census, even with a steady opioid-dependent percentage of population, there will be more patients in need of opioid treatment. In other words, educate future physicians to provide care to our country’s future population.

Lancaster General Hospital, I implore you to consider putting forth the $250,000 toward an all-inclusive opioid treatment program for the county population. Both objectively and subjectively, there will be tremendous benefit to the entire Lancaster County population. Let the remainder of the country recognize that Lancaster County is a population who truly cares for the present and future healthcare needs of our citizens.

(The following was posted on a private list by a contributor in response to a request for an update concerning the finances of the Convention Center.)

I’ve been watching all of this very carefully for the last several years.  This has led me to believe the following:

• Additional money will be required to complete the construction of the project.  I’m guessing this will be in the $1 million to $3 million range, but we may not know for certain much before the end of 2009.  A certain amount of this is because of the unanticipated delays in opening the facility.
• A tax increase (most likely the “hotel tax”) will be required to keep the convention center in operation.  I was caught totally off-guard by the repeated delays in the project, since I heard the same promises as the LCCCA board; these delays have most likely accelerated the need for additional revenue to pay for operational losses.  But there are other factors: a large number of events are being held in the hotel’s space instead of the convention center, from which the LCCCA receives little or no revenue.  And not one single trade show has been booked beyond the current fiscal year; as has been noted many times, conventions are usually booked years in advance.
• A number of significant lawsuits will result from the delays in completing construction of the project, both from contractors and from clients.  NO party involved with this project will be immune from this upcoming
  litigation, which could drag on for years.

My biggest concern is that the CURRENT LCCCA board could be blamed for these issues.  We all know that Art Morris, working closely with R.B. Campbell and Laura Douglas, spent MANY unpaid hours untangling the twisted financial web they inherited from Ted Darcus’ mismanagement; without their tireless efforts, the project would have already experienced a major financial crisis.  But the blame for the project’s inevitable shortfalls and weaknesses will most likely fall on the incumbents; after all, would the “private partners” blame the very same board members which rubber-stamped their every wish and desire?

Admittedly much of this is speculation on my part.  But all of it is based n my personal observations of the last several years.

The Declaration of Geneva by the World Medical Association, as currently amended, reads:

• I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
• I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
• I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;
• The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
• I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
• I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
• My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;
• I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
• I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
• I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
• I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

General Hospital and physicians declining to treat heroin addiction: Please especially note highlighted items.

“83% of households say they do not want pole lights

“In a survey of homeowner households in the 400 & 500 blocks of Race Ave. and the 900 block of Buchanan Ave., 83% said that do not want F&M’s boulevard pole lights across the street from their properties! Of the 29 households whose properties are directly across from Buchanan Park, 24 households voted against the pole lights and only 3 voted for them. The remaining two were undecided.

Reasons these homeowners gave for not wanting F&M’s pole lights include:

“People who bought their houses across from Buchanan Park want the Park to look like a park. They expect to see a natural landscape, unspoiled by string of pole lights.

“Property values will go down, according to a local realtor. Pole lights will give the Park a commercial feel, detracting from the aesthetics of the Park.

“The Park will lose some its beauty with a row of closely-spaced pole lights on its border. The Park will look less like a park and more like the College campus.

“F&M’s pole lights give off a bright white light that is intrusive. Overhead street lights radiate an indirect light that is a more diffused and softer light.

“Boulevard pole lights shine directly into living room and bedroom windows. The light from street lights doesn’t do that because the light comes from above.

“Homeowners did not ask for the pole lights and the College did not ask if they wanted them. F&M could put its money to better effect by using it to increase police presence.

“Race Ave., 400 & 500 blocks, total 14 households:

12 households against pole lights Against (86%)

1 household for pole lights For (7%)

1 undecided Undecided (7%)

“Buchanan Ave., 900 block, total 15 households:

12 households against pole lights Against (80%)

2 households for pole lights For (13%)

1 undecided Undecided (7%)

“These are all owner-occupied houses in one of Lancaster City’s most desirable and established neighborhoods. Of the 29 households, six have been occupied by the same owner for 20 years or more; five have been occupied by the same owner for 50 years or more. These are the homeowners who will be directly affected by F&M ‘s plan to place a string of pole lights directly across the street from their homes. They have been paying city property and school taxes for many years. They deserve to have their opinions taken with utmost seriousness by F&M College, the Mayor, City Council and Public Works.

“Most homeowners in the 400 & 500 blocks of Race Ave. and the 900 block of Buchanan Ave. feel that the existing street lighting is sufficient. However, if the city wants more lighting for security purposes, this can be done by putting up more poles or by adding lights to existing poles that do not already have lights, which is done by PP&L at no expense to the City. “

By Cliff Lewis

The empty storefront at the southwest corner of Prince and W Orange Streets will soon become home to the “Green Man Café”, which, as owner Richard Mellinger described it, will be an eco-friendly and organic shop with a “European flavor.” Mellinger sat at an old table from the “Starving Artist Café”—which shut down several months ago after a brief run at this 106 W Orange address. The tables and chairs will be replaced, explained Mellinger, who is currently working to replace the existing purple décor with earthier, more natural tones.

This will be the first restaurant in Downtown Lancaster to deliberately market itself as “green.”

The goal of the café is to be “ecologically sound and organically oriented.” To this end, “Green Man” will work with reusable dishes and cups to reduce waste; and for take-out packaging, they are contracting with an eco-friendly supplier for biodegradable materials (“no Styrofoam or plastics”). Both the organic and green priorities will also be served by using local food products: “We will be over at Central Market, looking for items over there rather than buying through a wholesaler-where it could come from California and you don’t know where it’s been.”

“Green Man Café” will serve breakfast and lunch. For breakfast there will be made-to-order omelets, baked oatmeal, porridge, and fresh baked croissants; for lunch there will be soups, salads, sandwiches, paninis, and smoothies. And, throughout the day, the café will serve coffee, cappuccinos, lattes, etc. Mellinger noted that the café will always offer a good selection of vegetarian options.

For students of the Pennsylvania College of Art and Design, there will be a permanent 10% discount: “A lot of them live down at Stevens house, and they travel past here twice a day, going to school.”

Mellinger expects that the “Green Man Café” will open sometime around July 1. Once up and running, the café will keep hours from 7 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. to serve the breakfast and lunch crowds. On First and Third Fridays, “Green Man Café” will stay open into the evening.