Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, March 7, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
On the “Watch List”: The Pittsburgh mayoral race. Serious Democrat candidates are emerging in the aftermath of incumbent Democrat Luke Ravenstahl's decision to not seek re-election. Think Jack Wagner and Jim Ferlo. But there also are the unserious. Think City Council President Darlene Harris, state Sen. Wayne Fontana and state Rep. Jake Wheatley. Look for others of both species to declare as Tuesday's filing deadline nears.
Lance: To Bill Robinson. The Democrat Allegheny County councilman says he, too, is running for Pittsburgh mayor. But there's a problem — he's still sitting on the county council. States the county Home Rule Charter (Article III, Section 6, Part B): “A County Council Member shall not be a candidate for nomination or election to any political office other than that of County Council without having first resigned from County Council.” No ifs, ands, ors or buts, Mr. Robinson must resign — now.
Lance: Pittsburgh Public Schools. It's warning, again, that it will go broke in 2015. It blames, among other things, the continuing exodus of students to charter, parochial and private schools. Allow us to translate: A district whose per-pupil spending is among the highest in the nation — one that even bribes families with college scholarships for mediocre performance — is failing to satisfy the educational demands of a growing number of city residents and they're fleeing the educratic establishment. And the district wants even more taxpayer money to double down on that failure?
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.
- Sunday pops
- THE BOX
- The new SAT: Rigor gets a pass
- Fixing Ford City’s water leaks: Time is money
- Saturday essay: The gardeners’ etiquette
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist