ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Quotables: Controversy returns to site of former Monsour Medical Center

| Monday, Jan. 1, 2018, 9:50 p.m.
Spectators gather to watch as a crew from Dore & Associates work to demolish the former Monsour Medical Center in Jeannette on Feb. 23, 2016.
Sean Stipp | Tribune-Review
Spectators gather to watch as a crew from Dore & Associates work to demolish the former Monsour Medical Center in Jeannette on Feb. 23, 2016.

Controversy that long surrounded the abandoned Monsour Medical Center before it was razed now is directed at plans for the cleared site's development. Proposed retail and commercial businesses at Jayhawk Commons in Jeannette include a gas station. But critics say the first thing people see as they enter the city from Route 30 shouldn't be a gas station. There may be no pleasing everyone. But clearly what eventually goes up on this property is going to be an improvement over the towering rats' nest that finally came down.

“I am very troubled by this vote being rushed through before myself and (incoming councilwoman) Nancy Peters are sworn into office. ... They (Hempfield residents) get (an Allegheny Health Network hospital); we're going to get a gas pump.”


Jeannette's incoming mayor

“This isn't closing my eyes and throwing darts at a dartboard. There are several indicators that I use. Sustainable success is what's important here.”


Owner of site developer Colony Holding

“The more we're restricting development, the harder it will be to attract developments in the future.”


Lawyer with Bonini and Co. representing the Westmoreland County Land Bank

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