property offerings in and around Columbia

Columbia news, views & reviews – April 27, 2014

Sold again! In February, 2012, Columbia news, views and reviews posted this: “There are quite a few property transfers listed in Columbia in today’s Lancaster Sunday News; among them is this one: “Lancaster County Tax Claim Bureau and Doolittle Investments LLC conveyed 29 N. Fourth St. to Ashok K. Datta and Amita Datta for $7,000.” In the DEEDS RECORDED of today’s Sunday News, there’s a new owner as the 1898 Firehouse Company purchased the building for $113,000.

Columbia news, views & reviews – September 21, 2014

And yesterday, Columbia’s River Park offered much of what parks can on a beautiful sunny day: Serenity, respite and relaxation in the arms of nature. The old fire station on North Fourth Street brandishes a FOR LEASE sign. Another “proper-tunity” that was purchased in April of this year for $113,000. In February, 2012, “Lancaster County Tax Claim Bureau and Doolittle Investments LLC conveyed 29 N. Fourth St. to Ashok K. Datta and Amita Datta for $7,000.”


There are 15 pages of listings in and around Columbia shown at the Website.


  1. I spoke at length with the lady that does the assessing for Columbia Borough and asked her about that lower tax on the riverfront property. While a county-wide reassessment will begin in 2016, the answer to my question was that the river cottages are only used 50% of the year and therefore assessed lower. They are considered to be second homes. With Columbia’s struggling financial situation, it would bring in some revenue if the cottages would be reassessed to reflect all upgrades and the fact that some are used more than 50% of the year.

    • Some of the cottage owners do not have their “primary residence” in Columbia, so they could be paying one third of what we are paying for our borough home and yet they enjoy a riverfront second home at a lower tax rate. In other words, someone living in West Hempfield with a second home along the riverfront, probably is paying less for both properties (in total taxes, to both Columbia and Hempfield) than I pay for one home in the borough. It is sinful that some older residents have to give up their homes because they can no longer afford the high taxes, while others can keep a second home for a fraction of tax. Who is really sitting at the controls?

  2. The assessment official also stated that they receive the permits from Columbia and therefore are aware of upgrades or improvements on the cottages. However, it states on the permits that they are to be “posted during construction at a location visible to traveling public, and should be protected from rain, snow, etc.”. Riverfront Drive is private, so how can the traveling public read what the permits have been issued for? This same official was unable to locate any permit for the work being done at Fourth and Manor Streets. She stopped short of saying there isn’t one, but that she could not locate it.

    • These kinds of notices ought to be posted at the Borough Website. Transparency and access to information, for everyone, has to be a watchword for all municipalities, including Columbia.

      • With an accurate property address, one can request permit information (including permit number) through a “Right to Know” form. You can obtain the form at the borough office.

  3. True … but ought it not be incumbent on a municipality to post this kind of information as a matter of practice? Ought citizens not be able to expect complete transparency without having to specially have to request the info. Why the shroud? Why the hoops?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s