Share This Page

Greensburg Tuesday takes

| Monday, March 11, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Better recreation: A study into the operations of the Ligonier Valley YMCA and the Latrobe-Unity Parks and Recreation Commission, with an eye toward possible joint ventures and cost savings, makes considerable sense. It is unfortunate, however, that past disagreements have led to Unity's decision to withdraw from the commission in December 2014 (which has no connection to the aforementioned study). So much more could be realized if neighboring locales put residents' interests first instead of provincial squabbles.

The “cost” of teacher training: Greensburg Salem school directors are rightly concerned about teacher training days that cut into classroom instruction. But — perish the thought! — it's out of the question to ask all teachers (participation must be 100 percent) to use their free time for job training, which is not exactly uncommon in the private sector. Here's an opportunity for teachers to step up.

Pipeline pains: While some North Huntingdon residents are breathing a sigh of relief over a decision to reroute a liquid-gas pipeline away from their homes, the larger issue persists: With the boom in natural gas drilling throughout the region, where do new pipelines go? Once-rural areas of Western Pennsylvania are today's subdivisions. And pipeline companies aren't always going to have the rerouting option. Any lingering questions over the safety of these pipelines must be resolved.

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.