(Cross-posted at the Notebook's blog)

Anytime the School District has to summon a line-up of politicians to testify on its behalf, you know something’s up.

On Wednesday night, a group of political heavy-hitters opened the School Reform Commission meeting to urge the SRC to vote in favor of the District’s controversial strategic plan – Imagine 2014. Meanwhile CEO Arlene Ackerman issued dramatic statements that emphasized just how much pressure the District was exerting on the SRC for its vote:

"Tonight is the night that we demonstrate to [children] that we care . . . Tonight is the night the School Reform Commission acts on behalf of all of our children," Ackerman said during the meeting, which drew a capacity audience to the District's headquarters on Broad Street near Spring Garden.

And vote they did, 4-0 with hardly a question asked. Not one clarifying remark was made by a single commissioner to explain why each had voted on a plan that had generated lukewarm enthusiasm and enough controversy to result in last-minute plan adjustments, community meetings, a new budget, and political muscling.

Which makes one wonder: what happened behind closed doors to put the muzzle on the SRC?

Unsurprisingly, and with little sense of shame, the State Senate and the Governor joined the State House, and passed a bill that puts even more of their constituents at risk from predators, as they legalized Wall Street's latest scam, for-profit credit counseling. (The last time I talked about this bill, I was greeted with a finger-jabbing tirade from a State Rep who called me a demagogue, and then started threatening me.)

The refrain from Dwight Evans is familiar:

Evans said for-profit companies have found ways to reach clients for years despite a ban on their operation. He said his bill will for the first time impose licensing requirements and give the state Department of Banking the authority to regulate the industry.

"In a Wild West, unregulated environment, anything can happen," Evans said in an interview. "Now both nonprofits and for-profits will have to meet standards, and consumers will know they're dealing with a regulated industry."

Yes, if there is anything that tells you that an industry will closely follow your law, it is the fact that an industry ignores your law.

I think I am going to start a business called Dan's Pickpocket. I will do it for a couple years, spread some lobbying dough and muscle around in Harrisburg, and then demand my industry be legitimized. Hell, maybe my pickpocketing futures could get rated, securitized and sold? Then we would be talking!

(And thank you for the parting gift to your legacy, Senator Fumo!)

Let's play a game! I call it, What is Dumber? I think the rules will be clear pretty quickly!

OK, OK, what is dumber?

A) Your hometown is being crushed under a tidal wave of predatory lenders. In response, your City Council passes a bill to protect Philly homeowners. However, even though you are from that City, you kill the law, and let the market feast on vulnerable consumers for years more. You say at the time that if more regulation is needed, you will provide it. Years go by, 40,000 foreclosures are filed in your city. And you do nothing. (This would be the Dwight Evans/ Vince Fumo approach from 2001.)

B) Fast forward 7 years, the house of cards that is Wall Street has finally fallen. The Federal Government now looks like it will provide a 700 billion dollar golden parachute for stockholders and CEO's. Meanwhile, those homeowners who haven't been foreclosed yet have their only real hope coming from local advocates, City Council/the Mayor, and a couple creative Judges who have banded together to help them. In response, rather than pitching in to help your constituents (you know, the ones you screwed 7 years earlier), you legalize a Wall Street industry ripe with fraud, with an entire business model focused on going after vulnerable homeowners. (This is the Dwight Evans approach from 2008, as we wait to see if Vince joins in.)

So, quiz: Which is dumber?

(And hey Fumo, is this really what want your last bill to be?)

This weekend, two Wall Street institutions, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, collapsed, mostly because of their dealing in subprime lending. Lehman Brothers, in particular, stirs memories because they worked hand in hand with one of Philadelphia’s most notorious predatory lenders of the late 1990's: United Companies Lending. With the help of Lehman Brothers, UC Lending cut a swath through working class neighborhoods, sending scores of Philadelphians into foreclosure.

The destruction caused by UC Lending and others was bad enough that City Council did something about it, and passed strong anti-predatory lending legislation. But, as I have documented before, in a fight led by our own Dwight Evans, the State Legislature killed the bill, offering faux regulation. Since then, upward of 40,000 foreclosures have been filed against Philadelphia homeowners.

40,000 foreclosures. The timing then, of this, is almost too shameful to be true:

Suppose you're in a financial jam. You've maxed your credit cards, they're about to repossess your car. Then you see a cable-TV ad offering one easy payment to pull you out of the mess.

Good idea? Maybe, maybe not.

Consumer activists and nonprofit credit counselors are alarmed about a bill primed for passage in the state Legislature that would permit for-profit companies to offer credit counseling in Pennsylvania.

The bill would also limit fees and impose state licensing requirements for nonprofits as well. But consumer advocates say opening the field to private firms will end up putting thousands of financially strapped Pennsylvanians into plans that only get them further in the hole.

"Consumers need to be getting advice from disinterested parties who can give them the best options," said Patricia Hasson, president of the Consumer Credit Counseling Service of the Delaware Valley.

The consumer vultures of America, finished feasting on predatory mortgage loans, rapid refunds, and payday loans have found their next product. Despite the fact that they so poisoned our cities that their demise is killing Wall Street, here they come again, seeing what scraps they can pull from financially troubled Pennsylvanians.

And who, by chance, do you suspect is paving their way into Pennsylvania?

Democratic Philadelphia state Rep. Dwight Evans, the prime sponsor of the credit-counseling bill, said it's designed to bring licensing and consumer protections to an industry that is effectively unregulated in Pennsylvania.

He said the nonprofit agencies that want to keep private companies out of the credit-counseling business are denying consumers choice and the benefits of competition.

"I'm tired of people who assume that people who use this service are not smart enough to make good choices," Evans said. "It's a patronizing attitude, that we have to save people from themselves."

"Our job in government is to set standards and provide for regulation, and that's what we're doing in this bill," Evans said.

That quote sounds familiar… sort of like this one, in a letter to the editor Evans sent to the Daily News as he was in the process of killing our predatory lending bill, in 2001:

To call it anti-consumer misses the complexity of this issue. The best way to stop predatory lending practices is to give teeth to the state Department of Banking.

This is not a function of local government. House Bill 1703 provides the Department of Banking with extensive enforcement authority. We must not close off sources to those who need loans most.

For all the good he has done, Dwight Evans has a terrible, and shameful history of exposing struggling Philadelphians to financial predators. And now, right as Wall Street and the American economy collapse under the weight of predatory loans that he helped protect, there he goes again.

The bill, a wolf in sheep's clothing, passed unanimously in the State House. (Here is looking at you, Josh Shapiro, Babette Josephs and Tony Payton.) It is now before the State Senate. To our State Senators, as you consider this bill, I have to ask: Given the history here, as Dwight and the financial predators line up against every consumer group in the state...

Who do you trust?

Wow folks -- what a victory for people fighting to make sure that we get casinos moved out of any Philadelphia neighborhood that doesn't want them --

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20080704_Evans__Fumo_give_casinos_a...

House Appropriations Chairman Dwight Evans and State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo said at a news conference that they would draft legislation to remove the casinos' tax breaks if they did not abandon their proposed sites on the Delaware River waterfront.

The locations, which were decided upon 21/2 years ago, are "untenable and contrary to the public interest," the Democrats said in a statement.

"We are sending a message to citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that we are trying to fix the problem," said Evans, joined by nine Philadelphia-area lawmakers in addition to Fumo. "We didn't think it would be the problem it is today, but it has created tension for people in the community as well as politically."

In 2001, as readers of the blog know, City Council passed a great anti-predatory lending bill.

The bill was a wonderful example of activism (ACORN, that Irv dude and CLS), media (Paul Davies at the Daily News, along with their Ed Board) and City government staff (like Derek Green) and Council members (like Marian Tasco) coming together to do something really great.

But then, in an effort led by Tasco's BFF, Dwight Evans, the state crushed Philadelphia's bill, and took away our power to do anything with regulating lending at all, by passing Act 55.

Talking about Act 55, and why he was about to kill the Tasco predatory lending law, Evans said the following (Daily News, June 12, 2001):

He was not convinced predatory lending was a widespread problem or that more legislation is needed.

"If this is a problem, I question if more laws are the answer," Evans said.

In reality, by 2001 there was no question that predatory lending was an issue. For the previous four or five years, mortgage foreclosures were skyrocketing in Philadelphia, including in the neighborhoods that make up Evans’ district. In the previous year alone, more than 5,000 foreclosures were filed in the City.

A week later, after the Daily News editorial board excoriated him for killing our predatory lending bill, Evans wrote the following in a letter to the editor (June 19, 2001):

I suggest you take your own advice and read the actual legislation. It contains the provisions you call for in your editorial (June 13). In places, it is actually more pro-consumer than what city officials are promoting.

House Bill 1703 offers strong restrictions that will provide unprecedented equity protection for homeowners. Moreover, it prohibits some practices associated with predatory lending.

To call it anti-consumer misses the complexity of this issue. The best way to stop predatory lending practices is to give teeth to the state Department of Banking. This is not a function of local government. House Bill 1703 provides the Department of Banking with extensive enforcement authority. We must not close off sources to those who need loans most.

I don’t like to call people liars, so lets just say that there was a lot of obvious and deliberate BS in that letter. His preemption bill did nothing except expose too many Philadelphians to subprime, predatory lenders. The fact that they were pretending it was somehow helping only made it a more bitter pill to swallow.

And then, three days later, the bill officially passed, and Evans said this:

Evans said that if the bill did not go far enough, changes can be made.

"This is not the end, only the beginning," he said.

It sure was only the beginning. From 2002 through 2007, 34,000 foreclosures were filed in Philadelphia.

And, I think it is only going to get worse.

The trends in both foreclosures, and subprime lending, are not good. In fact, in 2007, foreclosure filings were back to their peak years of 2002-2003:

Given everything I have seen in the number of adjustable loans that are resetting, 2008 will almost certainly be higher than any year on record. (For us, with a long-term, huge foreclosure problem, that is a big deal.) The economy is getting crappier, the housing market is going down, and in recent years the market share of subprime lending has only been growing:

Why do I go through all of this? Because today, Dwight's fellow member of his NW Philadelphia political coalition- Marian Tasco- has said that we should put a moratorium on Philadelphia foreclosures Sheriff Sales.

That is absolutely wonderful, and a great idea. There should be a freeze in foreclosures while federal, state and local governments figure out just what to do.

The article notes a problem though...

Other observers suggested the city does not have the authority to interfere in sheriff's sales, which may invoke the state's sole authority to regulate the banking industry. One of the sheriff's main jobs is to facilitate the selling of foreclosed property, for both lenders and borrowers.

The state's sole authority to regulate banking? Guess what bill that was? Yeah, good old Act 55.

In other words, the City will be sued if they issue this freeze. They may, or may not win that suit, and they should certainly try, and see what happens. But the reason this is even an issue to begin with, and why Marian Tasco may again be foiled, is because her biggest political supporter, Dwight Evans, took away the right of City Council to protect Philadelphia homeowners.

It is time for Dwight to get us that power back.

This is a post that's been a long time coming. Here is part of its history.

During the Mayoral primary campaign, YPP hosted a post by a young woman named Renata Neal. Renata grew up in Germantown, and attends West Chester University through the Core Philly Scholarship program. Her mother worked as a volunteer for Chaka Fattah's mayoral campaign, and Renata likewise voiced her support since Fattah had helped create the program.

But one of the questions that came out of that post was why a talented young Philadelphian had to leave the city of Philadelphia to get an affordable education at a public university. Philadelphia has many prestigious and wonderful colleges and universities -- but most of them are private, which makes their tuition steep, especially for first-generation college students who are unwilling to take on debt or who can't easily navigate the scholarship system. Temple, which like Penn State is a public/private commonwealth university, has undergraduate tuition twice that of West Chester. If Renata, who as a young, full-time student had been offered scholarships, had to look elsewhere -- what opportunities were there for nontraditional students, finishing their degrees part-time, or trying to return to school after a long absence?

Mark Cohen noted then that he was working with the state university system to try to bring a new four-year state university to the city of Philadelphia. I've had this in my mind ever since then. And I think it's a wonderful idea -- for college students like Renata, for students nothing like Renata, for our schools, for our neighborhoods, and for our city. What's more, it's a project that in principle all of our elected officials, from city office to Congress, can work to make happen. If you want to know more, read after the jump.

Rep. Dwight Evans has made me pretty skeptical this morning. He's a really smart guy. He understands our city. Yet, he says things that's going to make anyone seriously skeptical without backing them up. Take today's story on the Parking Authority in the Inquirer.

Reversing critical remarks he made just last week, Evans said he had met at length with the agency's leaders, gone over their books with his aides, and become convinced that they were doing a solid job.

"I'm satisfied that they're meeting their mission, that they're doing what they need to do," Evans said.

Reacting on Friday to news of increased staffing and generous executive salaries at the authority, Evans told The Inquirer that "it appears that it's running amok."

Although Evans said he still supported a comprehensive audit of the authority, he said he now considered the agency's principal failing to be merely one of public relations.

"If they have done anything wrong, it's that they've failed to communicate with the press, the public and the legislature," Evans said.

Yet, there is no explanation given of what encouraged him. I hope he's right. I hope it's doing things better than we realize.