ShareThis Page

Aspinwall doesn't need 'meter reader' on police force

| Monday, Oct. 16, 2017, 10:36 a.m.

To the editor:

The Oct. 11 meeting of the Aspinwall council, attended by dozens of residents, proceeded on normal lines until a discussion about the size of the police force prompted a comment by the mayor that the part-time officer hired to write citations was finally “earning his keep.” I looked around to see if anyone else had noticed the elephant in the room. So, the taxpayers of Aspinwall have hired someone to write tickets against themselves? Immediately after this announcement — for which the mayor was generously congratulated by council — several residents got up to speak about drivers consistently “blowing through stop signs” and speeding down streets in Aspinwall. Again, I looked around to see if anyone else could see the irony (absurdity, futility) in the situation.

One could ask exactly what the two full-time police officers, including the “working” chief, are doing that they cannot write citations to offending drivers, inattentive parkers, and other minor offenders. One must, however, question the effectiveness of a police department, consisting of five full-time officers (including a “working” chief, for which neither the mayor nor any council member could provide a description) and a part-time ticket-writer, when people are still speeding through the borough and ignoring its traffic signs. Wake up, Aspinwall, your government is supposed to be working for you, not against you.

Linda L. Bendel

Aspinwall

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.