Matthew Mitchell wrote:Suburban Station wrote:I'd magine it IS cheaper and, perhaps, supports [the county commissioners'] sprawl agenda better I don't know.
I trust that was shorthand for 'anti-sprawl' agenda. From what I've seen, and the backgrounds of some of the commissioners, they're not pro-sprawl.
no, not what I meant at all. there are a lot of things to like about chesco, but anti-sprawl they are not. perhaps ground zero for sprawl in PA, and the service they are pushing is merely meant to serve that...whatever their own personal justifications are, I don't know, but that's the end result. meanwhile, older, revitalized towns are left behind.
we don't need a carbon tax to get to WC. that's a bit extremist. anyone hear of a proposal where increased environmental taxes are offset by lower income taxes? no? that's right, they just want more of your money and use environmentalist pawns to push for more revenue.