Baldwin Borough mayoral candidates give views about removing streetlights
Baldwin Borough councilmen and mayoral candidates David Depretis and Edward Moeller share their thoughts on the municipality's removal of 30 percent of its streetlights.
Question: What is your stance on the elimination of nearly 30 percent of the borough's streetlights?
Depretis: I understand that for some giving up the street light in front of their home was difficult. You never want to give up anything or have anything taken away.
That being said, being fiscally responsible is another issue. The borough will save $60,000 to $70,000 per year by removing lights that were not considered a safety hazard. These street lights were not near a fire hydrant, on a sharp bend or at an intersection.
I voted to remove the lights based on the recommendation of the police department, safety not being an issue.
We are always looking to be responsible with taxpayers dollars. We do not want to raise taxes. This was something we could do; turn off some lights that would not detrimentally affect residents. Do some miss the light outside their home, I am sure they do. I do, the street light across from my home was removed. Did I need that light? No, it was something I was accustomed to.
Moeller: There were numerous studies done by our police department with the recommendation that certain streetlights could be eliminated without affecting the safety of our residents and also helping to save a significant amount of money.
Several public meetings were held with very little opposition to this decision. The choice was then made by all of council to accept the recommendation of the police department with this task.
Stephanie Hacke is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5818 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
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.