Future facility use in Armstrong County: Some direction, please
Sometimes issues need a larger arena in which to be publicly debated. Two recent examples are the future of school buildings in Kittanning and Ford City after a new high school opens in 2015 and the future of public libraries in the county.
Ford City's mayor and council members, to their credit, addressed the issue of the town's high school being mothballed earlier this month. County economic development officials have reportedly suggested that the borough take over the building from the Armstrong School District and seek a special tax status for it to encourage someone to develop the property.
The libraries are facing dwindling financial support.
But once again, our leaders seem unwilling to step out of their defined spheres of authority to bring citizens and elected leaders together.
Dealing with empty school buildings and deciding the fate of the county's four public libraries are matters of regional concern, not just for the communities in which the buildings are located. Leaders need to step forward and do two things:
1. Organize an exploratory committee to discuss ways that the school properties can be put to use (or razed if that is an alternative).
2. Organize a citizen-based movement to preserve the libraries. These facilities are more than just repositories for books. They are community centers, and their full possibilities have not been fully explored. They can be an important part of the area's cultural and political life.
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 â 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.