Billboard disputes show we need a strong code

I do not agree with Pittsburgh Outdoor Signs attorney Joel Aaronson's observation about the Rolling Rock billboard -- that the sign does not have "any real, substantial impact" ("Debate Brews Over Another Billboard," July 11). Evidence of the impact is the fact that the owners paid a great deal of money to put a sign there. I do agree that we should be more diligent about zoning and preservation issues.

Questions remain regarding the approval of the billboard in the Penn- Liberty corridor. Did the zoning ordinance provide the administrator with the authority to make that decision? Does the billboard ban leave some room for exceptions? If the administrators had the authority, and if the decision was inconsistent with other ordinances and policies, then the zoning code should be amended so that this does not happen again.

If the administrators did not have the authority, an inquiry should be made and perhaps heads should roll. Questions about undue influence or cost should not be part of the dilemma the law department faces. Its job is limited to interpreting the law.

There are many gaps and ambiguities in Pittsburgh's zoning code. Amendments, not just diligence, are needed. Due process is a tool to limit undue influence. We should err on the side of more notices and hearings despite the increase in the time, effort and cost of permits. These procedures are required where actions affect more than the property owner. The current billboard controversies demonstrate there is a cost not to having thorough procedures and a strong and clear code.

CAROL KOWALL
Oakland

---

Autism law victory

Compliments to the Post-Gazette on the excellence of your "Action on Autism" editorial (July 15) on the landmark legislation that will for the first time require private insurers to cover medically necessary services for children with autism in Pennsylvania.

The legislation survived a last-minute attempt by Autism Speaks and insurance company lobbyists to relegate "medically necessary" decision making to the whims of an insurance company functionary instead of a qualified health-care professional familiar with the child. But the steadfastness of House Speaker Dennis O'Brien and the support of hundreds of individual and group autism advocates restored the intent of his original bill.

Without Mr. O'Brien and his unified autism advocates, this legislation and the Autism Task Force report on autism service deficiencies in our state would still be languishing in our state Department of Public Welfare's black hole of lip service. Instead we now have a fledgling state Bureau of Autism Services, an adult autism waiver program and a soon-to-be centralized statewide information and referral system -- and what Mr. O'Brien aptly calls the best autism insurance coverage law of its kind in the nation.

DANIEL A. TORISKY
President
Autism Society of Pittsburgh
Monroeville

The writer also serves as secretary of the Autism Society of America -- Pennsylvania.

---

Credit to families

It was heartwarming to read your editorial commending the adoption of Act 62, which provides for insurance coverage for autism spectrum disorders ("Action on Autism: Pennsylvania's Collective Concern Bears Fruit," July 15).

As co-chair of the Autism Caucus and prime sponsor of the Senate version of Act 62, I can honestly say that advocating on behalf of this legislation has always been an effort on behalf of the children with autism and their families. I have the highest admiration and respect for all families with children with autism across this commonwealth, and they deserve the accolades for this national model and landmark legislation.

Act 62 is a testament to them and autism advocacy groups; they were actively involved throughout the legislative process. Act 62 sets the national standard and is a legacy that will be felt for years to come.

Also, Sen. Don White, R-Indiana, and Michael Stack, D-Philadelphia, chairmen of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee, should also be recognized for their bipartisan leadership in shepherding this issue through the Senate, and I thank them for their work and the support we received from Sen. Joseph Scarnati, president pro tempore, and Sen. Dominic Pileggi, majority leader.

SEN. JANE CLARE ORIE
McCandless

The writer, a Republican, represents the 40th District.

---

Econ in action

It's fitting that Wunderkind Seth Weidman ("Student Ensures Econ Is No Longer the 'Dismal Science,' " July 10) is inspired by the work of intellectual powerhouses Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Through his work, Seth personified the principles Hayek and Friedman fought for throughout their lives: the expansion of individual liberty through free markets. Seth, on his own volition, unleashed his creative energies and created a market that ended in the highest possible AP test scores for many of his classmates.

Interestingly, Seth also revealed another principle that Hayek and Friedman tirelessly fought against: the perils of collectivism. Collectivism's current progeny -- lack of choice in public schools -- required Seth to work outside the monopoly of this central planner and bring more choice to exceptional Squirrel Hill high school students.

Seth's intellect, generosity and industriousness are a testament to the idea that when individuals are free to choose, they regularly choose what's best for them. Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek would be proud.

TONY McGOVERN
Squirrel Hill

---

Big Oil welfare

Every now and then somebody who hasn't been keeping up with current events for the last 30 years writes the Post-Gazette about how all our problems would be solved if the government would not interfere with "free enterprise" and "market forces."

It could be true. But we'll never know. We live in the greatest corporate welfare state in history. The oil companies are the best example. Exxon, BP and the rest are quite literally a monopoly on welfare. They don't compete. They spend millions on lobbyists to get what they want. They receive billions in subsidies every year. And they receive more billions in tax breaks every year.

In return for receiving our money, you and I get to drive down the street and see an Exxon station on one side with a BP on the other side with prices identical down to one-tenth of a cent. That's welfare monopoly power in action.

There is no free market in oil in the United States because that is how Exxon and BP want it. They've been running energy policy with their lobbyists and campaign contributions for decades. Follow the money.

The oil monopoly doesn't want fair competition in open markets, otherwise the companies would refuse their subsidies and tax breaks and fire all their lobbyists. They prefer to cement their position as the welfare monopoly that they are. So stop looking for someone to blame for interfering with free-market forces. Just drive down to the corner and buy some gas -- at the welfare monopoly station of your choice.

DON MERZ
Mt. Lebanon

---

Technology that devalues humans and our planet provides nothing

What a coincidence that you should run a Perspectives piece about U.S. technology ("U.S. Science Is Holding Its Own," July 9). Recently, I saw a huge billboard touting Coors' new beer can. My immediate thought was how much that billboard symbolizes the state of modern American technology: We haven't a clue how to design a levee system to save lives, but we sure can build a better beer can.

The United States has never progressed beyond the glorified Jersey barriers that pass for levee protection in this nation and that are supposed to protect the lives and properties of Americans.

Our government refuses to accept the Netherland's offer to help us build levee systems that are the most advanced in the world, that allow deltas and wetlands to continue their natural development and that will prevent another shameful destruction of a great American city.

So what is all this great American research and development? The majority of our nation's new technology, new patents and research is, to put it bluntly, directed toward either killing people or owning people. Military technology and weaponry are responsible for a huge portion of that 40 percent share of global R&D spending by the United States, while much of the rest can be attributed to U.S. corporations privatizing life, from patenting pieces of the human genome to creating proprietary seeds designed to turn small farmers into indentured servants.

No matter how much we spend on R&D compared to the rest of the world, as long as we use that money and brainpower to find new and more scientific ways to slaughter other humans or scorch the earth or create a sterile world for our grandchildren, we really have nothing.

MIMI YAHN
McCandless

---

We welcome your letters. Please include your name, address and phone number, and send to Letters to the Editor, 34 Blvd. of the Allies, Pittsburgh 15222. E-mail letters to letters@post-gazette.com or fax to 412-263-2014. Letters should be 250 words or less, original and exclusive to the Post-Gazette. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity and accuracy and will be verified before being published.