ShareThis Page

Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, July 31, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

On the “Watch List”:

The Steve Bucar-Steve Zappala fight. Pittsburgh's new public safety director and Allegheny County's district attorney are off to a rocky start in a dispute over how to best present suspects' photos to eyewitnesses. Mr. B. says he learned of a new policy by reading the Trib. Mr. Z. says he sent Mr. B. an email days before. It's time to iron this out over coffee. The public, and justice, are being disserved by this very public spat.

• Pittsburgh's garbage. The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy once again is recommending that the city, still in state receivership and plagued with systemic budget deficits, consider doing what most communities do — privatize garbage collection. And this time, it stresses, no poison pills should be allowed to rig the process. That's what happened previously. The savings could be in the millions of dollars. The time has come. Again.

Laurel: To Dollar Bank. It finally has called out Pittsburgh's Urban Redevelopment Authority for “shirking good public stewardship” in its attempts to block the sale of the insolvent August Wilson black cultural center to a private entity. The bank, which holds the center's defaulted mortgage, criticizes the URA for “actions wholly inconsistent with its stated purpose and mission” — including the creation of jobs and expanding the tax rolls. Exactly.

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.