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.
