Arnold, New Ken problems
I agree with Jim's Russell's assessment of the conditions on Constitution Boulevard (“Parking on sidewalks,” June 24). This is a long-standing issue.
Handicapped people should not have to use the street. Sidewalks are for — Duh! — walking.
He's correct that New Kensington and Arnold have ordinances against blocking sidewalks. Residents have garages, but there's so much junk in them there's no room for a car. Or the garages are dilapidated and owners don't rebuild or tear them down.
That would free up the streets. Has the code enforcement officer looked at these garages?
I see a lot of homes in Arnold with uncut grass and bushes. People buy houses, but don't do outside maintenance because they're lazy.
Lots of people maintain their properties because they want a nice neighborhood and a thriving community. But until more people want a good community, it will never happen.
We have many good landlords, but a lot don't screen tenants or are absentee landlords. Both cities have ordinances requiring landlords live within 10 miles or have a manager. Is there enforcement?
Also, re. the Rev. Steve Gabor's letter “Stop trashing Arnold” (June 20), about children getting an after-school snack at the Lighthouse Mission, but leaving and throwing away the wrappers on the streets: The kids need to sit down and eat, then throw their garbage away at the mission.
This is the parents' fault. These are lessons learned at home, but nobody is teaching these kids respect for other people or their property.
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 â 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.