North Braddock residents want leaders to address borough's blighted properties
At 527 Hawkins Avenue in North Braddock, the safety concern can be seen easily. The entire side of the home is leaning over the road, and it's a safety issue; neighbors said it needs to be addressed.
"They don't tear them down. They are just falling down," resident Harold Rutter said.
He said the property used to be nice.
"Somebody bought it and then sold it to somebody else, and it just fell apart," said Rutter.
He doesn't know who owns this specific home now.
When asked why he thinks owners have let the property deteriorate, Rutter pointed to the town's general decline.
"Hey, nobody wants to live in this town, like I said," Rutter replied.
It's a recurring story in the neighborhood where he's grown up. Along Hawkins Avenue, other homes sit abandoned, with broken glass or in disarray, with trash.
"It's really frustrating to see all of this crap around here; this stuff is terrible. It used to be a nice, clean town a long time ago," Rutter said.
This street is covered with an orange fence and cones when the side of the home eventually falls, and it's not slowing down traffic on a busy road with bus traffic.
North Braddock Mayor Cletus Lee said he wants to see this home have an emergency demolition, even if there's no funding.
"As not only being the mayor of North Braddock, but also being a demolition contractor, steps need to be taken in place immediately," Lee said. "The most important thing is public safety."
The mayor said there's even an email chain with the North Braddock borough council about it.
North Braddock Council President Lisa Franklin-Robinson said they've been working hard to fix the blight in North Braddock, and when the council republished a blight study, it found 1,040 blighted parcels.
The leaning house on Hawkins Avenue, Franklin-Robinson said, has been on the list for demolition for at least a year. She said that after the storms and rain we've seen, that's made it lean even worse.
Then, it got to the point that the council president said they closed half of the street on Monday.
Franklin-Robinson said the council is taking steps to fix the issue in the borough. As a council, they've completed a financial health assessment with the help of Local Government Academy.
In addition, they've established an open dialogue with every level of government, up to the federal level, and asked for funding.
Franklin-Robinson said that last year, the county proposed appropriations through Summer Lee's office, her administration approved $1.2 million, but the Trump administration didn't release the funds.
The money was meant for a workforce development program to help teach deconstruction and property demolition while remediating blight.
Rutter said he'd like to see positive changes in North Braddock, starting with Hawkins Avenue.
"I'd like to see these people tear these houses down and clean this town up a little bit."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
7 hours ago
- CNN
NTSB probes collision avoidance technology, safety systems in final day of midair collision investigative hearings
The National Transportation Safety Board questioned witnesses Friday on collision avoidance technology and organizational systems to manage risk. It is the third and final day of investigative hearings probing January's midair collision between a US Army Black Hawk helicopter and an American Airlines regional jet, operated by PSA airlines. It was the first major midair collision in the United States in decades, killing 67 people over the Potomac River, near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The first two days of testimony highlighted critical moments leading up to the collision as investigators probed witnesses about standard safety practices that should have occurred, altimeters that displayed incorrect altitude, and the helicopter route that came perilously close to the path planes use landing at the airport. There were over ten hours of testimony on each of the first two days of the hearing. Friday could go even longer to make sure everyone has an opportunity to ask questions, NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy said. The NTSB asks questions, but parties to the investigation including the Army, PSA Airlines, air traffic controller's union and Federal Aviation Administration can also examine witnesses. On Thursday, an FAA witness acknowledged the air traffic control tower failed to warn the pilots flying the American Airlines regional jet, operated by PSA Airlines. 'No safety alerts,' were given, Nick Fuller, the FAA's acting deputy chief operating officer of operations, testified. 'Should the local controller have let the PSA crew know that there was a helicopter there?' Homendy asked. 'Yes,' Fuller acknowledged. The tower did warn the pilots of the Black Hawk helicopter about the approaching regional jet and they said they would avoid it, transcripts of the cockpit voice recorders and air traffic control audio released revealed. Yet, moments later, the aircraft collided. Multiple air traffic controllers and pilots at Reagan National Airport told the NTSB they struggled with the constant stream of planes, leading to a 'make it work' attitude among them. 'This is 'we just make it work,' because we don't have another choice,' NTSB investigator Brian Soper said they told him in on-site interviews. 'There are airplanes coming in and everything was related to the capacity, the demand or the amount of traffic.' Another witness, Rich Dressler of Metro Aviation, which operates medical helicopters in Washington said the way the Army flies helicopters around the city makes him uneasy. 'Is there any unit that when you hear it makes you feel uncomfortable?' Soper asked. 'Sadly, yes,' Dressler responded. 'I don't like saying that 12th aviation battalion gives us all pause in the community. And I'm speaking from my group there; we are all very uncomfortable when those two units are operating.' An NTSB determination of the collision's probable cause is expected in January.
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
2 Ways To Support An ‘Anxiously Attached' Partner, By A Psychologist
If your partner constantly needs reassurance, for instance, if a slight delay in your response spirals into doubt or panic on their end, it's quite possible you're in a relationship with someone who has an anxious attachment style. In that case, it's completely normal if, at times, you feel overwhelmed. When you choose to love someone who is constantly afraid of losing love and is predominantly driven by their fear of abandonment, it helps to understand where this fear comes from. People with anxious attachment styles aren't trying to be difficult. They're often operating from an embodied fear of disconnection, which could have been shaped by past relationships where safety wasn't consistent. While their reactions might seem intense, underneath these emotions is often a simple question: 'Are you still here with me?' That being said, remember that you do not have to pacify someone or justify their every reaction. You can bring the shift in your dynamic by recognizing that behind the urgency is often a need for emotional safety. With the right support, this need can be met without either partner losing themselves in the process. While you reflect on this, remember that compassion doesn't mean abandoning boundaries. It just means staying connected while helping the relationship grow into something more secure for both of you. This does not mean that you have to carry the entire weight of building safety alone. It's not your sole responsibility to manage your partner's emotions, fix their triggers or bring about a shift in their thinking. Both partners need to understand that no real change can occur unless both are open to self-reflection and willing to co-create something healthier. The path toward a secure connection isn't smooth or immediate, but what's important is that it is possible. No matter what shaped your attachment patterns or your partner's, it's always possible to evolve. And sometimes, this begins with just a few subtle shifts that help both nervous systems feel more at ease. Here are two ways you can build more security in your relationships. 1. Move From 'Fixing' To Attunement Often, when a partner feels anxious, their need for reassurance doesn't have to be met with logic. In moments where they feel triggered, their nervous system is likely not looking for facts or explanations. They're likely just scanning for signs of emotional safety: 'Am I still safe with you? Am I still important to you?' If you're someone who can't relate to these fears, and perhaps you have a more secure or avoidant attachment style, this might seem all too confusing, or even like an overreaction. While you may not comprehend or understand how to respond to their fear, your anxiously attached partner often views your silence as danger. Research published in Frontiers in Psychology explored how people with different attachment styles behave in threatening or emergency situations from the lens of 'social defense theory.' Social Defense Theory (SDT) is an evolutionary extension of Bowlby's attachment theory. SDT suggests that insecure attachment styles (anxious or avoidant) may also have adaptive value, especially in group survival situations. The study presented theoretical arguments as well as empirical data to highlight that all attachment styles bring unique strengths to group survival. Researcher Tsachi Ein-Dor found that people with anxious attachment noticed threats sooner than others. In the study, their heightened vigilance made them more likely to alert others and mobilize action quickly in the face of danger. The study was predominantly set in a survival context, but the same hypervigilance often shows up in romantic relationships, too. An anxiously attached partner might notice even subtle shifts in tone, body language or emotional availability. This likely happens because their nervous system is wired to detect signs of potential disconnection in relationships as early as possible so that it can protect itself. When you see your partner acting out of hypervigilance, you may view their responses from a logical lens and your first instinct might be to 'fix' what's bothering them. While this comes from good intent, it may not always serve the purpose and can even leave your partner feeling more emotionally unseen. Research published in the International Journal of Applied and Psychoanalytic Studies examined how individuals with different attachment orientations respond during emotionally charged situations, especially when attachment needs, such as the need for reassurance, safety or connection, are activated. They studied this using a therapeutic lens. The important takeaway was the emphasis on 'attunement,' which is the ability to recognize and respond to a partner's emotional cues, as a critical skill in romantic relationships. The authors found a positive shift when couples moved away from trying to fix emotional responses with logic or problem-solving. When couples worked toward creating emotional safety and presence, it significantly improved relational outcomes. Attunement allowed couples to break the cycle of reactivity. This even helped couples access the deeper attachment needs underlying their emotional patterns. This reinforces the idea that many emotional triggers in romantic relationships are not irrational but rooted in deep-seated attachment mechanisms. For anxiously attached individuals in particular, moments of silence, delay or disconnection can feel threatening. So, what looks like 'overreacting' to you is often your partner's nervous system trying to protect love before it's lost. When you see it with that awareness, their anxiety becomes easier to meet with compassion rather than correction. 2. Shift From Reactive Boundaries To Proactive Reassurance When your partner is anxiously attached, it's easy to default to defensiveness or rigid boundaries in response to their fears. This is especially true when their fears show up frequently and repeatedly. Despite your love for them, you might find yourself thinking they're 'too much;' too sensitive, needy or reactive, and this can automatically make you want to protect your own peace or sometimes even lash out. However, in trying to protect your own space, you might start reacting with withdrawal, cold logic or shutting down emotionally. However, someone with anxious attachment isn't usually soothed by facts or space. They need consistency and emotional availability that's not just reactive, but proactive. In a 2020 study, researchers set out to empirically test a core assumption of attachment theory: that 'perceived partner responsiveness,' which means feeling seen, understood and cared for by one's partner, is a critical factor in fostering attachment security. They examined both general attachment tendencies, that is, how individuals relate to close others overall and partner-specific security, which refers to how secure they feel with a current partner. Researchers found that individuals who perceived their partners as consistently responsive reported lower levels of attachment anxiety and avoidance, especially in the context of that specific relationship. More importantly, the results showed that this effect was even more pronounced in individuals who were already insecure. This suggests that responsiveness can actively reshape internal patterns of functioning that are built on past instances of rejection or abandonment. In particular, for people with anxious attachment stemming from a fear of being unwanted or unworthy of love, ongoing reassurance plays a transformative role. The 2020 study highlighted how when these individuals perceived their partner as responsive; they not only felt more secure in that relationship but were also more likely to revise their beliefs about themselves and others more broadly. This finding directly supports the idea that shifting from reactive behaviors (like protest or withdrawal) to proactive reassurance in relationships is not just comforting, but also truly healing. When you consciously offer consistency and emotional availability, you are not only proving immediate security and relief but also helping reprogram deeper attachment patterns gradually. True attachment healing doesn't happen from simply being told 'you're safe.' It comes from experiencing safety over and over again, especially in moments that once triggered fear. Remember, the brain learns through patterns. So, every time your partner reaches out and you meet them with warmth instead of withdrawal, you are literally offering their nervous system a new script to follow. Learn To Feel Safe Together Being in a relationship with someone who has anxious attachment can come with certain challenges. While initially their responses may seem foreign to you, pausing to step into their shoes can make all the difference. Begin to view their reactions not as 'drama' but as protective patterns that emerged from trying circumstances. This will open up space for compassion. There may be moments when you feel emotionally stretched or confused, where it feels like you're walking on eggshells or carrying the emotional weight of the relationship. Acknowledging those moments is not a sign of weakness. It's an important signal in understanding your own boundaries and emotional needs as you continue to understand your partner, too. It's all too easy to write someone off as 'too much,' 'toxic' or 'a red flag' at the first sign of emotional intensity, but we forget that secure connection isn't always something you find. Sometimes, it's something you build. All secure relationships had to start somewhere, and it's a journey with undertaking. While it's true that not every relationship is meant to be held onto, many are dismissed before they've been truly explored or given the chance to evolve. In the most real sense, a healthy connection is about being willing to grow and evolve through the messiness of a relationship together, and it all starts with cultivating a little more understanding for one another. Curious how emotionally safe and seen your partner makes you feel? Take this science-backed test to find out: Perceived Responsiveness Scale
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Your Relationship Problems Aren't Always About the Patriarchy
This week, The New York Times sparked online fervor when writer Catherine Pearson penned an article discussing "mankeeping," the hot new internet term describing women's exhaustion and annoyance at having to perform various acts of "emotional labor" for their male partners. "Mankeeping," Pearson writes, "describes the work women do to meet the social and emotional needs of the men in their lives, from supporting their partners through daily challenges and inner turmoil, to encouraging them to meet up with their friends." For the story, Pearson interviewed 37-year-old Eve Tilley-Colson, who while seemingly happy with her boyfriend, "finds herself offering him a fair amount of social and emotional scaffolding," according to Pearson. Tilley-Colson said she tends to make the social plans, and she and her boyfriend hang out primarily with her friends. "I feel responsible for bringing the light to the relationship," she told Pearson. The article quickly attracted online controversy, with X users in particular pointing out that mankeeping seemed to describe, well, the typical emotional support most people are expected to provide in a loving relationship. "Why does it seem like so many people just don't enjoy being with their partners??? My bf can spend all his time with me I love him," wrote one user. "'Emotional labor' has become code for 'people should never present an inconvenience to me' This is why so some people's friendships consist of very little more than going to brunch," added commentator Allie Voss. "If you want surface level 'emotional labor' you're going to get surface level love." I'm inclined to agree with this criticism. Healthy relationships usually require that we provide emotional support to our partners—the support "through daily challenges and inner turmoil," derided as "mankeeping" in the article. Pathologizing this support is to misunderstand what close human relationships are even about. Loving someone else and receiving their affection and comfort requires give and take. It won't always be perfectly equal, nor will it be entirely pleasant. When the proposal for my upcoming book was on submission, I certainly was not particularly pleasant to emotionally support. I spent the month of May cycling between various forms of dread, panic, and hysterical despair. I remember the month primarily from the vantage point of my couch, which I frequently flung myself onto during fits of anguish. (The book, by the way, sold to a great publisher, and my fears that it wouldn't sell went unrealized.) Through it all, my husband was extremely patient and very sweet. If he was annoyed by my antics, he certainly didn't show it. Was he "womankeeping" that month? Was I forcing him into some kind of burdensome "emotional labor"? If he thought so, I somehow doubt that a legacy media organization would publish an essay about how men everywhere are being worn down by their neurotic wives and girlfriends. While this construction rightly strikes most as a bizarre overgeneralization, contemporary cultural criticism is full of essays premised on wild generalizations from individual relationship dynamics, usually stemming from the idea that anytime a woman is dissatisfied in her heterosexual relationship, not only are her complaints justified, but the patriarchy probably has something to do with it. Just in the past two months alone, The New York Times has published essays from women bemoaning that men are retreating from emotional intimacy and that men themselves are "what is rotten in the state of straightness." I don't think these women are exaggerating their romantic woes; rather, I'm just not convinced that their problems represent broader cultural trends, especially trends that boil down to sexism in some way. Even the popularity of the term emotional labor itself is part of this tendency. The original meaning of the term was literal, coined in the 1980s to describe how service-sector jobs often require employees to perform certain emotions for customers, such as the way waitresses are required to act friendly in order to get good tips. Now, the term applies to just about every act of service you could imagine. Compromise? Emotional labor. Playing with your kids? Emotional labor. Warning your husband that he's about to accidentally break a lawn mower? Somehow, also emotional labor. To be sure, there are plenty of persistent problems faced by heterosexual couples that probably come down to gender or sexism. But surely that doesn't mean you should blame every unhappy relationship on men or heterosexuality in general. Still, doing so remains a bankable tactic. The past few years, for example, have seen a glut of "divorce memoirs" that paint one woman's unhappy marriage as representative of all heterosexual marriages. Lyz Lenz, for example, writes in her 2024 memoir This American Ex-Wife that her book "[is] about how specifically breaking the bonds of marriage, the system that was designed to oppress you, will open up your life to create something new and something better." The unnamed protagonist of Sarah Manguso's 2024 autofiction novel Liars paints marriage with an even broader brush. "Maybe the trouble was simply that men hate women," she muses. "A husband might be nothing but a bottomless pit of entitlement. You can throw all your love and energy and attention down into it, and the hole will never fill." These books describe genuinely miserable marriages, but none seem to consider whether their marriages could have been bad without representing the state of heterosexual marriage itself. The individual woman's experience is uncritically presented as universal, provided that it is a negative one. "I feel like there's a certain script you have to abide by if you're a woman writer, writing about motherhood, dating or marriage, in certain literary circles," Substacker CartoonsHateHer wrote in a post about the mankeeping dust-up. "You basically have to embody the spirit of someone who is vaguely put-upon, not only by men but by life, and it's society's problem." My plea to the divorce memoirists—and now, for those complaining of "mankeeping"—is that an unhappy relationship is not always a symptom of female oppression. Especially when it comes to the minor annoyances described in the latest trend articles, the simplest answer might just be that you don't like your boyfriend that much. Your relationship problems might just be downstream of the fact that you're dating a loser, not the male loneliness epidemic or male entitlement. Sometimes a relationship is just unhappy. Unfortunately, those stories are much less likely to go viral. The post Your Relationship Problems Aren't Always About the Patriarchy appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
