Um, Fattah . . . Don't You Think This is Important Too?

(In case anyone was wondering, I struggle with what to promote. Tragic, I know. In any case, we now have point, and counterpoint. -Dan)

I want to eradicate poverty. I want all Philadelphians to have family sustaining jobs and quality healthcare. I want our schools to excel.

But, I also want a viable, competitive downtown. I want a master plan. I want a mayor who is going to make our downtown the playground for all of our citizens and visitors. I want a mayor who can take his downtown priorities and neighborhood priorities seriously. I want balance.

According to this article, planning for Center City Philadelphia will take a back seat in the Fattah administration. In fact, it says planning as a whole will take a back seat. Now, I wonder--can we truly afford that. Or, can we truly afford a mayor who is so singular in his goals and policies.

Consider the jobs in Center City Philadelphia?
Consider the wages earned in Center City Philadelphia?
Consider the business in Center City Philadelphia?
Consider the people who have to work--spending 8-10 hours a day in Center City Philadelphia?
Consider those who spend an hour on the bus commuting into Center City Philadelphia?

This is not just about it being a rich community. It is about it being Philadelphia's gateway to the world, Philadelphia's major selling point for prospective employers and Philadelphians place to go for entertainment.

For all those who say Fattah thinks big, it seems like his thinking is too easily captivated.

Satullo on planning for Center City

Cris Satullo also has interesting op-ed on this issue in Sunday Inquirer:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/chris_satullo/20070415_Center_...

Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor

Paul Levy is not just calling for planning in Center City

He's calling for massive public spending in Center City. Look at just these three proposals that are in the Center City District plan, according to the Inquirer:

extending the PATCO Hi-Speed line to 30th Street Station;
adding a light-rail line on Market Street from 30th Street to the Delaware River;
convert the granite plaza in front of City Hall into a public park with a large grassy lawn, cafes, and an outdoor skating rink.

My experience in City government over the past 30 years is that there is always money for projects which the power structure touts as necessary for downtown (and the Sports District), and little for elsewhere. The downtown money is always touted as absolutely essential for the prosperity of the City, and it always leaves the City adding to its massive debt, handing out tax benefits and free land left and right to those who don't need them, and making no dent in poverty. Right now we are paying $30 million a year for two completely unnecessary stadia which are used mainly by suburbanites whose governments pay nothing. Last time I looked we were also paying $20 million annually for Convention Center operating costs which which may or may not support lots of jobs. Few of those jobs pay a living wage.

Meanwhile, as we spend massive amounts of dollars, and intellectual energy, supporting these megaprojects, we have little time for direct attacks on poverty. Most of the latter efforts are focused around the need to spend millions of dollars incarcerating people rather than educating them. Several candidates have talked about how they're going to hire police no matter what, but only Fattah has made alleviating the poverty that drives crime his number one priority.

Levy's idea sounds like deja vu all over again. We're going to spend all of our time and money improving Center City, giving lip service to helping people who really need help, and then turn around in 10 years and wonder why we have just as many if not more poor people, and a killing epidemic that's unchecked.

Priorities matter. It's important that the City name poverty as its primary concern not only as a guide to how we spend our own resources, but as a sign to other governments that that's what we want them to concentrate on too, not just sharing the costs of massive new trickle down center city projects. When mayors told Harrisburg in the past that convention centers and stadia were our central concerns, even conservative legislatures were persuaded to share some resources for these projects. Fattah wants all of us to concentrate on another objective.

And I say, "Go, Fattah."

Couldn't agree more - the

Couldn't agree more - the what? billion dollars spent on a sports stadium which produced a few multi-millionaires and the rest peanut vendors. I think we should get a lot more for that money. Think of what that could have done if put into real economic development.

And - I'm tired of covering the costs for all those center city real estate tax abatements with the taxes on my home - which will be raised again with the reassessments.

But what would have been the

But what would have been the result if the sports teams left the City? It would have been another disastrous blow to the morale of the City and its residents.

Things also have to be analyzed in what they prevented and not solely on the gain.

Just recently Philadelphia bid for the Olympics. No way we could have done that without stadiums. No way we could have done that without hotels that have been sparked by the convention center.

Even though we didn't get the bid and I personally don't think Philly was ready (Chicago is far and away a better choice at this stage), it is sort of a watermark of the progress we have made.

As for tax abatements in center city, I agree with you there and I agree with nutter's plan for targeted abatements.
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

I'd have wished them a fond

I'd have wished them a fond farewell. The teams basically run an extortion racket on the cities - do what we want or we'll leave. Fork over a billion or we'll leave. Oh My! Heaven forbid! We'ld have gotten a hell of a lot more good paying jobs for that much money.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Yes, you may have preferred

Yes, you may have preferred it, but policy has to be aware of other Philadelphians wants and desires as well.

If you found some guy in Philly that says "I say we stop funding museums. I don't like them. Think what we could do with all that money."

It doesn't fly because there is a significant percentage of the population that does like museums, just as there is a significant percentage of the population that likes their sports teams.

And for the record, if I recall, the Eagles got one of the worst stadium deals compared to other NFL teams.

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

I didn't say don't fund them

I didn't say don't fund them as I don't like them - I love going to see baseball in person. I said it was a waste of money that could have been much better spent for the results.

Oh -and Museums.

Aren't private businesses. If the deal was such good buisness - why didn't the people making the money off of it find private financing?

speaking of good-paying jobs

It's nice having the wage tax revenue from all the athletes -- both home and visitors -- who play here. Yes, when Shaquille O'Neal plays here against the Sixers, he has to pay taxes on it.

Bottom line, subsidies for stadiums

don't pay in economic returns for cities. That has been widely documented. For the most part, the teams play a very clever game of pitting one city against another to drive up their subsidies, and the cities are the losers.

This is a legitimate

This is a legitimate question.

If stadiums are obviously bad for cities, how come there are about 25-50 cities in the US that fight amongst themselves to keep/steal them away? Is everyone being daft?

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

Because people want to watch

Because people want to watch the Phillies. It is a part of our City's history, etc.

But no, it has been roundly proven that stadiums do not pay for themselves.

I think people are missing

I think people are missing the gist of the point/question.

Even if the stadiums don't pay for themselves, is it economically/culturally/socially worse for the City to not have them?

Say the city runs a $5 million deficit to have the stadiums for two major sport teams. Is it better to have that $5 million than for the citizens to have their "bread and circuses"? Do we lose more than we gain?

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

My point is

that it's time that cities stopped making themselves into patsies. They should get together -- through vehicles such as the National League of Cities -- and say they're not going to be blackmailed anymore by these teams. They'll offer just so much of a percentage of construction costs, and no more. Period.

As to Philly, it's not clear that the Eagles were doing anything more than bluffing in their threats to move. The Phillies, to their credit, never made the threat. We could have rehabbed the Vet at a much cheaper cost and probably kept both teams.

That isn't the reality of

That isn't the reality of the modern NFL.

And you aren't going to get that to happen because there is always going to be a city on the outskirt of a major city that will pay.

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

$30 mil a year for 30 years

I'm not so sure of that. And, in any event, I just think cities need to get together and say no to blackmail. They can't afford it any more to just roll over.

Is it blackmail or the

Is it blackmail or the market rate?

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

The market

would allow these teams to build their own stadia and do quite nicely, thank you. That's what all the studies show. But they blackmail us into helping them profit even more than they would in the unfettered marketplace. It's ironic to talk about the market when the issue should really be framed as how much socialism we should offer to rich team owners.

Again, so why don't cities

Again, so why don't cities say no? We're talking about hundreds, if not thousands, of people in power throughout the US willing to pay this "blackmail" to deliver a resource to their citizens.

Why are they doing it?

Is it because the voters do want them?

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

It's because

the powers that be want them to, i.e, the Chambers of Commerce, the building trades, the owners and the leagues, the bond lawyers and investment firms, and usually the press. All the pay to players are on the same side, and they drown out those who try to get across a different message.

What about the people who

What about the people who want to see a baseball game, Stan? Don't we count too.

Yeah, that is the problem.

Yeah, that is the problem. Whether it is rational or not, I just don't think a referendum would even be close. Maybe we should have gone that way anyway- but, still.

The only solution to the problem is getting cities to agree not to compete. However, that usually lasts until the minute a City without a team, wants one.

Agree with the non-compete

Agree with the non-compete strategy. But the thing we tend to forget is that there are only 5 other markets of our size for a team to play in. If they want to move to the 20th largest city - there will be fewer people in the seats & the TV advertising rates would plummet.

You seemingly forget the #3

You seemingly forget the #3 tv market is open ... Los Angeles.

And the Titans went from Houston to Tennessee.

And TV Advertising is split evenly with all NFL teams.

And odds are the location they go to would not have ticket sale problems.

You should really look into all the team shifting as of late. The NFL is a great product and cities fight to keep it in their borders for the sake of their citizens and public image.
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

they wouldn't even move that far

How about Conshohocken? Langhorne? They just have to move the tax revenues out of the city; they don't have to leave the region.

Well, if Conshohocken

is ready to pay the $30 million per year for the teams, it definitely deserves to have them.

That's my sentiment. I think

That's my sentiment. I think the Rams moved out of LA in the late 70's to Anaheim. They were given all sorts of things in the deal, found they couldn't make money there & had to move again.

I submit that you could read that history as a cautionary one to any team leaving Philadelphia for the burbs.

Well, although I love having

Well, although I love having the team inside the City limits, I don't that is the deal breaker for most people. The deal breaker is seeing the Los Angeles Eagles, or whatever.

Anyway, come on,we are not LA- and you you guys know it. Sports in LA are one small part of a big metropolis, the fans show up late and leave early. The teams in this city are deeply, deeply ingrained as part our social fabric. How about a City with a more similar outlook and love for their team, like Cleveland or Baltimore? The Baltimore Colts bolted for Indianapolis. Then, with a fully public funded stadium, Baltimore lured away the Browns from Cleveland. In response, Cleveland and Ohio fully publicly funded a new Stadium, for an expansion team.

We are not Phoenix, LA or any city like that when it comes to our sports teams, and we all know it. That doesn't mean stadiums make their public funding up, because they don't. But, LA or Phoenix, we ain't.

The Philadelphia Eagles of Langhorne?????

They can move with open arms to Langhorne , Morrisville , hell even L.A. for all I care. They haven't won a Superbowl ever, at least the Rams are Super Bowl winners when they moved. Lurie wanted to keep this city hostage , threatening to move to L.A. if he didn't get backing from the city. It seems like the city lost to me. Let them bums move, just like the L.A. Angels of Anaheim.

Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog

Los Angeles

lost the Rams because it wouldn't pay the ransom. And it hasn't changed its mind, as far as I can tell.

except in this case

As you know, the teams paid for the construction costs of the stadium, which is far from typical. It would be interesting to see how much tax and other revenue has been generated.

They paid one third of the

They paid one third of the total costs, right, and got all the profits from concessions, from parking, etc?

it's been a while

I worked on some of the litigation around the deal, so I don't want to misstate things, but my recollection is that the teams were responsible for all construction and design costs, and the Phillies are also responsible for all operations & maintenance costs. It's been a while since I looked.

Weren't the Phillies

Weren't the Phillies responsible for cleaning up after the Vet demolition, too? As I remember, since the Phils were in charge, it took forever to actually clean it all up.

Saidel and Stadium Funding

Brett Mandel, Jonathan Saidel, and Stan all agree:

The teams' combined contributions for the entire construction project have equaled $482 million, $320 million coming from the Eagles and $172 million coming from the Phillies. Another P.A.I.D. bond amounting to $90 million has been granted toward Eagles' stadium operation and maintenance costs, making the total city investment, $398 million. Out of the total building and land development cost of $1,008,900,000 combined with the repayment of the $90 million P.A.I.D.bond to cover operation and maintenance, the teams themselves have covered 43.86%, the city 36.22%, the state 16.38%, DRPA 1.28%, and the "other" 2.64%.

"Do the math," said Saidel, "If you are spending most of your time trying to figure out how to screw people, you are losing sight of what government should about, and I don't think it's about taking money off of people."

He means that 52.6% of the payment has been handled by Philadelphia tax payers alone and only 43.86% is being covered by the teams of the entire $1,098,900,000 spent on creating the largest sports and most expensive complex in any USA city.

"Government should be about investing money wisely for the benefit of all." He continued, "The teams should have funded their own stadia and should be supporting themselves."

Saidel's off

Insofar as the "state" funding is the whole state, not just Phila taxpayers -- it was part of a deal that got the two new stadia in Pittsburgh as well.

Again, the real question is how much revenue has been generated back to the city, and how much the bond service is costing annually.

Well, this part: Out of the

Well, this part:

Out of the total building and land development cost of $1,008,900,000 combined with the repayment of the $90 million P.A.I.D.bond to cover operation and maintenance, the teams themselves have covered 43.86%, the city 36.22%, the state 16.38%, DRPA 1.28%, and the "other" 2.64%.

Anyway, Dave Davies looked at all the various numbers on Feb 16, 2006:

You can spin these scenarios a dozen ways - the teams leave immediately and we get new ones; the teams leave the city but stay in the region - and predict different outcomes.

The bottom line to me is that stadiums are enormously expensive, and the new tax revenues they generate don't come close to paying for them.

A city this size can afford the cost, and we're getting value for our investment. We should just understand that in life, in sports, and in municipal finance, nothing is free.

He also says, he could notfind a single urban economist who said the stadiums paid for themselves.

So, dollar for dollar the

So, dollar for dollar the stadiums do not pay for themselves.

But, can anyone honestly tell me that Philadelphia is a better place when the Eagles suck? No. Can anyone honestly tell me that there is nothing appealing about being at Citizens Bank park on a June night watching the Phillies and drinking a beer with friends or your pop? No. What about watching Temple Football get crushed by the any local high school team in the Linc?

Sports teams bring intangibles--morale, fraternity, family bonding, buffalo wings, and most importantly (sometimes) civic pride. I'm glad we paid for these things. We can talk about dollars and cents all day--but the Eagles and Phillies make Philadelphia a better place (even when they lose).

I would take the intanglibles of having these teams here over the loss in helping to pay for a new, state of the art stadium.

And whether someone agrees

And whether someone agrees or disagrees with your sentiment, I am pretty confident that your opinion is shared by a majority of Philadelphia voters.

It may be unseemly that we go into deep debt for stadiums and not for other things, and that they benefit a few incredibly rich people. But, again, I see no way they wouldnt pass, even if they don't pay for themselves.

But, we shouldn't, at the same time, pretend that they do pay for themselves.

Exactly.

Now when am I getting my lunch, punk?

Seriously though, people need things to do! If we had a city without a entertainment venues we would be a bedroom community. We aren't, we are a city. Since the earliest of times cities have offered their people entertainment, and particularly, sport.

I see no reason why we need to be out of that business.

Stadiums & Revenue

The problems with the stadiums is where they are built. If they were built near 30th Street Station, Broad & Spring Garden or the East end of Spring Garden Street, they would develop restaurants and entertainment venues around them. They would spread Center City and generate income. Witness Wrigley, Baltimore or Fenway. I remember, as a kid, the amount of bars that were busy around 22nd & Lehigh. The problem with S. Philly stadiums is when the games are over everybody leaves. This does nothing for the economy of the City.

In addition, a first class city has sports teams. My life would be poorer without the Phillies and the Eagles, no matter how much pain they have caused me and how much I complain. Time spent with my father, mother, grandfather aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, and children at the parks and at home are special times.

During the Kerry campaign we were helping run the Northwest for the campaign. An out of town coordinator suggested we meet the Sunday before the election at 2:00 pm. Everyone in the room looked at her like she was crazy. Sunday afternoons in November are for one thing. This brought up the philosophical question. "Would you rather see the Eagles win the Superbowl or John Kerry win the election". The Faustian bargain, one moment of total contentment vs an eternity(well four years anyway) of suffering.

I think in 15 years as South

I think in 15 years as South Philadelphia continues to be a place to be, we will look at the stadium sighting as a good thing. Like Temple University in the North. It will be a great anchor for future development--residential or commercial.

Really? I rode down 10th

Really? I rode down 10th Street on a cab to see the Phillies lose the other day, and I feel like I-76 cuts off the stadiums from the rest of South Philly. I don't see how the stadiums could ever be an anchor since they're so far away and surrounded by 95 and 76.

And, as far as I am

And, as far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter that they do not pay for themselves. The city can ill-afford to lose part of its identity.

Does that mean

it would have been alright to agree to $50 mil a year, $100 mil a year? Or should we have fought to hold it down to $20 mil instead of the $30 where it wound up? Couldn't we have held out for the burbs to pay a share? For us to get a share of excess profits when the teams are sold for hundreds of millions more than they would be without stadiums? I was there during the negotiations. In the end, the City just rolled over and chose to give up the fight to get more value out of the deal.

That is a fair criticism,

That is a fair criticism, and one again, that seems to be shared by your ideological brethren, Brett Mandel and Saidel.

Obviously, we get the best

Obviously, we get the best deal we can. I wouldn't recommend rolling over at all. The reality is, these teams make Philly a better place. Maybe that gives them a bargaining advantage. But, I think it true.

The state chipped in, so

The state chipped in, so that is the burbs paying a share. Or are you saying we should have directly asked for money from the counties?

Also, if I recall, other teams get much better stadium deals. So did Philly roll over or did they get below market?
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

Some got better, some worse

but we could have pushed the envelope more. The staff was working on a number of counter-proposals when the plug got pulled.

Well, I won't argue with ya

Well, I won't argue with ya there. I am definitely not against less public funding. I am just saying there is a ground to be found where we keep them.

Since you feel the city dropped the ball, which politicians should we hold accountable? Was it just a Street thing or did Council have to approve as well?

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

All, except for Cohen, Ortiz, Reynolds-Brown

Cohen, God bless his memory, and Ortiz voted no. Reynolds-Brown at least extracted a concession from the teams to pay $1 mil a year into a fund for kids. The rest buckled.

Maybe Councilman Kenney will

Maybe Councilman Kenney will offer insight from the insider view.

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

If you had any idea of how

mentally and physically draining the entire process was, you will understand my reluctance to relive the experience here. Especially, when Stan has the time on his hands to spin everything positive I would have to say about the good parts of the deal.

They're built. If the Eagles had left, we would have gone after some other team, in four or five years, that would have demanded that we build them a new stadium and fit the entire bill with taxpayer funds. Rather than having the teams picking up a huge portion of the overall costs of the ballpark and stadium we have now.

Not a perfect deal. Better than most nationally. And, its done.

www.jameskenney.com

www.311forphilly.com

How were various constituencies

inolved in the process of making the decision? Would you concur with the recommendations Stan made about how to improve such planning processes in the future.

What systematic reforms are currently taking place to allow civic groups more power in influencing planning decisions. Do you think that is a good goal? If so, are you personally doing anything concrete to make it happen?

We had input

from all of the communities that were in S Philladelphia on these two facilities and significant input from the civics at the other proposed sites and hundreds of hours of hearings with testimony from every stakeholder on the planet.

www.jameskenney.com

www.311forphilly.com

How did their input

have real power? Was there any procedure by which consensus from civic groups was integrated? If not, do you think there should be?

More generally, can you point to any collaborative planning processes on large-scale projects in Philly where input from civic groups is explicity incorporated into final decisions?

Yes, but you know

that the deal was done under incredible time pressure exerted both by the teams and the administration, and you publicly and loudly complained about it. Ultimately the deal got done while discussions were still happening between the administration and council staffs about how to strengthen the contract language, and the pressure to get the deal done immediately overwhelmed our ability to finish that. If a referendum were required, and a 2/3 vote of Council, some of that pressure might get equalized. More time for scrutiny might get worked in, and more protections for the City developed in order to assure voter approval.

I'm not going to pile on

I know you went through hell trying to do the right thing, and even offering public doubts about the deal got you trashed by the building trades. But you'll agree, I think, that the process by which the thing got mashed through was horrible, and that maybe how we do deals like that ought to be on the governmental reform agenda.

Is your problem the process

Is your problem the process or the result? If the process was three months longer and roughly the same result, would you have been content?
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

No, I wouldn't have been content,

but hopefully the result would have been better. I understand there is no way of knowing.

I wonder - did anyone

I wonder - did anyone consider demanding some ownership interest for the City considering we gave them a few hundred million? We'ld have gotten a return on that investment, and asset to leverage if needed and had a huge say in any attempt to move the team. They could have gotten the owners to issue new stock to cover the value of the cash put in.

Not that I remember

The closest to it was a weak clause put in to require that if the owners sold their interests within 5 years, they would have to share some part of the profits. But the language was weak, ridden with loophholes, and just as the staff was marking up the language to stiffen it, the word came that the legislation had to be passed right then, no further amendments to be considered.

Sword cuts both ways

I am out of my depth here (sports and all) but I tend to agree with Gaetano that Philadelphia can ill-afford to lose part of its identity (I love the word ill-afford) but the sword cuts both ways: can the Eagles afford to lose us?

They aren't that great of a team--I mean consistency is more important than the occasional championship isn't it?

There are potentially a handful of cities who could afford to woe them away, but the Eagles lose something in the deal I think--a loyal--though masochistic--fan base and all the franchising and merchandising that goes with that. Not to mention the fact that a large East Coast city is probably a part of the draw for some of the players the team recruits.

All of which to say, there may be a value in spending local tax revenue to keep the Eagles, but there is a point we would approach where the cost would outweigh the benefit.

Though this thread has become bizarrely off-topic, no?

Yes

The Colts were just as big a part of baltimore, and, hadn't been good for a long time. Same thing with the Browns in Cleveland. They moved.

Especially in the NFL, where everyone shares in TV revenue- having someone design you a revenue generating, luxury box filled stadium, guarantees you will rake it in.

Yes, very off topic. We

Yes, very off topic. We started talking about planning and got to stadium deals. Next thing the BPT will pop up.

Everyone who hasn't should read Candidate Fattah's response and/or clarification. It is a nice piece.

As for the Eagles losing us--interesting question. But, sports teams who move to different markets have different stories. There are cities who, due to demographic shifting could make a play. In addition, there is always Los Angeles.

Let's look at the last sports team to leave Philly, the Athletics. I'd say they are doing pretty well in Oakland--a smaller city that Philly at the time (it remains smaller).

Yea, but where?

All I am saying is your points make sense in the abstract, but again, there are only so many cities without a major team who have the revenue to build a new stadium and throw in other incentives to lure the Eagles away. And in the process, the Eagles lose money because pissed off Philadelphians don't go to games or buy jerseys or whatever.

So, if the teams threaten to leave, I say we call their bluff (again this is all pretty hypothetical right?) unless it's for real.

Ray, Dan just gave you a

Ray, Dan just gave you a great example of a team that left with much success.

Also, there is one city that is dying for a franchise--Los Angeles. Nothing is in the works for them--not expansion, etc. They have the money, resources and everything else to take our team.

Look, 15 years ago, if you told me Jacksonville would have a team, I would have called you a liar. But, they do. San Antonio, the nations 7th largest city does not have a team. San Jose is close to the million mark, and though close to two teams has some scratch to spend. Portland, though smaller, wants a team.

Let's not forget about the Hampton Roads area too. Norfolk was in contention for a MLB team.

But, until the Eagles or Phillies want to move--how can this hypothethical question really be answered with a hypothetical answer. Just remember one thing, the NFL has not had a problem expanding to new cities. Niether has MLB. And, it takes less population to support a baseball team than a football team--I think.

And you are all forgetting

And you are all forgetting the sleeping giant.

Vegas. There are periodic rumors of Al Davis checking in on them.

As for city size, remember, a small city could easily get a state to help fund the project.

The point is, there are always options.

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

Vegas baby!

I did forget Vegas.

But, that is another city who WANTS a team.

Negoatiation

Again, an absurdly hypothetical conversation, but if the Eagles threatened to leave, all I am saying is that we should hang tough and not just give in until the terms of the move become clear.

I say this, gaetano, because you said this:

And, as far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter that they do not pay for themselves. The city can ill-afford to lose part of its identity.

This statement is a bad start to negotiations. A lot of teams threaten to leave to get more out of their current city--it's what happened in Pittsburgh with the Penguins.

Capitulating to a sports team based on a perception of their service to us is useless without thinking about our service to them--a fan base that buys tickets, merchandise, and that listens to their players when they endorse a product, not to mention the advantages our geographic location offer and a long-standing relationship and subsequent indoctrination of culture (or enculturation if i could be allowed to make up words) of the team into local resident's daily lives.

Vermont is a good example of where there is no football enculturation--everyone I've ever met from Vermont watches NASCAR more than they do football. So you could move a football team up there, but the revenue the team would generate there would not be as high as it is heere (even adjusting for population diofferences).

Ray, I'm not negotiating!

I represent no one related to the stadiums aside from myself. My simple point is, while dollar for dollar a new stadium may not pay off, the intangibles do. Do you think this is a secret? Both sides of the table know this. It gets lost in the dollar talk, but it is the elephant in the room.

You make good points. The flaw is that the market is not as restrictive as you think.

Intangibles pay off

I hate to do this--I hate to bring it back on point--but that's how I feel about getting people out of poverty.

Even though I do think that the plans to streamline DHS, CBH and the School District, and the plans to fully fund CORE Philly's last-dollar scholarship program, and the leasing of the airport etc. will pay off dollar for dollar, even if not, the intangible value of pulling people out of poverty and into the middle class will clearly pay off. It will generate more tax revenue, it will see more small business start-ups, it will attract new large corporations in search of a trained workforce, etc.

So if you really believe that our shared municipal revenue which constitutes a pool of money no individual or corporation likely would spend to keep sports teams here by building stadia, and you think it's worth it, fine.

But then you'd better get my back when the same stuff comes up about poverty.

And at the end of the day that was the sentiment that Fattah was trying to convey at the forum last week, that was misconstrued by the Inky, that you then attacked him for.

There may not be a dramatic, life-changing impact from Chaka Fattah's Opportunity Aenda and other economic justice-oriented plans on middle -class people. However, the intangible benefits alone will be so spectacular that this city will offer opportunity to all of us like we have never seen before.

Jeez, do I sound like a true believer or what?

Yes, you do sound like a

Yes, you do sound like a true believer, but you get credit for a good spin back to the original topic. ;) Points for you.

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

With all due respect, I think you all are missing

what the connection really is:

All of which to say, there may be a value in spending local tax revenue to keep the Eagles, but there is a point we would approach where the cost would outweigh the benefit.

And who sits at the table where that decsion gets made? Does Nutter, who some think makes decisions about the City on the basis of what's good for big corporations? Does Fattah, who says that these types of decisions need to be prioritized differently? Is it Brady, who is the champion of union labor? Evans, Knox? Which candidate is most likely to ensure that these decisions will be made differently in the future?

What role does City Council have to play in these processes, and how do we know whether or not they're acting to their own benefit or to the benefit of very specific constituencies?

The bottom line is that the Democratic Party in this City has failed us in these decision making processes in the past. Does anyone believe that if there were representative processes during the decision-making about the stadiums, they wouldn't have been located somewhere more central? Does anyone really believe that with better representation, the City wouldn't have gotten a better deal?

So, how are systems put into place to ensure better results in the future? I suppose electing more "progressive" politicians is one step - but the systems need to change.

What is happening to make planning processes in this City more collaborative - with absolute certainty that all stakeholders have a voice in the process? The casinos situation is higly instructive in that regard - and goes to show that with political pressure, even politicians who have been unresponsive in the past, or "un-progressive," suddenly seem to care a lot more about what their constituents have to say.

No multiyear leases committing General Funds

without a two thirds majority of Council and approval at a referendum would be the structural reforms I would recommend. But there really is no ironclad protection until we find ways to elect people, through adequate public financing tools, dumb luck or otherwise, who are not tied at the nose to the power that be.

The point about the revenue generated

is that much of it would simply be money redirected from other leisure type activities, most of which involve spending in Philly too. That fact has always been part of the reason why most academics reject the idea that investing in stadiums makes any economic sense for cities.

Even the promoters of this spending, as I recall, concluded that the Phillies would have to put 3 million people a year in those seats for 30 years for the City just to break even. Not gonna happen.

I and many others, agree

I and many others, agree that the Convention Center has definitely been a spark to the Center City District and is overwhelmingly worth it ... especially since the State funded most of the building costs.

I also think it is rather short sighted to say the stadiums are completely unnecessary. As for used primarily by suburbanites, maybe if we didn't keep losing the people that go to these events to the suburbs, they wouldn't primarily be suburbanites. ;)

People choose to live in cities for the bustling downtowns, sporting attractions, museums, work, etc.

Essentially, Philadelphia radiates out from Center City. If Center City wasn't so desirable and gotten so pricey, the fringe neighborhoods probably never would have been redeveloped, or at least not to the degree they are going right now.

The key to City government is you need to be able to multi-task. It isn't just about poverty. It isn't just about planning. It isn't just about taxes. Etc.

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

Ah, well, has anyone seen

Ah, well, has anyone seen real job creation numbers for the amount of money that was spent in the convention center?

This is anecdotal and all, but, in talking to some people who I trust a lot (and who, are distinctly not typical YPP-ers), multiple people basically told me that for its cost, expanding the center made zero economic sense, and the money could have been spent much better elsewhere, for a much bigger effect.

Are we speaking about the

Are we speaking about the upcoming expansion or the creation of the building we have now?
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

Sorry I was unclear- the

Sorry I was unclear- the upcoming expansion, for which we are spending millions, claiming lots of eminent domain, etc.

Yeah, I was referring the

Yeah, I was referring the original center. That I believe is overwhelmingly a bonus to the City.

The expansion definitely hits a lot more grey area. It could either be development that really helps pull Philly away from the pack, or it could be over extending ourselves. I tend to fluctuate back and forth on it. Both sides have pros and cons.

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

The state didn't fund most of the building costs

In fact the City had to take on tremendous debt service costs to fund construction, and also became responsible for operating expense overruns. And the funding that came from the state was also funded in part by City taxpayers.

And all this spending was touted as a cure-all for Philadelphia, particularly for poverty. It didn't work. And the issue with the stadiums isn't whether or not it's nice to have them. It's what are our priorities. If we have limited capital resources, should we put them into new stadia, or into repairing and replacing the incredibly run down physical plant of the City; i.e., schools, rec centers, police and fire stations, gas and water pipelines? We don't have money for all of that. We can't just spend on what makes us feel good, while brushing the rest of it out of sight and out of mind.

Morale is very important

I want to be very clear when I say this...in no way am I prioritizing or comparing sports teams, city beautification, or new stadiums to feeding someone who is hungry. Again, if we are talking priorities, I don't think they compare...but as far as a well rounded city and mayoral campaign goes...I am bringing it up.

However, one of the reason that Ronald Reagan beat the democrats running against him in 1984 was because he successfully raised the collective morale of the country after Vietnam; the economy was not good, many middle class were worse off under him, and taxes became less progressive. But he made Americans proud of their country again and proud of their citizenship. When bringing this point up, I am speaking in hyperbole, but I think it is important to note that this kind of feel-good thing can have a tremendous impact on the way people think and the way people live their lives. Perception is reality.

Whoever said that Center City is the city's face and gateway to the world was completely right. A vibrant and growing center city is a boon not only for Philadelphia but for the entire region.

All good and well

but again, in the real world, we have to speak about priorities. That's why, for instance, we're all being robbed by this war. Some are being robbed of their very lives. The rest of us are being robbed of our ability to do all the things we need to do to make our environments livable. The war is a priority right now over all of those things.

But given that we can't do everything because of the war and other factors, we have to choose. And choosing among those priorities is where the fault line in the Democratic Party coalition can be located, something that's getting quite an airing in this election.

Adam, linking the stadiums

("stadia" sounds too pretentious) in lower South Philly to the development in the neighborhoods fringing Center City seems like a bit of a stretch. Imagine the ways that money could have been spent to really energize the City and address issue related to poverty at the same time - for example, improving schools.

SDP Capital Project

There's a $1.5 billion school improvement capital project that's ongoing.

How are you connecting that

How are you connecting that to the building of the stadiums?

No Nexus

No connection - just putting the information out there :)

Did I link the stadiums to

Did I link the stadiums to fringe neighborhood development?

To a point, I can agree that the new stadiums didn't "energize the city", but can you also agree, to a point, that losing the stadiums would also deenergize the City?

Here is a straight forward question ... for the money the City is paying on the stadiums, do they at least pay for themselves from tax revenues?

Also, apparently the stadiums have been leveraged for the school district.

http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/communications/press_releases/2005/03...

The School District of Philadelphia today announced that thanks to $31 million in bonds financed by a dedicated revenue stream from the occupants of the Wachovia Center, Lincoln Financial Field and Citizens Bank Ballpark it will be able to accelerate its three year classroom modernization initiative with an additional $16 million

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

The teams are getting $30 mil a year

and, according to the article, "Spectacor Arena, L.P., the Philadelphia Eagles and the Philadelphia Phillies are expected to pay the District about $2.9 million combined over the next 30 years." Too bad those numbers weren't reversed, with the City giving the $30 mil a year to support school construction.

And what do we get in wage

And what do we get in wage tax, sales tax, etc.?

Do they generate more than $30 million a year?
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

As for "de-energizing"

the City. I didn't notice a lack of support of the Eagles when they played at the Vet. The Sixers have a nice new place - how muc does the energy around that team invigorate the City? The Flyers get outrageous prices for their seats because corporations buy them - how much energy do you see for the Flyers in the vast majority of the City?

Sure, I think that these issues need to be examined. But from what I've read, in balance, the extortion of cities to build stadiums is a negative in terms of cost/benefit. I think there are some cities where that hasn't been the case - but I would need to see more info about the specifics in Philly to believe otherwise.

But for me, the issue is more how the building of the stadiums in Philly is a reflection of the piss poor way things are done in this City -- more than it is a blanket statement about the viability of building stadiums. Does anyone really think that all the stakeholders had a properly proportioned say in what eventually happened?

The Vet had to be replaced.

The Vet had to be replaced. If it wasn't in Philly, it would have been somewhere else. the Old Spectrum was outdated and had to be replaced. If not in Philly, somewhere else.

If the stadiums weren't done, you have to assume the teams would relocate. Would that have been a better net result for the City?
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

Great!

I'm leaving the city unless they pay to refurbish my home. Surely the City doesn't want a tax payer to move somewhere else.

Yeah - I think a few Cities should tell the C-YA! That's how you break an extortion racket operating around the country. We were played for suckers.

Just not a realistic

Just not a realistic statement. Do you have any doubt that a referendum to partially fund an Eagles stadium would not pass with flying colors?

But details matter

Would a referendum pass that called for us putting up $5 mil a year for 30 years? Probably. $10 mil? Also, probably yes. But $30 mil for 30 years? I don't know. Especially when it came to be known that the suburban counties, whose residents actually would be the ones to occupy the seats, were willing to pay 0.

Stan, City-government-wise

What enabled these deals to go through? What would need to change to prevent these types of deals going through in the future (try to answer that without typing the names Fattah and Nutter if possible)?

The whole power elite

was for them. The bond dealers, the lawyers, the Chamber, the construction unions, the newspapers. The opposition was NIMBY based and no one was able to get the economic case out to the public. The only thing that can be done to slow them down, if not stop them, is to require a referendum before the City commits to this kind of long term lease financing, which could only be accomplished through Charter Change. And, of course, with this kind of power lined up behind future projects, it's not in any way guaranteed that a referendum would defeat them.

Ed Snider

Ed Snider built the Comcast Center with private dollars, and, considering the price Comcast paid for the Flyers and the building, I think he was making a profit.

The Phils and the Eagles, on the other hand, figured out how to get the City and State to pay for a big chunk. Lurie would tell you that the Birds still paid more than most cities (look at Cleveland, for example). But still, these owners did not 'need' the public dollars. But they wanted them, and had the ability to hold cities hostage.

The Vet "had" to be replaced

because of profits; the owners couldn't sell enough corporate box seats at the Vet because they didn't exist.

The fans didn't necessarily need a new venue -- the Vet sold out every game.

The Spectrum, even more than the Vet, is a viable building.

I like having nice state-of-the-art stadiums - I think it adds to the vibrance of the City, but let's be realistic about the economics.

And as for other cities wanting the teams, all that tells you is that it benefits some people financially to have teams - the question is who?

Like I said above- the

Like I said above- the Spectrum was replaced with private money.

A Vibrant Center City Does Not Just Benefit Wealthy People

You might want to actually read the Center City plans available at http://www.centercityphila.org before you make judgments about their content. The four plans basically note that East Market Street does not work well as it should as there are limited connections to the nearby residential areas north and south of East Market Street, and that the area from 12th Street to Independence Mall is underdeveloped, has poorly designed and underutilized buildings and fails to connect the Independence Mall area to City Hall; West Market Street does a bad job at connecting City Hall and Center City to 30th Street Station; Benjamin Franklin Parkway does not work for pedestrians and does not provide adequate parking or good use of public space; City Hall is underutilized in terms of being a building that connects both sides of Broad and Market Streets, and as a tourist attraction, and the public space around City Hall (e.g. Dilworth Plaza) does not work; North Broad Street has too many gaps between its institutions (e.g. The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and Roman Catholic High School) and a lack of connectivity between these institutions and Center City; South Broad Street should try to undertake activities that attract more people.

Urban plans are done as visions to encourage further dialogue, and as a step to seek governmental and private sector support of ideas, and for future funding to improve areas. The studies do not mean the projects will get funded or that they are the right solutions for the problems identified. The reality though is that the issues addressed in the plans as problems or opportunities are accurate and that the suggested solutions that would benefit the public and the Center City business and residential communities are well thought out in concept. For example, does Dilworth Plaza work well or add to the City in a positive way in the Plaza's current design or condition or would a grassy park like area with an ice skating rink in winter be a better use of the space?

Center City is responsible for more than 7,100 business establishments that account for 47 percent of all private-sector wages paid citywide. Center City’s private and non-profit employers generate $6 billion in annual salaries to Philadelphia residents. Center City provides more tax and fee revenue to the City of Philadelphia than is spent by the City of Philadelphia on Center City. Simply put, a healthy Center City does not just benefit wealthy white color workers from the suburbs. Without a viable and strong Center City we would be more like Detroit or St. Louis where those cities are actually worse off in terms jobs and general well being than Philadelphia. Much of the federal and state money that Center City is able to attract cannot magically be shifted to other programs or other parts of the city. For example, while in your opinion it might not be the best use of state funds to expand the convention center, it may be very unlikely that a legislator from the middle of the state is going to want to fund a poverty eradication program instead of the expansion of the convention center. While this may be against your sensibilities, it is the pragmatic existing political reality.

The issue of poverty is important. Working to limit poverty and improve Center City are not one or the other propositions. The best solutions to solving poverty are education and jobs. As the manufacturing economy has largely left Philadelphia, the hospitality industry, based largely on the convention center and associated uses such as hotels, has provided a large number of jobs for people without college education. While you might want these jobs to pay more, they remain viable jobs for a portion of our society.

On the issue of urban planning, Philadelphia has not done significant urban planning for decades. In the recent past, Mayor Rendell did not "get" urban planning and was always looking for quick results. Rendell also did not appreciate the process of design, zoning or long-term planning. I would characterize Mayor Street as not caring about planning or design. The zoning code is hopelessly out of date; has a patchwork of amendments; is overly complex and confusing; requires too many variances; and is routinely ignored by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. It causes too many delays in building projects; provides too much power to district council people; forces neighborhoods to be too adversarial to proposed projects (instead of working with developers and the City); and drives up project costs, while allowing for ill defined and poorly designed buildings.

Nice post, elp

And I'd just like to add that city planning, done properly, would necessarily require a balance of the interests of various stakeholders.

Collaborative planning processes, where civic organizations have power within the process to shape the ultimate product, are a reality in some communities. A lack of such collaboration, it seems to me, is where Philly lags behind other communities in dealing with these kinds of issues - and responsibility for that failure of Philly to be progressive and innovative lies at the feet of the Philly Democratic Party.

I am for urban planning

I think it would also be worthwhile to develop a comprehensive plan for dealing with poverty, something Fattah has proposed, and which has been regularly disparaged on this site (though not by you elp, to my recollection.)

All I've really said is that I think Fattah's reaction to this issue is intended as a slap in the face to wake people up to the fact that despite the growth in Center City over the last decade, the benefits have not trickled far up Broad Street. I think that's a legitimate political tactic, one which we're not all going to like -- which is the point. We should not assume that Philadelphia has nothing to offer upstate legislators in exchange for poverty-based aid, until we've actually tried such a swap, and no one has thought to do that for the 35 years I've been in Philly. Maybe if we had a comprehensive plan to fight poverty, including poverty in suburban and rural PA, we could get more help out of the legislature than we would have ever thought.

And maybe, just maybe, that's Fattah's thought. In any event, it's mine.

Ten years ago you didn't go

Ten years ago you didn't go north of Callowhill or Spring Garden. Now Center City is pushing Girard Ave and Temple area is heading south to link. The problem is it has been haphazard and helter skelter with developers primarily running the show.

With proper planning, you help the residents.

Again, a lot of it may be like you said and he is just trying to prioritize. The problem is, the wording comes out as "screw you".
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

Well, to poor people

who don't have a pot to piss in, maybe a lot of the rhetoric coming from the other candidates also sounds like "screw you."

And that very well may be

And that very well may be the case.

--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

Federal Money

What's up with all this talk about getting Harrisburg and City Hall to fund anti-poverty programs? How come no talk about going to D.C. to get money?

Oh yeah, I forgot.

Now that the Dems are in the majority and Chaka has the opportunity to address poverty on a federal level (where there is actually enough money to do something about it), Chaka wants to quit his job on the U.S. Appropriations Committee where he could secure beau coup $$$ for all the poverty programs he wants.

This guy is a real joker.

If he at all cared about ending poverty, Chaka would stay in D.C. and actually write some legislation that addressed the problem. Oh yeah, that would entail him actually doing something.

And why do something, when you can be a do-nothing Mayor? After all, if Congress doesn't allow Philly to lease its airport, it's not Chaka's fault if he never delivers any of his campaign promises.

______________________________
Phillyville

And I'm accused of hyberbole

In my opinion, and probably Fattah's as well, the chance of getting significant money from Congress for anti-poverty programs, even though there's a barely Democratic Congress, is about 0 right now. Given the availability of the filibuster to block any such funding, the Senate is almost useless for promoting such programs, and there is also this fella in the White House who could be a problem. Furthermore, there's a war on, and even when it ends, the focus is likely to be on things to please the middle class, like fixing the alternative minimum tax, which all by itself will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Maybe Fattah thinks that he needs a bully pulpit, one that only being the mayor of a major American city can give him. And I think that would be right.

You Bring Up a Good Point

It's interesting, but also disheartening, to see how few candidates in the last 20-30 years have really been able to transcend the Center City/Neighborhoods division: either you're too cozy with the business leaders and wealthy home owners, or you are entirely focused on building neighborhoods. If you look at Dwight Evans' previous bid for Mayor, many critics felt his downfall was spending too MUCH time trying to court the Center City professionals at the expense of neighborhood activists, homeowners, clergy, etc. John Street certainly has kept this sort of division alive, not paying a whole lot of attention to center city revitalization projects.

I'm not questioning any of the candidates' plans or priorities with this comment. I just find it interesting that in a city our size and completely dominated by the Democratic party, we have such a sharp division between regions that our leaders rarely ever overcome.

Happy Medium

Fattah and Nutter both make good points and I don’t think it’s fair to take their arguments to the extreme when there is an obvious middle ground (and both seem to be trying to find it to some degree). The answer, in my opinion, why not do what London and DC have done? Break the city down into small neighborhoods (Philadelphia gas already more or less done this) and then market neighborhood flavor, which Philly has a lot of? Add a few more cute shops and the Gayborhood could be the next Dupont Circle and Manayunk the next Notting Hill. Link them up with public transportation and give locals grants to start or fix up small businesses. Plan or expand housing around the hub to provide economic viability, etc....Make center city the main attraction but provide incentive to explore outward. Eventually we have to realize that the city cannot ignore its center city at the expense of its citizens/neighborhoods and vice versa; it’s just not good policy and in the end huge chunks of the city will be disadvantaged.

I am not sure why Fattah

I am not sure why Fattah said this, but, it is irritating.

No master plan also means that any time any person wants anything done in Philadelphia, without a real zoning and planning change, they have to waste their time going to L&I, get denied for a variance (everyone is denied), then have to waste hours of their day going before David Auspitz and the zoning board, who ignore whatever the planning commission says, and grant the variance. But, many times, not before they extract something from the person- like central air conditioning or a certain kind of fence.

No overhaul of planning in Philadelphia means more economic isolation of rich from poor, condo from everyone else, and a center city of haphazard development and street level parking garages.

no plan = increased poverty

no plan = wasted $ = less attractive to business = less jobs = increased poverty

It is truly amazing how short sighted Philadelphians, and in particular the people we choose to elect, can be.

______________________________
Phillyville

It's interesting how the end to poverty

always comes at the end of a long equation like that. Why don't we try an equation that says: less poverty = less spending on law enforcement and jails = a more educated workforce = making the city more attractive to business = higher tax revenue = lots of money to improve downtown.

I don't know why either

but I have a feeling it was to emphasize his view that our priorities are screwed up. He may think there needs to be a shock applied to the system in order to change the normal way in which we do business in this town. Which, again, is to devote most discretionary spending toward big center city projects, and crumbs everywhere else. He may be sending a message to the power elite that if they want to continue having it their way downtown, they'll first have to join him in marshaling resources for an attack on poverty. So it may well be a political game, one which usually works in reverse, i.e., you support my spending plans on big development and I'll give you some crumbs for the poor.

I remember well how good some members of Council felt about getting $1 million a year from the sports teams to support programs for kids, as long as the City agreed to spend $30 million a year to build their stadiums. Maybe Fattah wants to start getting the big bucks for poverty fighting, and leave the crumbs for those who already are feasting.

I like that Fattah

I like that Fattah instinctively thinks about poverty reduction. Walking around most of the City, there is no question that is the whole ball of wax. And I trust those instincts of his more than I do Nutter, and probably Evans too. (At this point, although I was never likely to vote for him, I am officially writing off Brady. Unless it is Brady v Knox, and then I would have to think about it at least a little bit.)

But, I also think this is a pretty strange way to run a campaign for being the Mayor of all of us. We need to fight this together, and he needs to inspire people, not piss them off or say their concerns are not important.

Alienating?

Fattah said last week at the forum referenced in this thread that "[m]ost people in this room will not have their lives fundamentally changed by the next mayor,"...not a sign that he's interested in being a Mayor for all Philadelphians.

I don't know exactly what Fattah's words were

and whether they were an airtight rejection of Center City planning. I tend to doubt it. But I think it's perfectly legit of him to speak to his priorities. By emphasizing some things, one necessarily puts other things on a lesser plane. When it comes to making a direct fight against poverty the number one priority in Philly, it may be that you need to say that over and over more than if you chose something else as number 1. Because it calls for a completely new and different way of looking at things than we've had ever in this City. So he may have been giving us all a wake up call. And it may cost him votes. But given the radical nature of what he wants to do, I'm personally more than willing to give him a little slack.

But you add in some of his

But you add in some of his other plans like congestion pricing into these type of comments and it seems to imply that only the concerns of the poor are relevant.

It is how he is saying things that will most likely get the middle class very nervous.
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.

Congestion pricing

is about relieving congestion and promoting clean air. How is that contrary to the interests of middle class people living in Philadelphia?

Because Philadelphia is not

Because Philadelphia is not in a position to price on congestion. I've written about this before, let me find it. But, in summary, Philadelphia does not have a captive business community like London or New York City. Further, the traffic leaving the city is just as high as it is coming in during rush hour. Regional congestion taxing in this area is the only way to go, if we are going to do it.

If Philadelphia alone--another disincentive to being here.

It's tone deaf, Stan

And you get reactions like the one above from DeWitt. No, it wasn't an airtight statement, and it was a statement of priorities, but it's like the statements from Street about the "brothers" running the City.

Saying things that are potentially devisive are probably deliberately political to garner votes. It's not going to cost him votes from the constiuency he is looking to for support - but it will cost him if elected in getting buy-in from the consituencies that didn't vote for him.

Small Minded Thinking Holds Philly Back

The mindset exhibited by Fattah and now Stan is precisely the type of thinking that holds all of Philadelphia back.

For too long, Philadelphians have held a zero-sum approach to local government. Fattah doesn't want to help Center City because he believes helping Center City comes at a cost to West Philly. Similarly, the Carpenter's Union doesn't want to offer apprenticeships to minorities because it thinks it will come at a cost to a white man's job. Stan and Fattah's rationale is no different than the rationale of the Carpenter's Union. The only difference being who is benefited.

Fattah's statement is troubling because it demonstrates that he sees the city in zero sum terms. Also, by espousing a zero sum policies, Fattah validates the arguments of the Carpenter's Union. They are only arguing about which group (white poor people vs. black poor people) should receive city largess.

We need to adopt policies that are not defined by the assumption that government can only reallocate a specific sum of resources. We need to adopt policies that seek to grow the total sum of resources (and leasing the airport DOES NOT GROW RESOURCES, it divests resources).

Fattah's comment demonstrates he is not interested in growing the total sum of resources - he just wants to reallocate them.

And I'd say his comment, and Stan's support of it, is plainly anti-Progressive.

A zero-sum mindset is plainly anti-Progressive.

______________________________
Phillyville

It seems...

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't recall Fattah giving a specific outline of what he would like the city to look like once his administration is over, but then no one has really. From reading his policy papers I've gotten an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach from him when it comes to attacking education and poverty. Perhaps rather than make assumptions from off-the-cuff remarks he made under pressure from a time clock, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and ask him to be more specific about his broader structural goals for the city (as opposed to individual programs and general priorities).

"I also think this is a

"I also think this is a pretty strange way to run a campaign for being the Mayor of all of us."

I think your assumption is incorrect. I suspect Fattah has absolutely no interest in being a Mayor for "all of us."

______________________________
Phillyville

Ok, I'll take the bait

Who, exactly, does Fattah want to be the mayor of, in your opinion?

The way I see it, Chaka

The way I see it, Chaka Fattah is the black Bob Brady.

Hope that answers your question.
______________________________
Phillyville

Nope, it doesn't

I get the insuation - that Fattah is only there for blacks and Brady is only there for whites. But that sounds like a conspiracy theory, and the problem with conspiracies is that they're theories constructed without any functional reality.

What is it, exactly, that leads you to conclude that Fattah has no interest in being the mayor of white people? Or for that matter, that Brady has no interest in being the mayor of black people.

Seriously, Stan

I know you're a fan of hyperbole - but statements like this can only undermine Fattah's ability to get things done if he does get elected. One of the problems with this City that exacerbates poverty is a lack of a logical approach to planning.

I'm not saying

I would have made the statement, especially if it was an ironclad rejection of planning, (which I'm not sure of.) All I'm saying is that I understand the possible motivation. Sometimes, you actually advance your ability to get things done by drawing lines in the sand. Because such lines, you know, are actually quite movable if you're given a reason for moving them.

What he actually said

I think this excerpt pretty well sums up the Nutter/Fattah fault line:

"If I had to rank priorities, I'd start with police stations and rec centers," Evans candidly told the audience.

Fattah was even more blunt: "I'm interested in rebuilding the lives of people and not just the skyline," he said.

The event was most interesting for the sharply contrasting positions staked out by Fattah and Nutter. In almost every answer, Fattah turned the conversation from planning to social issues.

He said his focus would be on expanding programs for the city's poor, rather than courting new development to be enjoyed by the wealthy.

"Most people in this room will not have their lives fundamentally changed by the next mayor," Fattah told the audience, which was dominated by white, middle-class design professionals.

Nutter, in contrast, suggested that planning was not just an issue for the well-to-do.

He argued that strong urban-planning policies were essential to expanding the city's job base and would help the city's poor far more than government antipoverty programs. If Philadelphia hopes to compete with other cities for taxpaying residents and businesses, he argued, it needs a modern, professionally run planning department.

So, no, it wasn't a categorical denouncement of city planning. But again, I think it reflects a tone deafness in the context of uniting Philly behind a mayor if he's elected.

Fattah isn't perfect.

He's just a lot better than the other candidates. I am taken, though, by his counter-intuitive insistence on saying exactly what he believes, without spin. Whatever you think of the merits of what he said, it shows a pretty high level of political courage for him to have said it to that audience. And I think he knew it would not be well received in the pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

I have to come back to what I said before, though a little differently. Sometimes you have to stir up a little creative tension before you can get things done. That's all that I think he's actually doing. If he gets support for his priorities when he becomes mayor, I think he'll be willing to give on center city and planning.

Fattah lives in a "no-spin" zone?

Hmmm. I find that one a little hard to believe.

Fattah is in a mayoral race and is focused on accumulating votes. I'm not buyin' that such statements are part of a long-term strategic plan to clear space for appropriate priortization of city planning.

I have come to expect political expediency from candidates running for office to the extent that I guess it's possible I see it where it doesn't exist - but even if such statements were part of a comprehensive strategy, I think it's a losing strategy. I think that all statements like that will do is make it harder to accomplish positive outcomes if he gets elected.

You and I can't agree on everything, D.E. II

And, I didn't mean to suggest Fattah is no spin, maybe just less spin.

delusional

"leave the crumbs for those who already are feasting."

Seriously???

Reading these words suggests to me that you need to get out of Philly more.

No one except maybe Jeff Lurie, David Cohen and Vince Fumo is feasting in Philly. Philadelphia's cost of living is among the lowest in the nation, and certainly the lowest among any big city.

Why is that?

If there are truly so many people feasting in Center City, how is it possible to buy a townhouse within walking distance of Center City for the same amount of money that buys a one-bedroom condo in places like Boston, Atlanta or D.C.?

______________________________
Phillyville

Unfortunately, Dave Cohen has passed

and was a fighter against feed the rich politics, one of our last. But Jeff Lurie is exactly the kind of person I'm talking about, along with the Roberts', and other controllers of the wealth of the City. They're the ones who are constantly getting tax breaks, free land and other goodies, all in the name of helping the rest of us, sooner or later, more or less. What the City's low cost of living has to do with any of this, I'm not sure. Is that a reason that the only anti-poverty strategies we've been able to come up with during my 35 years in Philly have required subsidizing rich people and corporations?

Um...Stan...There are actually TWO DIFFERENT Dave Cohens.

Sorry to break the news. But there's another different David Cohen in Philly politics, who is actually alive when last I heard. He works at Comcast, which is why they got their sick tax break for their big ole skyscraper. That's who he is referring to.

And also, Michael Nutter did not go along with John Street for his entire council tenure. Their feud over the last 5 years after Michael Nutter stood up for domestic partnership benefits for city employees is actually very well documented and very famous. (read the Phillymag article by Jason Fagone that ran a couple of months ago.)

And also, Santa Claus is not real.

Neither is the Easter Bunny.

Well I was at Council then

and if there was a feud, it was pretty quiet. As to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, it seems to me your view of Nutter is that he's both combined, except that he also wears a cape and can leap tall buildings.

One doesn't find a candidate like Nutter very often!

Of course I am gushing - one doesn't find a candidate like Nutter very often.

I think you probably felt the same way about Councilman Ortiz; I am sure that Michael Nutter did too, why is why he worked on his campaign. You know that politicians who are genuine public servants are very very rare.

When you see one, you just have to fight for them.

You want good people in power.

No,

actually candidates who believe in trickle-down economics are not rare at all these days. It's actually finding examples of such policies working that's hard to find.

Santa isn't real?

Stan and Hannah have just taken my childhood away!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content