The Gib Armstrong retirement thing sort of amazed me. We’re waiting, of course, for Scott Boyd to jump into the race - after saying last month that “I’ve really turned my attention to trying to move a very positive agenda in the House, and I’m focusing 100 percent of my effort there.”
Methinks we’ll see a creatively worded refocusing of those attentions.
In any event, the loss of the senior politico in the county’s state delegation - and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee - is going to mean less state money for Lancaster County in any event, regardless of who fills the seat. If it is Steve McDonald, who has professed a desire not to seek the county’s “fair share” from the public trough, there may be even less.
That’s a good thing, I suppose, if you oppose the convention center project. I don’t doubt for a moment that the project is going to wind up needing even more state money down the road; what happens if it’s unavailable, or the county’s delegation simply refuses to fight for it? Armstrong was sort of a master at turning over rocks, finding the money. Clipper Magazine Stadium, in particular, probably wouldn’t have happened without him, and I’m of the mind that the stadium and the team that plays there has been a very positive addition to this county indeed.
But this ripples beyond the convention center project, obviously. John Fry at F&M is plugged in enough that the F&M/LGH Armstrong site project might be able to get additional funding if or when needed. But what of other projects?
Do we say, then, that other ideas - Lancaster Square, maybe, the tourist bureau (Armstrong played a huge role in DCED reversing its decision to give Lancaster less and Pittsburgh more); even organizations like the James Buchanan Foundation or downtown redevelopment in Manheim Borough have benefitted from state grants, and often Armstrong played a role in securing them.
The county should reject such monies in the future?
That seems to be what some folks are saying. That it’s not conservative to seek state money for such projects, because however admirable these projects may be, however much economic development might be desirable, we’re talking about taxpayer dollars. Which is true.
If the new senator from the 13th district vows not to bring home the bacon - or bring home as much bacon - what effect do you think it will have?
Shall it inspire a wave of conscience across the commonwealth, prompting other state legislators to do the same?
Or will they merely scramble to catch the falling dollar, take the money that might have gone to Lancaster for use in their own districts?
Do you think your state taxes will go down? Or will this principled stand have a negligible effect - if any effect at all?
In politics, there’s idealism and there’s pragmatism. On a national level, I loathe those who attempt to cloak the latter with the veneer of the former (We went into Iraq because it was the moral thing to do). Closer to home, idealism, to lead with your chin, is a noble thing if in fact that idealism is shared. Otherwise you’re just a martyr, proving a point - but at what expense?
You can make the case specifically that the convention center is a bad project, and of course that project never would have happened were it not for the buckets of state money made available for it. But it seems a stretch to say that because of this, the idea of state funding itself is bad - though I’m sure project opponents would argue this isn’t what they’re saying, that they’re not merely looking at the convention center project. Perhaps - though I’d be interested to see how much of a austerity groundswell there would be without the convention center.
