Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintNot only seniors need and deserve property-tax relief
While I am in sympathy with the fixed-income senior citizens living in Pennsylvania who have difficulty paying the high property taxes, I feel that relief is necessary for the moderate-income families as much as for the senior citizens.
By increasing the property tax and rent-rebate income levels, and also increasing the amount of the maximum rebate, real relief is available to only one segment of the population of Pennsylvania ("Rendell Signs Realty Tax Relief Bill," June 28). As a point of information, the funds that finance the rebate program come from the lottery proceeds. Seniors also qualify for Act 77, which reduces their property taxes as well as the Homestead Act.
My real concern is for the working families with low and moderate income. There are no programs other than the Homestead Act for tax relief for this segment of our population. Many of these young families also have the burden of health insurance
Please do not think that the passage of this "Property Tax Relief Legislation" solves the real problem, nor does the idea that future revenue from slot parlors will afford property tax relief for all citizens of Pennsylvania.
MARY MAGERI
West End
We need a hand
Ed Rendell has proved once again with the passing of the tax cut of $1 billion that the focus of Pennsylvania is only on senior citizens and not on families or young people ("Rendell Signs Realty Tax Relief Bill," June 28).
It is no wonder young people cannot live in our state because it is becoming more and more evident that politicians simply do not care about the future taxpayers who are young professionals and students. We read of the declining population in Pennsylvania. Let's stop that and do something for younger people of our state.
Help those who are raising a family of four on minimum wage or a college student working two jobs to pay for a college education. I love and respect the senior citizens who receive so much aid. But they are not always going to be in our state as days pass, and who knows maybe that will be the same with our young people who cannot afford to live in Pennsylvania. Let's make a change now before it is too late.
BRYAN DIETZ
Ross
Not either/or
Your June 26 editorial "Finish Oak Hill" condensed the argument to one question: Should the decision be based on what is best for the city (residents), or what is best for the University of Pittsburgh?
Why can't we do something for both, and not throw this issue into the eternal political bonfire of city vs university? Unlike some other U.S. cities (such as Austin, Texas), Pittsburgh has a history of conflict with its local universities, which really is an insane, counterproductive strategy.
Why fight growth of the one major economic, technological and dynamic engine for our future growth, our universities? The city should be bending over backwards to support growth and expansion of Pitt, Carnegie Mellon University, Duquesne and the other city schools.
So what if they are tax exempt? They are our No. 1 employers, not to mention the jobs from construction of new facilities, etc.
Stop this for new housing on the Hill? You have to be kidding me. Have you ever driven through the Hill? There is certainly no lack of vacant space, buildings, etc to identify a major low-income housing development.
Give Pitt some breathing room. Let the universities expand, even across the Hill toward town. Do we really have a better idea to rehab that area? The city is still losing population. Why stifle part of our future, and future jobs?
We need to let the universities grow, and do everything we can to encourage that growth. Mayor O'Connor and City Council, wake up and get with the future before it's passed you by!
MIKE DOWIAK
Aliquippa
Fewer bus stops
After getting stuck behind the Bellevue Flyer this evening and observing how it so unnecessarily stops at the end of every block, I wondered to myself "How is it that the Port Authority has no money?"
I am an avid user of public transit in our great city, but I have to say, there are way too many bus stops. I realize that some of them may be relics of the ole' trolley days, but in an effort to speed up the time it takes to travel a route and save money on diesel fuel, why not reduce the number of stops to say, every three or four blocks?
The benefits are plenty: a decrease in wear and tear on the vehicles, a reduction in the emission of exhaust/greenhouse gases (as it is well known that each time a bus stops and starts back up it leaves out a nice puff of smoke), and the incorporation of additional exercise into the days of transit riders, since they'll have to walk a little farther to catch the bus. Also, there would be fewer "bus stop" signs to maintain. The benefits are endless.
KYLE CUNNINGHAM
North Side
Homeowner rights
Pursuant to Jim Hart's June 28 letter ("In Jeopardy"), I would like to add my opinion to the debate about the Walgreens development in the city neighborhood of Park Place.
Much has been said about the Walgreens changing the face of the neighborhood, loss of housing stock for Park Place, etc. I don't feel a great need to address any of these issues, but the one opinion that has been ignored in this debate is that of the property owners who are selling to Walgreens. I am one of those people.
I have lived in this neighborhood for 12 years and owned my home for nine years. I have invested a lot of money in my house over the last nine years; money that I never expected to get back. Now I have the opportunity to do so.
I would suggest to the Greater Park Place Association that their considerable energy and passion could be redirected to the many houses in the center of this neighborhood which are vacant and abandoned. The potential loss of these houses would leave big holes and vacant lots in the middle of the neighborhood. The loss of my house, and the other two which Walgreens is buying, would merely extend the commercial district another half of a block.
I know Mr. Hart and respect his (and the organization's) good work for this neighborhood. However, I also have the right to sell my house to the person who offers me the most money for it.
RICH CUMMINGS
Park Place
Cell-phone silliness
Recent comments to this page by David R. Markus ("Enforcement Issues," June 22) -- concerning the enforcement of a new proposed law that would require hands-off cell phone use in Pennsylvania -- do not hold water. Those of Nathan R. Shrader on the same day are pure nonsense ("The Legislative Control Freaks Are After Our Cell Phones").
It seems pretty easy to nab a cell phone offender, doesn't it? You can spot them a quarter-mile in front of you as they travel 20 mph in the left lane, jogging and weaving, that infamous silhouette of the arm melded to the side of the head, gabbing away, completely oblivious to you or any other traffic around them.
And if some get away with it, there are plenty of others who won't, a beneficial law to all of us. I mean, should we not have drunken driving laws because some drunks can get away with it? Just try driving with a headset or speaker phone and see how much less distracted you are.
It's just plain dumb to argue that banning driving while using a hand-held cell phone is akin to banning driving with a radio, pets, kids, open windows, coffee, French fries and your mother-in-law. (Well, maybe mother-in-law might have some merit.) These are momentary distractions (which can be almost as dangerous), not one that continues for an hour non-stop.
And if this were truly one step away from banning cell phones in cars altogether -- my god, how would we make it through the day?
LEE KANN
Monroeville
Another reason to like farmers' markets
As a devoted grower, purchaser and eater of local food, I thoroughly enjoyed the cover story in the June 29 Food & flavor section about about our wonderful farmers' markets ("Market Fresh"). I'd like to suggest another reason to buy from local farmers -- because local farmers help feed our low-income neighbors by donating fresh fruits and vegetables.
Last year alone, 30 local farmers donated over 170,000 pounds of homegrown produce to the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank. Many farmers even permit volunteers to come right to their fields and glean excess corn, beans, tomatoes and apples for the Food Bank.
If a company donates a truckload of Washington apples or California oranges, the Food Bank must pay the shipping costs -- often totaling thousands of dollars. Donations from local farms mean that the Food Bank has more money available to procure additional food.
So the next time you bite into that juicy, locally grown peach or tomato, remember that you're not only supporting a neighbor, but helping neighbors help each other.
STACY G. MATES
Urban Agriculture Coordinator
Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank
Duquesne
