Greensburg Laurels & Lances
On the “Watch List”: Seton Hill University's proposed Dance and Visual Arts Center. For all the positives offered about this Greensburg plan, there's one significant negative: up to $6 million in state funding from the Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program, which must be matched by the university, city officials say. Soliciting public support for the building plan and private contributions is one thing. But no matter how one tap dances around the issue, taxpayers shouldn't be tapped for a project advanced by a private university.
Laurel: To remembering firefighters who saved St. Vincent College. Five decades haven't dimmed the memories of a bitterly cold day when 400 firefighters and other emergency personnel battled a daylong blaze that threatened the Unity campus. The college's salute on the anniversary of the fire included fitting tributes to retired Latrobe fire Chief Earl Dalton and Greensburg fire Chief Ed Hutchinson. Such outstanding efforts by firefighters, then as well as today, deserve the public's appreciation and continued support.
Laurel: To digitizing the past. A three-year project by Westmoreland County to transfer 55,000 naturalization records (dating back to 1906) from antiquated record books will allow residents to access their family roots from their home computers. But more than the added convenience, this worthwhile endeavor preserves these vital records for future generations.
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.