Greensburg Laurels & Lances
Lance: To the Monsour nuisance. Jeannette police officers regularly waste their time tracking trespassers and squatters in the abandoned Monsour Medical Center, which has become a public nuisance as well as a safety hazard. Eventually, police, firefighters or trespassers are going to get hurt — or worse — inside the deteriorating complex. Yet the hospital administration that abandoned the medical center six years ago after a series of failed state inspections continues to ignore this towering monument to their disregard. And that's intolerable.
On the “Watch List”: Westmoreland County's 2013 budget. As sure as two legs on a Thanksgiving turkey, the county's “preliminary” spending plan comes with a $16.5 million deficit — which, once again, we're assured will be trimmed before year's end. And how much will Westmoreland's $37 million surplus be tapped to balance the books? This perennial deficit-cutting exercise has gone on long enough. What's needed are meaningful reforms in county government to stem the deficits before commissioners sit down at the carving board.
Laurel: To the Westmoreland County Tax Assessment Appeals Board. A pitch from the absentee owner of the deteriorating Jeannette Glass plant to slash the site's assessment from $2.6 million to about $500,000 found no support among appeals board members. And rightfully so. Never mind that owner Zion Bullitt owes thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes to the city, county and school district.
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.