Letters to the Editor | March 19, 2026

The Inquirer’s recent article on the Narberth Borough Council’s proposed zoning changes failed to answer the real question: What do Narberth residents want for their town? The borough council politely asks for residents’ opinions with a loaded question, but then disregards the reality on the ground: We, the people of Narberth will continue to need cars. We are a walkable town for ice cream, coffee, and beer. But when it comes to work, groceries, and most of life’s essential activities, the borough council needs to wake up and recognize that their residents need more than seven-tenths of a car per household to live in Narberth.

Bob Wegbreit, Narberth

Narberth may be the only municipality in the country whose leaders’ greatest concern is rising property values.

Rather than spending countless hours tweaking zoning laws to allow perhaps 10 families of “moderate” income ($76,400, according to the planning committee, which would not be considered moderate in many communities) to move to Narberth, borough council needs to address the problems in our downtown business district.

Many stores in Narberth are thriving: an independent bookstore, a children’s toy store, a women’s clothing/home decor store. We also have a movie theater, two pubs, and restaurants for every taste, from Indian to Vietnamese.

But three years ago, nearly all the other businesses, including a family-owned grocery store, were forced to close their doors to accommodate a developer whose ambitious plans for our main street have not yet come to fruition.

Narberth Borough Council and its planning commission must put aside their ideological approach to greater density and get to work on filling our many vacant stores. Once that issue is successfully addressed, new residents will follow.

Walter L. McDonough, Narberth

Any senator who supports the SAVE Act in its current form should never again receive votes from women. The proposal must be revised to eliminate the clause requiring the last name on the driver’s license to match the last name on the birth certificate.

This requirement obviously discriminates against most married women and will illegally revoke their right to vote. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act should either waive fees for women to obtain passports to prove ID and citizenship or also require all men to present a passport to prove their ID and citizenship. The act should be revised to not take effect until January 2027 like the “One Big Beautiful Bill” signed in July 2025 did not take effect until January 2026 to allow time for the passports to be processed. The best case would be for the SAVE Act to be tabled until the courts rule on its legality. As with many things involving President Donald Trump, this, too, is seems headed for legal proceedings.

Craig McBride, Coatesville

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.