(1) BINDING REFERENDUM:

Any major project that burdens a community for anything other than essential services (health, welfare, life and death) where five percent of the registered voters have petitioned to have the approval of the project placed on the ballot would then require the approval for the expenditure by using binding referendum.   We know that they say we can’t do binding referendum so that is what needs changed.  We need County Code and general state laws changed to allow something that is similar to what Home Rule allows.  Home Rule also allows for the RECALL of a public official which also could be added.

(2) RIGHT TO KNOW:

The Sunshine Law needs to be amended to require anyone who accepts public funds in any form (public officials, organizations, authorities, …) to be required to notify property owners of any public or private meetings that is going to occur, where their property is going to be discussed.  If it is a closed meeting they should be given a summary of that meeting.  Public officials should not be allowed to conspire with other governmental departments / agencies, organizations, corporations, companies or people to secretly plan how to undermine a property owner’s use of their land or to plot as to how they can catch the owner(s) off guard so they can force the owner(s) into something that they do not want.  It is not right that we pay their salaries through our taxes so that they then can use that position to behind closed doors conspire to take away from us our legally owned property.  Example, PA Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) has by their own words a High priority Greenway project to acquire land along the Susquehanna River between Maryland and Harrisburg and beyond.  We believe that DCNR should be required to inform the owners of those lands that they are on their target list and keep them informed as to the actions they are taking, even if by doing so will make their project harder to achieve.  A government official’s desires should not override the land owner’s rights.

(3) CHECK and BALANCES:

No unelected person or group should be allowed to use Eminent Domain.  Example, Airport Authority, Port Authority, Penn Dot or most any group that has the name authority in it.  Any group that does not answer to the people directly, should they have a legitimate need to use eminent domain, should be required to present that need to the appropriate elected body for them to utilize the powers of Eminent Domain.  We see this as being a check and balance similar to the police needing to request a search warrant from a judge.   Using these Authorities to shield the elected from unpopular projects has to stop.  We no longer want our elected officials to say that they don’t have control over what these groups do, because they should.   We elect them and they should ultimately be held accountable to the voters.   Making this change will allow voters to show their distain by removing those people that would use these powers unwisely and there by allowing us to stop these abuses.

(4) NO PROFITEERING:

Citizens who sit on boards of organizations that create public projects that are funded in whole or part by public funds should by law be prohibited from profiting from the creation of those projects.  Case in point, there are board members of Lancaster - York Heritage Region who own companies which were given contracts for the projects they created, so question is, was the project made for the public’s best interest or simply to enhance someone’s cash flow.  If a person truly wants to serve their community then they should know that part of that service is in forgoing, in anyway, the potential of profiting from their involvement.  If they do want to profit, then they should not set on these boards simply so they can engineer the projects to best position their companies for any bidding that may occur by using their insider information and influence. 

(5) NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST: 

This should be quite self-evident.  Any elected official that has any association to any organization or company officially (on board, owns stock …) or unofficially (friends of CEO …) by law can not use their official powers given to them by the electorate to benefit those organizations or companies in anyway.  That established association shows that that person has a bias in their favor and there for has a potential for a conflict of interest that is not in the best interest of the people they represent.  This must be avoided at all cost.    This should be so stringent that if say a County Commissioner was on the board of Directors of the Red Cross, they would not even be able to recommend Red Cross for recognition as the charity of the month or vote on the proposition should it come up for a vote.

(6) GUARANTEED DUE PROCESS: 

Fighting Eminent Domain is a very costly battle.  There you are just living your life peacefully on your property, then all of a sudden at no fault of yours you are served with Eminent Domain papers threatening to take what you have away.  All of a sudden you now have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to try and save it.  If you are of moderate to low income it becomes almost impossible to come up with that much money which puts you at their mercy which most of time is what they are counting on.  We believe to correct this there should be a law requiring the body issuing the Eminent Domain proceeding to be required to provide the effected owner(s) legal counsel at no cost or very low cost.   This would be similar to a court appointed attorney.  The owner can then choose to use the appointed attorney to assist them in filing all legal papers and court appearances or they can elect to provide their own.  No person should lose their property just because they do not have more money than the people threading them with Eminent Domain.  They should not have to settle for pennies just because they can not afford to take it to trial where justice can be done.