Can you spare some change? (The Next Mayor)

Before we become completely inundated with casino news, casino comments, casino-related films, and tips for winning at slots, I wanted to bring up the interview that aired this morning on 91FM. Brenda Jorett had an interesting conversation with political consultant/movie buff/erstwhile pro golf tour caddy, Neil Oxman.

Go ahead, take a moment and listen. Then follow me into that crazy place known as "after the jump" to read more.

First, I don't want to spend too much time talking about what will happen if Bob Brady runs, what will happen if John Dougherty runs, how the candidates will divide up the voting constituency to get the 30% they need to win, or who may run as a Republican. It's interesting but doesn't really help us with our goal of finding the pulse of this town to find out what everyone wants out of the next mayor.

Let's skip ahead to the part where Oxman talks about the polling data that he's seen that measures the general attitude of the people of Philadelphia. He says that voters "by a margin of two and a half to one" think that the city is off on the "wrong track." That cuts across every racial and ethnic demographic. He says that absolutely, voters are "looking for change." He concludes that in 2007, candidates will try to make the election a "referendum about change."

What does that mean? What does "change" mean? It's obviously more than just changing the person at the top. John Street is done, no matter what happens. If it were just about changing the name on the official city letterhead, then you'd think that each of these candidates has an equal shot by virtue of not being named "John Street." "Change" must therefore refer either to something much more fundamental or to a very defined series of discrete actions that must be taken.

In one of the extra bites that didn't make the on-air interview, Oxman lays out, what he thinks, are several of the things that are wrong, which are raising the ire of the electorate. The examples he cites are the usual suspects - crime and schools. But I get a sense that there's even more. If voters, by 2.5 to 1, think the city is off on the wrong track, that has to include folks who don't have school-aged children and who don't live in dangerous neighborhoods. What do they want changed?

Anyway, that's just a long way to asking this question: if you could change one thing that is within the purview of the mayor (in the broadest sense possible), what would it be? This is a little different than asking for you to "name your issue" (which, by the way, got a great response), this is about giving an example of something that the city does, or that people in the city do, that you think needs to stop and turning that around.

There are obvious answers to this. People in Philadelphia shoot other people. They should not do this. Duh. Feel free to give the obvious answers. But I'm also interested in the less obvious. The actions or activities that just get under your skin, that make you not want to live, work or play here any more. It's especially helpful if these actions can be changed directly by the mayor.

Can you forsee a way in 4 or 8 years (especially in 8 when we're guaranteed a shot at a new mayor), that when people are asked the right direction/wrong track question, more than half of them will say right direction?

Comments (4)

Dave

Some pet peeves:

- I wish people would stop electing people to public office based on how "rowhouse" or how "black" or how "white" they are and, instead, start electing them based on how qualified they are, whether they have a good track record, and whether they bring good ideas to the table.

- I wish people moving into the city would stop trying to bring their former lifestyle with them and accept the fact that it's often hard to drive and park in a city, and that sometimes things, well, change in a city (new stuff gets built and new people move in -- who would've thunk it).

- I also wish the unqualified politicians would stop funneling millions of our tax dollars to people and organizations who/that are unqualified to carry out the task they're supposed to be carrying out with said funding. If city agencies functioned properly, we'd have much less need for the alphabet soup of community organizations that's currently getting tons of money, and what organizations existed wouldn't be doing nearly as much as they are now. The only reason I can see for spending money in this fashion instead of spending it on regular city functions is if it's being used to buy votes.

- I wish city laws and policy were set to benefit the city rather than a certain group of people, like rules that create more work for union members (specifically the building trades unions) instead of creating more jobs for Philadelphians in general. Union membership is obviously beneficial for union members, but the majority of Philadelphia residents aren't union members and probably never will be. The unions either need to vastly expand their membership or stop killing any project that doesn't use union labor.

There's more stuff, and much of the above can be expanded upon, but it's a start.

Posted by Dave | December 20, 2006 5:05 PM

Civic Minded

First of all there is a major fault to your conclusion and I'm not just saying that be contradictory.

The presumption that a majority of Philadelphians all think that the City is moving in the wrong direction for the same reason or reason is way off.

If you ask some people wrong direction = black mayor, still others = pay to play, etc. It is a gross over-simplification. Its a lot like when Nixon ran in '72, his theme was, "Nixon's the One."...The obvious question was, one what? And for every group, demographic or even individual the idea , special resonance and meaning. The same is true of these right direction/wrong direction questions.

As it relates to leadership in Philly in general and the Mayor in particular, most people/voters don't know what they don't know. For example, beyond the 1000 or so egg-heads and political junkies who are reading this blog and other sites, or the newspapers for that matter, most Philadelphians don't know, care or care to know how there government and political systems do or should work. To say nothing of a near complete lack of and understanding of the issues or the people who will shape the public policy that will effect them directly or indirectly.

More bluntly, people don't care, are too lazy and/or think that voting the and process are meaningless. The vast majority of people (i.e. the wrong direction camp) are likely disengaged from the process in any meaningful way.

We are corrupt, or corrupted and and essentially content. And it is not always the "big" corruption Ron White, Rick Mariano, etc. it for many in this city is retail, "row-house" corruption. You know the expression about how everyone hates Congress, but not their Congressman, well its sorta like that only much more parochial. Like parking down the middle of Broad Street or every double-parked inch of asphalt in South Philly with nary a parking ticket, or trash-can-and-bucket parking spot savers, are rude driving, or knowing a guy-who-knows-a-guy to get something taken care or , or tipping sanitation workers to take away trash that there not supposed or that if you didn't pay them they swear that they were forbidden as per their contract.

To paraphrase Carville and Bagalla, "ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID"

It is not unique here but it is pervasive here and it substitutes for civic pride in many circles.

More pointedly, what stops Philadelphia from becoming the next great City is not the size of our convention center or our stadiums or simply scandal. It is a combination of severe collective insecurity and low self-esteem that is attempted to be compensated for by a self-destructive addiction to a steady stream of entitled corruption.

And it is bigger than Philly. Perhaps as a non-native-Philadelphian with the benefit of perspective, it is clearer to me but at any rate it is clear as day. We are stuck in this rut. and everyone wants to blame the wolves for ravaging the flock but the responsibility rest with the sheep.

That's my rant for now.

A
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." -- Bertrand de Jouvenal

Posted by Civic Minded | December 20, 2006 9:20 PM

Wendy

The voter malaise stat -- that some perecentage think the city is headed in the wrong direction -- was relected in our first Keystone poll, which can be read here: http://www.thenextmayor.com/1keystone.html

Obviously, we can criticize that poll -- or polls in general. Also, that poll was taken before the national mid-term election, however, so it may reflect a more general voter dissatisfaction. It will be interesting to see what happens to that stat in later polls.

That said, I do agree with Civic Minded -- it's the corruption, and a related mediocrity, that matters. If we are the nation's next great city, we shouldn't tolerate bribable plumbing inspectors or a permitting process that requires an "expiditer" or the automatic addition of $15,000 for a pay-to-play bond attorney on every bond deal.

The issue is, how do you root out such a generalized corruption -- and is a mayor the person to do it?

Posted by Wendy | December 20, 2006 9:54 PM

There's definitely a lot of corruption in the general population. Nobody wants to vote out the current leadership as long as they're getting favors from them, even if those favors mean that some other neighborhood doesn't get adequate city services. To be honest, it reminds me of the kind of mentality you typically find in third world countries (which tend to have the same kind of problems Philly does).

Posted by Dave | December 20, 2006 11:24 PM

Comments (4)

Post a comment