Not taxpayers' responsibility
In response to the news story “Greensburg will provide interpreter for deaf boy” : I am pleased that children are choosing to be physically active; however, I don't believe it is the responsibility of taxpayers to pay for an interpreter so the boy can play in a city recreational soccer league.
I agree with Mayor Ron Silvis that this could snowball. Many townships are cash-strapped; this may potentially cause some communities to cancel recreational soccer leagues due to this extra cost. I am concerned that this could be yet another case of the majority being penalized for the good of the minority.
Please don't take this as an attack on the boy. I feel that an interpreter is something his parents should provide. Parents need to provide shinguards and specific socks and shoes for children to participate; an interpreter should be included in this category.
My child has braces. I provide a mouthguard for her to play. I have not hired an attorney to make her public school pay for one for her. I believe this is my responsibility as her parent.
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.
- ‘Affordable’? Not for him
- Arnold’s garbage
- ATI’s broken promises
- Pass GMO label bill
- Thinly veiled disdain
- Wrong on immigration II
- Helping the horses