ShareThis Page

Greensburg Tuesday takes

| Monday, April 29, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Deficit of cooperation: A five-year financial management plan shows Latrobe faces a projected $500,000 shortfall by 2016 if it doesn't adjust its fees and tax rates. And how long can Unity go along its merry way without looking beyond its own border? Yet relations between the two neighbors appear to be at their lowest point ever when both municipalities, with mutual needs, should be seriously considering cooperative ventures. Yes, there have been some less-than-neighborly disputes. But the future need not resemble the past if wiser and cooler heads prevail.

Powerful playground display: If one were to put a price on the volunteer labor that's rebuilding an arson-gutted playground in Latrobe's Legion Keener Park, it would be about $150,000, according to the playground's designer. But the actual value of this work by a small army of volunteers — or, more precisely, the depth of their commitment — is priceless. It also signals their common resolve against a mindless, malicious act of vandalism.

Garbage in, garbage out: The threat of litigation by a statewide association of trash haulers over a commonsense measure in Unity, which would have required haulers to register in the township and post their fees, was enough to scuttle the requirement. But don't blame the supervisors, who simply wanted to give residents a clearer picture of their trash-hauling options. Blame “garbage” law, which in this sorry application upholds the so-called protection of the service providers over the convenience of their clients.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.