It is interesting that the state government has blocked impact fees that directly lays increased infrastructure costs at the feet of those responsible, the developer. Presently, one can require cost of road improvements in a seven mile radius if the township completes the necessary studies. MT has. EHT refuses. Kinsey, the former chair of the EHT supervisors specifically refused, stating it was too expensive. Yet he voted for more than $600,000 "study" of two state-owned roads that happened to be located at the site of the proposed TND "Independence".

Costs of new schools, increased water demand, increased sewer, etc. is passed on to the taxpayer. Other hidden costs may be covered "by state grants" funded by.....

Make no mistake about this lucrative source of campaign funding, builders, developers, realtors, and related lobbies. All the lip service about the public interest quickly fades come re-election season. The only solution IMO is term limits.
Fix SDL and repopulate the city.

2 days, 150 views, still no answers. Maybe Gil and Jeff are working on another article.

I know I asked tough questions, but I didn't think they were that tough.

No, the questions poised were not tough, but the real answers lead to few conclusions that nobody campaigning for TND's wishes to publically discuss;

TND's, as proposed here in Lancaster County do not address the future housing needs of the poor, or even those of modest means.

The demand for new housing in Lancaster County exceeds the local needs. Therefore, our region attracts new-comers from areas outside the county.

This planned higher density may delay the eventual disappearance of farmland, but it offers no guarantee to save the farmland.

TND's will raise taxes for everyone, whether the live inside the boundries of these new developments, or not.

TND's are a HUGE benefit to the construction industry, enabling much more profit to be earned per acre of development .... while acres available for development last.

Lee, thank you for your facts and figures. You are supplying the exact type of data that has been missing from this debate.

What you posed were statements thinkly-veiled as questions. And a number of the questions were based on false assumptions.
I agree that TND aren't the solution to everything. I'll also conceed that TNDs aren't applicable in every situation.
But many of your people about this situaiton are not providing alternative solutions to real demands and real problems*. You're purposely ignoring the fact that growth will occur in this County, and that some hard decissions need to be made in how that growth is managed.
The real truth is that you don't care. What you really care about is that you don't want that growth to occur near you. You don't want to see development in your area. Everything after that is an excuse to justify that position. I'm not answering those questions because, so long as the development proposed is going in near you, the answers don't matter.
* the exception was the guy ( GOP ?) who said " fix SDL and repopulate the city" which, while a herculean task, it actually a reasonable idea. I happen to think that starting with the local boroughs is an easier task, but a similar idea.

Legal:

Thanks for the non-answers.



Statements thinly veiled as questions??????

I am not anti-growth, pro-sprawl or anti-TND. I live on less than 1/4 acre and I'm perfectly happy with that. I do not know Fred and I never had a 'No TND' sign in my yard.

BUT when someone tells me that a development twice the density of The Kentlands (the supposedly ideal TND) in the middle of East Hempfield, served by two 2-lane roads is THE SOLUTION for all of our problems, I am going to ask a few questions to MAKE SURE it really is as good as it sounds. I want to know how "Smart Growth" will affect me and all of the current taxpayers in East Hempfield.

When asked about the impact on the school system, the first response (as appeared in the paper back in December) was:

QUOTE

Planners, however, said TNDs in other areas have traditionally attracted single professionals, senior citizens, empty nesters and some single parents, with very little effect on the local school system.

Who are these planners and where did they get their data? I found a TND study that said 44% of TND households are families with children, and the Kentland's elementary school has more children than East Pete's. This information was not difficult to find.
As far as transportation goes, yes there is some infrastructure, but it is designed to handle current traffic. Growing Together identified over $50 million in roadway improvements that are needed in East Hempfield. Is there guaranteed funding for this or, like the 283 study and Good Drive, is this something the taxpayers of EHT will need to pay to support all of this new high density growth?
Good plans have no problem standing up to scrutiny. So far, the answers have been: growth is inevitable, East Hempfield needs to do its share, and it should take 20 years to develop the TND's. That's not good enough.
We cannnot simply focus on supporting new people in EHT without identifying the impact this new growth will have on the people currently in EHT. Doing so would be poor planning.