Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
Laurel: To Rich Fitzgerald. The Allegheny County chief executive is taking heat from some quarters for a perfectly legal no-bid contract to a local contracting firm. But the $156,000 deal with Michael Baker Corp., which, in turn, will use the expertise of employee and former county Public Works boss Tom Donatelli to assess the troubled department, sounds like a prudent move to us.
Lance: To the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium. A goodly number of its 2013 picture calendars — with March featuring the same kind of African painted dogs that killed a toddler who fell into the exhibit this month — were sent out before the tragedy. But the zoo continued to send them out, without even a note of explanation to patrons, after the tragedy. And that, supposedly, after much internal discussion. How sad.
Lance: To Mt. Lebanon. Not only will the deer-overrun South Hills community not make deer culling a priority in next year's budget, it won't even make a study of the exploding deer population a budget priority. It is, however, budgeting money for an “education” program to teach residents how best to “manage” the out-of-control herd. Surely an adopt-a-deer program can't be far behind for blinder-wearing municipal “leaders.”
On the “Watch List”: The Pittsburgh mayoral race. Two Democrats, and possibly a third, are lining up to challenge incumbent Democrat Mayor Luke Ravenstahl in next year's May primary. Little is being said about possible Republican or independent challengers come next November. But the time is ripe for breaking the Democrats' long and damaging stranglehold on the city.
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.