A Grand Bargain
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts is the Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, and one of the most liberal members of Congress. He has been pushing the idea of a “Grand Bargain” between labor and business that would have labor agree to more liberalized trade deals in exchange for business agreeing to instant card check elections which would make it much easier for unions to organize U.S. workers.
I doubt I support Frank’s Grand Bargain but it’s been getting me thinking about whether a similar one might be possible in Philadelphia. My interest in this idea leapfrogged today when I read the Daily News series of articles detailing the close connection between jobs and crime. We all know about this, of course, but a couple of things stood out in this report: the fact that, according to Ed Schwartz, more than 40% of the City’s budget deals with crime and its consequences, and that the Chamber of Commerce has some small apprentice programs for at risk youth. Now if funding was greatly expanded for those programs and the City could make a significant cut in expenditures for law enforcement, voila: a formula for cutting taxes!
The problem of course, is finding money for any such program. And this is where the Grand Bargain would come in. Let some of our political leaders open discussions with the Chamber, local and statewide, for a five year infusion of state funds into City job-training programs. Let there be a surtax on the state corporate net income tax to pay for it (or some other tax, but the Chamber would have the easiest time getting the CNI increased rather than any other tax.) Then after we’ve found useful employment for thousands of youth otherwise headed toward a disastrous future, and hopefully inspired their younger brothers and sisters to stay in school and prepare for their own futures, we will begin saving hundreds of millions of dollars in city expenditures annually. And then we can cut both the CNI and the BPT back significantly.
The Chamber has, of course, been pushing hard for a cut in the BPT. But it also knows that this City, and this area, is never going to be as attractive for business as it should be if CEO’s and workers alike are fearful whenever they leave the safe cocoons of their immediate work environment. And there will never be the supply of educated workers that is essential to making business thrive unless young people know that there is a career ladder that staying in school leads to. Business wants students to defer the instant gratifications that, at least for awhile, can be found on the streets, to stay in school. Perhaps it can defer the immediate gratification of business tax cuts to fund programs that would help create the long term win/win that would come from saving our at-risk youth.
This whole idea may sound silly and naive. But is it? And, if so, why? Why can’t the business community, which well understands the concept of pouring profits into long-term investment, pour some of its profits into an investment in our youth? What do people think?
Business perspective
I don't think the business community would be receptive to your plan. I think they would view it as: first, we'll raise your taxes, then once we solve the crime problem, we'll be able to afford to lower them lower than they are now. I don't think the business community would have adequate faith in the ability of any governmental program to solve the crime problem.
Which comes first? I think this is the key obstacle that we have in reaching a common understanding: the chronological order of things. (With some snarky simplification) you want to solve all the problems through governmental programs, and then lower taxes when all the problems are solved; I think that lowering taxes first would contribute to solving all the problems. This is not meant as an attack on you. It is an effort to help reach an understanding.
Businesses employ people primarily because it is in their own interest to employ people. I think we can make it in businesses' interest to employ at-risk members of our population and locate in stressed locations. One incentive is the promise of beneficial PR and advertising for participating in an internship program. Other incentives includes tax abatements, lowering the BPT across the city, tax credits for hiring ex-cons, and making the areas more attractive by lowering crime, improving schools, and training the workforce. I think these incentives could be effective, but I think they need to come first. I don't think promises of changes five-years out would be effective or well-received.
We both want to "create the long term win/win," we just differ on the most effective way to do so.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Two "progressive" communities here, no doubt
What Ray has been saying about the absence of a unified movement is exemplified by these two posts. There's not much use pretending otherwise. Some of us think that supporting business and its profit needs equals supporting the public interest (after all they hire the workers) and others of us think business has to be part of a social compact which includes imposing duties on them beyond earning a profit. And those of us who think the latter don't think business -- for the most part -- will voluntarily comply with such duties without state compulsion. These duties would include paying for things through taxes that promote the public good -- like schools, parks, libraries, recreation centers, job training programs, etc. and complying with operating standards, such as those relating to worker health and safety, environmental protection, and honest interaction with consumers -- that might reduce their bottom line. Because the bottom line of business, we would argue, is not the bottom line of society.
So when you say that the City should first do things such as make business areas "more attractive by lowering crime, improving schools, and training the workforce" and suggest that corporations should not only be immunized from paying for those things but get tax breaks for so doing, some of us think that would allow business to escape their social compact obligations. But you, and those who think like you, suggest that just by existing, business justifies itself and needs to contribute nothing more to society that doesn't immediately, through things like tax credits, improve profits.
That's a sharp divide, and to me it speaks to more than a tactical divide. Because if government has to get out of the way of business on taxes, it really has to get out of the way on the range of other issues discussed above which might also have an impact on the business bottom line. And if we must shrink from regulating business practices dealing with those issues, then we will live in a very different world than if we don't.
So there's really quite a gulf between some of us on this blog on how we think the world ought to turn.
Why the gross misrepresentations?
This just so grossly misrepresents anything I have ever posted or believe. I do not think "corporations should not only be immunized from paying for those things." I think they should pay taxes. I think that "Taxes can and should be used to discourage or encourage certain industries or behavior," as a tool to promote "the long term win/win."
I don't disagree with this. Companies have a duty to comply with many socially beneficial laws (e.g., anti-discrimination laws, workplace safety laws, etc.). But you have to recognize that there are limits to the power to impose these duties, and limits to the effectiveness to try. There is no power to force companies to start to operate or to continue to operate in Philadelphia, or to stop them from leaving. The power to tell them who to hire is limited, and I think that trying to force anyone to do something is less effective than making it in their interest to do so.
Nobody is arguing that the bottom line of business is the bottom line of society, but it is stupid to argue that what is good for business is bad for society. I have argued for tax cuts on this site several times. Every time I argued that reducing tax rates would be good for society. I have repeatedly argued that one reason to reduce tax rates is to collect more taxes. I am arguing in the interest of society, not a hidden pro- or anti- corporate agenda. I have never argued for tax cuts because it would be good for business. (I am not arguing in narrow self-interest; I do not pay BPT taxes.)
Your entire post was about how beneficial jobs can be to fight crime (and I would presume poverty). That's what I've been arguing all along. I just want to do it the simplest way, instead of taking the money to hire people from business, filter it through a bureaucracy, and then give it back to business to hire fewer people than they could in the first place.
What are you even saying? Slippery slope much?
It really undermines your side of the divide if you can't argue its merits without such gross misrepresentations, imaginary strawmen corporate libertarians, and the like.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
It still seems to me
that you have a pretty strong, and, in my view, excessive, faith in markets as the prime mover of social progress. After all, you did say "I think that lowering taxes first would contribute to solving *all* the problems." (my emphasis) Furthermore, while you indicate above that you support regulation of business to some extent, you also express concern about the effectiveness of doing so, compared to the effectiveness of inducing them to act responsibly.
I accept that you put forward these ideas not out of narrow self-interest, but out of belief in their beneficial impact for society. But nevertheless, it's a different approach, one which raises the question of just how much society can afford to pay business to induce them to do what is ultimately in everyone's self-interest. Corporations are chartered by the state; their owners' receive the privilege of limited liability because they are supposed to operate in the interest of the public. They obviously have the right to make a profit. But they shouldn't demand the right, based upon their naked power to go and do what they want regardless of the impact on society, to extract additional profit just for doing the right thing.
They shouldn't pollute the environment, they shouldn't charge outrageous interest rates, they shouldn't disregard the health and safety of their workers, they shouldn't sell dangerous products, and they shouldn't demand lower taxes than regular people pay, just because they can. And yes, if you concede that we must lower their tax rates for reasons other than tax justice, then it is hard to argue that we must require them to abide by any other social obligations because from these too they may flee. That is a slippery slope that all too many public officials have slid down.
And, paranthetically, this idea that we must serve profits first, allows politicians to accept massive sums from the owners of big business, and do what those businesses want, all in the name of an articulated public interest which millions of us have been conditioned -- by those very same corporate leaders -- to believe is Unamerican to dispute. And that stifles democracy.
So where one proposes to draw the line in regulating or not regulating does is an important philosophical question: is the greater danger governmental power over corporations, or corporate power over government? I know which side of that divide I'm on, and I suspect you're on the other. And that's all right. This difference is heartfelt and sincere. But there's no reason to deny it.
Sticking Up For Aardhart
First, scroll down for my comments on Stan's plan itself, which I think is a good one (although he might not recognize all my amendments as friendly).
Stan, is there anything that Aardhart said in his original post (besides his belief that lowering taxes first is a better strategy than raising taxes until crime stops being so expensive for the city) that you think isn't true? You asked if businesses would see delaying cuts in the BPT and accepting a tax raise for crime and jobs programs as a good investment. You tacked on an asterisk, wondering if your plan was "silly and naive." Aardhart basically said yes, I think this is a little naive, gave you all the reasons why he thought businesses would see it as a bad bargain, and offered a list of other ways that businesses might be induced to do the things you'd like them to do. You might not like those proposals. But do you think his analysis is wrong?
I don't even see much that's prescriptive in his original post -- it just seems to be very honest about what motivates business decisions. Sadly, as you've pointed out, the best decisions for business don't often correspond with the best decisions for the city, and far too many businesses depend on civic failures for profits. But you shouldn't fault Aardhart for telling you that business people don't act how we'd always like them to (which you know full well).
If you don't mind the armchair psychoanalysis, my guess is that your real feelings are that you don't like most businesses and don't trust them, that you think they need to fulfill a certain amount of their civic duties whether they like them or not, and that you'd rather die than cut taxes if you think any of that lost revenue from busineses could be used to help someone less fortunate. It doesn't matter to you if businesses wouldn't like your plan. You think they should like it -- after all, you think this way -- but the fact that they don't just reproves that the whole business of acting under the profit motive is morally suspect.
So if business people like your plan, great -- they agree with you. And if they don't, they're selfish thieves. Heads I win, tails you lose.
But this is speculation. The only thing I think is truly disingenuous about your proposal is the idea that the BPT would be cut sometime down the road, and that businesses should see this as a good deal. You don't want to cut taxes for businesses, and you don't care what businesses think about that.
And that's all right. But there's no reason to deny it.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
You don't need to psychoanalyze me
I believe, minus some of your literary license, what you say I believe. Your literary license comes in when you suggest that I'd prefer my own demise than have certain things occur; no I plan to stay around and fight for what I believe. And I don't think acting for profits is wrong, but I do believe that when the profit motive becomes the overarching first principle of a society, as it has to a a great extent in ours, it debases and divides it. The profit motive also doesn't result in the most efficient way of providing people's essential needs. Just look at the mess that the profit-driven health care system has become.
Furthermore, I didn't fault Aardhart for telling me "that business people don't act how we'd always like them to." That's actually obvious to all of us. In fact, I don't think I faulted him for anything, I just noted we have a different perspective.
Finally, on my plan; I wish it weren't naive, but I fear the business leadership will repond to it as Aardhart has. And that's too bad. They're not selfish thieves; they, and Aardhart, believe that their model of the world serves all of us while it also serves them. But I put the post up hoping that we could find some formula that might be persuasive to the powers that be that would tempt them to try something a little different. Payment of taxes, is, for all of us, individuals and business alike, an investment in democracy. It should not be viewed, as it is in popular imagination, a loathful thing to be avoided at all costs. If you want a Cadillac, you have to pay for it, if you want a Cadillac society, you have to pay for that as well. Having a peaceful, prosperous, well clothed, housed, and medically cared for population is good for all of us, including business. Some part of making that happen depends on what we all do collectively, through government. That government, of course, has to itself be clean and well run. But it is better than business in providing essentials in a fair and nondiscriminatory way, because that is its constitutional obligation. So we need to have robust government, well funded, at least until some of the awful divides between us become far less sharp and embedded. And I would still like to think that there's an enlightened element of the business community that agrees with that.
Amendment Is Friendly
My own fault for going for the easy cliche rather than opting for a richer image. This point is well taken.
Your post asked for a new grand bargain between businesses and the city. Under the current plan, businesses act just like you say they should act: they pay taxes (at a higher rate than wageearners, and higher than they would pay anywhere else in the country) to support government programs, some of which they benefit from, some of which they don't. The city then is responsible to reduce crime, pick up the trash, educate the children, etc. Under the new bargain, they would pay higher taxes, and take a greater involvement in city programs, in exchange for... some tax cuts in the indefinite future, and less tangible benefits in the form of greater worker education. All of the costs are definite, all of the benefits uncertain. Note too that this is exactly the opposite of your example of a student investing in his/her education: the benefits of street life are highly uncertain, the benefits of education definite and calculable (even if kids don't often see it that way). And as for education and crime reduction, that's what the city is supposed to do. The city may need more money to do that, but there are other ways besides an additional tax on business profits. And a lot of businesses already pay off cops to keep their businesses safe and problem kids away. Why wouldn't they just continue to cut out the middleman?
My sense from Aardhart's initial post -- which again, I think can be read as less antagonistic to your original post than you took it -- is that businesses are just like government services: if you want something from them, you have to pay for it. You can't promise to repay them at some indefinite point in the future when those revenues begin to show fruit. If you (as Dan U-A suggests below) tie specific tax cuts to the creation of specific programs to which businesses are expected to contribute in a different way, then you're much more likely to have something that really does mutually benefit everyone.
And very, very few of us are arguing that businesses just shouldn't have to pay taxes. It's a matter of how those taxes are structured. I think a business tax cut makes at least as much sense in itself as new sports stadiums, convention centers, and other outlays from the top that indirectly bring in revenue and improve the image, quality of life, and availability of goods in the city. That, and not any supply-side taxation principle, is (along with the whole fairness thing with gross receipts) make the best argument for reducing the BPT on its face. And I, at least, would strongly argue (and have argued) for an increase in property taxes to make up any revenue loss a reduction to the BPT would pose. (I've also argued that maybe we need to rethink cutting the gross receipts tax altogether, but either everyone is tired of the issue by now or nobody has paid any attention.)
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Banging pots outside city hall, hmm, not a bad idea
But more productively, perhaps, we can try to refine my proposal. You say, in essence, that the benefits to business of what I propose are too uncertain, while the tax increases (temporary ones) too certain. Well, that's what business is about isn't it, taking calculated risks? And in this case, the relationship between education, jobs and reduced crime is pretty clear. So I think this would be a good calculated risk. But to reduce uncertainty, why don't we make the statewide tax increase (which is the only one I'm proposing) fixed for a period of five years. Then it will expire. Hopefully by then the psychology of the City, and of the portion of its residents who now feel hopeless, will have been reversed. Then, if crime actually starts heading south, as it seems it might reasonably do, we can begin to reduce the tax load on Philadelphia citizens and business. My preference would be business tax cuts targeted toward small, neighborhood businesses rather than big ones that are doing fine, thank you very much. And I would like to fully implement the wage tax cut for the working poor that is now in virtual limbo due to budget pressures. But all of that could be negotiated. The major thing is, if we can get the crime rate down significantly, we can save tens of millions of dollars which we can then use to spur the economy of the City. Isn't that a risk worth taking?
The point is...
that it doesn't matter whether we think the big companies are doing fine but whether they feel like they are doing fine. If they feel that there is enough positive gains to move them out of Philadelphia then they will move. I know someone has said this before, but I think it should be reiterated, taxes are not the only determining factor for where companies choose to do business. Look at New York, they have higher taxes then Philadelphia but obviously companies feel like it is worth it for them to pay for those benefits. The large law firms that enjoy the prestige and credibility that having a center city firm provides are willing to pay a higher tax rate to be able to take advantage of that. A internet firm that has no need for center city but would prefer to locate there could be dissuaded by the tax rate. They are not looking at it as not paying their fair share, I am sure they feel like they do.
One more time, I'm looking for a compact to reduce taxes
Again, I think relative to the rest of the state, Philadelphians pay too much in taxes, both individuals and businesses. But we need to solve the problems that cause these extraordinarily high rates. So let's all get together, find the money to do that, with the business community in the lead, and then share the benefits through lower taxes.
What's Clear and Unclear
The relationship between education, jobs, and reduced crime is clear -- the relationship between the programs you're proposing and those things is not. The city and the state have tried lots of programs, some with success and some with spectacular failure, so we should all be skeptical about getting out exactly what we put in. And in general, I think it's a bad idea to start up an educational or anti-poverty program hoping to eventually save a little money.
Nor does crime reduction necessarily lead to a reduction in the crime budget, which is where the tax cuts would ultimately come from. New York City has seen crime rates go way, way down -- but I doubt they are cutting back their crimefighting budget any time soon. "The city's doing great! Let's cut some poverty programs and fire some police officers!" Not going to happen, nor should it.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
That's why Fattah's plan makes sense
Because the City should take some time to figure out what programs make sense. And that's what he wants to do. As for me, I didn't actually propose any specific programs. But I do assume that bright minds can figure something out. And if we figure something out, the savings wouldn't come only from firing cops. There are any number of social service programs that could be cut if kids stayed in school, got jobs and built families.
Ya gotta have hope (combined with a little planning, intelligence, commitment and hard work.) And then you have to invest some resources in making what we might call "smart" hope, reality.
Too much of a good thing
I don't think anyone is arguing that people and businesses shouldn't pay both a fair and healthy share of taxes, but it seems to me that one of the principle issues here is what constitutes fair and healthy.
Taxes and government revenue are not part of a giant zero-sum game. Government policies can influence and help to create jobs and wealth. Taxes can influence, positively or negatively, the choices of citizens. There are positive and negative externalities that these taxes and policies can create. The unemployment in France is somewhere around 15%. They have very high taxes but also have very generous social services. Once you are hired, it is very difficult to get fired, which means people have job stability but that companies are loathe to hire people. It was meant to protect people from corporate greed and lay-offs, but it is just another form of exclusionary policy. The haves keep their jobs and the have-nots never get hired. So tax policy isn't only about revenue and profits. There are very real consequences.
This leads to other reality that people need to face. People and companies have choices. They can choose where to work, where to live, where to locate their company. Cigna has moved half their jobs out of the city because of other locales more attractive tax policy. That is a huge loss to Philadelphia that a lower rate would have avoided. Which would we rather have, less money from Cigna or no money? We must have an attractive business environment to not only lure companies but keep the ones we have.
Again, I'm suggesting a way to lower, not increase, taxes
If we can invest the money we need to reduce the horrible levels of poverty and crime in this city, taxes will go down. That's what I want to do.
I agree with you that "[g]overnment policies can influence and help to create jobs and wealth." One way they can do this is to get its people ready to hold productive jobs. If the Commonwealth would invest in making that happen, we would have productive citizens contributing to, not taking away from, society. And taxes will go down.
The Gulf Isn't As Big As You Think
I think it's a really good idea, Stan. Aardhart is right that a lot of people in the business community wouldn't be receptive to it, but I don't really see what they could do about it -- worse than having to pay the tax would be the negative PR they'd get with any public fight, especially if the dollars were specifically earmarked for education. (I've often thought that if the city were to raise taxes on commercial property, the best way to do it would be to tie nearly all of it to the school fund.)
But keeping your business-as-social-stakeholder idea in mind, it would be a good idea to invite the businesses in themselves to design some of these programs. The people who run Philadelphia businesses have to have some ideas about solving the problems of the city, what kinds of knowledge and skills they wished more Philadelphians had, actions they would take to reduce crime, delinquency, quality-of-life problems, etc. Businesses adopt highways -- why couldn't Comcast adopt a middle school? I think the more businesses feel like they have some control over how the programs are being implemented, the less they would feel like they're throwing good money after bad, and the more likely they would be to engage with the city's future workforce rather than seeing them as a nuisance. A lot of businesses in the city already do these things, and they should be recognized and rewarded. (Psst -- they could also push for state and federal matching funds and private donations to help these programs.)
I think Aardhart's principal objection, and which I would agree with, is to your proposal that we wait for the results of these programs to be felt to continue any further cuts to the BPT. For one thing, BPT revenues themselves have increased by over $100 million just in the past three or four years, despite gradual cuts. The only other revenue stream that has increased as dramatically have been collections from the wage tax and (until recently) property transfer taxes. (An aside: Despite skyrocketing rents and home prices, property tax revenue has been stagnant. It isn't all lost in abatements. I think this should be an absolute scandal. It might be easier to tax net profits, but I would be happiest if there was a way to tie this to property values in some way. It would also create a virtuous circle -- as property values go up, so do revenues.)
Meanwhile, a good deal of our costs fighting crime are fixed, in the form of institutions, equipment, career hires, and other sunk costs. In fact, in the near future, they will (and should) increase, since we need more police officers, more attorneys and staffers at the DA's office, more people working to mainstream ex-convicts and parolees into civilian life, and the technology we need to make our police force as sophisticated as New York's. (Okay, I'll settle for one/eighth as sophisticated.) So that part of the budget won't decline for the next twenty years, if ever. I think the more important issue raised by the newspaper article is that we need to pay attention to how this money is being spent, and do everything we can to solve these problems, which are truly more important than money.
So tying cuts to the BPT to the end of poverty, crime, and unemployment in Philadelphia (or even the end of the poverty, crime and unemployment spending in Philadelphia) amounts to sinking cuts altogether. I think what you have instead is a sound plan for another way to tax businesses that replaces the potential revenue lost by cuts to the BPT. In fact, this sort of thing is right up Fattah's alley: cut one tax, create another revenue stream, tie it to particular programs, and make everyone feel like a winner (while no one notices that on the whole they might even be paying more for it).
The Chamber of Commerce could claim victory, since the BPT would continue to be reduced. The city treasurer could claim victory, since there wouldn't be the looming threat of revenue loss. The mayor, council, and CDCs could claim victory for all the new programs created and success stories to spotlight. Businesses could wear shit-eating grins a mile-wide, watching their property values go up, getting fantastic press, and feeling like Hollywood stars feel whenever they think they're helping someone.
And who knows? It might actually even help some people.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Promoting this. I havent
Promoting this. I havent thought through this specific idea. But...
The idea of some sort of compact is a good one. I mean- I have been pretty clear in what I think about just cutting the BPT. But, I also do acknowledge that the Philly Chamber of Commerce is not the national chamber (easily one of the most regressive interest groups in the Country, bar none.). They have sponsored some important things, like IssuesPa, if I am not mistaken. (I also don't think they represent most Philly small businesses, but that is another matter.)
Anyway, my point is only to say, some sort of compact, bargain, whatever, is an interesting concept to think about.
Fanastic
And maybe this is where the two "camps" can meet up; the problem with taxes in Philadelphia isn't so much that you have to pay them and they're high, but that the folks who pay the most in taxes feel like they receive so little in direct (as opposed to indirect) benefit. To the extent we can connect specific revenues to specific programs with particular outcomes, we’ll be able to convince people of the “value proposition” that their tax dollar yields.
In terms of a “bargain”, I’d like to see the Chamber of Commerce and other groups recognizing local businesses to come together and pledge to qualitative and quantitative job creation goals in return for business and wage tax reductions.
And maybe this is where the
I 100 percent agree.
This is a great post. I am
This is a great post. I am not so sure about the specific proposal, but I love the idea of organizing members of the business community to reduce crime and poverty.
---
http://benwaxman.com
I disagree
I disagree. The problem are the taxes are too high, taxes are lower outside the city, and it is easy for many businesses to move. Yes, if there were enough other advantages to doing business in the city (there already are significant ones) as opposed to being just outside the city that's fine. But as Jules said in Pulp Fiction, "Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charmin' motherfuckin' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?"
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
It's the Taxes. Don't raise them.
I think that businesses can be persuaded to do things that help reduce crime and poverty. They already are doing something.
Raising taxes can not be part of any bargain that businesses will be a part of, nor can it be part of any plan that will create more jobs in the city. Looking at the Next Mayor page with the Daily News special on Jobs reinforces this belief. Read the rant in the lower right of that page. This story in the Inky also blames taxes for lack of jobs in the city compared to the region.
I am not opposed to the concept of taxes or opposed to businesses paying them. But we have to recognize that the excessive taxes in this city are a problem on their own, and contribute to a lot of other problems. Excessive taxes are a problem, and raising them won't help matters (jobs, crime, poverty, etc.).
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Nowhere in my post did I propose raising city taxes
I suggested the Chamber help pass a statewide surtax of limited duration to fund programs in Philly that would ultimately allow lower taxes here, with benefits that would be shared statewide (since, as we all agree, I think, a healthy Philadelphia benefits the whole state.)
Oh, Wow.
I think it would be great if the state legislature would pass a dedicated statewide tax to pour money into job and education programs in Philadelphia. But I don't think it would ever happen. And if they did, the state would want close control over it -- which means it would in all likelihood be ham-handed, ill-informed, and designed to advance agendas statewide, rather than redress city problems.
Stan, your oft-disenchanted but never-extinguished idealism is the most beautiful strain I've seen in a long time.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.