Sunday, December 07, 2003

By Ed Blazina, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A statewide study that concluded that the state spent too much of its development money in outlying areas drew a mixed response from officials in those communities.

The study, released today by the Brookings Institution, encourages the state to spend more money in established areas rather than developing new areas. The study claims that the state's spending plans encourage outward migration from established areas, leaving those areas with poor people, dwindling property values and little industry.

But it's wrong to blame those trends on too much money being spent to develop the state's 1,457 second-class townships, said Keith Hite, executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of Township Supervisors. The organization represents second-class townships, which have fewer than 300 people per square mile.

"I think someone has to ask why there has been this out-migration," said Hite, who "disagrees vehemently" that the state has been misspending its money.

"We as consumers are making that decision that we want to live in less-populated areas with larger homes and more property around us. It's a choice that we make -- not that government makes."

Hite contends that the state's policy of spending money in newly developed areas has followed the public's decision to move there, not the reverse. He said residents also had decided they want to live in areas with lower taxes and less crime.

Municipal officials in three of the fastest-growing outlying townships say they recognize the importance of maintaining a strong core in established communities.

"I can agree with focusing some infrastructure money in already-developed areas," said Roger Dunlap, manager of Middlesex. "The redevelopment of those areas should be encouraged."

Middlesex is in the process of conducting a regional planning study with Richland so the two communities can work together on future growth.

The township also is working with Penn Township, Butler County, on a $40 million expansion of the sewage treatment plant, but he noted that the plant would serve existing homes.

The communities probably will seek a state loan to help pay for the project, but otherwise Middlesex receives little state funding, Dunlap said.

Dallas Leonard, community development director in Westmoreland County's Penn Township, the fastest-growing community in the county, said his area also received little in the way of state funding. As far as he is concerned, that's how it should be.

"I would agree with the study. You're better off to rehabilitate a brownfield area than to spend money developing a new area," Leonard said. "I would say they should put as much money as they can into rebuilding the core areas."

Marshall, in Allegheny County, which has been averaging 50 new homes a year for the past five years and 100 a year in the 10 years before that, also has received little state help in recent years, said Manager Neil McFadden. But he said government spending had less impact than market forces for all types of development.

"In my experience, you can only influence the market to a certain extent [with government spending]," McFadden said, noting that his community's location near Interstate 279 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike have propelled growth there.

The Brookings study concluded that such outward growth is not a good thing in a region with declining population. It's also not the best way to spend tax dollars, whether state or locally generated.

"Growth looks good initially," said Caren Glofelty, director of environmental programs for the Heinz Endowments, which paid for the study with the William Penn Foundation of Philadelphia. "Then, those people want services, and government has to provide them. Starting from scratch is far more expensive than working with what you already have in existing communities."

E-mail this story   Print this story