Letters to the Editor | July 11, 2025

My job takes me into Kensington several times a month, into poor people’s residences, all with children. During a recent trip, I witnessed a man shooting a woman up at the end of the block. I have watched scenes like this many times. Too many times. My heart breaks for these poor families just trying to raise their kids in a safe environment.

The topic of safe injection sites seems to have disappeared from the public discourse. It was not a “winning” strategy politically, I suppose. My understanding is that a safe injection site somehow gives implicit approval for drug use. Nonsense. Let’s look at the positives. If someone overdoses, there is immediate help to save that person. There are counselors on site, providing opportunities to get help, to get into rehab. And getting someone into recovery is society’s goal for people suffering from addiction, isn’t it? And a benefit that is never discussed: Kids won’t be exposed to scenes like the one I described. Children should not have to witness this.

And then there’s the “not in my neighborhood” argument. I wonder what the people in Kensington would say to a safe injection site? Would they prefer that, or are they happy watching people in addiction shooting up on the streets, in broad daylight, where their children have to be exposed to it?

Barry Muth, Willow Grove

I’m a frequent user of the Philadelphia airport, and I can’t help but notice how poorly it continues to be maintained. During a visit last week, I saw garage signs that were unreadable because of trees blocking their view, filthy carpets throughout entrance isles, broken moving walkways, restrooms with nonworking toilets, employees constantly on their cell phones instead of working, boarded-up walkways, leaky ceilings, no seats in waiting areas, and on and on. When will the city do something? Much like the ongoing ineptitude in the sheriff’s office, it often seems as if promoting patronage is more important than operating efficiently.

John Kennedy, Harleysville

House Speaker Mike Johnson gifting President Donald Trump with one of his gavels at the recent budget signing goes beyond symbolism. It has become apparent that the Republican Congress has surrendered its constitutional responsibilities to the Trump administration, to the detriment of our republic. The U.S. Supreme Court has already succumbed to Trump with its declaration that the president is above the law by granting him immunity for “official acts” — without offering much in the way of guidance about what is actually official and what is political in nature. The separation of powers stated in Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution has been surrendered to the Trump administration.

Bill Maginnis, North Wales

In 2003, members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives received an average annual salary of $49,715, with a median salary of $45,520.

According to the Pennsylvania Bulletin, Pennsylvania legislative salaries rose to more than $106,000 in December. That is a 230% increase over 23 years.

Simultaneously, over roughly that same period — 22 years — retired teachers have received zero increases in their pensions.

Apparently, “essential workers” like police, nurses, and teachers are only essential during pandemics. In other times, they are easily forgotten, mostly by Pennsylvania’s Republican legislators.

Cost-of-living adjustments have been proposed, but one party sees no purpose in supporting such an idea. Senate Bill 721 has been proposed to help change that sad circumstance. Will anything ever be done differently?

Will the Pennsylvania legislature live down to its reputation, or work to find a fair and equitable solution?

Jeff Heim, West Chester

We are a nation of immigrants. There are probably very few families who need to go back more than two or three generations to discover how fortunate they are to live in a country that welcomed their ancestors. This land was built by immigrants, and Lady Liberty in New York Harbor has welcomed the downtrodden of the world. Giving people a chance to pursue the American dream is one of the reasons the United States has been admired by those around the world who hope to improve their lot in life. Perhaps the entry system should be revised, but there is no reason to deny what we stand for.

Our paranoid leader fears crime for reasons that are difficult to understand. Statistics show that more crime is committed by “homegrown” citizens than immigrants.

There are industries and places that would be devastated without low-cost employees, and there is so much open space to accommodate them.

To deny foreign students the ability to study here makes no sense. It’s even worse — much worse — to destroy families and wrest children from their parents because of where they were born. The United States of America is being run by an amoral individual, and until somebody — or somebodies — in the House and Senate have the guts to say, “Give us liberty or give us death,” we shall continue our downward spiral.

Ralph D. Bloch, Jenkintown, [email protected]

Imagine my surprise this morning when I received an email from the Social Security Administration praising Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” My taxes are used to support that agency, and I object to its being used for political purposes. Then I read that EPA workers were laid off because they disagreed with some of that agency’s practices. Is this really America? Are we suddenly a place where one cannot disagree with our leaders? Donald Trump, I disagree with how you are treating Americans. Does that mean you will try to deport me too?

Patricia McDermott, West Chester

A recent article about a new road project planned for Castor Avenue provides another example of our polarized politics. The plan features some worthwhile elements, including bike lanes and pedestrian traffic lights. But it takes the road’s present four lanes down to only two, an overly aggressive road diet.

It’s amazing the extent to which present urban planning denies the common sense that gave us wide arterial streets in a country where cities have sprawling suburban communities served by cars. Kowtowing to the interests of pedestrians and bike riders ignores those not only of motorists but local businesses.

The lawsuit stems from the substantial effect the changes will have on traffic flow and parking. Businesses will pay a high price, while a positive effect on pedestrian and bike riders’ safety is expected, even though these are areas where less aggressive changes can have a similar positive effect.

Part of the strategy of such changes is to slow traffic by restricting the flow. One reasonable objection to such alterations is that the motorists who use the street are never consulted when changes are considered, a clearly undemocratic approach.

Castor Avenue has a bad safety record. But if speeding is really a problem, there are far more fair and selective means of controlling it, including old-fashioned police enforcement, or even speed cameras set to a safe speed determined by proper traffic engineering.

The hope is that the lawsuit will produce a redesign that represents proper consideration of all those involved.

John Baxter, Toano, Va.

Join the conversation: Send letters to [email protected]. 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.