Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
On the “Watch List”:
• The Iron City project. Collier Development is proposing a $100 million-plus complex on the site of the old Lawrenceville brewery. It would feature a 100-room hotel, 150 apartments, some shops and restaurants. But Collier also says it will seek public funding. How much? It's not saying. Why should taxpayers subsidize (and, in the process, assume some of the risk of) yet another developer's pursuit of profit?
• UPMC. The tax-exempt status of the health care giant is under increasing scrutiny. Its untaxed holdings have become quite vast. Compensation for more than a score of executives is quite high. Its charitable care, while numerically high, is a small fraction of its income pie. Expect the matter to end up in some court somewhere sooner rather than later.
Lance: To Luke Ravenstahl. Pittsburgh's mayor said he opposed City Council legislation that established a likely unconstitutional 10 percent tax on billboards. A court challenge is virtually assured. On Wednesday, though, Hizhoner allowed that legislation to become law without his signature. Its veto-proof majority was cited. But what about principle? What principle?
The big return: Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, out for a month with an injured shoulder and ribs, is set to return to play on Sunday against the San Diego Chargers at Heinz Field. Pittsburgh, 7-5, pretty much has a lock on a wild-card berth. And it's not unfathomable to think the Steelers could end the regular season with an 11-5 record, hitting their stride just as the playoffs open.
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.