Letters to the Editor | May 1, 2023

What’s been mostly lost in the discussion about the new Sixers arena is a real consideration of the environmental impacts. Cities are particularly vulnerable to temperature spikes because of what’s known as the “heat island” effect, in which concrete, asphalt, and other aspects of urban infrastructure absorb and reproduce heat at an above-average rate. According to the Philadelphia Heat Vulnerability Index, temperatures in Chinatown range from 1.6 to 1.7 degrees above the averages for the rest of the city. This may be attributed to a lack of green space in the neighborhood and a high output of carbon dioxide, a problem that would only be aggravated by 76 Place. Instead of building a privately funded sports complex, why doesn’t the city create a garden on Market Street — a green space for the local community, which could be publicly funded with the unallocated millions that the city has left over from the $1.4 billion provided by the American Rescue Plan.

This would not only help with concerns related to public health and heat — as trees and plants absorb carbon dioxide while producing oxygen — but also aid efforts to bolster the city’s network of parks. An initiative aimed at reconnecting northern and southern Chinatown by capping the Vine Street Expressway with a green space, such as the Chinatown Stitch, could be one promising way to pursue these ends. The city ignored its Asian American residents when they opposed the expressway, and now, four decades later, we’re at risk of repeating those missteps. Let’s not make the same mistake again.

Michael McShane, Woodlyn

Philadelphia sports fans have been through a lot recently, and now the Sixers are in the playoffs, convincingly sweeping the Brooklyn Nets and taking on Boston. Making the NBA Finals is better than not making it, period — in most years, at least. In the past six months, Philadelphia’s sports faithful have witnessed the Phillies be defeated in the World Series by the Houston Astros, watched as the Union lost on penalties to LAFC in the MLS Cup final, and looked on as the Eagles fell to the Kansas City Chiefs. So how would Pennsylvania feel if the Sixers go all the way — farther than the Celtics, the Milwaukee Bucks, and everyone in between — just to be taken down when it truly matters? A city can only handle so much heartbreak! Philadelphia would become the laughingstock of America’s sports fans if the Sixers lost then. I’m pretty sure the Liberty Bell is made of tin, not silver, and there’s no room for runner-up trophies in this great city. I would rather have the 76ers not make the NBA Finals at all than make it there and end up losing.

Jason Ramey Jr., Eden, N.C.

Montana lawmaker Zooey Zephyr was disciplined and censured by Montana’s Republican-controlled legislature over her opinions, participation, and “actions” in supporting gender-affirming health care for minors and their families. The GOP’s actions are hypocritical and ironic, coming from the party that weaponized the word woke and bemoans the existence of “cancel culture.” I don’t know how much of their current nonsense is because she’s a Democrat or because she’s transgender, but I’m almost hoping it’s one of these awful reasons rather than because they don’t want to hear an opinion that differs from theirs. Freedom of speech is one of our most basic rights. Any attempt by lawmakers to punish people for a difference of opinion is well down the path to dictatorship, but that seems to be the new direction of the Republican Party these days.

Ellen Swirsky, Sicklerville

As reported in The Inquirer, a report on Philadelphia’s plastic bag ban commissioned by the city notes a reduction in plastic bag use. It does not, however, address potential negative consequences of increased paper and reusable bag use. According to a 2020 article by the Columbia Climate School, compared with plastic bags, paper bags produce more municipal solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions, and use more fresh water and energy. The increased demand for reusable bags could also lead to an increase in the use of nonbiodegradable materials like nylon or polyester. Additionally, the ban may have unintended consequences on low-income communities, who may not have access to reusable bags and may not be able to afford the added cost of purchasing paper bags. Future reports should examine the potential equity implications of the ban and explore ways to mitigate any negative effects on vulnerable populations.

Pragat Patel, Ellicott City, Md.

The rise of so-called Christian nationalism in our federal government, statehouses, school boards, and other institutions is incredibly alarming, and is resulting in the (attempted) marginalization of the LGBTQ community and others on that movement’s seemingly endless enemies list (which includes scientists, teachers, public health proponents, etc.). To be blunt, so-called Christian nationalism is anti-American, unconstitutional, and pretty much at odds with anything that Jesus taught (ask one of its adherents to list anything Jesus actually said about gays or abortion). To combat this scourge more effectively, and to succinctly rebut its (mis)appropriation of Christ’s name, I suggest the use of a more descriptive title for its proponents. Consistent with their earlier use of “in name only” insults against moderate Republicans (most of whom have been driven out of the party), I suggest the use of a new term. “ChrINOS” (Christians in name only) would describe the movement formerly known as Christian nationalism. Pronounced “cry-nose,” the term also reinforces their endless whininess about their supposed victimization, as the rest of us celebrate our diversity, inclusiveness, and love for our fellow humans. Values, incidentally, actually promoted by Jesus.

Stephen Collins, Huntingdon Valley, stephencollins@comcast.net

Reporter Anna Orso’s excellent article provides the type of factual information needed by those who engage in the “stop-and-frisk” debate. This is not just a public policy issue; it is a legal issue grounded in constitutional principle and a complex body of case law. However, while the focus is understandably on the mayoral candidates, it is our elected judges who actually decide what is or is not a permissible stop and/or frisk. On May 16, the ballot will be chock-full of judicial candidates running for election to serve on the Philadelphia Municipal Court, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania Superior Court, and Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Decisions about whether stop and/or frisk is constitutional are made every day by our city’s criminal trial judges. Our state appellate courts set the legal standards for what constitutes a constitutional stop and/or frisk. Sometimes those parameters change so that what was legal in previous years may be illegal now.

Whether stop-and-frisk is constitutional often hinges upon a single fact on a case-by-case basis. These are important and complex decisions being made daily by our elected judges. In other words, “stop-and-frisk” are not buzzwords that should be used to ascribe labels to those involved in these processes, nor should they be tossed as a grenade into an otherwise civil debate. Take the time to learn about the judicial candidates running in the May 16 primary election. Information is easier to access than ever before on candidates’ websites as well as from other sources, including the Philadelphia Bar Association.

Susan I. Schulman, judge, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

We all get that burning fossil resources for energy has created and exacerbated the climate crisis. And we know we need to move rapidly and replace them with renewable energy sources such as solar and wind technology. But technology alone will not solve the problem because the climate crisis is not just a crisis of burning fossil fuels. It is also a crisis of resource depletion: biodiversity loss, soil, water, and air pollution, social inequity, and war. The living Earth can provide for the needs of all, but not for the greed of the few. Unlimited economic “growth” in a finite world is not possible. The mining of the rare earth elements needed to produce batteries, solar panels, robots, and the like is just as destructive of land and people as has been the extraction of oil, natural gas, and coal. We must realize that we will not “technology” our way out of the climate crisis. What will address the problem is for the overfed, overconsuming, overdeveloped global North to take less of the Earth’s bounty. What is needed is a focus on a different kind of growth; a growth in sharing, in culture, and ultimately, a growth centered on the well-being of all living creatures.

Ken Eidel, Glenside

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.