- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
Campaigns: The Poverty Challenge - which side are you on?
Submitted by BradyDale on Mon, 02/19/2007 - 11:28pm.
I may have put a little too much distracting context in this when I first wrote it, so let me rephrase the question: if you're working for a campaign, which of its policies does your candidate believe will be the most effective in lifting folks here out of poverty?
You can look at improving the city two different ways: there are the folks who believe cities improve by attracting in big, expensive businesses that bring in money. There are also those who believe that cities improve by improving the lives of the people who are there now, working with what it has and improving that. In Philadelphia, that means improving the lives of a whole lot of people who are living in poverty.
So here's the question for the campaigns: are your policies about making life better for the people who live in Philadelphia right now, enabling them to do more and experience more? Or do you want to change Philadelphia by bringing in more people and institutions with money so that some of that shakes out for our current residents?
More hot context goodness after the break...
I think we debate a fair amount between making a better business climate so that firms will relocate here and change the city and, on the other hand, investing more in the city and its people more, spending more money (not less) and expecting that when our people are capable of more we will see both new businesses and institutions grow from the soil of Philadelphia and outsiders come here (on a slower timeline) as they see we have a more capable workforce and better infrastructure.
My bias is clear, but that's how we roll here on YPP: biased but honest about it. I had to choose between the two candidates that I believed were most focused on helping the people here right now to grow. Those candidates were Congressman Fattah and Rep. Evans. Evans I believed really understood economic development, but I saw Fattah as more visionary and prone to innovation. I also had more faith that Fattah would not lose sight of his longterm objective, to create opportunity for all Philadelphians (and enable them to take advantage of it).
I see Nutter and Knox more in the world of people who want to clean up the city, scale back Government and create more space for outsiders to come in and open up shop, attract people back in from the suburbs and bolster our white collar population.
In my view, Fattah and Evans believe the city can save itself. Knox and Nutter intend to find Philadelphia saviors. [I honestly don't know what Brady believes.]
Both objectives can be attained in a "progressive" way and either might actually make our city a whole hell-of-a-lot better for everyone. I mean, after all, we have a lot of room to add new people in Philadelphia. Maybe it's true that if we focused on attracting outside money in it would come and those new folks would fill in around Center City, we'd Manhattanize a little but the folks in Southwest and North Philadelphia could stay put, find better jobs, improve their houses, etc. etc. etc.
But I don't buy it. That's me, and I've been wrong lots and lots of times before. What I think we need to do is improve our workforce, look out for our kids and do a better job of providing the services that make a city work (especially high end services, like planning and zoning and redevelopment). I think Philadelphia needs to tackle poverty. I think Philadelphia needs to see our many poor non-workers as a resource, as potential energy that's wasting a way and focus it.
So what do the`campaigns intend to do about poverty? Bring in big businesses that will train the folks they can here and ship in the rest? Or do you want to focus on schools now and economic development later? Fix our aging natural gas lines or just hope to sell off PGW so that some private entity will do it for us?
Is your campaign's take much more subtle than all that? Tell us. We should know. Just try to be focused on this question: we got a lot of poor folks here - how can your proposals improve the lives of those folks? Do you have a plan such that today's poor person is tomorrow's serious economic contributor?
The phone lines are now open...
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I don't see why it is either
I don't see why it is either or. Why can't it be both?
As we can see, Philly can't save itself with current residents because we keep losing population, even with a housing boom. If your only plan is to help the impoverished, the people with the money that will pay for that will keep leaving. Then what do you do?
Philly doesn't need a champion for the poor. Philly doesn't need a champion for business. Philly needs a champion for Philly.
The next Mayor has to balance between spurring new residents and business to locate here with increasing the quality of the "poor" so as to get them off the system and financially independent.
One of the problems that is being overlooked is that it isn't just job training and education. It is family. 60% of black children are in single parent environments compared to 21% of white children.
Tell me raider
or is it adam?
Does the "family problem" also include the wealthy white single parent families? I agree that Brady's post is a bit either/or, but please don't diminish the extent to which povery and/or racism are part of the picture.
It's Adam.
It's Adam.
And the answer is yes and no.
Yes: If I recall correctly, a study stated that children from black two parent households academically did better than children from white single parent households. I do not recall about it being normalized for economic status.
No: Economic status tends to be cyclical and when we say we are waging a war on poverty, we are trying (I assume) to get them educated and job trained to break them out of the cycle. The problem is, even if a single mom has a decent paying job, her and the child are still significantly disadvantaged just on a basic economic level.
So, my point is, improving the impoverished Philly work force, which tends to be overwhelmingly black, is probably only half the battle. There is a significant underlying social issue at hand as well that can sabotage any efforts.
In regards to wealthy white single mothers, they aren't starting out from a position of poverty, so it is not nearly as crippling.
Adam
I'd be willing to bet that studies would show that children from wealthy single parent households that go to good schools (that spend twice as much per student) do relatively well, on average -- even if they don't do as well as children from wealthy two-parent households going to the same schools. Is the relatively high percentage of single-parent households in the black community a relevant issue? Yes. It is an aggravating factor. But a focus on poverty and the lack of educational funding is the first order of priority, as I see it.
So are you saying as long as
So are you saying as long as we launch the poor into wealthy status, everything else doesn't matter? Pretty noble plan. I would assume it would be a great feat just to get the poor into lower middle class status.
What I'm saying
is that to the extent that the issues can be differentiated, focusing on poverty is a higher priority than focusing on the number of single parent families in the black community.
Again, I'm not saying that "family" issues aren't relevant. I'm only reacting to your comment above:
Your language there simulatneously suggests to me that you see "family" as one of the problems and also as "the" problem. In the very least, you are suggesting a shift in focus away from job education and training. And your statement comes within the context of the debate about whether black communities need to further cultivate "personal responsibility," or whether such thinking is "blaming the victim."
That debate may have no conclusive resoltion. But nothing will improve the conditions for some 40% of this city unless we have equitable funding of education. Nothing. Disproportionate poverty in the black community predated the current level of single family households. Those are facts which are independent of the debate about whether certain business-oriented policies will increase tax revenues. Without an a priori committment and plan for spending any such revenue on improving our schools - even creating a more attractive business environment will not help those who are already poor. There are many places around where increasing the attractiveness of a business environment only effectively increases the gap between the rich and the poor.
Memoirs of a Black Man
Adam is right about the black family. D.E., you’re wrong.
I hate to do this but… I really get tired of white liberals talking about what’s good for poor people, or what’s good for black people when you have no idea what it is like to be either.
How many of you live in the heart of North Philadelphia, West Philadelphia, or Southwest Philadelphia where many of our most impoverished citizens live? I would guess not many, if any.
I am a black man. I currently live in a rough section of North Philadelphia, and I grew up in the Mantua section of West Philadelphia (commonly known as “The Bottom” or the “Underworld”). I know a little something about being poor. In fact, I know a lot. I grew up on welfare my entire childhood life, and my father was on welfare his entire adult and childhood life. In fact, my family has a history as welfare recipients dating back to when it was first started. My entire family, to this day, is poor. I grew up with 14 brothers and sisters. Again, I know a little something about being poor.
And I also know single parent families are a major problem in the black community. Unfortunately, I am the only person in my immediate family that has even gotten married. I know that Adam is right. And I also know that saying “focusing on poverty is a higher priority than focusing on the number of single parents in the black community” is an absolute stupid thing to say. THE TWO ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! If we work on fixing our families in the black community, we are focusing on the poverty problem. I come from a poor broken home and I know how devastating it can be.
You guys can talk all you want about “blaming the victim,” but you don’t know what you are talking about. All people want to do is make excuses. Government can only do but so much, then people have to meet them halfway. We have to change the culture in our black communities in order to make long-term gains on the poverty issue.
I mean, I think the state of the black community was in better shape back in the 50’s & 60’s at the height of explicit racism and segregation. Our families were intact, more of us were getting married, working, and our poverty rate was not as high. While it is true that many blacks were able to elevate themselves to middleclass, many more were left behind and became poorer and poorer. I think a reason for this is the breakdown of the black nuclear family. It’s not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons.
Before anyone try to tell me or anyone else what’s best for the poor black community, go live in one for a couple of years. Until then, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t care how many books you read.
Memoirs of a white man
Esquisite,
Just for your information, although I'm not really sure how relevant this fact is, I've lived for the majority of my life in predominantly black communities. You shouldn't make so many assumptions.
Further, I never said that "family" issues and "poverty" issues are mutually exlusive. I also never reduced any arguments to "blaming the victim," but indicated that I think that discussing this issue must allow for the partial truths embedded in any one perspective. Maybe you should re-read my posts before you tell me that I'm wrong in what I've said.
There are a variety of ways to measure that. But what I was talking about was, specifically, the level of poverty in the black community, and the degree to which it is attributable to the percentage of single family households. What do statistics show about the poverty rates in the 50s and 60s among blacks relative to the poverty rate today? One chart I just looked at shows the poverty rate for black families at 47% in 1959, and 21.9 in 1999. Compare that to percentages of "families black married" of 13.2% in 1979, and 7.1 in 1999.
Poverty rates in and of themselves do not measure the "state" of the black community - and I never suggested such. But I am talking about to what degree - if we're talking about poverty rates - it makes sense to focus on the issue of single parent households compared to how much money is being spent to educate children.
In all fairness, esquisite
I should include the following notes from the same site where I got those stats:
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/24...
.
However, while that information is interesting - it makes absolutely no allowance for the legacy affect of racism in creating differential rates of change in poverty alleviation among blacks and whites - an argument that I would question.
Good advice from the Streets
Its good to hear from someone who has basis of knowing what their talking about. We like to talk all day but not too many actually have lived the life that we are trying to change for some. Its good to get a honest opinon from the actual struggle, if your still struggling . Thanks for opening a lot of eyes!
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog
I think Esquisite makes a
I think Esquisite makes a fine point. We went to school together, so maybe I am a bit biased. But, ultimtalely, the assertion that government can only do so much is important to understanding that some problems cannot be fixed by social scientists, but by the bonds and strengths of community, family, congregation, etc. Philadelphia and Pennsylvania cannot build churches. Philadelphia and Pennsylvania cannot make people marry one another. And, most importantly, Philadelphia and Pennsylvania can't make people love and care about each other.
I did not grow up black (I'm Italian-American). But, judging by the Federal Poverty line (which according to Ray is not inclusive enough), I did grow up poor (until I was about 14-15 when things got better). But, it was not Government that made my life better, it was my large family and the community. Consider:
As a young man, people on my block knew that my mother was a widow--and the bonds of community made my life better. For instance, in terms of child care, I spent my morning and afternoons at an elderly couple's house until my mother returned from work (or some other neighbor looked after my sister and I).
As I got older, there was a community center with subsidized after school programing I attended. Once I was old enough to be trusted, the church had after school CCD for public school kids. I remember my mother got a nice job offer, with insurance, but the company would not allow her to take time for the regular kid emergencies (sick, broken arm, etc.) so child care was always an issue.
Then, when that was over, I got a job at my uncle's grocery at 14 (I worked there until graduation). Our financial situation got better at and around this time, but the point is, but for the community (and a strong willed mother), the situation could have been disasterous.
While government cannot build communities, which I believe grow organically in the right circumstances (usually when citizens feel safe ), we cannot lose sight of what Government can do--basic needs such as housing, transportation, economic stimulus, health care, child care, etc. These things would go a long way in helping the plight of so many Philadelphians.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Interesting response
Becuase while you say that Esquisite makes a good point, in some ways you seem to be making a counter-argument.
First, you point to a single-family situation that led to succcess. Secondly, you point to factors that contribute to that success which are directly related to government support - employment opportunities, a community center -- and you've spoken before about the fact that you attended a quality school.
Obviously, there are many communities where there is entrenched poverty where characteristics of the "black community" is completely irrelevant. Travel to Appalachia. Travel to third world countries. Would you tell folks in Bangladesh that their poverty is an outgrowth of their family structures? Of course not.
Look, we're not going to resolve this debate here, and I've never said that "personal responsibility" or family structures aren't relevant to the debate. However, I see the bottom line in that unless money is dedicated to our schools, nothing of substance will change. Suburban schools spend twice as much money on their students as City schools. And it is the government's role to devote the money to our schools. Bottom line.
To some exent, that may be
To some exent, that may be based on my own experiences. I did attend a quality school, I was lucky. But, I attribute the most sucess to "community," generally, not say the City of Philadelphia or Commonwealth of Pennsylvania specifically. Without adequate child care, my mother would have had a tough time working. For the first 8 year, that was provided by neighbors. For my years of high school, it was provided by my own employment.
I do think government has a place, the question is, what is the place. Governments will not build communities (they can destroy them). Governments need to focus on goals that (1) enable community growth by providing public safety and good planning; and (2) focus on social goals that can be accomplished. One example is more affordable child care coupled with better skills so people can work. Another example, clearly, is a better educational system. We need to market these services, make sure people know they are there, but Esquisite is right, people have to meet government half way.
Saying there will never be a government-based cure-all for the woes of poverty is not giving up or blaming a victim. It is a realization that, unfortunately, people cannot be compelled to act in their own self interest and that the loss of community means more than say the loss of a program.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Problem v. Symptom
Everyone has made some excellent points. I don’t want to detract from anyone’s argument, but as someone who works with impoverished blacks and black families and is very interested in the issue, I would like to weigh in. Let me begin by saying that I do not believe that the state of poor blacks in willful, i.e. I do not believe poor blacks want to be poor. Neither would I dismiss entirely individual culpability.
I witness a lot of behavior by poor blacks that ultimately has the effect of sending them spiraling back into poverty, for example quitting a good-paying job just to avoid paying child support. While I have very little sympathy for such self-destructive behavior, I understand the mentality behind it. Sadly, it seems to me this behavior stems from two issues: (1) ignorance of the consequences of actions and the availability of alternatives, and (2) dysfunctional concepts of gender roles. (The former, I believe to be a function of poverty, the latter I know from personal experience, transcends income level.)
**As an aside, I put in a lot of cites because there has recently been a lot of literature on poverty, blacks and family. I cite one study, but also a few really good articles I’ve found.**
Dealing with ignorance first, many issues in the poor community (not just poor blacks) is a product of institutionalization through welfare and social service models that make it easier to “live off the system” rather than become a productive member of society. (I read a recent article that DHS kids that live in a facility never learn simple skills like cooking meals). This problem is exacerbated by the poor educational system that fails to train black youths for the work-force, let alone teach them useful economic principles. Why, you may ask, is this problem more prevalent among blacks than whites? It sounds cliché, but it really does go back to slavery and the failure to promote functional family structure and work ethic (if you don’t believe me, read The Souls of Black Folk – many of the issues Dubois addresses are still prevalent today).
Which leads into dysfunctional gender concepts. I agree whole-heartedly with Esquisite’s statement that “if we work on fixing our families in the black community, we are focusing on the poverty problem.” The question is whether we need to work on making our families functional or replicating the traditional “nuclear family” model.
Personally, I feel that the nuclear family is slowly becoming an outdated social model, as evidenced by the statistical decline in the practice among both blacks and whites. Furthermore, anyone who has lived in the black community knows that the black familial model is evolving into a multigenerational and multi-unit model, with grandparents taking care of children and individuals having multiple families. This does not necessarily have to be a bad thing if parents are involved, both economically and emotionally. Many parents want to be involved, but because of institutionalization (criminal, welfare, etc.) are unable to be. (See http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_1_59/ai_110361377. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR200701.... Also, The Washington Post is doing a fantastic review about blacks and poverty, but the discussion is limited almost primarily to black men.)
Studies show nuclear families do have significant financial, social and economic benefits for both blacks and whites. However due to certain attitudes and practices within the black community, marriage has less of a benefit for all parties involved, including children, than it does for white families: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR200510..., commenting on “The Consequences of Marriage for Black People,” available at http://www.americanvalues.org/html/consequences.htm, and my favorite, “Marriage is for white people” at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR200603.... Furthermore, studies promoting the benefits of marriage generally fail to address the social stigma that still follows illegitimate children, especially those of poor blacks – society presumes they have failed before they have even gotten started.
However, I want wrap this up by referring back to BradyDale’s original post pitting social policy v. economic policy. I tend to prefer economic policy to address the above issues, and my reasoning is thus: the government can spend as much as it likes training/cajoling/forcing poor people to behave in a functional manner, be this by educating them, putting them in jail or providing counseling - It is a long and expensive process with both good and bad programs. However, I feel that promoting an influx of middle class citizens and then integrating poor people into a middle class community is both less costly and more effective.
Living next to a functional family, going to school or church with them, and even afternoon discussions by the fence go much further to providing not only a supportive community network, but also available role models and pools of knowledge poor people currently lack simply because they are only around other poor people. I’m not talking about trickle down economics – though that is a part of it, but more about the benefits of being in a functional community, which we can either create right now or try (emphasis on try) to develop through government intervention. I still think some government intervention is necessary so that poor people have the resources to use this knowledge, however. But Philadelphia has fantastic communities in its neighborhoods. I think we should try to bring people into those neighborhoods that not only produce economically, but affect their surroundings socially.
J.Young, You Are the Man!
GREAT POST! I could not have said it any better. I agree with you whole-heartedly. I like the shout-out to W.E.B. and The Souls of Black Folk. I like live my life based upon the combination of principles put forth by both Dubois and Booker T. Washington.
Like Adam, I don't think we should approach this with an "either or" solution to the poverty question. It's much more complicated than people think.
Again, I love your post and I agree wholeheartedly.
Cosby putting some of it on parents as well.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/16754428.htm
I obviously said "one of the
I obviously said "one of the problems". And this is all stemming from Fattah's "war on poverty" where he is going to spend millions upon millions a year to fight it, but none of his plans I have noticed address a major issue of continuing cyclical poverty which is a HUGE amount of children being born into single parent families.
I also have no idea where the "blaming the victim" comment came from. Are you saying the black community being a victim is why there is a 60% single parent issue?
Not that bad Raider
The only blame that should go around when it comes to poverty in the black community is to the Black Community!
Black people are the reason that blacks are suffering from a supposedly 60% single parent issue
WE AS BLACK PEOPLE are the reason that WE are killing each other
WE AS BLACK PEOPLE are holding each other back , not anyone else
WE AS BLACK PEOPLE can fix whats wrong with the BLACK COMMUNITY
WE AS BLACK PEOPLE are to blame for everything that's wrong
No one else is making us become single parents, raising kids without fathers.
No one else is making us kill our own people , or sell drugs on the corners that our children and grandparents walk.
No one else is making us drop out of schools and not take life seriously.
No one else is making us put standards and priorities last on our list .
Im so sick and tired of playing the BLAME GAME, instead of looking in the mirror for the answer to all our problems!!!!
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog
Adam, not sure if this is off topic
Given that Brady wants responses from folks involved in campaigns - but I'll take a risk and respond anyway.
True, you said "one of the problems," and forgive me if I misread your statement, but it seemed to me that you were suggesting that there is too much focus on "training and education."
Again, I'll point you to the statistics I referenced: Contrary to Esquisite's theorizing, poverty rates in the black community have lowered significantly even as the percentage of single-parent households has increased significantly.
What do you supposed has lowered those poverty rates? Would you assume that increased focus on social services supplied by the government might just be a factor? Do you think that greater access to education might just be a factor?
On the other hand, the stats I referenced also led the author to conclude that increased rates of single-parent households in the black community as compared to in the white community accounts for the relatively slower rate of poverty reduction in the black community. I would question that assumption as a statement of a direct relationship - as I think there are a lot of factors which contribute to that difference in rates of poverty reduction - but certainly I wouldn't dismiss the probability that a greater number of single-parent households in the black community is a relevant factor.
So, again, I think that the issue you point to has some relevance - but still, my point is that we should be careful about making the kinds of conclusion you seemed to make (again, sorry if I misread your point). Anyway, to repeat myself, for me the bottom line is that even though other factors may be relevant, the simple fact that our schools are underfunded needs to be the primary focus for both economic development as a city and poverty reduction in our poorer communities. As such, I see Fattah's policy statements and welcome his focus on education, as opposed to question why he doesn't mention the single-parent family rate.
47% in 1959, and 21.9 in
Because it is very rare, in a complex system, where one variable directly affects another variable. With the date range, I think we can assume the Civil Rights movement had a significant effect on poverty of the black community.
And that is ultimately what I am getting at in a nutshell. There are many issues that keep the people in poverty.
Also, there is more to Philly's problems than poverty, even though it is a big one. Just dumping money into poverty reduction is not good, just as only inviting business into the city is a bad singular policy.
We need policy that addresses Philly as a whole and not with tunnel vision.
Stupefying
D.E. II on Raideradam:
Raideradam in his own words:
Tell us Raideradam, why use public dollars to pay for any education?
Ridiculous
Why are you always intent on working off one quote out of context of someone's whole point?
Is the goal of a Philadelphia politician to make Philly as a whole better or to just help the Philly poor?
If it is the first, then the goal should be to train the workforce WHILE getting them to stay in the City. Several of you have constantly expressed how we need to retain our college grads. Would not the same be true for vocational grads?
If you believe the second, then I completely do not agree with you.
So many of you here are idealistic, but completely unrealistic.
some sticks and stones for you
Raideradam wrote:
I’m sorry I hurt your feelings but maybe if you worked on being more measured in your posts you would be less likely to make indefensible statements and then I would leave you alone. In fact I wonder if your constant reference to other people being “idealistic”, “unrealistic” and not “analytical” is covering for your own inadequacy. Food for thought.
The broader point is that you have a very naïve view of greater investment in education and training. Job growth increases by 1.5 percent for every 1 percent increase in the share of the population with post-secondary education. Other work has shown that the strongest correlation between the population growth of cities and education is actually the level of sub-baccalaureate education. Beyond general education, investment of scarce public dollars in training needs to be targeted at occupations that are in demand - characterized by factors like rising wages and unfilled job openings. Targeted investments should also be made in industries where your city has a comparative advantage.
So you get greater population growth that spills over as a result of general investments in education and training and you get growth from specific investments in training that makes certain sectors more profitable and dynamic. There is no third way in a global economy.
You can not improve the quality of life in Philadelphia by exclusively focusing on attracting highly educated individuals from outside the region. You have to invest, the earlier the better in policies which reduce the relative size of the population living in poverty. I realize that you think your success in life is due to all your own efforts but the reality is that much of your achievement was heavily subsidized by taxpayers other than yourself. In fact many of those investments mean that your neighbors who would love your job can’t compete with you because nobody invested in their attainment of the skills and education required to compete for it.
snap!
Price put it well--makes me wish i had a Phd in Econ.
We live in a city where 1 in 3 people lives below 200% of poverty. That's pretty shitty. We invested a lot of money in attracting new folks here--10 year tax abatements, millions in public funds to the Avenue of the Arts, sweetheart deals with contractors and developers. That investment has paid off--we have gotten probably the most we're gonna get out of it.
We need to continue the things that have worked to attract new people here, but we also need to get much more serious about lifting people out of poverty and growing our middle class white, black, asian, and latino populations.
Again, so many of you hear
Again, so many of you hear only what you want to hear. I don't think a single person on this whole thread said anything about only attracting wealthy. Basically this thread has broken into two camps.
1) Work on a balanced approach to help everyone
or
2) Help only the poor
Heck, I even said Philly needs to work on attracting immigrants, didn't I? Not exactly the top of the wealth chain.
In the spirit of love or the fear of more pictures of Daniel
Three deep breaths.
Raideradam wrote:
In 2005, the population of the city of Phoenix was 1,372,367 and the population of Philadelphia was 1,402,099. In Phoenix 16 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, in Philadelphia 25 percent of the population lives below the poverty.
What Brady, D.E.II, Ray and myself are all saying is that with such a high poverty rate, Philadelphia should have a plan to reduce poverty.
Three more deep breaths.
Not a single person has suggested that a poverty reduction plan is the alpha and omega of public policy in the city. We are all suggesting that the house is on fire and somebody should seriously set about putting the fire out.
And the strategy for putting out the fire should have multiple elements. More pre-k, smaller classes, better transition from school to work, more access to post-secondary education, public housing that doesn’t concentrate poverty, a stronger link between economic development spending and public transit, ……….. Doing all of this is impossible short of a 50 percent reduction in the federal defense budget but small steps on many fronts are possible.
So I will quote Raideradam out of context one last time:
We agree in principal that poverty is complicated, we agree that more than education policy is involved.
So Raideradam if you could raise “1 billion” dollars to fight poverty with out raising taxes what would you do with the money?
Well, that is the
Well, that is the miscommunication. Brady DID say fighting poverty is the alpha and the omega. That is what spurred all of this. Look back at the "either/or" comment.
So now, to be fair to the question before I answer it, is the question specifically "if you had a 1 billion dollar budget specifically for poverty, what would you do" or is the question in the context of this discussion and "if you had an additional $1 billion for Philadelphia and you wanted to concentrate on poverty, what would you do?"
I am asking this not as a continuation of the disagreement, but to be able to honestly answer. There is a difference between generating 1 billion for the city and figuring out what to allot where to best help the city and getting 1 billion specifically for a poverty budget, which is what a lot of this is thread is getting heated about.
Ok I think I get your distinction
Raideradam wrote:
Here is Brady in his own words:
Brady prioritizes poverty as problem one but clearly not as the alpha and omega of city policy. Raideradam you get pretty bent out of shape when you feel people mischaracterize your position, perhaps you could work a little harder at treating others as you would like to be treated.
Here is Brady again:
What I think Brady is getting at (Brady will chime in if I’m wrong) is that you can’t blow a hole in the budget with a package of tax cuts and spend money on more pre-k. He is saying that it is the policy position of the candidates that can potentially make it an either/or proposition.
And my reading of always reasonable D.E. II is no different, he thinks of poverty as problem one but it is not the only public policy issue he cares about.
What a silly discussion to blow my lunch break on.
Now on to your more interesting questions, Raideradam wrote:
Question 1, if you had 1 billion dollars to spend on anything to help the city what would you do with it? What are your priorities?
And the answer can’t be buy Ray an island in the Caribbean (would we call it Raytopia or Murphytopia and would the Ray-ites recognize the breakaway republic of Pricetown, those dirty Ray-ites!).
Question 2, if you had 1 billion dollars that you couldn’t spend on anything but policy’s aimed at poverty reduction what would you do with it.
I would genuinely like to hear both answers.
In regards to Brady, the
In regards to Brady, the post of is stating, specifically it IS an either/or situation is what several of us were going by as well.
For the other questions, I want to give a good and thought out response, so I will probably get to it tonight after my civic association meeting.
at least Mark understands me
that's right, Mark. You've captured what I was trying to get at... the reason it became either/or. The only thing I'll add is this: I respect people's position that the poor would best be helped by general investments in improving the business climate. I was trying to get folks to say it.
And I never said poverty was the alpha and omega of public policy. I only asked the question of how to tackle it. Ah, heck...
I got tired of trying to defend myself, though, and it doesn't look like raideradam gets your take on what I wrote, either.
Oh well. I give up. This has perhaps been the biggest thread I've ever managed to kick off and by far the most disappointing. It didn't get us anywhere and we didn't hear a peep from the campaigns.
I am a failure.
---
BradyDale OnLine
The R.I.I.C. Blog
The Philadelphia Unemployment Project
General investments
But I think that misstates people's position. I don't think anyone here believes that this a substitute for direct investment in poverty reduction. Many, including myself, believe that "general investments in improving the business climate" must be made, but don't see this as coming at the expense of helping the poor. It can be viewed as necessary component of helping the city, including the poor. I think every candidate (though I speak for none) advocates direct investment in fighting poverty. I think this thread isn't about fighting poverty. I think this thread is whether "general investments in improving the business climate" takes away from fighting poverty or whether it helps fight poverty.
I take the second view and think that any effort spent trying to fight poverty without an improvement in the business climate is futile. (Hence, not either/or.) I think spending money fighting poverty without reducing city taxes is not the most effective way to improve the business climate nor reduce poverty in the long run.
slightly edited
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Can we tweak that a bit?
You say this:
What do you think about this statement?
Your tweaked statement
It's not the most direct way to improve the business climate. With enough resources, I could see it being effective. I'm not sure if there are enough resources without an improved business climate. I think both poverty and business climate improvement should be directly addressed. Improvement in both areas will help the other.
I take exception that you characterize reducing taxes as spending money, but otherwise accept the statement.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Brady Rocks
Brady you are alright by me. I thought the thread was good, didn't work out like you planned but hey I want world peace. Stuff happens.
Hole in the budget
Tax cuts don't "blow a hole in the budget." Tax rates in Philadelphia have been reduced every year for the past 11 and tax revenue has increased every year but two.
EDIT: Excessive taxes (i.e., not cutting taxes) can contribute to destroying a tax base and, while not suddenly blowing a hole, decrease revenue just the same.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
more info
Aardhart would you be willing to post here the revenue numbers for the past 11 years or point me to them on the web.
Five-Year Plan
Don't have the link on me, but if you go to the City of Philadelphia's website and check out the latest five-year plan, revenue info is in the beginning section.
Sorry. No numbers.
I don't have the numbers. I was basing my statement on Nutter addressing a neighborhood group meeting that I heard. I know the current budget is at Budget_in_Brief_2007.pdf (which can be found at http://www.phila.gov/reports/Budget_in_Brief_2007.pdf, but I don't know how far back the revenue numbers go on the website. I hope I cited Nutter accurately.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
like mana from heaven
I’m about to hit the road for a conference so if what I say hits the fan, sorry to all in advance for ending the YPP 24 hour peace.
Aardhart, budgets are not hallmark cards, which is to say they are not platitudes without meaning.
Take this statement:
Does statement mean that if you eliminate a tax that represents a big slice of revenue say 15 percent that magically the next year new revenues will appear to completely offset the loss? Highly unlikely. If you cut revenues you have to cut spending. If you drop 100 million in revenue from the budget and propose to spend 100 million more on something else you have to find 200 million to cut somewhere else. Now you might get a little breathing room from economic growth which happens whatever you do, you may even get a boost from what you actually do but in the end the vast majority of the lost revenue will have to come from spending less. That is true whether you do it all quickly or spread it out over 10 years. And thus Brady’s dilemma.
Before you cry foul I understand the article of faith that you operate under, that tax breaks for law firms will trickle down to the people (lawyers are people after all). Or to put in terms you might use, the elimination of these burdensome and unfair taxes will light the fires of human ingenuity spurring an explosion of new startups that will reign down jobs like mana from heaven. I might be having fun with it but it is a fair view to have. I’m just asking that we learn something from the last 6 years in American history and not present what are tough choices as “slam dunks” with misleading claims.
Manny has decided that if he
Manny has decided that if he were to become Mayor, he would banish Price to Elba. Just kidding.
I figured if anyone would break the peace, it would be you. But, honestly, I do agree with most of what you say here.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Economic Growth is key
This is absolutely false. Economic growth is not automatic. Economic growth is influenced by taxes and many other factors. History has shown that this is true:
You write "If you cut revenues you have to cut spending." What I am trying to say is that cutting tax rates is not the same thing as cutting revenue. I looked for numbers from the past 11 years, but that was a lot of work and I only looked at the 2000 and 2007 city budgets. Wage tax and business tax rates have declined every year since 1995. The budgets and taxes are as follows:
Budgets
2007 $3.62B
2000 $2.61B
Total Taxes (actual) (State, federal, and other money makes up the difference)
2005 $2.23B
1998 $1.71B
With declining rates, taxes collected increased over $500 million in seven years. Taxes cut, Revenue increased. There was no hole blown in the budget.
Growth is related to taxes. This isn't magic. It's not manna from heaven. It's just basic economics. To fight poverty, it takes jobs and "the wage tax can directly explain the loss of roughly 100,000 jobs from Philadelphia over the period 1969 to 1985." It is incorrect to say that we must choose between fighting poverty and cutting taxes. It is also incorrect to say that if we cut tax rates, revenue must decrease. The last 11 years show this to be false.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
this is what mana gets you
Out of time so quickly,
On growth, my statement was very conservative, as the national economy goes so does the Philadelphia economy.
“…wage tax can directly explain the loss of roughly 100,000 jobs from Philadelphia over the period 1969 to 1985.”
These results didn’t control adequately (they did try) for changes in quality of life (schools and crime) and thus potentially attributed job loss to taxes when the underlying driver was “growing middle-class dislike of big cities”. Where dislike is factors like you can send your kid to a private school in Philadelphia for a small fortune or move to Montgomery and send them to a public school for free. Or there is a shootout on the highway and you decide maybe Iowa ain't such a bad place to move.
The rest will have to wait.
I think something that also
I think something that also should be figured in regards to taxes is a personal belief of mine:
Raising taxes has a more negative impact than lowering taxes has a positive impact.
Simple yes or no question
Do you think taxes have any impact on the economy at all?
You also didn't factor in
the rise in real estate values, and thus taxes, caused largely by a nationwide real estate boom and improvements to Center City which came about, in part, due to the TAX INCREASE associated with creation of the Business Improvement District there (and in other places around the city). Along with the boom came an attendant explosion in real estate transfer tax revenue. The 3% city transfer tax, by the way, is one of those taxes which has long been reputed to be a business killer because no one, allegedly, would ever want to buy property here. Apparently not true.
Wage taxes and BPT also
Wage taxes and BPT also increased.
2005 actual Wage, Earnings & Net Profits Tax (4.3310%) $1,087,349,000
1998 actual Wage, Earnings & Net Profits Tax (4.7900%) $914,282,000
2005 actual Business Privilege Tax $379,456,000
1998 actual Business Privilege Tax $249,973,000
The BPT is notoriously volatile
and I believe most of the growth has been in the last few years. But in any event, as I've stated, there are many other explanations. And, those numbers also bring into question why we need to virtually wipe out the BPT as some of the candidates explicitly or implicitly call for. Here we've had modest cuts, and taxes have soared, suggesting that companies are not really upset with rates where they are. There does come a point, you'll agree, where cutting has to lead to negative revenue growth, correct? Maybe we've reached it, (assuming, for the sake of this discussion that there is a causative effect.)
As to the wage tax, a lot of that growth is inflation. But if you've got businesses coming in and/or growing for whatever reason, you're going to get wage tax growth.
or maybe
further lowering the BPT would lead to even more companies relocating here leading to higher revenue growth per unit decrease in the BPT.
I'll always agree with you on maybe
but meanwhile the world turns and Philadelphia needs money this year to stop nasty cuts in services, and to build up others. So is this a good time to throw the dice? What should we do, cut taxes, appropriate money we don't have and hope for the best?
Maybe we haven't
Stan, just by asking this question it seems that you accept that taxes effect growth. You seem to accept that excessive taxes can prevent new businesses from starting, current businesses to leave or fold, and moving businesses to stay away. This is progress. We can finally talk reasonably.
Of course I agree with that. Cutting all taxes completely will eliminate all revenue. Although in theory, eliminating the BPT or any other single tax does not necessarily lead to a decrease in total revenue, if taxes from other sources increase more. In theory. Therefore, we should not necessarily look for rate giving the maximum revenue from the BPT, but all tax rates set fairly to generate sufficient revenue and allow growth and peace and prosperity, with truth and justice for all.
That said, I believe that the BPT is set too high and should be reduced. Anecdotal evidence is evidence. Enough anecdotal evidence is proof. I don't know how many businesses you have to hear from before you believe that the BPT is too high.
And the recent record of decreasing tax rates and increasing tax revenue conclusively demonstrates that there is not necessarily a choice between cutting services and cutting taxes.
Was this added in an edit? I don't think I read it the first time. In any case, you conceded that taxes did influence where businesses locate (along with 114 other factors). So we both agree that there is some causative effect, right? Even if we have no idea what the precise causative effect is, we agree that there is some causative effect.
All 114 other factors should be examined too.
And less unemployment and better wages and less population loss and less blight and less poverty and ....
There is a reason that people want to set policies to get "businesses coming in and/or growing."
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Getting back to where this started
the question here is what if all of these economic theories about taxes and growth are much less than what they seem to be. And the question is posed in stark terms by today's news about the state of the City's budget as revealed by the Mayor's budget address. It really doesn't matter if the BPT will some day make the flowers bloom. They need water today, or maybe they can hold off until tomorrow, but unless we get some rain/money real soon they will die.
I repeat my last question. Is today the day you would like to throw the dice, cut the tax, "guarantee" the cut for 10 years as Nutter said he did with the wage tax, and hope for the best? And, if so, by how much should we cut it? Or do we need to be conscious of the reality that we just can't afford the riverboat gamble until we're a little bit away from the water's edge? (Sorry to mix my metaphors.)
Philly today, tomorrow, and forever!
Policies should be set with the future in mind. Philly's been around for over 300 years; I hope it is around for at least 300 more.
You continue to equate cutting tax rates with cutting tax revenue! They are not the same thing! Past eleven years: decreasing tax rates, increasing tax revenue. Do you get it yet?
It seems you would like to throw the dice, increase taxes, and hope that the 50 year trend of people and businesses leaving the city ends on its own.
It's not that simple. No matter what policy you choose, you can't predict exactly what will happen. Raising rates, maintaining rates, lowering rates are all gambles. The policy should be set based on the evidence. I have not seen evidence that reducing the BPT would "blow a hole in the budget." I have seen evidence that revenue has been increasing under decreasing tax rates. I have also seen evidence that the BPT is too high and excessive taxes "directly explain the loss of roughly 100,000 jobs from Philadelphia over the period 1969 to 1985." Philadelphia's population continues to decrease, etc.
You say we can't afford to cut the BPT; I say we can't afford not to. I believe that the evidence shows that my view is less of a gamble than your view.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
But you don't seem to want to answer my question
Should we cut the tax this year, guarantee additional cuts for some period of years (how many and to what level?) and act as if we're getting more money in next year's budget so that we can reverse the cuts that the Mayor calls for?
Yes
I think we should continue the tax rate reductions, which have been accompanied with increased revenues in recent years. I don't know what the optimal level is for this city or the optimal balance of funding sources are, but this ain't it. I believe Michael Nutter knows more about this subject than I do, and I trust his point of view more than yours. I have listened and read some of what Michael Nutter thinks about this subject. I have read what you, other posters, and other candidates think about the subject. Weighing the evidence, I believe Michael Nutter more than you or any of the other candidates.
I think it will be difficult to make next year's budget, and don't know all the answers, but Michael Nutter seems to propose a balanced approach. I don't want Philadelphia taxed into the stone age.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Or it could mean that,
Or it could mean that, whether taxes effect growth or not, at some point you lower to a rate where you can not achieve the growth necessary to make up for the lost revenue of a lower rate.
Even if taxes directly correlated to economic growth, I would highly HIGHLY doubt it was a linear relationship. Otherwise it would mean 0 taxes would equate to maximized growth ... but what good is that with no revenue?
It is either/or
It is either/or because each politician can only do so much.
It is either/or because the one elected will strongly emphasize the path he believes most effective, whether consciously or not.
It is either/or because both will take a big political fight.
It is either/or because both are expensive, if on opposite sides of the ledger, to the point of mutual exclusivity.
It is either/or because it's about what you believe.
---
BradyDale OnLine
The R.I.I.C. Blog
The Philadelphia Unemployment Project
So, again, my question
So, again, my question ...
If you don't do anything to retain and grow the middle class, the upper class and business, who do you expect to pay for this expensive program?
The taxes off the poor is not enough to pay for the poor.
Why does everyone seem to completely forget Philly loses population and the majority of the population it loses is from the heavy tax paying base?
And if someone is dumping so much resources into something that he can only do one thing, then maybe it is the wrong plan.
BINGO!
POPULATION GAIN is the only way to get more money into this town.
We need to focus on attracting residents who can pay property and wage taxes to Philadelphia to pay for these things. Remember, the costs of pensions and the workforce go up every year--more than the growth of the budget or tax base.
That is why, Brady, it is not either or. It is, so much more than that. Without population gain, any program we implement will lose funding among other budgetary constraints. It is a simple fact.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Why is population gain the
Why is population gain the only way? You don't get more money and wealth into the City with an educated, skilled work force that attracts companies and creates small business?
Population loss is the
Population loss is the underyling cause of so many issues in Philadelphia from education to crime to small businesses, etc. I believe that stopping population loss and starting to repopulate communities will create opportunities we have not seen in the last 60 years.
I don't know what exactly your second question is asking, or if it is a question at all. But, I do believe you get those things with an educated, skilled workforce. But, my premise is, it is going to get harder and harder to pay for these things if we do not stabilize our population and start attracting tax payers.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
And, it is not the only
And, it is not the only way--that was just my hyperoble related to the issue.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
It isn't just population
It isn't just population gain. It is stopping population loss.
How long do you think it is going to take to retrain the workforce? Do you think putting in a bunch of job training programs is going get even half of the poor into $40K a year jobs in 5 years?
Fixing the public schools will only start returning serious dividends in a 5-10 year range and that is only if it is across the board.
Then, say over the next 5 years you get a batch of skilled labor. Where do they work? The burbs? Great. Now they have a decent job in the burbs where there is a better quality of life. How many of the poor do you think stay in their neighborhoods because they want to and how many stay there because they can't afford to go anywhere else? If they get better jobs elsewhere and Philly is still "broken", why do you think they will stay and just not join the flight out of the city?
Being 1 of 2 cities in the top 10 to lose population and 1 of 3 in the top 20, says a LOT.
What good is dumping money into training the Philly workforce if they just up and leave when they are able to start paying back into the system?
Sure it is nice and dreamy to think if we close our eyes, think happy thoughts, write enough big checks and wish hard enough, we can fix philly just by lifting the poor out of the mire, but sometimes you have to shed that and look at the numbers and math of it all.
Being analytical over bleeding heart isn't exactly sexy, but when millions of people are affected by your decisions, you aren't allowed the luxury of being sexy. You have to look at the big picture.
Adam...
This is the kind of comment that is going to make me go ballistic:
If you want to stick around here, drop the condescending horseshit.
Misleading stats, specious logic
First of all, stats. You need to look at which of those cities in the top 20 have a similar demographic makeup and history as Philly. Surely, you know that the majority of those larger cities that are gaining population are newer cities in the west and the south. Surely, you know that comparing those cities to a city founded on manufacturing industies is only of a limited value.
Now logic. You say that improving Philly's schools will not bring immediate returns - at least partially as measured by the amount of middle to upper income residents. That completely disregards the notion that one of the major components that prevents population gain in this city, let alone drives population loss, is the quality of our schools. When you're analyzing economic issues, you need to consider that middle and upper income folks who want to live in the city tend to put their kids in private schools. Folks can talk about tax structures all they want, but there's no doubt that thinking of paying thousands of dollars per year to send you kids to school is an economic driver behind population loss/lack of population gain.
Well yeah, I know none of
Well yeah, I know none of the cities are the same as Philly, but not many of the cities are the same as others. The point is, 85% of the top 20 are growing. So, we can't blame Philly pop loss on people fleeing to the burbs, nationally. It is specific to our area. Why is Philly not attractive, but everyone else is?
The reason I say it won't bring immediate returns is that it takes time for the positive changes to roll into the mainstream. Also, because any positive changes to the school system will only have a limited effect on the ones already at high school age. If someone has an 8th grade reading level as a Junior, no matter how good you improve that school, that student is only going to improve his reading ability by so much in that one year.
I do agree with you about schools being a prime motivator for families picking a home. School ratings tend to be based on the test results of the children and not the quality of the school and teachers. So, schools won't typically test at significantly higher levels until you roll a couple grades of kids through the new system.
Ultimately, I am just saying it takes time to realize the benefits of an improved school system.
Faster than a speeding bullet
Double the amount spent per student in Philly's schools - in other words bring them on part with the surrounding suburban communities - and you'll get immediate improvements. Improve our schools and you'll immediately attract more middle and upper class residents and slow population loss. Obviously, there are other factors which would help Philly's schools to improve, but wiht operating at 1/2 the funding, there is no way that Philly's schools can compete.
If Philly's schools can't compete - we will continue to lose population. We will not gain population. Efforts to modify business-oriented policies will be wasted.
http://www.pilcop.org/efq.mpl
(year 2004-2005, I don't know more updated stats)
So your argument is if only
So your argument is if only we can come up with four billion (as opposed to the present budget of 2.04 billion), we can stop population loss because then we’ll be able to compete with other schools (for the record, that’s approx $19,000 per year per student – the school district of Philadelphia has over 210,000 student, according to the website, I won’t even go into diminishing returns at this point). Everybody will see how great Philadelphia’s schools are, and forget about how dirty the city is, the disgusting and expensive Septa system, and of course, crime will be fixed overnight because all our delinquents will want to be in our great new schools studying. Our work is done!
Not to take away from schools, because they are clearly important, but I would argue that because many of the students live in substandard housing, have poor nutrition and/or abusive family situations, the problems lies not entirely with the school district, but also with the student population. Spend some of that money fixing up housing, putting affordable grocery stores with fresh produce in poor neighborhoods and for goodness sake, fix DHS, and schools will improve. Let’s not have tunnel vision about possible solutions.
Also, note many of the people moving back into cities (nation wide) are young professionals and empty nesters – arguably these folks do not choose to relocate based on local schools.
Here is what I'm saying
I'm responding to (1) the notion that we need to turn our focus away from education and training, and (2) focusing on education won't bring immediate results.
Further, what I'm saying is that increased funding for education will not only improve conditions for huge numbers already in our community, it will immediately help make the city more attractive to newcomers and provide incentive to those already here to stay. Without increased funding, our schools will not improve significantly, and will be completely unable to compete with schools in the surrounding areas in terms of attracting and holding residents.
I'm saying that I don't think focusing somehow (and how, by the way, is the City government supposed to make progress on this front?) on the percentages of single-parent families in the black community is a substitute for better funding of our schools. While I acknowledge the relevance of that issue, and agree that it is germain to the "state" of the black community, I question its priority RELATIVE TO FUNDING EDUCATION IN ALLEVIATING POVERTY.
Folks on this thread have been saying is that we need to have a better integrated city, both economically and racially. I totally agree. Neither of those things will happen if we don't have better schools. Our schools will not get better if we don't have better funding.
Let's be clear about what I'm not saying, also. I'm not saying that focusing on education is, in itself, a panacea. I'm not saying that increasing funding for our schools will magically improve the living conditions for all Philadelphians. I'm also not saying that increasing funding for education will be a panacea for improving the educational life of our students; yes, whether they go to school hungry or go back home to a ghetto life after school obviously affects their education.
However, better funding of our schools is a prerequisite to improving living conditions for the poor AND gaining or stablizing population We can change tax structures till the cows come home, but better schools are needed to improve the economic conditions of those chilren who are in lower income brackets. If our schools aren't better funded, families in middle or upper income brackets will not stay in the city or move into the city if they have children. I don't think it's sound planning to base economic growth around empty nesters and young couples who aren't planning on the basis of having children in the future.
Bottom line.
Dwight Evans Can Help...
If he stays in the State House. D.E., I think I can agree with you here about the need for additional school funding. Just remember that Dwight Evans is the chair of the State Appropriations Committee. He's in a better position than anyone to get Philadelphia schools the money they need. He can't do that running for mayor.
If our politicians work together, we can do it all. Philadelphia is potentially in the best position that it's ever been in. Dwight Evans, with a democratic majority in the state house, can direct a lot of state money Philadelphia's way. Congressmen Bob Brady and Chaka Fattah can do the same with federal dollars and a democratic majority in Congress. Fattah is a senior member of the Appropriation Committee as well.
A politician once told me that public officials could do a whole lot more good than they do... if no one cares who gets the credit.
The problem is that they do care who gets the credit, they fight to get the credit, and nothing gets done.
In closing, we CAN get the funding we need for schools; and we CAN stabilize the population with economic development. But these guys need to work together, not against each other. It may be good for their egos, but it is not good for Philadelphia.
I agree with you a lot on
I agree with you a lot on this. And since we know how politics work, Philly could easily say "we've been a backbone of democratic voting in a highly republican area, time to show your appreciation" and get the rest of the dems to agree to funding help in state and federal.
I really do think Brady, Fattah and Evans could do wonders for Philly with the power they have in their current posts.
Do you only read what you
Do you only read what you want to? Did I EVER say not to increase education? I said it takes time to realize the returns. THAT IS NOT ME SAYING TO NOT DO IT! I completely agree with everyone in the world the Philly schools need to be better.
But again, in case you missed it, it takes several years to realize the returns. If a kid can't read as a Junior, it is pretty likely, even with a better school system, he won't have a 12th grade reading level by the time he graduates.
Education takes time and if you have been left behind for 10 years, you can't catch them up in 2 years.
Once again
Adam,
It seemed to me that you were suggesting that we should shift priorities away from funding education and training when you contrasted that issue against the numbers of single-parent families in the black community.
And I disagree that better funding of education won't bring immediate dividends, I think it will. Increased funding will make schools (and pre-schools in particular) better immediately. Better schools will immediately help the city to attract and hold new residents, as well as immediately help those already here.
I'm not trying to overstate the effects of more funding for schools. It is not, in itself, a "solution." However, I see it as a pre-condition for making the City better at many levels.
BTW
I think this issue now officially qualifies as a dead horse.
No, I am not saying shift
No, I am not saying shift priorities. I am saying to have several priorities.
If Fattah or someone says "I have 1 billion dollars to help the poor" and their plan is to dump all $1 billion into education, I think it is extremely short sighted and not efficient. It sounds good on a campaign, but probably doesn't get the dividends expected from that amount of cash.
As many people pointed out, there are several factors involved with poverty. I believe you need a multi-pronged approach (yes some can have more weight than others) to truly solve a problem.
Making Philly Home again
How can we promote Population Gain if we can't even convince the people that are born and raise here to stay here. All that's going on in this city how can we convince people like me and you to continue to make this our home? I go over the stats and averages on cities all the time and Philly isn't on the the top 20 on any category(IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW ALREADY). Thank GOD that we aren't in the top stats as one of the most overweight cities anymore. We have failed and failed when it comes to attracting people to this city , even with the whole SPEND THE NIGHT IN CITY slogan Street tried to sell to us 2 years ago. What would be your plan on putting a better band aid on this open wound and work on better Public Relations for this city?
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog
Excellent point. First and
Excellent point. First and foremost, we have to realize that this is an uphill battle. But, one that must be fought. The list below contain only generalities due to the time constraints of work. But, I think you can get the point. Maybe I will post more about this later. But, remember, other cities have stopped population loss. In fact, the first Councilmatic district has actually grown in population here in Philly. It can be done.
First, I would adopt Councilman Kenney's Plan (or a variation of it) to attract New Philadelphians--legal immigrants. Immigration has played a major part of the resurgance of New York City, and, while we are not New York, Philadelphia has a strong regional economy to offer immigrants without the pricing of NYC. Immigrant groups will likely cluster, after all, that is what they do. In doing so, we have the opportunity to reinvigorate and repopulate communities. We have the abilitiy for new businesses and the ability to Market these new "little Italys" and "Chinatowns" to the outside world.
Second, urban villages. I would focus the marketing of Philadelphia on random communities, within the city. Seriously, Philadelphia is like a collection of villages and marketed the right way can be very appealing. I would love to expand on this a bit more, but some of the reasons people are moving back are for (1) convinence; (2) walkability; (3) community. We have these things, we are just not marketing them right. This ties in with the third.
Third, bedroom communities. Who says that only the Lower Merion (or places like it) can be a bedroom community. People are commuting between 45 minutes to an hour to get to work anyway. If we can offer them the things discussed above, reverse commuting makes sense. Fairmount Park is a great example of an asset that is underutilized due to (1) age and (2) certain perceptions related to safety.
Fourth, related to families, the number one concern is public education. Now, I went to public schools in Philly my whole life--and good ones. There is a perception out there that all Philly schools are failing when they are not. We need to push our state delegation to push the SRC to (1) make schools safe; (2) focus on more community based schools--particularly high schools; (3) expand magent schools in Philadelphia like Central, Masterman, CAPA, GAMP, Girls High, E&S, etc. These places work and have worked long before charter schools even opened; (4) (I said it before, but it needs repeating) schools must be safe--there is no other choice. If schools are safe, teachers can do their job, kids can learn without disruption, etc. This, admittedly, is the hardest part of the equation. And, something I am struggling with myself.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Related to Number 4 Above
Great post - related to #4 and one of the many qualities that I'm looking for in the next mayor - a positive attitude and optimism about our City's current state and future. For example, somebody who recognizes that the School District faces many management and fiscal challenges, but who also celebrates its many sucessful schools and students.
I too am supporting Mike Nutter for Mayor.
Thank you very much! It is
Thank you very much! It is not all doom and gloom out there--and, if we keep acting that way, we create the perception that it is.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
You always take it there...
Gaetano, I say this civilly, but why do you always refer to talk about poverty as gloom and doom?
It is a fact--quantifiable in 3 or 4 clicks--that 1 in 3 Philadelphians live below 200% of federal poverty guidelines. It is simply a fact.
Does that mean EVERY policy we discuss needs to address that? No. But Brady, whether he worded it clearly or not, was asking: how can we make sure reducing poverty directly and raising wages gets as much attention as less direct attempts to improve Philadelphia like property tax abatements, brain drain and more.
There has been an increase in new Center City residents and the city-wid