Aspinwall community prevails with decision on Riverfront 47 access road |
Fox Chapel

Aspinwall community prevails with decision on Riverfront 47 access road

Community prevails

The decision by the Mosites Company to abandon plans for an Eastern Avenue entrance to Riverfront 47 and the about-face by formerly pro-Eastern council members affirmed the undeniable impact of a group of committed residents who put their feet in the right place and stood firm. The extraordinary spirit and perseverance of this community is humbling and inspiring. With every yard sign and poster, educational blog and neon shirt, we showed that our voices would not be silenced. And we prevailed together.

While Eastern was a victory, decisions about R47 will be front and center for the foreseeable future. This demands we stay together and work together, so we can progress together.

Aspinwall is now awakened and thoroughly engaged in civic affairs. Public engagement is not something to be “weathered” by leaders. It should be embraced, because engaged participation is at the core of our extraordinary American experience and can shape our future.

This past January, in Priority Aspinwall’s first letter, we said this to R47’s developers:

“We are prepared to harness every bit of neighborly spirit our little community can muster and do all we can to help defeat your proposal – no matter what the odds. … It is our sincere hope … ‘the town that pride built’ will enter its next great chapter as the town that priorities preserved, indeed that its people preserved, because their voice prevailed.”

We are well on our way. Thank you Aspinwall.

Jan Beumer


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.