Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
Published: Thursday, June 20, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
On the “Watch List”:
• Luke Ravenstahl. Anecdotal evidence is suggesting that the Pittsburgh mayor is the target of a federal public corruption investigation. The latest comes from one of Mr. Ravenstahl's former bodyguards, who is believed to have told a grand jury that the mayor's security detail was kept on duty to cover the mayor's late-night exploits, then told to falsify their time sheets. Ravenstahl steadfastly has denied any wrongdoing.
• The Steelers. An Allegheny County judge isn't buying the franchise's contention that taxpayers, through the Sports & Exhibition Authority, are contractually on the hook to pay tens of millions of dollars to help the Steelers expand and upgrade Heinz Field. And that ruling should put the kibosh on the Steelers' efforts to dive into the public's pockets once again — though the team has indicated it will try, try again.
Laurel: To Nora Barry Fischer. The federal judge ruled that the Blush strip club can indeed hire off-duty Pittsburgh police officers for security, overturning a Bureau of Police ban, as the club's lawsuit against the city wends its way through the system. Judge Fischer said the ban likely violated the club's constitutional rights. But she should have also noted how the ban is nothing less than an illegal restraint of free trade — the officers'.
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.
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- The Box
- Sunday pops
- Corrections reinvention
- ‘Racism’? No
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- The Thursday wrap
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- ‘Merit selection’ for judges? No thank you
- Accord in Geneva: Smelly side deals, too