ShareThis Page
Ford City’s police: A taxing question |

Ford City’s police: A taxing question

Ford City residents have spoken: They don’t want the borough to mess with their police department. Some at a town hall meeting Monday went as far as to say they would rather pay higher taxes than do without police protection.

The question now becomes whether council members will listen. There are a few truths to consider. A committee of three council members has recommended that the police department be disbanded for financial reasons. The council as a whole has said it wants to hear what the people think about the plan, ostensibly for guidance before making a decision about the future of the police force. And as loud as the support was at the public meeting for keeping the police, the 150 people who showed up represent a very small sample of about 3,000 people who live in the borough.

The council has a tough road ahead. If the borough cannot afford a police department, then it makes sense to do away with it. But if council members are to believe those who spoke at the town hearing, they need to find a way to keep the force intact.

It is easy for residents to say they would pay higher taxes to maintain a police force. The council should crunch the numbers, tell taxpayers exactly what the increase would be, and see what is the reaction when higher taxes become more than a vague concept. The reaction to real tax numbers should be all the guidance the council needs to make the right decision — whether that means keeping the force or letting it go.

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.