Letters to the editor MUST be accompanied by your daytime and evening phone numbers for verification purposes. Letters without phone numbers cannot be considered for publication. Letters must include first and last names. Short letters have a better chance of being selected for publication. We do not publish anonymous letters.
Realtor should read
between the signs
Regarding Christopher Artur’s letter in the Sept. 21 edition, Hold the line on the sale signs:
To Mr. Artur’s belief that too many real estate signs make for an unsightly block, I would like to add the fact that the signs posted by Artur Realty are among the most offensive, including his billboard on Harbison Avenue screaming HOUSES FOR RENT, his office plastered with the same 3-foot lettering and his loud, yellow, property management signs and yet more oversized rent signs drilled into brick homes.
Does he find sale signs more unsightly than his rent signs? I wonder if he finds people moving in and out of his rental properties unsightly, and is this why they move in and out of these properties on my block under the cover of darkness?
Mr. Artur’s letter suggests he cares more about real estate agents and their/his sales than he does about the residents currently living there.
Mr. Artur is right — we are indeed in a changing real estate market, a change to which he contributes.
Regina McKee
Mayfair
• • •
I am responding to real estate agent Christopher Artur. Let me put it this way — he is like the fox guarding the hen house. Hens in Mayfair, WATCH OUT! The fox is loose.
Joe Gilmore
Mayfair
• • •
To Carly McGovern: In regard to your letter last week about the signs and Artur Realty (Bad real estate market? Just blame the signs), I could not have said it better! Thank you!
J. Osborne
Lexington Park
. . . And another thing,
Mr. Artur — you’ve got nerve!
While reading the letters to the editor in Sept. 21 issue, I was shocked to see Chris Artur say, "we need to think more about our neighborhoods than marketing our services" in reference to the real estate signs on local properties.
I find this hilarious, since he doesn’t seem too worried about our neighborhoods, especially Mayfair. The house next to ours is occupied by a group of men that changes every few months.
There are no screens in their ever-open windows, their screen door and front door remain open while adult movies play, they drop trash from their dining room window to the driveway below, they don’t mow their lawn, they throw their trash and cigarette butts all over the patio out front, and the Artur sign that advertised the house for rent almost two years ago is still leaning against the front of the house.
We called upon Mr. Artur for help last summer when our home of eight years became infested with flies, and when told of the issues we had with the neighbors, Mr. Artur dismissed me with a rude and ignorant chuckle, telling me he couldn’t do anything to help.
As a lifelong resident of Mayfair, I am saddened and disheartened by the state of our neighborhoods. And I’m sad to say we are now saving to move, because people like Mr. Artur have helped the neighborhood deteriorate to its current state.
You, sir, are the reason there are so many sale signs on our lawns. I hope you are satisfied that your business is booming.
Kate Wesolowski
Mayfair
Keeping the area clean?
Those were the days, my friend
Regarding the Sept. 21 letter to the editor, We the proud clean the pigs’ mess:
In my 39 years in this city, I have never seen as many slobs as I’ve seen in the last five years or so. Littering is becoming a definite "quality of life issue" in Northeast Philly.
I grew up in Lawncrest (which is going to the dogs FAST) and now live in Rhawnhurst. When I was a kid, my buddies and I NEVER threw trash around. If we did, the little old ladies in the neighborhood came after us with a broom. Then, they told our parents, who then hit us with said broom. What happened to all those little old ladies?
We need to turn into those little old ladies and stand up to these punks that throw trash in our neighborhoods, no matter what neighborhood we live in. Anytime I see someone, young or old, litter, they get an earful from me. I have yet to meet one that stood up to me. They usually become sheepish and pick up the trash. But if they don’t, I’m not above picking it up myself.
Fortunately, there is also a way to deal with litter thrown from cars. I carry a pen and paper with me, and record the model and make of vehicle, license number, time of day, and sex and age of the driver. I then report them to a Web site called www.litterbutt.com, which sends them a letter explaining that it is illegal to throw litter from your car.
Please tell everyone you know about this Web site. I understand not everyone has access to the Internet, but those who do can help make a difference.
Another thing that bugs me is those who toss cigarette butts from their car windows. The vehicle manufacturer didn’t put an ashtray in your car to hold your reading glasses, knuckleheads. USE IT FOR YOUR BUTTS!!!!
It all comes down to personal responsibility, which is taught to us by our parents. Shame on those parents who don’t teach their children to pick up after themselves.
Russell Evans
Rhawnhurst
Closing is the unkindest
cut of all
For over 12 years, I had the pleasure of getting my hair cut at Classic Cuts on Cottman Avenue. It was always a delight to swap stories with Eileen, the owner. We talked about family, movies, travel, the shore, and all the while I got a great haircut. I was so saddened and shocked to see the shop closed.
I didn’t get a chance to say "thank you" or "goodbye." I was hoping it was a bad dream and I would wake up to find Classic Cuts reopened in a new spot. My dream hasn’t come true.
Eileen Burns, wherever you are, best wishes and thank you so much.
Robin Luber
Oxford Circle
New cops and crime: It’s time
for a reality check
Guest Opinion
By George Kenney
Mayor Street’s position on hiring additional police is simple: He doesn’t want them.
During a recent meeting with reporters from community newspapers, he told those gathered: "The number (of police) we have is more than adequate."
While the number of homicides in Philadelphia is up over last year — we now top the nation for violent crime — more police, Street argued, will have little impact on murder as the vast majority of victims — 97 percent, he said — are targeted by their killers.
Besides, he continued, more police would cost money and lead to tax increases or drastic program cuts.
The mayor’s position is as frustrating as it is shortsighted, particularly after House Speaker John Perzel, state Rep. John Taylor and I unveiled a groundbreaking proposal in which the state will pick up 50 percent of the city’s cost of hiring more than 1,300 new police officers.
Our plan has the support of virtually every Democrat candidate for mayor, including state Rep. Dwight Evans and former City Councilman Michael Nutter, leaving the mayor isolated.
While murder is often a deeply personal crime, I refuse to believe police have a negligible impact in deterring such violent crime. Worse, the mayor has not acknowledged how the city’s soaring homicide rate has affected safety in the Northeast.
It’s time we faced some realities.
Police districts are not manned equally: Police are allocated based on each community’s need. When drug gangs dominate the Badlands of North Philadelphia, officers are transferred to these hot spots at the expense of districts — like those in the Northeast — plagued by less violent, but no less maddening quality-of-life crimes.
More cops make a difference: A study of Washington, D.C., in the Journal of Law and Economics showed that when the Department of Homeland Security raised the risk levels and more police were dispatched to the streets, property crimes in the targeted areas plunged.
Unbridled property crime leads to neighborhood breakdown: When police cannot respond quickly to calls on stolen lawn furniture or vandalism, thugs are empowered and expand their destruction.
The mayor is relying on overtime: It’s the mayor’s way of holding down expenses. Hiring additional officers means paying for benefits the mayor is reluctant to fund. But is loading fatigued officers with longer hours an acceptable alternative?
Our police officers perform an invaluable service, all the more amazing because they are operating with the smallest staffing levels in decades.
But we cannot effectively combat property crime and quality-of-life offenses if our officers are stretched by overtime and shuttled to hot spots at the expense of more stable communities.
Our proposal to fund half the cost of 1,345 new police officers for Philadelphia removes the central obstacle to Mayor Street’s argument. With a $200 million surplus, can he not find the $30 million needed for the city’s match?
That leaves the mayor with only one argument: that current police staffing levels are acceptable.
He is the only elected official in this city who believes that. ••
George Kenney, a Republican, represents the 170th Legislative District. He will face Democratic challenger Brendan Boyle in the Nov. 7 general election.
A little consistency
please, Brendan
While reading the recent media coverage regarding the state House rematch between Rep. George Kenney and Brendan Boyle, I find a recurring item quite amusing.
Brendan consistently challenges Rep. Kenney due to his vote in favor of the controversial state pay raise, but he fails to mention that his boss, state Sen. Mike Stack, took the raise after not voting for it.
Personally, I find the politics behind not voting for the raise but still accepting it a more offensive issue. The public has been heard, the raise revoked, and now Rep. Kenney has to defend his vote. But apparently, according to Brendan (and Stack), voting against the raise but reaping the rewards anyway is somehow acceptable?
Although I disagree with the subject raise and how it was conducted, at least Rep. Kenney is holding himself accountable due to his vote. And as a result of the aforementioned, Boyle continues to spin the issue in his favor despite his boss’ acceptance of the same monetary benefit.
Since both parties accepted the raise, both are equally liable. Voting "for" or "against," in this particular instance, is effectively irrelevant.
Please let the hypocrisy rest.
Ed Dixon
Bustleton resident, member of Neighborhood Civic PAC
Pay raise case had to
stay in Pennsylvania
In the Sept. 21 editorial, the Times suggested that an out-of-state court could hear a case from Pennsylvania regarding the state raise.
James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 39 that "Each state, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others...." Pennsylvania is sovereign and independent of all the other states. No out-of-state court could exercise its jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, just as a Pennsylvania court could not exercise its jurisdiction over any other state.
In a perfect world, there would be a court that could hear the pay raise case. Unfortunately, in the real world there is not a judicial body that could hear the case under the law.
Please note that I am not advocating for or against the controversial pay raises; rather, I am writing to clarify the role of the states in our federal system of government.
John Patrick Kilty
San Francisco, Calif., formerly of Mayfair
Vote the crooks
out of office
Well it must be election time again. The politicians are coming out of the cracks in the woodwork. They make sure they have plenty of publicity when they give your money — and it is your money — back to you through grants and help to certain people who they think can help them the most when election time comes around.
They are not giving their money away. It’s our money. I guess they figure we won’t see them stealing as much if it looks like they are helping someone. Just remember the sneaky pay raise they voted themselves.
Now we know why they included the judges in the sneaky pay raise. How can the judges that stole the pay raise rule on the legality of it? It’s time to vote these crooks out of office.
Remember, Gov. Rendell could have stopped the crooks before they stole our money by vetoing the pay raise, but he didn’t. I guess he and Perzel and the rest of the crooks don’t know how to interpret the state constitution.
For some reason, the people in Philly don’t seem to be bothered as much as the people outside the city of Philly. I guess we are more used to the crooked politicians and don’t think it’s anything new.
I guess they think we are too stupid to know what is going on. Come on Philly, make them pay at election time.
Vincent Mosiniak
East Torresdale
Is Perzel tied to
the gun lobby?
State House Speaker John Perzel is sponsoring a bill to fund more police on the streets while stonewalling the attempts to stop "straw" gun buyers from unlimited gun purchases. This, in effect, will result in more police officers being shot.
How can he justify putting police officers in harm’s way? These "straw" buyers buy lots of guns and take them to the streets to sell to minors and felons.
What is wrong with restricting gun sales to one or two a month to gun purchasers? Does the esteemed representative value his ties to the NRA and gun manufacturers over the safety of his constituents and the police?
Aaron Libson
Logan
Pay for what you use?
What a silly idea!
Bensalem suburbanite Karen Sassler’s rant, Let’s boycott SEPTA! (Sept. 7 edition) is indicative of the entitlement mentality of a vast number of regular SEPTA riders, and all people who grow accustomed to getting something for nothing.
Imagine that — SEPTA builds a parking facility, and those who use it are expected to pay for it. The nerve!
Never mind that it is at least half the price one would pay in any privately owned parking lot in the city, much less Center City.
Why else then, don’t you park at your destination, Karen? Go ahead, boycott the new parking facility.
She goes on to ask if the average commuter can afford to give SEPTA more money (translated, that’s "Must we actually be expected to pay for the services we receive?") And, oh me, oh my, if SEPTA doesn’t get more transportation welfare, they’ll raise fares! (Damned capitalists!)
Again, she reiterates, "... the commuters [who park there] are being forced to pay for the new FTC garage," and she points out that building it was thoughtless due to that fact.
Why would they build something "they could not afford," you ask, Karen? Perhaps for your safety and convenience, dear. Maybe because of the liabilities involved using space on private property. Maybe the owners don’t want them there. And God forbid, they might actually make a few bucks on the garage (but I doubt it — that would be out of character for SEPTA.)
Yet again, in true socialist (or is it just poor-mouth, free-loader?) form, Karen points out, "Now they are passing the cost of the new garage on to the commuter."
So what, I ask. Why wouldn’t they, or shouldn’t they?
Oh, now I see here in your letter, Karen, you’re on a budget, like the rest of us. Therefore, you can’t afford to pay for your services, but I can afford the extra taxes to pay for the SEPTA commuter elite to park and ride!
Honey, no matter how you slice it, the money has to come from somebody’s pocket. So it may as well be from those who use the system. It’s time to pay the piper and for people to simply pay for what they consume. Then we’ll all have lower taxes. So I’ll make you a deal: I’ll pay for my ride, and you pay for yours.
I do agree with your boycott idea though, Karen. You see, SEPTA operates at a loss, and I am "forced," as you say, actually robbed, to subsidize that loss. So it follows that every rider that boycotts SEPTA saves me money. If we get lucky, the whole SEPTA system will collapse financially, and private, for-profit entities will fill the void.
For sure though, Karen, I will write to the SEPTA executives you listed in your letter, and tell them to do more to make SEPTA self-sufficient. After all, that’s the American way, right?
William Kitsch
Fox Chase
• • •
I too often wonder why SEPTA spends money the way they do, then cry wolf as much as they do.
I’ve written e-mails to SEPTA with a very detailed plan that would make their system better and ease the expenses on commuters like me.
The response I got was basically a non-response by some lackey giving a flat answer without even considering what I had to offer.
It’s certainly nice that SEPTA will even take the time to listen to commuter concerns. All they care about is lining their own pockets rather than making the system better for everyone involved.
Brad Magnuson
Fox Chase
Murphy is a
make-believe Catholic
This letter is an ideological alert to the voters of the Eighth Congressional District, part of which extends into the Northeast.
The Democratic candidate, Patrick Murphy, is one of those make-believe Catholics. We all know them; they are publicly proud of their Catholic school backgrounds but somehow just can’t seem to stand up for what they were taught. Or maybe they are actually (and secretly) ashamed of their Catholic background but use it for political advantage.
At any rate, Mr. Murphy seems to fit these roles. Here he is, a pro-abortion candidate who claims to be a Catholic, that is, a member of a church which proclaims the sanctity of unborn life. In short, a modern political Pharisee, all show and no substance.
Will the Dems ever stop putting forward such empty suits?
George Tomezsko
Hollywood, Pa.
Share your opinion by e-mail
Return to this week’s editorial . . .