ShareThis Page
Officials speak out against regional effort |

Officials speak out against regional effort

| Thursday, September 27, 2001 12:00 a.m

Armstrong County’s industrial park, Northpointe at Slate Lick, was believed by county officials to be the frontrunner for Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp. to build a new $122 million fuel cell manufacturing plant employing 500 workers.

Instead the grounds of a former steel mill got the nod when Siemens announced Wednesday that it had chosen Munhall in Allegheny County as the site for the plant.

The announcement took county officials by surprise and drew severe criticism from the Armstrong County Commissioners.

According to Commissioner Homer Crytzer, Siemens was ‘lured away from us.’

The county commissioners said they were told by Siemens up until the last minute that Northpointe was ‘a great site, the best site, the only site.’

‘Now they’re saying that the best site in the world is Munhall,’ said Commissioner Jim Scahill.

Scahill said Siemens was to make its decision strictly on an economic basis. And, he said, Armstrong County had a better offer, a package of $7 million – $4 million state money and $3 million from the county – compared to Allegheny’s offer of $6 million – $4 million state and $2 million county.

The county was told too that Siemens liked Northpointe because of its 35 acres of green space, it was ready, flat, had infrastructure in place, there was a job market and transportation.

‘There has to be a reason,’ said Scahill. ‘No one has given us a reason. No one has said something was wrong with this site.’

Melanie Forbrink, manager of communications for Siemens, said yesterday that all the sites were ‘comparable and competitive’ regarding factors such as business costs and incentives offered.

‘The only difference was proximity,’ said Forbrink. ‘All other things were equal.’

Forbrink said it was better for the existing workforce in Churchill, just east of Pittsburgh, to travel the distance to Munhall than to Slate Lick.

According to Forbrink, Munhall was the original site desired but the company was told that it was not an option because of the developer’s intent being different for the site.

‘It was reintroduced to us and we looked at it with a renewed interest,’ she said.

‘The entire region still benefits.’

Crytzer would rather put the blame for the turnabout on the government leaders in Allegheny County associated with the Pittsburgh Regional Alliance (PRA) than on Siemens.

‘Regionalism died today,’ said Crytzer. ‘We got shafted by the PRA.’

Crytzer said he’s considering not being a part of any alliance with Allegheny County and just looking out for Armstrong County’s interests.

Commissioner Jack Dunmire also wants to take a second look at belonging to organizations involving Allegheny County.

‘All we get is lip service,’ said Dunmire. ‘They say everybody works together but never once has Pittsburgh directed one company to Armstrong County out of the region.

‘Where corporations locate it’s county against county, regionalism goes right out the door.’

Scahill said the county played by the rules and someone else did not. He was unhappy that the Allegheny County group was not forthright with officials here.

‘How do you trust anything said down there,’ said Scahill.

Scahill said he is pleased, however, that southwestern Pennsylvania was able to keep the company in the region, and he adds he is not entirely ready to give up on the idea of regionalism.

‘It brought $100 million (of federal and state funding) into the region, $7 million to Armstrong County,’ said Scahill.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.