ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Franklin Regional’s, Penn Hills’ poor choices | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Franklin Regional’s, Penn Hills’ poor choices

A recent Trib editorial suggests, “DeLuca plan too late for Penn Hills, not for other districts” (April 19, TribLIVE). So where have Rep. Tony DeLuca, D-Allegheny, and Sen. Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills, been over the last decade?

In 2009, I spoke at a Penn Hills School Board meeting and cited the Department of Education statistic that student enrollment had declined in eight of the last 10 years. Collectively, it dropped by 28.55%. School boards ignoring statistics on enrollment is as problematic as ignoring the will of the taxpayers. Two new schools were built anyway, and the “I told you so” does not provide us with consolation.

Costa responded by securing a $2 million grant to help bail out the school district’s poor choices at the expense of the Pennsylvania taxpayers.

DeLuca authors reactionary legislation to prevent boondoggles from being built again. Yet, former Rep. Jeffrey Habay crafted similar legislation to prevent the extravagant construction of the Taj Mahals and sports coliseums from being built years ago. That legislation has faded into history.

With no end to rising school taxes, I left Penn Hills last year. The grand jury report suggests it was a good decision, with compounded tax hikes that lead to devaluing property values.

In 2019, the Franklin Regional School District is seeking a similar path for school construction despite DOE statistics pointing to a decline in enrollment by 8%. This trend follows the latest census report illustrating Westmoreland County’s population decrease is the largest in Pennsylvania.

So will DeLuca’s legislation prevent Franklin Regional School District from doing the same or will history repeat itself?

Gary J. English 

Murrysville


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.