There is a cut-stone culvert probably better than a century old that carries a small stream and storm sewer collection beneath West First Street, a state highway. It is in danger of collapsing, a problem discovered quite by chance. The City of Oil City is responsible for its repair or replacement.
If that culvert was a mile further west where West First Street turns into Deep Hollow Road at the Cranberry Township line, the responsibility for its repair or replacement would fall on the state.
For some inexplicable reason, the state requires cities to pick up more costs for under-road infrastructure than it does of townships. That is an incredible additional burden for taxpayers in Pennsylvania’s cities, and means that in effect they are subsidizing their suburban neighbors.
I just learned of this and verified it with PennDOT officials.
The playing field needs to be leveled if our cities are going to be able to compete and thrive, but I have no expectation that the state legislature will anytime soon do anything to address such inequities.
My other big frustrating absurdity in recent weeks is best summed up by quoting Dickens – although a bit out of context: “the law is an ass.”
A couple of years ago in response to growing concerns, the city adopted an ordinance placing a number of restrictions on the operation of outdoor woodburners.
A city resident, unhappy with the restrictions, built a shed around his outdoor woodburner, claiming it was no longer an “outdoor” woodburner. District Judge Doug Dinberg ruled in favor of that interpretation.
Understand, the woodburner was installed as an outdoor woodburner, sold as an outdoor woodburner, advertised by the manufacturer as an outdoor woodburner and many outdoor woodburners now come with a metal, shed-like covering.
I’m no judge or lawyer, but ruling that by putting a shed up around an outdoor woodburner makes it something else entirely flies in the face of reason.
I suspect council will quickly amend the ordinance to prevent such sidestepping of its intent.
A person who commented on my previous blog post put up a link to an interesting article I thought worth sharing, along with a couple of others I’ve come across in recent weeks.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/09/05/how_to_shrink_a_city/?page=full
http://shareable.net/blog/what-so-called-slums-can-teach-american-cities
http://web.mit.edu/dusp/dusp_extension_unsec/people/faculty/lhoyt/Hoyt_Leroux_FC.pdf
I think all three might contain at least seeds for thought that can be helpful to Oil City.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
John - I wonder how many efforts to address problems are invalidated by our D.J.'s? From what I understand penalties for code violations have historically been non-exsistent or so ridiculously insignificant they have no impact. Maybe that is the root of the problem.
I am happy to see the owners of one downtown building having their feet held to the fire regarding code violations. Now let's see if the the D.J. will back the City up.
The Boston article was interesting. It seems that here the problem is not that building owners are reluctant to relinquish their ownership - they just abandon their properties. What could be done is an organization such as the ORA or the O.C.Redev. Auth. could watch for a concentration of abandoned homes, take control of that section, remove the properties and market them to a developer. Imagine if you could create a large swath of vacant property in the East end that you could entice someone to build a gated, single-level senior housing complex on? That would be an example of "right-sizing" in my opinion.
I also think we need to address who we have populating our low-income housing properties. I hardly think right-sizing involves having high-rises full of younger people living on welfare or SSI. Those properties should be reserved for assisting our seniors - not able bodied young people milking the system. That is happening here. It needs to be addressed. What are these people adding to the quality of life here? That might be harsh but it needs to be asked. I'm getting sick of going to work everyday and paying taxes so these people can hang out and sit all day.
Robert,
I am pleased to be able to say that the city is looking at areas where there is a concentration of condemned/abandoned or otherwise in very bad shape properties that could be cleared and redeveloped.
However, as with everything, the problem is money. notably for demolition and clearing properties.
Mayor Hawkins has been pushing that concept for a very long time.
Of course, there also needs to be the requisite grouping to gain a large enough area.
I share your concerns about some of the residents in our "high-rise" units. Originally they were intended for senior citizens of modest means, but changes in federal regulations greatly expanded who can live in them. As I understand it, now if you qualify for SSI you are eligible. The result has been to bring in a few who are less than desirable, in my opinion.
We need to keep thinking and finding innovative ways to address local housing issues and redevelop our neighborhoods.
"I also think we need to address who we have populating our low-income housing properties."
Do you think that some of these people might be abusing the properties they live in and adding to the housing blight?
"Do you think that some of these people might be abusing the properties they live in and adding to the housing blight?"
Absolutely!Unfortunately, I dont know how you address it. They are also selling drugs from them. I have expereinced that first hand in my own neighborhood. I think the City police have their hands full with young people living on public assistance, getting into criminal activity and having children. They float from house to house - wherever they can crash. It's a different day and age. Getting a job, getting married, getting a house and raising a family is rarely a goal these days. Just ask any teacher in our local public schools what kind of homes most of the kids come from and you will get a good idea of what we are dealing with as a community.
Once they get into a neighborhood, I have to think it's nearly impossible to root them out. They have no problem with living in squalor and when something is just handed to you you aren't motivated to take care of it.
I am thinking more and more that we are fighting a losing battle. The government is really enabling these people and until the spigot is turned off it will continue. It spans generations in families.
Higher paying jobs that used to be here in the plants and shops are long gone and won't be coming back, so it has created a vacuum.
Probably the best thing we can do is make things uncomfortable for them through law and code enforcement and keep shrinking the low-end, slum housing stock as much as possible. It wouldn't be a bad thing for Oil City to have a reputation for being overly tough on crime and blight. I think that is the stance our officials (like you, John) finally are starting to have here.
It might ruffle some feathers but I'm afraid the other source of income a lot of these nefarious young people are turning to are two businesses located right in our downtown. If you can go to work in a backwards ball cap, tank top, tatoos and baggy shorts with your underwear showing - that doesn't say a lot for your employer's standards. To top it off, we get the benefit of seeing them display their "work attire" prominently and proudly outside on the sidewalk. And they all have to live somewhere.....
The two business's you refer to in our downtown, employ a lot of people who do not wear baggy shorts, or show their tattoo's. In fact they employ a lot of people period, and pay taxes. Not something found in abundance in Venango County let alone the original OC.
There are solutions to the loitering problem. One its against the law in OC to do so. Second, with some code variations smoke rooms could be made available in both sites. TRG use to have a reward program to help employees to kick the habit.
You may not like telemarketing, or the crowds outside, but the fact is they do provide employment opportunities to students, elderly who need extra income, and laid off workers looking to make ends meet.
John
I have been reading a lot about deconstucting rather than demolition. The up front costs are a little more but money can be made back by selling reusable materials, and funds are out there for going GREEN. Just a thought.
Don,
Good thought on deconstruction vs demolition. I'm not sure how you would go about it and ensure you come out ahead, but it certainly is worth exploring. It might be something the redevelopment authority could do.
Also good points on the tele-businesses.
Post a Comment