This page has been supportive of a voter approved land preservation tax to try to save some of the remaining beautiful open space and farmland that still exists in Lower Macungie. This option gives residents a choice to vote again on how to prioritize spending. We say again because in 2013 voters replaced two Commissioners with pro smart growth Commissioners. At least two Commissioners who ran on smart growth platforms. If this township is willing to spend $3.3 million upgrading Quarry Road park with lights and costly artificial turf, then it should also be willing to spend similar money to save open space. Every public survey ever made in Lower Macungie or the Lehigh Valley shows preserving open space and farmland as a higher priority than building sports fields and parks. One of the most troubling aspect of Lower Macungie government is that, up until now, its elected officials have never expressed any concern about loss of open space while experiencing the fastest growth in the state. At times they have paid lip service, but since 2010 have not acted on the notion. They never seemed troubled about the prospect of the township reaching complete build out, as if that should be the natural order of things. With complete buildout will most surely come congestion, full schools and higher taxes. Finally we have a commissioner in Ron Beitler who is expressing dismay at the rapid loss of our beautiful landscape. A lifelong township resident, Beitler remembers when the township still had plenty of open fields and uncongested roads. We doubt that commissioner Jim Lancseck, who thinks 700 new homes on rural Mertztown Road is good planning, or commissioner Ryan Conrad, whose day job is CEO of the Lehigh Valley Associaton of Realtors, will support an active land preservation program. Where Commissioner Doug Brown will stand is unknown. Hopefully new commissioner Brian Higgins, the former head of the Lower Macungie Youth Association, who is championing the $3.3 million park upgrade, will support a land preservation tax to begin saving some of the communitys most valuable natural resource. Its ok to spend money on park improvements. In fact 700,000 of the proposed 3.3 is collected park fees. All of this money should be spent on the park system. This leaves a balance of 2.6 million that would come directly from the general fund. If we have this money for artificial turf and lights should some be spent on preservation open space and farmland? Afterall survey after survey shows this to be a priority. Beitler and Higgins replaced Eichenberg and Reis largely on a platform that supported smart growth.
Posted on: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:04:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015