With no sign of action at the federal level, a number of states have recently begun their own initiatives to finance health insurance for their citizens. Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts have created programs to expand health care coverage for the uninsured, while California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell have both asked their legislatures to take similar action. According to an article in the State College Center Daily Times (January 18, 2007), Rendell would fund his proposal (called "Prescription for Pennsylvania") with an increase to the state's $1.35-per-pack cigarette tax, a new tax on smokeless tobacco and cigars, a three percent payroll tax on employers who do not provide their employees with health insurance, and federal matching dollars.

According to a press release issued by Senator Dinniman's office, the panel will include:

• the deputy general counsel for the Pennsylvania Office of Health Care Reform (representing the Rendell administration)
• the president of Chester County Hospital
• a county resident who has no health insurance because his Social Security income makes him ineligible
• a third-generation local businessman
• a doctor of internal medicine and vice president of the Chester County Medical Society
• an official from Community Volunteers in Medicine, a nonprofit clinic that serves uninsured and underinsured residents from the West Chester area
• the chief operating officer for Independence Blue Cross

For further information, check out www.healthcare-now.org, federal proposal HR676 and Senator Dinniman's website.

Directions to the West Goshen Township Building: Go to the center of West Chester and turn east on Market Street (PA Route 3). After the sixth traffic light (Westtown Road), veer left onto Paoli Pike. Continue past the West Goshen Shopping Center, pass under the US Route 202 bypass, continue on past the entrance to US Route 202 north-bound and turn left at the next intersection, Five Points Road. The West Goshen Township Building is the first building on the left; there are two parking lots just beyond it, also on the left.

The proposal establishes a 60-foot height option in most of the town center, a 75-foot height option in the vicinity of the new County Justice Center and east of the town center, and a 90-foot height option in the vicinity of the Mosteller Parking garage, whose replacement has been the subject of discussion for several years.

By maintaining "height-option" zones, the PZBID proposal would require developers who wish to exceed the 45-foot limit to obtain special approval from Borough Council. That gives Council the right to require landscaping, influence the design of the facade, and to insist on other design features intended to make the building conform to the surrounding neighborhood.

Discussion of the PZBID proposal will take place at a special public meeting of Borough Council in the not-to-distant future. WCJIM will post the date and details as soon as they become available.

The first was former Mayor Clifford DeBaptiste, who heard Council vote to place approval of the final plans for an extensive enlargement of his funeral home on the consent agenda for Wednesday night (Feb. 21). The new structure will cover most of the block bounded by E. Miner Street, E. Market Street, S. Worthington Street and S. Poplar Street. Actually, Council considered that item after a brief discussion about the land development plan and storm water management agreement for Phase I of Habitat for Humanity's proposal to build fifteen houses. No one appeared to speak for Habitat for Humanity, most likely because this item has already been reviewed at great length, and Council added it to the consent agenda.

Next up was Ryan Witmore of D. L. Howell and Associates, who spoke for Robert Bockius & Dave Strickler, owners of Arthur E. Mitchell, Inc., makers of commercial display cases. They have been gradually converting the Mitchell property, which is located in the 200-block of Mechanics Alley, into modern housing located between Walnut, Barnard, Union and Matlack Streets. Their newest project will replace the factory building with five condominiums plus the necessary parking. That item also went on the consent agenda.

Eli Kahn, builder of the houses facing the northwest side of Marshall Square Park and the five story building at 121 N. Walnut Street (among other projects), spoke on behalf of his proposal to develop the Agway lot on the southwest corner of Chestnut and Matlack streets. The property, which was once the site of freight and passenger stations owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad, was used most recently by Agway to sell hardware and store LPG (propane) tanks, but it has been vacant for several years. Kahn wants to construct a three-story, 66,000 square-foot building on the nearly 43,000 square-foot parcel. It will provide 87 parking spaces on the first floor (plus four parking spaces outside of the building), and two floors of office space accessed by an elevator and stairwells. Like his building at Walnut and Chestnut Streets, the main pedestrian entrance will be on the northwest corner of the building, but unlike the first building, it will not exceed the "by-right" height limit of 45 feet. Council added this item, which only called for preliminary approval, to the consent agenda.

Next came Tony Stancato, co-owner of the Greentree Building on the northeast corner of High and Gay Streets, the building that houses Iron Hill Brewery, and other properties throughout borough and surrounding townships. He asked for approval "in concept" of an easement (i.e. the right to use someone else's property) for a pedestrian walkway through the Borough's parking lot located between Hannum, New and Gay Streets west of St. Agnes Church. His plan is to develop the warehouse that was once home to the Spaz Beverage Company (and currently used by Partner's Furniture) into a farmer's market. After extensive discussion and questions, Council added this item to the consent agenda.

After some other business, Eli Kahn spoke once again to ask permission to experiment with charging parking fees on the top deck of the two-story parking garage located next to his building at 121 N. Walnut Street (behind Doc Magrogan's Oyster House). He made the request because of vandalism that occurs on the lot on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, and he wants to experiment with paid parking to see if that deters the riff-raff. He needs permission from Council because the garage is located on land that is owned by the Borough, so Council is effectively his "landlord." The experiment will be conducted by Medpark, who already operated paid parking at the Wachovia lot and the Chester County Hospital, and will last for four to six weeks. Council added this to their consent agenda.

The last development project on the agenda was the proposal by West Chester University to construct a parking garage on the southwest corner of New and Nields Streets. Tuesday night's decision was only one of many that Council will make during the course of the project -- it concerned payments for "geotechnical services" and surveying work. They, too, went on the consent agenda.

In all, of the thirty-six items on the agenda, all but two went on to the consent agenda. One was the request to temporarily remove two parking spaces in front of Doc Magrogan's Oyster House so they can add outdoor seating during the summer months. The other was the results of the trash and recycling program for 2006, which requires no action by Council.

The first question asked how someone can know what the norms for behavior are in a neighborhood, which was defined to include not only off-campus areas, but also residence halls and any place where people live in close contact. The group began by considering the "written rules" -- i.e. local laws -- but agreed that there are other, unwritten rules, such as the hour at which it is acceptable to operate a lawnmower or how long to wait before shoveling snow from sidewalks. To learn about the unwritten rules, the panel and members of the audience suggested that newcomers ask the people moving out of their residence, watch what the other neighbors do, and ask for suggestions from old-timers in the neighborhood. But the group also head about the limis to those methods, as one student explained that at her on-campus apartment complex, there are no "old-timers" to ask, while another student said that in his neighborhood (S. Walnut Street), the old-timers treat him like he doesn't exist, apparently because he looks like a student. Both also described how the people in neighborhoods that consist largely of newcomers tend to keep to themselves, and the only time that they meet their neighbors -- students and non-students alike -- is either by accident in the parking lot, or else when people congregate near the entrance to smoke cigarettes.

Several residents explained that it requires an effort to meet new student neighbors every year, especially if they don't make themselves readily available. One person observed that "snow helps" because it gives all of the neighbors a reason to go outside and work on something together. Another resident added that part of the problem is that residents have to give newcomers the benefit of the doubt every year, even when experience tells them that there will probably be a problem. That means they have to resist the urge to tell newcomers about the "rules" before they've done something wrong, let the first infraction slide when it occurs, and then agonize over when and how to speak up if there are further infractions.

That led to the third question which asked how to respond to a neighbor who violates neighborhood norms. Members of the panel and audience, which included both students and University administrators all agreed that this was a tough question. Two residents said that because they are large males, they have no fear about talking to strangers, but added that the best time to do that is usually not when awakened in the middle of the night. One said that he always waits until the following afternoon after everyone has sobered up, calmed down and gotten some sleep. One student asked if residents call the police to get people in trouble or simply to break up parties, the answer from the residents was unanimous -- to break up parties and get some sleep. Two of the residents added that they don't want to get anyone in trouble, they just want everyone to mind their own business, but then they discussed the fear of retribution. One resident described how his car window was broken, and all added that sometimes, it seems like asking the police to handle things is the best way to avoid the retribution.

One student from the audience described her own experience with the "neighbor from hell" -- a resident who spent the entire year trying to get her and her roommates in trouble. Panel members responded that if that was the case, then it was wrong, but that pointed out that sometimes neighbors are responding to the behavior of people who previously lived in the rental unit. That brought up the idea that until people get to know each other as individuals, they react to each other as stereotypes. As an example, WCJIM explained that when he was young he could greet and expect to be greeted by just about anybody he met on the street, but as he has aged, many times his greetings go unanswered, in part because he looks "big and scary" to some people, such as single women walking alone. In other words, people react to him, not because of things he does or has done, but because he looks like the kind of people they associate with bad behavior. He concluded that everyone, both students and residents, should try to behave in ways that bring credit to whichever group they appear to represent.

Students also said that the policy of issuing police cititions to everyone on a lease is not always fair, because sometimes only one or two roommates are responsible for creating disturbances. One pointed out that with rents so high, students are forced to have roommates and sometimes they don't feel like they can tell their roommates how to behave. One of the residents pointed out that a roommate has greater leverage than a neighbor, and added then when he hosted a large party at his house, he chose not to invite some acquaintances because he couldn't be certain that they would not disturb his neighbors.

Before the 90-minute session ended, all seven panel members plus nearly half of the audience offered their thoughts on these questions. In closing, WCJIM said that he doubted that one panel session would fix anything, but thanked everyone for joining in a productive conversation and urged all of them to have the same conversation with other people.

NOTE: Three days later, the WCU Quad ran a positive article about the discussion, and a large number of students attended that evening's Town Gown Council meeting. Everyone is invited to attend the next Town Gown Council meeting on Monday, April 9, at 7pm in Sykes Sudent Union, Ballroom C.

1958 was a turbulent time in West Chester. The winter was especially bad, with freezing temperatures that burst pipes followed by a March snowstorm that dropped 42 inches on the Borough, effectively shutting it down. In January, the National Bank of Chester County & Trust Company received Council's approval to demolish the former William Sharpless general store at 13 N. High Street for parking and a drive-up bank window. That sparked a five-month protest that saved the 1792 building, and led to the first calls for a historic commission. Also about this time, the West Chester State College began to discuss replacements for the military surplus Quonset huts used to house its student body -- enlarged by the GI Bill to include World War II veterans whose drinking habits caused problems in town. It was an auspicious time for Borough government to make major changes.

The ordinance specified "Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities" like hot and cold running water, a toilet and a bathtub or shower, a door to the outside, and places to put rubbish and garbage. It also spelled out the minimum standards for "Light, Ventilation and Heating" including windows that opened, light fixtures and outlets, and window screens. The ordinance also required buildings to be "reasonably weathertight, watertight and rodent proof." Section 12 described the "Responsibilities of Owners and Occupants" who were expected to keep public areas clean, place rubbish in special containers, keep rodents out of the garbage, install screens in the summer, exterminate insects and other pests, provide heat in the winter and keep all of the plumbing in good, sanitary working order.

In an effort to be thorough, the ordinance included some oddities, such as definitions that explained the difference between "basement" and "cellar." Both referred to the portion of a structure that was underground, but a basement had "less than half its clear floor-to-ceiling height below the average grade of the adjoining ground" while a cellar had more than half below ground. Similarly, "garbage" was defined as animal and vegetable waste created as a byproduct of cooking, while "rubbish" referred to "combustible and noncombustible waste materials, except garbage."

The ordinance required rental property owners to get borough permits for the first time. The price was low -- $2 in the first year for each dwelling unit on the premises and $1 for each subsequent year -- but the permit also specified how many people were allowed to live on the property, using a formula that required single bedrooms to contain at least seventy square feet of floor space, and double or triple rooms to provide at least fifty square feet per occupant.

The biggest innovation was the creation of a "Housing Official" to administer and enforce the Housing Ordinance, and to conduct housing inspections. The Borough was required to give at least fifteen days notice of inspections by certified letter, and to provide a three-member "Board of Appeals" -- appointed by Council -- to hear property owners' appeals of the housing official's decisions. The housing official was also empowered to create regulations that had to be approved by Borough Council, and to condemn residences if they lacked sufficient ventilation, lighting or sanitation; became damaged, decayed, dilapidated, insanitary, unsafe, or infested with vermin; or became dangerous to the health of the public or their occupants.

In April 1958, Council voted to hire a housing officer and in 1959, Frank Musselman took on the job. Over the next three years, he tracked down property owners to get them to buy permits, and then inspected the roughly 100 rental properties and rooming houses between one and three times. The records of those inspections are among the oldest in the files of the Department of Building, Housing & Codes Enforcment, which currently inspects more than 2,500 rental properties in the Borough of West Chester using the standards provided in Chapter 66 of the Borough Code, "Housing and Property Maintenance."

The focus of the controversy is the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, a state-run operation that provides money for Pennsylvania students who want to go to college. PHEAA was created by the state legislature in 1966 to operate a self-sustaining loan program and to distribute grants that rely (in large part) on taxpayer dollars. The loan program allows students who are Pennsylvania residents to borrow money at low-interest and use it to attend college or university anywhere in the country. The grant program gives "free money" (i.e. money that does not need to be repaid) to the same pool of students, but does not require them to repay it. They, too, may use it to go to college wherever they want -- even out-of-state.

The numbers are very large. Last year PHEAA employed 2,700 people in the state and served about 600,000 students. In 2003, the agency's director Richard E. Willey wrote to the Daily Local News that his agency was "the nation's third largest student loan servicer with $22 billion under management, the third-largest Stafford loan guarantor with $3.5 billion in annual volume and we recently exceeded $4 billion in assets owned -- surpassing Bank of America." By 2005 PHEAA's loan operation was the object of a $1 billion purchase offer from the parent company of "Sallie Mae," the nation's largest student loan supplier. Over the same period, PHEAA distributed grants averaging $2-3,000 to between 140,000 and 160,000 students each year. Using median figures, that equates to around $400 million dollars per year, derived in part from earnings from student loans, but mostly from taxpayer dollars.

Criticism took several forms. Using earnings from student loans to finance grants for other students amounted to a shift from one deserving group to another. Pumping state money into PHEAA grants, which could be spent anywhere in the country, instead of into the state's own System of Higher Education, which includes schools like West Chester University, resulted in subsidies to other states paid for by Pennsylvania taxpayers. [Disclaimer: WCJIM works for West Chester University.] PHEAA officials countered that they operate in a highly competitive business and that their earnings from student loans save the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars each year.

The criticism became louder during the summer of 2005 when, just over a month prior to the July 7 "midnight pay raise," PHEAA's board of directors spent more than $135,000 on a three-day retreat at the Nemacolin Woodlands Resort in Fayette County southeast of Pittsburgh. The Nemacolin resort was described in numerous news accounts as a four-star establishment that offered gourmet dining, a spa and a 36-hole golf course. The twenty-member board included sixteen legislators chosen by the House and Senate leadership (the other four are appointees of the governor). Ten of the sixteen legislators went along on the retreat, as did fifty-four other staff members, spouses and guests.

One of those legislators -- in fact, the chair of PHEAA's board -- was then-state representative, Elinor Z. Taylor of West Chester. She was appointed to the PHEAA board in 1977, her first year in the state legislature, and reappinted every term after that. Her colleagues elected her chair of the board in 1995, and in 2003, the board voted to rename PHEAA's building in Harrisburg after her. Thus, by 2005 she was the longest serving member of the board and the namesake for its headquarters. She was also the majority (Republican) party caucus chairwoman.

That was not enough to prevent the state House Appropriations Committee from ordering an audit of PHEAA. On August 2, the Daily Local News wrote "Taylor should be ashamed enough to lose her role within the agency. If she doesn't give it up voluntarily, fellow lawmakers should demand it." The following day, the Centre Daily Times of State College cited "published reports" that showed "since 2000, PHEAA has spent $884,687 on board trips to resorts in California's Napa Valley, Maryland's Eastern Shore, Virginia and West Virginia." A month later, PHEAA filed a lawsuit against reporters from The Associated Press, the Harrisburg Patriot-News and Pittsburgh's WTAE-TV after they filed requests for financial records including receipts from board retreats, employee bonuses, training payments and travel reimbursements. PHEAA's lawyers argued that the records were exempt from the Right-to-Know Law because most of the board consisted of state legislators appointed by their leadership, and that making the records public would hurt PHEAA's ability to compete in the student loan business. The following month (October), a bi-partisan group of state representatives introduced a bill to reform PHEAA.

Then, in what could only be considered horrendous timing, a raise went into effect for PHEAA's top administrators in January 2006. CEO Richard Willey received a raise of $16,368 making him the highest paid state official with a base salary of $290,007 plus a performance bonus of up to $174,004. Six PHEAA vice- presidents each got raises of $12,186 to $218,427 and, with bonuses of as much as half of their pay, stood to take home $327,641 that year. The outcry was predictable, and it was followed by other articles critical of PHEAA's 2006 budget request.

Although the criticism eventually died down, the lawsuit was still in play and in June, it began to generate headlines. First, PHEAA rejected a hearing examiner's non-binding decision that it should turn over the records. Then in August, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an article hat identified CEO Willey as "state government's highest-paid employee," and calculated that the bonuses received by PHEAA's top seven executives would have provided the maximum grant of $4,500 to 189 students. It also quoted Representative Taylor defending the PHEAA management.

The following month, she did so again in a Daily Local News article (September 13, 2006) that covered PHEAA's announcement that it would shift an additional $72.5 million from its loan profits to its grant program. The article also noted, however, that "the announcement comes less than a week after a report by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, in which Pennsylvania received a failing grade in making higher education affordable." The next day, according to the Centre Daily Times, PHEAA's lawyer (Bill Lamb of West Chester) tried to persuade the Commonwealth Court that the state's Right-to-Know Law was outdated and should not cover the PHEAA. He was ultimately unsuccessful and on November 15 the Court ruled by a 5-2 vote that PHEAA had violated the state Sunshine Law, and ordered it to turn over records and pay part of its opponents' legal fees. The judges did grant PHEAA the right to "redact" the records, meaning it could blot out names, social security numbers and certain other types of data. Nonetheless, PHEAA appealed the decision in December.

By this time, change was underway at PHEAA. Following Representative Taylor's retirement in 2006, Republican Rep. William Adolph Jr. of Delaware County was selected as PHEAA's new chairman. He acknowledged the need for "belt-tightening" at the agency [Philadelphia Inquirer, January 27, 2007], and the release of the Governor's 2007 budget proposal provided a brief opportunity for PHEAA leaders to remind taxpayers about the good their agency accomplishes. Within a few weeks, the public relations battle began to go against PHEAA again after the State Supreme Court upheld the Commonwealth court decision in late February. PHEAA began releasing documents on the 28th, and the first 13,470 pages (half of the total mandated by the court) included a receipt for $27,000 to rent more than 20 rooms for five days at the Renaissance Jaragua Hotel and Casino in the Dominican Republic in February 2003, and a second bill for another 29 rooms in June 2003. There were also charges for a Lear jet used by CEO Willey, a $128 tuxedo rental for another employee, and a dinner for fifteen people that cost $1,734.

PHEAA's rationalizations were not entirely without merit -- they focus on their role as a "big business" in a competitive world -- but coming after months of legal stonewalling and at a time when Pennsylvanians have adopted a "throw-out-the-bums" attitude towards state politics, they were not every satisfying. Although no one has suggesting that the agency be dissolved, PHEAA's officials will have a difficulty time facing its critics in the near future.