BCT Editorial – 8/20/06

This page was last updated on August 20, 2006.

Razing eyesores; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 20, 2006.

The Times has been on this topic for at least two years and much of what’s below has been in previous editorials. Examples are here and here.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Older towns need state and federal help to get rid of blighted housing

“Cleaning up its brownfields won’t save Ambridge.

“That doesn’t mean plans to revitalize the former H.H. Robertson site in the heart of town and turn in into a mixed-use area that could include condominiums, an assisted living center and a distribution facility isn’t important to the borough’s future. Australia-based Moltoni Corp.’s plan to redevelop the site is vitally important.

“As exciting as it is, though, the Moltoni effort, if it comes to fruition, won’t be enough. The borough needs state and federal help in other areas, especially housing.

“Like many older mill towns in Pennsylvania, Ambridge has too many housing units that are uncompetitive in today’s real estate market. They simply do not have the amenities that home buyers are looking for - multiple bathrooms, plenty of closet space, up-to-date electrical wiring, attached garages, etc.

“To add to the problem, Beaver County’s declining population and resulting excess in housing units (plus low interest rates) means these properties have little chance of be sold as starter homes. As a result, these properties are a lure to slum landlords.”

[RWC] Why would low mortgage rates mean “these properties have little chance of be sold as starter homes?” I thought low interest rates encouraged house buying.

“State and federal help could kick start matters by providing Ambridge and towns like it with grants that would allow them to aggressively attack housing blight.”

[RWC] Did you ever notice there isn’t a problem the Times can’t solve by confiscating part of your paycheck or pension check and giving it to someone else?

“State and federal officials also need to take the gloves off when it comes to property rights that allow irresponsible landlords to exploit these towns and then cut and run with little fear of the legal and tax consequences. (Here’s another angle on the property rights issue: What about the rights of the property owners who live next to these messes?)

“The lots that are created when these eyesores are removed don’t have to be left vacant. As many as possible should be turned into off-street parking for residents of that block. Others could be deeded to neighbors so they could be added to their property.

“Ideally, once the seed money from these investments starts to pay off, the state and federal governments could step away and private investors could move in to replace them.”

[RWC] To date, the “Weed and seed” program in Aliquippa is a total failure, yet the Times wants to do the same thing in Ambridge.

“Ambridge residents can help, too, by picking up litter, keeping their own properties neat and clean and showing pride in their community.

“Ambridge is worth investing in. The borough is 30 minutes or less from downtown Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh International Airport and the Cranberry/North Hills area. Much of its housing stock is in good shape and affordable. The Ambridge Area School District is competitive academically, and the presence of a new high school and elementary school is a real plus. Old Economy Village has a ton of potential as a tourist attraction.”

[RWC] If “Ambridge is worth investing in,” there’s no need to take more money from commonwealth and federal taxpayers. The private sector will invest in Ambridge – or any community – when the value is there.

“But Ambridge and communities like it don’t have the resources to bootstrap themselves. They need state and federal help, and we as a society must decide whether we will help them or abandon them.”

[RWC] This is an example of liberalism. The editorial asserts Ambridge and the free market can’t solve the problem. The solution? Take money from people in other communities so they can’t take care of their own property. Liberalism doesn’t believe in lifting people up. It believes in equitable distribution of misery.

“The results in the coming decades will reflect on all of us.”

[RWC] That’s deep. <g>