Part of my opposition to the Hamilton Crossings TIF was a belief the township could attract desired development along the Hamilton Corridor without taxpayer subsides.

The majority of Lehigh County Commissioners took a same tact. In hind-site they were correct. Because of that decision County taxpayers will benefit from 100% of the new incremental revenue.

This general criteria is called applying the ‘but for’ test. Meaning, but for a subsidy will a community get desired economic development. In the case of Hamilton Crossings, the answer was yes. Therefore the subsidy un-necessary.

What about applying the ‘but for’ test to farmland preservation?:

With farmland preservation we are dealing with another form of infrastructure. Industrial infrastructure. A type that supports a $17 million dollar economic activity for the Lehigh Valley annually. At that figure we are just scratching the surface. Soil in Western Lehigh Valley is special. Regionally significant in fact. It is a natural resource. Lehigh’s farmland preservation program places the highest emphasis on soil quality.

Farmland is irreplaceable. Once gone, it’s gone. Cannot re-create it. We cannot re-build or manufacture it.

“But for” someway increasing the counties funding allocation there is no mathematical way we can hit the Lehigh Valley Planning Commissions established target of preserving 25% of our available land. This is an indisputable fact. ‘But for’ the funding increase we will lose the land. We will lose this economic driver.

Percy Dougherty and Tom Creighton’s municipal match program is a smart way to increase funding. It’s something I support 100%.

In a climate where we need figure out ways to stretch county dollars further and further this program does just that. This year in particular the increase can be further justified since this would be a re-allocation of Green Futures fund money to in large part what it was intended for. It should not be used elsewhere. Honor voters wishes and apply it to permanent preservation of an invaluable Lehigh County natural resource.

“But for” compensating landowners market value for farmland development rights, we will not hit the LVPCs goal of 25% preservation.