About 24 hours have passed since the massivee snow storm. 72 hours until the next one begins. I am not sure if I am surprised, or what, but in my neighborhood Philadelphia, and Philadelphia government did its just really, really well.

• On Friday, everyone parked, and stayed off the streets on Saturday.
• On Saturday, most people shoveled their sidewalks, and did so pretty quickly. And the plows were going pretty quickly. I walked to Center City on Saturday afternoon, and just about every sidewalk was clear, and every major street was plowed.
• Then, at some point yesterday, even the sidestreets (except for the very small ones) saw plows rolling down, too.

When I was a kid, and we got out thirty inches of snow, the city shut down for a week. Now? Take away the snow banks, and you would never know what happened. We are in a period of recession-driven, shrinking revenues. Paying the millions it took to clean up so thoroughly like this is not simply a mandatory response, because at times in the past, we have been told that a through clean up costs too much money. Instead, it was a conscious decision made by the Mayor, which will have ramifications on the bottom line of our budget.

But, this kind of thing is worth it for two reasons. First, on a very basic level, a week of snow-misery sucks, and, it is nice to not to have to deal with it. And second, and most important, it is good for people to see city government functioning, and functioning well.

There are going to be a lot of pitched battles over the next year- from the budget to union contracts- and it will force the city into another year of our municipal budgeting nightmare- seemingly without the inclusiveness that we saw the last time. As we think about cutting services, or better targeting some taxes (like the BRT change proposed by Stan, and studied by Councilwoman Quinones Sanchez and Green), or whatever else we consider, it is heartening to head into the process with a clear demonstration that in one of its most basic functions, the city’s government can perform really, really well.

The Inquirer has a story on school violence in Philly public schools, other than South Philly:

Trouble was brewing at Fels High School last school year: Asian students were jumped and beaten. Disabled students were assaulted.

"It was scary," Eileen Coutts, then an assistant principal, said of the climate at Fels.

Worried that the unrest might escalate, Coutts invited members of community groups to the school. Administrators, parents, students, and activists came up with a list of interventions - class discussions, peer mediation, mentors, an "international welcome squad," cultural sensitivity training for staff, a buddy system for new students.

The school, despite lots of problems, has made progress. In the fall, overall crime, including assaults, was down 40 percent from the same period a year earlier.

I'd encourage everyone to read the whole article. While I am sure that the schools featured in the article- Fels, Furness and Bartram- are far from perfect (and Furness and Fels are, in fact, still on the persistently dangerous list), there is a lot to be learned from the contrast of the principals in those schools, versus the actions of the principal of South Philly.

While academics still aren't where McAlister wants them to be, Bartram's climate is much calmer. This year, an African student, Makula Fofana, is senior class president.

"That never would have happened before," said McAlister, who handles racially or ethnically sensitive matters herself.

"As hard as it is and as hurtful as it can be sometimes," she said, "we as an administrative staff and as a school community refuse to ignore these problems."

The schools are far from perfect, and still are unacceptably violent. But they are improving. The point is an obvious one: When confronted with violence, especially violence along racial or ethnic lines, you work with students, you bring in experts to help, and you confront it head on.

Check out the article here.

I know that many readers of this blog knew, or knew of, Joaquin Rivera, the beloved musician, counselor and activist who passed away so tragically last year. So, I thought I would pass along this mural, newly painted inside Olney High School as a part of City Year's piece of the MLK Day of service.

City Year (for whom Louie U-A, the sometimes YPP poster, the designer of many of these murals, and tragically, the youngest brother of me and Alex, works) spent MLK Day putting up an amazing amount of murals at local Philly schools, including Olney, Birney and Finletter.

There are some other great ones, too, besides Mr. Rivera- from Rigoberta Menchu, to Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks. If interested, you can check out the rest of them here.

I am increasingly intrigued by the idea of term limits for City Council, brought to a head by Councilman Goode's bill.

I think that there are reasonable arguments to made against them, and that people can disagree, but, at this point, none of the reasons against them on the Philadelphia level are large enough for me to consider the idea anything but very good. Before addressing why I think they are good, let’s start by analyzing why they are potentially bad. I will take them one by one, mostly culled from people in the post below.

1) They are un-democratic, because they take away voter choice.

“When the people are limited in who they can choose to hold office, democracy is limited.”

The biggest problem with this argument is that we limit democratic choices all of the time. We have a representative democracy, which limits our choice, and within that representative democracy, we make all kinds of other choices. On the national level, that means only voting for US Citizens for President, voting age limits, etc. And, on the local and national level, that means term limits for the executive.

We do this all of the time. The question for me is not whether or not it checks some invisible box as less or more democratic, apparently defined as having the most choice possible, but if it furthers the function of a democratic government in our city. We can argue about the potential reward of these things, but, simply saying “it limits democracy” doesn’t make sense. Especially when this would be voted on by the electorate, and overwhelmingly approved.

2) They give more power to the Mayor, in a strong Mayor system, and lessen the power of city council to work together.

Maybe. How do we really know that? It is possible that Councilpeople less worried about getting on the Mayor’s bad side will be more likely to cross him or her? Our three newest Council people quickly formed a block together, and they have brought new ideas to a head even while they just began. And, if the library fight is an example, then the two Council people who most helped were new- Councilwoman Q-S and Councilman Green. In fact, Council's long term members were for the most part excruciatingly quiet on the issue.

3) They give more power to corporations, lobbyists and bureaucrats.

This is one of the most persuasive reasons to not have limits on a national level. Because while a Congressman might go home, oftentimes, his staff does not, and simply becomes new staff or new lobbyists. It feeds on a DC culture that gives a lot of power to corporations and lobbyists, and Washington-based bureaucrats, rather than representatives and staffers based in their home districts.

But, is that a danger in Philly? I don’t think so. The big money people here are the Comcasts of the world, the Chamber of Commerce and its affiliates, Unions and Law Firms. Much of that will not change. The scale of money in our political system is much, much smaller, and focuses largely on keeping incumbents in office (like developers paying large donations to their district council people, who have to sign off on everything).

And, more simply put, we all live here. People will take office with staffers with whom they are comfortable. It won’t be about choosing staff willing to move across statelines to live in DC; it will be about finding staff who are comfortable taking the subway to work.

4) Nothing will change.

Even if we term limit the incumbents, until we have deeper reforms, their replacement aren't going to be cut from a different mold.

Maybe. Even if true, that is not necessarily a bad thing; more a sad reality. But, I am not sure it is true. Open seats lead to more competition, and I think, would lead to more insurgents getting elected. That is just a personal opinion, but, its not exactly a stretch to say that part of the reason Curtis Jones and Maria Q-S won is that they were running in essentially open seats.

5) The lame duck problem

Do we really want the odious problem of political lame ducks invading the legislative level -- people in government who no longer feel the pull of the ballot box in their decision-making, and who are thus less likely to listen to the electorate?

Again, I don’t know how you prove this. Isn’t also likely that if people are dependent on campaign contributions, they will be less likely to do things based on those contributions when they no longer need them?

As for a revolving door between the private sector, which I do think is a legit concern, what about some sort of additional law that, like that which the White House talks about, which would make you wait a few years before you can work for a company lobbying Council, or something like that?

But, again:

Experience bears out that lame ducks listen to the electorate less, even less, in my opinion, than do long-term incumbents.

… that might be true. But, I haven’t really seen concrete evidence of that. I’m not saying it might not be true, but, I really don’t know how you quantify lame-duck versus entrenched incumbent.

6) No more “Lions of the Council,” like David Cohen.

That is a concern. But, for every great Councilperson who stays, there are many who should not. And, in any case, David Cohen left City Council and then returned. Here too, someone could do that, with a one-term break. I don’t think it is really that terrible of a concern, when someone could potentially serve on City Council for 24 out of 28 years.

Anyway, that is my take. The negative arguments just don't feel that strong to me.

Last Monday, some 70,000 Philadelphians participated in the local day of service for Martin Luther King’s. The day- bigger in Philly than anywhere else- is great, because it honors Dr. King by putting people to work in their communities. Of course, in modern times, Dr. King has not only become lionized, but Disney-fied. The” I Have a Dream” speech is now a speech for all people and all political views, including those who have goals directly opposite to King. Are you in pursuit of economic justice? Dr. King is for you! Are you against affirmative action, and school desegregation. Dr. King is for you?

The un-Disneyfied reality is that Dr. King’s last years were pretty rough, as he confronted both the Vietnam War, and general economic oppression. Those battles, he knew, were (and still are) a lot harder to fight than simple de jure segregation. And, those same entrenched issues, including war and the economic devastation of so many neighborhoods and towns in our country, remain.

Today, deprivation still reigns in much of our city and country. In some neighborhoods, unemployment can reach thirty percent or higher. Wait times to see doctors at City Health Centers only increase. Our public schools perform at failing levels. And the statistics for incarceration for communities of color are stunning:

The Department of Justice estimates that the lifetime chance of a Black male going to prison is 32.6%. The lifetime chance for an Hispanic male is 17.2%. By contrast the respective rate for White males is 5.9%.

The rate of incarceration in state prisons and local jails is higher for Blacks than Whites in every single state.

Making matters worse is the reality of what happens on the ground once someone gets a criminal record. In the information age, the vast majority of employers run background checks, and if they see a criminal record, regardless of whether it is has anything to do with the job, regardless of whether the record is a future indicator of anything, they simply turn down the applicant. Forget education. Forget jobs skills. If you have a criminal record, a large, large number of employers simply will not hire you. It is a scarlet letter for life, and it is carried around by a stunning amount of our fellow citizens.

In response to these realities, and the disproportionate effect this has on communities of color, the federal body for anti-discrimination matters- the EEOC- issued a policy statement, which states that turning away job applicants because of a blanket policy about criminal records is “unlawful under Title VII in the absence of a justifying business necessity.” In other words, you cannot simply say “we will not hire people with criminal records,” because to do so has a disproportionate impact on communities of color, who are disproportionately incarcerated.

While that federal policy is good- the reality is that most of the anti-discrimination employment issues in Philly and Pennsylvania do not go through the EEOC. Instead, they go through our state anti-discrimination body, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC). So, doing its part, the PHRC has released a proposed policy guidance (still available for comment) that will deal with this all head on.

In effect, the PHRC is proposing that if you simply use criminal records to turn people away, without a bonafide reason for using that blanket policy, you will be presumed to be carrying out a policy that has a disparate impact on communities of color. In the world of discrimination law, an employer could still then beat that presumption, but, the burden would be on the employer, not on the person turned away for the job. This is hugely important stuff, because it would mean that instead of using that scarlet letter to shut off avenues to jobs for such a big part of our population, they would have to really consider whether such a broad brush policy is sensible. It would, without question, curtail the use of those internet background checks (which are often wrong) as a first step screening tool.

People dealing with criminal records is one of the bigger civil rights issues of our generation. The fact is that if you are born with a certain skin color, you are far more likely to go to jail. (And get a poor education.) And that record, and everything that comes with it, has become an impossible barrier for far too many people. Mayor Nutter understood this when he created an Office of Re-entry. I know Seth Williams knows this, given everything he has campaigned on. But, when employers have blanket exclusions on hiring, and that exclusion hits on such large parts of our population, they are swimming against the tide. That is why I think it is so important that the PHRC is proposing to do its part too.

We all have to take responsibility for the deprivation, the discrimination, the poor education and the incarceration that falls so heavily on certain segments of our population. This is one hugely important step.

As we fought with server issues, I missed the chance to note that on December 23 we passed the one year anniversary of the library lawsuit being filed in Common Pleas Court.

So much had to come together for that whole thing to work, including:

• The outrage of citizens all over the city at the announced closures;
• The botched and ever changing rationales of the administration;
• People organizing all over the city;
• And finally, seven brave women and AFSCME signing on to a lawsuit, joined a day later by Councilman Green.

I sat in the Courtroom as the hearing concluded; it was incredibly tense. As Judge Fox started making her ruling, it was really not clear who was about to win. Then, amidst a Hollywood like mix of murmuring, buzz and then loud applause, she said something like this:

The decision to close these eleven branch libraries is more than a response to a financial crisis; it changes the very foundation of our City. Two of the libraries scheduled to close, Haddinton and Holmesburg, will result in a reversion of the property back to the original grantor because of deed restrictions. No one questions the economic crisis which has rocked both the City and the Nation. However, we are a Nation of hope. A "crisis" evokes something temporary. Defendants argued there were more than enough libraries in Philadelphia. "Philadelphia has more libraries than any other city in the country." Our library system is more than a century old yet in three short months an economic crisis results in permanently closing eleven branches. This court does not envy the Mayor and the tough decisions he has had to make in this financial crisis. Yet, as this court is bound to follow the law, so is the Mayor. The permanent closing of neighborhood branch libraries is changing the very structure of the Free Library of Philadelphia and not just responding to a "financial crisis."

Fast forward a year, and not all is well with the libraries, by any means. But, they have survived, poised to rebound at a time when budgets and tax revenues return to normal. And, one year later, I think the Mayor would agree that libraries- Libraries!- have become the third rail in Philadelphia politics.

As you can see, the site went down about 36 hours ago, due to some database issue. Our hosting company, the bizarrely terrible LogicWeb, then had some sort of meltdown over who was to blame for the database crashing, and wouldn't let us even have access to our own data so that we could simply leave their site. I will post their bizarre, SNL like customer service at some point, but, let's just say it was shocking... Until I looked around further, and realized that LogicWeb, and its former name, Virtuoso, have a long history of this.

We have now switched off of LogicWeb, but, they are currently still holding our data hostage, and we are working off of our last backup.

So, for now, the last month or so of stuff is gone, only to return when LogicWeb, and their President, Chad Abizeid regain some sanity, or when I am finished suing them. Their choice.

Either way, we will soon be turning the switch back on, with posts on our criminal system, on Temple, and others. I greatly apologize for the inconvenience, and hope this will all be fixed soon.

Check back soon.

As we all know by now, Councilmen Kenney and DiCicco have decided that the city needs new laws to regulate bicycles. These proposed regulations include:

1) That not only must you register your bikes- for a 20 dollar fee- but you must have a license plate on that bike;
2) Riding on the sidewalk costs you 300 dollars
3) Riding with headphones costs you 300 dollars
4) Riding without a brake costs you 1000 dollars.

Let's examine these for a second.

1) That not only must you register your bikes- for a 20 dollar fee- but you must have a license plate;

The idea of registration is, in theory, not ridiculous. Especially if it were a tool to help recover stolen bikes. But, of course, that is not why they are doing it. Instead, they are doing it because they think it will help them track down hit and run cyclists. Motivations aside, it is totally unworkable. There are something like 50,000 bikes in the city. How many people will actually register theirs? 1,000? 5,000? People have bikes laying around that they barely use. You are telling me that if someone decides that if they are going to get off of the couch, and dust off that old bike on a Sunday in the Spring, they are at risk of a fine? And that Philly police officers will actually add this as part of their job duties? I doubt it.

Even sillier is the idea that there will be licenses plates on bikes that will somehow help capture a biker who has participated in a hit and run. Take the number of people who you think will register, and divide it by 100. That will get you the number of people who would put a license plate on their bike that is big enough for identification in a hit and run.

Sorry, it just will not happen.

2) Riding on the sidewalk costs you 300 dollars
3) Riding with headphones costs you 300 dollars

300 dollars, eh? In other words, if you text someone while driving a 4,000 pound truck, you pay 25% of what it costs you for riding your Schwinn wearing headphones?

Hell, it only costs you 75 dollars if you text, while on a bike. But, when you put headphones on, it jumps to 300. Why is that? Because the texting law was aimed at drivers. So, Council knew they couldn't get too crazy with the fines. Plus, every Councilperson has their blackberry, and they have all probably read emails when driving, so they intuitively 'get' that desire. But when you take drivers out of the equation, and instead it’s the little whippersnappers on bikes, somehow the fines skyrocket. It is punishing the 'other.'

4) Riding without a brake costs you 1000 dollars.

OK, well, people should have brakes. Yes, I know some people are skilled enough not to need them. But a lot of people are idiots, and so, they should have brakes. The fine is, again, so bizarrely high that it is silly, but yes, people should have brakes.

Anyway, I want to do my part, instead of just complaining. So, I propose we add on to these bills, to truly make the roads safe for everyone. To do this, I propose the following measures:

1) Towing any car, including people making deliveries, that pulls over in bike lanes.
2) Yanking the medallion of an taxi that strikes a driver.
3) Since bikes are forced so far over, booting the car of any driver who opens their driver's side door without looking, causing a cyclist to crash into them.
4) A 5000 dollar fine for any driver who runs a stop sign.
5) Immediately raising the cell phone fine to 1000 dollars. After all, driving in your SUV while texting is a lot bigger danger than Ray listening to a little Kenny G while riding home from work on his bike.

Let’s do it!

.......

People who don't ride their bikes want cyclists to follow all of the rules of the road of traffic... except when that means bikes get in their way and slow them down. At that point, they honk, they scream that bikes should get out of the road, they force accidents, and worse.

Cyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalks. They shouldn't ride the wrong way on one way streets. They should have brakes. But should cyclists shouldn't follow all the rules designed for cars. No. They don’t present the same dangers as cars, and so, there should be a middle ground. And considering that each year, people are time and time and time again struck on their bikes by reckless drivers, often severely injuring them or killing them, it bothers me that City Council is only taking this up now.

If the Councilmen wanted to start a conversation, they have succeeded. Yes, bikes can be a danger to pedestrians, and that should be addressed. But to do that, you also have to address just how big of a danger cars are to bikes.

My ancestors immigrated to the US for the assortment of typical reasons we all know about, including escaping the hostile climate towards Jews in Eastern Europe, and leaving Ireland in search of a better, more secure life.

It wasn't an uncommon story. My great-grandfather supported my Grandmom and her 11 siblings by driving a trolley for the Philadelphia Transportation Company- the precursor to SEPTA. He and his wife raised my grandmom and her brothers and sisters in a small Southwest Philadelphia row home.

My great-grandfather's oldest daughter married my grandfather at a young age. My grandfather played a little minor league baseball, and with a high school diploma in hand, went to work at the Aerospace program of General Electric (with a trip to the Army mixed in for good measure). Like many Americans in that time, he worked his ass off, never took a sick day in his life, and steadily moved up at GE, receiving promotions and increased responsibilities, letting him provide his 6 daughters, including my mom, with a 1960's style middle-class life, including a suburban home in South Jersey.

My mom put herself through college, and then grad school, becoming a Physician’s Assistant. She married another descendant of semi-recent immigrants (and another grandfather with an education and a home courtesy of an assist from Uncle Sam), and together they raised a comfortable, middle-class family in Germantown. My mom then took a stressful job at Penn because it provided great tuition benefits, which allowed her to send all three of her kids to wonderful, overpriced liberal arts schools. Two of the three of us have graduate degrees, with the third likely on his way. We live comfortable, privileged, middle class, lives.

From each generation to the next, parents worked to make the lives of their kids easier, and to give them more opportunities than they themselves had. And at each step, they were helped with an implicit and explicit social compact: that Americans could work hard, earn a decent living, and make the lives of their kids better. Signatories of that same compact included unions, big companies like GE, the American government, and quasi public employers like SEPTA’s predecessor, the PTC.

I go through this all thinking about the trolley drivers of today, who are out on strike across the city, because SEPTA will not properly fund their pension. (If you don’t think this is a big deal, ask city workers, who are now dealing with the fact that the city underfunded them for years, how employers underfunding pensions works out.) People I like, including some of my friends, as well as our less-rotund, but still bombastic Governor, seem to think it is incredible that the Transit Workers Union would make 'crazy' demands like SEPTA properly funding their pensions.

Me? Despite their poorly timed, late night decision to walk out, I support the TWU. The social compact that existed from the time of my great-grandfather, the working-class, trolley driving father of 12, all the way to my parents, is slipping away. With desperate poverty, crappy schools, and little to no manufacturing base, social mobility is less and less a realistic option for way too many families in America.

Every single job in Philadelphia that still pays decently, is secure, and doesn’t require a higher education, is an absolute blessing for our society, and is an avenue to empowerment for another family. Each one holds our society together. The higher we pay our janitors and security guards and nursing assistants and hotel workers and construction workers and SEPTA bus drivers and mechanics, the better off we all are. That is why I support the TWU.

Today at 11:30, Seth Williams and Mike Untermeyer debate on Channel 6. These things are generally pre-taped, and this is no exception. So, rumors of what happened have already filtered out, and, apparently, we are going to be treated to some pretty disturbing statements by Untermeyer.

11:30 this morning, Channel 6.

As Ray noted yesterday, Joe Hoeffel is running for Governor:

Montgomery County Commissioner Joseph M. Hoeffel has decided to run for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2010, positioning himself as the true "progressive" in a growing field of contenders.

"I am in the race, and I am ready to ride!" Hoeffel announced in a post on his Facebook page yesterday.

Hoeffel said he was concerned that other top candidates in the primary would lead the party in a conservative direction.

"I want to see the state government continue to invest in health care, education, and jobs, to take an aggressive role in trying to create opportunities for people," Hoeffel said in an interview. "I like the policies Ed Rendell has pursued, and I fear that the Democratic Party may veer to the right."

For all intents and purposes, if Hoeffel runs, I think he is my guy. He is a self-identified progressive, who still works across party lines enough to basically wrestle quite a bit of power for himself in Montgomery County.

One of my biggest worries is that of the good stuff Rendell did- and there is some pretty good stuff- not a ton of it was entrenched enough to be permanent. With one crappy Governor, and the PA State Senate playing games like with their Senate Bill 850, it seems like a lot of progress could be lost. I feel confident, for example, that if Hoeffel wins, the education "costing out" study of Pennsylvania schools will actually be paid attention to, and education funds will continue to increase to Philadelphia and other needy districts.

The race is wide open and it is early. And I will listen to what his competitors say. But I am pretty excited about Hoeffel as a potential Governor.

On Tuesday, the Daily News ran a set of stories (1, 2) about the city's plans for transit-oriented development around Broad and Erie. Effectively, the city has decided that with Temple constantly building on Broad (especially Temple Hospital/Med School here), with the Erie station on the subway in constant use, with a number of bus lines, with Germantown Ave hitting the intersection, the neighborhoods surrounding the intersection can really be strengthened in a big way:

A plan scheduled to be released in the coming weeks calls for transit, commercial and housing redevelopment in an area that extends in a half-mile radius from the intersection.

The area stretches from 10th Street to 20th Street, and from Allegheny to Hunting Park avenues.

"We did a market study . . . and there is actually pretty good market demand for 10 new sit-down restaurants," said David Fecteau, community planner for North Philadelphia.

For me, an article like this, that actually details a smart, overarching plan for some neighborhoods in our city, really stood out. Why? Because notwithstanding the hugely important election of a progressive District Attorney, city and state politics and policies over the last 12 months have really... sucked.

About one year ago, as the Phillies and Obama were marching towards their fall heroics, the Mayor started cutting budgets, and rumblings started coming from library head Siobhan Reardon about her plans for cuts from the system she managed. Those rumblings soon morphed into the 'close libraries' plan. And so, the next two months were spent in a fierce battle, with the neighborhood forums and Mayoral intransigence. The library saga only ended well after with a miraculous, New Years Eve injunction from a courageous judge.

Then we had the budget forums and the tax hike kabuki dance with the Mayor and City Council, ending with the worst of all tax solutions- an increase in the sales tax, and an accounting trick for the pension plans. The sales tax plan was stupid from the beginning, relying on the GOP in Harrisburg, and has therefore been constantly delayed, been used as a vehicle to crush organized labor, and has been shadowed by doomsday announcement after doomsday announcement from the Mayor.

Forget whether the impending plan of doom is a charade or not (as Ben notes, the specific plan has to be, even if the overarching reality of a lack of money isn't). The important takeaway for me is that the guy the city pinned its hopes on has basically spent an entire year in total crisis mode. (And that is with labor negotiations that still seem likely to lead to a strike, with trash piling up and City Hall unstaffed.) Meanwhile, many of the top policy people on the Mayor's staff- Wendell Pritchett, Andy Altman, Marc Alan Hughes and more- have already left, leaving a lot of people to wonder what exactly is going on in City Hall.

Much of the above, or at least the circumstances that led to much of it, is not the Mayor's fault. He is the Mayor of a poor city during a huge economic downturn. Every single Mayor in this situation would be largely screwed. But, whether you think he has done well or whether he has failed, the bottom line is that the last year has appeared to be devoid of an overall, far-thinking vision for the future, and filled with images of shuttered libraries and rec centers, laid off policemen, and the court system grinding to a halt.

All of that is why reading the articles about something smart- transit oriented development in a really important neighborhood- was such a breath of fresh air. We have 6 more years of Michael Nutter as Mayor. Here is to hoping that they bring a lot more positive developments like the plans for Broad and Erie, and a lot less of what we have lived through for the past year.

What is wrong with this picture? Or more like, what is wrong with all of us?

The Inquirer reminded us today that Pennsylvania's population just keeps going up and up and up. And hey, we even get some kudos!

Taken as a whole, Pennsylvania's efforts at dealing with overcrowding are among the most resourceful of any state in the nation, said George Camp, a national prison expert.

"They have been very creative in anticipating the future needs to avoid a real crisis," said Camp, a principal at the Criminal Justice Institute, an independent consulting group. "Someone has been doing their homework."

Few other states are building prisons in such a down economy.

Egggg-cellent. Pa. officials are so forward thinking that they anticipated that as a state we would incarcerate more and more and more citizens. Suuuuuuper.

The article does note some small amount of forward thinking steps- effectively increasing the number of halfway houses. But, the deeper question is what is wrong with our criminal policies, and with our society as a whole, when we have numbers that staggering, with no end in sight.

It has been a busy week, but, I wanted to use my miniature bully pulpit to talk for a second about Foxwood’s huge defeat at the hands of Chinatown and their merry band of activists.

Here is my basic take on all of this:

1) The defeat of Foxwoods lurch into Center City was an incredible victory for the people of the No Casino in the Heart of Our City coalition. Think about what Chinatown and friends were up against: The Governor, the Mayor, Councilman DiCicco and assortment of state politicians. This looked like tilting at windmills when it began. Instead, it is a huge, incredible win for a community that was basically on an island. It really is incredible. First the stadium, now Foxwoods. I guess it is time to stop trying to bulldoze your way into Chinatown?

2) It is OK to note that this is also a sad turn for South Philly. I agree with Helen that the more Foxwoods ping pongs around like a punch drunk boxer, the more weakened it is, and the less likely it is to build. But, there is no denying that neighborhoods surrounding Pennsport are understandably freaked out and saddened by this news. It is a simple reality that when a casino is in your backyard, you care about it more. (I know Trump trying to open a slots barn a quarter of a mile from my childhood home-and my parents’ current home- made the casino fight very real.) One of the worst parts of the casino process was basically forcing 5 (and then 6) neighborhoods to square off against each other when trying to keep casinos away from their homes.

3) Connected to that, the behavior of politicians in response to this all has so far been really disappointing. The general response of people such as Frank DiCicco has been to slam the decision in a way that is pretty divisive. Here is the thing- it is OK if someone thinks the waterfront is a worse place for a casino than Center City. But, the other reality is that a lot of these politicians are supposed to represent BOTH of these communities. And yet, the rhetoric in the last 6 months or so was them telling their constituents in Chinatown to shut up and accept a casino for the good of the city, and their constituents on the river.

Chinatown didn’t listen, and did what communities should do: they fought like hell for the fabric of their neighborhoods, and won. Yet, when they won, they were greeted with more derision from their own representatives. From an outsider’s perspective, that just doesn’t feel right. Yes, yes, I get that they think this is a bad decision. But, your own constituents just fought a huge emotional battle, with none of your help, and they won. There should be at least a measure of grace in those responses acknowledging what they did, not statements that make it seem as if people on the river’s concerns about their homes trump their neighbor's five miles away.

5) So where does this leave us? Maybe this isn’t even a possibility, but, is it time for a grand bargain? I don’t know if it is remotely feasible legislatively for the casino to be shoved down to the airport. But, at a time when Foxwoods will likely never be weaker, is it time to find out?

I hate casinos. They are a regressive tax, and they increase addiction in their neighbors. But, I also believe that at some point, a casino will be built. Is it demonstrably worse for Philadelphians if there is a casino at the airport and in Chester, versus just Chester?

In this morning’s Inquirer, Harold Jackson weighed in on the ousting/resignation of SRC Commissioner Heidi Ramirez. In what would charitably be described as a hatchet job, the normally smart Jackson wrote a mean, stupid and bizarrely vitriolic op-ed, for some reason using his bully pulpit at the Inquirer to aim at Ramirez, the most SRC’s most respected member. I am confident that in a couple of weeks- or at least when Arlene Ackerman blazes her path out of Philadelphia- Jackson will look back and be embarrassed and ashamed of what he bitterly spit out as a column this morning.

I have never met Ms. Ramirez, nor Ms. Ackerman. I am sure that each of them are smart, and well-intentioned. Super. But, every single person I talk to and trust about education policy has been very uniform in response to the Ramirez situation- that she was the most qualified SRC member; that she was the only one who consistently asked important questions of Ackerman; that Ackerman did what she could to embarrass and belittle Ramirez; and that she was unfailingly the nicest and most considerate member of the SRC towards community members and groups who came before the Commission.

The general gist of the piece is the bizarre premise that Heidi Ramirez is ‘a coward’ because she resigned from the SRC. Here is just a piece of the slop:

Yes, that's harsh. Ramirez, though, deserves it. She is being hailed as the only one on the five-member SRC who would ask tough questions of new school district chief executive officer Arlene Ackerman. But a little push-back by Ackerman was all it took to cause Ramirez to abandon ship.

Yeah, just a little push back, and that wuss resigns. Man up, Heidi!

Or, sane people could deal in the reality of this situation. As best as I can tell, this is what Heidi Ramirez dealt with:

1) As Jackson even mentions, a ‘little push back’ from Arlene Ackerman reportedly involved calling Ramirez a racist for asking too many questions.

2) Ackerman was continually hostile and unresponsive to her and openly belittled her in public, while the Mayor and Governor basically left her hanging out to dry.

3) Despite his protestations, Gov. Rendell told Ramirez that her full nomination to the SRC was being pulled… so that Dominic Pillegi could appoint a member of the SRC, as part of currying favor in the budget fight.

4) And so, given all of that, Ramirez resigned.

Here is just one instance of where Jackson’s op-ed defies common sense. Ramirez was not going to be re-appointed to the SRC. He seems to acknowledge this in the op-ed. So, she ‘resigns’ in her act of cowardice. Just when Philly school kids need her, she is ‘cuttin and runnin.’ Shame! Shame!

I would assume that Jackson understands that her resignation is not instant, right? That in fact, Ramirez is going to serve until her replacement is nominated? In other words, she will serve the same exact amount of time at the SRC had she not ‘resigned,’ and simply sat there as she was personally denigrated by Ackerman.

So why else would Ramirez resign, besides her high levels of cowardice? Maybe to make a statement that something is going wrong with the SRC, and to walk away on her own terms? Again, Jackson is full of bizarre levels of vitriol for her resignation, yet, unless I am missing something, she will not serve a single day less than had she had sat around until the newest power lawyer was nominated to take her spot.

Or, how about this little ditty from Jackson:

"just as crucial is a superintendent who will stand up to a bombastic board that tries to micromanage a school district"

Um, Mr. Jackson, can I ask whether you have gone to a single SRC meeting? This is a board that- from reports in his own paper- could not be called anything close to bombastic. And, considering that Ramirez was repeatedly referred to as incredibly respectful of people, where is this coming from, except from Ackerman herself?

Most fundamentally, the problem with Jackson’s ugly temper tantrum is this: A lot is going wrong in the school district. Schools are not safe. Kids are learning at unacceptable levels. The SRC has become a place to put connected power lawyers with no expertise in educational policy, and they ask few meaningful questions. And yet, where does Jackson aim his spit flecked diatribe? At a woman that was respected by everyone under the sun, who obviously cares deeply for the children of Philadelphia, and who was then hung out to dry for her efforts. What the hell is wrong with this picture? Thanks for kicking a public servant while she was down, Mr. Jackson.

I could go on about the lack of common sense that Jackson displayed. But, frankly, his piece is such a vile attack that I think it is better to leave it alone. Everyone makes mistakes in a long journalistic career. At some point, Jackson will wake up to what he spit out this morning, and send a much deserved apology to Heidi Ramirez.