Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, April 4, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
Lance: To Opening Day gridlock — again . Monday's 1:35 p.m. Pittsburgh Pirates opener at PNC Park was a traffic nightmare for both fans and commuters, jamming North Shore streets by 9 a.m. Yet off-duty city police working traffic details weren't supposed to be in place until 10:30 and on-duty traffic officers didn't get assignments until about 11:15. Expect this nightmare to repeat for each opener until the Pirates and the city actually learn from experience.
Laurel (with a caveat): To cleaning up your own mess. When Pittsburgh SWAT personnel realized they'd mistakenly broken into a Sheraden home last Saturday — erroneously thinking they had a search warrant not just for a neighboring house but for that one, too — they commendably pulled back immediately, had Public Works board up the damage and referred the homeowner to city lawyers for reimbursement. But such an error, which can cause much worse than property damage, is unacceptable — period — and never should occur.
On the “Watch List”: Justice for an alleged indoor “tagger.” Unfortunately, the most fitting outcome won't occur for University of Pittsburgh student Daniel Khan-Yousufzai, 21, accused of spray-painting “WRC” — shorthand for an anti-sweatshop group some want Pitt to join — on a Cathedral of Learning sandstone hallway. He won't end up scrubbing it with a toothbrush because Pitt already cleaned up the damage, estimated at up to $100,000. But if convicted, he must face similarly severe consequences.
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.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.