On the “Watch List”: The Heinz Field expansion dispute. After what Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph James termed Monday's “status conference,” the Steelers and the Sports & Exhibition Authority appear headed to trial over which side should pay to add 3,000 seats, a scoreboard and control room upgrades. Taxpayers can only hope the trial's outcome will reflect their interests by forcing the Steelers — beneficiaries of so many ill-spent taxpayer dollars already — to foot the bill, as the team should.
Laurel: To more computer reuse. Goodwill of Southwestern Pennsylvania has overcome inability to meet demand, which forced a halt to its sales of donated, refurbished, $199.99 “Good-to-Go Computer” systems about 18 months ago. Now, the program's back, providing high-tech bargains, helping fund Goodwill job training and education and keeping heavy metals out of landfills. And with state law banning landfill disposal of computers and related items as of Jan. 24, and new computers sure to be under many Christmas trees, its return is well-timed indeed.
Lance: To ObamaCare's unintended consequences. They're playing out at Community College of Allegheny County, which is cutting about 200 part-time instructors' teaching loads because it can't afford the law's requirement of health coverage for employees working 30 hours a week or more. They're the first such cuts at a Western Pennsylvania college, but surely not the last — and in many businesses, not just higher education.
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.