ShareThis Page

Greensburg Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, July 18, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

On the “Watch List”: Greensburg's two-way road proposal. A consultant's recommendation to change one-way West Pittsburgh and West Otterman streets to two-way is an intriguing idea that deserves careful evaluation. Both roads handle fewer vehicles than they did decades ago, the consultant says. But the question is whether these thoroughfares, made two-way, can handle peak drive-time traffic.

Laurel: To Chick Cicconi. At a time in life when most folks are well settled in their retirement, Mr. Cicconi was considering his next job with Ligonier Borough (as code-enforcement officer, now known as land-use administrator), a post he held until he recently turned 83. A former council member and borough mayor, “Mr. Ligonier” concludes an impressive record of service.

Laurel: To Katie Smith. In classrooms as a teacher and as the current Ms. Wheelchair Pennsylvania, the Stahlstown resident, 27, is an engaging advocate for people with disabilities. This, after a spinal cord injury in 2007. By turning that experience into something positive, Ms. Smith is an inspiration to all.

A question: If Latrobe police are allowed to patrol St. Vincent College in Unity under a new agreement, is there not opportunity for the township (which relies on state police) to pick up some police services? Unity could benefit from local radar patrols on streets where posted speed limits are typically ignored. To wit: What are cars clocking in at on Monastery Drive these days?

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.