The VND's Laurels & Lances
Published: Thursday, Jan. 3, 2013, 9:01 p.m.
Laurel: To Aspinwall. The borough issued $25 citations Wednesday to 78 property owners who failed to remove the snow from their sidewalks. Good for them. This is a necessary public safety/responsibility issue. We hope the borough keeps in mind there are those, either because of age or illness, who cannot comply. Here's to good neighbors lending a helping shovel and a smattering of snow and ice melt.
Lance: To municipalities that don't enforce snow-removal ordinances. Most cities and boroughs have laws requiring snow removal, but enforcement generally ranges from spotty to nonexistent. For the protection of their citizens, these communities should take heed of Aspinwall's example.
An observation: For some inexplicable reason, more than a few homeowners in more than a few communities think it perfectly acceptable to shovel their driveway and sidewalk snow into the street. It's not. And it's not simply ignorance but dangerous stupidity. For if the hazard they create causes an accident, well, they can and should be held liable.
Congrats: To the Arnold Council. We would've bet money the city's 25-percent tax increase was the highest in the state. We would've lost. The city of Wilkes-Barre nosed out Arnold by a mere percentage point, jacking up its taxes by 26 percent. The Arnold folks should feel free to pass on the “We're No. 2!” cheers.
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.
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- ‘China City’
- Detroit’s bankruptcy: An object lesson
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Corrections reinvention
- More ObamaCare fallout: Medicare disadvantage
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- The Thursday wrap
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Accord in Geneva: Smelly side deals, too