ShareThis Page
Tuesday takes |

Tuesday takes

| Monday, December 26, 2016 9:00 p.m

What’s in the water?: Concern over lead levels in Allegheny County water should focus first on the well-being of residents — not on who’s right or wrong. County Controller Chelsa Wagner raised the issue in an audit, which criticized the county Health Department for not doing enough to combat the problem. Ms. Wagner said she is “outraged by the failure of our agencies to acknowledge and correct this.” The county’s Board of Health will consider a proposal next month requiring mandatory lead testing for young children. It shouldn’t take anyone’s “outrage” to address what clearly is a perennial public health issue.

Assessment roulette: Westmoreland County commissioners changed the deadline for property owners to file assessment appeals next year to allow more time to hear challenges. And given commissioners’ comments, a countywide reassessment of property values (based on 1972 figures) remains the third rail of local politics: Nobody’s going to touch it. But what happens if the county’s hand is forced by a court order? Exactly how many residents are paying more, or less, taxes than they should? Eventually this burning fuse is going to reach the bomb.

New year for beer here: Local retailers are not entirely sure how the state’s new law on beer sales will affect them. Finally customers will be able to buy beer in the amount they prefer come Jan. 14. And whereas that’s bound to add competition for some “six-pack shops,” the additional convenience may well draw more occasional beer drinkers. It’s about time Pennsylvania’s beer laws enter the 21st century.

Categories: Editorials
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.