Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Should selling of liquor in Pennsylvania continue as a state-controlled monopoly or should prohibition end?

July 9, 2011
16 Comments

Should the Pennsylvania State Liquor Board be abolished?

Did you know that aside from Utah, Pennsylvania is the only other state with complete government control of wine and liquor?

Things are once again heating up to privatize the state-owned liquor stores. One of Gov. Corbett’s campaign talking points was the privatization of the state store system and it continues to move in that direction.

On one side we have many state government jobs at risk with the abolishment of the Pennsylvania State Liquor Board and the selling off of the 620 liquor stores. United Food and Commercial Workers union represents the 3,500 state liquor store employees whose jobs are in jeopardy if the state privatizes the wine and liquor stores. But couldn’t one argue that the state employees might well stay employed with the privatization . . . privately owned liquor stores still require employees and ex-state liquor store employees would be a match.

On the other side, there are those in favor of privatizing wine and liquor stores who suggest that the competition will lower prices and increase selection for the consumer. And why wouldn’t that be good for Pennsylvanians? How many of us currently drive to Delaware when we need cases of wine . . . ?

House Majority leader Mike Turzai R-Alleghany is driving the privatization and has a proposal scheduled for the end of the month to sell the liquor stores. There are approximately 1,200 liquor licenses in Pennsylvania – how much revenue would selling the licenses produce? It is estimated that the revenue could be as high as $2 billion. Just this week, I read that the Pennsylvania State Liquor Board reported for 2010, a 4% increase in sales to $1.96 billion!

As an aside, I noted a proposed local connection to the liquor control board. According to a Daily Local article, Gov. Corbett has nominated Skip Brion, chair of the Chester County Republican Committee to the state liquor board. At this point, it is unclear whether Brion will resign from his political leadership role in the county.

What do you think? Should selling of liquor in Pennsylvania continue to operate as a state-controlled monopoly or after 75 years, should prohibition end?

Share or Like:
        
 

T/E School District (Paoli) House & Contents Goes to Auction July 16

July 7, 2011
4 Comments

I received a notice from an antique auction site that caught my attention. Although fairly common in some parts of the country, I don’t recall the last time I saw a house and its contents on the auction block in Tredyffrin Township.

On July 16, a ranch style house at 788 N. Valley Road in Paoli is going to be auctioned (open house is this weekend) — details are in the advertisement below. The property includes 3.2 acres and is a fixer-upper. This is a lovely area of the township and my guess is someone may buy it and rather than fixing the house, will knock it down for the property. I’m sure that there is story behind this auction as I am on this road almost every day and there was not a ‘for sale’ sign, so appears that it is going directly to auction. Is this auction an isolated situation, sign of the economic times or foreshadowing of what’s to come.

Auction Listing

AuctionZip Auctioneer ID# 9683

OPEN HOUSE JULY 8th, 9th & 12TH FROM 2-5 PM

ON SITE REAL ESTATE AUCTION

SATURDAY JULY 16, 2011 AT 1:00 PM

788 N. VALLEY ROAD, PAOLI, PA 19301

VALLEY GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD

TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP

TREDYFFRIN- EASTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT

OFFERING 3.2 ACRES, RESIDENTIAL, WITH A ONE STORY BRICK RANCHER FIX ME UPPER.

PROPERTY INSPECTION: JULY 8TH , 9TH & 12TH FROM 2-5 PM.

TERMS: $20,000.00 CERTIFIED FUNDS DUE AT KNOCKDOWN. SETTLEMENT 30-60 DAYS. THIS PROPERTY IS BEING OFFERED SUBJECT TO OWNER CONFIRMATION.

ANTIQUES AND PERSONAL PROPERTY WILL START AT 10:30 AM.

GEORGE H. WILSON, AUCTIONEER, AU-001020-L

610-955-9417 OR 610-283-8469
Share or Like:
        
 

Following the Law, but was Justice Served for Caylee Anthony?

July 6, 2011
18 Comments

I followed the Casey Anthony murder trial over the last few weeks, just wanting justice served for the beautiful little 2-yr. old, Caylee Anthony. I do not claim to be any legal expert and was driven by the emotion surrounding such a heinous crime. I accept that my opinion for the outcome to the trial was based on seeking justice for the little girl who could not seek justice on her own.

We all knew that a guilty verdict for Casey Anthony was not going to bring Caylee back . . . but for justice to be served in this case; I thought that was the required outcome. When the verdict of ‘not guilty was first announced, I immediately thought of the OJ Simpson trial and what I perceived was a similar injustice. In reflection, I can see that the trials and ultimate verdicts of not guilty in the Anthony and Simpson cases really are not the same . . . although I wanted justice for Caylee Anthony in the same way that I wanted justice for Simpson’s victim.

Much evidence was presented in the OJ Simpson trial – beyond any reasonable doubt. However, the jury in the Simpson trial was impacted by the media, the public, issues of race and the best defense attorneys that money could buy. A media circus surrounded the Simpson trial and in the end, the media won.

The Casey Anthony trial also played out in the media, but this time the law won. The verdict may not have been wanted I wanted, but the prosecution had an obligation to establish guilt beyond any reasonable doubt and they were not successful. Do I think that Casey Anthony committed the murder of her daughter? Yes, but the prosecution did not make the case, simply not enough evidence to convict.

Initially, upon hearing the not guilty verdict, I was outraged at the jury. I figured that with only 10 hours of deliberation it had been a slam-dunk for the prosecution. No, just the opposite, the jury’s seemingly quixotic decision was based on evidence, or rather ‘lack of’. In deliberating the case, the jury followed the law – and in the end, isn’t that what we want from our legal system? Still it is hard to look at the Casey Anthony verdict as good news . . . after all a beautiful little girl is dead and the murderer may have gone free.

Share or Like:
        
 

Bambi May Soon Have Another Day to Worry About Hunters

July 5, 2011
3 Comments

It has been awhile since I visited the topic of gun control and 2nd amendment rights on Community Matters. For those that followed the gun control discussion, you may recall my dismay last year over the federal legislation that lifted the ban on guns in national parks (including Valley Forge).

The blog post, Semi-Automatic Weapons in Valley Forge National Historical Park . . . Do You Feel Safer? generated much debate in the 50+ comments on guns in national parks, many from 2nd Amendment supporters. As a result, my naïveté on guns and gun controls was put to the test. That discussion extended to a broader discussion of gun control in our community. I learned that many living in this community not only supported their right as an American to bear arms, but that it was clear from comments, that many did!

Although not swayed by the overwhelming pro-gun rights comments, I did find myself sitting in the minority; continuing to support stricter gun control rules. I wrote, ” . . . I know the argument that strict gun control does not reduce crime because it does not keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. Criminals do not abide by waiting periods or registration requirements. The only people affected by these so-called ‘gun control’ measures are law-abiding citizens, who are rendered less able to resist crime. However almost daily, our world is filled with news of gun violence in this country . . . in shopping malls, on college campuses, office buildings. . . “

In addition to discussing 2nd amendment rights and gun-control issues, Community Matters visited the subject of the overpopulation of deer in the area, specifically in Valley Forge National Historical Park. With a two-year plan in place, skilled sharp shooters began last winter to reduce the deer population from 1,250 to 200 in the park. Although I cringed at the idea of guns in Valley Forge Park and the shooting of deer, I took solace in knowing that 7,000 pounds of venison was donated to the needy.

At this point, I am sure you are wondering why this walk down memory lane? Answer: deer hunting. I do not claim to know much about deer hunting – I actually don’t know the dates of deer hunting season. I do not know when it is ‘bow’ season any more than I know when it is gun season for deer hunting, nor do I know many deer per hunter is allowed – just don’t know any of the specifics. I am not a hunter so why would I need to know this information. As a “stricter gun control supporter”, and probably not likely to become a deer hunter, I do admit I was interested to learn of House Bill 1760 that would allow deer hunting on Sundays. Deer hunting on Sundays . . . ? I didn’t know that Sunday deer hunting was illegal in Pennsylvania. Apparently, hunters in Pennsylvania can legally kill foxes, coyotes and crows on Sunday, just not deer. Pennsylvania is one of 9 states that do not permit Sunday deer hunting.

According to a recent Daily Local article, “ . . . Sunday hunting is expected to generate $629 million in additional spending and create up to 5,300 new jobs, resulting in $18 million in additional sales and income tax. . . ” In addition, Sunday hunting is expected to generate a substantial increase in out-of-state license revenue.

So here’s my question. . . if the current law allows deer hunting 6 days a week, why not allow hunting all 7 days of the week? I may not be a gun-supporter nor a deer hunter (and I appreciated that I am in the minority) but I don’t understand ‘why’ deer hunters cannot hunt on Sundays? I guess I can see the purpose of House Bill 1760 – if you support deer hunting 6 days a week, why not support deer hunting on Sundays.

Share or Like:
        
 

Corbett’s Property Tax Reform Throws a Curve Ball to School Districts . . . Limits on Act 1 Exceptions May Cause Angst to School Boards

July 2, 2011
25 Comments

School vouchers, Marcellus Shale fees and transportation funding may have been temporarily sidelined in Corbett’s budget but not so for property tax reform.

When Gov. Corbett inked the budget this week, school districts across the commonwealth collectively received a curve ball. Included in Corbett’s budget was property tax reform, which makes change to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2006 (Act 1) that could effect future school board’s financial decisions.

With school districts struggling with significant reduction in state spending, many used Act 1 exceptions in their budget decisions, which permit tax increases without allowing voters the right to veto. However, with Corbett’s property tax reform, the school districts will not be permitted to increase property tax above the rate of inflation without voter referendum. Corbett suggests that the property tax reform will give the power to the taxpayers to decide whether they want a property tax increase to fund a particular program. A reduction in allowable Act 1 exceptions will force school boards to make their case to the voter for approval of a property tax increase.

Prior to the amendment, Act 1 included 13 permitted exceptions including new construction projects, debt, pension and special education costs – school boards could increase property tax using these exceptions without a voter referendum. The Act 1 exceptions will continue to include special education spending and payments to the state pension system but no other exceptions will be permitted without voter approval.

It is my understanding that if a school district has a building project underway, the previous Act 1 exception for construction will remain in place for the length of the project. However, the amendment to Act 1 does not permit an exception for future constructions projects without voter approval. So where does the Act 1 reform legislation leave TESD’s planned transportation garage/storage building on Old Lancaster Ave.? Although the project is only in the initial architectural development stages, the Facilities Committee may need to rethink their plans or be prepared for voter input. No longer qualifying for an Act 1 exception, this proposed new construction project would require a voter referendum. In addition, because the transportation garage is not educational programming, I would suggest that voters might not show their support for a property tax increase for this type of project.

By removing so many of the Act 1 exceptions, school boards will be limited in their ability to increase property taxes without voter referendum. On the other hand, you could say that property owners in Pennsylvania will have a more active roll in what school boards do with their money. Gaining voter support at the polls will require public convincing by school boards. Do you think that this is the way for taxpayers to receive property tax relief? I also wonder if some school districts will opt for creative responses to the Act 1 changes, such as forming their own charter schools.

On the subject of property taxes but slightly off topic, the T/E school district tax bills arrived in the mail. Having just read somewhere online that the average school taxes paid in Pennsylvania is $1,200 – I am struggling to see how that is possible.

My husband and I own an investment property in Glenhardie Condominiums in Wayne — a small 1-bedroom condo. According to the tax bill, our school taxes for the 1-bedroom condo are $1,232 — equivalent to the average school tax bill in the state. It is interesting that our 1-BR condo represents in T/E the model for the ‘average’ price of real estate across the state. So . . . $1,200 in school taxes buys you a 1-BR condo in the T/E school district – wonder what that same $1,200 in average school property taxes buys you in other parts of the state? A quick search online indicates that Pittsburgh is ranked as one of the ‘best buys’ in America. For the price of a 1-BR Glenhardie condo, one could buy a nice 4-BR house in Pittsburgh!

Share or Like:
        
 

Penn State #1 . . . But this time it’s not for a good reason

July 1, 2011
2 Comments

How important are college rankings? How much store do you put in the annual US News & World Report college rankings? Well, you might be interested in this ranking – Penn State, University Park campus is number one on this list, but this time it’s not for a good reason.

The US Department of Education has released on a report on college cost comparisons and Penn State heads the list for the state schools. Penn State is #1 on the list and the only state school with a yearly tuition over $15,000! For comparison purposes, the national average for 4-year state schools is $6,397.

You probably would assume that attending one of our state schools rather than attending a private school or venturing beyond the state’s boundaries would save students thousands of dollars. Does not look like that may any longer be the case for Pennsylvania residents — Penn State University is the most expensive public school in America.

In case you are wondering about the cheapest 4-year public universities – Kansas’s Haskell Indian Nations University has the lowest annual tuition ($403) and Dine College in Arizona is in second place with an annual tuition of $805.

Share or Like:
        
 
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme