|
||||||||||
|
Bryan Oberle RE: Growing Greener funding Dear Bryan: I write today in response to Mike Bleech's column of 12 March 2005, entitled, "Have state Republicans forgotten sportsmen's needs?" The article would have us believe that state Republicans are to blame for the unmet infrastructure needs of the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Mr. Bleech asks, "Has the state's Republican Party forgotten who their friends are?" But to suggest that Republicans are "sticking it" to the sportsmen of this state simply belies the facts. The Growing Greener program is a 13-year, $1.24 billion environmental spending program enacted under the leadership of Republican Governor Tom Ridge, and expanded by his successor, Republican Governor Mark Schweiker. All of us, sportsmen and non-sportsmen alike, benefit from this worthy program, and will continue to do so well into the future. Despite a high level of funding already in place, Governor Rendell is proposing an additional $800 million in spending on Growing Greener, which he intends pay for with the sale of state bonds. These bonds, of course, will be paid-off with taxpayer money, derived from the imposition of $150 million in new annual taxes on households and businesses. While many Republicans, including myself, are very concerned about meeting the infrastructure needs of the two Commissions, we question the prudence and necessity of borrowing so much more to spend on current and future needs which already have a dedicated funding source – currently $88 million annually for the next 7 years. I have personally met with and discussed these needs with representatives of the PGC and PF&BC. For the record, I fully support using a portion of Growing Greener funding to address these infrastructure needs. However, there are other environmental priorities deserving of our attention as well. The issue is not should we address the two Commission's infrastructure needs. The issue is how much do we allocate among competing interests, and who picks up the tab. The plan referenced in Mr. Bleech's column, Green PA, is a House Republican alternative to the Governor's original proposal, and there are many more ideas in the Senate on how to tackle this issue. Regardless of what it's called or who authors it, I believe the Republican Leadership and the Governor are sincerely committed to reaching an agreement which would authorize language to be placed on the spring ballot, asking voters if they endorse a certain level of new spending for Growing Greener in order to meet additional needs. As such, I welcome an open and honest debate on how to appropriately spend state funding for Growing Greener, but believe such a discussion should occur in the absence of unsubstantiated and accusatory rhetoric. In addition, I would encourage your readers to look more closely at the priorities of the PGC and PF&BC once they do receive more funds. Just where do the various hatcheries and dams and gamelands in our area rank on their internal lists once funding is secured? I am acutely aware of the needs at the Fairview hatchery, as it was the impetus for the steelhead study I pushed for last year. Pressing for "more money" is one thing; getting that money spent locally is another altogether. Since it is our tax dollars that will pay for any amount of bond financing (sportsmen and non-sportsmen alike), I would hope we all keep an eye on such developments. Sincerely, Jane M. Earll |
|||||||||
|
Privacy
Policy
|
||||||||||
