Letter to the editor: Elm Street paving | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Elm Street paving

Elm Street paving

On Aug. 12 South Greensburg borough council voted to pave the brick hill on the 1600 block of Elm Street. The brick street was built in the 1930s and has required minimal repair. I understand a grant will pay for it, but most of the residents like the brick and have no problems with it.

I’ve talked to my neighbors: 24 residents in 14 homes enjoy the brick and prefer it to stay. Residents of four homes were not available to comment, and only two people told me they don’t like the brick.

So the majority on this block have no problems with the bricks and like the nostalgia of them. Perhaps they could use the county’s grant money to repair something that actually needs repaired and will benefit the community. They have the opportunity to do the right thing.

Vanessa R. Lewis

South Greensburg


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.