ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Free cash not enough for Jeannette

| Saturday, Jan. 13, 2018, 8:45 p.m.

Regarding “Jeannette's new city council plans to reverse zoning vote on gas station for Monsour property” : Jeannette has had a money problem for a few years now. That is, not enough of it.

How can you change the tax base if you are a resident of Jeannette? You elect city council members who make that change. Yeah, they made that change. Oh wait — you thought the change would be positive, didn't you? No, a negative change is still a change. Did you forget middle-school algebra so soon?

It's not wise to stiff a developer who wants to improve the tax base. And without even giving him a heads-up? Not the best way to improve your tax base.

The residents of the city must know what they're doing. Brilliant choice.

So, to recap — the county industrial development group convinces the state to make grants and loans of $1 million or so to clean up the Monsour site and make it look pretty. That's my tax dollars at work. No money from Jeannette.

The same county industrial development group markets the property to someone (Don Tarosky Jr., owner of Colony Holding Co.) who has a “track record “ for developing other land areas in the county. Again, my tax dollars. And again, no money from Jeannette.

But all this free cash isn't enough for Jeannette. It's clear to me why Mayor Curtis Antoniak wants “something better,” such as a doctor's office. That's because Jeannette is on life support.

Don Carrera


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