Finding common ground: It's a bumpy road
Wayne Township Supervisor Terry Rupp made a simple but salient point Monday night as the board and a few citizens sat in the ramshackle building that serves as the township meeting room: “I don't see why we can't find common ground.”
The issue at hand was why the township hasn't done more to fix Underpass Road. Residents who live along it told the board it's extremely hazardous — icy in winter, potholed and with a deteriorated culvert. They say there are other township roads in similar disrepair.
The supervisors said the road is difficult to work on for lack of a safe place for road crew drivers to turn around and because of an apparent dispute with a landowner over getting the necessary space for a turnaround. Supervisor C. Ross Grooms said he had not been approached by residents about the issue. And, of course, the matter of limited funds — faced by many area municipalities — was mentioned.
Even in small, rural townships such as Wayne, we need to remember that it is still “government by the people” and those people must take the responsibility to provide guidance. The folks concerned about Underpass Road are doing the right thing, bringing the matter up in a public forum.
But the “common ground” that Mr. Rupp referenced is not just for when there are problems with roads — or policing or higher taxes. The ground on which every level of government rests is one of ongoing discourse. Simply put: We are all in this together. Let's make it work.
Now, what can the township do about that building?
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.
- The Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- A hunting question: A Pennsylvania proposal to limit the game that mentored youth hunters can take appears to be a solution in search of a problem
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes
- Saturday essay: The thumb itches
- The Box