Community planning: More of it needed
During a recent public session in Connellsville involving the use of Community Development Block Grants, about 30 citizens applauded when they were able to convince their council to use some of the money for demolition of buildings and less toward a new fire truck.
The issue is of no importance here in Armstrong County — except to serve notice that people do get involved in their governing.
Kittanning Council, in cooperation with the Armstrong County Planning Office, is planning to devote CDBG funds toward changing traffic patterns and dressing up lighting and other planned improvements in the business district.
But where is the public enthusiasm, the leadership — the effort to encourage citizen involvement?
Sure, public meetings have been conducted per the direction of the law that governs use of such funds. But we would think that there would be a committee of area business folks willing to meet regularly, to offer ideas and to address the potential for revitalization.
What is the endgame? Has anyone heard from any businesses excited about the project or, better yet, a new business willing to set up shop in a revitalized business district? For the record, Rosebud Mining, which occupies most of the easternmost block of Market Street, has contributed.
So more public money will be spent, and with what objective? Nobody in leadership is really saying much.
And on Monday before council, the point was made that some $400,000 in donations are still necessary to complete these plans.
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.
- An ObamaCare ‘re-do’?
- The Moody’s downgrade: Inaction’s price
- The flood of illegals: Misplaced blame
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- The IRS scandal: Is a shocking new email the smoking cannon?
- The federal budget: Here we go again
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes