ShareThis Page
Fox Chapel

Letter to the editor: Priority Aspinwall continuing to divide community

| Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2017, 3:27 p.m.
Tripp Clarke
Tripp Clarke

This is in reponse to Jan Beumer of Priority Aspinwall's recent letter to the editor in The Herald.

Apparently, he has a very narrow litmus test for judging the qualifications of anyone running for office in Aspinwall. The test: “Are you for or against connecting Aspinwall with the Riverfront 47 development?” In my opinion, selecting your community leaders based purely on one issue is narrow-minded, shortsighted, and ignores the many other issues facing Aspinwall.

His criteria for recommending Councilwoman Ann Marsico as the next council president is so transparent and self-serving to the Priority Aspinwall cause that it should be insulting to the entire community. This isn't questioning whether Marsico is qualified, or is the best person to be the next president of council. It's about questioning the real motives of Beumer, because Marsico is the only re-elected council member who voted against connecting Aspinwall to R47.

Further, to suggest that Priority Aspinwall “speaks for the people” is just plain wrong. Even at the height of the group's campaign against the reconstruction of Eastern Avenue as an entrance to Aspinwall Riverfront Park, there were more homes in Aspinwall without opposition signs than those with.

Over the last 18 months, Beumer and Priority Aspinwall have divided our town with letters like his last one. And based on his letter, it appears that they will continue to do so.

Having lived here for almost 30 years, I believe that most residents have remained quiet not out of agreement with the stance taken by Priority Aspinwall, but because they don't wish to be a part of the caustic dialogue created by the group. Most residents simply are quietly longing for a return to what Aspinwall should be known for: a community of neighbors acting neighborly.

Tripp Clarke


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me