Share This Page

Greensburg Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, Nov. 29, 2012, 8:57 p.m.

Lance: To the cost of disregard. Hempfield's $32,000 bill to dredge a creek could climb substantially higher because now the township must restore wetlands that state officials say were damaged by the project. Plus there could be potential fines. What this project has dredged up is an expensive mess for Hempfield taxpayers.

On the “Watch List”:

• Deer. In Southwestern Pennsylvania, there are two types of drivers: Those who have hit deer and those who haven't — yet. Last year Pennsylvania led the nation in deer-vs.-auto crashes. And typically these accidents increase during gun deer season. Motorists who prefer not to bag a buck need to be especially attentive.

• Hempfield supervisors. They voted to proceed with the township's review of a new zoning code, although that outcome was marked by some confusion from at least one supervisor over what exactly he voted for. It also appears that some sups eyeing next year's local election would prefer to defer any zoning conundrums. And how much has the township already invested in the code update?

Laurel (with a caveat): To Jeannette's leaders. Contrary to the city's previous year-end pools of red ink, city fathers say they'll end this year in the black and plan on no tax increase next year. The not-so-good news is an ongoing legal wrangle with a city businessman who's seeking $650,000 and pending contracts with city workers. Here's hoping Jeannette's leaders can keep their fiscal skiff afloat.

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.