Lance: To the PUC. It continues to attack the free market and make a mockery of “public purpose” with its continuing assault on the Lyft and Uber ride-sharing services. The Pennsylvania State Public Utility Commission's investigative arm, not content with hefty fines, now wants the PUC to issue cease-and-desist orders against each. The state Legislature created the PUC. If it has any guts, it will issue its own cease-and-desist order (in the form of corrective legislation) and intervene to stop this unbecoming episode of monopoly preservation.
Laurel: To Bill Peduto. Pittsburgh's mayor is taking the PUC to task for its “overbearing enforcement activities” against Lyft and Uber. “The role of government is to facilitate innovation and growth, not to stand in its way.” Mr. Peduto says he uses the ride-sharing services “frequently” and that they “are not going anywhere anytime soon because the people, through their wallets and smartphones, have demanded it.” Hear! Hear!
On the “Watch List”: Michael Lamb. Pittsburgh City Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak wants the city controller to conduct an audit to determine how much the city benefits from PNC Park, Heinz Field and Consol Energy Center. It's a great idea. But it won't be an accurate audit unless the taxpayers' debt service is factored in, as well as what was lost with their construction — namely property taxes on the PNC Park and Consol sites and what was lost in the sweetheart deal with the Pirates and Steelers to develop 25 acres between PNC Park and Heinz Field.
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.