Logan Township isn’t alone in having been remiss about enforcement of some local ordinances. Not enforcing some of such laws — or not enforcing them to the fullest extent intended when the laws were enacted — is much more common in Pennsylvania and elsewhere across the nation than most people can imagine.

However, an appropriate question remains consistent: Why have laws on the books if they’re not going to be enforced?

Still, as Logan officials have pointed out, it’s appropriate that the goal be compliance, not burdening residents and others with fines.

An overly aggressive “fine them” mentality can be counterproductive to a community’s best interests in numerous, obvious ways.

A first-offense warning, for example, is more appropriate as a compliance tool than, in effect, reaching into a person’s pocket for fine revenue.

Nevertheless, Logan officials and officials of other municipalities — larger, smaller and of the same size — should review their locally targeted ordinances periodically to ascertain that all are still relevant in what they seek to achieve and not candidates for revisions.

Municipalities with police departments are, in many ways, better able to monitor ordinance compliance because of officers’ routine patrols based on governmental leaders’ directives. However, officials in places without local police coverage aren’t exonerated from the obligation of paying attention to what is and isn’t happening in their municipalities and addressing violations and shortcomings through options available to them.

Municipal officials who ignore ordinance compliance, especially laws such as those dealing with dilapidated structures, junk vehicles and property upkeep, oftentimes find themselves burdened with big problems that are difficult — and perhaps costly — to resolve.

Because a small problem usually is easier to resolve than one “with its heels dug in,” it is puzzling why some municipalities allow themselves to be victimized by problems that could have been eradicated with little effort over a short period of time.

In Logan Township, officials have begun discussing an emphasis directed against open burning — burning excluding recreational fires.

This, of course, is April 2026, but the township ordinance that prohibits open burning was enacted in June 2024.

According to an article in the Mirror’s April 1 edition, the 2024 action localized Pennsylvania Act 101’s prohibition for municipalities of more than 10,000 residents, or those with as many as half that number but with a density of 300 people per square mile, to burn materials that those municipalities are obligated to recycle via curbside programs.

The article in question went on to say that the state Department of Environmental Protection has the power to enforce municipal compliance on the issue by withholding recycling grants.

Violations of the ordinance in question constitute a summary offense punishable with a fine of up to $1,000, said township solicitor Dan Stants.

Rather than having to resort to a fine of that amount, said township Manager Tim Brown, the preference is for compliance reflecting the township’s — and state’s — respective goals.

Working with residents on the issue, township officials should be able to rectify rather quickly the compliance requirement, but they still have work to do to ensure that the township population is aware of the beefed-up effort.

Meanwhile, to their credit, Logan officials also are exploring a toughening of animal cruelty penalties to ensure close compliance with the latest state-enacted measures.

Logan Township is a great municipality and great neighbor to Altoona. Efforts like those now being pursued will make it greater.