The Butler Parking Authority should operate as an entity dedicated to bettering the city. It should not stifle progress.

However, for nearly a year, the authority has been an obstacle on the proposed Centre City Redevelopment Project, and the authority hasn't provided any acceptable reason why.

Therefore, the authority should discard whatever misguided intent is behind its obviously intentional procrastination and take the actions necessary to enable the project to move ahead.

What is being asked of the parking authority is to give the city redevelopment authority the option to buy two parking lots needed as part of the proposed redevelopment initiative. That option is needed so a market study of the proposed project can be conducted.

It would be ludicrous for a study to be conducted without a guarantee that the needed land could be obtained.

Thus, until the option-to-buy is obtained — for the East Jefferson Street and East Cunningham-South McKean Street lots — the proposed Centre City effort will remain stalled.

That is irresponsibility on the parking authority's part. Whatever benefit the authority hopes to derive by obstructing the project pales when compared with the positive potential that the project represents for the downtown.

What's puzzling about the parking authority's behavior is that the authority wouldn't lose parking spaces as a result of the project.

While there would be a period during construction when the authority would not be making money from the 137 parking spaces in the two lots in question, at least that many parking spaces would be included in a parking garage that would be part of a proposed convention center.

And according to plans, those parking spaces would be under the authority's control.

Jim Chiprean, parking authority chairman, told a Butler Eagle reporter that the authority had not acted on the parking lot option because no specifics of the Centre City plan have been completed for presentation to its bond company. The two authority lots being sought are considered collateral for the authority's $3.5 million debt.

But the city is the guarantor of the parking authority's debt, so, despite the debt, the authority would be assuming no risk by agreeing to the sale option.

With no legitimate financial concern or justification impeding the requested approval, the authority's stance amounts to nothing more than an unconscionable power tactic serving no purpose except to undermine other officials' work toward making the downtown more vibrant.

Chiprean and his authority colleagues should cast aside their current status-quo mentality.

"It's just not that easy," Chiprean has said. "There are things we have to do (to sell the lots)."

Trouble is, nearly a year has gone by since the parking group was asked for the option to buy the lots, and the things the authority should have done months ago remain undone — not even begun.

The situation should represent a learning experience for city leaders and should be the basis for discussion about the authority's long-term future.

The city doesn't really need the parking authority, but since only the authority can legally dissolve itself, future appointments to the parking agency should be people who would have no reluctance to dissolve it, if asked to do so.

An authority that cannot be counted on to act in the city's overall best interests really has no place here.

And, if Chiprean and his authority colleagues are unwilling to work cooperatively with other city leaders for whatever reason, they should reflect on whether they want to continue their parking authority responsibilities.

There is nothing wrong with disagreement. What is wrong is disagreement and concerns that responsible officials make no attempt to address.

City leaders are right in being frustrated over the parking authority's misguided inaction regarding the sought-after parking lot option. Based on Chiprean's comments, the authority's interests appear confined to itself and not to the city's broader picture. And that's wrong.