If you want to get a stomach ache, I would encourage you to read the Inquirer's article on the money heavy, astroturf campaign on behalf of that most aggrieved product: Soda.

The food and beverage industry is mobilizing against Mayor Nutter's proposed tax on sweet drinks, with a rush of activity that has City Hall bracing for a "madhouse."

Lobbyists are buttonholing City Council members. Trade groups and the unions have locked arms. Industry ads are sprouting on the air and in print extolling the good corporate citizenship of soft-drink companies. The public has weighed in with hundreds of calls and e-mails.

The Inquirer neatly sums up the arguments lobbyists are making against the tax:

The tax will cost jobs. Working families can't afford it. It's a "money grab" by Nutter. Soft drinks alone don't cause obesity.

Let's take this one by one:

1. The tax will cost jobs.

What jobs will this hurt? The bottling plants? Sorry, I doubt it. Coca Cola bottles in Philadelphia, and sells to the region. People in Philly pay the tax, people outside don't. It is not as if Coke would have an incentive to move out of the city- the same consumption tax would still exist.

Futher, Philadelphia itself is only a small part of the region's market. You would also have to assume that people will not substitute their sugary drinks for other non-sugary, coke-bottled ones. If there is one thing I trust, it is that if they need to, American corporations will figure out how to make sure people buy other drinks.

2. Working families can't afford it.

If this tax is done right, this is the worst argument of them all. All sin taxes, like all sales taxes, are regressive. Does that mean we should eliminate cigarette taxes? Of course not.

3. It's a "money grab" by Nutter.

Money grab? Ha ha ha ha. I really hope the lobbyists make this their center piece. We do all understand there is a deficit, right? And we either raise money or we can shut libraries, lay-off people, close after school programs and pools, and a lot of other stuff. We can argue about whether this is a good tax or well designed or whatever, but, the money has to come from somewhere.

4. Soft drinks alone don't cause obesity.

And Eddie Jordan didn't alone ruin the Sixers. Who cares?

Now, there is a legitimate argument that the way the tax is designed, as a BPT add-on, is not smart. I get that. But does that mean it will not work at all? I don't think so. I would expect that almost instantly, the price in vending machines would go up, the price in gas stations would go up, etc. But, I do get the argument, and I wonder if there is a better way to do this?

The article, however, is most focused on what is about to happen in the city. Lobbyists will write checks to Councilpeople, the teamsters will pack a hearing, letters will come in (and they have, many supposedly not from city addresses), and we will see commercials about poor, poor, poor soda:

Poor soda. I just want to go give you a hug and protect you, you aggrieved individual!

And hey, the ad has a point. As it says, "taxes never made anyone healthy." Right?

Several studies have examined the effects of state cigarette tax increases on youth substance use over the 1990s, with most -- but not all -- finding that higher taxes reduce youth consumption of tobacco... Our most consistent finding is that -- contrary to some recent research -- the large state tobacco tax increases of the past 15 years were associated with significant reductions in smoking participation and frequent smoking by youths.

Oh, right.

We don't often see such clear floods of money into the city, at least on such a short-term, blast basis. But rather than every lobbyist with their hand out, and rather than an ex-Mayor waiving around an empty soda bottle, let's deal with reality:

1) Soda is really bad for you, and
2) We need money, so...
3) We are taxing soda.

The flood of money that is about to rain down on our city is not proof that this is a bad idea, but simply a clear display of the festering toothache of our political system.

Let me draw you a picture of the subject of a news story:

• You grew up in old school, machine driven Philadelphia politics. Your dad worked in the machine, and you were largely handed a major election victory by those ties.
• You are powerful. At this point, you have the ability to yield more political clout than all but a few others in the city. Some are aiming for your hold on the throne.
• You have held onto your seat as a woman, in a city of male dominated politics, which is no small feat. Especially considering that you did it at a time when the power dynamic of the sexes was even more out of whack than today.
• You have served for a long, long time. At 78 years old, you have been a politician here as Philadelphia has gone through a significant decline in population, growth in the numbers of those in poverty, and the mixed re-birth of the last 15 years.
• The district you have represented that whole time, however, has had significant trouble. Some of the neighborhoods in your district- including the one where you are also the ward leader- have had more murders per capita than almost anywhere else, in this already too violent city. Those same neighborhoods are rife with the depravation that is the hallmark of America’s worst hit neighborhoods.

You are Anna Verna, City Council President.

I go through that all because the Inquirer ran a piece on the storied career of Councilwoman Verna yesterday, and, while a good read, it left something to be desired by focusing mostly on how Councilwoman Verna runs City Council, while ignoring the other huge story: what has gone on in the last 40 years in the neighborhoods that she represents.

Meet city employee No. 1.

She first made the news in 1954, when a Philadelphia Evening Bulletin column noticed "a pretty working girl" with a passion for TV crime dramas and an aversion to pasta. Back then she was secretary to District Attorney Richardson Dilworth, an icon of reform in Philadelphia.

With 59 years on the payroll, City Council President Anna Cibotti Verna today is not merely the longest-serving worker out of 27,000. She has occupied the second-most-powerful position in city government for more than a decade, a regal fixture in the president's ornate chair.

The nine-term incumbent is almost universally praised as fair-minded, hardworking, and "classy." She has never known a close election, from her first Council race in 1975.

The article gives you the perspective of whether or not Councilwoman Verna is a 'good' or 'bad' Councilperson, and/or President of City Council. There are judgments about how she actually runs Council (which the article has a lot of), and what veryimportantpeople think about her. There is one on the record, negative quote, and it is from (of course) John Dougherty. (Which can continue the Hatfield-McCoy, Doc v. Fumo South Philly battle royale that continues to produce good copy, despite Fumo taking a state sanctioned break from politics, and Dougherty trying to regroup and rebuild his political cache after a big political loss.)

While it is totally legitimate and important to identify how good or bad or effective of a Council President Anna Verna is, I think that the story is too much grounded in the palace intrigue of City Hall. In fact, the only real quote we hear from someone in the neighborhoods that she represents is this:

She's regarded as a savior in this community - she's the catalyst and the glue keeping us together.

I don’t know how that quote, from one of her ward leaders, even gets into a newspaper story without some sort of counterbalance. But, I assure you that on the streets of Point Breeze, or in pockets of SW Philly destroyed by poverty, drugs and guns, neither she nor any other local politician is regarded as the savior of the community. I would wager that despite her position as Councilperson and Ward Leader, many people don’t even know who she is. That isn't a knock against her so much as a simple reality of where we are as a city and a nation. Given the depth of issues that face people in their everyday lives, a city politician is simply not viewed by people as a "savior."

All of this isn’t to say that Councilwoman Verna isn’t a good President of City Council or Councilperson. The few "insider-ish" progressives I have heard rumblings from seem to think that, at minimum, she gives them a fair shake. Frankly, I don’t know enough about what goes on in that building to know. But, she is the Councilperson of neighborhoods (and Ward Leader of the neighborhood) that probably have had more young men killed by guns than just about anywhere else in the city. And, of course, as these neighborhoods have fallen into despair, she has been their representative. It would be really interesting to hear how an older, well-off, white politician struggles through the profound issue of how she best represents neighborhoods where the number one cause of death among young African-American men is a bullet.

To say that a single Councilperson in a single American City- even a powerful one- is not responsible for the overwhelming waves of suburbanization, redlining, drugs, and urban disinvestment that so devastated neighborhoods, would be the understatement of the century. But these still are her neighborhoods, and have been for so, so long. So how she- and we- grapple with these issues is the real story to me.

In those heady days when everyone was excited about Obama, a familiar refrain was often written when he did something good, appointed a smart person, issued an executive order, etc: Elections have consequences.

On the other side of the Delaware, in the persona of new Governor Chris Christie, people in New Jersey are getting a daily reminder of this.

Elections have consequences:

In a series of proposed sweeping cuts aimed at closing a $2.2 billion gap in the state’s current-year budget by June 30, Gov. Chris Christie announced on Friday plans to slash operating aid to higher education in the state by $62.1 million.

Elections have consequences:

Gov. Christie told a group of business leaders today that his first budget will not include a corporate business tax surcharge that has been repeatedly renewed by Democrats in Trenton.

Christie, a Republican who beat former Gov. Jon S. Corzine in November by promising to cut taxes and reduce government spending, said he will let the 4 percent surcharge sunset in the budget he will present on March 16....

Christie, who took office in January, also highlighted his decision to allow the expiration of higher income tax rates that Corzine began last year to help balance his last state budget.

Elections have consequences:

The $158 million the governor robbed from the Clean Energy Fund is dedicated money utility customers can use to help fund energy conservation, efficiency and renewable energy projects.

These funds match investments in solar and wind and help consumers buy energy-efficient appliances or winterize homes. Cutting this fund will eliminate up to 4,000 private sector jobs in New Jersey while impacting another 20,000.

Elections have consequences:

The news for mass transit commuters keeps getting worse.

Lakeland Bus Lines will implement a fare increase by June, company controller Greg Mazzarisi said on Friday. The exact amount hasn't been determined, but Mazzarisi said he expects it will be under 10 percent.

The disclosure about Lakeland Bus comes as NJ Transit riders are contemplating the prospect of a draconian fare hike of anywhere from 20 to 30 percent, coupled with likely service reductions. NJ Transit is grappling with a budget shortfall exacerbated by a sizable cut in its state subsidy.

Meanwhile, while bus and train commuters are about to get slammed, those who drive to work are catching a break. Gov. Chris Christie, who ordered a reduction in NJ Transit's state subsidy, has ruled out raising the state's gasoline tax even though it last went up in 1988 and is among the lowest in the nation.

Elections have consequences:

Gov. Chris Christie’s freezing of $475 million in aid to 500 school districts could cause layoffs, program reductions and higher property taxes for residents in Cape May County.

On top of that, Christie has also promised 15 percent less state aid for schools next year.

Elections have consequences:

Gov. Chris Christie today froze nearly all actions by a controversial state board that for a quarter century has pushed towns across New Jersey to build affordable housing, promising municipalities their "nightmare is over."

The governor’s executive order also created a committee to report on how to provide affordable housing, including housing designed to ensure people can live in towns in which they work, while considering the environment and open space...

The action drew fire from affordable housing advocates, who called the order illegal, and praise from municipal groups and attorneys.

Let's keep that in mind as we get closer to our own elections this spring and fall. Elections have consequences. And, as we know, those consequences can be devastating.

I would encourage everyone to check out this article from the Notebook about Meade Elementary School, located in North Philly. A reporter from the Notebook spent half a day there, and, check out some of the things he says (heavily edited):

But Meade is not just doing breakfast well. Evidence of a positive and nurturing school climate is everywhere…

The halls are warm and inviting - filled with end tables, lamps, rocking chairs, fish tanks, lots of plants, and interesting student work. A "wall of respect" is being constructed…

We visited the mask “factory” where artist Leroy Johnson and a cohort of three other artists from the Clay Studio work along with students and their teachers in creating the masks and mounting them. “This is about conflict resolution and building cooperation,” Johnson explained…

We observed 6th graders seriously engaged in helping the 1st graders. The room was a beehive of activity, with a large group of students, teachers, and the visiting artists…

We also visited several math and reading classes, all of which were characterized by skillful teaching and students on task….

A 4th grade music class blew me away…Students not only enjoyed the lesson, but demonstrated remarkable mastery…

Sounds pretty amazing, right? Meade appears to have mixed everything from wellness (with a well-regarded breakfast program), to interpersonal learning (conflict resolution, older kids working with the babies), to creative use of the arts (including music and mask making) and to teaching the standardized curriculum. I have no idea how many schools there are out there like this. But, if this is the standard for our elementary schools, I feel better about where we are headed as a city.

But, guess what? It turns out, Meade has a target on its back. And it appears that its creative learning is about to be sacrificed to the sacred lord of No Child Let Behind’s standardized testing, and the School District’s Renaissance Schools. Why? Because Meade is now considered a “Rennaissance Alert” school, and the ramifications for all that creative teaching are about to be felt by the students and teachers of the school:

The school recently made AYP in successive years and so it is not a school where restructuring is mandated under No Child Left Behind. Last year it narrowly missed it, meeting 12 of 13 targets, and putting it in "Warning" status. Fifth-grade scores dropped. In small elementary schools where some grades have only one class, this is not unusual – a veteran teacher goes out on maternity leave or illness, someone who turns out to be subpar comes in on special assignment, and down go the scores. A problem, sure, but not the basis for making a sober judgment about school progress.

Meade may well escape the Renaissance treatment but as a result of being on the Alert list it is now an Empowerment School. That means Corrective Reading and Math and the Empowerment version of an after school program. It means say good bye to much of what the school on its own has designed and implemented. From talking to teachers it is clear that morale is taking a big hit.

Get that? An elementary school in North Philly that appears to be doing everything right is about to have its creativity stomped on, because it only met 12 of 13 of the No Child Left Behind goals. Are you kidding?

As the author of the piece says: even if you are for testing, or data driven analysis, sometimes, we have to use something a little more basic: common sense.

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.