People complain about hospitals not paying real estate taxes, but a convention center, which is all about profit, gets a free pass? Artie, can you explain this to me? I don't get it.

I agree it would be nice to see an influx of wealth into the city, though as I’ve said many times - depending on how successful it is, that could trigger gentrification. And that may be the biggest fight of all.

: the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents

Affluent and influential are not necessarily the same. My observation has been that only a small number of affluent people are actually seriously influential, primarily because of their political, business, and/or social connections. Just because someone is financially well off does not mean they have the political influence of someone with the last name of High.

Had the Watt & Shand building been used as the core for high-end condominiums, downtown's revitalization would have been well under way by now, as residents would have looked for local places to shop and dine. This project has the potential to make up for a small portion of that loss.

In addition to being a new, needed source of revenue, this is also a constituency - a political constituency. And it's a constituency, I believe, that would wholesale support the type of things that have been going on here, not just the convention center, but the overall aesthetic that public dollars are better spent where they can be leveraged by private dollars (however "unfair" we may think the balance between the two). The ballpark. F&M. LGH. Institutions that have made an investment in the city and in so doing have tried to create a safer, nicer city, but who are lambasted, often with good reason, for being undemocratic in the way they do it.

We all seem to assume that if the convention center/hotel on Penn Square had never been built, something better would have been built there instead. So and so would have developed it!

Well, maybe. Or maybe it would have met the fate of the Lancaster Press building - this structure that must be saved, but in so doing you make it virtually undevelopable, because the economics don't work without an infusion of public money, etc.

I agree entirely that an influx of wealthier city residents would be a boon. There are few things wrong with Lancaster that an increase in property values wouldn't fix.

But that gets to my gentrification point. What I mean about gentrification is - what happens if we do get that influx of wealthier residents, and property values are raised - and all of a sudden, long-time city residents are faced with increasing real estate taxes, and people who once were able to afford city living now find it LESS affordable.

Let me tell you how that discussion goes, because it goes this way in so many communities where this happens: Why do these people with all this money get to make a decision, the creation of upscale neighborhoods in what used to be "normal" city neighborhoods forces the people out of those neighborhoods, making portions of the city unaffordable to all but this new wealth.

Somebody please come gentrify my neighborhood! I promise I can learn to live with a higher property value.

"Gentrification" would leave the vast majority of residents in Lancaster City far better off than the current situation. Given the reality of the current situation, there may be no reasonable alternatives remaining.

An LGH expansion will attract individuals relocating, as their recruitment efforts and reputation continue to garner top talent. As employees and business contacts are compelled to become a part of the community a unique domino effect will ensue......we will simpy have more new "at bats" to convey the City's merits and opportunities and capture the commensurate revenue.

As for the Convention Center, we have built it, and they will come.

I agree this can be the case, so long as that "top talent" lives in "the community" - as in, the city. Certainly any money spent in the city even by those who don't live here is valuable - though the value of LGH's investment (and the ultimate taxpayer investment in whatever they might do) might be magnified if there were some mechanism to ensure that this "top talent" DOES live in the city. Subsidized housing for doctors...

Yes, they will come. But how often, and for how long?

Even if the hotel consistently brings 200 people into downtown Lancaster night after night - which is extremely unlikely - what kind of economic impact will that have? Even if all 200 dine and shop in downtown Lancaster every day - which is extremely unlikely - how can that ever possibly justify the expenditure of over $40 million taxpayer dollars, plus $5 million in interest over 20 years, plus the lost of three-quarters of a million dollars in real estate tax revenue every year for at least 20 years?

The convention center is an even worse deal for taxpayers, with well over $100 million already spent, and an anticipated cost to taxpayers of over $1 million a year - forever - just to keep it in operation. What do taxpayers get in return? A few hundred people downtown a few times a month, and a few thousand people downtown every few months.

I agree that the hotel and convention center will bring people into downtown Lancaster. My point is that the actual cost to taxpayers is many times whatever economic impact the project may generate.

In other words, it is a very bad investment of our tax dollars.

Well, I agree with this. But I disagree entirely with your assertion that "there simply isn't the money or the land remaining to do much more of this type of thing."

There is the old Armstrong site. That is going to be the focus for years to come. And the projects are going to be large, and they will involve taxpayer subsidies.

Have you considered the economic impact upon/benefit to LGH if "Obamacare" is passed - the degree to which expanded access to health care, subsidized at least in part by the taxpayers, will increase LGH's economic clout in this community?

There are still a few more "silver bullets" left in the chamber here. Whether they work or not is the question, and I think they cannot work unless you also have an influx of wealthier residents into the community, maybe living in these condos we're talking about.

The American Hospital Association is opposed to the proposals Obama has suggested regarding universal access to health care. Now why do you think that is, Gil? Could it be...$$$?

what you're going to have, for the first time, are people who have not previously made regular "wellness" trips to primary care physicians (who in fact might not HAVE primary care physicians) doing so. Instead of waiting until there's an emergency and going to the emergency room - there will be this whole new demand for primary care.

Haven't investigated the AHA's opposition enough to know. But a few weeks back I'd done a story on how LGH convened a panel that issued a report last September citing a local shortage of doctors. And during the course of discussions, the retired surgeon at LGH who ran the panel specifically said: If you pass a national health insurance plan, what you're going to have, for the first time, are people who have not previously made regular "wellness" trips to primary care physicians (who in fact might not HAVE primary care physicians) doing so. Instead of waiting until there's an emergency and going to the emergency room - there will be this whole new demand for primary care.

I think that's probably correct, and the question is, how will this demand be met? There's already a suggestion that the federal government, via Medicare, ought to be funding more residencies. Well - LGH could expand its own residency program (but who's going to pay for that - LGH itself? Hahahahahahaha....)

Point is, health care reform, for all it will cost, also may be an economic boon to communities - and certainly could be, to the city of Lancaster, if managed correctly. But we have to recognize what's coming and the impact it may have before we even begin to think about managing it.

This thread is about "the affluent and the influential".

And the point is, the already-affluent, LGH, may find itself in a position to become more affluent.

LGH is not merely a "hospital." It is a health care system. (Indeed, go to its home page - it's not Lancaster General Hospital, it's Lancaster General Health). And two months ago, Dr. Lawrence Bonchek - who ran the "Lancaster Medical Manpower & Education Study Commission," said this:

"When you have [an estimated] 50 million people who are uninsured and you give them health insurance, demand for medical care is going to go up exponentially," Bonchek said.

Here in Lancaster, Lancaster General is already uniquely positioned to be the provider of that medical care - and sees what's coming down the pike, and is preparing for it, so that it's position of affluence and influence in this community is reinforced - if not strengthened.

And the point is, the already-affluent, LGH, may find itself in a position to become more affluent.

LGH is not merely a "hospital." It is a health care system. (Indeed, go to its home page - it's not Lancaster General Hospital, it's Lancaster General Health). And two months ago, Dr. Lawrence Bonchek - who ran the "Lancaster Medical Manpower & Education Study Commission," said this:

"When you have [an estimated] 50 million people who are uninsured and you give them health insurance, demand for medical care is going to go up exponentially," Bonchek said.

Here in Lancaster, Lancaster General is already uniquely positioned to be the provider of that medical care - and sees what's coming down the pike, and is preparing for it, so that it's position of affluence and influence in this community is reinforced - if not strengthened

I believe you are oversimplifying the issues.

Consider what happens when 50 million people who are uninsured get health insurance. Obviously there will be a spike in demand over the short term; but what will happen when 50 million formerly uninsured people start to get a reasonable amount of preventative care over a long period of time? Given a few years, there will be a significant drop in the amount of acute care required, as people gradually become healthier. In the long term, the growth in demand for health care should decrease significantly.

Cost containment will be a major part of any health plan. Already there have been spirited discussions about the effectiveness of newer and more expensive medications and procedures. The only way this will work is if a good hard look is taken at what is worthwhile, and what is wasteful. It is inevitable that more complex and expensive (read "profitable") medications and procedures will increasingly NOT be covered by health insurance. This will become a major obstacle in LGH's future expansion plans.

As LGH reinvests the yeoman's share of available funds directly back into the community, it is not creating affluence for itself, it is creating opportunity and health for Lancaster County. Visiting their homepage, you will notice the community alliances that they endow (PALCO for example, which treated 8500 underserved patients since 2007).

As a community, we need to worry far less about the indirect beneficiaries of affluence and wealth, and far more about creating sustainable prosperity at both the individual and municipal levels.

We cannot look towards increasing wealth at the price of moral and ethical bankruptcy. Absent reform our healthcare delivery system will continue to let millions of uninsured Americans suffer at the hands of bureacratic negligence. Increased access to preventative care will help curtail illness, regulation of providers and drug companies will decrease corporate price gouging, and the simple "peace of mind" dividend of knowing that you will have access to health care go much further toward enriching quality of life than continuing the perpetual "jockieying" of special interests that impede true progress.

but what will happen when 50 million formerly uninsured people start to get a reasonable amount of preventative care over a long period of time? Given a few years, there will be a significant drop in the amount of acute care required, as people gradually become healthier.