PA Voters get out and Vote for Growing G reener!!!

“This is urgent and important! Help preserve Pennsylvania's environement. Get out and vote today.”

“Yes Sir!!!”

“Just curious, ENS. What's this all about?”

“it's a referendum on the PA ballot today to buy and preserve open spaces, restore PA's water ways and clean up polluted areas. All in all to better PA's environement. It is a multi-million dollar bond issue. I think it should be passed!”

“anyone running for office or are they doing this just for that one issue.”

“I see! Then, encourging voting is the right thing to do. I wish the referendum success!”

“obviously this is important to our community. Preserving open spaces translates into more trails and a larger back country and cleaner waters to kayak in and a better quality of outdoor areas for us to enjoy. This is a good thing for Pennsylvania! Please support it.”

“I just got back from voting. I'm hoping this passes and they use some of the money to buy up the watershed land that is up for sale. It's crazy not to preserve land that was set aside over 100 years ago to protect water quality and quantity. If anything the demand for fresh, clean water should grow and not decline. Besides that the property is beautiful and should stay that way before it's lost forever.
last edited: 5/17/05 10:01:09 AM”

“Here's the question:

"Do you favor the incurring of indebtedness by authorizing the Commonwealth to borrow up to $625,000,000 for the maintenance and protection of the environment, open space and farmland preservation, watershed protection, abandoned mine reclamation, acid mine drainage remediation and other environmental initiatives?"

http://www.pecpa.org/_final_pec/html/g2bond/background.htm
last edited: 5/17/05 10:06:43 AM”

“Seeing green, bond-issue backers seek big win

By Amy Worden

Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau


HARRISBURG - Voters in Tuesday's primary election will decide whether Pennsylvania should make a historic new investment in the environment through a $625 million bond issue.

With little opposition, the bond - touted as the largest single environmental spending initiative in state history - is virtually certain to pass. But administration officials and environmentalists have launched a get-out-the-vote campaign to ensure a wide margin of victory.

"We need a big win," said Kathleen McGinty, secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection. "We need a message that says voters want to move into a future with a clean, healthy, vital Pennsylvania. We will be better served in the tough decisions to come."

The vote is the culmination of 16 months of contentious debate in the Capitol over how the bond should be financed and how much should be spent on the vast array of environmental problems facing the state, from acid mine drainage in the coal-mining regions to the old industrial sites that line the riverfronts in Philadelphia.

"The demands for Growing Greener funding are almost limitless," said John Oliver, who was secretary of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources under Gov. Tom Ridge, who created the program in 1998. In the first five years of Growing Greener, the state spent $438 million on environmental projects - with $90 million going to Southeastern Pennsylvania.

The success of the environmental bond, which until its passage last month remained Gov. Rendell's last major unfulfilled campaign promise, will likely figure prominently in his 2006 reelection campaign.

Republican lawmakers opposed Rendell's original proposal a year ago calling for $800 million in new spending financed in large part through increased landfill tipping fees and new taxes on polluters.

Senate and House Republicans offered their own plans, but in the end leaders reached a compromise that allowed both sides to claim victory. Rendell got two-thirds of the money he wanted and Republicans blocked his proposed fee increases.

Lawmakers say that if the bond is approved, the process of drafting implementing legislation will begin immediately.

Administration officials and legislative leaders say they would like to have the legislation in place specifying the terms of the bond funding and how the money would be spent by the July 1 budget deadline.

Under the Rendell proposal, the bulk of the matching-grant funding was divided evenly between the broad categories of land preservation (parks, open space and farmland) and environmental cleanup. The rest would fund community revitalization, including, for the first time, grants for historic preservation of residential structures.

"We need this money now because of the rapid loss of farmland and increasing pollution concerns," said Jan Jarrett, vice president of PennFuture, a statewide environmental advocacy group.

The ballot question also is being supported by sports enthusiasts who are pleased that money is being designated for infrastructure improvements along waterways and on game lands, particularly renovations for aging bridges and dams.

The conservative Commonwealth Foundation, a Harrisburg-based nonprofit research foundation, is one of the few groups publicly opposed to the ballot question. Senior policy analyst Grant Gulibon said the state was taking a risk by taking on additional debt without agreeing on how to pay it back.

"While it doesn't authorize new taxes or fees," he said, "there's nothing preventing the governor at a future date from approving a tax to pay for it."

McGinty said negotiators still must agree on how long it would take to pay back the debt using only the general fund.

One point of contention looming over the negotiations ahead is a stipulation by Senate Republicans that the counties play a greater role in determining how the money is spent.

Senate Republicans want to administer a large piece of the funding through block grants that would allow counties to set the priorities, said Erik Arneson, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader David Brightbill (R., Lebanon).

McGinty said that the state's 67 counties already had a role in identifying priorities through the grant process and that removing the state's administrative authority would create only more bureaucracy that would slow the distribution of funds.

"Counties already fully participate," she said. "It makes no sense to create 67 bureaucracies when you have good centralized system already."

Ballot Question

"Do you favor authorizing the Commonwealth to borrow up to $625,000,000, for the maintenance and protection of the environment, open space and farmland preservation, watershed protection, abandoned mine reclamation, acid mine drainage remediation and other environmental initiatives?"”

“I think we need a "Visit Green PA" tax for everybody coming into the state to pay for this.

(It's a PA tax joke)”

“I remember the last bond issue being passed handily.. two years ago was it?

Still seems strange to me that they've been putting questions on the spring ballot, rather than November. Persons without a party affiliation (such as myself) don't usually go to the May elections.

Fear not, I've rallied the self-disenfranchised troops.”

“Clean it up”

“Sarge, I disagree. I think we as Pennsylvanians are responsible for the preservation of our own state. I think we should, as Pennsylvanians pay for it and I will surely vote for it. I hope it enough Pennsylvanian's vote for it so that it passes. I have been doing what I can to get the word out. I think it will pass. So get used to paying for it. :)
last edited: 5/17/05 10:27:11 AM”

“The Sesquehanna River has recently been found to be the most endangered waterway in the US. I think this is a very present and urgent matter.”

“EarthNSky, that was a joke. In reference to the Emergency Tax.

http://www.radnor.com/government/finance/emst.html

Thought most Pennsylvanians would get that. It's a hot issue.”

“Anyways, I'm sure it will pass. I'm against any increased taxes at this point until PA gets their spending under control, so will vote against it, but I'm sure you have an overwhelming majority to pass this.”

“It is much cheaper to keep it clean and green in the first place. I hope your bill passes ENS.”

“There's a great peice in this month's Nationl Geographic about the Chesapeake, and PA providing most of the pollution which is slowly killing the bay.”

“Here's another view from the man mentioned above in the clip.

“Growing Redder Too”
Grant R. Gulibon
05.16.05


It’s safe to say that nearly every Pennsylvanian wants to “improve the quality of life in Pennsylvania … create new jobs, revitalize our communities and sustain our families.” And according to Gov. Ed Rendell, that is what the $625 million debt proposal on the May 17 ballot will accomplish.

However, while “Growing Greener II” will definitely put taxpayers deeper into debt, it will not likely improve our commonwealth’s business climate or environment. Indeed, Pennsylvanians should take into account a number of important facts as they prepare to cast their vote.

First, the proposal—which the governor claims would be “the single largest investment in environmental programs in our state’s history”—is silent on how taxpayers will pay off this new debt. Nor does it spell out which specific programs will be funded.

Second, the underlying premise of the proposal is that government bureaucrats—not individual citizens and businesses—should have the greatest say in directing our commonwealth’s economic and environmental development.

And finally, it ignores policy options that could provide the same economic and environmental improvements, without further burdening Pennsylvania’s taxpayers.

In pushing Growing Greener II, Gov. Rendell has argued that Pennsylvania’s poor economic performance will be improved through increased taxpayer “investment” in environmental initiatives. However, he has offered little evidence to support that claim. Indeed, adding hundreds of millions of dollars in debt will further harm Pennsylvania’s already-inhospitable business climate, as new or increased taxes or fees will almost certainly be needed to pay for the borrowing plan.

For example, Gov. Rendell has called for new and increased waste and emission fees on businesses. These increased costs, however, would likely be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services and to employees through decreased wages and benefits. Or, if the cost of doing business becomes too onerous, companies will continue to leave Pennsylvania altogether.

And while Republicans claimed that their alternative plan would not rely on new or increased taxes or fees, this statement, though technically correct, is incomplete and misleading. Their plan called for removing the sunset provision from the recently increased waste disposal fee. Doing so would constitute a tax increase for years following the original sunset date, as consumers would continue to pay a tax that is currently set to expire.

Therefore, given the inclinations of both Gov. Rendell and the General Assembly leadership, Pennsylvania taxpayers shouldn’t be surprised if they’re told to open their wallets a little wider if the referendum is passed. Indeed, nothing prevents state officials from approving new or increased taxes or fees at some future date to fund the debt service.

Finally, although Gov. Rendell has argued that Pennsylvanians will know “the basic programs in which the money will be spent,” voters are, in effect, being asked to give the state a $625 million “gift certificate” that the General Assembly will decide how to specifically spend later on.

But worst of all, Growing Greener II ignores policy options that could improve the commonwealth’s environment without expanding the size and scope of government or increasing the taxpayers’ debt burden. For example, a much better way to preserve farmland is to eliminate the state’s inheritance tax, which compels so many farmers to sell their land to developers, rather than pass it on to family members. And the most effective way to preserve open space is to fix the crime, tax, and educational problems in many Pennsylvania cities that pushes families with children out into the suburbs.

At the same time, local, private and non-profit conservation groups should take the lead in preserving land that they don’t want developed, not state government. There is no reason why tax dollars spent on land preservation could not instead remain with individuals, who could then donate their own money voluntarily for that purpose.

As for other environmental clean-up efforts, it should be the entities that abandoned mines, damaged creeks and streams, and polluted industrial sites—not taxpayers—who bear the primary responsibility for remediation. However, if such remediation efforts truly require statewide taxpayer support, existing funds could be re-directed from the state’s ineffective corporate welfare programs.

While Pennsylvanians obviously want an environmentally safe and economically prosperous state, Growing Greener II guarantees neither. In fact, the only guarantee of Growing Greener II is that we would put our children further into debt.”

“i support growing greener and will vote today.

PA is second only to TX to farm acreage lost to urban sprawl.

acid mine drainage is a huge problem in western PA.

preserving open space is very important, especially considering PA has the largest rural population in the US.

Finally, PA's tax burden per person is below the national average, far below CA or NY.

if we expect young people to stay here (PA has one of the oldest populations in the US), better our economy, and attract investment, we need to protect, preserve, and utilize our environmental resources carefully.”

“The way that most locales get into environmental trouble is by people being unwilling to pay full price/real cost for timber, coal, etc.

"Discount" logging, mining and other industries may deliver products at "competitive" prices.

But if the citizens end up paying to clean up the mess at some point in the future, then the profits from the enterprises are not legitimate.

This has been the case all to often.

We as taxpayers and citizens have literally subsidized the commercial operations of the past after the fact.

This is not free enterprise but is "buccaneer/gangster capitalism".

Aside from expensive clean-up costs we pay for this abuse with unnecessary and excessive health care costs, again, these taxpayer pay-outs "subsidize" industry.

Regardless of original intent by commercial operations, we unwittingly subsidize at least some of their profits.”

“It's too bad they won't tell us how they're going to spend our money. At least that much information would be nice before we vote. This doesn't swing too far from Rendell's mantra of "Shut up and pay your taxes". It's too much to ask where they're going to exactly.
last edited: 5/17/05 12:11:05 PM”

“And yes, Pennsylvania's pollution of the Susquehanna River is killing the Chesapeake Bay.

Baltimore and Baltimore County take from the Susquehanna during drought years.

I drink that water.

Granted, Maryland and Delaware are doing a fine job of killing the bay as well.

Chesapeake drainage is from all the way to north of Binghampton, NY.....FYI”

“well said Jmitch!”

“So basically Sarge it's a good initiative, but we must find some reason to vote against it as it involves taxation?”

“That's not what I said. I said (twice now I think) that they haven't said what they are doing exactly. I have no idea if it's a good initiative or not.

If you ask me, would you like to have a greener and cleaner PA, ... absolutely! If you ask me "can you give me $625 million dollars to do just that, but I'll tell you how later after I figure that part out", I'd so "no way".

If they're so concerned about making this happen, why do we have to vote on the money before we vote on what they'll do with it? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Common sense.
last edited: 5/17/05 1:01:51 PM”

“Also,

Pennsylvania easily wastes that much money many times over on other wasteful spending. We could take the money from that. I know first hand that PA tax dollars are completely wasted, often millions spent just so they can get that much next year.

We're going to bail out a failed transportation system in Philadelphia. Failed system! It doesn't work. It's not useful enough to pay for itself, so what do we do? Throw millions more at it.

I have a big problem with that.”

“Public transportation must be subsidized.
Private transportation is subsidized by federal highway money......it wouldn't work without it.

Again, it's a case of trying to get something---public transport---without paying full ticket for it.

Public transportation is inadequate here.
Our governor claims that people prefer to drive.
That's the auto and highway-building industry, among others, talking through our illustrious governor.

Public Trans is failing because it is set up to fail.

If it were clean and safe and efficient, people would use it.”

“You'd think so, wouldn't you? But, in most areas that's not the case. Philadelphia is not New York city. Harrisburg certainly is not. Yet, they think "if we build it, they will come". That's proven not to be true. There is 1 main thing that keep people from using it. 1. Freedom Freedom to come and go as you please, when you please.

It should only be subsidized if it's demanded by enough people that will actually use it. Most of the people yelling for it aren't the ones using it. That's a problem. And we pay for it.

Anyways, back to the greenbelt...”

“It feels good to vote for something that is so important to the future of our state. Kudos to all who voted for "Growing Greener"!”

“Has anybody figured out how exactly that $625 million is going to be spent yet?”

“yes Sarge - cleaning up PA's waterways, remediation of deserted mines, preserving open spaces, preserving farmland and cleaning up polluted areas.

It's going towards cleaning up Pennsylvania.”

“I read that part. I was asking "how"? It's $625 million bucks. Shouldn't they figure out how first before asking for the money?

You pushed this didn't you?

Do you know how they're going to do it, or are you just taking a leap of faith that the government will do a good job at distributing the money? Seriously, if you now how please tell me. I just haven't read how yet.”

“ENS - Here's a deal for you. You helped sell this, right? How about one more vote, even though you don't need it?

I'm leaving to vote soon. (I hope the polls are still open)

If you can tell me 1 specific verifiable program (an actual specific solution to the 'goal' of the funding) the money will go to before I leave, I'll vote for the $625 million dollar spending.”

“here is a program that "Growing Greener" will fund. http://www.greenworks.tv/waterquality/swatara.htm As you know, the appalachian trail crosses Swatara Creek north of Lebanon PA. Swatara Creek is an important waterway in PA and empties into the Sesquehanna River, which is the main water source of the Chesapeake Bay.”

“Is that a program? Because it looks like a watershed. You can't give money to a watershed. You have to use it somehow. What program will it be given to? I'll hang around for your answer if it's not too long.

To clarify, if you said you were going to clean up the Atlantic Ocean, and I said how? And you said by giving it money, that isn't a program to do it. That's basically nonsense. Are we on the same page here? Where is the money going? How is it going to be spent?

What program? What's the plan? This is $625 million.
last edited: 5/17/05 7:16:53 PM”

“8:00 they close. You win by an extra vote. :)”

“Growing Greener passed. It will interesting to see what happens next.”

“good news”

“It will interesting to see what happens next.

It's unfortunate we don't know already.”

“I meant more in terms of when will the improvements begin. At least something is happening to get the ball rolling and start buying up some of the land before it's gone.”

“Sarge was just joking with you Rich. Everything he posts is a joke.”

“I do find it odd that you guys are willing to vote for a $625 million bond, of which nobody has decided how the money will be spent. If that's a joke, well, I don't think so. I guess I think the government should be more responsible with our money ...

I'm all for improving the things mentioned in this. But come on people, at least have a plan first. I guess that's asking too much for some people. The average person puts more planning into spending $1,000 than was put into this. Doesn't mean I hate the environment. In fact, with proper planning, we could improve the environment more, with less.

As Rendell implies: "shut up and pay your taxes".”

“The first thing mentioned in this was watershed protection along with a few other things that sound like positive things. A more detailed plan would be nice, but the bottom line is we really don't have much time to wait and nobody else has anything on the table to make any other moves to do anything. So what to do? Wait until we get perfection or go with something that has some hope to get things done. When does the government ever do anything that details where every penny gets spent and sticks by it?”

“http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/districts/homepage/Moshannon/Watershed/GrowingGreener/Round3/AnnaSMine.htm

So why do we care?

http://www.fleszar.org/ggexample.jpg”

“That's great k, but that's not from this bond. Same name, different spending/planning.”

“So, how did the vote pan out?”

“It passed.”

“so whatever will be done with the $, we'll know in ten years...

My township voted on a 0.1% increment on the earned income tax to buy open space, and that failed. It's a good thing southcentral PA is a favorable logistics base, otherwise the ostrich politics would kill the area. But maybe I should give them credit for trying.”