Greensburg Laurels & Lances
Lance: To Westmoreland County Courthouse drips. Reason would dictate that when the former Democrat administration spent $55,000 four years ago to restore two upper-level courtrooms, they would have first fixed the leaky roof. Apparently not. Now after exterior repairs, the courtrooms will have to be repaired again. Talk about drips.
Laurel: To Harry Smith. The former district administrator challenged the Penn-Trafford School Board's proposed $32 million high school renovation, given that there's no state reimbursement currently available and that the high school is the newest building in the district. The answer is not more money from Harrisburg — which is never enough. It's better district planning.
On the “Watch List”: The Westmoreland Manor study. The county-owned nursing home is operating at a $1.3 million deficit this year. There are concerns that the manor, valued at up to $32 million if sold, could cost taxpayers considerably more in future deficits. The question is whether county government should remain in the nursing home business.
Laurel: To Faith Good. The Youngwood resident is suing the state for taking away her Monk parakeet, which in Pennsylvania is regarded as a threat to crops and wildlife. But Ms. Good has owned the parakeet, without incident, for 26 years — in fact, six months before the state officially banned the bird. And the bird has no mate. When the state pushes people around in this manner, the people need to push back.
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.