Pay for your own recreation
Referring to the article “Armstrong trail work planned” (VND, Dec. 28), I ask: Why do we have to continue to drain our pockets to pay more dollars for recreation?
The article points out how wonderful this development is — at a cost of $36,000 from Kittanning's coffers and an additional $40,000 from the Allegheny Land Trust. While this sounds wonderful to those collecting the cash, these children installing birdhouses on the trail could be installing birdhouses made by the Progressive workshop at their own houses to monitor bird activity. Their parents can buy the birdhouses out of their own pockets.
The article reveals the total cost is $38 million for taxpayers to supply these grants across Pennsylvania.
Mr. Steffy, Allegheny Land Trust executive director, is happy with the sacrifices of the volunteers working these trails. How about some hurrah for the volunteer firefighters who have expanded areas to cover with the influx of more people in these trail areas — areas that are free from paying any taxes to offset the cost of their expansions?
Our dwindling volunteer fire departments already are stretched from a lack of resources, donations and man power. Added to that are the additional skills required for expanded duties, such as the Dec. 25 Indiana County gas well fire that had to be managed by volunteer firefighters.
These trails also require more diligence by homeowners who have them running parallel to their properties. These trails can open up more opportunity for possible break-ins and other undesirable activity.
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.
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Good riddance
- Idea for casino
- Don’t blame bus drivers II