Letter to the Editor

Growing Greener needs more public scrutiny

by Richard L. Steinberger

State Rep. Bud George (Centre Daily Times letters, May 17) made several specific points about the Growing Greener initiative: that it will rob the Recycling Fund, the Landfill Closure Account and the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund and will abolish the sewage treatment operating grants.

In defense of the Growing Greener proposal, state environmental Secretary James Seif (Centre Daily Times letters, June 4) coyly says that it will "redirect" $1.3 billion in state funding to worthy projects, but never states where the money will be redirected from. I'm left with the impression that Mr. Seif does not want to admit that the above mentioned funds will indeed be robbed to pay for new environmental projects for which he and Gov. Tom Ridge wish to take credit.

So instead of clearly informing the public of how the new Growing Greener projects will be funded, Mr. Seif says only that none of the above named programs would be harmed, and he expects the public to simply accept his word for that. Instead of clarifying the funding questions raised by Rep. George, Mr. Seif proceeds to attack him for not attending meetings.

I'd like Mr. Seif to explain, for example, how the recycling fund would not be harmed after having $125 million "redirected." And even if "only 23 recipients of the Sewage Plant Operating subsidies get over half the money in this program," as Mr. Seif claims, I'd like him to explain why that justifies abolishing the grants. How will even those 23 recipients, and the recipients of the other 50 percent of the money, suddenly make up that funding'?

Rep. George gets my thanks for keeping the public informed of the true nature of environmental funding methods of the Ridge administration. Mr. Seif gets my scorn for playing the public for a patsy. Perhaps the goals of the Growing Greener initiative are laudable, but it's clear we cannot trust the Ridge administration and Department of Environmental Protection to implement them without wrecking current working and effective environmental programs.

<<<<END>>>>

return