The only justification when the drink tax was instituted was to give the County a way to pay for their share of transit system expenses. Period.
Roads may be "transit-related" but they are not "transit systems." The drink tax was not instituted to pay for road repairs.
County Solicitor Mike Wojcik argued that if the Legislature meant the Port Authority specifically, it would have said so, and bridges and roads can be defined as transit-related.Laws in this state stay on the books for decades longer than they should (Johnstown Flood Tax for example) and if Harrisburg could envision a time when this Pennsylvania county might have more than one "transit system", or god-forbid change the name of their "transit system", then god bless them.
The drink tax was not instituted to add money to the county's fund balance, unlike what Amy Griser wishes.
The drink tax was not instituted so that the county would never again have to raise property taxes, unlike what Rich Fitzgerald is dreaming of.
County budget director Amy Griser testified that a $21 million hole in the budget would wipe out the county's fund balance and make it more difficult and costly for it to borrow money.
Council President Rich Fitzgerald, a Democrat, said that if Mr. McCullough and his allies win the suit, it would amount to a "straitjacket" on county spending and force a property tax hike to fund crucial infrastructure improvements.Poor planning is no excuse to break the law and take advantage of taxpayers. Please, Judge Judy, don't let the whiners in the county rig the lottery. I want smart cards.