Share This Page

Greensburg Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, March 21, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

Lance: To Westmoreland County's former Democrat commissioners' “investment strategy.” They sunk taxpayers for more than $8 million in losses stemming from a “risky” (to say the least) investment approved five years ago. This so-called “swap option” bet on interest rates rising. Sure, as the nation in early 2008 lunged into a recession. Shrewd.

Lance: To the Jeannette state check caper. Since news of a missing $65,000 state grant broke weeks ago, we've learned that Jeannette used the Department of Community and Economic Development money for a steel structure that was never built — six years ago; that the check supposedly was deposited by the president of a now-defunct sheet metal company, who said he made a down payment to another firm that he can't remember; and that Jeannette apparently never filed a requisite “closeout” report on the money, contrary to DCED policy, yet continued to receive DCED grants. And still nobody can answer the central question: Where's the money?!

On the “Watch List”: The Monessen “artist community” deal. Westmoreland commissioners have postponed action on a Monessen proposal in which the county would sell the city 271 unclaimed properties — mostly broken-down houses and unusable lots — that would aid in the former mill town's envisioned renaissance. The fly in the proverbial ointment is that if this land deal goes through, who's going to pay to convert these properties into a utopian artists colony? No word yet on private developers lining up for that opportunity.

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.