Greensburg Laurels & Lances
Lance: To Jeannette's Recreation Center “Plan B.” Unable to account for a $65,000 state grant earmarked years ago for a rec center, some city leaders have suggested building a scaled-down — more like slapdash — version. But exactly how is cash-strapped Jeannette going to afford the full cost of this evolving boondoggle? Never mind that the contractor who originally took the money to build a steel frame for the center reportedly can't remember whom he supposedly paid for the job. And the question begs even louder: Where's the money?!
Lance: To disposition of the Monsour Medical Center clean-up bill. A new report pegs the ex-hospital's demolition cost at $1 million. And since the building is filled with an estimated 38,000 square feet of asbestos, no investor is going to buy this dilapidated rat trap in its present state. But why is it presumed that taxpayers must foot the entire cost when no effort (at least not publicly) has been made to hold the hospital's board accountable for what it abandoned, scot-free, seven years ago? And Jeannette officials can't “pinpoint” who's responsible for the building? Nonsense! This is an atrocity for which the miscreants of the Monsour Medical Center must be held accountable.
Laurel: To a true harbinger of spring. Forget the groundhog. Nothing says “spring” like the announced schedule of the SummerSounds concert series in St. Clair Park, Greensburg. The Friday-evening program begins June 7 and continues through Aug. 30. And by then, we trust, it will be safe to leave the winter coats home.
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.
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer