This morning's editorial brings to light an important subject. What is more important - public safety or economic development? IMO, economic development will occur when potential investors and clients feel safe in the environment they're developing. In this case, Lancaster City.

So - what it the primary responsibility of government? The safety of citizens or catering to private enterprise at the expense of the citizenry?

http://eedition.lancasteronline.com/pages/...A/9/2111348/2/1

We currently have a situation in Lancaster City where:

- A huge "private" hotel will pay no real estate taxes for at least 20 years.

- The project developer was forgiven over a million dollars in fees and taxes.

- Millions of City tax dollars are being spent on "streetscape improvements".

- Police officers have been shifted from patrolling neighborhoods to downtown.


Meanwhile:

- The City budget has run a deficit for most of the last decade.

- City reserve funds are nearly depleted.

- Long-term City debt has increased dramatically over the last decade.

- The fire department has been dangerously understaffed for many years.

- There are not enough funds available to pay for current police staffing.

- Maintenance at parks and playgrounds is far below what is needed.

- After falling for several years, the crime rate is creeping up.


What is wrong with this picture?

Public safety is the first and highest priority of all local government. Everything else is less important.

Having to find and train civic minded volunteer citizens to man fire departments and ambulance services at the same time hundreds of millions of public dollars are freely given away to help promote things like artwork, entertainment and recreation - really cracks me up.

We have gotten our priorities WAY out of whack ... and in depressed and broke has-been little cities like Lancaster it really shows .....

I think it's #2-- we need infrastructure maintenance and improvement. If the crime gets bad enough, crime rate will eventually plateau or dwindle, because vigilante justice will make a comeback.

If we don't spend money to improve the water, sewer, and streets systems, we're looking at swimming in sh*t (literally), having waterborne disease, and terrible traffic everywhere.

It's all important; IMO, parks don't belong in cities in the first place, they are a drain on the taxpayers year-round. If people want a park, the county has parks and so do the suburbs.

I believe that infrastructure is an integral part of public health and safety. Streets, water, and sewer are as important to public health and safety as fire and police are.

I strongly disagree with your stand about parks in the city. We live relatively close to Musser Park, which is heavily utilized by the neighborhood. When the weather is good enough, the playground is usually packed. On most weekends, some of the neighbors have picnics in the park. Impromptu ball games are usual occurrences. And in warm weather, a few young women regularly use the park to sunbathe.

Since most city residences have little or no yard, parks definitely improve the quality of city life, particularly for apartment dwellers. Maintenance of public parks is only a tiny part of the city's budget, yet return far more value to taxpayers than they cost.

Edited to add: there is a big difference between a park you can walk to, and a park you need to drive to. My wife often walks her grandchildren to Musser Park when they visit, which is far less hassle than packing them into car seats. Neighborhood children who are old enough to be unsupervised often walk themselves to the park (as I did at that age).