Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
On the “Watch List”: The Steelers-SEA dispute. The football team says its Heinz Field lease with the Sports & Exhibition Authority calls for the SEA to pick up two-thirds of the cost of its proposed $38 million expansion that includes 3,000 seats and a second large scoreboard. It's planning to sue the authority to enforce the provision. The SEA's share (to service a bond issue) would come from a surcharge on Steelers tickets and parking used by game-day fans but also work-week taxpayers. One scenario has taxpayers, through the Regional Asset District, guaranteeing the bonds.
First point: Those outraged with the Steelers' position should visit the public official who negotiated the lease with a can of hot tar and a bag of goose feathers.
Second point: Taxpayers put up more than half of the original construction bill for Heinz Field — nearly $160 million of the nearly $281 million price tag (and still paying for the “privilege”) — and have no business guaranteeing more debt.
Laurel: To preparedness. The immediate region escaped the fury of Hurricane Sandy. Still, local officials deserve a great deal of credit for the long weekend of work they put in before the storm hit, making plans for every possible scenario. Had the area been more affected, it would have been ready.
Laurel: To the Hazelwood Initiative. The neighborhood group is asking Pittsburgh officials to double the size of the Hazelwood Greenway to 120 acres. It's a capital idea for a tract of land whose steep contours make it otherwise pretty much unusable. And it's the kind of project that would make a wonderful public-private partnership.
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.