Some of the participants in a tour of blighted properties in Butler and Butler Township Friday saw more than they expected to see. The tour was an eye-opening experience regarding a problem that is nearly preventable.

In the city alone, there are at least 125 "problem" properties, including 23 that are condemned and 52 on record as having been abandoned.

Amid those troubling numbers is the fact that the city can usually scrape up enough money to raze only two or three dilapidated houses a year, meaning that most of the houses on the condemned list will continue to devalue their neighborhoods — making them unattractive to people seeking to move to the city.

But that's only part of the problem that the city and township face.

While there are 125 properties that have been identified as problems, there are many more than 125 that are just outside that designation. Those others are properties that, year after year, receive no maintenance or repairs by their resident-owners or landlord-owners.

Over time, there's a good chance they too will join the problem designation.

And, while blight generally is associated with only certain parts of the city, property neglect is citywide and can be found in many areas of the township as well.

That doesn't mean that any parts of the city or township are ghettos. It does mean, though, that too many residents of the two municipalities ignore a basic principle of property ownership. That is that with ownership comes the responsibility of keeping a property a community asset rather than a detriment or eyesore.

And it doesn't just mean ensuring that a home is not beset by peeling paint or broken gutters or downspouts. Proper maintenance should extend to ensuring that a property isn't littered with debris and that the grass is cut.

In Butler, there are plenty of porches and backyards littered with discarded items, including decaying garbage.

If not recognized as a problem now, chances are those properties might earn a problem designation in the future.

"We don't have the financial ability to take care of this," said city code enforcement officer John Evans during Friday's tour. "We need legislation to hold owners accountable."

But the message from Perry O'Malley, executive director of the Butler Housing and Redevelopment authorities, who also participated in the tour, was more hopeful.

"It's not beyond our ability (to resolve this)," O'Malley said. "We just need the resources to do it."

Butler would be a good choice for a federal or state small-cities anti-blight demonstration grant — a grant that would include federal or state money (possibly both) combined with a mix of local government funds, in-kind services and other donated money from interested entities that would benefit from blight removal.

Evans equated Butler's blighted properties to a cancer, and that description is appropriate because, like cancer, blight spreads — if only because it often discourages owners of nearby properties from doing needed maintenance and repairs.

It's true that some properties are deteriorated because of owners' troubled financial circumstances or health conditions. However, many city and township properties are deteriorated simply because of owners' laziness or lack of community pride and responsibility.

Because of that, the city and township need to remind property owners and tenants of their responsibility to the municipality where they reside.

Perhaps stepping up the war against drugs would be a logical adjunct to the property-improvement project. A more aggressive anti-drug effort might cause an exodus of some of the people who have no interest in Butler other than carrying out their illegal enterprises — and who have no problem living in squalor. Another option is to crack down on properties infested with debris.

Friday was a beginning, but that beginning will be useless if nothing results from it.

Those who participated in the tour now have a responsibility much larger than merely reflecting on what they saw. The public should expect action.