At the Lancaster City Council meeting of June 27, 2006, City Council President Julianne Dickson introduced without prior notice a resolution condemning the Lancaster County Commissioners. At the end of this meeting, she made a lengthy statement explaining this action.

Ms. Dickson's statement is filled with misquotes, exaggerations, and outright lies.

Here is Ms. Dickson's statement, followed by what her words REALLY mean.

President's Report-June 27, 2006

In January of 2006, I said:

"As the county seat , we are the hub of the wheel, not the hole in the doughnut of Lancaster County. Every task force, study group and think tank that met over the past ten years has reinforced this."

For the past 7 years, I have been part of those groups which have addressed the planning process, growth management and economic development. In every case, the fragmentation of governmental entities has been identified as a barrier to accomplishing desired goals. We must have a vision as a region, not as individual municipalities was the strategy stated in every document produced by these groups.

The recent suggestion by Commissioner Henderson that a tax on visitors to Lancaster County that is used to finance a regional project should be applied only within the Lancaster city limits is so far off the mark that we are compelled to response. While the commissioner stated that she wanted to hear public response, it is difficult to believe she wanted to hear from the urban core of Lancaster County. 250,000 of the 500,000 residents live in central Lancaster County, in the municipalities surrounding the city, yet the meetings were held in Ephrata and Landisville. To place a virtual "fence" around the city of Lancaster and identify the city as the only part of the county that would benefit from this project is contradictory to her previous statement that the project has changed significantly since it was proposed. She said that the area that derives "material benefit from the tax" - needs to be reexamined. Perhaps it should be as small as the City of Lancaster, she said. It is completely unreasonable to say the project has changed so much - it is too big, but now only the city will benefit from it.

We can not allow these sound bites of hers continue to be the source of information that shapes public opinion. It is much like our national leader saying over and over again that Iraq was responsible for the 9-11 attack and they have WMDs. Say it often enough and people will believe it.

Repeating over and over again that county taxpayers will be harmed by this project does not make it true.

It is absolutely appropriate for people to disagree about the merits of the hotel/convention center project, but what is not appropriate is for the elected leaders of Lancaster County to distort and misrepresent the facts. Their actions undermine our efforts to collaborate with our neighbors on this regional initiative that is of critical importance to economic development in the county. Documents from groups like LancasterProspers, the Hourglass Foundation and LIMC Comp plan provide a road map for the future and came about through many hours of public input.

We have a responsibility to make our leaders accountable and make certain that they utilize these resources available to them when making decisions that impact the future of our region.

I also said in January, 2006:

"This governing body will make it clear to our county commissioners and our state and congressional representatives that they have an obligation to listen to and work in concert with us to make all of Lancaster County the best possible place to live and work."

I thank the council for their support of this resolution and look forward to meaningful dialogue about the issues we address as elected officials.

What is Ms. Dickson REALLY saying?

For the past 7 years, I have been part of those groups which have addressed the planning process, growth management and economic development. In every case, the fragmentation of governmental entities has been identified as a barrier to accomplishing desired goals. We must have a vision as a region, not as individual municipalities was the strategy stated in every document produced by these groups. And what does Ms. Dickson expect to accomplish with this statement? Does she expect the rest of Lancaster County to follow her dictates? Ms. Dickson has repeatedly been unwilling to discuss the undue risk this plan places on Lancaster City taxpayers, who are her own constituents; in fact, her own actions have contributed to this risk. At least Commissioner Henderson is willing to do something to help protect Lancaster City taxpayers, which Ms. Dickson seems unwilling to do.

While the commissioner stated that she wanted to hear public response, it is difficult to believe she wanted to hear from the urban core of Lancaster County. 250,000 of the 500,000 residents live in central Lancaster County, in the municipalities surrounding the city, yet the meetings were held in Ephrata and Landisville. Ms. Dickson seems to have no trouble with the LCCCA holding all of their meetings in downtown Lancaster. Some of the LCCCA meetings are even held at 7:00 AM on a weekday, which is extremely inconvenient for anyone who must work for a living. Yet Ms. Dickson is claiming the County Commissioners' attempt to involve the rest of Lancaster County taxpayers was to avoid hearing from central Lancaster County residents. Meetings like the one held at the Farm and Home Center in early January 2006 prove the outcome would have been no different, no matter where the meetings were held. Perhaps Ms. Dickson doesn't want to hear from concerned County residents?

To place a virtual "fence" around the city of Lancaster and identify the city as the only part of the county that would benefit from this project is contradictory to her previous statement that the project has changed significantly since it was proposed. She said that the area that derives "material benefit from the tax" – needs to be reexamined. Perhaps it should be as small as the City of Lancaster, she said. It is completely unreasonable to say the project has changed so much – it is too big, but now only the city will benefit from it. There are two unrelated issues in this statement. One, Molly Henderson is being quoted out of context; she was trying to make a point when she stated the part of the county that benefits from the tax could be as small as the City, or as large as the entire County. There can be no doubt that hotels in places like Quarryville, Columbia, Elizabethtown, Manheim, New Holland, Denver, and Ephrata will in no way benefit from this project. To say that they do is an ever greater exaggeration than saying only the City will benefit. The only potential benefit would be an area of several miles surrounding Lancaster City.

Two, the project HAS "changed so much", to the point that County taxpayers carry a MUCH greater potential liability than they did in late 2003. At the same time, the risk that has been placed on Lancaster City taxpayers could total more than $200 a year for the average homeowner.