ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Greensburg parking is problematic

| Sunday, Aug. 20, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

The article concerning the state of Greensburg was thoughtful and thought-provoking ( “Greensburg aims to trim vacancy rate, revive once-bustling downtown” ). Discussing it with several area residents, the consensus was that the article should have noted inconvenient parking in Greensburg.

Discussing it with several area residents, the consensus was that the article should have noted inconvenient parking in Greensburg.

While there may be parking, it's often not convenient. There are so many spaces reserved 24/7. The lot across from Bortz is now awkward to use. Meter rates increased to the point that having a few quarters means you can't do much in town.

There's an app. But many of us feel our phones already have too many apps. And some people don't have smartphones.

At the same time, how much does inconvenient parking really impact downtown Greensburg's 20-percent vacancy rate? How can that be determined? Maybe talk to the owners of the businesses that have recently left downtown — Never Enough, the Cupcake Shop, CatWalk, etc.

Another thought: Can we learn from others? How do other county seats fare? Not sure the Trib has the reporting staff needed to investigate this further, with downsizing (glad to see the occasional Randy Bish cartoon), but that would be of great interest. What is the downtown vacancy rate in Butler? How about Somerset? Indiana, Pa.? No point in reinventing the wheel. Let's find a model that works and fits with our demographics, and try it. And if that model doesn't work, try another one.

Maybe Greensburg can't be more than it is now. However, if nothing is tried, how will we know?

Sandra Finley


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