Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
Lance: To the Government-Transportation Complex. Despite no compelling need, the commonwealth is moving forward with the next phase of the Southern Expressway, a half-billion-dollar boondoggle from Route 22-30 in Allegheny County to Interstate 79 at the Allegheny-Washington County border. Data from the first phase of the toll road — known as the Findlay Connector — show actual usage is two-thirds less than projections. What a waste.
Laurel: To Bill Peduto. Pittsburgh's mayor says the financially struggling city too often in the past has looked at its problem “through the lens of politics instead of looking at it through the lens of reality.” It's a telling statement. And it's a welcome statement if it means officials will, finally, fully right-size city operations. For there remain many efficiencies that the city has yet to implement. Right-sizing the Bureau of Fire would be a good thing to tackle next.
Lance: To Pittsburgh's overseers. The city is facing a $60 million shortfall. But despite all manner of edicts and pronouncements from two oversight boards, the root problem of “structural deficits” continues to haunt Pittsburgh. Mr. Peduto has blamed the “smoke and mirrors” of the previous Ravenstahl administration for masking the problem. He's right. But the oversight boards cannot be held blameless given that “structural deficits” have been the rule rather than the exception for decades.
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.