BCT Editorial – 2/3/08

This page was last updated on February 9, 2008.

Go slow; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 3, 2008.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Rochester must not throw the baby out with the bath water.”

[RWC] I don’t know any details about the Castlebrook proposal or any of its issues so I’m not commenting on the Rochester Zoning Board’s decisions. My comment is only about the Times concluding assertion below.

“The Rochester Zoning Board voted to deny variance requests sought by Pittsburgh-based Castlebrook Development to redevelop a former scrap yard’s property along the Ohio River.

“The firm wanted to build a mixed-use building with condominiums on the upper level and retail and office space on the ground level. Its request for that variance was denied, as was one that sought to eliminate off-street loading spaces.

“The zoning board did approve two variances — reducing to 50 percent a requirement calling for 82 percent of a lot to be green space; and that the required width of a parking lane be reduced from 25 feet to 24 feet.

“Whether the denials will sour Castlebrook on the project or whether the company will appeal the decision remains to be seen.

“However, we hope borough officials understand how important this riverfront property is to the community’s future. Access to our region’s rivers for commercial, recreational and residential purposes is very limited.

“Castlebrook’s specific development may or may not be right for the location. However, the recreational and residential potential of this property is too great for it to be used for other purposes.”

[RWC] So let me get this straight. A piece of industrial property used in this manner “forever” with immediate access to “cheap” transportation (river barge on one side and rail on the other) is unacceptable for appropriate commercial/industrial development? Does the Times take this position for all other commercial/industrial properties along our rivers? What about the old mill properties in Aliquippa and Midland?

The Times sure likes to tell people what to do with their property. Remember the at least 26 editorials since March 2005 advocating the government ban smoking on private property?