ShareThis Page
Fox Chapel

Letter to the editor: Baseless innuendo does not represent majority view in Aspinwall

| Friday, Jan. 5, 2018, 4:24 p.m.
Councilwoman is sworn in during Aspinwall reorganizational meeting.
Councilwoman is sworn in during Aspinwall reorganizational meeting.

Looking toward the future in Aspinwall

I disagree with the letter to the editor that appeared online recently, “Not impressed with Aspinwall's new council,” and the notion that the opinon presumably represents the “vast majority” of how Aspinwall feels, as someone said in a posted comment.

I attended the agenda meeting referenced and did not witness a display of “political corruption and cronyism” or any of the other baseless innuendo offered up by the letter writer. What I did witness was the swearing-in of newly elected council members and the nomination and vote for new council leadership, per protocol. This new council can now get down to running the business of the borough, which they volunteered to do.

Understandably, some residents are not pleased with how this leadership vote turned out — elections tend to have that effect. Aspinwall is more than the single issue of Riverfront 47 access, despite the constant drumbeat otherwise. There is plenty more to do in this town — landing a new mayor, police chief, possibly becoming part of a regional police force, fixing essential infrastructure, and all the other work that council is tasked to do. I support the new council and its leadership and I look forward to positively helping in anyway I can to make this the great place where I have chosen to raise a family. That is something I believe the “vast majority” of Aspinwall would agree with.

Jeff Harris


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