The article reports the overarching assessment to be:
There are enough jobs to maintain employment at near-record levels. Yet meager pay raises mean people's spending power has been appreciably diminished by higher-than-normal inflation.
Specifically:
- "Manufacturing workers in the Valley, for example, earned on average $641 a week in October, which was $6.31 — or 1 percent — more than they did a year earlier, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry reported last month."
- "In the third quarter of this year, the inflation rate dropped to 4.7 percent which, though an improvement, was still more than twice the national rate."
- "The education and health care sectors hit record highs, with a combined 61,600 jobs."
- "According to the Lehigh Valley Association of Realtors, the number of homes sold in the Valley fell 14 percent, to 674 units, in October — the fifth monthly year-over-year decline in a row."
6 comments:
one thing I have yet to see, or maybe have missed, on this blog is the subject of impact fees-pertinent to this mcall article being that the final statements are that new home values rose 12% in the past year. Richard Grucela, our areas state representative, has said that every new home built represents a significant loss to our schools-why do we allow developers to continue to add to our schools overcrowding without demanding at least an impact fee? Would like feedback as I know little about it but think it seems advantageous, and certainly applicable, to NASD's dilemma---
If you consider that the cost to educate a child in next year's proposed budget is $13,000 per student, a new home with two children will cost $26,000 to educate - obviously the homeowner is not paying that much in taxes.
Impact fees help, but aren't a solution. They are a one time fee. However, Rep. Grucela did have a bill 2550 that was discussed and addressed. I took exception with some aspects and Rep. Grucela was kind enough to not only respond, but acknowledge that he put in the bill what he felt was needed to get the legislation approved (my summary not his words).
You can see the links to these articles here:
http://del.icio.us/NewsOverCoffee/Grucela
I'd take an impact fee to help offset the costs to expand facilities, but we're a bit late in doing so and if spending isn't checked the fees will do little.
Thanks for taking the time to visit and post your comments - let me know what you think about Rep. Grucela's proposal and its potential.
Impact fees are an okay idea, but as stated here, they are a one time hit that has little impact on offsetting the increase costs to our schools.
What needs to happen is to establish a quid pro quo policy with developer. We are seeing this start to happen where the developers are building community centers for some of the surrounding townships.
In this case, in order for a developer to get permission to build yet another large community, they have to agree to either fund or actually build new school facilities.
Look at the proposal for developing the race track location. This will net the developer a large paycheck, but will only give us a larger tax bill to support the new development. Why should they walk away with such a large profit, but we end up with the debt so to speak?
I have posted this before and have been told it can't be done. Maybe this is the type of legislation that Mr. Grucela needs to introduce at the state level to enable this.
I have personally seen it done in other locations. It works. Yes, the new home owner gets some of that cost baked into their purchase price, but spread that across a large number of homes and it eases the impact.
I am a realist in that we will see very little (if any) money from the gambling industry, so we will have to find other ways to raise revenues for our local districts and it is time we start thinking out of the box.
NOC:
Thx for the fyi reg the impact fee topic---went to the link and saw the bill and grucels response-Ipersonally didn't see much problem with the exemptions deductions or naming rights issues---but do you know what happened to the bill in senate? Thx again
Best guess is it died, but I'll contact Rep. Grucela to follow up.
Regarding the exemptions, my point and I was a bit hard at the time, was that they aren't related in any way, shape or form to the schools. They're bones to developers and industries whose money determines which way the vote will go.
If I put brick on my home the school district gets less money. Why? Less bedrooms I could understand, but brick vs. siding or asphalt vs. cement driveway?
Unfortunately, and I know why it was done, this bill is perfect example of how a good idea gets watered down and drowned by money and politics.
Received a note back from Rep. Grucela.
He indicated that the Bill died at the end of the last session (Nov. 30), however, he will be reintroducing it at the start of the next session.
He also stated that if the Democrats hold the majority, there will be an excellent chance of having it voted out of committee and taken to the house floor for a vote.
Thanks for the question and thanks to Rep. Grucela for the quick response.
Post a Comment