|
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
|
State Rep. Jesse White |
|
TO: Editor, PA Focus
FROM: State Rep. Jesse White, D-Washington/Allegheny/Beaver
RE: Local share of gambling revenues
Local Share and Share Alike
I just recently finished the final public meeting on ways to improve the Washington County Local Share Funding from the Meadows Casino. The meetings, which were held throughout the county, provided some very interesting insight in to how people view the various levels of government and what their responsibilities should be.
There were some people who believed that the money should simply be divided on a per-capita basis and given directly to the townships and boroughs to spend. The basis for this argument was that local government knows how to spend the money better than state or county government. If that theory holds true, why not just bypass the last level of government and give the money directly to the people themselves?
If I am to believe that a township supervisor knows how to spend the money better than a state representative or a county commissioner, wouldn’t it stand to reason that an individual person would know how to spend it better than a township supervisor or a borough councilman? The problem with such thinking is that by the time the $8 million was divided among the people, it would only amount to about $38 per person.
And while $38 is nothing to sneeze at, where is the long-term benefit for our communities? We run the risk of taking that money and cutting it into pieces so small that no one will ever be able to see it. Wouldn’t it be better spent to help bring water and sewer service into our communities at a price that is actually affordable for real people? Wouldn’t it be better spent on creating jobs that pay a living wage and will keep our children and grandchildren in Washington County for the next generation? It may be easier to divide up that money, but would it really be better?
Another major problem with a per-capita breakdown in which the money goes to the municipality is that under such a formula, larger communities will always get more money while smaller, rural communities will be stuck with a smaller amount. How is such a formula fair to small boroughs that are land-locked and will likely never grow in population? How is that fair to small, developing rural townships that need money for infrastructure and emergency services? Under such a formula, the most money would go to Peters Township, which is without question the most affluent municipality in Washington County. I just don’t see how such a formula benefits our small townships and boroughs.
Perhaps the most obvious conclusion I have taken away from these meetings is a very simple one. Almost across the board, people want a formula that benefits their own needs and interests, and they really aren’t interested in anything else. And therein lies the problem; too many people are taking a self-serving approach to this problem instead of looking at the long-term benefit of the entire county. I suppose it’s just human nature, but that doesn’t mean that we should just throw in the towel and start handing out money to make people happy.
###