Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
Say what?: We're not sure what's more outrageous — the sweetheart hiring of Vince Gastgeb, an Allegheny County councilman and a frozen and packaged foods salesman, for the newly created position of director of corporate and community relations at the county Airport Authority or his insistence, and that of council's counsel, Jack Cambest, that the county Home Rule Charter does not clearly prohibit Mr. Gastgeb from continuing in his council role — a gross conflict of interest — when clearly it does. This is the kind of nonsense that gives government a bad name.
Say what again?: The Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler editorializes that “There's no civil right to big, sugar-heavy sodas.” Seriously? Allow us to translate: Government is our master. Government should be our dietitian. Government knows best. It's par for the course from a newspaper that once opined that taxpayers have no right to complain about how their tax dollars are used because once those taxes are paid, it's not the taxpayers' money anymore.
Ask the question!: The Pittsburgh Steelers are demanding in court that the city-county Sports & Exhibition Authority — i.e., the public — cover two-thirds of the cost of a Heinz Field expansion. The SEA counters that the demand does not comport with the team's lease. The expansion could put the public on the hook for millions of dollars of debt. Who has the guts to demand that the Steelers detail their projected profits from the expansion and how quickly its cost will be recouped without the public subsidy?
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.