ShareThis Page

Tuesday takes

| Monday, March 20, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

Lock this down: The locks and dams on the lower Monongahela River offer a prima facie case for infrastructure investment. They're among the oldest facilities of their kind, dating back to the beginning of the last century. Yet funding to improve cargo navigation on the lower Mon has been declining since 2014. So, granting the request from U.S. Sen. Bob Casey for $50 million from the Trump administration to continue a project to repair the locks and dams should be a no-brainer.

Hempfield's tower resolution: After weeks of public review, testimony and even a few letters to the editor at the Trib, Hempfield's cellphone tower controversy is, hopefully, resolved. The township's Zoning Hearing Board unanimously denied Verizon Wireless' special-exemption request to build a 195-foot tower on a township supervisor's property. Supervisor John Silvis says he'll move on. But as of last week, Verizon wouldn't say whether it will appeal the decision. Here's hoping that Verizon, as well, will move on and find a better public “fit” for a tower location.

Better ways to spread the word: Apparently some North Huntingdon residents didn't know of a Zoning Hearing Board meeting in November that involved a requested variance for a controversial cellphone tower. The township said it followed the law in advertising the meeting. But in this era of instant notifications, why not buttress the requisite public notification by using social media? That should be common sense for locales that aren't doing so already.

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.