Letter to the editor: City offered Amazon only one real choice |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: City offered Amazon only one real choice

Let’s take a real look at what Pittsburgh’s “leaders” offered Amazon to locate its second headquarters here ( “Pittsburgh offered Amazon its best development sites — for free,” Nov. 15, TribLIVE). Amazon would need its workers to gather at the new building and feel reasonably safe while working there with the assumption that their cars are also safely and securely parked. All reasonable assumptions.

Four of the sites Pittsburgh’s all-knowing leaders offered — Hazelwood, former Civic Arena site (lower Hill District), Carrie Furnace (Rankin) and Strip District — are high-crime areas and hard to get to in Pittsburgh’s famous “rush three-hour traffic,” even tougher, and longer, via Pittsburgh’s antiquated “public transportation system.” None of these four places has adequate parking or room to develop such a large parking area.

So Pittsburgh’s “leaders” really offered Amazon only one viable choice that any company could logically consider: a leased 152-acre site near Pittsburgh International Airport. Have any of you tried to get to the airport during “don’t think of rushing hour” on a dilapidated, ill-kept, much-too-narrow Driveway west? Way to go, leading jokesters.

Obviously, Amazon has much smarter people in charge of its company than Pittsburgh has in charge of its city. And maybe, just maybe, that’s why Amazon makes money and Pittsburgh is in so much debt.

Bill Herald


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.