Preservation benefits all

I read with interest your story (August 19, 2004 / Michael J. Mishak) on Mt. Airy Commons and a proposal to demolish the historic Presser and Nugent properties. Speaking on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, I would like to make a few points clear.

Often it is only when the very existence of a historic building is threatened, usually by an owner proposing demolition, that preservationists and property owners may be at odds. Fortunately, when these situations do arise, more often than not the property owner can be brought around to see the historic property’s cultural and economic value, and can be persuaded to forego demolition.

There is little doubt that in recent years the whole idea of historic preservation and of landmark designation has come of age. Preservation and restoration are no longer the exception; they are now the rule. And what was once considered the concern of a special interest group is now seen as a matter of good public policy and improved quality of life. There is little doubt that these buildings in question are victims of a long-standing pattern of neglect, deterioration and will require major reinvestment.

However, there are rare instances when designating a landmark without the owner’s consent is the only way to save a building from destruction. Such a decision is never made easily or lightly, but there are times when it becomes necessary. And without this ability, many historic gems of Philadelphia would not be standing today. When we are pondering tearing a building down, I would challenge that the Presser and Nugent properties meet the basic test of significance and, at the very least, deserve full consideration of all preservation options before looking to demolition. Tearing these buildings down reduces, does not enhance, the overall quality of this neighborhood.

A sensitive rehabilitation requires more time and creativity, but not necessarily more dollars when you look at the total picture. Among preservationists, developer and architects alike, rehabilitation and adaptive use are widely regarded as viable — often economically preferable — alternatives to demolition. Of course we will have to be adaptable and flexible  — as we always have been — in order to deal effectively with preserving these properties for a new use. I have no doubt that the preservation community is willing to help and offer our expertise to develop feasible options.

Our challenge is to help the owners and project architect reconsider its plans for demolition and instead look at rehabilitation — and understand that in saving and enhancing historic buildings and neighborhoods, preservation benefits everyone — not just members of historical societies and preservation organizations.

Adrian Scott Fine
Director, Northeast Field Office
National Trust for Historic Preservation

Kerry steers into shallow water

The ugly direction the presidential campaigns have taken should be no surprise to the Kerry Campaign. Probably half of the dedicated party members who watched the convention in Boston were amazed to learn that the Kerry campaign was about to take an abrupt turn to establishing “Kerry the Military Leader” as the pre-eminent focus on why he was most qualified to lead.

Not Kerry the deep thinker who, despite his dedicated service, questioned the country’s Vietnam War micromanagement from Washington, which was more concerned with marketing the war than telling the truth. Not Kerry the activist politician who voted his conscience in Washington, even when it was a minority view. No, Kerry was going to remake himself as a war hero and serve up his accomplishments and medals despite the fact he symbolically “threw them overboard” in the face of his comrades while the war was still in progress. 

One wonders who made that decision to crack open the door of history and make the activities of a small window of a man’s life, as controversial as they were, the foundation of a presidential campaign. To answer that question requires both supporters and opponents to want the answer to a much larger question. That would be: what does the Democratic Party and John Kerry know that we the people don’t know that could convince the candidate of the so-called opposition party to abruptly decide to take the campaign to George Bush’s perspective, and try to define himself as better able to lead the country on war footing? 

He is not actually arguing diplomacy and internationalism; he is trying to sell us on the perspective that his Vietnam experience makes him, rather than President Bush, a better “war leader.” Are we to believe that all that flows from four months in command of a patrol boat on a river in Vietnam, where we already had superior firepower and advantage, if not commitment? This is not Audie Murphy in hand-to-hand combat with a better-equipped German tank battalion, or a handful of frozen Marines in the Chosin Reservoir against overwhelming Chinese odds. It seems he committed political suicide by opening this Pandora’s Box where far too many of those who are most likely voters have nothing but bitter memories.

Even on the most practical level, how does one equate the decision of a youthful first-tier naval officer with the major conflict-resolution demands of the president of the world’s most powerful nation? Many of those who served in the years before the “professional army” remember that it was 18-20-year-old enlisted men, often commanded by 23-27-year-old lieutenants like Kerry, making “by the book” decisions, often with disastrous results. Most who actually saw and felt the horrors of combat do not want to go back there, but those with good memories don’t often credit those junior-grade officers, four months in the field, with the life-saving decisions in the heat of battle. Those accolades, when appropriate, often go to the seasoned sergeants and petty officers.

The Democrats in the party’s inner sanctum must realize that all the investigating commissions, debates and hearings won’t change the fact that we have made ourselves a vulnerable target to world terror and the reality of having to fight it on short notice, frequently, and right here at home is a very real possibility. Kerry should be crafting and telegraphing a better offensive and defensive American strategy that is believable and workable. Relying on 35-year-old exploits as a Junior Grade Naval Officer on riverboat is taking him into very shallow water — he is very likely to run aground.

Jim Foster
Mt. Airy

The relay service

Have you ever come home during the workweek, not felt up to cooking and decided on take-out for dinner? That is what my friend and I decided on Tuesday, August 17. We had had a long day and we thought that ordering food and having it delivered to our house was the perfect solution. We wanted to relax during the evening, and perhaps watch a movie. Sadly, we encountered an experience that was insulting and unforgettable.

My friend and I are deaf, and when we make a phone call we use a special service called the relay service. I call the operator using a computer. The operator will read what I say and dial the phone number for me. When the person picks up the phone on the other end of the line, the operator explains that they are working for the relay service and they are relaying a message from a deaf client. Then a conversation occurs between me and the person who is on the other end of the phone with interpreting help from the relay operator.

Unfortunately, not many people are familiar with it. Sometimes, we call restaurants and before they can wait for the operator to finish explaining, they hang up on us. Most of the time businesses are good; they take the calls and are very patient, even if they have many incoming calls. What happened on August 17 is a story that must be shared, so it won’t happen again.

We were hungry, and as a Chestnut Hill resident, I am fortunate to live in a place that has a variety of restaurants. Since we were in the mood for Chinese, we called a restaurant on Germantown Avenue. When the relay operator tried to explain to the person on the other end of the line, the person hung up. We knew he was unfamiliar with the relay service, so we called back. The person answered the phone and became irate and told us through the relay operator to “shut up.” I was surprised to hear that from a business! I called back and tried to explain to him that I was deaf and wanted to order food for home delivery. Every time the operator tried to explain, the person on the other end of the line became more irate, to the point where he cursed at us. I was shocked and appalled at his unprofessional behavior. We decided to drive up to the restaurant and explain in person what the relay service was all about.

My friend and I arrived at the restaurant and asked to speak to the manager. The person we first approached said he was the manager, and we started to explain what happened. It turned out that the person who became irate with us and cursed us was the manager himself! What a poor role model for other workers there. My friend tried to explain how the deaf use a different mode of communication. Sadly, he didn’t care and told us that we should have asked a hearing person to call for us; he didn’t have time for a relay call. We felt insulted. There is not always a hearing person available; that is why the relay service was implemented in the first place. We tried to explain about the Americans with Disabilities Act and our right to use the relay service. He explained again that he was very busy and kept insisting that we ask other hearing people to call for us. I have never been so upset or insulted when he didn’t respect our needs. We went home and decided to go for Italian food. We called Cosimo’s Pizza using the relay service. They were very good taking the relay call and did deliver our food.

This incident encouraged me to write this article in hopes of educating many businesses about the relay service. I, like many other Chestnut Hill residents, sometimes call to ask if a store carries a product, or I may call to make reservations at a restaurant or inquire about carry-out. If you pick up the phone and hear the operator announcing the relay service, please be aware and know that we are interested in your business. Chestnut Hill is a beautiful place to live, and I would very much like to stay and be a part of the community.

A concerned deaf resident.

Eva Ayers
Chestnut Hill

Ed. note: The owner of the restaurant said that there was a communication problem with language. He said the caller did not say first that she wanted to make an order and he thought the caller was marketing telephone companies.