The Monsour 'exemption'
In cash-strapped Jeannette, where tax collection apparently is a selective process, owners of the crumbling Monsour Medical Center owe almost as much in back taxes — $825,000 — as the cost estimated to tear down their towering disregard.
But Jeannette's attorney, Scott Avolio, says the city won't see a dime of that money. Why? Because in seven years since the hospital closed and eventually landed on the public tax rolls, nobody in city or county government has been able to determine its legal ownership — be it the Monsour family, the hospital's former board of directors or the Monsour Medical Foundation.
So this institutionalized money pit, the largest scofflaw in a city with a delinquent tax bill totaling more than $1.6 million, gets a pass. And taxpayers who do shoulder the load will eventually get the nearly $1 million bill to raze this monstrosity, preferably before it crumbles onto Route 30 or somebody gets conked by falling debris.
This is outrageous. Under Pennsylvania's Constitution, Article VIII, Section I: “All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws.” There's no exclusion for Jeannette — or for its many hardworking, honest residents who pay up every year.
But instead of any legal action to collect what's owed, where the full force of law clearly is warranted and long overdue, residents get excuses for the intolerable eyesore at the entrance to their city.
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.
- The climate summit: Down for the count
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes