Praise city for standards on police freelancing
As a policy matter, it is worthwhile to consider the ethical implications of secondary police employment ("City Making Money on Police Officers," July 16).
Businesses rightfully expect, and pay taxes to assure, a prompt police response when public safety is threatened. Nonetheless, businesses incur additional expenses when hiring uniformed Pittsburgh officers as security guards. This private use of the city's enforcement power, a public asset, results in personal enrichment of Pittsburgh police officers engaged in or privately brokering the off-duty details.
Limiting secondary employment to 30 hours allows an officer to work up to 70 hours a week. That's almost two weeks of police work compressed into one. Eventually, fatigue will negatively affect officers' health and performance. It may be more effective to evaluate the adequacy of police salaries and the size of the police force than to promote this potentially dangerous practice by extending the limitation beyond 30 hours.
Regarding the suggestion that the nominal fees collected by the city for this private deployment of public police power should be reserved for officer-related legal expenses: Consider that the taxpayers already contribute a monthly per capita amount to a legal defense fund administered by the Fraternal Order of Police. Perhaps the fees could be used to acquire ballistic vests for the canine units.
Freelancing police officers have cost the city plenty and detracted from the wholesome service of others. While we believe it should go further, we applaud the administration for imposing long-overdue standards of eligibility, scheduling, payment and supervision of off-duty police officers employed as private security guards.
ELIZABETH PITTINGER
Executive Director
Citizen Police Review Board
Uptown
Don't buy it
Reid P. Meyer, a self-proclaimed transit advocate, has been drinking the Port Authority's Kool-Aid ("For the Last Time," July 17 letter).
He calls critics of the current North Shore Connector "intellectually lazy." Well, the simpletons at Port Authority had the opportunity to build a North Shore link that would have served more patrons and better accomplished the goal of the LRT expansion. Using the Fort Wayne Bridge would have brought the T to the Convention Center. It would have allowed for the possibility of a branch line to serve the Strip District and the Allegheny Valley. On the North Shore, the route would better served the business district while providing alignment for possible expansion to the Northern suburbs by paralleling I-279.
Granted, the lower deck of the bridge needs repairs, but at a fraction of the $435 million for the tunnel. Given the daily freight and passenger train traffic, questioning the rest of the bridge's structural integrity is absurd.
Port Authority routinely hasn't had the vision to get the most transit for the dollar on a project. It has, excuse the pun, tunnel vision, that the only way to good transit is spending lots of money.
They need to give up the swanky Downtown address, move back to the building they own on Beaver Avenue and give up the Rolls-Royce mentality when their budget can only afford a Chevy.
PAUL W. EIBECK
Brookline
It's public transport
Regarding John Vargo's July 14 letter criticizing subsidies to Port Authority ("Pay Your Own Way"): His comments are like Marie Antoinette's legendary comment, when advised that the people had no bread: "Let them eat cake!"
I, for one, have no problem contributing my taxes to a vital service, which enables citizens less fortunate than Mr. Vargo to get to and from work.
Exactly when would Mr. Vargo start complaining about the lack of service in restaurants, department stores and other businesses that employ sales associates, janitors, tellers, clerks and dishwashers in low-paying, less glamorous jobs?
Perhaps when the price of a bus ride is out of reach and these folks are unable to get to and from work -- and Mr. Vargo is inconvenienced.
CHARLES E. SIEBOTT
Ross
A healthy act
I am a teacher and father of three grown children, and I have a problem understanding why there is a debate concerning the breast feeding of babies. There have been some disturbing letters how this natural act offends some women and men.
Without question, breast feeding is a physically healthy act for the baby and the mother. It is also an emotionally healthy bonding act between mother and child.
If you are a male and find this disconcerting, then you must have serious issues of your own. If you are a female and support women's choice or are pro-life, how can you possibly oppose such a warm, cuddly, natural and tasteful (pun intended) act as breast-feeding a newborn?
I may be as dumb as I look, but in this situation, I need enlightenment. I personally feel a mother's touch is much more healthy than a coldly sterile bottle.
JAMES NOROSKI
McKeesport
Water woes
Too bad PG staff writer Mackenzie Carpenter ("The New Turn-On: Tapping a Trend -- Some Cities, Eateries Banning Bottled Water," July 11) doesn't read her own paper. Otherwise how could she be promoting tap water when your June 21 front page carried "Fish Study Raises Red Flag on Water Supply"?
Did she miss the sentence that said the EPA does not require testing for the contaminants they found in the fish that live in the same water used to make tap water? She interviewed a City Council member who noted that tap water in a city hall food-service area comes out brown. Has she ever seen the insides of some old city water lines that are covered with large deposits of sediment that look like barnacles? Yuck.
And where is the evidence that increased cavities are caused by bottled water and not something else, like too much sugary soft drink?
Instead of promoting more high-tech gadgets to get the crap out of water, we should be changing our laws to make it illegal to foul the water in the first place.
In the meantime, drink beer -- it may be made with tap water, but I figure all those bacteria used to ferment the beer have eaten all the remaining crud.
TOM GALOWNIA
Cecil
Black out
I have an idea. Since Macy's has dictated that all of its employees wear black starting on Sept. 4 so they are recognizable to customers ("Macy's Dressed Down on Code," July 19), why don't the customers wear black when shopping there? Then no one can be sure just who they are talking to. Just think of the pandemonium this would create.
This idea is as stupid as the one that dictates all employees wear black.
MARILYN WALGORA
West Mifflin
Speeding itself is not the main cause of car accidents
Regarding the July 4 article "Troopers Targeting Speeders in Greene, Fayette": I take issue with the statements of a state police representative about speeding as it refers to the frequency of traffic accidents. Speeding is not the No. 1 problem in crashes. Reverting to the same old tried and untrue method of speed traps will not reduce crashes in any significant way, if at all.
While increases in speed may increase the severity of injuries sustained in an accident, it is rarely an accident's actual or proximate cause. Most frequently, the prime factors are inattentive driving and/or issues related to unsafe lane changes, merging and intersections.
The problem is that officers are often unable to successfully prosecute a case for these "harder to prove" violations, so speed is used as a catch-all. The rationale is that, if driver X was going 65 mph, he could have probably avoided the accident if he had been going 55 mph. If he was going 55 mph, he should have been going 45 mph, and so on, regardless of what the speed limit or conditions were.
Of the 402 "speeders" mentioned in the article, including the one going 155 mph, how many crashes were there? None. However, when mentioning fatalities, the article states that 80 percent were not wearing seat belts -- not that they were speeding. If we truly care about reducing fatalities, why not push a little harder for mandatory (not secondary) seat belt laws?
It is time to change direction if we truly want to decrease the likelihood of traffic accidents and severe/fatal injuries. Instead of ever increasing fines and points to enrich the government and insurance companies, why not opt for mandatory (or even optional), to lessen fines/points) driver's education? Instead of sitting in lawn chairs and hiding in PennDOT trucks, why not be proactive and visible? It works, but then again, it doesn't bring in enough revenue.
CHRISTOPHER D. AUBRECHT
Downtown
First Published: July 23, 2007, 1:45 a.m.
