Ford City Council sees spending more than $1 million on a new water plant as the best alternative to an ailing plant. During the same meeting at which council discussed staying in the water business, a part-time policeman's resignation was accepted and the mayor said such turnover is to be expected.
In Kittanning, local leaders are looking at better alternatives to move traffic and park cars as ways to revitalize the business district.
In the larger view of things, it's reported that four of every 10 state residents live in financially distressed municipalities. And a Pennsylvania Economy League official predicts things will only get worse.
According to published accounts, there's a lack of political will for distressed and financially viable communities to consider mergers. But if mergers aren't the answer, what is?
State Sen. John Wozniak, D-Johnstown, blames the lack of solutions on weak leadership in municipalities. “You can't keep electing the same people and expect different results,” he says.
That's because we don't “farm” good leadership.
Typically, candidates win local elections on name recognition. The political parties and concerned citizens in our hometowns need to identify people to run for councils who will build political will and take the long view.
Staying in the water business and playing with traffic flow may be part of a solution — but not the whole picture.
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.