Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
The next chapter: As the City of Pittsburgh appears to be on the cusp of having its state oversight reduced from two boards to one, the Allegheny Institute's Jake Haulk says the surviving board must “commit itself to exercising the powers it has ... to limiting union contract settlements to hold down growth in spending.” Additionally, Mr. Haulk says the board “must push the city hard to adopt outsourcing and competitive bidding to lower costs and employment levels.” The bottom line — Pittsburgh's road to recovery has many more miles to go.
Questioning TIFs: The failures of several high-profile, tax-increment-financed private projects in Allegheny County have prompted some to say that TIFs, as they are known, might not be the proper public financing vehicle, especially when other government (i.e., taxpayer) sources are available. Hold the phone! Such failures should be a giant red flag that private projects that can't get off the drawing board without going on the taxpayer dole should not be built. Period.
Were you ready?: This week's rain, wind and, in some cases, snow delivered courtesy of Hurricane Sandy should serve as an important reminder that it's wise to have emergency provisions put up. Good for you if you were prepared. If you weren't, you might be learning the lesson the hard way. For those who did prepare, we have one request: Please check on neighbors, especially the elderly, who might not have been able to properly prepare.
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.