Tomorrow a small bill, that slipped out of Council’s Streets and Services committee with barely any notice, will get its first reading. Titled “Towing And Immobilizing Of Parked Or Abandoned Vehicles,” few knew what Bill 080406 was about until the people benefiting showed up to testify on its behalf:

From KYW1060:

The Parking Authority is promising smoother rush hours in Center City, if it gets final City Council approval to expand its towing operation.

The Authority currently can tow and impound a car only in an area that is bounded by Vine Street on the north and Spruce Street on the south. A council committee has now given a preliminary okay to expanding that border north to Spring Garden, south to Bainbridge, and also on Broad Street itself all the way up to Hunting Park Avenue.

Parking Authority Executive Director Vince Fennerty says to goal is to get illegally parked cars out of the way in rush hour . . . .

Fennerty says this will particularly help around the I-95 Vine Street ramps.

The Parking Authority?

This is the first time (that I’m aware of) that Council has had a crack at the Parking Authority since parents launched a campaign against them last fall. Now is not the time to expand the Parking Authority’s powers. If anything, City Council should restrict the PPA’s activities until it first proves it is a more responsible steward of its money and activities. It’s also an important opportunity to squeeze that agency about why it isn’t giving more to the schools.

It looks like the whole tax package will be voted on by City Council tomorrow. The deal that's been cut will apparently slow the elimination of the gross receipts tax to a 10 rather than 8 year timetable, and also slow cuts to the net income portion of the BPT. To accomplish that, and offer various goodies to Councilmembers, the Mayor will apparently spend down virtually the entire City fund balance now at approximately $200 million.

The other economy the Mayor is more than willing to make is to ditch the one part of the tax code that makes it marginally progressive, the wage tax rebate program pushed through by the late Councilman David Cohen at the end of his life. In deference to Councilmembers who chafe at voting for outright repeal, the Mayor is apparently proposing a one year postponement. That's a tactic that has already been used twice. If Council goes for it again, that will be a signal that it intends to let it slide forever into infinity. It is pretty outrageous that on a day that Nutter made it a point to appear at a press conference with John Edwards lauding an effort to fight poverty by, among other things, expanding the earned income tax credit, he is pushing an effort to deep six its Philly equivalent. While pushing tax cuts for Ford, Apple, Budweiser and most of the rest of the Fortune 500.

Wilson Goode is rumored to be unwilling to let this go without a fight. If you think it plainly immoral to let working people hang while giving tax breaks to multinational corporations, call your Councilperson now, and let them know. And, if this is really getting to you, come to Council tomorrow at 9:30 or so, and pigeonhole your favorite representative for a few moments while they still have a chance to do the right thing.

Today, City Council is expected to hear testimony from the School District of Philadelphia, which controls $2.3 billion of public money for the public schools, almost 40% of which ($889 million) is financed by the City.

When legislative costing out study pegs the underfunding of Philadelphia schools at a billion dollars a year, it’s not surprising to see a grim outlook for school finances. A state-sponsored “multiple provider model” (including charters, alternative education schools, and privatized schools run by Education Management Organizations and non-profits) has dramatically increased the burden on schools, particularly around management fees, gaps in charter reimbursements, and a transportation policy that forces the School District to assume all bussing and transpass payments for private and parochial schools as well as public schools.

The hardest thing to understand about the public schools and why $2.3 billion isn’t enough, is the size of the District:
• 281 different schools
• 167,000+ students – the next largest district, Pittsburgh, has less than 30,000 students
• 62 high schools
• 61 charter schools, the second largest “district” in the state
• 25,000 employees – 10,000 of whom are teachers
• 35,000 kids in K-6 on buses, and 55,000 kids in grades 7-12 using transpasses
• 86,000 free lunches served daily
• 70+ languages spoken in the District
• Average age of buildings – 70 years old

And the District continues to grow in expenses. The District’s Five Year Plan projects growth in expenses at $700 million, almost 30%. The problem is that enrollment is expected to “decline” by 10,000 some students over the next five years as well. In this situation, the District is contemplating difficult decisions around closing and consolidations of schools (four are underway in West Philadelphia alone), reduced services, across the board pay freezes, and other options.

Amid all the post-election analysis, here’s a pitch about tonight’s budget hearing at the School District of Philadelphia.

Tomorrow is the final opportunity for the public to testify about the mayor's proposed operating budget. If you'd like to tell City Council how you think our money should be spent, this is your chance!

The hearing is scheduled to begin at 2:30pm. There will be a break at 4:30pm and then testimony will resume at 5:30pm. Right now, the hearing is scheduled to last until 7:00pm but it may run later depending on how many people come to testify.

I've been told that the afternoon slots are all filled, but there is still space in the evening. To get your name on the list, e-mail Sharon Ortiz at sharon.c.ortiz@phila.gov or call 215-686-3407.

If you can't make it to the hearing, be sure to speak your piece in our "Testify!" thread on It's Our Money

i. We'll make sure that City Council gets a copy.

As sad as I am that Irv lost last May, I am proportionately that happy that Maria is in City Council advocating for her district and all the people in this city who keep being left behind as this city's rising tide lifts only some boats.

City Council signaled yesterday that Mayor Nutter would have a difficult time deep-sixing already approved wage-tax cuts for the working poor to help pay for his proposed business-tax cuts.

At least five Council members said in a budget hearing yesterday that they flat-out opposed or were deeply skeptical of calls to eliminate the so-called David Cohen tax credit, which was championed by the former city councilman, who died two years ago.

"With an acknowledged rate of 25 percent of our citizens in poverty, I'm not satisfied that we're presenting a budget where we are more aggressive on our business-tax cuts," said Councilwoman Maria Quiñones Sanchez.

So far, the budget is good in many ways, and generally restrained. But that doesn't mean that criticism should be muted if it is due. Stan has been prescient on this:

Cohen's low-income tax credit isn't slated to go into effect until 2013, and its impact on the city's current five-year plan - the subject of yesterday's hearing - is minimal. But after the tax credit has been phased in, it will cost the city about $80.8 million in 2016, and the annual cost will continue to go up.

"It starts to take off and become a very sizable cost," said Steve Agostini, the Nutter administration's budget director. "You know, if folks want to . . . debate that, that's entirely legitimate, but we just want them to understand there's a price tag associated with it."

The administration's view is that its broader plan for wage-tax relief will benefit lower-income residents, in addition to other taxpayers. The city's wage tax was at 4.96 percent when the Cohen tax credit was adopted. Scheduled reductions to the tax rate and statewide casino revenue are expected to lower that rate to 3.11 percent by 2013.

Council members asked whether it would be possible to slow the city's scheduled wage-tax reduction rate in order to fund the tax credit for the working poor. Nutter's representatives acknowledged that was possible.

And I think priorities are a valid subject for debate and criticism.

The Daily News today editorialized in favor of the demands PUP and the coalition of groups working here to prevent foreclosure made before City Council last week.The editorial board wrote:

Those people on the front lines of the issue - such as ACORN and Philadelphia Unemployment Project- seem to agree that pressure must be put on loan servicers to work more closely with local housing agencies to devise workout agreements with homeowners facing foreclosure.

Lenders and servicers can't work fast enough - or don't want to - to handle large numbers of mortgage workouts. But they need to be pressured to come to the table and work with those on the front lines to help homeowners.

Click read more for a breakdown of our demands!

Yesterday, City Council balked at the Mayor's proposal to beef up the Inspector General's office. The proposal would, among other things:

• Give the IG office its own budget
• Appoint the IG for five years, and make it really hard to remove them (only with cause, and a full hearing as to why)
• Create a two-year cooling off period, where the IG couldn't run for office
• And... let the IG investigate elected officials

One of those things probably annoyed some members of Council more than others...

They wanted to know why the city controller or district attorney could not do the same thing with the $1 million now budgeted annually for Kurland's office.

Kurland, a former assistant U.S. attorney who made a living prosecuting corruption in the city, told them that the status quo has not been able to stem corruption.

"For the past 24 years, we've had all these agencies, and we continue to have these problems," Kurland said.

Still, she could not satisfy committee members as to the different job descriptions of each of the city's watchdogs, and Greenlee held the bill.

Considering it was Councilpeople like Goode, Green and Greenlee who had questions about the office, we can be a little more charitable that the questions are sincere.

But... and this is a big but:

• Rick Mariano is in jail for corruption.
• Donna Miller has had two different staff members go to jail for corruption.
• The City treasurer is in prison for corruption.
• And, of course, while not under the jurisdiction of the IG, one of the most powerful politicians in the City- Vince Fumo- awaits a trial after a 140 count indictment for effectively stealing the public's money.

How many of those cases were brought by Lynne Abraham and the DA's Office? The answer, of course, is zero. It seems a little goofy to say that the DA- a position who will rely on Councilmembers, ward leaders and party officials every four years- will actually go after corruption. It is not like this is all theorizing: we know it to be the case.

Additionally, as far as I understand, without its own budget, if the IG needs 10 boxes of new pencils, it has to go hat-in-hand to the Mayor's office, to get approval. Think constantly needing to check in with the Mayor and his Chief of Staff may effect the ability to investigate the Mayor or his friends?

The last election made very clear that Philadelphians were ready for a government that no longer is perceived as corrupt, and that they could believe in. Ignoring the IG's office, and pretending that the Philly DA will handle things, is ridiculous. We need a bulked up IG, and we need it ASAP.

I had been thinking about Michael Nutter's first budget address for the past 24 hours and feeling fine... until I got an email from Brett Mandel this morning with the subject line, "Tax Reformers...This Budget's For You!" I thought we might be in trouble after all, but another review of the Mayor's address, and it seems like we're gonna be ok. That said, there are two things Mayor Nutter has proposed which could become very big problems:

1. He sets aside a specific amount of money for city contract negotiations with unions--no more--while relying on a bond to deal with city pension obligations.
2. He proposes cuts to the net income portion of the Business Privilege tax.

The problem with the first point is we don't really know if a bond can work. As the Inky reports today:

"It is a creative solution, and that's a good thing, but there are lots more questions that need to be answered before we know if it'll work, when it'll work," said Uri Monson, executive director of the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, which oversees the city's budget.

We also don't know what the city employee unions are going to be asking for just yet, and without the knowledge, it seems a bit inflexible to name a dollar figure now. Remember, the city is the largest employer, and any drastic change to the livelihood of its employees can have a big impact on our entire region's economy. The problem with the second point--and Jennifer and Dan pointed this out last week--is it is hard to support cuts to the net income tax without knowing how it currently impacts businesses in real numbers. I am sure the Mayor knows of course--since he is privy to data from the department of Revenue that would indicate how the tax is affecting different kinds of businesses--but we, the public, do not.

In the spirit of Mayor Nutter's "new day, new way" approach to open records and transparency in government, Jennifer wrote a letter to the Department of Revenue requesting this data. After all, there is growing evidence that for the very largest corporations, despite a real or perceived high business tax burden here, other factors like proximity to roads, train stations, cultural events, restaurants, etc. have been more important factors in making decisions about business relocation. And, perception often trumps reality when in comes to the free-market, and Nutter sent a pretty strong message that will change the perception of Philadelphia when he said this at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon:

"The doors at City Hall are now open," he said, in a silent nod to the strained relationship prevalent during the Street administration. "You will always have a friend at City Hall."

That's not to say that business taxes do not matter--and I think we all agree that our business tax structure seems uneven at best. But without a public release of the data, it's hard to know how serious of a problem this is, without relying solely on anecdotal information. Despite these potential problems, you have to give credit to Nutter for proposing a budget which:

• expands single-stream recycling
• gives $3 million to city health centers
• $4 million a year to CCP to expand its reach

That said, it is a humble budget, which makes sense for a first budget from a new Mayor. However, I have to express some concern that the entire Jobs and Economic development portion of the Mayor's speech really includes only 3 ideas: arts & culture expansion, tax cuts, and dealing with unions. For a city whose real wages have been on the decline every single year since 1969, and that has yet to produce a real economic sustainability plan for the future--as opposed to piece-meal economic development deals, often at the discretion on Council members--we could do better. However, as Nutter himself said:

We don’t walk into this process under the assumption that we have a monopoly on ideas, but we believe the proposals set forth here today will put us on a course for a safer, cleaner, greener city, where our children are protected and educated, where government performs its tasks in an open, honest and efficient manner and where performance is measured, improvements are made and services are delivered.

And until we see the line-item budget, that sounds good enough for now.

Well, Mayor Nutter seems to be settling into City Hall well. And our new council members have been thoroughly briefed and readied for governance (check out this story here). Councilwoman Tasco is our new majority leader and Councilman Clarke is the new majority whip.

Yea! It's a new day!

Now we have to wait a couple more weeks for Mayor Nutter's first budget before things can really get going. In the meantime, I'd hope Council could take care of some house-keeping matters, and pass a few bills on lingering issues from the Street administration.

So, off the top of my head...ready, set go:

• City health centers--Street promised money for more staff so that there could be extended hours. But he didn't do anything about it,. While the new Mayor is getting next year's budget ready, can Council spend the health center money from last year? (this is a Philly for Change concern too.)
  
  
• Housing units for people in emergency shelter. Again, Street promised this, money should be there, can Council help spend it? (another PFC issue.)
  
  
• Recycling. Let's go. Single-stream. I believe Councilwoman Blondelle Reynolds-Brown already put together a bill, or at least some info on using Recycle Bank so that the city could make money off recycling. This is such a no-brainer, and it's embarrassing and annoying that we can't all recycle at home, or in public places. If Council can pass that a bill that makes us money or at least comes close to breaking even on expanded recycling programs, I'd imagine Mayor Nutter would be ok with signing a bill even before the budget address. (Don't forget Christine Knapp from PennFuture's great recycling 411 post here.

All three could be possibly be done without waiting for a new budget, create jobs, address pressing needs, and contribute to the city's sustainability. Other housekeeping matters you think Council should address?

[oh one more, we have not written about this much, but the DRPA and PATCO have been talking a lot about building a light-rail line on the waterfront with new service in NJ as well. Big deal, really smart, great for the city.

While Council is waiting for a budget, maybe they could set up a hearing on this?

It'd be great to get more info--especially the economic development benefits. Hearings are mostly cost-free and a hearing on this matter would help jazz up the Guv, the state and federal congressional delegations, and local civic and business leaders--all of whom need to be bought in it's really gonna happen. Any volunteers on Council?]

City Council voted 12 – 5 today to approve Inclusionary Housing in Philadelphia.

Councilman Darrell Clarke has been championing the idea that developers need to give back to the city’s working people—-who have been struggling to match their wages with the rapidly rising cost of homes and increased rents on apartments. This is a really important notion and one that Philadelphia’s economic development planning, such as it is, has shied away from in favor of tax cuts and tax incentives.

Legislating the idea of shared prosperity is something new and wonderful for Philadelphia city government. And treating developers and business like partners in building a sustainable city--who must be held accountable as well as feted--is also an important change.

Problem is, that when Clarke first wrote legislation to deal with this issue, he targeted a group of wage-earners who most would argue don’t need help as badly as others.

In a city where there is a need for 60,000 new units of affordable housing, any money or physical units set aside by developers need to be handed out to the people with the most need.

To his credit, bowing to pressure from the Philadelphia Housing Justice coalition, the bill that was voted on today focuses more exclusively on the lower end of Philadelphia’s wage earners (you may remember that Clarke’s original bill would have allowed developers to set aside units to people who earned as much as 150% of area median income which I think is like $100 k for a family of four).

The amended bill requires half of the units to serve families, on average, at 40% of area median income (which is more like $30 k for a family of four), although the upper income level is set at 80% of area median income (as Jennifer already suggested, read WCRP ED Nora Lictash’s op-ed in yesterday’s Inky if you want more details here).

Here’s the catch.

Today’s legislation won’t take effect until “developer incentives”, or cost offsets, are decided. So that requires another bill in the new Council next Spring.

What are "developer incentives?"

Well, for instance, when the bill is passed, a developer could build 12 stories worth of condos, and be required to set aside a certain number of units. Council could decide that the developer has to put the set-aside units on the market at a price that a family of four who earns $32,000 k can afford and just take that loss in return for the privilege of being allowed to build here.

To offset this “loss,” Council could offer developers a variety of things.

Like density bonuses, where the developer is permitted to build more units than the zoning code would normally allow. Or, maybe allow developed to build higher in an apartment building than normal, or allow smaller lot sizes or smaller set-backs.

In short, developer incentives are things that directly increase profit for developers to offset any "loss" they see from contributing to our affordable housing crisis, but doesn’t directly cost the city anything.

From a coalition press release:

“We’ve worked with some of the top experts from the field and talked with key market-rate developers in Philadelphia to understand appropriate developer incentives,” said Nora Lichtash, Executive Director of the Women’s Community Revitalization Project. “We stand ready to work with City Council next year to develop fair and reasonable incentives that will make Philadelphia’s Inclusionary Housing program a model for future policies.”

However, some developers will be lobbying in the spring to have the city subsidize some of their loss on per-unit sales to low income families--with cash money.

There is a rumor that some developers have already asked for 100% subsidization--this of course would defeat the whole purpose of the bill—shared prosperity—and it’s something to keep an eye on. Between city contracts, possible BPT cuts, and a whole new set of priorities from a new Mayor and Council, I doubt we afford to subsidize developer contributions to affordable housing. Especially when the whole point of a bill was to find creative ways to fund an urgent problem.

There is a also a big picture to keep in mind here: the Affordable Housing Trust fund is already up and running, and developers are submitting RFPs to it to get money to build new units of affordable housing, for both sale or rent. Coalition folks tell me that the new stream of money from the Inclusionary Housing bill will double the reach and impact of the trust fund.

What does that mean in real numbers? In total, we're talking about construction of about 14,000 new units of affordable housing and/or repair to existing stock over 10 years.

And the need is at least 60,000 units.

So, I am glad this bill passed, and I hope the discussion of developer incentives is smooth, easy, and fast, as Council and the Mayor have a lot more work cut out for them to create more affordable housing than just this one bill.

In the meantime, let’s savor the victory today not just for affordable housing advocates, but for everyone who believes that our city government can and should so what it can to bring shared prosperity to all Philadelphians.

For the record: Supporting the bill were Clarke, DiCicco, Blackwell, Campbell, Savage, Miller, Tasco, Goode, Reynolds Brown, Kenney, Greenlee and Ramos. Call to thank them!

No votes were Verna, Krajewski, O’Neill, Rizzo and Kelly. Call to express your disappointment with them. Contact info is here.

Too bad some of the "No" votes aren't the people leaving Council next month. And in the meantime, I wonder where those folks are gonna be, and the new Mayor, on passing a reasonable package of incentives for developers.

As if proposing legislation to stifle the First Amendment was not enough, Councilman Darrel Clarke (along with Council President Anna Verna) recently introduced legislation to strike at one of Philadelphian's most treasured institutions - their Wawa's.

And Starbucks.

And Rita's Water Ice.

And every mom-and-pops little sandwich shop, deli, small restaurant, neighborhood coffee house, bakery, pizza shop, taqueria, noodle shop, Chinese take-out - in-short anything the zoning code defines as a "small retail food establishment" or "take-out restaurant."

The bill, #70913, would redefine all of these types of establishments as falling under the "Regulated Uses" portion of the zoning code, the portion of the code that covers commercial uses like:

(a) Adult book stores;

City Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell has decided not to seek another term as majority leader. She has asked fellow council members who planned to vote for her to support Councilwoman Marian Tasco for the leadership position.

“Instead of fighting among ourselves, we should be spending our energy fighting for the people of Philadelphia. My hope is that by withdrawing from contention, I can help mend the spilt that now divides members into factions, and we can begin the Michael Nutter administration with a unified council,” Blackwell said.

There is an inclusionary zoning bill that, if passed, would put Philadelphia at the forefront of cities in making sure that average city residents benefit from all that high-end development cropping up everywhere. Inclusionary zoning mandates that some portion of new construction over a certain size contains affordable units, or allows "in lieu" contribution to a fund that will build that affordable housing and provide other crucial services. This bill was drafted with the accumulated wisdom of our own Community Legal Services lawyers, and with the knowledge of leading national experts.

This great inclusionary zoning bill, which Philadelphia greatly needs, is NOT the one that City Council will be voting on tomorrow.

The bill before City Council, drafted by Councilman Darrell Clarke and put up for last-minute vote before Mayor Street leaves office, looks like an inclusionary zoning bill. However, the affordable housing that it would mandate is not affordable to the average Philadelphian. Councilman Clarke's bill only requires that developers build units that would be affordable to people making between 80% and 150% of the median income for Philadelphia. That works out to $57,000 to $104,000 per year in income. Most Philadelphia families do not come close to even the low end of that spectrum. (Click here for a comparison of the two bills.)

We have the chance to pass a model bill in the new year, with a new mayor and a revived City Council. It is crucial that we get Councilman Clarke's bill voted down tomorrow, so we do not squander that opportunity.

As the mayor elect has said (and I've quoted twice this week): "We no longer need to chase growth; now we need to guide it." True words. We need to stop settling for less than we deserve. Come to City Hall room 400 tomorrow at 9:45 am. Testify why each Philadephian deserves the chance to buy a house he or she can afford. Tell City Council we will wait for the right bill.

On the good side of the ledger, it looks like Bill Green IV will be continuing his family's long history of serving the City. It does my heart good to see a Liberal Drinker win an election!

Bill, I've got your first drink the next time you make it to DL,
-Z