By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, May 12, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
My family has lived in Cranberry since 1985. Regarding the news story “Improved playground on the way in Cranberry” (April 28 and TribLIVE.com), I'm wondering if Cranberry supervisors are out of touch.
Given the economy, I'm aware of neighbors out of work or struggling to maintain their standard of living on 1990s wages. How does one justify spending $82,500 on “design costs” for a “Kids Castle” playground on land currently used for the same purpose? What about the estimated cost of nearly $500,000 to complete the new playground? Perhaps a castle is exactly what it is. Is this wise stewardship of township resources?
Recently, my family received a solicitation for playground funds from the Cranberry Township Community Chest. I thought it helps support nonprofit organizations like Scouts, ambulance corps, firefighters and so on.
I do applaud the efforts and enthusiasm of volunteers willing to dismantle the old playground. Lumber reuse is a “green” option, as well as a cost-saving measure. This again raises the question of how the expected cost is so high.
Nancy T. Duerring
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.
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Saved her life
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Drought answer?
- Conspicuous by absence
- Weakness shows
- Not reviled abroad
- Guzzardi for guv