Regional development: Why not Armstrong?
At campaign time there's always talk about jobs, sometimes known by the political euphemism “economic development.”
But economic development always has had its hush-hush side. Elected leaders say they are working on it but can't say much for fear of frightening away perspective developers.
We have heard that for years.
There used to be talk of attracting industrial development with a local airport or extension of the Route 28 four-lane expressway from here, where it now ends, to Interstate 80, therein opening up a better avenue for the Pittsburgh area and developing Armstrong.
We haven't heard any of that for years.
Industrial parks did help the area to some degree, but nothing approaching a “boom.”
Some have argued that Armstrong seems never to be in the mix amid talk of big projects. We hear about expanding the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the south of the region, about the potential for a petrochemical plant in Beaver County and other prospective developments — but Armstrong rarely is mentioned.
These are tough times in rural America, and nobody can reasonably expect a quick fix. It is a two-steps-forward and one-step-back kind of process. The only question now is who's doing the leading, who has a grand plan — or even an idea? Who is making sure Armstrong has a seat at the regional table?
We trust county, state and federal officials representing us are working together on this all-too-apparent need.
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.
- Remember our troops
- Thanksgiving 2014: Pausing in unison
- Ford City’s police: A taxing question
- The Hagel ‘resignation’: Toadies need apply
- American contrasts: Post-Ferguson