October 5, 2006 Issue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classified Chestnut Hill Local Online Editor Don't Miss an Issue, Tell us what you see or ©2006 Chestnut Hill Local Winner of One |
No smoking is no joke This letter is in response to the letter appearing in the March 30 issue titled “From our readers” section, from Mrs. Amy Polk. When originally contacted by the RecycleBank, we were eager to participate as we are avid recyclers. The one restriction we always stipulate is the exclusion of custom printing. This was in our contract with the bank. When Mrs. Polk placed her order for printing, she never mentioned the recycle discount coupon. We were accused of “bait and switch” by the uninformed person, when in fact the error was made due to misinformation provided by the RecycleBank to the customer. The RecycleBank acknowledged the error to us and Mrs. Polk and even sent her a check. What the customer doesn’t realize is that we have thousands of satisfied customers over our 25 years in business who appreciate our dedicated services and realize we do have some restrictions, as do all businesses. We are very grateful to our many customers/friends for whom we provided birth announcements and are now ordering wedding invitations. These people know we would never bait and switch. Furthermore, under no circumstances would we ever deceive any customer or misrepresent any service or product we offer. George and Marsi Breslau Adamcik’s footnote on public transit I was disappointed when you chose not to publish my commentary on Mr. Fosters’ letter in the Jan. 26, 2006, issue of the Chestnut Hill Local concerning previous commentaries by myself and Mr. Greene on the conspiracy theory concerning National City Lines, GM et al. and their effect on American Public Transit. I, however, was delighted in seeing Mr. Greene’s further commentaries in the March, 16, 2006 issue of the Chestnut Hill Local. He has summarized the situation and I agree fully with his conclusions, which mirror mine. I would like to add one matter before closing this matter. I never said that PRT had a 1938 master plan for large scale conversion of their rail system to motor bus. They (as was common with many other transit systems of the time, including Baltimore as a nearby example) looked at each rail route with an idea as to its future operation. There was a transportation concept in that era of matching the appropriate vehicle to the route and this followed that idea. A further review was done in 1944 near the height of the wartime riding boom which looked ahead to the postwar era and how to adapt to what was recognized to be a challenging era. This plan looked at the potential of a large Trackless Trolley system in conjunction with reducing the rail system to a core of the heaviest lines. A further plan was developed in 1952 as it was apparent that the private era of public transit was seriously threatened. They still envisioned a large Trackless Trolley system, which economics would eventually doom. I also believe that it is time to put this debate to bed as both sides have had their say. Unfortunately, the true believers seem to want the simplistic solution of an evil conspiracy to explain the outcome of operating a profit-making organization in a capitalistic, profit-oriented society, which also has to deal with political meddling as an extra ingredient in the bouillabaisse. It is difficult to overcome such a mindset. The best that I, Mr. Greene and others of similar views can do is to present a factual view of what happened and hope that it falls on fertile ground. Lastly, fellows, please spell my name correctly – it’s Adamcik. I readily share Mr. Greene’s frustration in this matter.
Henry J. Adamcik Candidate cites elitist actions Last week I asked a Second Opinion Caucus member who is currently on the CHCA board of directors, why the CHCA board members’ e-mail addresses were no longer on the Web site so that the public has access to their elected representatives. This was the board member’s answer: There is now an e-mail address which is used only by board members to board members. Isn’t that community-minded! It is “board-discussion@chestnut hill.org.” She enclosed this message from Mark Keintz, operations vice president of the CHCA, that was sent to board members: “Reminder of some important features of board-discussion@chestnuthill.org. The only recipients (subscribers) are the current board members. The only people who can freely post to the list are the subscribers and the three CHCA staff (Betty Brady, Susan Medosch, and Karl Ghazarian). Yes, these three can post but will not receive from the list — so they can send agendas, reports, etc., yet not be distracted by our fascinating discussions on how/why to write and re-write CHCA history. All others who post to board-discussion@chestnuthill.org will have their message referred to the list moderator (currently me — Mark Keintz) who can then accept or reject the submission. All e-mails sent to you via the list will have “[CHCA Board]” in the subject line. To e-mail to the list just e-mail to board-discussion@chestnuthill.org. To reply to the entire list, you have to use “reply all.” For now, please e-mail any questions to me, so I can make a more comprehensive list of tips. The Second Opinion Caucus members are running for the board in order to stop such exclusionary, elitist actions by the leadership insiders who have re-branded themselves the Alliance Action. Marie Lachat |
