Poverty knows no bounds
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
The Coalition for Low Income Pennsylvanians (CLIP), which advocates on behalf of the poor in Pennsylvania, commends Salena Zito for her column “Fayette County, Philly have poverty in common” (Feb. 10 and TribLIVE.com).
Ms. Zito is correct in identifying that poverty doesn't distinguish between rural and urban poor, nor among black, white or Hispanic populations. Indeed, rural poverty is a problem in Pennsylvania, tending to be hidden not just for lack of concentration, but because of shame among individuals and families fearing they will be judged by their neighbors and communities.
While Fayette County has one of the highest poverty rates, there are 14 other mostly rural counties with rates of 15 percent or higher. Twenty-two mostly rural counties, including Fayette, have child poverty rates over 20 percent.
Many Pennsylvanians continue to view poverty as an urban problem because of a traditional and ongoing antipathy toward urban areas that “siphon” funds to address poverty at the expense of suburban and rural areas. And it would be naive to say race and ethnicity don't play a role.
CLIP believes poverty must be addressed wherever it exists. Permitting poverty to persist anywhere hurts Pennsylvania's families, communities and economy.
The Rev. Sandra L. Strauss
The writer is director of public advocacy for the Pennsylvania Council of Churches (pachurches.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Apollo-Ridge excellence
- Saved her life
- Drought answer?
- Conspicuous by absence
- Thanks to firefighters
- Sovereignty trampled
- Treating all equally
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Orwellian redefinitions