|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classified Chestnut Hill Local Webmaster Don't Miss an Issue, Tell us what you see or ©2006 Chestnut Hill Local Winner of Three |
From our readers
The benches at Borders I also would suggest that rather than lament the absence of the benches,
she walk less than half a block toward the Library. Here she will find
benches, trees and a fountain. Hopefully she will find herself refreshed.
Newspapers do not have legal authority to alter the official names of park drives. Only the Fairmount Park commissioners can do that. Quite recently that body voted to change the name of West River Drive to Martin Luther King Drive. Some years before that it voted to re-name East River Drive as Kelly Drive and before that, to change the name of the lower end of Wissahickon Drive (the paved portion) to Lincoln Drive. To the best of my knowledge the upper end of Wissahickon Drive (the unpaved portion) has never been formally re-named, or should it be. The name Wissahickon is much revered throughout the entire region. Why would we want to change it to Forbidden? How might the Friends of the Wissahickon feel if the newspapers started calling the organization the Friends of the Forbidden? This is not an accusation that the Local is trying to force a name change. More likely, it is simply inaccurate journalism. May I suggest that you contact the Fairmount Park Commission and ask for the date of the meeting of the commissioners at which there was a vote to change the name of a portion of Wissahickon Drive to Forbidden Drive. I have written to the commission four times requesting this information and have never been given the courtesy of an answer, or even an acknowledgement that my letters were received. Perhaps the Local will receive more courteous treatment. If the commission does give you a date, I would stand corrected. If it
doesn’t, then the use of the name Forbidden should be forbidden
in future accounts of Philadelphia’s glorious trail through the
Wissahickon Valley. It is a happy place and not foreboding in any way. In a letter dated June 1, 2006, newly elected VP of Operations Aiello illegally dismissed two members of the Publisher’s Committee who still have a year left on their terms. The CHCA Bylaws clearly state that Publisher’s Committee members may be dismissed only with cause by a two-thirds vote of the entire board. At the May 25 organizational meeting of the new board, Ron Recko informed one of the board’s newly appointed institutional reps that he could enter the room, but could not vote. At the June 7 Executive Committee meeting, Mr. Recko admitted his error. Too late, of course, to rectify the insult or restore the representative’s first meeting vote. I urge Mr. Aiello to rescind his illegal dismissal of Publisher’s Committee members with apologies. I further urge Mr. Recko to issue an apology for his rudeness to a duly empowered board member. An organization that ignores its own rules loses all credibility. First you go on hold. Then, you get screened by a computer. Then, they tell you that you have to have your doctor’s paperwork in front of you before they will make an appointment. Why? It takes at least three days to get that from your doctor, so making an appointment is now a two-step process over several days. First, you have to call your doctor to request the paperwork. They never say, “No.” Then, you wait for the paperwork to come in the mail. Then, you must bring your paperwork to work or wherever you are during business hours. And then, you must set aside eight to 10 minutes to call the hospital to relay that information and undergo a phone screening of at least five more questions. Because there are so many callers, you must wait on hold while they take that information from others. I got so frustrated by the phone wait that I finally mailed them my information … still trying just to get an appointment time. Two days later I got a friendly call back. They still refused to give me an appointment because I had neglected to send them a Xerox of the back of my health card. The name of the company and my policy number were not sufficient! The bean counters who thought up this new system are not very bright. All the phone time costs the hospital money. Is there really rampant, unjustified appointment-making by patients who want mammograms? Why make all the women who go year after year endure a two-step process and a phone ordeal when it costs the hospital extra money and is a hassle? The mammogram business is a cash cow for the hospital. They should make
it easy for us to get mammogram appointments – not an ordeal. I probably am the proper person to write an article against smoking. I have been a victim of cancer, but I am also a volunteer and caregiver at hospices and nursing homes, hospitals and home care. My wife and I first became interested in caring for cancer patients in 1941. Each Sunday we would drive a long distance to a hospital in Long Island to volunteer our time to patients. We loved our work and even took courses in nursing to be the best volunteers possible. Sadly, even when I did my work to support cancer patients, I was a heavy smoker! One day, a small lump in my jaw was diagnosed as being malignant. I had to have all my teeth extracted as well as muscle tissue and bone in my mouth. Still, that did not deter me from smoking. The reason people are smokers is because young people think it is sophisticated and the elderly see it as a common habit. My “excuse” was the heavy burden of my work. I was the administrator of a huge electronics conglomerate. Thus, smoking might divert me from the stresses of work. In 1962 I saw my father die of cancer. And that year, a doctor suggested if I continued to smoke, I, too, would succumb to cancer. He took my cigarette from me and asked me to give him the pack. Happily, for the next 44 years, I never lit another cigarette. Perhaps I substituted some chewing gum, over containers of coffee. Again, sadly, Helen (my wife) died of bone cancer in 1992. She never smoked a single cigarette in her life. Left alone, I now devoted myself to leading others away from smoking. I will not try to ask an elderly person to stop smoking because they would suggest, “Well, I’m XX years old and it hasn’t killed me!” Thus my work is with young people. While living in Florida, I would visit high schools and address students there. I would invite them to accompany me to visit a hospice. There, they could see the ravage cancer causes. And often, patients would suggest to visitors, “I wish there had been someone to make me stop smoking.” Today, living in the Philadelphia area for the past seven years, I have been a volunteer at a hospice. My new method of making young people stop smoking is as follows: Each day, I sit on a bench on Germantown Avenue in Chestnut Hill. And almost daily young people sit next to me and light up a cigarette. Then, I engage them in conversation. I point out the possible horror smoking can do. If the young person still persists, suggesting, “It’ll never happen to me,” the next step is to show them the picture of a cancer patient, dying of cancer from cigarettes. The picture is of a young woman, well-educated and shriveled up to a mere 60 pounds. Death is in her eyes. I am hugging her. She died in my arms two weeks later. This picture has moved many people, and if one person out of 100 quit because of my lesson, my job is done. So far, my success rate has been great. One young mother offered me a $50 reward because she told me I saved her life. I did not take the money. My reward was adding her to my list of “successes.” I would also like to see young smokers visit the hospice. That would
be the best “cure” for their addiction. Hospice does allow
visitors, but pre-arrangements should be made. In reply to Oreland resident Jim Bondelid’s letter in the June 15 Local, I tried to attend the Lukens Piano Trio, but found the church had locked all the doors. I went on Saturday, June 10, at 8 p.m., as it was published in the Local edition of June 8. Even put on a tie, which is only proper when attending piano trios (quartets – a four-in-hand is de rigueur). Some wonderful music is being performed locally and is so poorly attended that it needs to be advertised and promoted better, and with correct date and time. Taking off my tie I went home and listened to Lawrence Welk. But must
chastise somebody at the Local, for I would have been the 20th attendee. On behalf of the staff and board of the Neighborhood Interfaith Movement, I would like to thank friends and neighbors for welcoming us with open arms to our new home on Germantown Avenue. The “NIM On The Move” event, hosted Sunday, June 11, by the Lutheran Theological Seminary, was a joyous celebration of the area’s most active and inspiring religious leaders and marked a re-commitment by NIM to our 37-year-old grassroots mission “to build a more just and sensitive community through advocacy and service.” I write to emphasize that NIM’s Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Unitarian congregations and other faith institutions can take great pride in their successes in creating the caring community we appreciate, but too easily take for granted. Featured speaker the Rev. Bob Edgar, head of the National Council of Churches, gave a rousing talk reminding us that we – the residents of the Northwest – are the leaders who can make a difference. Elaine Dushoff, former NIM Board chair, introduced the Rev. Richard R. Fernandez, who for 21 years led NIM to prominence. His brief talk introduced the presentation of the first annual Rev. Richard R. Fernandez Religious Leadership Award to some of the area’s most inspiring clergy and lay leaders. The beautiful voices of the Singing City choir, founded in 1948 to promote diversity through music, touched the souls of the many NIM supporters present. Finally, a band led us with Dixieland and klezmer music from the seminary to 7047 Germantown Ave., our new home. NIM’s value to the Northwest community was highlighted by the presence of state Rep. Dwight Evans and city Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, who cut the ribbon for us at our new location. We were very honored to welcome Gov. Rendell, who warmly recognized our work with children and adults. NIM’s move to the Avenue from Summit Presbyterian Church, a gracious and supportive friend for 30 years, is an outgrowth of our commitment to make ourselves and the services we provide to child care centers and elderly residents more accessible to the greater community. Our new NIM Congregations and Community Council will meet there to determine community needs and better direct our services and advocacy on behalf of the populations we serve. If the June 11 event was any indication, the future holds great prospects for NIM and our community! One of the themes that Sunday came from a Thomas Jefferson quote: “It
is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read.”
We at NIM look forward to sharing in this spirit with our new neighbors
by continuing to provide a voice for the region’s faithful as our
shared religious values guide our work for a more just and fair community. I have lived in Chestnut Hill for all 22 years of my life. I have three dogs, whom I take to the park as often as my schedule permits. I, and others who frequent the park, are open to fencing in a good-sized area to protect both park-goers and the dogs. I also think that there should be picnic tables in place to designate an area for eating and to keep food off the ground and away from the dogs’ level. I was witness to a man eating at the park and having his food eaten by one of the not-so-polite-dog-owners’ dog that frequents the park. I was appalled that after the dog attacked the food several times, the owner still had not leashed the animal. I must say, however, that 90 percent of the dog owners at Pastorius are responsible, pick up their dog poop, and are very friendly and respectful. Again, I would be very much in favor of a fenced-in area that could be called the “dog area” and maintained as such. I think it is a very good compromise, and I was upset but not surprised to hear that the idea had been vetoed by the community association. I have attended their meetings held at the library and I must say that they are not a very flexible group, nor do they welcome much change to the town. I would be very interested to hear what their problem is with fencing in an area of the park, besides them just not wanting to budge one inch on an issue that they have already made up their minds about. I think that this town should be able to change as the needs of its residents change. How do you think we can bring this issue up again? Let me know if you have any ideas/plans or if there is anyone who supports this idea that needs support. I am sure I can rally some more of that in just one day at the park with my dogs. One reason I love where I live is that I have found a community in these
people I socialize with as I exercise my dogs. Thank you for the article.
I know that this issue becomes a problem every year around this time because
people are enjoying the weather with their dogs. Very often, when my kids turn away from dogs or hide behind my back I hear the sentence, “Oh, don’t be afraid, he/she likes children.” Unfortunately a lot of dog owners cannot imagine that their darling little dog can be a giant big dog in a little child’s eyes and therefore pose a threat. Two weeks ago, the two-year-old son of a friend was attacked by a dog, and his face was hurt so badly that he had to be treated at the hospital. And this was just a small dog that lives in a family with little kids! To me, this incident proves that neither can you predict actions of children nor the reactions of dogs. The safety of our kids should definitely have a higher priority than the fun and freedom of dogs. And it definitely doesn’t help a child with scars all over his face that the dog was supposed to be a nice dog. Furthermore, I think it is strange to justify your own leash law violation by pointing out that there are other – worse – illegal things going on in the park. I agree with Mrs. Scanlon that if smoking marijuana in the park is against
the law, people should not do it. But I think that pot smokers in general
are peaceful, and at least I have never seen or heard of anyone attacking
or hurting a child. Living near Pastorius Park, my wife and I love to walk our dog (on a leash) and stroll with our young son. However, with the present threat of dogs running up to us we have become fearful of being attacked, or worse having our child hurt. All the while, the dog’s owners chat oblivious to the whereabouts of their animals. A case and point: My wife and I were in our front yard when a dog walked onto our property. We went up to the dog, called the phone number on the tag and it was the owner’s cell phone. He was in the park and apparently so caught up in conversation that he misplaced his dog. This was not an isolated incident. I have seen many dogs running into the street away from the park with no owner in sight. This poses a significant danger to these people’s beloved pets – knowing how fast cars tend to speed down nearby roads. It is an accident waiting to happen. Then there was the time that a dog came up to me and started barking at my dog in a threatening way, leading my dog to growl in return. I tried to pull my dog away to avoid injury to her and twisted my ankle. The owner of the dog then yelled at me (from 50 feet away) because I was antagonizing her dog. I hate to mention all the times I have stepped in poop because of those owners who consistently feel that someone else will pick it up. And what about the Friends of Pastorius Park? I do appreciate all of the work that the Friends of Pastorius Park do for the community. The park is a beautiful place and I would love to become a member to support them in the effort to maintain the park, but since I feel unable to benefit from the park, I do not feel like I can support it. Coming from New York City the idea of a dog run is not new. I applaud the idea of starting one at Pastorius. Why not? After all, every year there is a fence installed to protect the grass from all the dogs tearing it up. Having a dog run would be a win-win situation for all. Not only would that force owners to stay close to their pets and keep an eye on them, but also they could continue to socialize with other owners, knowing that their dogs were not running out of the park. Others who wanted to use the park could do so safely without worrying that an unleashed dog would approach them. Hopefully, dog owners, with their dogs closer to them, would be encouraged to dispose of “refuse” in appropriate receptacles provided free by the Park Commission. Those dog owners who chose not to use the run could, by all means, walk throughout the park, but with their dog on a leash. Yes, there are issues that come up with dog runs, but none that cannot be surmounted with the support of the dog-owner community. Something that most people seem to forget is that dogs are animals. Even
the most well-trained dog does not always listen if distracted. Owners
must keep an eye on their animals, just as they have to keep an eye on
their children, for the safety of others and for the safety of their pets. I read with interest the recent front page article about dogs being off leash in Pastorius Park. It was interesting that individuals from Lafayette Hill and surrounding communities appear to be using the park as a dog park, possibly driving away Chestnut Hill residents who could and should walk to the park. I have stopped going to Pastorius Park because of the mess left by unleashed dogs and the stress of not knowing if a dog (or two or three) charging at you is friendly or not. I ride horses in Fairmount Park, and while most owners leash up when they see a horse and rider, there are a few bad apples who don’t even bring a leash with them. I even saw one dog with no collar and the owner was not able to control the animal. I try to calmly educate them that it is in their best interest to leash their dog, who could be killed with one swift kick from a horse’s hoof. Some dog owners do, others don’t. We have put up signs around Monastery Stable and attempted some education and outreach at the recent Wissahickon Day Parade, and still, some dog owners don’t seem to want to get it. My experience has been that most dog owners are friendly and will leash up when you ask them to. However, for a full 45 seconds the equestrian is holding his or her breath hoping that the actual leashing occurs successfully. I used to walk my very calm leashed golden retriever in the park, but no more. When two or more off-leash dogs would come up to him and start sniffing and invading our space, my dog felt he had to defend me from these intruders. It just got too stressful to take him to the park. How sad is that? I’ve heard of several equestrians who have left the Wissahickon Valley for destinations that do not allow bicyclists and strickly enforce leash rules. That is even sadder to me. A time-honored tradition is being edged out. I’m not sure what the answer is, but I would be happy to serve on a committee to try to come to some consensus on these issues. I do hope the next executive director of the Friends of the Wissahickon can bring together this kind of much needed discussion. I’d like to thank you and your reporter Kristin Pazulski for bringing this issue to light for public discussion. That is what a good newspaper is supposed to do. I’m breathing a sigh of relief that the Local appears to be getting back on track from an editorial standpoint, following the resignation of former Editor James Sturvidant. I’m sorry that Sturvidant and his family had to go through the hell of resigning, but I suspect there will be positive things coming out of that for him in the long run. Please keep up the good work. P.S. I find the majority of bicyclists in the park are respectful of
the horses. However, again, there are a few bad actors who don’t
use good judgment. I’d like to publicly thank those who do. One of your readers, W.W.K. Butcher, wrote in the June 8 issue that “hindsight is usually clearer. That does not negate the initial decision or the necessity for continued effort and success” in Iraq. I beg to differ with W.W.K.B. Hindsight, in this case, has shown that there were no reasons for the invasion of Iraq. There were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, and there were no weapons of mass destruction of any kind in Iraq. There was no connection between Iraq and the September 2001 attack on the World Trade Towers, and there was no connection of any kind between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. We are sure of this because our soldiers have been running Iraq for more than three years, and our guys have been looking high and low for any evidence of a reason for the invasion. The fact is, W.W.K.B., hindsight has negated the initial decision because it has demonstrated that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was unjustified, illegal and immoral. I signed the Northwest Peace and Justice Movement letter to Congress
(Chestnut Hill Local, May 25) because the situation can be corrected only
by bringing our troops home now and by paying reparations to the Iraqi
people (not that puppet Iraqi government) for the war crimes we have committed
against them. Furthermore, I find it remarkably insensitive to call this war merely an endeavor. To the thousands upon thousands of families who have lost loved ones in Iraq as a result of lies and misrepresentation of facts, my heart goes out to them. As for you, Mr. Butcher, I hang my head in disgust. Your thoughtless analysis and off-the-cuff statements are absolutely despicable. It is time to support our troops, and bring them home now. Love. Caring. Kindness and generosity. Non-violence and peace. Honoring human beings and the environment as embodiments of the sacred. These are words and phrases I heard over and over again at the Conference on Spiritual Activism in Washington in May. The conference was the East Coast launch of a political movement called the Spiritual Left. The Spiritual Left’s primary tenet is the need to change the bottom line in America. The new bottom line would judge our institutions and social practices by their ability to maximize all those words and phrases listed above, not only by increasing money and power (the old bottom line). I had the privilege of both attending the conference and leading a workshop on nurturing children’s spirituality. The power of this positive view, infused with a belief that if we aim high enough we can create it, has uplifted me and given me hope in the same way that watching my young children live out their goodness and sweetness does. The speakers at the conference celebrated the idealistic-ness of this vision and continually challenged people to move past the stuck-ness of living in what just seems possible. It was presented as a vision that people who are religious or spiritual-but-not-religious or purely secular could hold onto because it never called one path as the right one or the only one. Being in a space where the language of both my political beliefs and my spiritual grounding were expected in the same sentence was surprising, powerful and welcome. I’m sure that many of us in this community are searching for a
positive path to follow, not just a retort to the old bottom line of economic
success and the fear-and-force-dominated culture our country operates
from. I urge you to explore the movement of the Spiritual Left, supported
by the Network of Spiritual Progressives (www.spiritualprogressives.org).
How unfortunate for your readers that Kristin Pazulski’s article on the Philadelphia School District’s high school options presented such a poor and negatively biased view of J.S. Jenks, our neighborhood school. If I didn’t know firsthand about the large number of Jenks grads who go on to the most selective magnet public schools and private schools every year, I would think that the majority of students at Jenks are at the bottom of the population in academic performance. It seems she chose to focus on the bottom 18 percent (12 of 66) who will be attending Germantown High School, without a mention of the high number who will be attending the most selective schools (public and private) in the area. What was the point of the article? If it was to highlight new high school options, then the mention of Saul, Bodine, CAPA and Central was inaccurate – these are not new options. If it was to profile the graduating class, then it clearly missed the top 80 percent of graduates. J.S. Jenks grads attend fine secondary schools and universities, with grads from each class earning admission to Ivy League colleges. In my son’s J.S. Jenks graduating class (2001), at least three of 70 graduates were accepted to Ivy League colleges. That’s an acceptance rate of nearly five percent, a rate which would rival or surpass any of the eighth-grade statistics for the private and parochial schools in Chestnut Hill. Furthermore, the J.S. Jenks acceptance rate to Ivy League colleges exceeds the average high school class acceptance rate to Ivy League colleges by tenfold.
Legislators working on Pennsylvania’s 2006-07 Commonwealth Budget in Harrisburg need to be encouraged to use the surplus in the state Lottery Fund to improve local nursing home alternatives that keep older residents at home longer. The fact, which can be documented, is that older adults don’t want to go to nursing homes; and many can safely receive care from a relative or friend at home. Staying at home also keeps older adults connected to the community and is often less expensive than a nursing facility. As executive director of Center in the Park, I could share countless stories with you about the testimony of consumers we have helped to stay in their homes and how much it has meant to them, as well as the many who have been enriched and maintained independence and fitness due to participation in Center programs and activities. Fortunately, for the homebound in our community, we are able to provide some assistance, but only on a very limited basis, partially because of the generosity of some of our local foundations that give us emergency assistance grants to provide in-home support and family caregiver support, because our funding from the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging has remained flat over the years due to the need to rebalance resources coming out of Harrisburg. Put simply, we need expanded funding for home and community-based care options for older adults. Here’s just one example of a couple we were able to help: Mr. T is a 71-year-old Caucasian male who has been diagnosed with a particularly aggressive form of muscular dystrophy. Mr. T’s mobility has been severely affected by the progression of the disease and he is reliant on a motorized wheelchair. Mr. T is assisted by his wife, who is his primary caregiver. Mr. T’s wife must assist him in meal preparation, personal care and many other activities of daily living. Mr. and Mrs. T have been surviving on an income of Mrs. T’s social security and a family trust, which is nearly depleted. The family trust was depleted more quickly than expected because of the adaptive modifications to Mr. and Mrs. T’s home due to Mr. T’s illness. Mr. and Mrs. T will not be able to survive on $1,000 from social security with all of the medical expenses that Mr. T incurs monthly. Mr. and Mrs. T want to remain in their home and were interested in learning more about reverse mortgages. Center in the Park staff was able to provide reliable information about reverse mortgages so that the couple could use their home to sustain their current needs; and, also referred them to the Family Caregiver Program at the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging to assist them with monthly care-giving expenses. The problem is, many home- and community-care programs are overcrowded and there are many more who need home- and community-based services than our current resources can accommodate. Spending more money will eliminate the backlogs and make sure health care services, transportation programs and senior centers remain available for all who need them. Seniors know there’s no place like home. The Lottery Fund was created
to benefit older Pennsylvanians. We must make sure legislators know we
need more home- and community-based care programs. |
