Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
On the “Watch List”:
• Pittsburgh city government. By all accounts, the Peduto administration inherited a nightmare of operational dysfunction from the Ravenstahl administration. In some cases, the left hand not only didn't know what the right hand was doing, it didn't even know a right hand existed. It was no way to run a city. Here's to fixing the mess. But that will take time and patience.
• A Heinz Field deal. The Steelers say they're optimistic about reaching a deal with the Sports & Exhibition Authority in a dispute over who should pay what for a $30 million expansion of the heavily taxpayer-subsidized football stadium. A trial set to begin Monday has been postponed until May 19. Uh-oh. Taxpayers should put their wallets in a lockbox.
Laurel: To Jim Ferlo. The state senator of Highland Park says what everybody is thinking but, for some reason, has been afraid to say: It's time for the state attorney general and auditor general to take a more active role in the mess that is the August Wilson black cultural center. Both offices seem to be nibbling around the edges of the facility's insolvency when they should be actively investigating and auditing for any possible improprieties.
Lance: To Bob Macey. The Allegheny County councilman, a Democrat of West Mifflin, clearly is violating the county code of conduct and ethics by simultaneously working part time in the McKeesport office of state Sen. Jim Brewster. Yet, the council's solicitor signed off on the conflict of interest. Mr. Macey says he'll challenge the rule if need be. But he should do the honorable thing and pick one job. And to Solicitor Jack Cambest, this admonition: A loosey-goosey rule is no rule at all.
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.