Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
Laurel: To developer Steve Kubrick and New Kensington officials for their efforts to bring the former Alcoa Research Labs back to life. The property should be the city's historic centerpiece, not the eyesore and a target for crime it's been for decades. We hope Kubrick is able to reach his goal of turning the white elephant into a productive hub for jobs, training and development.
Lance: To not helping your community. The Apollo Hose Co. No. 3 didn't do its annual fundraising campaign last year. According to the company president, that's because of insufficient contributions from the citizenry. While we question whether the firefighters should give up the fund drive, it's appalling people can't donate some money to keeping their town safe.
On the “Watch List”:
• We hope Arnold officials are able to find a way to either bring back the annual police vs. Steelers game — which has been discontinued for a variety of reasons — or find some other way to honor the late Officer Tom Cimino for his dedication to the community. Since the DARE program, which proceeds from the game benefited, is defunct, perhaps organizers can fund a scholarship or develop another worthy program.
• The Pittsburgh Pirates open the 2013 season at home on Monday against the Chicago Cubs. The Bucs are hoping lightning strikes this year in pursuit of their first winning season in two decades. So break out all the cliches you can muster and hope for the best. But history offers a sobering lesson and Pirates fans should prepare to be disappointed for the 21st-consecutive year.
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 â 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.