(ETA: An update...mayoral candidate Michael Nutter was also stumping at Septa stops last week. The former councilman was out at the Broad and Olney subway station on Wednesday morning, handing out literature -- and Nutter Butters.)
Daily News reporter Damon Williams and Daily News photographer Alex Alvarez were at Jonathan Saidel's meet/greet at the Broad and Olney subway station Thursday morning and brought back this report:
Saidel was sincerely humorous and seemed to really engage the people. He seemed at ease, shaking the hands of passers-by and cracking jokes with them. This is his second stop. Tomorrow, he will be at the Clothespin on Market street, beginning at 6:30 a.m.
On the response he has received from citizens so far: "I am getting a great response. When people see you, they know you are engaged with them."
He said: "Running for mayor is the ultimate way of telling people what I think."
Saidel, a life-long Philadelphian who raised his kids here, also said it was a way of saying thank you. He acknowleged he could make more money doing something else besides running for mayor, but said he can't foresee himself doing anything else. "I've run city-wide for 20 years, and it's made me a better person. This is what I do."
When asked what are the general issues he would tackle should he win election, he said: "Housing, job opportunities for youth and education. All that feeds into crime. I want to make life more livable."
Saidel also said that "the next few years will determine the next 50," and said that he loves campaigning. "The city is my family, and I'm going to keep going."
Remember to tell us when you have a candidate sighting, or one is coming to your neighborhood..
Comments (28)
It's nice to see someone who cares about the city who doesnt hide in fancy offices in washington or city hall. It's nice to see someone who cares about people from every neighborhood in the city, not just someone who thinks they can win an election, but someone who has been there for the people
Posted by Steve | November 10, 2006 10:26 AM
go see the shame of a city and see how he has "been there for the people"
Posted by kevin | November 10, 2006 10:37 AM
Is he one of those local politicians who thinks "people" equals "union members"?
Posted by Dave | November 10, 2006 11:39 AM
Steve:
I am not trying to be suspicious here, but this is my job:
Do you work for or volunteer for Saidel?
You've had a couple of comments that make it clear you like the candidate. It's OK either way -- please keep on commenting -- but we'd like to know if you have a direct link to what's becoming a campaign.
Posted by Wendy | November 10, 2006 12:17 PM
To all that will listen I have known Jonathan for about 20 years and if I can say any thing about any body running for office let me say this he is one of the most caring men for this city I have met. I say to you if you what to know Mr. Saidel just call him and spent a day with him and make up your own mine.
Posted by Lynwood | November 10, 2006 2:07 PM
I'll save you a day, you want to know Mr. Saidel again watch The Shame of a City...it shows him in his element
Posted by Kevin | November 10, 2006 3:07 PM
Kevin, you sound like a one trick pony. I've met Mr. Saidel and he was very genuine. I appreciated his sense of humor and I liked that he actually knew of my neighborhood. He seemed to know the whole city, not just one neighborhood.
Posted by Kathy | November 10, 2006 3:37 PM
He has a funny hair piece. He's a silly ass who squandered four terms in office and sat by while the wost ethical scandal in decades errupted. He's smart, for sure, but doesn't deserve to be mayor.
Posted by Philly Phantom | November 10, 2006 10:54 PM
He didn't just stand by. As the "one trick pony" tried to point out, he actually defended Street after it was revealed that he was under investigation for corruption. This, among other things, is documented in the movie "Shame of a City"
Posted by Dave | November 11, 2006 8:25 PM
Wendy, I am a friend of Saidel's and a volunteer with the democratic party, not any one candidate.
Posted by steve | November 12, 2006 11:53 PM
PP - you sound like you may be smart, but do you realize the city controller can't actually fire employees or change the policy of the mayor's office? That comes from the mayor...and also, doesn't Council make the laws? Controller makes recommendations, and if I recall, Saidel made many recommendations. Far more than our current brilliant controller...
Posted by Kath | November 13, 2006 9:07 AM
Taking "Shame of a City" as gospel is the same as taking any of Michael Moore's movies as fact. They are movies made for entertainment value. Granted, they do contain a grain of fact and I am not saying that the way Saidel is portrayed in the movie is completely false but it is not who he is. Listen to him talk for 10 min. and try not to see that he really does care for this city and will do great things for it. In fact, I would suggest that before picking any candidate go to where they are speaking and Listen to them, afterwards go up and talk to them yourself If they really want your vote they will take the time to talk to you and answer as many questions as you throw at them. I know personally I have spoken with both Saidel and Nutter. Both of them were very gracious and answered all of my questions Fattah and Evans wouldnt even give me the time of day. Then again I guess it was apparnt to both of them that I do not live in their respective districts so why waste the time right?
The moral of my rant, do not rely on a "film-maker" or "the nightly news" to form your opinion of a candidate listen to what THEY say and form it yourself.
Posted by Derek | November 13, 2006 9:51 AM
No, the city controller can't fire anyone, especially not an elected official. However, it seems inappropriate for a city controller to even tacitly endorse the conclusion that an FBI investigation into possible corruption by an elected official is politically motivated, ordered by an unpopular federal government official of the opposing party. I would think that Saidel was/is aware of the fact that the local Philadelphia branch of the FBI enjoys a large amount of autonomy regarding what investigations it undertakes, starting them of its own accord and generally only turning to the national branch in order to request approval where required by law (a couple articles have run in local newpapers recently, Metro and the Evening Bulletin among them, that have quoted the local FBI agent in charge of that investigation saying as much).
As far as "Shame of a City," it definitely shouldn't be taken as gospel. However, it does contain numerous scenes taken from the 2003 mayoral election with little or no outside commentary. The Katz campaign gets a lot more say, which viewers should keep in mind, but that can be attributed to the fact that, unlike the Katz campaign, the Street campaign denied documentary author Tigre Hill access behind the scenes. There also exists the possibility, as with all documentaries, that certain scenes and quotes may have been taken out of context, but that's for the viewer to judge.
Posted by Dave | November 13, 2006 2:34 PM
While it's my opinion that the "Shame of a City" documentary brings into question the ethics of several prominent local politicians, I think that it should be viewed more as an example of the kind of emotional manimpulation that's often employed by political campaigns to distract voters from the issues that really matter to them. As evidenced in the documentary, with some luck and good timing these tactics can be extremely effective.
Posted by Dave | November 13, 2006 3:01 PM
According to the article (linked to on the main The Next Mayor page and dated today, Nov 13) that I'm linking to below, Saidel has not yet officially declared his candidacy. While I read somewhere that he has agreed to abide by the campaign finance limits in Councilman Wilson Goode Jr's bill, I am not aware that he has returned any money he may have raised above the limits (maybe somebody more familiar with the Saidel campaign can clarify on this point?)
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/15998080.htm
Posted by Dave | November 13, 2006 3:06 PM
I know Saidel hasn't declared, but wasn't there an article in the Northeast Times where he said he was running? I also remember Saidel saying that he was abiding by the campaign finance limits, even though the lawsuit against him, and the other candidates, was thrown out. That's better than the other potential candidates (Fattah and Dougherty) who have basically snubbed their noses at City Council, admittedly breaking the law...
Remind me again why we'd rather have either of those two jokes?
Saidel isn't the first official, nor the last, that would declare an investigation politically motivated. Just because he does, doesn't mean he doesn't have ideas or deserve to be mayor.
Posted by Lauren | November 13, 2006 3:34 PM
Unlike Michael Moore's movies, "Shame of a City" is just footage of the 2003 election and aftermath without Moore-like commentary or opinion. Even if we don't like what it shows us we still have to give it some creditability and we should hold those who are portrayed in it negatively (Saidel, Street, Doc, Brady, Fattah, et.al) to account as leaders. At the very least watch it and see for yourself.
Posted by Jim | November 13, 2006 4:23 PM
"Shame of a City" is just footage put together by someone, who had access to an editing room and choose the way in which the film would look, feel and what message ultimately it would portray to the audience it was aimed at. I am not saying the movie is completly meritless, I am just saying it is a movie that is all, lack of commentary could have been a decision of the director (editor, film-maker whatever you want to call him) simply for the power silence can have as much as a commentary.
As for giving money back, Saidel has abided by the limits so he hasnt had to give any money back, he never accepted any money over the limit.
What I dont understand is why two potential candidates who blatently did not follow the campaign contribution laws would carry weight in the eyes of voters at all, if they arnt willing to play by the rules now what will they do in the next four years?
Posted by Derek | November 13, 2006 5:09 PM
Derek,
Point of clarification. It's true that Saidel has since agreed to abide by the campaign finance rules but if you check his reports on the controller's website, you'll see plenty of contributions that exceed the $2500 limit.
Dan
http://www.philadelphiacontroller.org/cfr_saidel.aspx
Posted by Dan | November 13, 2006 5:16 PM
For those bringing up Fattah and Johnny Doc, I'll point out that there are other options other than Saidel, Fattah and Doc. Furthermore, since you bring it up, I'll mention that Michael Nutter and Dwight Evans are, so far, the only candidates that I, personally, see any reason to vote for, with Nutter being my current favorite.
I would encourage people who plan to vote in the Democratic primary and, subsequently, the mayoral election, to continue following this blog, as well as the news articles linked to on the main page. It's important to be able to make an informed decision.
Posted by Anonymous | November 13, 2006 5:43 PM
Oops! That last anonymous was me. Forgot to provide a name.
Posted by Dave | November 13, 2006 5:44 PM
A majority if not all are from business which are allowed to contribute up to 10,000.
I completely agree with you that blogs like this are going to be key in this election, the YPP is a good one as well to stay informed.
Posted by Derek | November 13, 2006 6:04 PM
I started scrolling through the PDF with "Part D, all other contributions over $250" and hit a $50,000 contribution from Michael Yaron of Yaron Properties on page 14.
Posted by Dave | November 13, 2006 6:18 PM
P.S. I think the YPP, in many cases, is a good place to get misinformed, but that's just my personal opinion.
Posted by Dave | November 13, 2006 8:55 PM
Steve: Thanks, I appreciate your candor.
As to Saidel's declaration: He hasn't declared yet, but he's definitely running. We asked him when he'd declare today, and he said it would be soon.
One other point about candidates and contributions: Four candidates are bound by the limits at this point. Nutter is a candidate. Evans, Saidel and Knox have agreed to abide by them (Knox has pledged $5 million of his own money to his campaign).
Posted by Wendy | November 13, 2006 10:26 PM
Im not sure if I would say YPP mis-informs you but they are a more "radical" blog leaning pretty far left. Do anyone know of a blog that leans in the oppisite direction of YPP? I would love to read it
Posted by Derek | November 14, 2006 8:49 AM
I thought the $10,000 limit applied to Political Action Committees, not businesses.
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/15833860.htm
The business is listed for the person because the law requires that anyone who contributes over a certain amount (I think $250) is required to provide employer information. The names, that is the individuals, are the ones donating that money. So I still believe that Saidel has taken money in excess of the $2500 limit from individuals. I believe he would have to return any money in excess of that $2500, which, as far as I know, he still hasn't done.
Posted by Dan | November 14, 2006 9:53 AM
To clarify, my comments about YPP didn't refer to the nature of the site in general, but rather to certain posters who's comments I often find misleading. I don't know if they're doing it intentionally or not but, once again, it's my personal opinion so I'll leave it at that. Just use your judgement when reading comments (and that goes for any message board, not just YPP).
Posted by Dave | November 14, 2006 10:39 AM