- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
- You know, let's not even worry about the City Commissioners office messing up voter registration processing
- Bold ideas to fix the budget
- Mayor Nutter's Town Hall Meeting Schedule
- City Releases Library Information to City Council
- Size of Philadelphia government?
Getting frisky about Stop and Frisk
Submitted by Ray Murphy on Sat, 05/12/2007 - 11:04am.
I'm going for “less is more” this morning. So, I present to you a really excellent piece in today’s Inquirer about Stop and Frisk:
A poll released yesterday found Philadelphians generally support stop-and-frisk, though blacks are more ambivalent than are whites. The telephone survey of 802 people 18 and older, sponsored by the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia and conducted by Temple University's Institute for Public Affairs, found that two-thirds of whites favored the policy. Blacks favored it by a slim majority - 52 percent. The margin of error was 3.5 percent.
snip
Former Atlanta Deputy Police Chief Lou Arcangeli said …"African American parents have told me that they were uncomfortable with their sons being constantly stopped and frisked," said Arcangeli, now a professor of criminal justice at Georgia State University.
He said people in high-crime neighborhoods initially are glad when police make stops and even accept when their own kids are frisked.
"But by the third or fourth time," he said parents told him, "it didn't feel good at all. It felt like harassment."
snip
Nutter, for his part, is unswayed…He did not respond to phone calls seeking comment for this story.
You should really read the whole thing, it is on the front page of today’s Inky, but there is a lot more detail worth noting than what I posted here.
Other key facts in the article have already been covered by posters here, but they include quantitative proof that stop and frisk in New York targeted more black people than white. The article points out that Amadou Diallo, whose death was mourned by many a progressive and is the subject of many a tribute song to police brutality including one by Le Tigre, was a a victim of a mistake made by police under New York's stop and frisk law.
Again, the question for voters on Tuesday is this: how do we best address crime in our city? There are a lot of options, it’s clear that no one in power now has addressed them in any kind of satisfactory manner, but moving forward, what should we do?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
You or Dan:
How about a stop and frisk greatest hits compilation thread? Please god please.
Yeah, the article was decent though a little superficial. I quoted those last lines and I think the sentence above it here, on stop and frisk thread #8934723.
Jennifer
flimsy
I guess you are right that the Inky article does not go into all that much depth, but I guess that is sort of the point.
The polling data shows a real difference in attitude toward amongst whites and blacks, and there's definitely a sense of buyer's remorse in other cities about implementing sop and frisk and states of emergency.
I think it's clear that Philadelphians need more time to think about stop and frisk itself, not to mention the notion of declaring crime emergencies in neighborhoods.
I sound like a broken record, but there has been a real opportunity to talk about the ISSUES in this race--the substantive plans candidates have offered--and though this race may have been better than some in the past, we always end up talking horse race.
Horse race talk does not work that well in a race that is defined by such odd polls and so many undecided voters.
Which means, in these final days, you undecided voters better start studying.
I think that the Amadou
I think that the Amadou Diallo scenario -- where a group of nonuniformed cops came swooping into a South Bronx corner, scared the hell out of an African immigrant, probably without properly identifying themselves as police, mistook a wallet for a gun, and shot him to death -- is clearly the worst possible thing that could happen under an aggressive policy to get guns off the streets in our neighborhoods.
I think the best possible strategy to prevent such a scenario -- with or without a stop-and-frisk policy -- is the return of the beat cop and community-based policing. I think this will also cut down on the repeated friskings/harassment in the neighborhoods, since cops will be better able to identify who's doing what -- and more likely to take grief and see reduced cooperation from the parents if they do.
What we really need is increased information about who's carrying a gun and where, and then the ability to take the gun away from them and get that person off the street.
The other half of the Inquirer article is that every expert who's looked at stop-and-frisk and every city that's employed it as a method agrees that it works, both to get guns off of the street, and -- what's really important -- to reduce homicides, shootings, and other violent crimes. What we have to do is learn from other cities' experience in training and implementation to prevent the negative scenarios described in the article as much as we can.
The last thing I'll say is that there are surveillance and effectiveness tradeoffs in both Fattah's and Nutter's plans (security cameras vs. heightened police presence, elite officers vs. neighborhood officers, citywide jurisdiction vs. targeted zones). Tom Knox has no plan at all, beyond hiring more officers.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Redux.
Redux.
Again, my big problem is not just the stop and frisk- but all that which comes with it.
I do not think there will be much support for, say, everyone from Strawberry Mansion having their movements curtailed, having a curfew, etc.
Anyway, off to canvass...
agreed
but to be clear, Fattah is talking about assigning a special force, about 2 per police district, whose job it is to search for illegal guns. I imagine these would become recognizable faces--not the same as allowing all members of the force to perform searches, including undercover cops, like the ones who shot Diallo.
And again, routine stopping and frisking already happens in many neighborhoods in the city now. The question I have is whether we want to not only avoid condemnation of that where it's inappropriate, but actually condone it by making it PPD policy to allow and encourage all officers to make routine searches for illegal guns.
Beyond that, as Jennifer has repeatedly said, it's not just about the stopping and the frisking--Nutter has also proposed declaring states of crime emergencies which allow the police to control the flow of traffic in and out of pre-defined area, allow curfews to be imposed, and to allow the police to break up gatherings of people.
I understand that after about 2 or 3 months of scant discussion of this in an abstract way, some people, even in neighborhoods where this would likely occur, are saying, "ok, maybe it's worth it to give up liberty for security," but i have no doubt that after a year or two or three or more of this policy actually being implememnted, that people would FREAK out.
Is there any evidence it's
Is there any evidence it's meant to be a long-term policy? This is what I'm not sure of - Fattah's structure seems more sustainable for the long term, whereas Nutter's seems more likely to bring down violence immediately. But there's not much info out there about how long "states of emergency" are supposed to last - in the "Safety Now" plan, Nutter references a six-week period during Goode's administration, but that's not really indicative of anything.
Did you actually just pick the Le Tigre song over the Springsteen one? Crafty.
***
Volunteering for Michael Nutter
i just like em...
bang! bang! I just like Le Tigre better.
Look, I know it's hard for some to take me seriously as a credible source on this because I work for Fattah, but here's my question:
A lot of criticism has emerged on Nutter's plan. He has not addressed it. Strategy or stubbornness, who knows?
Meanwhile, giving him the benefit of the doubt, that it is a short-term strategy, once the genie is out of the bottle, can he, even if he wants to, put it back in?
A lot of people, including a DA, a Police Chief, not to mention captains of industry, are going to love the idea of declaring martial law to bring the gun death rate down. Will it truly eliminate violence? Will it really root out the causes of violence and crime--namely lack of any kind of opportunity--probably not. But it will be good for business.
So no matter how well-meaning Nutter is, the plan could open up a whole new world of trouble that he alone--no matter how a good a Mayor he may--can't control.
A Rebuttal
Of course, shutting down neighborhoods and frisking people is going to somehow provide more jobs, better educational opportunities, and cleaner and more liveable neighborhoods! What part of that genius plan don't you understand?
Root causes are obviously another thing entirely, and there's obviously a good strong debate happening about what the next mayor's going to do about that. I'm not so sure I buy your vision of a police-state semi-coup d'etat, but I get your point - it's hard to give someone a set of seemingly effective tactics and then take them away.
Meanwhile, as a Nutter guy, I'd really like this site to get back on the "what a jackass Tom Knox is" bandwagon, for obvious reasons that came in the mail today. I've never seen inaccurate attack mailings with such poor wording and punctuation. Gah.
***
Volunteering for Michael Nutter
so write a new post
This post is focused on the fact that your guy, Nutter, has proposed something to deal with violence that is different than everyone else and that is raising red flags.
So you say this:
Glad we agree. As a Nutter supporter, what are you going to do about it?
Haha Le Tigre gets so much love on this site
Yeah, there's dispute over the likely time frame. The Nutter plan says "10 weeks to a safer Philadelphia," or something, but the text of the plan says that the state of emergency will be continued "until all Philadephia neighborhoods are safe" (that's an approximation, I quoted it here a couple times the other day). It's explicitly vague and open-ended.
We talked the other day about how it should be tied to a clear time frame and/or a set goal for the amount of reduction (maybe the 92/93 numbers they are using for their pledge not to run again if the rate doesn't drop). It should also end if it doesn't work; happily Nutter is on record agreeing to this as of this week.
N.b. I don't think that the state of emergency thing as written is legal (the past declarations of emergency were in response to imminent threats of urban disorder/riot), for whatever that's worth.
Jennifer
To be clear ... let's spin it some more
This has doubled since the last time that you tried to differentiate Fattah's plan. Is he/are you just trying to spin the shit now? Is this (one/two special cops in every police district) even anything like the "targeted enforcement [that] has been proven to be effective in other cities"? It's not "clear" yet.
I think that the main differences between Nutter's crime plan and Fattah's crime plan are:
* Nutter refers to “stop-question-and-frisk." Fattah refers to this tactic coyly.
* Nutter has been more specific and more willing to defend his plan than Fattah, who may/may not be for stop and frisk, and may use one or two "super cops" per district.
* Nutter refers to using the city's Code 10 power to declare crime emergencies.
I think the main difference is that Nutter thought about what approaches would help reduce crime, read studies, and made the proposal that he thought would be most effective; while it is unclear whether Fattah even knew what tactics he advocated or even now advocates. Nutter testified about his proposed approach last August in front of the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee. Fattah may have thought it sounded good and cherry-picked a talking point without reading the studies or know the approach.
I agree that stop-and-frisk and states of emergency could be a problem. However, I don't believe that Nutter would allow police abuse to flourish. Many posts criticizing stop-and-frisk unfairly attribute the most extreme potentials of police excess as Nutter's plan.
I believe that Nutter would implement protections to ensure that police abuse problems are not exacerbated. More than any other candidate, he demands accountability. He established the police oversight commission and, as mayor, will have a hell of lot more power to make sure heads roll if police abuse goes on.
Creation and promotion of this thread is pure Fattah advocacy. Enough has been said about stop-and-frisk.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
I'm not spinning, I'm just not perfect
Dude, I blog a lot. I made a mistake. You can fact check it if you like, but I believe Fattah has always said 2 per district. I just screwed up.
You know, I have been around long before this race, and maybe if you met me in person, you'd know I am a pretty earnest person.
Vagueness
Your mistake does illustrate how vague Fattah's policy is, and how it has been moving all over the place. Fattah's plan does not say "2 per district" or anything that specific. It's still not clear whether his current plan can be reconciled with the approach in the study or tried in other cities.
It is much easier to find fault with a specific plan than a vague one.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
So, instead of "super cop" . . .
Could we call the two per district "Batman and Robin"?
Not trying to be a jerk
and you aren't wrong in your reading or even necessarily, but part of why I said the article was superficial is this:
Most of those cities were those looked at in the Sherman article, and the analysis of success apparently is a mix of Sherman's conclusions and questionable received wisdom. I'm not an expert in criminology, but I am somewhat familiar with the literature and while "broken windows" crackdowns are linked in the media and some articles with drops in crime rate, there's definitely not consensus on this and much work suggests that there are other factors (prosecution/incarceration rates, reorganization of police departments to increase accountability) that played in the lowered crime rate.
Basically, people who think that we should have this sort of approach to crime argue that we should have this sort of approach to crime, and the media likes it because it is simple, intuitively clear, and makes for a vivid story (broken windows lead to worse problems if they aren't fixed). "Racial profiling" gets a lot of attention for the same reasons.
However, whoever said this above (you I think) was right that the important focus is on patterns of policing and figuring out what, exactly, seems to have helped in dropping crime rates elsewhere.
Jennifer
The Name Also Suggests An Image
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "broken windows" and stop-and-frisk seem to be quite different. The first is about quality-of-life improvements, including lots of things you can do without police officers -- e.g., fixing or replacing broken windows, cleaning vacant lots, etc. The latter is about what cops should and shouldn't do to find illegal guns.
The "message" of both is similar -- "Hey, guys, we're here" -- but the issues involved are very different. For one thing, there isn't a civil rights issue involved in replacing a window. But you don't get a gun off the street either.
forget broken windows, what about cracked foundations?
I just don't get it. I know I have said it before, but I see government as a change agent. Of course I expect government to handle quality of life stuff too, but are we really thinking that addressing broken windows and clearing vacant lots will reduce crime and violence as much as providing quality after school, improving our schools and sending kids to college? What about strategic economic development--in addition to tax fairness remediation--that cultivates long-term, high-wage jobs?
Short-Term and Long-Term
I'm not endorsing broken windows at all -- just distinguishing it from stop-and-frisk, state-of-emergency, and other plans designed to seize guns and stop violent crime (as opposed to quality-of-life crime). And I am right there with you on after-school programs, improving schools, and making college more affordable. So is Nutter -- Fattah doesn't have a monopoly on this issue, even if he wants to put his name on every new program.
But you have to have a short-term and long-term solution to crime. The kids on the corner right now (as well as the older guys selling pancakes and syrup) are not going into after-school programs or applying for high-wage jobs when they're created. They have high-wage jobs -- and they created them themselves.
The problem is that they don't have much in the way of life expectancy. (And their jobs are illegal, and poisonous to their neighborhoods, and they continue to pull in people who might go another way, they harass or kill anyone who threatens them, etc.) The policy under the Street administration seems to have been to write them off altogether -- as long as they're killing each other ("target-specific crimes"), we don't have a problem. And I don't think that's acceptable. We have to do something to save their lives -- and the lives of those around them who get caught in the crossfire, or think about testifying, or who argue with them at a barbecue.
short and long aren't black and white terms
Of the five candidates, only one has said that he would raise taxes to pay for universal after school programs if he had to. Everyone else chose keeping tax reductions in place.
Fattah knows this is not a position that everyone agrees with, but he is the only one who has said that after school programs are so important to our city--not just to improve the life chances and improve the futures of our city's children--but to reduce crime and make our communities safe.
And listen, I am not trying to get into a back and forth about Nutter vs. Fattah except in looking at the substantive differences of their positions on stop and frisk and states of emergencies, but..,
I have seen Nutter's ads, read his policy papers and I see one scant mention of after school in his education plan in which he commits to exploring the idea of opening rec centers and libraries in the summer and on weekdays to provide after school. he references the same idea in his violence plan. No doubt he mentions these things, but that is hardly the same as proposing universal, after school programs as the centerpiece of his candidacy.
On college, I see no mention of making college more affordable in his education or in his TV ads. The only thing I have heard is that Nutter will fully fund CCP--a pledge Fattah has made as well.
I know some Nutter supporters have trouble hearing this stuff, but there are legitimate policy differences and there are clear differences on which issues Nutter has chosen to emphasize vs. Fattah on the trail.
Maybe the issues I am raising don't matter to some people (obviously there are folks voting for Nutter), but Nutter does seem more like a broken windows kind of guy to me than one interested in fixing cracked foundations.
NOT a jerk, and I prefer the Le Tigre too
And as the Inquirer article notes:
I've said before that I was pleased that the two guys with the most substantive campaigns, Nutter and Fattah, were both willing to take on the gun violence crisis with real proposals beyond simply hiring more cops. That they both proposed some version of stop-and-frisk--and that it has had some success at alleviating the city's single most odious life-quality (hell, LIFE)issue-- gun violence provided some hope for immediate help for those living in the greatest misery in the city.
I'm also an ACLU member, and I'm pleased that there are people like Jennifer and Dan around to question, question, question stop-and-frisk. This is the way society works, I think, when it works well. The idea people, the people who are willing to take risks and take on big problems, make proposals. And the critics, who worry about the implications of big life-changing proposals, question the proposals. There are negotiations, adjustments, and hopefully a better version of the proposals move forward.
I always say "complaining is easy but advocating is hard" but, in a very real way, society needs both, even if I believe VERY strongly that one is more socially useful (and thus more ethical) than the other. Such is the way of the Pragmatist, the agnostic but passionate humanist.
So Jennifer, I don't think you're ready to advocate an alternative proposal to deal immediately with the city's gun violence crisis. Remember: most of us feel we need to do something, and if not some version of "broken windows," we who believe that there is a crisis are justified in asking,"Then what?" I'm glad you raise the issue of how long and where stop-and-frisk would happen, even if I'm also kind of glad Nutter is waiting until he's (hopefully) in office to let some real law enforcement people with practical knowledge of the city work out exact geographic details.
Stop-and-frisk and 6 week states of emergency are possible, probably temporary, solutions to a crisis that demands immediate attention--and yes, most of us believe, action.
I propose some cooling-off period for some stop-and-frisk rhetoriticians. In the heat of the campaign, this hot button issue is turning some good people's prose purple. Ray, it's kind of unethical to rearrange the sentences in your blockquote to put Michael's interview refusal at the bottom, for maximum effect. You're better than that.
Proudly supporting the whole BEAUTIFUL Philly For Change Ballot, featuring MICHAEL NUTTER for Mayor
oh Sam
It's easy to ask to turn off a conversation about a huge difference in perspective on crime when you know your guy is on the losing end of public sentiment.
Listen, if Nutter supporters have fully vetted and approve of the tactics Nutter proposes by E-Day, and they still prevail, great.
But as I have now said twice, for a man who has been oddly tone-deaf on this issue and has not addressed the questions posed in the past week, and is talking about a HUGE change in the way we handle crime--with little evidence that it will work--someone has to start asking these questions.
Deep breath, buddy
It's fair to ask questions about Nutter's "stop-question-and-frisk," I just wrote that I'm glad such questions are being asked. We disagree about how great is the difference between our two candidates' positions on crime (I think yours is spinning it as larger than it really is) and I'll take the losing end of public sentiment if it means 52% of African-Americans and 67% of whites.
You should still edit the blockquote, Ray.
Proudly supporting the whole BEAUTIFUL Philly For Change Ballot, featuring MICHAEL NUTTER for Mayor
spinning
It's often a tactic of men when confronted with women in arguments to say "calm down." I have often wondered why straight men seem happy to do that to gay men as well. It's funny.
I am in no way uncalm. I do however have serious concerns about racial profiling and states of emergency.
The polls numbers cited in the Inky apparently mean very different things to me than you. I think they indicate a very weak support among African Americans and I included the quote from the Atlanta police commissioner because if Nutter is elected, and the policies he suggests are implemented, I have no doubt that those numbers will drop so low as to be meaningless. I will re-quote here:
Speaking of women, I got an interesting email from a woman who was concerned about stop and frisk for a totally different set of reasons. I have no idea what the findings from NYC show, but I thought she, my email correspondent, raised some interesting points:
Oh Ray
Funny. I thought the same thing when Ray wrote that white people had no business discussing Fattah's debate gaffe because of house slaves/field slaves and Plessy v. Fergusson. Then he wrote to me, "You need to tone down your rhetoric buddy" -- the exact same language lots of people have used here including Ray more than once. Everyone likes to play policeman.
Sorry to get so heterosexual all of a sudden
but I argue so vociferously sometimes, people frequently tell ME to take a deep breath. Maybe I'm repressing something...
Anyway, the young woman's concerns ARE legitimate, and when Nutter is mayor I want the Police Advisory Board (that he helped establish) to be rigorous in their assessment of stop-and-frisk and whatever other extrordinary measures his administration implements
Her airline security example is an apt one. Increased airline security is one of the indignities and nuisances that is part of the reality of living in a place where we must defend ourselves against possible terrorism. It sucks, but until someone comes up with a better solution, or the threat lessens, it's something we deal with.
The gun violence crisis is a similar threat to some areas of the city. It's easy for those who do not live in those areas to simply dismiss extraordinary measures because that threat is not real to them. Neither Nutter or Fattah are so tone-deaf to the misery of those who live in the city's most violent neighborhoods, so both have proposed "stop-and-frisk."
Again, I think the differences are mostly spin, but I do not want to stop anyone from rigorously questioning the policy.
Proudly supporting the whole BEAUTIFUL Philly For Change Ballot, featuring MICHAEL NUTTER for Mayor
Breeder defense
Just as a minor point, many posters are told to calm down here. I see no correlation with the target being known to be female or gay.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
Oddly Tone Deaf
What surprised me at the last debate was how oddly tone-deaf Fattah seemed on the issue of the homicide rate, gun violence and illegal guns. There wasn't anything like an acknowledgement that guns and murder were destroying our city's neighborhoods. Instead, there was his odd insistence that Nutter, by pointing out that the victims of homicide in the city were overwhelmingly black, was trying to make a racial appeal, or that he cared more about the murder of black people than other victims in the city. His shouting insistence that we should avoid race, that two Asians had been killed just the previous week, was bizarre. I think the DN cartoon reflected some of that perception as well.
The problem Fattah faces with perception coming out of that debate is that unlike Brady or Evans, who were much more measured and sincere in their disagreements with Nutter, Fattah seemed more concerned about Nutter and the election than the victims of violent crime. Why hasn't Fattah given crime more attention in his campaign? Why hasn't he pledged to raise taxes to hire more police and parole officers, update the infrastructure, reform the district attorney's office? In the middle of a homicide epidemic, to go to the mattresses for after-school programs -- which, while great in themselves, will have no immediate impact on the people who are killing and being killed in our streets -- strikes me as truly tone-deaf and out of touch.
i guess we just disagree
Half of all juvenile crime is committed in the after school hours. I just disagree with you about the immediate impact after school programs we have. You are a vote for Nutter, I am a vote for Fattah.
However, the question I raised in this thread is, do the people who are undecided in this race get what the differences between Fattah and Nutter are on this issues? Even for those who would never vote for Fattah, do they get what it is Nutter is proposing?
I know that I will always be accused of spinning because I am Fattah staff (even though I am only Fattah staff because I wanted to be, and would be more aggressive if i weren't...) but at the end of the day, do people understand that Michael Nutter is proposing that the police be able to declare crime emergency zones in which they'll have:
-curfews
-traffic check points
-a ban on public gathering
-an ability to stop and frisk (something that already happens) as a policy for all 6,500 police officers
Again, if you guys are cool with that, vote for him.
I'm not.
Those things you post may be
Those things you post may be authorized, but that does not mean they would definitely be implemented with any declaration of an emergency.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
They will likely have an
They will likely have an impact on juvenile crime, and education -- which is why I'm glad Nutter is supporting them -- but not homicides. That's the point.
The question is why Fattah isn't as serious about stopping or slowing the homicide rate as he is about starting new after school programs. Why go to the mattress for one, and not the other?
This election is about crime and political reform. Why doesn't Fattah take either more seriously?
he does
a central part of his plan to to improve the homicide clearance rate, better use our existing police force to go after illegal gun sales and homicides and to use surveillance cameras which have helped Chicago achive 40 year lows in homicide rates.
You are right however that his focus in ads has been less homicide-linked. The three things he focuses on the most are:
-after school
-getting rid of illegal guns
-sending kids to college.
The losing end of public sentiment
This:
Versus:
That doesn't look like the losing end of public sentiment to me. And even if you argue that it will be unpopular one day, well, that day has not come yet, and the election is on Tuesday. I can't find the poll on the Temple website, but keep in mind that there would inevitably be a decent amount of people undecided about this issue, which probably means that less than 40% of city residents opposed it. Say what you will about the policy, but if you think it is unpopular, you are willfully ignoring the results of the poll you just posted on. Quite frankly, it seems strange to me that the Fattah campaign, after four months of continually losing ground in public polls, has decided to close the campaign by attacking Nutter on an issue that has a majority of support among both white and black voters in the city. As principled as it may be, it does not seem like a winning strategy. Thus, we have the Fattah campaign in a nutshell.
Sam
I can't find particular quotes here, but aren't you one of those Nutter supporters who has been appalled, utterly appalled, that Fattah hasn't laid out each and every step of his plan to eradicate poverty in the City? Hasn't your suggestion been that unless he does that, you may as well take his Opportunity Agenda and toss it? Yet, your candidate wants to take a year figuring out what to do about the City's pension crisis while it continues to worsen, and some undefinable period of time before he tells us which parts of the City he's going to virtually shut down! And then some time later (we don't know when) he'll tell us when he's going to lift the state of siege, and then some time after that (maybe) he'll tell us what he's going to do to relieve the actual conditions which necessitated the lockdown. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I see a bit of a double standard here.
It's just you
Stan, you're an impassioned extremist. On the issue of taxes, you are an impassioned myopic extremist. The city needs people like you too because, as I say above, we need people to ask questions when others move forward with big ideas. Your heart is in the right place, and those big corporate interests that keep you awake at night will indeed lobby not just future Mayor Nutter (whom I trust) but members of City Council (whom I may not), and I know you'll be there to fight them. That's a good thing.
It's also a good thing to take advantage of the year before contracts are up to call in as many well-intentioned experts to negotiate a solution to the city's pension crisis. Would that the federal government would be so wise about Social Security.
And as Congressman Fattah can attest, extraordinary measures are required immediately to deal with the current gun violence crisis in some neighborhoods.
And while every $30 million tax cut does indeed require accounting for, as you know, every such cut represents 83/100 of 1% of the city's $3.6 billion budget, which might possibly not exactly shut down the city's government.
We'll get a beer after the election.
Proudly supporting the whole BEAUTIFUL Philly For Change Ballot, featuring MICHAEL NUTTER for Mayor
I know you're immune to hyperbole, Sam
but it has its uses. So do simple facts. The first $30 million tax cut may not amount to much. But the second one following immediately after the first compounds the damage -- literally. So the second year as costs go up, the revenue lost from the tax cut doubles. And then the amount keeps growing. By the third year you're talking about $90 million less to play with than before you started, then $120 million, and so on and so on. I'm sorry, but pretty soon you're talking about losing real money. If you think it's real money when one candidate doesn't have it to spend, it's also real money when another candidate doesn't have it to spend. So all I'm calling for is a little consistency, that's all when evaluating the candidates. And that's not even hyperbole.
You're right, Stan
I can be a real fucking hyperbole machine when I want to be. I'm not being sarcastic. That's true. I enjoy life a lot and frequently fail to suffer fools gladly. Both can lead to hyperbole.
(I'm NOT implying you're a fool. You're not. You're a guy I have honest disagreements with.)
So: I believe Nutter can trim enough inefficiencies and bring in enough revenue from selling recyclables to cover the $30 million, and that by the time he runs out inefficiencies to trim, revenues will have gone up enough to pay for the tax cuts.
I agree it's taking a chance. But when you need change, sometimes you need to take a chance.
I appreciate, I really do, that guys like you will watch like a hawk to make sure the chances Nutter takes will get scrutinized over time (should he become mayor, as I hope). I guess it's possible too that, if Nutter's positions on business tax cuts have moderated over time, that guys like you have already had a salutary effect.
Politics, like life, is a journey. We'll see what's up ahead.
Proudly supporting the whole BEAUTIFUL Philly For Change Ballot, featuring MICHAEL NUTTER for Mayor
this is nice
good, I am glad you laid it out on the table like that. That's something undecideds can truly evaluate.
One more time for old sake (as Friedman said), Sam Katz ran on a platform of reducing wage and BPT taxes starting in 1991. After Rendell got the city back in financial shape, he enacted yearly reductions. I believe they started in 94--but i could be wrong. Certainly no later than 98.
As far as I can tell there is no proof that those cuts have ever created jobs or new revenue. There may have been some years (the dot.com ones for instance) where revenue was up but that's a case of correlation not causation).
So, I agree change is hard and politics is a journey, but I think it's time to elect a Mayor who does not pussyfoot around taxes--and in fact will even increase them to pay for after-school--as i think Philadelphia's real economic salvation will come from strategic, industry-specific economic development and a really high-quality workforce that CEOs nationwide know about and want to utilize.
Increasing the wages of all Philadelphians by getting them better jobs is a much better way to make our revenue stream stable over the long haul.
Things for undecideds to consider
Undecideds may have already thrown out the Inquirer, Daily News, Philly For Change, Daily Pennsylvanian, CityPaper, Philadelphia Weekly, Northeast Times, and first ever Clean Water Action endorsements of Michael Nutter for mayor.
They may ignore the very real fact that the people who are paid to predict the outcome of the mayor's race are now in agreement that the winner will be either Nutter or Tom Knox.
They may also ignore the fact that in dismissing the once-favored Chaka Fattah, most of the print endorsements have pointed out that his poverty-fighting claims have been hyperbolic and unrealistic. Ray, I believe you just referred to "increasing the wages of all Philadelphians by getting them better jobs." I'd like to do that too. It's possible that the mayor can't do that, even if he leases the airport at a price no one else thinks he can get, even if he talks the US Congress into allowing him to try to do so.
One thing I'd ask undecideds to consider is who has had the steadiest hand and held the most consistent positions in this mayoral election.
Nutter did NOT start out by asking to amend the election laws so he could accept $100K checks. He did NOT try to throw away those laws when Knox ascended in the polls. He has NOT repeatedly changed the focus of his campaign, sometimes emphasizing extraordinary funding sources, sometimes focusing on poverty, sometimes focusing on race, sometimes saying that what he really meant to be saying all along is that it all comes down to after school programs.
He did none of that.
Nutter simply never panicked and always stayed focused on moving forward, despite being behind in the polls for a very long time.
That is, after all, a pretty important quality for a mayor of this city to have. Grace under pressure.
Nutter never changed his focus or his priorities. Read his proposals. He wants to change lives and change the culture of our government, and he wants to tell the truth about how he'll do it.
He really wants to be the honest mayor people can trust and who can bring people together--rather than drive them apart--to solve the city's problems and create a better future.
Proudly supporting the whole BEAUTIFUL Philly For Change Ballot, featuring MICHAEL NUTTER for Mayor
Complaining/advocating
You are definitely right about the complaining. And I'm not clearly advocating, though I am also not running for mayor.
However, I do have some positions as to constructive plans:
Basically I think that the issue is the number and location of police, and their level of visibility. I think that (crime emergency thing aside, which I still think is not within the mayor's authority) whatever the police would be doing (e.g. stopping and frisking) they'd be doing now...if they were actually there, in person, on the streets, where the illegal guns and violence are.
I think that the debate about stop and frisk, with all the rhetorical posturing and re-posturing, is a distraction from everyone really getting down to tacks and figuring out how we are going to restructure policing and blanket those areas without falling into the pitfalls and failures of Safe Streets.
It really frustrates me, since Safe Streets was the last big initiative and it was not effective and we need to be talking about how we are going to do better. We also need to be talking about why the existing illegal gun task force has done almost nothing since it was started. EVERY mayoral candidate should have a real plan (Tom Knox's reentry ideas are seriously great, but they are not enough; that's definitely not a full plan on how to deal with the murder rate).
What the police can do when they are in the neighborhoods is less the issue to me than how we are going to get there. Good lord, it's not like the police are currently hogtied and if not for me, Dan, and the ACLU they'd be ready to stop everyone getting killed just like that.
Jennifer
PS how's this for a revelatory idea
People in the neighborhoods don't just have ideas about how they feel about variously worded questions about stop and frisk and crime emergencies (which sometimes get support) or racial profiling and curfews (which probably wouldn't).
They have extensive opinions about how the police have failed to protect them based on their living, daily, in seriously dangerous conditions. I'd love to see one of the candidates say that we are going to have a ground-level, neighborhood by neighborhood, series of meetings where residents can voice their problems with crime and the police to the politicians and representatives of the police and the DA's office. This would serve as both important information-sharing and as a mechanism to get everyone on board with the violence-reduction plans.
An interesting offshoot of how crime has pushed out other topics, like zoning reform and housing, is that there are a lot of other issues interwoven with crime. For example, abandoned properties and lots. NTI dealt with a lot of this, but it didn't fix or finish everything. Andy Toy has talked about having a land bank and streamlining the city's ability to seize decrepit tax delinquent property. Dan and I raised the concern that we need to protect low-income homeowners in this process. But the idea is a good one and is tied with the persistence of violent crime in a lot of areas: these properties facilitate it.
These are more of the conversations I think the stop and frisk debate (and proposal, for that matter) shunts to the side.
Jennifer
Good times in Philadelphia-Town
(I am just going to keep replying to myself as though it were a Hannah thread.)
From another (non-political) messageboard. (Actually, it's punk. But still non-political, since that seems to be how it goes these days.)
Okay so obviously anecdotal, but my point is there is a hell of a lot of work to do about where cops are and what they are doing when they are out there, even before we get to these debates over extreme measures.
Jennifer
ok, but....
love the replying to yourself.
I guess I feel like you are talking in circles. I mean yes supporters of candidates are talking rhetorically at this point, but it's all based off of what the candidates have said.
And whether Nutter is capable as Mayor of declaring a state of emergency or not, his saying that he will is still an indicator of how he thinks about crime.
Do you not think that's a meaningful indicator?
Also- I have been castigated by saying so, but opening up the door to this more draconian sort of law enforcement--you don't think that emboldens the DA (who is not yet Seth) and the new commissioner to take a very hard line?
Yeah, totally, from the point of view of who to vote for
It's a frustrating distraction, in my mind, but not an unrevealing one.
Stepping back to the weird psychology a lot of us (including me) have about Nutter: I want to think better of him, and am just frustrated that I think he is leading us afield from what I think would be more constructive (and the decisions about how to police that I think we are going to have to face once whoever is elected mayor).
Jennifer
Leadership on the Crime Issue
What I hear from Nutter is that he - as Mayor - would take ownership of the public safety function. I also get from him that he understands that competing interests (personal freedom and public safety) must be balanced because he's also the guy who led the creation of the Police Advisory Commission).
In the end, you have to decide which of the five men "gets it" the most; who will attract and retain the best managerial talent at the Police Department; who will ask the right questions of colleagues and subordinates; who will work to allocate staffing and resources appropriately and equitably; who will be most open to frank and candid discussions with community groups and criminal justice experts; who will subliminate his ego and put achievement of public safety goals above politics. Anyway, you get the drift.
Devil's advocate
That's what I was trying to get at with the "odd psychology re: Nutter" thing. And it's why I am most likely going to vote for him.
But (this it the devil's advocate part, not that I am calling Ray the devil; he's been an angel when I've met him) Ray is not wrong to say that the plan, as written, raises serious questions and potential problems and it is a hell of a lot of trust to put in one man, even a man who was instrumental in getting the Police Advisory Commission together.
Jennifer
so more on the DA
once area where we all agreed a year or two back (or at least me and Friedman did) was in regard to the DA's office. Seth will hopefully be DA in 2009, so maybe the problem is not as bad, but if Lynne had stop and frisk and states of emergencies mixed in with her current MO, knowing how much she already overcharges, what do you think will happen?
what will happen from the lawsuits against the PPD when states of emergency are declared? how much are we talking in legal fees?
It's great that the Police Advisory Commission exists and it does say something wonderful about Nutter, but it also does not make my personal dealings with the police any less anxiety-ridden.
So ye, I do agree that you have to decide which of the men "gets" it but i think the barrier to making that decision is understanding how much control the Mayor truly has over a police commissioner and a DA and also understanding what the first line of defense is against violence. Is it locking people up at a higher rate (when there are not enough jails)? Is it pursuing people caught holding dime bas or is it going after dealers or suppliers? What's the right mix of education vs. incarceration focus?
And more and more about the DA
Completely with you. Topic of the day yesterday. (Scroll around.)
The mayor and city council (with input from the DA) need to determine some parameters for prosecution as part of the framework for these heightened policing plans. (For example, a policy to not charge for de minimus offenses like personal possession when someone is stopped and frisked to look for illegal weapons.)
Anyway, yeah, huge potential problem.
Jennifer
deal breaker
Jennifer
so why is this not a deal breaker issue for you?
ray
It sort of is or may be
It's gotten glossed over as I've referred to probably voting for Nutter, but the first time I said it it was contextualized in a jokey signature where I said I'd probably vote for him despite his awful crime plan but definitely would if it was necessary to keep Knox out.
If I vote for him it's either (a) because of the "odd psychology" thing (I think he'll be effective at actually getting his good policy through, and I "want to believe" that he isn't as bad as this crime thing makes him seem; I said before that I think it is maybe not revealing so much as a dumb move to be the toughest that is tying him up in knots; I think this because of his qualified descriptions of what is trying to do in the debates) or (b) because Fattah is low enough that I need to vote for Nutter to keep Knox out.
I am not convinced that I could do (a). I think the plan, as written, and without qualifications that I think a man who helped start the Police Advisory Commission should have included in any plan like the one he's putting out, is really really bad.
Jennifer
More on Mike
I still like Seth Williams for DA. But more on Mike...it was mentioned on a thread at some point over the last few days that more aggressive police tactics should be used only if a local community supports them. Without getting into a big discussion over how we should define "community" or what protocols we should use to determine community support, I want to tell you about my experience with Mike Nutter when he was Councilman.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m very involved with community, economic development, and educational advocacy in East Falls. Nutter was always very accessible and accommodating. He was never imperious and always exhibited “servant leadership” characteristics. It was common for him to ask “what do you want?” It’s why I think that – regardless of the issue – Mike Nutter as Mayor will engage and empower communities to have a say in their destiny.
One more anecdote for the night; just heard this one last week. As some of you know, Manayunk is the focal point of the annual bike race in June (what’s it called now anyway? I’m still calling it “CoreStates”). One of Michael’s constituents was having a tough time with some after hours partying; at 1:30 in the morning, this gentleman couldn’t get any relief, after having called the police. So, he called Michael and held up the phone so that Michael could hear the loud revelry out on the street. Michael said something like, “I’ll be right over”. Michael got up, went to Manayunk, and dealt with the situation, getting the police involved, etc. Now that’s constituent service. You hear a lot of these stories from Michael’s former 4th District constituents.
(No subject)
It seems also to be an indicator of how he's tried to brand himself as a candidate. In a world where differences in the minds of the average voter are marginal at best, you occupy the extreme position in the spectrum to set yourself apart, no?
Hey Jenn, that could have
Hey Jenn, that could have been one of Fattah's future super cops.
NYC v. Philly
Isn't New York City the safest large city in America? Not saying that we shouldn't be concerned about disparate impact, but they must be doing something right up there, no?
lessons learned
Sure, but the Police Commissioner who instituted stop and frisk was ousted by Gulliani.
On Bloomberg's watch, his police commissioner put an end to racial profiling and eliminated the street crimes unit and crime has continued to go down.
A large police presence, COMPStat and well-functioning statewide coalition that has put pressure on gun sellers to be more responsible are all reasons why NYC is so safe.
S&F in NYC
As Dan noted in the other thread, though, the number of Terry stops in NYC have increased under Kelly -- something like three or four times what they were under the old regime.
Absolutely -- we need all of these things too.
Which "Other Thread"?
It's getting confusing. But I meant this other thread, where Dan quotes this NYT article:
So the NYPD has done well employing a number of smart police strategies, but stop and frisk continues to be an important part of their strategy. And they seem to be doing it without racial profiling.
Who says they don't
Who says they don't profile?
They were forced into two court ordered agreements, because they were found to disproportionately go after African-American men. The agreement included keeping track of stop and frisks. They promptly refused to release the data for years, and now have recently done so.
I do not believe there has been a new analysis to say that they have stopped going after too high a percentage of African-Americans. But, a cursory glance when the numbers were finally release did show a staggering increase in stops.
Want to place some bets that the upcoming analysis will show that African-Americans are still, controlling for everything else, being stopped disproportionately?
Dan, you might have
Dan, you might have forgotten the article. The analysis has already been done:
Ah, nah, that is not exactly
Ah, nah, that is not exactly the study that we are awaiting. Those numbers do not show anything, statistically.
OK, fair enough. I am not
OK, fair enough.
I am not holding up NYC as an absolute model, by any means. I think that one way or another, we need to learn from their successes and their mistakes. Initiating a sophisticated data-gathering program and giving City Council oversight from the start would both be good measures to prevent NYC-style delays in releasing the numbers.
Once again, opinions instead of facts.
Guess it was simply too much trouble to read the crime plan that's been on our website for months, huh?
http://www.knoxforphilly.com/files/StoppingTheViolenceFinal.pdf
Press secretary, Knox campaign. Blogger on hiatus, former award-winning journalist.
Well, more like hyperbole
Well, more like hyperbole instead of generosity. I did forget about Knox's proposal for community-based prosecution and the petition work he's done to get the city local control of gun laws. They're both good ideas -- not necessarily new ideas, but good ones all the same.
Who is debating?
Ray tries to imply how opposed poor African Americans are to stop and frisk. I have no feel for the reality, but in another thread, the following went unchallenged:
Is this debate just between white boys (and gator-ater and maybe others) who aren't likely to get shot?
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
did you read the thread
the poll does not back you up. And everyone of the 100 African American people who have contacted me since the DN cartoon yesterday in person, on the phone or on email has mentioned the racist implications of stop and frisk.
Who is spinning now? This is getting silly--i know how you are voting Aardhart and clearly nothing will change your mind. I really only meant to address the undecided voters who are worried and want a minute to process the racial profiling implications of stop and frisk and the dangers of states of emergency.
The problem with the poll
is that it doesn't tell you what question was asked, how strong the support or the opposition is, or how much it will affect people's voting decisions. Vary that, and the numbers could shift one way or the other, to the extremes of either Ray's informal call-in poll or Aardhart's canvassing poll.
And still, a majority of African-Americans said they would support the policy. That tells you how much crime matters in this election.
Clarification
I wasn't doing the canvassing, and the canvasser was not polling on the issue.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
I was using "poll" loosely
I was using "poll" loosely (Ray's call-in complaints aren't a poll either), but you're right -- it was Adam (raider).
The poll says that 52% of
The poll says that 52% of African Americans support stop and frisk. It does not say how it is viewed by the residents of the most dangerous areas of the city, the areas that would be targeted. As I posted, I have no feel on how it is truly viewed in these areas. But neither the poll nor the other tread supports you when you imply that the crime plan is fiercely opposed in the areas that it would be implemented.
I'm not surprised that the people who contacted Fattah's office on the issue would agree with you.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
poll today, gone tomorrow
Again, from the Inky:
From my post above: More
From my post above:
You are again attributing the worst in policing to Nutter's plan. I believe that Nutter would be responsive to problems in any of his plans and would not continue stop-and-frisk longer than necessary. Nutter was behind the Police Advisory Board, and I believe that trying to portray him as Commissioner Rizzo is unfair.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
Commisioners will be commisioners
When a Mayor gives political cover to do something...unusual...no matter what his or her best intentions are...s/he can not control the political momentum that is created or the actions of his or her DA or Commissioner or of Council.
The Fattah approach to accountability
The Fattah approach to accountability: "Commisioners [sic] will be commisioners [sic]"
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
spelling is not my strong suit
but talk about spinning the sit.
Frank Rizzo, Police Commissioner
I don't think there's much more to be said on this blog on this topic, as it seems like you are all on a repetitive loop now. I also think the success or failure of any of these crime-fighting policies will depend on how they are actually implemented and what the public reaction is over time.
I just want to throw in something from our own city's unique history of policing and crime-fighting that I know has to inform many people's views on this debate, at least those of us of a certain age. Only a few of us who write here regularly are old enough to remember this, and I'm not sure how many of us grew up here. But i did grow up in North Philly in the 1950s and 60s, and I can tell you that, even as a child, I was terrified of the police. The image of police on sit coms and and in kid's books as the smiling, friendly guys who helped little old ladies across the street was fairy tale material to us. Police were scary. And I'm white, and was never in any trouble at all.
By the time I was a teenager, Frank Rizzo was police commissioner, and the fear and distrust was at a fevered pitch. Stop and frisk was standard operating procedure for police to use on white kids with long hair. Harassment was constant. Many minor drug busts were thrown out on illegal search and seizure defenses, but this did not deter the police at all. Black people were more likely to just get brutally clubbed, on a very routine basis. The racial tension was enormous in those days of struggle for civil rights, and the police played a horrible, terrorizing role. It has taken many decades of community policing, increasing the number of black officers and promoting them through the ranks, the Police Advisory Commission, and a lot of public relations work to change that perception markedly.
Now, before you Nutter fans start clubbing me with your posts, let me be clear I am not suggesting that returning to those days and tactics is what he is proposing. I am just saying that people still remember those days and are fearful of tactics that are reminiscent in any way of what we experienced then. As soon as I heard "stop and frisk," the words "Frank Rizzo, Police commissioner," popped into my brain and there they remain.
End of history lesson.
Kathy Black
*************************
already voted for Fattah for mayor
Rizzo's ghost
I just came back from 3 hours of canvassing in my African American neighborhood. People brought up the "stop and frisk" issue numerous times, spontaneously, with no prompting from me. Two people said something like, "that's just like going back to the Rizzo days."
No one parsed the issue the way folks on this blog have been doing. The reaction was visceral - stop and frisk is bad for people in our neighborhood. It smacks of Rizzo's tactics, which makes it something we definitely do not want. No one was interested in other city's statistics on crime and gun reduction. They viewed it as license for police that had been reduced over the years and they did not want it restored.
I still have to question why some don't get it
I, believe in protecting the civil rights of American citizens. I have no problem with racial profiling in areas of national security or at airports, and because of my personal features, have twice been stopped and frisked at airports.
It comes with the times.
I teach in the inner city. I see the type of activity which would warrant a stop and frisk. I also see the type of activity which would not warrant a stop and frisk. It is so easy to tell the difference.
In 3 of the last 4 years my class has lost a student. 2 of the 3 were suspicious deaths. I have four of my recent alumni heavily involved in drugs or the drug trade. One has been beaten with a gun.
Stop and frisk will protect citizens so we can move forward. It is not meant to be permanent. It is so close to Fattah's plan, to hear his supporters continually beseech it is sour grapes. It is one more reason to elect Nutter. Nutter is the more effcetive communicator.
I teach in the inner city. I
Really, Keith? Then, if using your expertise, what percentage of stops should lead to guns being found?
Sour sour grapes
First, there are significant differences between the two plans if Nutter's plays out in a state of emergency, as he has gone clearly on record as planning.
Second, Evans and Knox and Brady (son of a cop!) are clearly also critical of Nutter's plan. (Knox has flyers out in the neighborhoods now that call Nutter's plan "lunacy" and have a "Cops"-style luridly flashing squad car with handcuffs on them.) Their criticisms could also be out of jealousy, sure, but they are still standing criticisms of Nutter's plan. It's not just Fattah.
Third, while I get you and Ray wanting this to be about a Nutter/Fattah horserace and proving which of the two we should all vote for, I am way more concerned with pushing Nutter to refine his policy before he possibly gets elected on it (like he minimally did the other day in confirming that he'd adjust the program in there were problems like police abuses). This is an important project, no matter who you are supporting for mayor (even if you are supporting Fattah!) because Nutter could well be elected and his could be the policy we all have to live under.
Jennifer
I think Keith's point about
I think Keith's point about Fattah's and Nutter's S&F plans is that Fattah hasn't said, "stop and frisk can work, but I would use it differently" or "we don't need to declare a state of emergency to give the police the ability to get guns off of the street." Instead, he's downplayed that he's had anything to do with S&F at all, while distorting what Nutter wants to do. (Remember the first version of the 527 commercial saying that Nutter wanted to strip constitutional rights, or Fattah saying in the debate that the proposal was unconstitutional? Knox, too, has characterized the proposal as "martial law," which is way off.)
Nutter often overstates how radical his proposal will be for electoral reasons (to make him seem tough on crime); the other candidates do the same to try to hammer him with it.
That's the horserace stuff. Now that that's out of the way, I totally agree with this:
We've already identified lots of ways that the program can be adjusted/safeguarded: expanded civilian review, 311, city council oversight, data gathering, embedding the program in neighborhood-based policing, targeting small areas and not whole neighborhoods, specifying what emergency powers will be used and under what conditions, and changing the program if it's inefficient or produces abuses. Am I missing anything?
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
No, that's pretty good
Now get Nutter to say it.
Anyway, exactly, but these things get obscured by Keith-style "sour grapes" charges. I pretty much agree about the unsatisfactory-ness of Fattah's positioning and re-positioning on this, though it doesn't worry me too much because basically I think it is fair to say he's moved away from the original proposal and towards a more critical stance. So there's not much to say about that, unless we move on to talk about cameras and other items in the Fattah good-policy-grab-bag.
I also guess I think that Ray is right that you can read your list a couple ways: these are all maybe necessary refinements of Nutter's initial plan that we can trust Nutter to adopt (very possibly true)...
Or these are serious concerns that Nutter should have addressed in the plan and his express invocation of the need to "trust the police" (as Dan highlighted) reveals something about Nutter's orientation towards the crime problem that voters should be aware of in making their selection.
Which of course could cut both ways. You rightly pointed out that Nutter's stance is a calculated one; he figured that there were dividends to be reaped by being the apparently "toughest."
Jennifer
Police Advisory Commission
Don't know if you caught it, but here's a post by Robert S. Nix, the Chair of the Police Advisory Commission:
http://www.youngphillypolitics.com/michael_nutter_and_police_advisory_co...
From the post:
"Referring to your post on YPP about the Philadelphia Police Advisory Commission, you are correct about Michael Nutter and his strong support for the Commission. It was a very tough fight from the beginning, and Michael was instrumental in getting the Commission created over Mayor Rendell's opposition. Pushed by the FOP, Mayor Rendell vetoed the original legislation which would have created a powerful civilian oversight mechanism. When Nutter mustered the votes to override the veto, Rendell negotiated a compromise, which ultimately created, by Executive Order, a less powerful Commission."
-and-
"We subsequently started a campaign for support to have the Commission made into a permanent agency under the City Charter, so that we could have a proper budget and never have to rely on the executive branch for appointments. That brings me back to Nutter. Up until he resigned to run for Mayor, Michael was once again very supportive of, and led our efforts in City Council for legislation for permanency - which, of course, includes a Charter Change. He has stated on the campaign trail that he supports a permanent Police Advisory Commission, and continues to work hard for improving police-community relations through public accountability and the fostering of trust between police and the community."
Yeah and I said
"He shows why strong mayoral support for the Police Advisory Commission is important (funding, Street's having stymied appointments to it) and why Nutter would provide that.
He also dramatically shows the limitations of the Commission in reining in the police, and the need for such reining in:
Point taken, though, I do think there is evidence supporting Nutter being acutely aware of some of the issues (though I still wish he wasn't being calculatedly tone-deaf about them during this election).
I do want people to be clear though, and I don't think you were citing Nix for this point, that people working in the area of civil rights and police oversight are uniformly in agreement that civilian oversight boards are necessary but vastly insufficient to deal with the police overreaching and abuses.
Jennifer
Here's the thing for me, Short
Nutter supporters are always talking about how thorough he is, how he is dedicated to crafting good, intelligent legislation and helping provide the leadership needed activating citizens to be empowered to achieve goals they want/need/support.
Supposedly, those characteristics are what differentiates him from the other candidates. Sounds great - exactly what I'm looking for in a mayor.
Yet, on the S&F policy it seems you want to say "Well, he's a politician, of course he's overstating his case in order to get votes."
If I'm going to vote for Nutter despite the resemblence of his eonomic platform to that of a trickle-downer, despite the potential dangers of his crime policy - both of which clash with many of the "progressive" bones in my body, then it is absolutely crucial that he shows a willingness to craft his policies from a critical perspective, and NOT from political expediency.
I sincerely hope that if Nutter wins, his supporters will step back from their rhetorical posture to join with the skeptics in holding him accountable for his promised mayoral style.
Look, as far as Philadelphia
Look, as far as Philadelphia politics goes, I am a blogger and critic first, and a Nutter supporter somewhere down the line. I didn't intend my reading of why Nutter has said what he's said about his gun violence plan as a defense. And unfortunately, I can't get Nutter to do or say anything now or forever except by the woefully inadequate and indirect means of blogging about it. Unlike Ray with Fattah, I don't have a position in the campaign, and I don't know and have never met Nutter personally, or for that matter anyone who works closely to him. All I have are public statements, news stories, and public records. I am your average Philadelphia voter -- or at least, your average voter with an internet connection and time on their hands.
I have no stake in the election other than that I want to see more progressive voices in city council and I think that Michael Nutter is the best of the five candidates for mayor. Plus, like everyone else, I want to live in a safe, prosperous, exciting city, with good jobs and good transportation and good services and smart and responsible civil servants.
I got dragged into this by the mayoral race, because as much as I love a think tank, I also love a verbal street fight. So every time someone has presented a distorted picture of who Nutter is and what he wants to do, from Stan swearing that given the chance that Nutter will repeal the entire BPT, to claims that Nutter won't support city programs for people in poverty, that Nutter is cozying up with Vince Fumo, or now, the claims that Nutter's crime plan is illegal, unconstitutional, or invokes martial law -- I've checked them out and found them out to be wrong. That's always been my rhetorical posture. And I have never been afraid to disagree with Nutter where he's wrong, to say that he said something stupid when he did, or to try to push things where I think they need to go.
I promise to kick Michael Nutter in the ribs every time I think he's wrong after he's elected mayor. And besides, this is Philadelphia. And we're Democrats. We eat our own young as a matter of principle.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Fair enough, Short
Maybe my shrill attitude was misdirected. I just get sick of how some Nutter supporters tell us how he represents the dawning of a new progressive day in politics on one hand, and then ignore it when he displays a same ol' same ol' attitude on the other.
Regardless of whether in balance it's a good idea or not, his crime policy lacks specificity in very significant ways, and he only indrectly owns up to that. Similarly, I haven't heard yet where he directly addresses any of the potential shortcomings of his economic policies. For someone who's supposed to be such a careful and intelligent public servant