Yesterday, in his column, “A missed opportunity for the local economy,” Lancaster Intelligencer Journal/New Era columnist Jeff Hawkes resurfaced the economic development plan proposed by a consultancy firm a few years ago. Hawkes writes the “county commissioners … refused to adopt it. The commissioners, in fact, were so set against the plan that they stopped the planning commission from releasing it for public review.”

[NOTE: To be directed to the Lancaster Newspapers, Inc. files of the report, click on the above photo]

The project was “not a plan for municipal consolidation nor … a plan to usurp the role of the private sector as the fundamental engine of economic development.” The project incorporated “extensive citizen participation” and “think tanks” which included representatives from a number of sectors across the county – government, private sector, social services, education, faith-based community and elected “public servants.”

Columbia mayor, Leo S. Lutz, was included in one of the “think tanks.”

Hawkes resurrects the prevailing theme of the report as narrated by one of its primary contributors “David Rusk, a Washington-based urban policy consultant and former mayor of Albuquerque, N.M.”: “the county’s fragmentation into 60 autonomous municipalities works against a pro-growth climate.”

As you read through the report, you’ll see the striking similarities between the City of Lancaster and Columbia Borough.

The report identifies these important conclusions:

1. Recognize the diversity of the regional economy.
2. Understand the linkages between education, housing and economic development policy.
3. Understand the linkages between economic development policy and land use and infrastructure planning, taxes and public services, and traditional economic development policies.
4. Find the balance between local control and regional approaches to policy.

Click here to read the plan posted at the Lancaster Newspapers, Inc. Website. Read the report to gain insight into the scope of the report and the suggested courses of action.

Ask yourself the tough questions suggested throughout the report. Do regionalization and consolidation of resources make sense as the costs of everything increase?

What is the affordability of maintaining separate governing agencies, public safety assets and school districts?

Are citizens better served with 16 separate school boards? Superintendents? Purchasing agents? Business managers?

[NOTE: Interestingly, the consultant’s report cost taxpayers $300,000 and the commissioners decided not to accept many of the findings because it painted a picture different than the one they wanted to see. Interestingly, that is similar to the Columbia Market House – Revitalization Strategy study conducted in Columbia in 2005. It took nearly six years before the Borough accepted the recommendation to “enter into a carefully-considered lease with a non-profit entity to manage and take the lead in reopening the Historic Columbia Market.”]