Greensburg Laurels & Lances
On the “Watch List”: The Ligonier Valley YMCA zoning dispute. In appealing the borough's rejection of its rezoning request, the Y says former Ligonier Councilwoman Kim Shaffer should have recused herself instead of voting against the proposal. Why? Because it was Ms. Shaffer who sold land to the Y for $170,000, which was key to the Y's expansion plan. Shaffer, who resigned from the council after the vote, says she had a written legal opinion endorsing her right to vote on the issue. The question is, how much is the borough willing to spend to defend that opinion?
Lance: To local school boards' “show time.” Under Act 1, many school boards soon will decide what tax-increase “limit” they'll impose on residents. Not that the so-called limit has any meaningful purpose; school districts can apply to the state for exemptions, which typically are granted. It's the same old tax-jacking that existed before Act 1. Essentially this is merely a public show in which the public has no say.
Lance: To teens' all-too-candid camera antics. Nude photos of five or six Norwin High School female students, supposedly posted on social media, turned up on a porn website. Authorities say the website has been shut down and they are investigating. These time-consuming investigations and embarrassments can be avoided if young people simply think before they mindlessly click their digital devices.
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.