Greensburg Laurels & Lances
On the “Watch List”:
• The D.J. verdict. Some will argue that reducing the number of district judges in Westmoreland County from 17 to 16 come 2018 will crimp the system. It's a valid concern. To wit: Did the state Supreme Court factor into its decision population shifts and/or growth from the Marcellus shale boom? That's not baseless optimism — not when a developer (from New Jersey, no less) wants to build 120 single-family homes (price range, $330,000 to $400,000) in Unity. And in the same township, supervisors have OK'd a $20 million rehab center — in effect, the first hospital to be built in the county since the 1950s.
• A future eyesore. As the state readies plans for the sale of its 23-acre prison in Hempfield, we trust it has factored in the demolition cost. What Westmoreland County doesn't need is another white elephant that sits empty for years and decays into an eyesore — one that will attract trespassers and pose a public safety threat.
Lance: To easy money: Some Greensburg officials have no problem justifying $6 million in state taxpayer funding — via the Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program — for a new Seton Hill University dance and visual arts center. Said Mayor Ron Silvis, “If we don't take it, somebody else will take it.” And Pennsylvanians wonder why they never see meaningful property tax relief when Harrisburg, egged on by this economic “logic,” continually and chronically misspends their money — in this case, by generously greasing a private university's building plans.
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.
- James Foley, 1973-2014: Fighting on
- The Thursday wrap
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Tuesday essay: Sophie
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states