Share This Page

Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, March 13, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

Laurel: To curbing South Side rowdiness. This weekend's St. Patrick's Day revelry should test some recommendations of the California-based Responsible Hospitality Institute, a $100,000-per-year city consultant. One side of the 1700 block of East Carson Street is being devoted to taxis, the other to valet services, which should ease traffic and help prevent drunken driving. Upcoming are stepped-up police patrols funded in part by South Side bars and restaurants. And shuttle buses can aid the neighborhood's parking crunch. But nothing's more helpful than a responsible approach to partying — year-round.

On the “Watch List”: The VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System investigation. Internal communications obtained by the Trib show the system's top physician warned colleagues that equipment meant to curtail Legionella bacteria in the Oakland VA hospital's water system wasn't performing up to standards in September 2011 — seven months after the bacteria caused a deadly outbreak of Legionnaires' disease to begin, but 13 months before officials acknowledged that outbreak publicly. It's yet more evidence for the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs to consider in its probe of shameful treatment of local veterans.

Lance (with a caveat): To implementation of Pittsburgh's new open-data ordinance. Had more thought been given, the city wouldn't need months just to figure out what data it collects (!) so it can figure out what data it can post online. The caveat? Government transparency is a good thing.

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.