Letters to the Editor | July 19, 2023

Pennsylvania’s largest coal plant, in Homer City, is being retired. It couldn’t compete with cheaper gas-fired electricity generation. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s efforts to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) — nearby states’ program to cap carbon pollution and auction the right to pollute — is stuck in our courts, challenged by the fossil fuel industry and state Republican lawmakers. Their opposition has so far denied Pennsylvanians millions of dollars in auctioned pollution credits that could be supporting the clean energy transition for communities and workers. RGGI isn’t even in effect but, still, industry is blaming it for the Homer plant closure. The longer fossil fuel interests can stave off RGGI, the higher their profits. RGGI won’t solve our contribution to climate pollution on its own, but it is an important start. If the courts green-light it, the Shapiro administration should expedite its implementation. It is past time for Pennsylvania to begin cutting its carbon pollution.

Robin Mann, Rosemont, robinlmann@gmail.com

Letter writers in favor of school vouchers frequently state, “Give the money to the parents and let them choose the school they think is best for their child.” But admission to a private school typically doesn’t work that way. Parents may choose which schools to apply to, but it is the individual private school’s admission process that determines which children will be accepted. Is there currently an organized and up-to-date list of the area’s private schools with the projected numbers of age/grade openings? How about one with specific admission criteria, school requirements that come with an expense (uniforms and certain activities), a spelled-out process for how students will be chosen from a pool of eligible applicants, and a clear process for the possible dismissal of a student enrolled with a publicly funded voucher? How real is the “promise” being made by some legislators that Pa. parents could enroll their children with school vouchers in any private school of their choice?

Rosemary Northcutt, Conshohocken

I am 91 years old, and over the years I have observed our legal system develop into a two-tiered system, one for the rich and one for the poor. A poor person charged with a crime is taken into custody and placed in confinement until a trial can be arranged. A wealthy person or a political heavyweight, whether Democrat or Republican, who has a problem with the law, has the finances and influence to remain free.

In the news recently, there have been three cases involving top-secret documents. Two of the individuals charged have been incarcerated and had their passports surrendered. The third individual remains free, still has his passport, and seems to be thumbing his nose at our justice system. The justice system seems to be smiling back at him. Even our Supreme Court justices seem to have no ethical code to live by. Their actions set an example for the average person. Why should the average person obey the law, when a rich person seems to be above the law, and when the Supreme Court seems to interpret the law to favor the rich?

Glenn Wolfe, Doylestown

Jeff and Janine Yass hardly inspire confidence with their Sunday op-ed claim that “most studies have found that when more families have options, education gets better,” since they refer to articles that have been curated by a pro school privatization publication. Might I suggest another approach, using subject matter collected in our own backyard. Pennsylvania has two tax credit programs that support scholarships to private schools. Unfortunately, neither program allows the state to collect information on student achievement, student progress, or where students attended school prior to receiving their scholarships. If the Yasses supported such data collection, and the data corroborated their arguments of student success, they could use those results to persuade the rest of us about the merit of their cause.

Coleman Poses, Philadelphia

The Inquirer’s article about manufactured homes correctly reported that they are an “under-considered affordable housing tool,” but that there is a “stigma” due to “class-based bias.” Unfortunately, the article perpetuates that stigma by noting that owners in affordable communities are “vulnerable” because of “gaps in policy protections.” Pennsylvania has a robust landlord-tenant law that affords manufactured homeowners protections when it comes to rental increases and lease requirements. Communities receiving Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loans have extensive tenant protections. And all new manufactured homes meet strict federal construction and safety standards.

More can be done, of course. We need a stronger federal commitment to these homeowners. We should incentivize owners to preserve affordable manufactured home communities through things like enhanced tax incentives in opportunity zones. The Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac should provide affordable loans for homes on leased land, instead of avoiding these loans. And the Biden administration should change course on its insistence to impose higher energy standards on manufactured homes than are required for other forms of housing, resulting in thousands of dollars in additional costs. The Inquirer spotted the promise of manufactured housing — but misdiagnosed the solutions.

Lesli Gooch, CEO, Manufactured Housing Institute, Alexandria, Va., and Mary Gaiski, EVP, Pennsylvania Manufactured Housing Association, Halifax, Pa.

Will Bunch makes the case for a nation-sized “bullhorn moment” regarding climate change in his recent column. He alludes to an important step that the media can take immediately, regardless of political gamesmanship: drawing a direct link between climate change-driven extreme weather events and the burning of fossil fuels. Recent headlines have highlighted the human and economic tolls of more intense heat waves, historic flooding, and hazardous air quality.

Given the clear connection between record-breaking global temperatures and climate change, fossil fuel companies should be named and shamed. These companies do more than meet demand — they’ve manufactured it by updating Big Tobacco’s PR playbook to launder public and corporate support for more fossil fuel digging, drilling, and burning. In 2022, ExxonMobil made about $100,000 every minute. Against these kinds of profits, what incentives exist for fossil fuel companies to prioritize a nonpolluting future? The only answer is to hold these companies accountable. One of the first steps in doing so is for journalists to explicitly name fossil fuel companies as major contributors to climate disasters.

Alyssa Hull, Wilmington

Regarding The Inquirer article, “Philly labor leader accused of abusive behavior loses bid for international union president.” Ed Mooney has been a volunteer for over 28 years and a valuable board member for over six years with The Katie Kirlin Fund for disabled wheelchair athletes. Our athletes range from 6 to 19 years of age, with many different races and nationalities represented. Katie’s Komets wheelchair basketball team includes members from Philadelphia, South Jersey, and Delaware.

Our athletes travel to different parts of the country to compete, and fundraising is vital. Ed has always been active in securing sponsors and has participated in the many fundraising events we hold each year. He has always shown the athletes respect, support, and compassion. You could fill newspaper pages with the positive things he has done for his union members and people in the Philadelphia area. It was disappointing that the story was so negative. When people read the article, look at what’s being said and form their opinion, they will not have the chance to know all the good that Ed has done.

Roseann Kirlin, trustee, Katie Kirlin Fund

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.