Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
Come again?: An Allegheny County grant of $225,000 to help underwrite a reality television show, a dubious endeavor for public money to begin with, violates the county's guidelines for disbursing casino tax dollars. And it's not the first time. The money is supposed to be reserved for economic development through “infrastructure assistance.” It's a pretty long stretch to say a reality TV show meets the definition of “infrastructure.”
Refreshing grocer: Commercial Properties Inc. of Raleigh, N.C., is set to begin construction next month on a Bottom Dollar grocery store in Pittsburgh's Garfield/Friendship area. And it will build the $10 million store with no public subsidies. Contrast that with the $11.6 million Shop 'n Save grocery store being built in the Hill District that's heavily publicly subsidized. Care to place your bets now on which store will have greater success? Our money's on the folks risking their own money in pursuit of profit.
Evolving Kanes: Allegheny County's Kane Regional Centers have been plagued with chronic deficits, typically $3 million to $4 million annually. But the county hopes that offering specialized care for Alzheimer's disease will help to whittle away at that deficit. To that end, it is spending $1 million to convert an unused wing at its Scott facility. Up to 28 staffers will be hired. And it hopes to compete with private facilities for Alzheimer's patients. While we still think the Kane Centers could and should be privatized, this effort is laudable.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
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.