Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
Chronicles of Nate: Will the new day bring new questions about Pittsburgh Police Chief Nate Harper? A federal grand jury supposedly is already reviewing some of his business dealings. And on Friday, news broke that the feds were investigating an account at the police credit union in Mr. Harper's name and several unnamed others. What's with that? Nobody's saying. But the drip-drip-drip of innuendo is damaging the department and the city.
Blessing in disguise: The consulting firm pushing for a light-rail commuter line between Lower Burrell and Pittsburgh says it's having trouble attracting a “sponsor agency” — one that would serve as a conduit for federal grants for the $414 million, 20-mile line. Federal grants and loans would account for 90 percent of the funding. Which more than suggests — as we've said repeatedly — that this project, if built, would not be sustainable. Lack of “sponsor” could save taxpayers millions.
Ah, progress: “Once upon a time, in a Pennsylvania far, far away ... .” That might be the way history records the introduction of the new 878 area code to Southwestern Pennsylvania. Unlike the introduction of the 724 area code on a geographical basis, the 878 code would be laid over the entire 412 and 724 code area. The days of discerning from what geographical region a call emanated will be a thing of the past. A small thing? Yes, but a sigh-producing passing, no less.
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.