Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.

We should oppose a medical school in Lancaster - which, by any objective assessment, would be an overwhelmingly positive development

But if "economic revitalization" makes it more difficult for homeowners and businesses to live in Lancaster City because of higher and higher real estate taxes, the net result is definitely not good.

Sez who?



Listen Artie, we haven't even gotten to the gentrification phase of Lancaster yet. You know and I know that will happen at some point - if in fact redevelopment in the city reaches a point that property values begin to go up.



And your point is taken that economic development based solely upon tax dollars may be a mixed bag. I'd point out to you, however, that taxpayers probably would have been required to "fix" the old Armstrong site in any case, especially if it had been declared a Superfund site or some such, which it very well could have been.



Yet are we stipulating, now, that recent tax increases in the city have had anything to do with the recent economic development? Point out to me, if you would, where increased tax rates on city residents have been necessary in order to fund any of what's going on? Because the rest is just speculation - this could happen if things don't work out as planned.



And while state money had indeed been showered upon Lancaster, as pointed out above, state money or even federal funds likely would have been required at some point. So my question, as always, is this:



What's the alternative?



Development funded entirely by private interests? Good luck with that. How much of that did Lancaster see during the 1990s, prior to this flurry of state investment? Obviously, not much.



And so is the insinuation that Lancaster was better, then, prior to all of this investment? I'll disagree with that entirely. Lancaster, then, was a city on the way down - like so many other cities in Pennsylvania we could name. That's what Lancaster should aspire to? To be like York?

If F&M expands along with LGH, they will create good jobs, bring more money to the area, increase property values and the tax base, and improve the city overall. Those who wish to return to a bygone era that never was will just have to learn to live with it.

It comes up in the other thread - what is John Fry trying to do?



I'll tell you exactly what he's trying to do: He's trying to improve the competitive position of the college. And he figures that what's good for F&M is also good for the city.



F&M can't and doesn't compete with the Ivy League schools, but can and does compete with next tier schools - Bryn Mawr, Sarah Lawrence, those sort of schools. But to do that, F&M needs to be able to compete not just in terms of education, but in terms of environment. Long story short: An old, falling-down industrial plant across the street just don't cut it. Nor does a junkyard behind the fast-food joint at the corner of Harrisburg Pike and Dillerville; nor does the industrial scar of a rail hub so close to campus.



So Fry is trying to improve the aesthetics of the campus and its surrounding environment; he has done so. The college cannot thrive unless its immediate neighborhood - indeed the city itself, or at least that section of it - also thrives.



Those who resent the college ought to read the Brookings Institution report of a few years ago, Higher Education in Pennsylvania: A Competitive Asset for Communities:

Increased competition for students and faculty, for example, combined with growing needs to expand and upgrade facilities outside the existing campus borders means that colleges and universities have a strong-self interest in enhancing the quality and safety of their surrounding neighborhoods. Municipalities, for their part, are recognizing that despite the tax exempt status of colleges and universities, these schools are a strong anchor around which to focus revenue-generating redevelopment, and their many students and employees represent major potential consumers of new local goods and services. Both institutions and localities see myriad benefits in expanding university-industry partnerships, and connecting university-led research to local entrepreneurial activity.