Letters to the Editor | Nov. 2, 2023

Inga Saffron’s excellent historical critique of the deindustrialization of Philadelphia amid a housing crisis shows the resourcefulness needed to move society forward on these difficult issues. Her call for more creative ways to address the scarcity of affordable housing suggests another possibility. Much has been written recently about a homeless encampment on Peco land in Norristown. Within a stone’s throw of the encampment is Norristown State Hospital. As former residents have transitioned into the community for better or worse, dozens of inhabitable buildings stand vacant. The transitioning from hospital beds into residential housing should be much easier than the Herculean tasks associated with converting a brewery, a power plant, or abandoned factories into residences for homeless folks. Without private sector involvement, the idea of tax credits and opportunity zones doesn’t apply. As these are public lands owned by different governmental entities, we need only get them on the same page. Surely the desperate need for affordable housing can bring these folks together and easily create significant units of much-needed affordable housing.

Angus Love, Narberth, anguslove76@gmail.com

I am writing in response to the Oct. 19 editorial, wherein the Editorial Board recommends that the people of Philadelphia vote to not retain Judge David C. Shuter to the Philadelphia Municipal Court. That opinion is reckless, irresponsible, and wholly biased. It is important to note that the landlord-tenant officer is not a party to any landlord-tenant case. Despite that fact, Judge Shuter himself requested that he no longer sit in landlord-tenant court. This request has been honored. However, in 2019, Judge Shuter was assigned by me on three occasions to sit as a Common Pleas judge to hear traffic court appeals. As part of that assignment, the judge spent three days in traffic court and two days in our civil court in a small claims courtroom. During those three weeks, Judge Shuter spent six days in civil court.

Despite the fact that he wasn’t officially sitting in landlord-tenant court — nor has he ever done so during his wife’s tenure as the landlord-tenant officer — our civil administration listed some landlord-tenant cases in front of Judge Shuter. During those six days in 2019, Judge Shuter heard 12 landlord-tenant cases out of the 118,000 cases heard by this court during his wife’s tenure. Of those 12 cases, he ruled for the tenant in three of them. No one to this day has questioned the legality of any of those 12 rulings. It is the court’s view that Judge Shuter did not have a conflict of interest because his wife was not a party in any of the 12 cases he heard — nor did she ever appear before him in any capacity in any of those cases.

All of this information was provided by the court years ago at the request of your reporters. Nonetheless, The Inquirer has refused to mention this information and continues to vilify Judge Shuter for no good reason. Judge Shuter is one of our longest-tenured judges on this court. He possesses the utmost integrity. He also receives one of the highest ratings by the Philadelphia Bar Association. He is intelligent, fair, well-reasoned, and well-liked by lawyers and parties alike. To suggest that Judge Shuter would purposely rule against a tenant is contrary to his character. Moreover, your editorial leads the public to believe that Judge Shuter regularly hears landlord-tenant cases. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am saddened and disappointed that the facts apparently no longer matter in reporting the news. If Judge Shuter were to lose his position on the court, it would be a huge loss for the citizens of Philadelphia.

Patrick F. Dugan, president judge, Philadelphia Municipal Court

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.