So I saw the headline in this morning’s Intell and figured the boards would be in full-throated howl about this. Not quite the case yet, but getting there.
And, with the type of howl that might have been expected. How could Manheim Township do this, think of the traffic, etc. Many valid concerns, though this is becoming the standard boilerplate, isn’t it? We always want to preserve our “way of life” and add not one more vehicle to the local grid, but OK, we’ll “accept” another 50 homes on 50 acres.
Sprawl? Never heard of it.
The Deisley farm is different. Some want to pretend otherwise, but it’s one of the two most ripe spots in the entire county for just the type of development that’s been proposed there - the other one being the farm directly across from Red Rose Commons, along Fruitville Pike. And if you don’t exepct the exact same outcry when the proposal for that land comes in - not if, but when - then you haven’t been paying attention.
But I want to highlight something from the comment thread, the one comment that now sticks out like a sore thumb and is bound to generate an argument. It comes from “The Logical One,” and it goes a little something like this:
A bit hypocritical to call yourself a Republican, yet whine when the government does not block development?
And you know what? That’s exactly right.
It’s rather laughable that anyone would think that Republicans would stand in the way of development, or should.
Haven’t you been paying attention? Stepping in to prevent farmland from being developed is government regulation.
Don’t you understand that Republicans are opposed to government regulation?
Oh, but I see; it’s OK to oppose it on a national level, like with the airlines or something, but it’s entirely appropriate at the local level.
Give me a break.
In addition, township commissioners attemtping to prohibit development of this site would amount to an infringement upon property rights - in this case, the people who own this site.
We, “we” being the local community, is always quick to proscribe what’s best for this tract of land or that without ever bothering to ask the people who happen to own said tract of land what they think. And at the risk of sounding hyperbolic - that’s absolutely a socialistic impulse.
Who are you to think you should have the ability to tell the owners what they can and can’t do with their land?
If you owned that land - would you tolerate someone telling you how you should manage it? If you wish to add on to your home, and your neighbors all band together and say no, we don’t think that will be good for the neighborhood, and we’re going to fight to prevent it; and if you push for it you’re attempting to destroy the fabric of the community - you gonna tolerate that?
Ah, but this is diffrent.
How, exactly?
I realize Harrisburg Pike traffic is a nightmare. But guess what: Anything, and I mean anything at all built on the Deisley site is going to funnel even more traffic into it. And so you say, well, there’s a rationale not to develop that site; but if in fact road improvements are made to the corridor at the developer’s expense - as is going to be the case here - what’s the ultimate differnce between leaving the corridor the way it is now, or adding traffic - and adding capacity?
Ah, but it’s Dale High. And he’s evil and everything he does must be opposed.
Or maybe I’m just shilling for him. Sure.
The Diesley site is going to be developed - one way or another. You might like looking at the nice aesthetically pleasing farmland across from Long’s Park, but this is a farm that cannot be saved and should not be saved; if we’re going to save farms, and spend public money doing so - which itself is hardly a conservative thing to do - then those farms need to be in areas where they are contiguous with other farmland, where agriculture is a way of life rather than sticking out like a sore thumb - as is the case with the Diesley farm.
And while you can argue, as some have, that this takes away from the vitality of the city, at what point do we say that all suburban townships must consider the vitality of the city in their planning decisions? Because that goes for housing as well as retail, doesn’t it? And if the surrounding townships must consider the welfare of the city in terms of development, shouldn’t that go for taxation, as well?
In fact, this shopping center is likely to add to the vitality of the Harrisburg Pike corridor, which is becoming its own thing, something unlike we’ve seen anywhere else in Lancaster. From the city line to the Route 741 intersection, it’s becoming our retail strip. You may say that’s a bad thing, and you may be right; but that horse has long left the barn, folks.
There’s a knee-jerk “They’re paving over another farm!” sentiment to this and so many other issues in Lancaster County which, as with all knee-jerk sentiments, is never thought through. As with Charter Homes’ plan out in East Hempfield, it’s all about opposition, a holding action. But in these municipalities surrounding the city, you are not going to hold; and if development is going to be checked in the outer suburbs and in the “country,” the development has to go in that inner ring.
Yet as we so often see, those who pledge fealty to supposed Republican principals detest them in real life - and resent it when the connection is made. What’s happening in Manheim Township is, in fact, a conservative thing. But more than that - it’s a realistic thing. It fits the overall pattern of what planners have sought to do in this community. You, the person who so opposes the idea of building on these inner-ring sites - don’t waste your time piecemeal. Because you have to rip up the overall plan if you’re really going to stop it. So do what you must. But don’t kid yourself that it’s the conservative thing.
