ShareThis Page

Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, July 10, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

Laurel: To goats. From our Department of Everything Old is New Again, a tip o' the hat to Tree Pittsburgh. The nonprofit group employed a tribe of 30 goats to clear a weed-strangled hillside in Polish Hill's West Penn Park. Goats might be more expensive than herbicides but they're a far more ecologically friendly solution.

Lance: To the “hook.” Taxpayers will be forced to pay nearly $1 million more for the Pittsburgh Penguins' Consol Energy Center lease. That's because of two downgrades in the credit rating of the bond insurer and an increase in the bond issue's variable interest rate in the state-backed deal that built the new hockey arena. As too often is the case in these deals, the hook in the taxpayer wallet only digs deeper.

On the “Watch List”:

• Public thievery. Jennifer Richards, a former secretary for Versailles, is accused of stealing more than $30,000 from the borough. She's the latest in a long line of local government employees in the region to be accused of such a crime. And it continues to show that checks and balances that should serve as a deterrent against such shenanigans are lacking.

• Mt. Lebanon. It's the latest community to say it will consider new regulations to govern “urban agriculture.” The move was sparked when one neighbor complained that another's beehive was built too close to the property line. But these matters are best left to neighbors to resolve. The last thing any community needs is government overregulating one's backyard.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.