Two stories in the news today really got me thinking about the need for bold, far-reaching visions, and to sometimes not settle for small, incremental changes.

First, today it was announced that the State is attempting to take 25 million dollars away from Philly’s public schools:

Minutes after Philadelphia schools chief Paul Vallas presented the district's proposed $2.04 billion budget - which already includes cuts that have parents crying foul - he said the federal, state and city governments could do more to help the district.

But while Vallas was making his pitch to City Council in Philadelphia, legislators in Harrisburg yesterday voted to do less.

The House, by about a 2-1 ratio, rejected a proposal to continue the $25 million appropriation to the school district that has been in the state's budget since Pennsylvania took over the district in 2001. The appropriation is part of $1.21 billion in funding that the district anticipates receiving from the state for 2006-07.

Apparently, this money is supposed to pay private companies like Edison. So, in theory, given I think most of these companies are more concerned about their bottom line than actual, you know, education, this might not seem like such a big deal. But, the reality is that Philly is going to be paying for these things anyway, and so, that 25 million dollar budget hole will have to be made up by shifting money around.

When Governor Rendell was campaigning in 2001, he used quite transformative language on equalizing education funding. He hit a brick wall in the form of an unresponsive GOP-controlled State House. So, instead of making structural changes to how Pennsylvania funded its schools, he did what he could: simply allocated Philly more money than before. And, while that money nowhere near made up the difference between funding levels of PA schools, it was still a significant amount. But, the debate this year lays bare just how tenuous the funding mechanisms are. Instead of a transformative way of funding schools, we get Philly kids at the mercy of the legislature, each and every year. Can you imagine how this process would go if the Governor switched parties,(which it will do, in 1, 5, or 9 years)?

In the end, the money will likely be restored this year. But, again, we had the idea of transformative change. Instead, we get a bigger line item. And at some point, that line item will go away. It is certainly not a long term strategy for success.

Second on my mind is the news that the new Comcast Center will be getting its waterless urinals, after all. But, along with those waterless urinals, it will also be getting an entire set of totally useless pipes. Yes. You read that right. The plumbers union has mandated that the developers install a completely, totally useless set of pipes. Awesome. And, the exemption for the urinals applies only to this building. Anyone in the future who cannot make a stink (pun intended) and pay for an entire set of alternative, useless pipes, will still be pissing on the environment. If anyone needs an example of how certain unions feed into the stereotype that they are impediments, not partners, to the future success of the City, they have one right here.

In the end, the center will get its green designation. But, according to the commissioner, Philly is not close to actually allowing this enviro-friendly technology City wide:

But this hardly guarantees that new urinals will be flushless in Philadelphia. Solvibile said the plumbers union was allowing only an exemption for Liberty, and only because it was installing the backup water lines. The developer also agreed to a strict maintenance program that involves scrubbing the urinals daily, changing their chemical cartridges regularly, and submitting to twice-yearly inspections.

A permanent code change is a long way off. "This is going to take years to evaluate," said Solvibile.

So, if you like the environment, and if, like the stated goals of the City, you want to see the City make sensible environmental decisions, this is nothing more than a line item. And like the City begging for school money each year, a developer who wants to install a cheaper, environmentally sound technology is out of luck.

Accepting incremental change is enticing. But sometimes, drawing a line in the sand, and keeping your eyes on the prize (even with all of its inherent risks), is the only way to achieve meaningful change.