- Pennsylvania Among 'Terrible 10' Most Regressive Tax States
- February 4 Non-Partisan Training: HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013: HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Republican Governors Opt-In to Medicaid Expansion
- The Reports of Unions' Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
- Ask Allyson Schwartz to run for Governor
- Mind the gap: Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion Leaves Low-income Families Behind
- Jan. 14 Workshop:HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013; HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Seth Williams on Guns, Jasmine Rivera on School Closures @PFC Meetup Wednesday
- PA Revenue Strong Midway Through Year; Tax Cut Could Have Big Impact
- What to Make of the Fiscal Cliff Deal?
Nutter should get credit where credit's due
Submitted by D.E. II on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 10:31pm.
If I'm not mistaken, there has been more unanimity at YPP around the issue of libraries closing than any single other issue since I've been logging on. In fact, I don't believe that I've seen one comment in support of the library branches closing.
To unify this, uh, opinionated, group takes some doing, and I think that Mayor Nutter deserves all the credit.
Haha.
Well said.
I must admit, I probably maintained my ambivalence over the issue longer than anyone else (I am of course now of the popular - and correct - opinion). I would like to think this stemmed from a sort of cognitive dissonance, and a lack of historical knowledge; having not been familiar with Nutter's "vindictive" and stubborn persona on Council, I was liable to give him and the administration the benefit of doubt.
---
- All politics is local.
Let’s be fair to Nutter
Let’s be fair to Nutter. Yes, he has disappointed many of us with the library closures, but violent crime is down and the 311 system appears to be working well.
Let’s be fair to Nutter
Let’s be fair to Nutter. Yes, he has disappointed many of us with the library closures, but violent crime is down and the 311 system appears to be working well.
Karen,
I think the library closures is a significant failure at many levels - not just because library branches may be closed, but because of how the policy was developed, justified, and presented to the public. In numerous ways, it speaks very poorly of fundamental aspects of Nutter's performance as mayor.
I have been similarly disappointed with how he has handled the casinos to Market East policy. Not just the goals of the policy itself, but fundamental aspects of how the policy has been developed and presented.
That doesn't mean, however, that I think he's been a complete failure in all respects. But honestly, I don't know much about how else to evaluate his performance. I am open to hearing more.
Sam posted the other day about successful costs savings that have occurred under Nutter's direction - but I haven't seen much by way of details on that.
I was thinking the other day about a major problem I had with his candidacy: his unequivocal support for a Stop-and-Frisk policy -- I was thinking about how shootings are down from the previous year. But what I haven't heard much about is whether the reduction in shootings is due to policies developed and implemented by his administration. To my knowledge, Stop-and-Frisk, such as it is, doesn't seem to have been implemented. Does that mean that the policy was basically campaign propaganda to cull a law-and-order vote? Has the policy been implemented in a modified form? Am I wrong, and in fact the policy has been implemented? Has the reduction in violence been tied to other influencing factors? Are other metrics of crime, or violent crime other than shootings down also?
As for the 311 implementation - given that the 311 program was well on it's way before Nutter took office, to what extent does he deserve credit there?
I admit to being skeptical about Nutter from the very start - but I do want to give him a fair shake. It may be early to judge - but outside of the library fiasco and the Market East policy, oth of which are deeply troubling to me at many levels, how would you make a more detailed case in support of his administration thus far?
Re: Nutter's performance
Not exactly a hard-hitting investigative piece - but here's an article on perceptions of Nutter's one-year performance:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090108_Year_dampens_Nutter_crowd_s_e...
Karen x 2
Karen, you said almost exactly the same thing about how we're all only upset about libraries last week. And I replied here. It bears repeating:
Ray, I realize that many
Ray,
I realize that many progressives are upset about more than just the libraries.
I agree with your point that Mayor Nutter should hold “town halls BEFORE he makes cuts.”
About taxes: Maybe you are right that this is what needs to be done. My guess is most people who contribute to YPP would be willing to pay more taxes to protect vital city services. And yes, a lot of people could afford to pay more.
But nobody is forced to live here and I worry that a tax increase would lead to further middle class flight and thus further erosion of the tax base.
311
D.E. II,
It’s my understanding that the 311 program was in not "well on its way" before the Nutter administration. A 311 system had been considered and then rejected by the last administration. I believe the planning for this system was started after Mayor Nutter took office.
311 is Nutter's baby
and its barely up and running yet. Thats part of the tragedy of the rush to judgement on non-reversable library closings. The other half of 311/Phillystat, the measuring and tracking of how individual city departments are performing and in some cases not performing over time could give a lot of more educated input about where to "right-size" the deployment of city services, since the economy does likely dictate we will have to do a considerable bit of that (as well as looking at revenue sources, like possibly commercial real estate taxes, fees and fines, differently).
Nutter also had big plans to boost graduation rates and build up our workforce, library and CCP cuts are probably not the first, best place to look if that is really your goal. There is also the giant bear of reforming L&I and permitting, making it dramatically more user friendly, which could conceivably drive up revenue as people actually pull more easy-to-get permits while making Philly a better place to do business and make jobs. That stuff can't happen soon enough and the library fight is shocking more because its a waste of political capital more than anything else.
On a related note please see my post about our shockingly high adult illiteracy rates. Is it possible that jobs and people move away from large numbers of illiterate and largely unemployable neighbors (and resulting crime rates) as much as away from high taxes? Something to consider.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
311
Try 311forphilly.com to see the length of time this has been envisioned for our city.
City Councilman Jim Kenney
311 For Philly
Welcome back Councilman!
Councilman Kenney! It's been too long. And we all have so much to ask you!
I have not been gone
just not posting. When I post, it seems to attract the anonymous folks who like to bash and such. So, I decided to follow the threads, but not participate.
I general, we are facing along with every major city in the country and the rest of the world, one of the most devastating economic meltdowns in history. I really think that folks do not quite grasp that.
I liken it to the hard times of the 1930's and the sacrifices that people had to make during WW2.
We are currently involved in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the national loss of 500,000 jobs. Unemployment at 7% creeping towards 10% nationally. Much more here in Philadelphia.
Companies, when facing such calamities,lay off workers. England has laid off 600,000 government workers already!
I think that the mayor has acted in a sensitive and responsible manner. He is not trying to shut down the entire library system. He,I believe, has proposed a thoughtful approach to consolidate library services, among other city services, so that the entire system may be strengthend while saving the $40 million he needs to save over five years. Still maitaining more libraries per capita than NYC.
I know that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but the mayor is the only one burdened with the dificult task of keeping this city solvent. I feel that in these severe economic times we all have a responsibility to accept the hard facts and decisions that accompany them and rather than complaining or obstructing, help
Ask not what Philadelphia can do for you. Ask what you can do for Philadelphia. Seems trite after all these years, but it's true.
Accepting our situation now with fortitude will allow us all to benefit together in the future.
City Councilman Jim Kenney
311 For Philly
Jim, I have many questions.
Jim, I have many questions. Let's start with one. Will you be introducing a resolution to close libraries?
No.
There is no need to. Judge Fox was wrong on the law that resulted in her ruling.
A city code never trumps the city charter. The section of the code upon which she based her ruling,was challenged. Because an agreement was reached before a higher court ruled, the issue has not been decided.
It will be decded shortly by the PA Commonwealth Court. I believe that that court will rule in favor of the mayor. He will then be able to carry out his and the library officials' plans.
In the interim, the entire system will feel the effects of the current court ruling by system wide closings of 3 or 4 days.
City Councilman Jim Kenney
311 For Philly
Thats one legal view
Or as Marc Stier pointed out that the language asserting mayoral budget authority is so vague that the statute stands. And the mayor will have wasted a big chunk of tax payers money to definitively prove he doesn't have the authority to do what he shouldn't be wasting poltical capital to do anyway.
The way the rolling closings were done, randomly so as to annoy as many people as possible, is a remarkably immature act of political theater and will back fire. People will not as the Mayor and Reardon hopes become more resentful of the 11 libraries slated for closing. They will become resentful of the pettiness and/or incompetance of failing to implement systemwide reduced hours in a more orderly way.
Councilman, you are friends with the Mayor. This is profoundly dumb politics, making Nutter and supporters on the library issue look vindictive. Its not strong, coalition-building politics.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
My library was opened in 1919
It was donated by the Andrew Carnegie Foundation to the city on the strict condition that it remain a library "for ever" according the giant 6 foot tall plaque visible when you walk in the door. Previous mayors managed to keep it open and serving the people of Kingsessing right through the Great Depression which hyperbole aside, was much, much worse than our current crisis.
Here's a Philly breadline from the 1930's.
And one of Philadelphians gathering looking for work.
There were great camps of homeless men so called "Hoover-villes" on the banks of the Schuykill River in the 1930's.
My library is has better circulation numbers than 12 other libraries and better turnstile numbers than 28 other numbers. Its circulation has more than doubled in two years.
You will have to pardon me for taking the strongest possible exception to the statement below.
Also any comments at all on this map, Councilman?
Children in Poverty, Library closings
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Not to mention...
...that we're talking about a lousy $2-$4 million extra to unlayoff staff until May 30th at the end of this budget year. And a total of what $40 million over 5 years to keep 11 branches open? In a $4 billion/year budget.
And I do get the enormity of the global fiscal crisis, but I do NOT understand the scope in Philly. Remember how the Mayor reported that the mid-budget year crisis was the result of a possible $450 million deficit? Than he said it was a $650 million to $850 million deficit? Than $1 billion? And then remember how Rob Dubow said there was a $40 m surplus?
See why I am confused?
Try
a $1.5-$1.8 billion hole in the five year plan. Creeping quite close half our annual budget.
We cannot deficit spend. Unless we make serious strides to close this gap over five years, our bond rating will tank. This will make our fiscal situation worse.
By the way, 2009 will be the year of employee contract negotiations thus further complicating our position.
City Councilman Jim Kenney
311 For Philly
OK
I would shut down the City Commissioner's office and most of the row offices and reopen with civil service only staff. That should shave off a couple million a year, maybe as much as 10.
I would close business tax looopholes.
I would bargain with the Guv to recover at least some of the court costs.
I'd implement fees on large non-profits like Penn.
I would give up the wage tax reduction from the state from casino revenues. Read the law--plenty of ways to do this legally.
I would implement a graduated wage tax via a universal exemption and defend it in state supreme court.
And probably the most logical, I would add a property tax exemption, raise the rate and reassess.
To be clear, aside from whatever waste I could find in the line-item budget, in a time of recession I would spend as much as I could and avoid cuts. That's the only way we'll get out of this crisis alive. So I would figure out to equitably raise as much money as I could to invest in education, job training, new business, better services and as much more as I could afford.
Listen.
There is no money.
This is as bad as the 1930's. In some ways worse. The worst is yet to come over the next year,at least.
An insolvent city is incapable of providing library services, putting out fires or collecting trash.
Two-thirds of our municipal budget are mandates or state and federal pass throughs. Only a third of our budget is changeable. Sadly services like libraries are part of that third.
This is not fun stuff. What would you cut and who would you lay off?
City Councilman Jim Kenney
311 For Philly
I can't answer that
Without seeing budget projections for 09-10 or without seeing the budget line-by-line with mentions of which federal and state matching is planned. Perhaps my Google skills are rusty, but are any of those public documents posted online? And has the Controller or PICA or anyone else released figures on 09-10 budget projections?
Are you dismissing Dubow's sworn testimony re: a budget surpuls in court completely or just saying that it is inaccurate?
Oh and on 311
Let's also just call a spade a spade. The 311 operations is relying on what--50 staff or so? Didn't about 30-40 of them come right from the pool of DC 33 workers laid off from libraries?
In other words, reduced service at branches due to supposed staff shortages is the direct result of 311 right? I mean that is a choice that got made right? Hey, maybe 311 is the service most Philadelphians prefer, but it seems important to call like it really is.
311
is not simply a service. It is a management tool that creates pools of data that allows the city to manage resources.
The ordering of supplies, the coordination of on street and office workforce,the discovery of trends in the data that allows a better coordination and delivery of services, is what 311 is really about.
In the end, it is about saving money that can be used to enhance other services or tax reductions.
City Councilman Jim Kenney
311 For Philly
Well I wouldn't close 20% of our branch libraries
And only have have a 10% reduction for mayoral staff and an only suggested 10% reduction for City Council staff to be brutally honest. But I agree the best answers will come when all the numbers for every department, for every individual branch library are public and on the table. The Mayor has not supplied those numbers yet.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
You may think
that $40 million is alot. Trust me, it is nothing to spend down on. Could be gone quickly on an unanticipated payment to the pension fund because of market under performance or one or two major snow enents.
If you want a copy of our current budget, call the office and ask for Sarah. If you intend to go through it line-by-line yourself, talk to you in a couple of months.
City Councilman Jim Kenney
311 For Philly
I believe that is exactly what everyone is asking for
But that instead of you giving me individually a copy for me to go over that the whole thing be public in City Council hearings and that instances where to a whole lot of us it looks like some of choices made were arbitrary or hasty and short-sighted get hammered out publicly - at least in instances of permanent, likely unalterable closings to neighborhood centers for literacy, learning, LEAP and public internet access. Some cuts can be restored when the economy recovers, permanent closings can not.
Also $40 million is approximately 10 times what many are saying keeping all 11 branches open as facilities operated by trained librarians who have already checked and cleared as not being pedaphiles, BTW.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Councilman Kenney, isn't there a positive opening
that Judge Fox's ruling allows:
The library's revision plan could be reviewed and revised by Council. It seems to have been made initially will little public input.
Within the same economic framework that Siobhan Reardon and the Free Library staff worked to make the initial plan, couldn't Council review and possibly make some alternative suggestions, perhaps some that would alleviate problems that some of the community groups have pointed out?
That doesn't mean that closures wouldn't happen.
That doesn't mean that some of the same plans wouldn't, in the end, be what Council comes up with.
But it does mean that citizens who have now shown that libraries are a part of their community that they're willing to defend would get more of a hearing.
Sam's right
Some closings may be unavoidable in the end, but the public at least deserves the chance to have input and help make sure they are the right ones, that hastily made decisions can at least be ammeliorated in the fairest possible way before we rush into permanent solutions to temporary problems. Its wrong to look at it as an all-or-nothing proposition. A more open process may mean we still have to live with some cuts, but the people in Philly's neighborhoods at least deserve a better process.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
False Choices and Weak Leadership
No one is saying we should not look at the libraries or everywhere else for savings. They are questioning the means to the end goal of savings. The posts by Councilman Kenney seem to indicate that he really misses the point. There is a law on the books. The Mayor and his solicitor (who serves at his pleasure) can't declare a law a violation of the Charter. Only a court can. Following the law requires the Mayor to go to court to get a law declared invalid. The Mayor did not do that. Were I a councilman, I would want to defend the rights of council to legislate on matters like this.
The problem is Council likes being able to say "there is nothing we can do" (Verna). It takes them off the hook. They don't have to work. Why don't you introduce the bill to close the libraries in question as the law requires rather than whining. Is it because you don't want it to be your fault, would that be too much work?? You are defending it, be a man and step up.
We need libraries, so more people will read some finance books!
1)Council didn't approve the library closures.
2)Do we still have a fiscal year surplus? Check the date of your information. Not.
3)The literacy rate in Philly is bad - but the rate is even worse in terms of financial literacy.
4)Invest in economic growth. Now. Don't raise wage and business taxes.
5) We don't know what next year's deficit will be - we haven't hit the recession bottom yet... nor have we employed new stimulus measures.
6) Does the Controller really need an invitation to weigh in with independent analysis on city finances... during his re-election campaign? :)
7) CCP is still getting more money than in previous years... but we could add even more with a creative focus on new job training thru CCP.
8) We should get more CDBG and Housing Trust Fund dollars under the Obama administration for new units of affordable housing, but a reform in the local real estate abatement program can also create new resources.
9) We still need to negotiate a new SEPTA lease ... the 1968ish agreement has EXPIRED.
P.S. - I've cut my staff budget by 23% in 2009.
WWGjr
As of Dubow's testimony in
As of Dubow's testimony in Court, we have a small surplus.
If you are asking if we have one for this specific fiscal year alone, no, we don't. And we didn't have one for a single year of Michael Nutter's original proposed budget, either.
Can't Dubow or Agostini post updates?
I've worked in budgets before, so I know that listing projected revenues during an economic crisis is always a very, very difficult thing to ask from a government.
Yet during a situation like the one we're in, it seems to me that a sense of community, a sense of sharing in the burden, is fostered by giving people the most and best information about a government's finances as possible.
I think during the current crisis, it would be a very smart use of technology for either Ron Dubow or Steve Agostini to post regular summary updates on their city websites, of where we are regarding revenue and expenditures, including what the city is now projecting it will take in from various taxes.
Some of the current controversy might be avoided this way, or at least the arguments could be made at a more informed and realistic level.
Would it Sam?
Do revenue projections really swing from a $1 billion deficit to a $40 million surplus in one month? I mean yeah the economy is crazy right now, but that is a huge swing.
The point of Dubow's testimony is less about an actual dollar amount of surplus in the bank, and more about the fluidity of the current situtaion and the skepticism about making cuts opportunitisically. Like enacting a 5-year old plan to close library branches because of a supposed crisis.
So Dubow can post here that things have changed since the hearing ad that he now projectsa $200 m, or whatever, deficit this year if we don't close branches, but it's getting the point of ridiculousness. Especially since we know the cost of keeping these 11 branches open through the rest of the budget year at this point has to be well under $8 million, possibly as low as $3 m.
Mostly what a lot of us are asking for is no more changes this year--we've already seen significant cuts made--and a commitment to do this budget process much better starting next month re: the 09-10 budget.
Short answer: yes
For example: when no one can get a mortgage, real estate transfer tax revenues swing from something to pretty close to nothing.
We could argue this more fruitfully if we had real numbers and summary explanations from Agostini and Dubow about the rationale for their projections, but generally those arguing for status quo on spending are currently outside the mainstream because that just doesn't make sense right now. Fiscally, we're on the brink of a year when revenues are going to go down.
And traditional sources of information
like Basil J. Whiting's seven city comparative study for Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia 2007: Projects and Challenges (an update of his original 1990s study) argue against tax hikes by stating plainly that high taxes and costs of doing business in Philly have been a major impediment to job growth.
I'm sure folks have looked at it before (it's where we get the famous Boston and Detroit comparisons) but it's worth reviewing now.
As progressives, is it correct for us to rely on "traditional
sources of information?" Just wondering if the fact that it's traditional gives it extra cred.
I'm still waiting for the good ol' boy traditionalist network to tell us how great the City would be with low taxes, no health centers, no rec centers, no libraries and maybe even no public schools. Without taxes at all, it would seem, business would be so great, and jobs so plentiful and well paying, that everyone could afford to pay for their own education, along with everything else they're now so spoiled to expect for free.
And while we're abolishing city taxes, we ought to abolish state and federal taxes as well. State taxes drive businesses to Delaware, and federal taxes drive businesses to Bangladesh. And there you have the complete answer to all that ails us, traditionally.
Old boys have been arguing for the status quo
for quite a long time. One could argue the practice starts with Mayor Tate and continues into the present.
Keeping friends in patronage jobs will do that.
But, to be fair, so will being a well-intentioned liberal who can't get past his ire at the Bad Guys to be pro job growth in Philly.
No, failing to listen to prescient advice for decades and decades can make that advice seem hectoring or wrong -- if you think the incremental cuts of the past were enough or were the prescribed solution, you haven't read either of Whiting's reports -- and can even make the advice sound old.
But to think of it as such is problematic.
Failing to come up with real workable solutions to the city's continually lagging competitiveness, and then railing about how the Bad Guys want to cut things they don't want to cut, is symptomatic of that problem.
Some of us look at taxes as situational. We see enough difference between the position Mayor Nutter is in and the position President-elect Obama is in to want the city to eventually lower taxes, so we can get more middle class jobs and workers here, and to want the national government to eventually raise taxes on rich people, so that we can get back to a fair pro middle class tax system, like the one the nation had during the boom years of the 1950s.
To be able to differentiate as such is how to NOT be a zealot.
Can't believe liberal is being used as a bad word
Zealot being abused I can understand. But do you really want to deride liberalism? Or is it just bad to be a liberal for Philadelphia purposes but not state or national purposes?
In any event, you obviously haven't been reading what I've been writing, which is fine. There's a lot of stuff put up here. But I'm not actually advocating raising City taxes; I think the City is overtaxed and state taxes should be raised with the revenue to be shared with distressed cities all around the Commonwealth. But we don't always get our first choice. And if the choice comes down to libraries, rec centers, pools and decent wages and benefits for city workers or keeping City taxes low then I choose the services and the workers. So if that makes me a zealot or a liberal or any other label you can come up with, I'll have to live with it.
It's true, I haven't read all your stuff
but I do suggest we make this an argument about whether it's ok or not to raise taxes in Philly, and not about fuzzy political terms of the left.
The terms are fuzzy for a very good reason: because we on the left are smart enough to utilize that most democratic of mediums, the internet -- via good forums like this one -- and with so many different writers with so many different backgrounds using words like "liberal" and "progressive," it's impossible for those words to keep their meanings for very long.
I happen to like Paul Krugman's distinction between a liberal and a progressive as the difference between someone who believes in good ideas and someone who takes action on them (and that's from a book he calls The Conscience of a Liberal), but I don't think it's important for you to.
Words change, and that's a good thing: it means society is changing.
Anyway, yes, you're right the city is overtaxed, and whoa, you're creating an unnecessary straw man argument by throwing rec centers into the current argument (What? The real argument isn't enough for you?), and sure, I'd like the state to kick in more money -- Good Luck! -- but no, the current situation does not require the city to turn the misery cycle one more revolution and chase away more businesses by raising taxes.
By the way, Stan
much as I enjoy rhetorical b.s. over semantics of the left (one wouldn't post here if one didn't), let's get specific for a sec:
Have you read the Whiting reports?
If so, on what grounds do you reject its conclusions and suggestions regarding job development?
It's anecdotal, ideological and inconclusive regarding taxes
Those would be my reasons. We could each cite countervailing quotes from the report on taxes all day. For instance, here's one I like about the tax cuts that had already taken place by 2007:
But the bottom line is there's no "scientific" answer to the question of which is more important, better services or lower taxes. I choose better services and the most progressive tax mix we can get, mostly because I think that's what a better society looks like.
And btw, I agree that the idea of getting help from Harrisburg is not presently very realistic. But if we were the type to give up just because of that, we probably wouldn't bother with this blog.
And with that I'm off to New Orleans for 9 days. Just in time because if we kept this little dialogue going we'd wind up at one letter per line.
But feel free to take a last shot.
Sam, First of all, because
Sam,
First of all, because Paul Krugman decides on a political nomenclature does not make it so. Yes, he won a nobel prize as you have reminded us. Thanks. It was also in economics.
Second, I get into this for one reason: you have decided Stan is your bete noire, for whatever reason, of this terrible old school liberalism that you hate. Fine. Stan is, without question, a curmudgeon of the highest degree. He has, however, done a lot of good over the course of his life, and even when it is unpopular, fights for the little guy and for what he thinks is right. So, lay off. If you cannot be at least civil to him, then take it offline.
I think you misread me, Dan
Maybe you think I was being calculating, sarcastic, or ironic when I said it's not important for Stan, Marc Stier, or anybody else to agree with Paul Krugman's assessment of the terms "liberal" or "progressive;" I understand. I can be sarcastic at times. But I really do not think that just because I like them they, you, or anybody else has to.
My point of view may seem iconoclastic to you. Ok. I'm a Richard Rorty-reading pragmatist: I think it's better when people bring diverse experiences and points of view to conversations involving democracy, and it's best when they're honest about their differences, and I try to reserve the irony for myself (see: Contingency, Irony, Solidarity): I mentioned Krugman's Nobel last time more or less as a rhetorical joke, the implied punchline you kind of explain above (I'm pretty sure I said repeatedly then as I say now, these terms are fuzzy and you don't have to buy this guy's; his only claim to authority would be writing a bestseller about liberals, and who thinks you have to agree with bestsellers? Not I).
You may also think I'm kidding (or something) when I express affection for those whom I think of as liberals. I'm not. It's true: I often find myself on what I consider the practical or bottom-line end of arguments with people whose social values I share, which to me amounts to agreeing on the goal but disagreeing on the route to getting there. Is this some kind of philosophical difference? Perhaps, but democracy and Democratic politics are built on such differences. People on the left traditionally agree on goals but disagree on methods; then they argue, appreciating each other's right to take a different position. People on the left generally are not narrow-minded, and I know Stan isn't.
Stan's no bete noire of mine. I hope I'm not his, and I don't think I am. We're always friendly when we see each other. It seems to me we disagree on taxes, which at one time may have been something of a bete noire of this site.
I'm really not sure why you think I wasn't being civil with him. I'm pretty sure I was just disagreeing with him. I try not to get personal in arguments because to do so, besides being a logical fallacy, has always seemed to me to suggest a weakness in one's argument.
I hope you're not suggesting I shouldn't disagree with Stan because to do so suggests Stan can't defend his arguments or that his arguments are somehow indefensible.
As he demonstrates here and elsewhere, he and they are not.
Also
Special deference given for a long life of past accomplishments always sounds to me like age-ism with a happy face.
John McCain wracked up quite a career of accomplishments, but he was wrong about almost everything he campaigned on, and I'm glad Barack Obama pointed that out.
I neither treat Stan and his ideas worse because he's older than me, nor better.
Nor you and yours because you're younger.
Whenever possible, I try not to take into account at all who is stating an idea for a general political policy, and to simply agree or disagree with the policy, not the "idea" of the person who is stating it.
You can't always do that, and it's certainly easiest for a straight white male to make such an assertion, but like the Golden Rule, as a rule of thumb for political dialog, it works.
Respectfully
I also think that a lot of the tone here (not in the pointless Krugman semantics part, which I know is totally a road we've been down before and is only the tip of the iceberg if you want to talk about the term 'liberal' in political and academic discourse lately):
is needlessly condescending.
Conversation about tone is boring
by definition, but how is my tone different from Stan's?
Or, I might suggest, you're reading mock where there's no mock. Sure, it's short. I had to write quickly because the coffee shop was closing, and the internet's out at my house. But reading condescending is certainly not the intention -- I DO intend it often, and it seems to me I may not have been the first to introduce it to the site(?) -- and, like I stated plainly above, I respect Stan and I think he makes his own case quite well.
Really.
Conversations about conversations about tone are REALLY boring
Your cool, Sam despite your bizarre interest in Krugman's unhelpful semantic legislation.
Let's move on.
Amen, brother!
Somewhere Krugman forgives you too!
It was pretty weird to be away from a computer 8 hours
log on, and find a whole thread on me. I'll just say thanks, Dan, for the defense, but actually I'm not offended by anything Sam said, just a bit bemused. A lot worse has been said about lots of bloggers on this site, and you just have to leave your thin skin behind to do this. I've chucked mine so far away I don't even know where it is. So let's blog on!
Well, to be fair, it was 40
Well, to be fair, it was 40 million this year. I don't think he said what he was projecting over five years at that point.
Perhaps, to be even more fair, we could contextualize
and note that, since November, poor stock performance has already forced the city to revise up the payments we need to make on our pension fund investments, thus making it prescient to leave something extra in reserve. And to note further that our current inability to raise funds and borrow money also argues for this position.
But Dubow or Agostini could explain these things better.
And I think they should.
So sad
I truly enjoyed voting for you Councilman Goode. I have always liked your take on economic development. This glib, smug and dismissive reply is not very helpful, nor do I think very thorough.
Most of the anger in this city about libraries right now is directed toward the Mayor. Largely because he has not been very forthcoming with information or open to much suggestion. The spotlight will soon shift to Council--at least for next year's budget--and I hope you and your colleagues demonstrate more openness with information.
In the meantime, I will continue to wonder what revenue projections look like in terms of the five-year plan and how to contextualize them in the midst of the global economic crisis.
And, as Dan has already pointed out, the testimony of the Mayor's budget director on the record in court re: a surplus is pretty recent information.
I actually was glad to hear from Councilman Goode
I know we differed on the plan to eliminate minority-party at-large seats but it sounds like he gets the idea that permanent closings deserve City Council hearings whatever the courts finally say about the law being questioned by our mayor.
I did not mind the brief bulleted points.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Also tell me more
At the town hall meetings the number of times that people asked why we are giving away abatements at the same time we are slashing libraries came up more times than 5 people have fingers and toes for.
In neighborhoods getting the brunt of the cuts, the abatement is loved less than the Dallas Cowboys, if thats possible.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Abatments at the Mayor's meetings
I went to 7 out of 8 the budget meetings, and yep, the abatements are red hot as an issue.
The abatements set up a system of winners and losers. I have noticed how highly resented it is at community meetings,especially places like Bella Vista, not to mention areas where the abatements are not used at all.
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
For the record
I did not mean to diminish in any way the effort and advocacy for 311 you have done for many years, Councilman. Just that Street did not actually move to implement it as Mayor, that it came in with Nutter's administration.
Also to point out that the data collection side, not just the phone answering system, could be really important for making some of the tough budget choices ahead in a more educated manner.
So some of Ray's questions are pretty interesting, huh?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
No one here is being unrealistic about the city's budget
Councilmen Kenny and Goode,
We all know how bad things are.
Most of us are not saying no cuts in the library. The coalition formed to protect the libraries has been saying that the cuts should be temporary and the burden should be shared throughout the system. Siobhan Riordan's claim that this would take us down to 3 or 4 days a week is not credible. At the very least it needs a public airing and examination by Council.
Whether Council has the power to approve closures or not--and I think the provisions from the Charter I've posted strongly suggest that Council does--you certainly have the power to hold hearings on the closures and subject them to public scrutiny.
And much the same is true with the budget as a whole. No one outside of Council--and maybe even within it--nows what economic forecast is being used to predict the city's revenues over the next five years. How much fiscal stimulus is being assumed? How much federal aid to the city?
We all lived through eight years of John Street using phony budget numbers to manipulate council and the public. Michael Nutter came into office with a different reputation. But if he won't be open and transparant with the numbers, he is going to quickly lose it.
In these difficult times, we all need to hang together. That won't happen if the only response to questions about particular actions on the part of the administration (and inaction on the part of Council) is to keep saying times are tough.
That line will work for a while, but it won't work, for example, when the administration seems to be enacting an agenda to change the structure of the libraries under the guise of budgetary problems.
Marc
PS I disagree with some other folks here about 311. It is a great idea, will save us money, hopefully soon. And Jim, you deserve a lot of credit for pushing it for year.
If you want the city behind you in this difficult time
Amazing
It continues to amaze me when I hear members of the legislative body insist that the legislative body has no power. If Council is intended to be merely an advisory body, why did you Mssrs. Kenney and Goode, work so hard to get elected? Do you really think it's a bad idea to demand detailed information, and examine it thoroughly and carefully, before allowing a Mayor to cut such a vital resource as libraries? It boggles the mind.
No, Stan, you worked hard on losing campaigns ...
we won, but WE DIDN'T MAKE THE CUTS!
I will not vote to close any library without a PLAN B.
There is actually a record of library closings nationally since the recession of the late 80'/early 90's which produced successful reuses that provided better services with more resources.
We should never close libraries before considering a PLAN B - but a PLAN B or PLAN C or PLAN D might be needed.
Imagine that. Stop arguing over PLAN A!
WWGjr
Did you see the "recession sanctuary" thread?
There is a strong record of people using libraries more in times of recession.
Let's evaluate plans A, B, C, and D. And since there are alternatives to closing libraries that save the same amount of money, let do so before the closing take place.
But to do that, you have to vote to hold hearings that force the administration to come up with the plans or do so yourself.
So where are these hearings?
Council did vote to hold hearings
Council voted 12 to 5 to hold hearings on library closures. read this from Daily News "it's our money" blog:
TWO WEEKS AGO, Philadelphia City Council passed a non-binding resolution calling for more debate and discussion of the Nutter administration's proposal to close 11 libraries to deal with the $108 million deficit facing city government.
In addition to asking for more time, the resolution also called on Council to conduct hearings on the libraries. As resolutions go, it wasn't exactly an act of courage. In fact, given the outcry that the library closings have caused throughout the city, Council would have been dumb, or blind, not to let the public speak out. Besides, hearings aren't exactly complicated to pull off. So why is Council President Anna Verna refusing to schedule them?
"We in Council are completely powerless at this time," Verna explains. "It's strictly up to the mayor." (For the full quote, go to www.ourmoneyphilly.com)
She believes that additional hearings will only give the public "false hope" that library closures can be reversed and the town hall meetings run by the mayor provide ample opportunity for public input.
Way to show brave leadership, President Verna!
Let us count the ways she is wrong:
First, City Council is not powerless. Philadelphia may have a strong-mayor government, but Council could hold up parts of Nutter's budget plan - like the suspension of tax cuts or increase in city fees - to force concessions in other areas. Sitting on the sidelines is a political choice, not a requirement mandated by the Home Rule Charter.
Second, the town hall meetings are simply not enough. First, they're not part of the public record. Unlike a City Council hearing, the forums are controlled by the Nutter administration. City officials decide the agenda, who speaks, and for how long. That's fine, but let's not pretend it's a substitute for oversight. We have to rely on City Council to ask the tough questions.
After all, elected officials have access to a lot more information than the general public has. And, if Council doesn't get the answers it's seeking, it has the power to issue subpoenas.
Public hearings are the oil that keeps the wheels of democracy turning. Verna's decision to squash the hearings isn't bad just for democracy, it could end up being bad for Mayor Nutter. His budget cuts have sparked outrage partially because the public was left out of the decision-making process. This latest move is another troubling example of citizen input being sidelined during the financial crisis. *
Posted by Ben Waxman @ 10:23 AM Permalink | 4 comments
Hopefully, the Hearings Will Soon Be Held
The two successful lawsuits seemed to have guaranteed that the libraries will be open at least until February 25, 2009, when the Commonwealth Court hears oral arguments. My strong guess is that the plaintiffs will win the oral arguments, and the issue will then be whether the Nutter Administration wishes to appeal again to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The sworn under oath statement by Finance Director Rob Dubow that the city will end this fiscal year with a $40 million surplus has never been publicly announced beyond the court hearing on December 30, 2008, and it's likely that some or many of the City Council people are not aware of it.
The City Council may also wish to grill the City Solicitor, who is supposed to represent City Council as well as the mayor, as to why he is taking the mayor's side in a dispute over the powers of City Council. My strong belief is that the City's Solicitor's office is in an impossible conflict of interest situation when the Mayor and the Council have different interests, and Council should, by ordinance, ban the City Solicitor's office from participating in any such legal dispute.
Past is past
Lets all work to make sure Mayor Nutter has the kind of succesful term he could have when he realizes not every challenge to hastily hatched plans should be interpreted as being about an afront to his authority as Mayor. Sometimes being asked to do the right thing is only about doing the right thing.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Actually they weren't all losing campaigns, but so what?
I have to assume that who I endorsed for Council has nothing to do with whether you want to exercise the powers you have, given that you won.
Alternative Plans Should Have Community Support
Right now there is no such thing an alternative plan that people in any community prefer over keeping the libraries open.
If any libraries are to be closed, they should be closed in a community that favors the closing with a plan B, C, or D.
Plan B, C, or D should not be forced upon any community that does not want it.
Perhaps, the city libraries in Rittenhouse Square, Chestnut Hill, or some other place of similar affluence should go first with Plan B, C, D to show all of us skeptics how wonderful it is.
Wait a sec Marc
Has anyone said anything negative about 311? I sure haven't. I think it is an obvious city service that should have been put in place years ago. I am glad it is up and running now. However, the fact that its success had to come with the layoff of library staff is something that I think was deliberately obfuscated. And if it wasn't, we should at least know acknowledge that we got one service at the expense of the other.
Meanwhile, we do all know that "times are tough" but there has not actually been any justification made for the urgency of budget cuts--to CCP, parks, fire houses, arts, the Housing trust fund--or the thwarted library cuts. There is no conclusive proof that all of the mid-year cuts had to happen. It would have been much more fair and transparent--not to mention community-minded--to talk about cuts as part of the usual budget process for the 09-10 budget.
Again, let's just call a spade a spade: Mid-year budget cuts--at least all of them--did not have to happen. There was apparently not a threat to solvency.
Maybe we'll all be happy they did happen later on if things get much worse, but these cuts have also cost us--the citizens of Philadelphia--access to a fair, open, and thorough exchange of ideas about which cuts to make. And that has frankly overdrawn the good will toward city government that had been so generously offered just a few months before.
For the record
Rep. Mark Cohen has made it a kind of personal crusade to eliminate or postpone 311 and use the money for the libraries. I think in an era of some possible cuts going into the future, the data from 311 will be even more useful in terms of getting the most from every dollar in terms of city services. I interpreted Marc's comments as more aimed at Mark Cohen, as its point of view I've heard a few others echo.
Otherwise continue.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I've seen Rep. Cohen's
I've seen Rep. Cohen's negative and seemingly obsessive criticisms of the 311 system.
Frankly, I believe that no matter how well intentioned he may be, Rep. Cohen should focus on the very large budget hole that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has, which after all is something he was elected to do versus embarking on a crusade against making the provisions of city services more efficient and, hopefully, more reliable.
State Is Not Shutting Down My District's Vital Services
The state of Pennsylvania is not threatening to shut down Roosevelt Boulevard, or the Broad and Olney Subway station, or the Fern Rock subway station all under state jurisdiction.
The state is not threatening to shut down Central High School or Fels High School, Girls High School or Northeast High School, George Washington High School, or any charter school serving my district. All schools are under state jurisdicition.
The state is not even threatening to shut down lottery machines in my district. Lottery machines are under state jurisdiciton.
But the city is threatening to shut down two libraries--partially funded by $9.5 million in state funds--that are physically located in my district, and a third, the Holmesburg library, that serves people in my district.
When my district is threatened, I focus on my district. Right now the biggest crisis my legislative district faces is the decision of Mayor Nutter to shut down 11 branch libraries. Until such time as this manufactured city crisis ends, I will be as intensely involved in the city budget process as I can be in order to stop this tragedy from occurring.
Well, that's a little simplistic, Marc
The State controls the City's taxing powers; even with Home Rule, the State is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on within its borders, and that includes Philadelphia. Because of the State, the City is stuck with the uniformity clause, with limits on its ability to tax banks and insurance companies, without the power to impose an income tax as opposed to a wage tax, and without the power to limit real estate taxes based upon income. Furthermore, the State could, with your help, increase its own statewide taxes to create a revenue sharing program, and fund our court system. So it's not true that you're without your own source of substantial power to help us preserve libraries and everything else that's under threat.
No Contradiction
There is no contradiction between anything I said above and anything Stan Shapiro said above.
But it is nieve to believe that the state restrictions on city power are imposed without support of Philadelphians, and that legislators from Philadelphia can overwhelm popular sentiment. Even Mayor Nutter--the holder of a position argued by many to be at the center of the political universe--is learning that he cannot overwhelm popular sentiment by taking a positon.
Please, friends, to do not hesitate to volunteer your support of Stan's agenda of:
(1) a graduated income tax under which you will likely pay more taxes;
(2) unlimited city ability to tax banks and insurance companies, who will argue that their presence here is being discouraged and that their services will be made more expensive here than elsewhere;
(3)expanding the city wage tax to a city income tax, so that wealthier people will pay more;
(4) making real estate taxes income based, so wealthier people will pay more.
(5) an increase in state taxes for a revenue sharing program
Indeed, in this very thread are comments suggesting opposition to the idea of greater city taxes because of loss of competitiveness. As Stan notes above, the same rationales occur in state and federal taxes.
Upon being elected to Congress in 1970, Bella Abzug soon began to push for secession of New York City from New York State, arguing that such a move was needed to get rid of all state restrictions on the city of New York. She was strongly attacked for this position: it turned out that many residents of New York City, especially wealthy and influential residents of New York City, passionately supported the state restrictions on New York City and were literally horrified at any attempt to get rid of them.
The State Could Still Help
What you're saying Mark, is that it's politically difficult to do progressive things at the State level. But that's also true at the City level. So if you're advocating that our local elected officials take on the politically difficult tasks of raising money, it seems to me you have to be willing to do the same.
I understand that you believe that there is no financial crisis, or that if there is, it's much less severe than we've been told. But I also assume that if it turns out the City does need more revenue that you think taxes should be raised, or loopholes closed, to save the libraries and other services. Or maybe I'm wrong about that. But if I'm not wrong, you should be willing to make those difficult tax decisions yourself, in addition to asking Council and the Mayor to do so. And I trust that you are.
It's A Matter of Priorities
I am demanding that the libraries be saved. I am not demanding that there be a city tax increase.
The library issue is one of priorities. I think branch libraries are a very high priority--far more important than a Barnes museum in Center City, $180 million in new spending for the Central Library,the establishment of a 311 system and many other things.
If City Council decides that the totality of spending requests requires them to raise taxes, I will not object. But as things now stand, there is absolutely no commitment from the Mayor or City Council that there will money appropriated for the branch libraries whatever the tax level is, whatever the debt level is.
The problem simply is that the interests of moderate income people do not carry anywhere near the weight they should with the Mayor and all too many members of the City Council.
Let's be clear: Philadelphia is not 66 Wards of Rittenhouse Square. While everybody understands that intellectually if pushed, too few seem to take the economic interests of the average Philadelphia into account on a daily basis.
When the Republican National Convention came to Philadelphia in the year 2000, I attended Arianna Huffington's Alternative Convention, where Paul Wellstone was one of the featured speakers.
I picked up a tee shirt there which says, as I read when I put in on this morning, that, in reference to Presidential politics, "We vote once every four years. Money votes every day." Unfortunately, that is all too true of city politics as well.
Well, I hope you're right, Mark
that it's just a choice among spending priorities. And hopefully, in the next budget if not before, we'll get the info we need to clearly determine that. But I think it's time to start thinking about the alternative, and, in that case, with the City's tax burden being so much higher than everyone else's in PA, you might want to rethink the State's responsibility for helping out.
Helping Out To Do What?
Where is the money going to go?
If the state gave the city an extra billion dollars, there is absolutely no guarantee that, absent a state mandate, one penny of that money would go to libraries or any other program benefitting moderate income Philadelphians.
Hopefully, everyone in city government will stop doing their Ronald Reagan imitations and figure out that the city is composed largely of moderate income people who need help from government. Whether we like it or not, the city elected officials--especially the mayor--are the spokespersons for city government and it is their duty to articulate their vision of where the state, the city, and the federal government should spend money to benefit Philadelphians.
Who said there couldn't be a state mandate
restricting how the money could be spent? Revenue sharing can be limited in any way the sharer wants.
Well, I would never pick on Rep. Mark Cohen
But he has been one of the people who have been calling 311 into question.
Ray certainly has a valid point and those of us who are really suspicious about the whole library closing fiasco have been wondering whether the need to recruit city employees who know how to interact with the public successfuly had something to do with the deep cuts in the libary.
But when it comes to budgeting, you can shuffle the deck in a million ways. So there was a way to do 311 and keep all libraries open. Indeed, I remain convinced that Riordan's numbers are misleading and her library closing agenda has nothign to do with the fiscal crisis. So I strongly suspect we could keep all the libraries open five days a week even with the cut back in staff.
That's why I haven't focused on 311 that much.
Link Between Libraries and 311
The libraries, until Judge Fox's courageous order, were to be shut down on December 31, 2008.
The 311 system formally opened on January 1, 2009.
The city has been projecting 1.5 million calls to the 311 system, a conservative estimate for a city with 1.5 people. Generally the ratio is between twice the population and five times the population in the total number of calls.
Calls cost governments $3 each. Multiplying the projected 1.5 million calls by $3 leads to an annual cost of $4.5 million dollars, which is a high end figure for the cost of the branch libraries.
At least 11 library workers from the 11 branch libraries were transferred to the 311 system, making it more difficult for the libraries to meet the six person requirement that libraries are required by union contract to have there at all times.
Kathy Scott, the head of District Council 47, said in late November that the city had a choice between dumping 311 and dumping the libraries, and chose to dump the libraries. She expressed her disagreement with this decision.
The 311 system is for non-emergency calls. It is a new program. It is not mandated by any state or federal law. Generally, around the country, calls to 311 do not lead to a reduction in 911 calls. No claim has yet been made that 911 calls have yet been reduced by the existence of the 311 system, a promise frequently made but rarely met in cities around the country.
One way to get out of debt is stop creating new, non-mandated programs. One has to be able to resist salesmanship or else one will never get out of debt. This is as true in governmental spending as it is in household spending.
Some CitiStat quotes from Center for American Progress
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/citistat.html
The point is that tracking and quantifying performance of city departments against calls for service has the potential to save a lot money and to make more informed decisions where we direct human resources to get the most out city government. It also - if Council fights to make that information and public and to use it strategically - to effectively "democratize" the distribution of high-quality city services. Sure thats historically been the "good side" of patronage i.e. if you have political juice, you get your pothole fixed but its a lot more effective for neighborhood groups to be able to concretely document "We've called about these potholes 2,347 times in the last six months, time to fix it dammit". Philly has long history of failing to deliver and to deliver fairly.
So without a doubt I am pro-311 but also more than that I am specifically an advocate for using 311's data tracking to empower neighborhood groups. As a result, although I'm glad 311 was implemented, I was more than a little peeved by the Nutter administration's decision to set it up so that "VIP" calls are marked as such on the operator's screen. That's completely unfair and an example how its often two-steps forward, one step back here in Philly.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/heardinthehall/311_to_put_an_end_to_c...
Yeah sure they won't. Pfffffft.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.