Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

What to pay for

August 22, 2013

Investment in the airport is vital the area. I agree with, the commissioners application for a $3 million state grant request....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Aug-22-13 2:56 AM

Am not sure if this applies here, but the money is requested because it CAN be requested. Figure out what to spend it on later...

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Aug-22-13 4:14 AM

Sideliner, you are exactly right and in the federal government it's called "use it or lose it" money. And that policy which has been around forever results in massive wasteful spending. I saw it first hand in the military and it happens throughout all government.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Aug-22-13 6:06 AM

First of all, the author sounds as pessimistic as Shaman.

"Only if the commissioners request an additional state grant for a new Brandon Park pool, Memorial Park pool, money for 30 more firefighters for the city, 30 more police officers for the city."

I do think we need more police officers and firemen. The pools, it's never going to happen no matter how many complain about it, they're going to stay closed.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Aug-22-13 6:22 AM

Matching funds, free federal government money. One of the tools that politicians use to bring money back home, award contracts to companies, and then receive political contributions back to perpetuate their stay in government. That is one of the reasons the national debt is where it is.

In this case, the existing terminal is functional and does it's job well.

What if all of us tore down our home every 50 years to replace it with a new one? Sometimes it is better to remodel or add a room.

It will be interesting to follow the process of who gets the contracts.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Aug-22-13 8:13 AM

Instead of 3 million for a new terminal, how about spending it on a new access road for the one we have?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Aug-22-13 8:55 AM

There has been plans to improve the airport for years, money has always been the problem implementing them.

The argument for is that it will attract more. More businesses, more travellers, more carriers.

The argument against, It won't.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Aug-22-13 2:24 PM

Chuck, You've hit it right on the head. It's a gamble, and it's being made with our money. The discussion should be, will it return the three million or not. If history is any indication, it will not. If it were part of a solid strategy of economic growth it might work, but it's not.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Aug-22-13 8:26 PM

CMReeder, You are correct. No businesses are going to buy a bunch of plane tickets to send their employees to look at the pretty terminal in Montoursville.

The only business that might increase is if a new, aesthetically pleasing restaurant there. Even then, it might do better if it was located next to Loyalsock Creek, above the flood waters.

Again look to who will be awarded contracts.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 8 of 8 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web