Aaron Bernstine: Pa. budget proposal hurts local environmental projects, bipartisan consensus | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Aaron Bernstine: Pa. budget proposal hurts local environmental projects, bipartisan consensus

815991_web1_Outdoors_1

One of the things that gets forgotten in Harrisburg is how powerful it can be to work across the aisle to move Pennsylvania forward. While bipartisan agreement is rare right now, one of the few programs my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support are environmental funds that drive tax dollars back to local municipalities and out of Harrisburg.

Even Gov. Tom Wolf campaigned on supporting government that works; yet last month, the governor proposed a $78 million cut to environmental funds that have supported thousands of projects across Western Pennsylvania.

The Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund (Keystone) and the Environmental Stewardship Fund (ESF) were established by bipartisan consensus in the 1990s to support local projects that reinvest in our communities, heal environmental damage of the past and preserve our environment for generations to come.

The Keystone Fund and ESF owe their success and longevity to their direct support of community-driven projects. The dedicated funds empower local people and the private sector to address problems at their source, not from Harrisburg. Few programs provide benefits across the state and across the aisle the way the Keystone Fund does for community reinvestment. That program alone has leveraged more than $1 billion in public/private partnerships to complete nearly 5,000 projects.

Keystone and ESF come nowhere near to meeting present demand. Roughly half of all project investment proposals have to be turned away. In the case of Keystone Fund investments, 46 percent of projects are already rejected for lack of sufficient state funds.

The governor’s proposal suggests taking Keystone Fund and ESF money committed to community projects — money that is presently secured in state accounts until the communities apply for reimbursement for their project expenses. (Capital projects, by their nature, can take a few years to complete.) The notion is that this won’t hurt community projects, because the state can reimburse them with money out of future state budgets.

This doesn’t work and here’s why: If the state were to redirect any of this committed money into other operations, the state would in fact be un-committing to local projects. Under future budgets, the state could recommit funds to those projects, but, in the meantime, communities would be required to foot the bills with hope, but no guarantee, that the state will come through with money in the end.

This is a huge risk to put on local people. But if Harrisburg decides communities must take on the risk for these projects, the money to be freed of commitment should at least be redirected to clearing the large backlog of unfunded and underfunded Keystone and ESF projects.

The governor’s budget proposal threatens to upend decades of bipartisan consensus on the Keystone Fund and ESF goals of investing in projects that deliver today and will continue delivering for future generations. I implore the governor to rethink his administration’s irresponsible strategy. I know I will be working with my colleagues in the General Assembly to ensure these key funds stay in our local areas, not in Harrisburg.

Aaron Bernstine, a Republican, represents Pennsylvania's 10th District, which includes Beaver, Butler and Lawrence counties.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.