Over time if a community takes on more liabilities associated with growth decisions than new revenue generated by build out, they eventually are left with a cash shortfall. Simple accounting 101.

When this happens there is a generic playbook that typically presents elected officials with three bad choices. 1.) Raise taxes 2.) Take on (more?) debt or 3.) Go hat in hand to the State/Feds for pass-through money or a bailout. None of these are options are attractive. But more important none are long-term sustainable. 

This is at the center of a conversation we’re having tonight at a joint BOC & Planning Commission meeting related to choices we have about taking on long-term liabilities when certain types of new development plans are put before us. There are levers we can push and pull and in doing that we need to be obsessive about accounting for revenues, expenses, assets, and long-term liabilities (do the math). Do we continue to subsidize negative transactions or do we simply stop?

The More We Grow, the Poorer We Become

We can buck trends and become fiscally resilient with sustainably low taxes and high quality of life for the long run. We just have to think differently. In PA 40% of local communities are distressed in some fashion. Shocking percentage. This means the playbook needs to be throw in the garbage can. That’s the position I’m arguing tonight.

The joint BOC & Planning Commission meeting is tonight 7pm in meeting Rm. A.