Franklin paves way for new hospital
Franklin paves way for new hospital
Franklin Township approved an ordinance that may clear the way for a new hospital building during Monday’s special meeting.
“It’s just opening up the zoning so it includes health care, because we have nothing in there right now that says they can put something like that there,” chairman Jason Frey said.
Representatives from St. Luke’s recently presented a basic sketch of a prospective health care center to Franklin’s planning commission, though no other documents have been submitted.
The supervisors said that a similar ordinance was to be added to the zoning code in the near future, but they decided to pass the overlay ahead of time in case St. Luke’s, or any other health care facility, wishes to begin construction any sooner.
“We’re redoing our zoning right now, and that was going to be put in there, but they just wanted to move forward before we get to that point. It may take us eight or nine months yet before we update our zoning,” vice chairman Robin Cressley said.
Frey said that the ordinance will allow for the construction of health care facilities on plots of land measuring at least 30 acres within the township.
“This actually comes out of West Brunswick Township in Schuylkill County. That’s the basis for it, and I reviewed it and somewhat modified it,” solicitor William Schwab said.
In addition to providing jobs and easy access to emergency medical care, the establishment of a health care facility could also increase property values in the area. Frey said that this a particularly attractive benefit, as the township will lose its elementary school soon, which could adversely affect residents’ property values.
Though no one made any comment on the matter at the special meeting, Frey said that he has heard overwhelmingly positive responses from people in the township in regard to a new hospital.
“I believe it means good things. Hopefully, they’ll decide to build in our township. We’re trying to be business-friendly and do exactly what they ask so we can get that in the township,” Frey said.
BTW, this whole "I don't have kids in the school" excuse for not wanting to pay taxes is one of the worst examples of how selfish and self centered we have become. You went to school. Your kids went to school. During that time, tax payers without kids helped pay the bills. I doubt you complained that it was unfair for them. Now that your kids are grown and you got what you wanted from the schools, you have decided you don't want to pay. Being a good citizen means paying taxes for services you no longer need.
By the way, it is those who are aged and in retirement that cost the tax payers the most. Senior housing, PACE, Social Security, Medicare, senior transport, senior centers, etc etc are all paid by the current workforce. What if they took your attitude that they shouldn't have to pay since they don't use those services?
Exempt Land 1,432,800
Exempt Building 145,898,800
Taxable Land 0
Taxable Building 0
Taxable Total 0
County 3.640000 $ 0.00
School 18.040000 $ 0.00
Municipality 8.110000 $ 0.00
Total $ 0.00
These are all big ZEROS in the tax columns. This data is from the Lehigh County Assessment site.
So I would guess Carbon County/Franklin township are similar?
If not then congrats to St.Lukes for planning on paying taxes in Carbon and Franklin.
Look out fixed income home-owners, this one will probably hurt badly.
Personally I like not paying higher taxes...I can keep adding to my 401k and IRAs.
Here's a thought. Since you are on a fixed income, move into one of the senior high rises in the area, or to senior centers. If life is passing you by, and you can't keep up, you have to fix yourself, not try to force other to hold themselves back just so you can benefit.
Can you call me son, though, too please. I want you to feel superior to me, and think you are better than me :)
This is a money grab by the retirees, pure and simple. The average family will have their tax burden increased.
But I am more interested in a previous LTE written by Byron Schnell where you referenced my first name yet I never mentioned it, nor did anyone else. This raises privacy concerns and possible legal issues. It suggest you work for Times News and accessed my login information.
I don’t work for the times and I have no way of accessing your info but you very obviously post under multiple handles. You do the exact same cuts and pastes under each handle
Defend something that is well known and is well understood? The bill is a guaranteed dollar for dollar tax shift off property owners and onto everyone in the state and even some from out of state in the form of increased PIT and SUT. It is a far more fair and just way of funding schools. It is the heart and soul of the bill, SB76, and I explained this all in detail previously. As I posted on the other discussion and straight from the PA IFO analysis of SB76. The elimination of property taxes would significantly reduce the property tax share and would clearly increase the attractiveness of the Commonwealth for business location and expansion. (Page 25).
PIT goes away when one retires meaning all the folks going on fixed income have a built in inflation hedge. A very compassionate and much needed reality of SB76.
Funding schools is a major part of the state budget, I think the PA IFO team took the task of analyzing SB76 damn seriously. They could literally bankrupt the state if their analysis is not correct. Oh wait, the current method of funding schools is already doing that, sorry!
Since you stated you have a business background, check the credentials of the PA IFO team. http://www.ifo.state.pa.us/about.cfm
It is true that organizations such and the PA Chamber of Commerce are against the bill because they consider a PIT and SUT increase a tax on business despite the fact they would be relived of their biggest tax bill, SD tax. In reality, it is special interest driving these organizations. Once again, the PA IFO analysis of SB76 clears the air on these false talking points where one can easily discern it is special interest as driving force.
I should never use The_Facts handle when discussing SB76. Full Disclosure follows. Yes my first name is Robert, my full name is Robert Kistler. I am co-chair of the Pennsylvania Taxpayers Cyber Coalition (PTCC) of Carbon County. We are one of nearly 90 grassroots organization who crafted the wording of SB76. We own the bill, no changes can be made to the bill unless we okay the change. No pork can be added to the bill. We simply found lawmakers willing to work with us to sponsor the bill. I am on the PTCC Leadership Team. We work directly with Legislators on efforts to get SB76 enacted into law.
We already discussed your 61% scare number, as clarified in other LTE discussion, the vast majority still win. These are tired PSEA talking points that have be discounted many times over. Despite the 61% scare number the PA IFO states, "Working age homeowners realize a tax cut. The analysis finds that the increase in federal income tax (through lower itemized deductions), state income tax, and sales tax is more than offset by the reduction in property taxes. (Page 21)".
They state CUT, not increase as you desperately try to project.
61% is the accurate number and any other way of presenting it is dishonest. Let me ask you this, if your property tax went from $1000 to $1610 what would you say it went up? Why would you try to characterize income tax differently? Can’t have it both ways.
You can't find the IFO analysis of HB/SB 76? Are you mentally challenged, fool? It's right here: http://www.ifo.state.pa.us/releases.cfm?type=5&yr=2013
Aren't you cute, criticizing the "terribly built" PTCC website? That's typical of low intelligence people like you - if you can't offer a valid argument, resort to insults instead.
Finally, your 61% PIT increase argument is a sleazy way to alarm people with large numbers and proves your dishonesty. The increase in the PIT is 3.07% to 4.95%, an increase of 1.88% or a bit less than two cents on the dollar. That's the truth in simple terms, not your exaggeration.
I'll take you on head-to-head on this subject any time you wish, genius, and I will drive you into the ground. You know NOTHING and I am an expert on this legislation; I am licking my chops for the opportunity to embarrass you. I don't see that happening, though, because you are a coward who will not stand up to his lies.
I'll address the business part. I am yet to find a business group or chamber in agreement with the bill mainly due to the tax impact on small business. However, most small businesses do not own the property they operate out of, especially start-ups that do not have capital to fund the purchase of property. Therefore they do not get the benefit of the property tax decrease but feel the full force of the income tax and sales tax. They will also be hurt by decreases in consumer spending(acknowledged in the IFO report.)
Since you're so smart, tell me how your argument addresses this. In January of this year the IFO predicted that for the foreseeable future and if the paradigm doesn't change, school property taxes will increase by ONE HALF BILLION dollars annually. Even you should be able to see that this is unsustainable. How do you propose to solve the problem? BTW, this is factual but this time you can do your own research.
Unless you are willing to debate me in person, I'll have no more to say on this page because it's really pretty useless. Just one final question: For whom are you a shill? The PSEA, the PSBA, PASBO, PICPA, the PA Chamber or any of the other greedy special interests who couldn't care less about the families who are suffering because of the damaging property tax? At least have the courage to identify the group you represent. Those who wrote the piece at the link below which, by the way, was distributed by schoolchildren with your tax money, are the people you are defending. Are you proud of yourself? You are despicable. http://www.ptcc.us/pdf/psba_rebuttal_011717_it-bold.pdf
I agree with the IFO, costs are going up. There are many factors that contribute, health care and pensions especially. I would be supportive of a bill that specifically addresses the cost issues, perhaps through a statewide health insurance plan that leverages the high number of school employees to drive per employee costs down and a transition to a 403b type of pension program. The problem with 76 is it does not address costs, it is a revenue and taxing bill. It seeks to provide relief to a narrow group, seniors, at the expense of many others. Families, according to independent analysis, will pay around $400 a year more under this bill. The over 70 demographic only pays 18% of the school taxes as it is, a further shift will hurt families. Business will be taxed more too.
Address the cost issue first and resist passing a taxation bill and muddying the water with a solution that does more damage than good
You have no comment about the PSBA handout that YOU helped to finance? I would have thought you would have had something to say. And your solution to move to a statewide health insurance plan and a transition to a 403b type of pension program verifies your lack of knowledge of this entire issue since these measures do nothing to address the true problems. To solve this problem permanently the entire public school finance system must be gutted and replaced. Oh, and your comment that "the problem with 76 is it does not address costs" is another of your inaccuracies. See Chapter 13 of SB 76, P/N 913, where the cost controls are defined by limiting annual increases to to the schools to the rate of an inflation index. The IFO estimates that this will afford every school district an approximate annual 4% increase.
I said before that I was finished but I couldn't help but renege when I thought about the piece at the link below. If you are so concerned about businesses, have a look at this:
http://www.ptcc.us/lobbyist080316.htm I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the piece.
Still waiting to debate you!
Of course I have financial interest in the bill. As a family with a modest home, purchased well within my means, who works, we stand to get clobbered by this bill. I put my numbers in the calculator on the PTCC website and I will be bitten for an additional $2000 annually. You have financial interest in it too. What’s your point?
76 places restrictions on increases in tax that arent even as stringent as what already exists. But tax is not a cost to the school district, it’s a revenue so it is a cap on revenue not costs. Without cost controls, revenue will not meet costs within a year and there will be deficits.(IFO report 2013). Where the money comes from has no affect on the costs. It’s like believing your health premiums and mortgage payment will suddenly decrease if you don’t get a raise this year from your boss. Please understand what cost and revenue means when discussing this.
Ok just for laughs, I looked at the post you wanted me look at. References page 25 of the IFO report saying:
The elimination of property taxes would significantly reduce the property tax share and would clearly increase the attractiveness of the Commonwealth for business location and expansion.” (Page 25) (Expansion of existing businesses and attracting new businesses to the Commonwealth will generate jobs for Pennsylvanians.)
Hmm looked at pg 25 and it doesn’t say any of this. What gives?
Lehighton Area School District
Director David F. Bradley, Sr.
Personal and Confidential
1000 Union Street
Lehighton, Pa 18235
Official district related correspondences sent to any other location will be rejected.
All district business emails are obtainable through an open records request.
All remaining Lehighton.org emails holders signed a document allowing their emails to be monitored by the adminstration, therefore, I would not considered them private.
If you rationally or irrationally fear or perceive there are risks of retaliation against you, your children, or relatives working in the district, I suggest you seek a more private means of communication.
All voices are valued. The PA School Code of our government schools, reference your rights to transparency. Honor the veterans that provided these rights by exercising them. Ensure they remain with us for future generations by sharing the knowledge of your rights with others.
Citizen David F. Bradley, Sr.