revenue sharing with counties with state land

On the surface it makes sense, but then they give the argument against it barely any detail.

"Jen Quinn, the organization’s legislative and political director, told Spotlight PA in an email that the bill would challenge a state Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed that the Environmental Rights Amendment creates a public trust and ruled that revenue generated from public natural resources must be used for conservation and preservation.

The legislation could pose a risk to the state’s outdoor recreation economy and jobs within the industry, she said."

Some more detail on these risks would have been great. Makes the article seem more of a propaganda piece than journalism.
 
Seems like it would be detrimental for our state parks to take 33% of the DCNR’s budget and give it to local politicians who would spend it on anything and everything not related to natural resources.
 
I can see why those who don't share our enthusiasm for the outdoors would like this. And I'm guessing that much of this tax-exempt land may ( I'm totally guessing here) be in rural areas where lots of land and fewer taxpayers, woudl allow them to keep up with roads, bridges and services that allow us to even be able to get to and use these un-taxed lands we recreate upon. I see it as more of a user fee. Not saying I agree with it but I can see that being a need by some. Perhaps if the legislation dedicated the redirected to taxes to only specific uses. Those uses could then be debated given public input before voting on it, if it were to get that far.
 
Would this increase the pressure on extraction on these lands? Seems like many are already reporting more logging recently and of course pressure for more fracking and mining. How much more money would they get compared to the PILOTs they already receive? As Tom suggested maybe some parameters on how the money would be spent. If it’s fixing failing infrastructure like sewage that could be good. New infrastructure could also pave the way for more commercial and residential development.
Just to clarify residential and commercial development would be a huge negative in my mind if funds resulted in this.
 
Last edited:
The other thing that is silly about the road funding is the Liquid Fuels Fund already invests hundreds of millions into roadways not owned by PennDOT.

I would rather see bills related to transportation/infrastructure funding in PA overall, than another robbing Peter to pay Paul type situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRB
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages

Share this page

Back
Top