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 We do not publish anonymous letters.
In presidential race,
race gets too much play
Hour-after-hour, day-after-day, the electronic and print media ask and report in endless ways about the role of "race" in the Democratic primary election.
The ultimate question on the matter seems to focus on just who is most responsible for injecting "race" into the campaigns, thus making it the issue that supersedes all others.
Who indeed? I assume we’ll eventually know the answer, thanks to these relentless media inquiries that take place hour-after-hour, day-after-day-after-day-after...
Arthur Gurmankin
Bustleton
Don’t blame Bill
for Hill’s loss
Hillary lost South Carolina because Barack Obama is black. Billy had nothing to do with the outcome. End of rap!
Anthony J. Porta
Sebring, Fla.
Former Northeast resident
Not-so-strange
bedfellows
The recent endorsement of Barack Obama by Sen. Ted Kennedy is simply too delicious to let pass without a question:
Isn’t this like Marx endorsing Lenin?
George Tomezsko
Fox Chase
Words of wisdom
for Perzel
In reading the article Perzel: Hire more cops to fight crime in last week’s edition, living in the Northeast these days I really appreciate Rep. Perzel’s sentiment, but how can or will this happen?
The Pennsylvania Legislature is experiencing an abandoning of its members. At least 24 representatives and senators are retiring with an estimated 400 years of service to the citizens of our state. Those are staggering numbers!
Now, since Rep. Perzel has lost his position of speaker of the House he may not be able to persuade the members of the House like he once did in that position. He is now just a longtime incumbent that has to gain momentum on this bill.
Instead of blasting the Democrats in the House why isn’t he showing some bipartisanship to get this bill passed?
If Rep. Dwight Evans doesn’t like the language why doesn’t Rep. Perzel adjust the language to get the bill through the Appropriations Committee?
With a re-election campaign looming on the horizon and a House that seems to be a place "where good ideas seem to die," I wonder if this bill has a chance to live?
I appreciate all that Rep. Perzel has done for the Northeast, but he will have to adapt and adjust to a situation that needs to be addressed. He will have a full plate of issues in front of him, but with the House in disarray and with the power in the House exodus leaning toward the Democrats, this may be a defining moment in his career.
I have a fair question and I hope you can understand why it needs to be asked. Will you do what’s right for your constituents, or what is right for your party?
Kevin M. Coughlin
Fox Chase
Be sure to put
your car in a lock-up
My vehicle on the 600 block of Poquessing Ave. was recently broken into. A small tan leather zipper pouch with about $20 to $25 was there. Papers were all over the place and the thief left the door and the glove box open.
From what the 7th Police District told me, these thieves have a trained eye to see if your red light is blinking on your dashboard. If it is not, it’s a guaranteed entrance for theft, so the warning here is even though your car is tucked in your driveway, you must still lock the vehicle at night.
My advice to all is beef up your security around your home, check the areas that may be dark enough for a prowler to rob your home or vehicles. Security lights are your best bet for those areas.
Christopher Duca
Somerton
Kids too young
for that message
This letter is in response to the front page article Snuffing the puffs in the Jan. 10 edition: Mr. Sterlen "No Puff Daddy" Barr has a good idea, but he should not be preaching against smoking to 6- and 7-year old kids and showing graphic pictures and trying to say that smoking cigarettes leads to doing drugs and committing crimes. Smoking is a personal choice once they turn 18.
P.S. Next time, Mr. Barr, choose an original nickname.
Steven Alfano
Wissinoming
The Joan Krajewski
Fan Club speaks up
As a lifelong resident of the formerly Greater Northeast, I am highly offended by editor John Scanlon’s column in the Jan. 17 edition that shines a light on my City Council member, Joan Krajewski, in a less-than-positive manner.
Joan, unlike the rest of the group you mentioned, is worth much more than she is paid. Joan works her rear end off to help the citizens of the Northeast. If it were not for Joan, our neighborhood would end up like other cesspools in the city (Logan, Olney, North Philly).
Joan has worked her tail off to keep our neighborhoods decent and livable, despite the fact that many longtime residents are moving out and away. Our neighborhoods suffered at the hands of other politicians who milked us dry, like a dairy cow.
As an editor, you should know what you are talking about before you print an article. If Joan was not here to represent us, I would probably pitch a tent in Tyler State Park. I compare Joan to Joan of Arc, another woman who selflessly helped her people without any thought of herself. Joan Krajewski is worth 100 times what she gets. If the rest of the city had representatives like Joan, they would not be the dumps that they are.
My neighborhood used to be filled with people who had pride in themselves, their families and their neighbors. Unfortunately, this has changed. Our neighborhoods have become a dumping ground for all types of people who don’t care about their neighborhoods. Things are changing in our neighborhood, some for the better and some for the worse. Thank God we have Joan Krajewski fighting for us.
I have come to dislike our political system; most of those involved are really bad actors. Joan is for real. She cares about folks like us. As far as a token opponent being run against her, that is just because the opposing party knew that there was no way in hell they could beat Joan. Joan does a lot for us.
Ron Moskovitz
Oxford Circle
• • •
Print media at its worst can only describe the tirade against the DROP program. It may have all the factors you expressed, but in no way is it illegal to partake of it.
Your personal vendetta against Joan Krajewski is bewildering, as she has only served and represented her constituents in an excellent manner. As for her prolonged power, it is actually an advantage in getting programs and the interests of the Northeast initiated. What is more impressive, this has been done without a hint of scandal, misuse of power or the assassination of anyone’s personal life.
People are only interested in their lives and what affects them every day. One call to Joan’s office produces results, as the 19,122 people that elected her attest to.
You need another platform to use your pen for, something that will benefit mankind and make a change that is effective. Maybe your energies need to be used for the life-and-death problem from the rescue squad shortage.
Elly Kline
Bustleton
Jeers for the politicians
who are DROPouts
Let me see if I understand this right. You go in the DROP program and then when your four years has ended, you must retire. As bad as we need police officers and fire personnel, they must retire after their four years, but here we have politicians who "retire," collect their lump sum and their monthly retirement pay, and are able to return to work.
I was under the impression that they are elected officials, so how could they retire for one day and come back without being re-elected by the people after they "retired"?
Does anyone else see a problem here? It seems that no one is worrying about the crime on the streets of Philadelphia. I feel as though a police officer or a fireman should be able to change their mind about retirement while in the DROP before an elected official should be able to. I really don’t understand why an elected official should be able to enroll in DROP. This should just be for city workers, not elected officials.
If someone out there can give me some insight into all of this, I would appreciate it.
Loretta Dunigan
Fox Chase
Perzel to the guv:
Get us more cops!
Guest Opinion
By John Perzel
There should be no greater priority than protecting the citizens of Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth Officers Act (HB1189), which is currently bottled up in the House Appropriations Committee, will allow towns and cities throughout Pennsylvania to hire 10,000 new police officers over the next four years.
Crime is on the rise in many of our communities and most experts agree that hiring more police has a direct impact on reducing crime. New York City is experiencing its lowest crime rate in 44 years after hiring 1,800 new police officers. In Philadelphia, there has been a direct correlation between an increase in violent crime and a reduction in the number of police on the street.
The Commonwealth Officers Act is a critical piece of legislation that was released from the House Judiciary Committee with unanimous support from both Democrats and Republicans. That is why I am at a loss to understand why the Democratic appropriations chairman refuses to release this crime-fighting legislation out of his committee, and allow the full House to debate its merits and vote on it.
This is a landmark measure that will create a dedicated annual funding source for local municipalities to use to fight crime. Depending on the level of participation, the maximum yearly cost would total $56 million, which includes money for personnel as well as training and equipment — and come from funds earmarked for legislative expenses.
In the past, we found money to fund football and baseball stadiums in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh; a hockey arena in Pittsburgh; expansion of the Pennsylvania Convention Center, and even a $75 million tax credit for movie companies. Now I understand you have committed $50 million for a soccer stadium in Chester.
While I joined you in supporting many of these projects, I think the $50 million earmark for a soccer stadium in Chester could be better spent helping local municipalities throughout Pennsylvania hire more police to fight crime and protect their citizens.
Critics of my legislation argue that it "unfairly helps rural towns," and does not provide "enough help for Philadelphia."
I know that you, as the former district attorney in Philadelphia, share my concern with the escalating murder rate in our hometown, but murders, illicit drugs and illegal gun crimes are not limited to Philadelphia. There are a number of smaller cities and rural towns that proportionally need as much help as Philadelphia.
While Philadelphia will get adequate coverage with 1,349 new officers, my plan is based on a fairer formula that distributes funds according to per capita crime rates — which balances state assistance so that smaller cities and rural towns get sufficient help to hire the number of new police officers they need to fight crime in their communities.
Public safety and providing local communities with sufficient police to fight crime should not be a partisan issue.
I would challenge you, as governor, to set aside partisan differences and join our bipartisan fight to make our communities throughout Pennsylvania safer.
I would publicly ask you to intervene and support the release of the Commonwealth Officers Act (HB1189) from the House Appropriations Committee so that members of both political parties can have the opportunity to debate and vote on this critically important piece of legislation. ••
John Perzel, a Republican, represents the 172nd Legislative District.
Evans to Perzel:
This bill has flaws
Guest Opinion
By Dwight Evans
1. The bill does not lay out a strategy for putting police on the street in a manner that targets violent crime associated with drugs and handguns.
2. Simply adding police in arbitrary numbers isn’t the answer to the crime problem that plagues our largest cities and smallest towns. Crime rates and total crime must be considered. This legislation does not do that.
3. Any discussion of policing must occur as part of a broader discussion of crime that includes:
Reducing the number of handguns on our streets and passing meaningful legislation to keep handguns from criminals and kids; providing quality education to our children; maximizing job opportunities; strengthening drug treatment programs; overhauling our corrections system; implementing long-term strategies to change behavior, such as the Blueprint for a Safer Philadelphia.
4. No one on the Appropriations Committee — including the Republican chairman or the Republican members — asked to move this bill. Mr. Perzel never asked to have it moved. House Bill 1189 arrived in the Appropriations Committee on Oct. 17. At present it is one of 153 bills in the committee.
5. Mr. Perzel is simply grandstanding at the expense of crime victims and police officers. When he was speaker of the House, he didn’t move this bill: he let it die a quick death. The previous version was HB 3068, introduced on Oct. 23, 2006. Former chief of staff Brian Preski ordered the Judiciary Committee to move it out that same day. It was laid on the table and left to die.
6. Even if the legislature passed this bill, there is no money available for it in the current budget. That’s in large measure due to Republicans who insisted during the budget process that we hoard the state surplus rather than invest in our communities. I disagreed with that philosophy during budget negotiations, but as chairman of the Appropriations Committee I am committed to having us live within our means as set by the budget.
7. While the concept outlined in Mr. Perzel’s bill has merit, the numbers simply don’t add up:
The legislation calls for the state to spend $56 million this year to establish the funding for the police officers, but that’s far short of what would be needed even if we calculate conservatively; if we use the lowest possible salary for police officers in Pennsylvania, $20,000 annually without benefits, the total cost would be $200 million, half of which would be paid by the state. That means the state share would be $100 million, far more than the $56 million allowed for in the legislation; the funding pays for salary and health benefits but it doesn’t not provide for overtime, seniority or pension contributions, increasing the burden on municipalities.
8. The language with regard to municipalities is poorly drafted:
The legislation sets up a formula that would deploy officers to small rural departments as opposed to urban centers such as Reading, where the crime rate is highest in the state; the first priorities in funding should be crime rate and total crime; the legislation does not address funding for the municipalities in the out years, simply leaving them with an unfunded mandate; the burden is on the municipalities to continue the program for 10 years but no promise from the state to continue the funding; the legislation does not adequately address how local counties or municipalities will pay their required 50 percent match.
9. The legislation calls for municipalities to commit to applying for match funding from PCCD:
It doesn’t address the question of what happens if they don’t get funding; PCCD is unlikely to fund this type of matching grant, because their resources already are stretched; state funding the match undermines the purpose of the local match.
10. The legislation sets up the program in the Attorney General’s office but does not limit the amount of money that can be spent on start-up costs or staff. What’s more, it creates a new bureaucracy in the A.G.’s office that would be duplicative of the role of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. ••
Dwight Evans, a Democrat, represents the 203rd Legislative District.
Share your opinion by e-mail
Click here to return to this week’s editorial . . .