[Lancaster Online]

[Artie See]

Well, move to the City of Lancaster.

The City of Lancaster has zero population growth, doesn’t it? Negative population growth, in fact. That’d preserve your “way of life.” Or maybe it would lead to an unprecedented degradation of it. But we don’t think about that.

Gil, I was born and raised in Lancaster City. I've owned a home here since 1979.

What are you trying to say about the City of Lancaster?

[gsmart]

Gil, I was born and raised in Lancaster City. I've owned a home here since 1979.

What are you trying to say about the City of Lancaster?

Artie, what I'm trying to say about the City of Lancaster is that the City of Lancaster, until very recently, was in the process of decaying.

That's not to disparage Lancaster as a place or the people who live in it, or anything like that. What it is to say that if only in terms of population, it's significant - but made all the more so by the diminunition of the tax base - and all that that implies.

I sometimes get this idea that you think the city was just fine until all these muckity-mucks started calling the shots. Where I disagree with you, fundamentally I think, is that I don't think the city was fine - I think it was not fine, and headed for additional trouble.

[Artie See]

I sometimes get this idea that you think the city was just fine until all these muckity-mucks started calling the shots. Where I disagree with you, fundamentally I think, is that I don't think the city was fine - I think it was not fine, and headed for additional trouble.

I agree, Lancaster City was not fine, and was indeed headed for additional trouble.

My problem is with the "muckity-mucks" taking unfair advantage of taxpayers like us.

I'm a Democrat, but I'm also a fiscal conservative. Everything that has been done in Lancaster City that is sustainable has been done with a minimum of taxpayer dollars.

As Christopher Leinberger said at Liberty Place, "The silver bullet approach doesn't work."