ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Clean Air Fund meant to protect air |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Clean Air Fund meant to protect air

Letter To The Editor
| Monday, June 4, 2018 8:49 p.m

The Allegheny County Health Department’s Air Quality Program collects fines from companies that violate air-quality regulations. These violations contribute to the region having some of the unhealthiest air in the nation. Thankfully, over the past 15 years, these fines, kept in the department’s Clean Air Fund, have financed local pollution-reduction programs.

My organization received a small grant to train community members to evaluate smoke emanating from local stacks. Other grants have funded studies of air quality and upgraded dirty diesel engines. I support using every penny of the fund for similar direct-action programs. That’s why I’m appalled that the Board of Health recently decided to use some of these fines to renovate the Air Quality Program’s office building ( “More money from Allegheny County’s ‘Clean Air Fund’ goes to office renovation” ).

The county has owned this building since 1957 and it needs to be repaired. However, the county must maintain it just like its roads, bridges and parks. The county can afford it: The rainy day fund holds $44 million and County Council just approved $114 million for infrastructure bonds.

Our air causes high childhood asthma rates and elevated cancer risk, yet the board chose to take money away from pollution-reduction efforts. The board will vote on the full renovation project later this year. We hope members will recognize their duty to ensure that the Clean Air Fund be used to protect and clean our air.

Rachel Filippini


The writer is executive director of the Group Against Smog and Pollution ( ).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.