Greensburg Laurels & Lances
Laurel: To state Sen. Kim Ward and Rep. George Dunbar. The Westmoreland lawmakers are turning up the heat on ex-board members of the abandoned Monsour Medical Center to take responsibility for this badly deteriorating building, which poses a public safety threat. That said, where are Westmoreland's commissioners and other state lawmakers? The Monsour mess no longer can be ignored.
Lance: To the Laurel Mountain Ski Resort money pit. Now comes word that this slippery slope of public subsidies needs a major electrical upgrade. And who's going to pay for this? It's bad enough the state has committed $6.5 million for renovations on top of what was squandered 13 years ago, when the ski area opened on the public's dime — and flopped within a few years.
On the “Watch List”: Connellsville's cash flow. The slow collection of earned income taxes to meet the city's payroll is one issue. Another is the apparent proclivity by the city to budget grossly more in revenue than what's actually received — last year, by more than $140,000. Here's hoping that optimistic guesswork won't smack city fathers at year's end.
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, 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.
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.