Speaking of government watchdog groups (see end of previous post), Zack Stalberg at the Committee of Seventy makes a pretty fair point about what otherwise seems to be a worthwhile project by lame-duck City Councilwoman Carol Campbell.
Seems that Campbell decided that the city's Basic Systems Home Repair Program, which provides money to very low income individuals and families so they can perform repairs to their homes, wasn't serving her district well enough. So she took action:
Campbell created her district's own program to help people make structural, electrical and plumbing repairs so they can stay in their houses. District residents no longer have to apply to the citywide program, with its waiting list 3,400 names long, including 375 from the Fourth District. They can go straight to Campbell's program, which has less stringent income standards.
...
Campbell's program uses $1.3 million in Neighborhood Transformation Initiative funding - normally reserved for buying, boarding up and demolishing vacant buildings in the districts.
Stalberg's criticism:
"The basic rules should be the same from district to district, and each of the district Council people should be aware of what the ground rules are," Stalberg said. "If it's kind of an underground program that's benefiting Councilwoman Campbell's constituents more than others, it smells wrong."
Now, Campbell answers the criticism by saying "she would not be involved in creating the list," nor will she be choosing the contractors who perform the work. But really, the problem, as pointed out by Stalberg, is less about what goes on within her district than what happens across all of the districts. It's a problem that a lot of people have with government at the local, state and federal levels.
Why should the residents of one council district be entitled to greater access to "city" resources than those of any other council district? Afterall, it's not like the "4th District" collects its own taxes then distributes that money back into the district.
On the other hand, if residents of a council district go to the trouble of choosing someone (set aside, for a moment, the fact that Campbell was chosen by ward leaders and not re-elected by the voters) because they perceive some talent and creativity in that person, why should that person be prohibited from doing everything she can to help our the folks who put her there?
And here's where we get into the real problem. City Council members (and, to some extent, the City Democratic Party) have put constituent services above and beyond their other roles as legislators. (Here's where I actually defend them.) They do this because, in many cases, "the city" has failed to deliver these services. Campbell's reappropriation of NTI funds to make up for an inefficient city program is one example. The city program has a waiting list of over 3000 people. She and Councilwoman Tasco and Councilman Savage, who also enacted similar plans, just want to get folks who live in their districts onto a shorter list.
If this is such a worthwhile program, which it seems to be, the next mayor will have to make sure that (a) people know about it and (b) they get service faster so they're not on a waiting list while their roof caves in or need a city councilperson to get them the help they need.
Comments (1)
A $ 100 million price tag. Winter is coming. Can Miss Carol do anything about the lesser amount.
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20070913_ap_pgwgetsrateincreasebutnotasbigasrequested.html
Posted by Jasper Zeigler Jr | September 13, 2007 2:27 PM