ShareThis Page

Tuesday takes

| Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2003

The big hearing: Tonight's the night. The state Department of Community and Economic Development covens at 7 p.m. (at the IBEW Hall on East Carson) to take testimony on Pittsburgh's Act 47 application. If approved, the financially struggling city could win approval to attempt to tax its way back to "prosperity." It is incumbent upon those who rightly argue the city can tighten its belt to save itself to make their case quite forthrightly this evening.

Missing acreage: Former Pittsburgh Mayor Sophie Masloff is all over state Sen. Jane Orie for supposedly misrepresenting the development scenario between PNC Park and Heinz Field. Ms. Orie contends the 25 acres have gone for a song, thanks to government sweetheart dealing. Not so, Mrs. Masloff says, who also claims there's only 9 acres between the palaces that perfidy built. Hey, who stole the public's other 16 acres?

State supermarkets: Democrat brainiac state Reps. Jake Wheatley of the Hill District and Frank Oliver of Philadelphia think it would be a swell idea to create state-run grocery stores for "underserved" inner-city neighborhoods. Their rationale• Well, we've had state liquor stores forever. Need we say more regarding the sheer amentia of such "thinking."

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