LNP EDITORIAL: …Salisbury Township supervisors have said their goal isn’t to keep people out, but they simply don’t want to build on land set aside for industrial development.
That sounds reasonable. But you can’t have industrial development — Urban Outfitters’ massive distribution center off of Route 30, for example — and, at the same time, actively resist a plan that would provide housing in the township for the industry’s workers. This is an economic issue. You can’t hope to attract additional businesses if there isn’t enough affordable housing for their employees.
Salisbury Township supervisors were warned that a legal challenge was on the horizon if they didn’t make some significant adjustments. They didn’t. Now they are being forced to defend an ordinance developers say is at odds with their legal obligation… (more)
NEWSLANC EDITOR: Salisbury Township residents and their officials apparently have long held themselves above the law. It is good to see LNP calling them on it.
Providing apartments, whether subsidized or not (and we would prefer the latter for the sake of the taxpayers) provides needed housing. Even market level rentals will create a trickle down effect and make lower cost housing now occupied available for others.
As we have indicated before, subsidizing new housing construction is a terrible waste of tax payer money. Much more can be accomplished at a fraction of the cost by sensible Section 8 rental subsidies. There usually is housing available but simply not affordable to people with meager incomes.
As we have noticed from our decades of rental experience, being poor doesn’t mean someone won’t be a good tenant. Nor will being rich!
On the flip side of the argument maybe Urban Outfitters should pay their workers better.
EDITOR: That too!