Letter to the editor: Clarifying Greensburg ‘soiree’ concerns |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Clarifying Greensburg ‘soiree’ concerns

I was the chairperson for Greensburg’s soiree on June 28. In response to Donald Nelson’s letter ( “Greensburg ‘soiree’ disappointing,” July 11,
TribLIVE) I wanted to explain some of the issues he mentioned.

When you purchased raffle tickets, you should have received a map noting the stores involved with the raffle. The map also showed where the six wineries were located. Three of them were at businesses on the outskirts of town. We offered a free shuttle to those locations. We did this to be inclusive of as many businesses in Greensburg as possible.

Yes, there were to be six food trucks, but due to personal reasons one had to pull out. We did have six food vendors, four in trucks and two in tents. One had to bring his tent because he had trouble with his truck. Food trucks are like restaurants on wheels. Food is made to order, so a 15-minute wait is common.

The park on Pennsylvania Avenue was in need of a cleanup. And we are grateful that Project Greensburg, along with other Greensburg residents, on their own time, with donated flowers, cleaned the park in early July. Sadly enough even after the cleanup, if you went there today you would probably find bird droppings. You can’t stop Mother Nature.

Business owners and professionals recently started meeting to form the Greensburg Business & Professional Association. We meet at 5:15 p.m. Tuesdays at McFeely’s Gourmet Chocolate.
Mr. Nelson, we invite you to join us and welcome your input on any way we can continue to keep Greensburg growing.

Helen Keegan-Geroux


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.