Greensburg Tuesday takes
State's mad money: Among local organizations lining up for a share of the state's mad money through Pennsylvania's Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program is Excela Health, which is seeking $26 million, $10 million of which would go toward building an outpatient clinic in Unity. But if Excela doesn't get the public's “assistance” for the clinic, it plans to proceed with the project anyway. Hence the madness of the state's unnecessary, indefensible “economic development” through taxpayers' pockets.
Keeping up with the Joneses: Defending the Greater Latrobe's School Board's decision to build a $9.5 million multipurpose athletic complex, board member Kathryn Elder says, “It's not fair to have our kids on our athletic teams work with facilities that are not what neighboring schools have.” So if, say, the Ligonier Valley School District builds a state-of-the-art gym, Latrobe should follow suit? Regrettably, the same competitiveness rarely applies to core academics.
Business as usual in Jeannette: After weeks of not getting a straight answer from a Washington County contractor who was paid $65,000 for a recreation center, Jeannette finally decided to turn the matter over to Westmoreland County detectives. Then again, it only took years for city leaders to realize that something was amiss when they couldn't figure out what happened to their planned rec center — which was never built.
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 â 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.