Share This Page

Greensburg Tuesday takes

| Monday, Feb. 18, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Jurors' duty: Jurors who last week convicted Ricky Smyrnes of first-degree murder in the brutal torture and murder of Jennifer Daugherty now will consider his fate. With regard to his mental “capacity,” the question is this: If not for Mr. Smyrnes' influence over and instruction to Ms. Daugherty's reprehensible Greensburg roommates, would she be alive today? Justice in this appalling case will be served only when Smyrnes is sentenced to death.

Money to burn?: Through the ever-convoluted wisdom of the state's Redevelopment Capital Assistance Program, Latrobe is on tap to receive a $1 million “economic development” grant to help pay for a $3 million garage renovation. Except the city has paid off most of the project. And the grant cannot be used toward the $3.8 million bond issue for the garage because the bonds can't be redeemed earlier than five years from their date of issue, officials say. So Latrobe is looking into other options for the state money, which would require matching funds from the city — in effect, public spending that begets more spending. That's a vacuum of economic resources — with all the attachments.

Flights to Pittsburgh?: With the boom in Marcellus shale drilling, it's baffling that a commercial airline hasn't yet connected the dots from area airports, such as Arnold Palmer Regional Airport, to Pittsburgh International, which would link drilling companies doing business here to their bases in Texas and Oklahoma. Talk about an untapped resource.

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.