Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
Lance: To the New Kensington Council. The council essentially told the taxpayers, “What part of ‘We ain't selling the water authority' don't you understand?” The members trucked out their usual litany of excuses — including the bogus “it's against state law.” Considering the great needs of New Ken, can the council truly afford not to at least find out what it's worth? We can't believe the councilors so readily dismiss a $35-$40 million windfall.
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.
• The Oakmont curfew proposal. The borough council is considering instituting a curfew for juveniles. Don't waste your time, folks. Curfews are ineffective and widely ignored by the police and the kids. The best curfew law is good parenting.
Laurel: To Westmoreland County's regional emergency operating center. Discussed for years, the $1.8 million facility, to be based at Arnold Palmer Regional Airport near Latrobe, finally is moving ahead. It will house $7 million in emergency equipment that's currently scattered across the county and will enhance emergency training and operations.
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 â 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.