Letters to the Editor

It would be a significant blow to the Philadelphia region to lose the artistry of Maestro Peter Nero, an internationally acclaimed pianist and a local, if not national, icon ("Philly Pops says it can't afford Nero," Tuesday). I have enjoyed a long-standing relationship with Nero as a former board member of the All-Star Forum and as past chairman and, presently, a board member and chairman emeritus of the Pops' Encore Series.

I hope that reason will prevail in the coming weeks, and that the parties will reach a settlement that reflects the pianistic brilliance of Nero and his long years of dedicated service, and at the same time satisfies the need for budgetary constraint, a condition confronting virtually every American orchestra. If not, there will be no winners, and among the list of potential losers will be the Encore Series; the more than 70 musicians who regularly perform at Pops concerts; the Kimmel Center, which hosts Pops concerts; and, regrettably, the thousands of patrons who for more than 30 years have been treated to many memorable Philly Pops concerts.

Not too long after the Pennsylvania Convention Center opened, we started to read stories about problems between unions and the event organizers. Over the years, The Inquirer has documented the center's many problems and often the issue was the expense associated with unions, based on quality of work, attitude, and rules. Sunday we were greeted with another story, "Hoteliers fault labor on convention bookings."

The simple solution is to find the top three or four convention facilities, and determine what their union expenses, rules, and contracts are. We should then write new agreements for the Pennsylvania Convention Center that matches or is better than the three or four top centers. For the union leaders to say the expenses, rules, and attitudes associated with union workers are "not an issue" means they either do not read the paper or they are in denial.

Costs are the most significant factor driving the location of a convention. If we do not make the Convention Center competitive, we will continue to lose business.

It's unfortunate that Dick Polman's Sunday column, "GOP's job-killing election game," wasn't on the front page. Polman clearly chronicled the GOP's actions to block President Obama's initiatives to enact job-creation legislation. Case in point was the American Jobs Act, which would have put large numbers of private-sector construction workers to work upgrading our crumbling roads, bridges, and other infrastructure.

However, from the day of his inauguration, the GOP was prepared to "show united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies." Middle-income families and workers have lost jobs, savings, homes, and hope since. And then Republican leaders and their supporters blame the president exclusively for our economic woes.

Americans' pain is GOP gain in this perverse, cruel, and immoral political game.

Dick Polman has accused the Republicans in Congress of not cooperating with President Obama. However, compromise and bipartisanship have taken us to the edge of bankruptcy. We don't need bipartisanship; we need fiscal discipline and principle.

Whenever I read a commentary by Sister Mary Scullion, I want to jump up and cheer: Right on ("Charity isn't the problem," Friday). Her truth-telling uncovers the obvious in a challenging way. Perhaps it is in her citing of the "underlying issues" at work in her comments regarding the "feeding programs" that reveal what many of us know as a moral digression from the common good.

I conclude with a request to Sister Mary that could make us uneasy: Keep reminding us of the cover-ups in this City of Brotherly/Sisterly Love. And thank you for your untiring witness to the poor and the needy as the responsibility of all in this commonwealth.

For years, Philadelphia was called the City of Brotherly Love. Only Mayor Nutter had the good sense to add "and Sisterly Affection." Sometimes it takes just a little thoughtful attention to make our world more just and inclusive. The same logic applies to the current debate about outdoor meals for the homeless. Moving those meals indoors — creating a safer, dignified environment — is a great idea.

However, until such facilities are available, the mayor should allow the outdoor offerings to continue. It's the only sensible compromise. And judging by the size of the crowds at the Barnes, we are at no risk of losing art fans.

Let's not be ashamed to show that, even when it comes to the most fragile members of our community, we are the City of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection.

Perhaps in compensation for the architectural losses that occur through its occasional displays of dorsal insufficiency ("Episcopal demolition plan approved," Saturday), Philadelphia's Historical Commission strengthens our intellect by generating provocative questions:

What good is local and national historic designation if a commission can authorize demolition of a certified structure?

How does "public good" translate into a private developer erecting an apartment tower on a small plot, at the cost of historic and handsome buildings (with a city block vacant across the street)?

How do we estimate the probability, based on past examples in this city, that after demolition, some mishap will abort the project, leaving another vacant lot?

Of more personal interest, as someone who works at 38th and Market Streets, next door to the church: if its tower is about to crumble, why am I still permitted to walk along the sidewalk next to it?

Finally, can anyone really believe that the Episcopalians of the Philadelphia area cannot come up with the resources to take care of their "cathedral"? Has it come to this?

As a pediatrician, I was struck by the story "One little miracle: Preston's story" (Sunday). As a society, we are willing (as we should be) to spend what probably amounted to close to a million dollars to take care of this baby, but somehow we can't or won't find the funds that allow a mother to stay home with her young child and be paid for it as so many European countries do. I also wonder if lack of access to good prenatal care had anything to do with Preston being born premature, which is often the case. Why isn't there a reserve fund somewhere that will ensure that families with small children don't have to face a loss of basic services? The fact that we don't do these things really says a lot about our society and what kind of people we are.