Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
On the “Watch List”:
• West Penn Allegheny Health System. Fast on the heels of its board of directors telling Highmark to take a fast ride on a rolling doughnut, a group of top doctors is calling for the ouster of the hospital system's “turnaround” consultants. Yes, there's talk of renewing affiliation discussions, but the situation remains one giant mess. We can only wonder if anybody's started a pool to “call” the health system's time of death.
• Emergency services in Pittsburgh. Paramedics have authorized a strike. City officials want to serve the public better by allowing firefighters to perform some of their duties. The paramedics union contract prevents it. Thus, the lives of those in need are being threatened. Who's the boss here? Who's supposed to be serving whom? Will it take someone's death to fix it all?
Lance: To Mt. Lebanon. The board of commissioners continues to dither on tackling the South Hills community's exploding deer population. It might — might — authorize a “study” and the distribution of “educational materials” for next year. In a community in which there's an average of nearly three deer-vehicle collisions a week, that's a flaccid response that fails the sniff test. Deer are heading into peak rut season. Will someone have to die for Mt. Lebanon to do the right thing?
An observation: The Pittsburgh Steelers want to add 3,000 seats to the south end zone of Heinz Field. And the team and fan surcharges would pay for an addition estimated to cost up to $39 million. While the $13,000 per-seat cost is a quibble for another day, taxpayers, through the Regional Asset District, have been tapped to guarantee a $20 million bond issue. Why, again, should taxpayers take on a risk that should be solely the Steelers'?
Show commenting policy
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.