Trending
City officials and the Altoona Redevelopment Authority merit plaudits for watching for any opportunity to improve or develop the municipality's housing base.
The latest new opportunity to receive publicity involves the former Keith Junior High School athletic field.
According to city councilman and authority member Ron Beatty, there have been conversations about the authority obtaining control of the property for housing development.
On the surface, that appears to be a reasonable proposal, but public input from people residing in that area needs to be sought and collected.
Residents of that area also deserve the opportunity to offer other ideas regarding the property in question. It is better for the proposal to be fully aired at some point before final decisions are forthcoming than to have misunderstanding and/or anger undermine what might be the best alternative available.
However, first, the Altoona Area School Board's official "final" thinking regarding the Keith-related property needs to be ascertained, in order to give the city and authority some sense of guidance on how to proceed -- indeed, whether to continue their discussions on the matter at all.
As explained by Beatty, if the school district follows through on prior discussions and sells the property on 13th Street, between 25th and 28th avenues, to the highest bidder, it would have no control over how the property ultimately is used.
However, if the property is deeded to the authority, the authority could advertise for development proposals and select the one deemed best for the neighborhood and city as a whole.
"A lot of good things could happen," Beatty said, as he suggested the city's taking the lead regarding utility installations to make such a project more manageable and otherwise attractive for a developer.
The old adage about spending money to make money -- in this case, tax revenue -- applies.
But first, all bases must be touched, especially the one about seeking neighborhood residents' viewpoints. Those are the people who will have to live with whatever is forthcoming regarding the property, and they should be in general agreement with the kind of development that is proposed.
Of course, few new proposals are met with unanimous accord, so there could be some disagreement, mild or not-so-mild, although that is not definite at this early stage.
When the final decisions are in place, there should be no justifiable complaints that not enough concern for residents' opinions was put forth.
According to Beatty, a potential developer has looked at the property on behalf of the authority and believes that, given financial realities and the topography of the land, the site probably is not ideal for single-family homes. Yet, that is only one person's opinion.
Single-family homes probably would be the option most acceptable to residents nearby, possibly next to keeping the land open for recreational uses. But that is what seeking development proposals is all about -- to explore all possibilities, without being under pressure or obligation to actually accept any.
Another round of proposals could be sought, if the first round produced none judged acceptable. Likewise, there would be no timetable for making a final decision.
Still, the early discussions and disclosures to the public regarding the site are the right kind of transparency.
That transparency will be important throughout the considerations that the future will bring.