Archive

ShareThis Page
The McConway & Torley foundry fight: Eco-wackos & hipsters vs. jobs | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

The McConway & Torley foundry fight: Eco-wackos & hipsters vs. jobs

McConway & Torley LLC sounds like the name of one of those law firms that remind “there’s no charge unless we get money for you.” It’s not. It’s a 147-year-old foundry in Pittsburgh’s Lawrenceville neighborhood that suddenly finds itself under legal fire from environmental extremists who have convinced the Allegheny County Health Department to cut off its nose to spite the face.

The company, in operation since Andrew Johnson was president in 1868, is one of those manufacturing gems. It makes 60 percent of America’s railroad car couplers and employs more than 400 people. Lawrenceville these days is billed by tourism types as the city’s “hippest neighborhood.”

Egged on by the eco-wackos and those self-anointed hipsters, the health department, claiming pollution problems that don’t appear to exist, wants McConway & Torley to cut production by 77 percent. That likely would put the company out of business and its employees out of work.

Rachel Filippini, head rabble-rouser for GASP, the Group Against Smog and Pollution, laments that “In 2015, you would never allow a foundry to locate in Lawrenceville.” Well, who was there first? And then she slips and reveals the bogus nature of her argument when she admits — GASP! — “A lot of people don’t know that this foundry is tucked back on 48th Street.”

McConway & Torley has been a good neighbor. We’re not so sure we can say the same of those who have invaded its neighborhood.


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.