Greensburg Laurels & Lances
Lance: To the supposed “cleanup” of the Jeannette Glass plant. The state says Zion Bullitt Ave. Ltd. of New York has been slow in removing hazardous materials and other debris from this festering eyesore. Do tell. The site has been deteriorating into a disaster area since Zion bought it in 1989. So now the state intends to play hardball? Worse than this tepid response is the message it sends to other industrial-site owners, who could just as well dump their disregard on state taxpayers.
Lance: To California University's outrageous $59 million convocation center. The overblown events site reportedly has accrued $400,000 in losses from nearly 100 events conducted during its first 16 months. And Cal U's response to this, in typical academia hogwash, is that the success of the 142,000-square-foot, 6,000-seat center cannot be measured solely on the basis of profits and losses. Oh? Well, how about return on the public's investment? Does that principle ring any bells for the ding-dongs who spearhead these unsustainable excursions through the public's pockets?
Laurel: To George Goubran. The teen's quick response, banging on the door of a burning Derry Borough house, likely made the difference for two children inside, who apparently were unaware of the rapidly advancing fire. Frequently in situations when every minute counts, thinking can get clouded. This young man's didn't. Good work!
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.