Ah, the Yokel rides again. As if there were any doubt.

Yokel, your long tirade about the “Big O” misses a huge factor, what a surprise. You assume, as part of your “math,” that the “Big O” is the only thing that might be responsible for any increase in the economic activity in the city - and the only possible factor in any corresponding reduction of economic activity in any of its neighborhoods.

So what if, also in the downtown - just a few blocks from the “Big O” - you have the gleaming new Lancaster Academy of Music opening? Indeed, what if, a mile or so away, you’ve got a minor-league ballpark built in the past five years that itself generates economic activity; a hospital that has essentially doubled its footprint in the past decade; a college that’s built a whole row - hey, let’s call it College Row! - of new housing, with some new businesses.

So if the economic activity increases - even doubles - in any of those neighborhoods, any adjacent neighborhoods or even citywide - which of these specific activities are you tracing it to? Correspondingly, if the economic activity in those neighborhoods, adjacent neighborhoods or the whole city were to decrease - which of these specific activities gets the blame?

But let’s go a step further: Let’s say that in some of those “other neighborhoods,” crime is up. Might that be a reason why economic activity falls in that neighborhood, or adjacent ones? Perhaps some of those neighborhoods see more persistent blight - abandoned housing, etc. - than others, and that depresses economic activity in those neighborhoods, maybe even adjacent neighborhoods.

You argue that if economic activity is down in some neighborhoods but up in others, it’s a zero sum game; downtown takes it from the other neighborhoods. It could work that way; it doesn’t always work that way.

And dude, don’t flatter yourself. You want to criticize me? Get in line.

As to “smart growth”: You yourself allow that the West Lampeter scenario is not common, even here. So your argument boils down to: Yeah well sometimes!

Who’s out of whose depth, junior? 

But you know what, Yokel? Here’s your big chance. Instead of merely criticizing the work of others, I would like to see your idea for how Lancaster County is to manage its growth in the future.

To wit: The point of the original column was that if Lancaster County’s proximity to productive agricultural lands and its relative economic health ultimately draw as many or more people here in our energy-starved future, how does the county manage this? Because the county, not just individual municipalities, needs to have some sort of plan. And in fact, for the 11 members of the Lancaster Inter-Municipal Committee, there is a plan - called “Growing Greener.” It’s a regional approach, and that’s what some in East Hempfield want to reject - not because it’s bad for Lancaster County, but because they perceive it to be bad for East Hempfield. They don’t want to take “their share” of development, even if that might alleviate development pressures further out, where the productive, contiguous agricultural communities are. Because it’s East Hempfield first - the county on the whole, second.

Is that what you advocate? But how about it - what do you advocate? What’s your alternative? You’ve already lambasted me for daring to suggest that you want to stop growth - so how are you going to manage it? Each municipality for itself? Where are the new homes going to go?

Here’s your big chance, bud: We know what you think about what I think. We want to know what you think.