CMYK
MAIL BAG
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
S
THE TIMES LEADER www.timesleader.com
LETTERS FROM READERS
Sprinkler repeal jeopardizes safety
C
➛
SUNDAY, MARCH 20, 2011
ongratulations to the state House of Representatives for once again siding with big business and sticking it to the first responders and residents of this great commonwealth. On March 7, the House voted to repeal the fire sprinkler mandate, a law that took significant steps toward reducing the annual fire deaths and injuries. In doing so, the majority of House members said that, once again, they are more worried about the financial well-being of our businesses than they are about the safety of our residents. In justifying his support for the repeal of this mandate, state Rep. Gerald Mullery, D-Newport Township, stated his reason for repealing the law was his concern for the economic viability of the homebuilders and the affordability of the homes. Using figures received from Peter Restaino, of the homebuilding lobby, I researched exactly how much of an impact sprinklers would have on a homeowner. According to Restaino, a typical 2,000square-foot home would require $5,000 to install sprinklers, not including plans, etc. I took that $5,000, added an additional $5,000 for contingencies, and ran these numbers through an amortization calculator. A mortgage of $250,000 at 6 percent interest for 30 years would amount to a principal and interest payment of $1,498.88. After adding $10,000 to the initial mortgage, the new payment would be $1,558.83, a difference of $59.95 per month. Divide that number by an average 30-day month, and the new mortgage would cost a homeowner just
SEND US YOUR OPINION Letters to the editor must include the writer’s name, address and daytime phone number for verification. Letters should be no more than 250 words. We reserve the right to edit and limit writers to one published letter every 30 days. • E-mail: mailbag@timesleader.com • Fax: 570-829-5537 • Mail: Mail Bag, The Times Leader, 15 N. Main St., WilkesBarre, PA 1871 1
under $2 more per day. The homebuilders’ argument that requiring sprinklers would effectively halt new home ownership does not seem to hold up under scrutiny. I will concede there are circumstances that will cause some mortgages to go higher, but this should not stop the average new home buyer from pursuing a new home. And if it did, you have to ask, could they truly afford that home to begin with? In reference to the fire sprinkler debate, Restaino, in an op-ed piece to The Times Leader (March 5) wrote, “Sprinklers are not a public safety issue, as some in the firefighting community might say.” Is he serious? This is totally what this is about. Firefighters have only one objective and that is the preservation of life and property. Yes, hardwired smoke detectors do a good job of alerting people to fires in their homes, but they do nothing to control or extinguish the fire, thereby allowing more time to exit the home. Mr. Restaino goes on to say the need for sprinklers in new homes is not needed, because newer homes are safer than older homes, which he calls “tinderboxes.” I must disagree. As a firefighter, I would much rather fight a fire in a home that is 40 or 50 years old. Why? Older homes are made of real lumber nailed together with real nails. Today, homes are built with floor joists made from sheets of
wood chips glued together that are then stood vertically with 2-inch-by-2 inch pieces of wood at the top and bottom. When exposed to fire, these floors can collapse within minutes. Yes, automatic fire sprinkler systems will add to the cost of a home. Will the addition of sprinkler systems in new homes effectively halt the purchase of newly constructed homes? Contrary to “the sky is falling” dire warnings of the homebuilders’ lobby, no, it will not. The state House got this one wrong. Charles DeLauter Dover
Step up the fight against terrorists
A
sneak attack by the Japanese Empire on the American facilities in Hawaii in 1941 killed 2,402 U.S. servicemen and civilians. The attacks left 18 ships, including eight battleships, sunk or severely damaged. Adm. William F. Halsey, upon learning about the carnage declared, “When we’re through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell.” Backed by a determined U.S. citizenry and led by Adm. Halsey and men like him, U.S armed forces relentlessly beat the Japanese back to their home islands and defeated them with two massive atomic bombs. Japan surrendered in August 1945.
With the help of the United States, Japan became an industrial giant and major trade partner with the western world, and the United States solidified its standing as the superpower that our forefathers envisioned. Fast forward to the next massive attack on the United States. On Sept. 11, 2001, 19 Muslim terrorists (mostly from Saudi Arabia) flew two U.S. civilian airliners into the World Trade Center in New York and one into the Pentagon in Washington. These actions resulted in the deaths of 2,977 civilians and military personnel. When the news of these attacks spread, millions of the Muslim faith cheered. Despite the Sept. 11 attacks and the several attacks that followed, where the terrorist’s cry of “Allah Akbar” was heard, we have seen no retaliation. Our responses? We harass and demean our own citizens at airports, railway stations and public buildings. We have a mayor and some people in New York City who want to honor these terrorists by allowing a mosque to be constructed in the virtual shadow of where the World Trade Center once stood. And worst of all, we have placed in the White House a person who is at best a gutless, inexperienced, apologist who bows to the leaders of this religion that has declared war on us. This man and his cohorts not only refuse to recognize the attacks for the organized terrorism that they are, he attempts to make the United States out as responsible. The World Trade Center should have been rebuilt to its previous state. We should be actively drilling for oil in the United States and in the Gulf. There should be no discussion regarding the mosque in lower Manhattan. Osama Bin Laden
and his followers should have been annihilated long before this, and Barack Obama should be impeached! Make no mistake: Muslims have declared war on us, and unless we begin to accept this premise and begin to fight back as Adm. Halsey and the U.S. forces did in World War II, we are going to become a nation of people subservient to this malignancy. H. Andrew Reed Sugarloaf Township
Superintendent’s words hypocritical
T
here was a quote by Wilkes-Barre Area School District Superintendent Jeff Namey in The Times Leader on March 9 regarding the state budget presented by Gov. Tom Corbett and the proposed cuts to education. Namey said: “You need to cut somewhere. Cuts have to be made, and we have to deal with them and do the best we can ...” How ironic that this statement comes from a school official who earns about $150,000 a year. Theresa Schlingman Wilkes-Barre
Capitalism suffers a loss of morals
I
agree with the basic principle of the capitalistic system but wonder what role moral standards play. Have our moral standards changed? Do we as a people or government really look at the problems of the world and do our best to solve them for the betterment of all? Or has it come down to only politics and two major political parties making decisions based on party lines and the philosophy
of “what is in it for me”? I recollect a newspaper article following the Agnes Flood. This articled focused on a store, out of the flood zone in Hanover Township, that began to charge higher prices for its food and other items because of the demand for these products. Because this store was charging higher prices, criminal charges were being brought against the store owner. The position was that the store was taking advantage of the people who were affected by the flood. It appeared that moral values played a significant part in how society looked at this form of capitalism. Today, you will read in the stock market report about the price of a barrel of crude oil and notice that when the price per barrel of oil rises, every gas station raises its prices. What amazes me is that this would indicate that each gas station ran out of gas at the same time, thereby forcing each station to purchase gas at a higher price from the wholesaler, thereby passing this increased cost to the consumer. I assume this could be possible, but I wonder if this is really true. Or is it because of what appears to be the new social view of what capitalism entails? I don’t know, but if this is so, is capitalism, in this scenario, better for society? When you compare this example to my 1972 memory, do you wonder: What is the true meaning of capitalism? Have society’s moral values changed since the time of not locking you door and agreements being upheld by a handshake? Only you can be the judge and come to your own conclusion. Only you can make the difference. Stanley Halas Hanover Township
276581
PAGE 4E