It was with a heavy heart that I read the news in the Daily Courier that the entire Community Center Board had resigned. What in the world is wrong with this city?
To me it seems to be a no-brainer that the jewel and lynchpin of the whole community center is the Porter Theater. I was utterly amazed when I first set foot in it last year for the Conn-Area Catholic School musical. But for the most part, the theater sits empty. The city has this beautiful resource, but those who truly want to capitalize on it seem to be stymied at every turn.
The theater could be a means to bring people into town. The Carnegie Library in Homestead comes to mind as an example to emulate. It has become a popular venue for bands, comedy shows and other entertainment. Why can't we do that with the Porter? Imagine the impact it could have on the city. By bringing in people, it would create an opportunity for new business.
While we're at it, why not make the town more attractive? Who could argue with that? Well, apparently those in power. A better-looking city, people choosing to live here, more businesses — certainly none of these alone will be the salvation of the Jewel of the Yough. And no one denies that we desperately need to attract industry with its well-paying jobs. Ultimately without that piece of the puzzle, we are just spinning our wheels.
With that said, let me pose a simple question: Where do you think a business owner would chose to locate? In the slums? Or in an attractive and culturally-rich locale?
The Rev. Bob Lubic
The writer is pastor of the Connellsville Catholic Community.
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.