 
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Sunday, October 14, 2001
In DeWeese's world, politics are more important than the people
In state Rep. Bill DeWeese's Oct. 7 letter ("My Role in Reapportionment Was Nothing Personal -- Just Business"), he lambasted Rep. Dave Mayernik because Mayernik voted the will of his constituents, not his party, when he voted against the Regional Asset District tax and because Mayernik did a better job than some other representatives in obtaining "walking around money" for his district.
Isn't that what an elected representative is supposed to do? Vote the will of his constituents and lobby for funding that will provide them with the ability to make improvements to his community?
If Rep. Mayernik's district had only a "tenuous 44 percent Democratic vote strength," what should that tell Rep. DeWeese? It should tell him that a majority of his own party does not agree with the position of the party leaders. It does not say anything about Rep. Mayernik's loyalty to his party. If Democratic voters agreed with the position of their party leaders, they could easily exert party control.
Rep. DeWeese, the House minority leader, has drawn the reapportionment map to ensure that Rep. Mayernik is punished for not toeing the party line and that Ross is divided into so many pieces that it will have no cohesive political power whatsoever.
By his strong-arm tactics, he has guaranteed that the new representatives of Ross will never cross party lines and that the portion of their new districts with Ross residents will be so small that the new representatives will not care about Ross residents and their wants or needs.
Mr. DeWeese supports old-style politics, where you vote your party first and worry about getting re-elected by your constituents later. In case Rep. DeWeese has missed something, there is a new era in politics and the new buzzwords are unity, bipartisanship and compromise.
MICHELLE BISH
Spare us, Mr. DeWeese
Am I to be impressed by Rep. Bill DeWeese's use of Shakespeare and large, pretentious words in his reasoning for the carving up of my district (" My Role in Reapportionment Was Nothing Personal -- Just Business," Oct. 7 letter)? Is it not amazing that someone who could write using such big words is not intelligent enough or doesn't have the street smarts to find a way to bring more than "chicken feed" home to his constituents?
Rep. Dave Mayernik's only sin was in representing his district and doing his job in such a way as to be re-elected time and time again with between 75 and 78 percent of the vote in the 29th Legislative District. "Difficult cuts" my foot.
DeWeese and his conspirators (to use a really good Shakespearean word) had one thought and only one thought in mind: to get Dave Mayernik. In the process they have destroyed the compact and contiguous territory of Ross and the North Hills School District -- both my home and place of employment. Nothing personal? It out-Herods Herod.
KATHLEEN L. POZAR
Stuck on the old ways
I am very disappointed in the state House Democratic leadership for their attempt to gerrymander legislative districts in the South Hills to force two popular Democrats to face each other in the primary election.
Reps. Harry Readshaw, D-Carrick, and Ralph Kaiser, D-Brentwood, are both popular in their own districts, but they may have to compete for the same seat. Reps. Tom Micholovic, D-North Braddock, and Leo Trich, D-Washington, are each retiring and so their districts could have been reapportioned.
Does the Democratic leadership want only officeholders who vote the strongest party line? Not all constituents agree with the party line. Popular independent Democrats provide balance to the party. Trying to punish these Democrats will backfire as voters will turn to independents or possibly Republicans.
Democratic Party leaders need to wake up to realities of contemporary politics: A majority of voters do not always agree with the party line.
DOUG MARVIN
Uninformed decision
A review of the Oct. 6 article regarding Allegheny County's plan to raise airport gate charges ("Ante Up") to offset increased security costs at Pittsburgh International Airport raises some questions that beg to be answered. What is the projected dollar amount needed to cover the added security? Why, at this time, barely one month after the Sept. 11 tragedy, would the county, with little actual experience as to how much money it would cost in 2002, announce such a plan?
Since even after cutbacks, US Airways still is one of the county's largest employers and is currently struggling to stay alive, the county's proposal would appear to be akin to throwing gasoline on a burning building.
Airport business owners reported dramatic decreases in revenues, which equates to less revenue for the county as well -- all this at a time when President Bush is urging the flying public to resume normality.
Given the county's boondoggle with its recent property reassessment fiasco, resulting in tremendous legal fees, it seems that it is making yet another decision based on too little experience, which will again hurt all of us economically.
The public deserves to know what all the security costs are projected to be and what the increased gate fees will do to offset them.
US Airways has reduced the number of flights leaving and arriving already. Since gate revenue charges relate directly to traffic volumes, it possibly would come close to being a nonissue. Based on the lack of data in this case, I feel the county has not made an informed decision, which would be in the taxpayers' best interests.
W.C. McCARTHY
Not the way to go
In his Oct. 3 commentary, Joseph P. Kirk, chairman of the Mon Valley/Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway Alliance, proffered seemingly solid reasons for completing the Route 51 to Pittsburgh portion of the Mon-Fayette Expressway ("Let's Get Moving"). But his arguments rest on a foundation of sand and his highway is 40 years too late for the Mon Valley.
In contrast to four and five decades ago, when it was an industrial powerhouse, the Mon Valley of today has little economic relevance to America. The loss of tens of thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs and years of steady population decline have irrevocably altered the human and economic landscape of the region and left many struggling communities as their legacy.
Communities desperately need assistance to rehabilitate housing and schools, repair poorly maintained highways and bridges, upgrade sewers and build parks and playgrounds that give the young an incentive to stay in Western Pennsylvania. And when you keep your youth, your best and your brightest, businesses and jobs invariably follow.
Regrettably, Mr. Kirk fails to understand that the Braddocks, Duquesnes and East Pittsburghs will not be resuscitated by bulldozing a highway through their midst. But they can be revived one house, one business, one block at a time. That requires a human-scale approach that Mr. Kirk dismisses, an approach that recognizes also the importance of mass transit to the community and region.
American cities need modern mass transit systems, just as they need police and fire protection, because they perform a valuable public service. The federal government, whose funding for the Mon-Fayette Expressway Mr. Kirk implicitly seeks, now faces new budget constraints as the nation adapts to a world changed by the events of Sept. 11. Billion-dollar highways are a wasteful luxury America can no longer afford when limited tax dollars are better spent on pressing human needs.
DAVE KERR
Editor's note: The writer is a native of Turtle Creek.
Police have always been there to protect and serve
There is something going on today that I have not seen for a long time: the feeling and showing of respect toward servants of the people. The recent tragedy in New York City, where with one swipe of hatred several hundred police, fire and emergency medical personnel were taken from their ranks, is obviously responsible for this. I respectfully ask your forgiveness to allow me to use this incident to "prove" what I am about to say.
I am a police officer, with nearly 34 years dedicated to my calling. When I first became a cop, I was asked, "Why do you want to be a cop?" The answer was basic: "Because I want to help, and maybe make things a little better wherever I work." That was the usual and expected answer and, oddly, still is.
For the past few decades, attitudes toward police have changed. I know that a number of incidents have occurred that tarnished our lot. But I'd like you to know that we do want to help whenever and wherever a need exists. We take an oath to do this with pride and honor.
I realize most people have little contact with police officers, except when the officer is directing traffic, is pulling over a traffic violator or is called for help. I can truly say that I have helped more people than caused them grief, and most other officers probably can say the same.
We are there to give directions to those who are lost, escort the young couple expecting their firstborn (and, if time runs out, deliver the child on the back seat) and get the local "drunk" out of the freezing cold to a shelter.
No, we are not all heroes; we accept the fact that we do our jobs without thanks, recognition or reward. But we'll always be there. Our reward is going home after our shift, we hope, conditionally no worse off than when we went to work. We will do our best to serve, hope we did the best we could to handle each call and hope we do as well if not better the next call.
Some of us will answer that call and pay the ultimate sacrifice or come away damaged, but that is what we have sworn to do with pride, integrity and guts. We are, after all, human.
JACK McCAMBRIDGE
Committeewoman
Ross Township Republican Committee
Ross
Ross
Bethel Park
Shaler
Carlisle, Pa.
Moon