The Next Mayor

I had the opportunity to attend part of the Great Expectations Citizen's Convention yesterday at the Pennsylvania Convention Center (Chris Satullo blogged about it here). Whenever I go to one of these events and see so many dedicated, thoughtful people in one place, it gives me hope that at some point in the future, their collective energy will overcome the "me first" attitude that has so often pervaded our city government.

Mayor-elect Michael Nutter delivered the keynote speech and Councilman At-Large-elect Bill Green IV was close by in the crowd. (edited to add) Councilwoman-elect Maria Quinones-Sanchez was also in attendance. Other than that, it didn't look like any other elected officials chose to grace the event with their presence, which was unfortunate.

Anyway, I got some video of Nutter's speech and caught a few moments from the break out sessions during which the participants got in small groups to discuss one of the 12 points of the Citizens Agenda.

So I'm going to finish up editing that video into something short and concise and post it in a couple hours. For now, you can read coverage of the event here and here.

While I'm off editing video, I'll let you ponder the meaning of this poem from today's paper by a Daily News letter writer:

Poetic justice

Margie Domard, Philadelphia

Who is the shark? Who is the cat? Why didn't the shark eat the cat? Was the shark at a disadvantage since, clearly, he was out of his natural habitat? Trippy...

Finished up a video recap that tries to take a 40-minute speech and 5 hour event and boil it down into 5 minutes. See the Nutter-elect in action:

I gave links to print coverage earlier today.

Today's Quote of the Day comes from Hizzoner, Mayor John Street, to be ever after known as "the math mayor."

From today's Philadelphia Tribune, in a very extensive interview that basically covered the mayor's career from birth, Street had this to say about the FBI investigation:

“I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it. Of course it would have been better if everyone had been doing the right thing and there had been no need for an investigation. But one person was convicted in my administration, not two. Any less and it would be zero...

My video editing from yesterday got in the way of my goal of reviewing of Great Expectations Film contest finalist so I'll catch up with two for today.

So let's talk first about Philadelphia Child. In the next post, I'll get to Northern Liberties. (As you can see I've provided links back to the Great Expectations website and I encourage you to register there and provide feedback for these films. The contest may be over but I'm sure they'd love to hear what you thought about them. Please consider copying that feedback into the comments section of this post.)

Philadelphia Child was produced and directed by Nadine Patterson, who grew up in Nicetown-Tioga and now lives in the Mount Airy neighborhood of Philadelphia. The film doesn't follow the same, straightforward, narrative flow of the previous film, so don't expect "once upon a time" and "happily ever after." Instead, this film uses some haunting poetry and gritty imagery to tell the story of the child who grows up in this city. The poetry and the images are very much left up to the interpretation of the individual viewer.

The edits are jumpy and the filters used on the video take the viewer out of any kind of comfort zone and makes one question the experience that a Philly child goes through as he or she moves towards being a Philly adult. Like the film itself, such a childhood is filled with stops and starts, advances and reverses.

But in the end, as the film shows us, a child born in this city, while facing multiple obstacles, also has countless opportunities and sources of inspiration from what is a truly unique city. It also reminds us that each of us is a child of this city, with our beliefs and conventions constantly being shaped by the experiences - both good and bad - that this city has to offer us.

Click "Continue Reading" to check out the film.

Let's turn now to the film Northern Liberties by Steve Janas of Delanco. Steve is an experienced film maker and a Philadelphia-area native, who returned to Philly in 2003 following a 10-year stint living in Los Angeles.

This film focuses on one neighborhood in particular - the oft-written about, hipster mecca of Northern Liberties. While exploring the dominant themes of change that have come to characterize the Northern Liberties story, the film is a little light on the tension that those changes have created. Aside from a brief admonition by Pete Saunders of Ortlieb's Jazz Haus who hopes that the developer-driven interest in the neighborhood doesn't displace the "artists" who helped to revitalize the area, there is little discussion of gentrification. Judging from recent news about the area, I think the "starving" artists have already been forced out, leaving for the frontiers of Kensington, Fishtown and Bridesburg.

The film focuses on the benefits that this eclectic mix of stores, bars, venues and people have to offer for the visitor and resident alike. At times the film becomes like a travelogue, hosted by DJ Frosty who also owns a building in the neighborhood. He takes us on a tour of the hot spots including Ortlieb's, The Standard Tap and Silk City. DJ Frosty also gives us a quick refresher on the history of Northern Liberties, a history told in the multiple layers of abandoned, renovated and new buildings. Cut Northern Liberties open, count the rings and you can see a story of many Philadelphia neighborhoods played out.

A bustling manufacturing and commerce center is reduced to the ashes of an urban wasteland. The seeds of a fledgling artist community fall among the enriched soil and begin to regenerated the area, eventually to replaced by the looming condo towers to cover the landscape like their predecessors - the factory smokestacks - once did.

Northern Liberties shows us the end result, the "climax forest" stage of growth, that can happen in so many other neighborhoods if the conditions are just right. Now, figuring out those conditions... that's the hard part.

Click "Continue Reading" to check out the film.

Click on continue reading to check out the film.

It seems that casinos have cleared another hurdle with a victory by SugarHouse in the PA State Supreme Court and they're poised to break ground any day now according to most of today's news coverage. Foxwoods, apparently wishing that they had hired a different attorney, is choosing to copy the same legal arguments used by SugarHouse and resubmit their appeal to the Supremes. Do the anti-casino forces have any more arrows left in the quiver? I kinda hope so. I've seen two casinos in major cities that aren't Las Vegas or A.C. - Montreal and New Orleans (waaaay pre-Katrina).

In the case of Montreal, the casino is basically out on an island overlooking the St. Lawrence River. There are plenty of windows, to look out. Nice, relatively classy bars distributed throughout the complex and the building itself is at least a little interesting to look at. It's far away from the other main parts of the city and really doesn't seem to affect the quality of life of the more scenic part of Montreal or its residential neighborhoods. In short, it's not so bad.

New Orleans, however, is the first thing I thought about when the issue of casinos in Philadelphia first came up (A.C. was second). It's a fantastic example of what can go wrong. Granted, this is all from a tourists perspective so I have no economic numbers to back it up. The part of town surrounding the casino was totally dead and somewhat craptastic. In fact, the only reason I ended up there was so that I could get directions away from there. Even pre-Katrina, the rest of New Orleans, aside from a few nicer areas (Bourbon Street, the Garden District) seemed not to be feeling the uplifting effects of all those "jobs" and all the tax revenue that the casino was producing. Judging from many other statistical indicators, the state of Louisiana wasn't getting all that much out it either. It makes you wonder, how bad off would it be without them? I ended up linking casinos with seediness, lack of class, and exploitation. We're not talking James Bond in a white dinner jacket ordering vodka martinis. More like a dimly lit room filled with people with bad teeth in sweat suits pumping nickels into a slot machine. But hey, that's just one guy's hopeful vision.

Now, if I were a betting man, I'd say that the odds are that Philadelphia would end up more with the New Orleans experience than the Montreal experience. After all, Canada has had the great idea of providing health care to their citizens for years and we haven't gotten around to copying that. What makes me believe that we could possibly copy their ideas when it comes to casino site selection and design?

On January 7th, this all falls into the lap of the next mayor, especially since the current mayor has been sold on this casino thing, pretty much since the beginning. It'll be up to him to convince a governor who has been championing casino revenue since he was mayor, that maybe we can put these things down in the swamps by the airport where the strip clubs are. If people really want to pull the one-armed bandit, I'm sure they'll find a way there.

Well, folks, any reactions to the op-ed in today's Inquirer by one Mr. Michael Nutter? He's said all along that the perfect place for his primary opponents would be exactly where they were at the time - Brady and Fattah in the majority in Congress, Evans in the majority in the State House and Knox with more money than a majority of the rest of us.

If you're a Nutter supporter, are you unhappy that he went out of his way to jump to the chairman's defense, especially given all of the "new day" rhetoric that he's been using so often at events like the Great Expectations convention? Or are you confident that Nutter can keep the "patronage is good" side of Brady in check while exploiting the congressman's clout in DC by giving him this type of public praise?

Who was this op-ed intended to reach? Brady and his supporters? Or was it an attempt to convince Nutter's supporters that the "new day" can still dawn with Brady around?

What's the first thing that could happen that would convince you that the old way of doing things - getting services out of the city by calling a committeeman or ward leader, choosing elected officials based on service to party rather than qualifications and service to the community - are over?

Fire away in the comments.

(edited to add) YPP started a similar discussion based on this op-ed. There are plenty of good comments that attempt to interpret Nutter's motives and Brady's potential reaction.

At least one supporter of the Philadelphia Police Department has seen fit to use the pages of the Daily News to throw down the gauntlet for new commissioner Ramsey:

SO WE HAVE a mayor who thinks we have to go outside to find a qualified person to run the police department.

Talk to the FOP president before you make the decisions like you did in Washington. We have a strong contract and changes have to be negptiated (sic), and we also have one of the best arbitration records. So, if the city doesn't mind paying out a lot of money, then they will let you make any the changes you want - but remember, this is a civil-service town, something that guy from New York couldn't understand when he was commissioner.

Setting aside the misspellings, grammatical errors and ambiguous "they" that keeps on cropping up, I'm wondering how, if the commissioner can only appoint x number of deputies, he would clear out the "hangers-on." And if the letter writer emphasizes the point that this is a "civil-service town" why would he recommend something that goes against civil-service protocol?

It's not clear whether the letter writer is a cop himself, but it is an indication of what Chief Ramsey can expect.

Don't we all wish we could be mayor for a day? Yes, if I could have one day of his salary and he makes $365 million per year. And if that day happened to be Game 7 of a Phillies-Yankees World Series and I could use his box at Citizen's Bank Park.

Anyway, the kids in today's featured video have much more practical ideas for what they would do with their newfound, albeit temporary, power. My favorite idea: free ice cream on Saturdays. When asked by the woman in the video, apparently some sort of caretaker or recreation organizer, if that would make a brighter future, the little boy who suggested said replied yes without hesitation.

This is my favorite video so far. What can I say? The kids are cute. They keep saying "President" when they mean "Mayor." And they like to play baseball. It's a very simple film. A group of very young kids, probably 6-8 years old, are basically asked what they want the next mayor to do for them. The film makers also talk to a few adults who seem to realize just. how. important. it is for the future of the city (for the country even) for these kids to be raised right and to have as many opportunities as possible. A young woman asks how the kids can have any hope if the adults in their lives don't have any. An older woman very bluntly says that she's "on her way out" and the kids are "on their way in." She fears for what they'll become if they just spend their time on the corner and wonders how many of them won't even live to see their 21st birthday.

And that's what I found most compelling. To realize that as I watch these little kids - so happy, having so much fun, just enjoying life - that, statistically, at least one of them, if not more, could be dead in ten years. No... will be dead in ten years.

Meanwhile, a middle-age woman takes charge of these children, never letting them get away with their president/mayor mix up and holding them accountable for coming up with good suggestions. She's tough but she's a good teacher. She takes them to the field to play softball. For at least a day, the grim reality of their possible future is of no concern. For at least a day, each of them is a potential major league baseball player or a college professor or ... a mayor. Make that... President.

Click on continue reading to check out the film by Alison Crouse, with Tracy Periera and Mee-Lin Youk; all of Philadelphia. Crouse is an MFA film student at Temple as is Pereira. Mee-Lin Youk is an urban spoken word artist, whose work, I assume provides the background narrative to this film.

It's 10 minutes long so give yourself some time.

Heard in the Hall continues the discussion about yesterday's op-ed by Mayor-elect Nutter in support of Congressman and Party Chairman Bob Brady. Here's the interesting tidbit that I didn't know before:

Heard in the Hall hears that Brady asked Nutter to write the op-ed, and Nutter acquiesced.

It kind of gives me a new respect for Brady in that I never would have expected him to pay much attention or care about what the Inquirer editorial board had to say about him. In fact, I think he said as much when he sat down with them during their endorsement meeting before the primary. Something to the effect of... I know I'm not going to get this endorsement anyway. It's interesting that he'd actually (a) care and (b) ask Nutter to step in on his behalf. Does his think that the challenge he could be facing next spring is actually that serious?

Dan U-A at Young Philly Politics decided to start up a whole new thread to take up the discussion, focusing on the part of the op-ed that, I have to admit, I must have missed when I read it the first time:

Both as a member of Congress and as head of the city's Democratic Party...

I understand why Nutter would want to curry favor with a Congressman who is poised to exercise a good amount of clout with his new committee chairmanship, but I wonder what point he was trying to make by specifically pointing out Brady's role with the party - the side of Brady with which most progressives and "reformers" in this town have a problem. In fact, YPP contributor Ray Murphy started yet another thread to question whether Nutter has any plan to reform the way politics (i.e. the Democratic party) works in this town.

Both of these threads seem to have about equal numbers of comments in support of Nutter's op-ed as they do concerns about the message he's sending. We tend to forget that it was a mere 15 or 16 months ago that Nutter was a maverick councilman with very little political support and "no natural constituency" from which to draw power. Just because he's come so far so fast doesn't mean he can just clear everyone out before he even officially takes office. He'll need a few concrete accomplishments under his belt to build up enough support for his re-election before he can even consider ruffling the feathers of "the Party."

Let's see where things are in about a year and half, after the new city worker contracts are negotiated, after we have a clearer picture of where city finances are heading, and after we can see whether he's succeeded in bringing down the murder rate.

Finally, one of our readers sent me an email wondering if Nutter plans on keeping his position as a ward leader and also asked when was the last time a sitting mayor was also a ward leader. I guessed Jim Tate but I don't know for sure. Any ideas folks?

I know we like to focus on issues around here but sometimes I just can't dabbling in the politics from time to time.

As economists are wont to do, we must make an assumption.

First, we assume a time machine...

A couple of minutes ago I heard an interesting tidbit on Talk of the Nation (on WHYY 90.9 on your FM dial). David Gardner, co-founder of The Motley Fool, mentioned that when Ben Franklin died, he had left a tidy some of money to the city of Philadelphia. Gardner, using this to illustrate the amazing phenomenon of compounding interest, said that if the city had just invested the money and not touched it, allowing it to compound annually at an average rate of 10 percent, Philadelphia would now have more than enough money to "buy the entire United States of America." Hence, the power of compounding interest.

And, of course, since I was curious about how much money that might be, I found on Wikipedia (therefore, it must be true!) that Franklin had bequeathed about 1000 pounds (about $4400) each to Philadelphia and Boston:

As of 1990, more than $2,000,000 had accumulated in Franklin's Philadelphia trust, which had loaned the money to local residents. From 1940 to 1990, the money was used mostly for mortgage loans. When the trust came due, Philadelphia decided to spend it on scholarships for local high school students.

I searched "compound interest calculator" and using the first one I found, plugged in $4400 for 215 years at a 10% rate compounded annually. That gives us a grand total of:

$3,490,438,461,210.14

That's nearly $3.5 trillion.

Pretty sure we could cover that pension fund imbalance... and pave Market Street with gold.

Just something to think about.

Daily News and Inquirer have coverage about Mayor-elect Nutter's decision to extend campaign finance rules to the non-profits that are overseeing the funding for his transition and inaugural festivities.

From the Inky:

Nutter had committed to generating those dollars by voluntarily adhering to the same donor caps that restricted his campaign fund-raising. Those limited individuals to giving up to $5,000, and businesses and political committees up to $20,000.

Richard Hayden, a top adviser to Nutter, said yesterday that the mayor-elect had agreed to accept the board's recommendation.

Come to think of it, I always found it a little odd that the Knox-induced doubling of the limits continued to apply after the primary.

So, since Colbert's not around to do it, Tip Of The Hat to Michael Nutter for continuing to walk the walk on the spirit of the fund raising rules.

Phil Bradshaw, Sean Maher, and Wayne Forchic bring us today's film, "Hopes and Fears." Bradshaw's biography on the Great Expectations website says that he "is inspired by the little things that often go unnoticed" and it shows in many of the shots that appear in this film. The film is visually rich, from a brilliantly shot opening of the Ben Franklin Bridge in what appears to be an early morning haze to an ironic shot about 2:25 in of a sink hole that appears to have become the neighborhood trash can. (My favorite shot.)

Act I lays out the hopes. Among them, judging from the range of interview subjects, is the belief that our diverse, multicultural city provides a vitality that we can draw on to solve many of the city's problems. "We are a city neighborhoods," says one trendy-looking young adult. And in those neighborhoods lie our strengths. Yes, sometimes there's "attytood" that comes with tension between these neighborhoods. But for the most part it's the same attitude that says, he's my brother. I can fight with him but I'll be damned if I'm going to let some outside beat him up.

Act II moves to the fears - all of the ones that we've heard so much about. Bad schools. Crime. People moving on up and leaving the neighborhood behind, not giving back.

Act III talks about the future through the lens of the past. One woman makes an observation about the fact that the city has a higher percentage of native born people than any other city. The words she chooses belie the positive and negative attributes to this statistic - "if your from Philadelphia and your parents are from Philadelphia, you have slim to no chance of ever leaving Philadelphia." The smile on her face leads you to believe that this is a good thing, no matter how much her words seem to connote a fate worse than death. That slim chance happens because people choose to stay, not because they can't escape. She continues later in the film by saying that while she wants to change the image that outsiders have of Philadelphia, "she doesn't want to do too good of job" lest we have to share this gem of a city with everyone else.

There's such a passion represented by each of the people in this film. "If we give up on our city, who else is going to come to fight for it?" asks one woman who grew up somewhere else and has since found a home here.

And that's why, no matter how many times the baseball team falls short, we turn out the following year on Opening Day believing we can win it all. That's why, no matter what a previous mayor has done, we believe that the next one can lead us to glory, because we'll never give up the fight.

Click on "Continue Reading" to check out the film. Feel free to comment about it and I encourage you to share those comments over on the Great Expectations page about this film.

I'm curious about the level of interest among readers of this blog and users of thenextmayor.com in all things "Pennsylvania Society." Do you care?

Discuss in the comments.

At least one good thing came from the weekend: more discussion about Nutter and his plans (or lack of, depending on whom you ask) for reforming Philly's Democratic party.

Philadelphia has long been known as a "union town" - a distinction that has had its costs and its benefits. On the one hand, if you are a low-skilled worker with a job as a janitor or laborer, you could still earn a decent living and receive good benefits due to the power of your union. On the other hand, if you are a developer or a manufacturer, you have often been faced with the choice of paying more for labor or concentrating your operation in a lower cost, non-union friendly place. Decades ago, that meant moving to the suburbs or down south. Now it means India and China.

The overall effect on the city is difficult to judge. Yes, we are less beset by the difficulties of the working poor who perform many of the service industry jobs that are available here because they are able to earn a decent living and get health care. But, it is also possible that many jobs that would have been higher paying otherwise have left the city because of the strength of the unions.

Whatever their effect in the past, it seems clear now that labor unions are at a cross roads. While their political power in Philly is still formidable when it comes to getting huge amounts of votes for Democratic candidates in statewide or national races, it doesn't seem to have meant a whole lot in local races as evidenced by the results of the mayoral primary.

Judging from the "Comments" section of any Daily News or Inquirer story that deals with either the construction trades unions or the municipal workers unions, it seems that the public image of organized labor is taking a beating.

And now, judging from an action taken by City Council last week and seemingly approved by Mayor-elect Nutter, the unions may be losing their exclusive hold on public works construction projects. This prompted Inquirer reporter George Anastasia to offer a news analysis that raised these very questions about organized labor's power.

But where does this leave us? Are we better off if Philadelphia ceases to be a "union town" because it would mean that more lower income people without college degrees would have a greater shot at some of these higher paying construction jobs? Or are the jobs just higher paying because of the power of the unions? Simple economics tells us that if labor unions are removed from the equation and the supply of usable labor is no longer kept artificially low by law and by union strength, then the price of that labor will also decrease (given no change in labor demand). Yes, there may be more jobs but at what cost?

The unionized workforce requirements could be serving as a good way to transfer wealth from the very rich to the middle and working class in a way that's more palatable to conservatives than welfare payments and high taxes. Without union strength, are we just looking at a Philadelphia where the gap between rich and poor grows wider?

In Sunday's Philadelphia Tribune, where Council's actions were applauded in an editorial, Councilman Goode is quoted offering a compromise solution to attempt to diversify the unions:

[Goode] also floated another idea, a more long-term concept, of creating other unions that are more inclusive.

“[We could] create competition by creating new labor unions that better mirror the make up Philadelphia,” he said.

Related question... why have the building trades unions always been so reluctant to release any data about the racial make up of their memberships? The Tribune has an answer for that.

Anyway, before anyone starts to celebrate what may be a decline in union influence in Philadelphia, let's remember what things were like before organized labor came along and think just how easily the situation could go back to that.

We're nearing the end on our series of discussions about the wonderful finalists for the Great Expectations "Hopes and Fears" film competition. Again, my thanks to the Great Expectations project for partnering up with the Greater Philadelphia Film office to sponsor this wonderful event. The films that have been produced from this venture have all been great. I'd also like to thank them again for allowing the videos to be embedded in other blogs so that all of us who are interested in a better Philadelphia can share them and discuss them.

Today's topic came in second in their contest. "What is Violence" is by a young film maker from North Philadelphia named Hamid Floyd. Hamid is a student at Temple majoring in Broadcast Telecommunications. If you check out his bio on the Great Expectations page, you'll see a quote that can describe the plight of just about any young person who has a passion for anything:

In my neighborhood of North Philadelphia, there are no words to describe how hard it is to find a young person interested something serious, not to mention video, and if I do find someone, it’s only for in front of the screen. So when I make a film, I am the editor, director, producer, advertiser, camera man, and usually the script writer. This feat is never easy.

It's so true and the same could be said of someone who's interested in radio or owning a small business or putting together a sports team. As soon as the hard work has to start, you lose most of your help. A lot of folks are interested in film until they realize that not everyone gets to be Brad Pitt. There's a lot of behind the scenes work that needs to be done and while it helps to have a big team of folks to work on it, Hamid's film shows what can be done by one dedicated, passionate individual.

But, enough about the process, let's take a look at the product, which, as usual, is available after the jump. It's one of the longer ones so give yourself a good, solid, uninterrupted 15 minutes so you can really take it in. And, again as usual, please feel free to comment here about the film and consider copying your comments to the film's Great Expectations page.

Since he's a young film maker compared to the other participants in this contest, it's tough to judge Floyd's work through the same criteria. Of course he's going to make some mistakes but the mistakes come from trying new techniques and new effects, some of which he'll learn don't work as well as others could. That said, the film is deeply personal to Floyd, as he tells his own story, his own experience with violence. A story that he himself acknowledges isn't as bad as some others simply by virtue of his still being around to tell it.

Floyd narrates over a dramatization of a beating that he received at the hands of a group of young men. Unfortunately, his choices for lighting and the filters he uses for dramatic effect don't translate well into the medium of web video, which always seems to darken video a little too much. This renders the video pretty much unwatchable and leaves the viewer to depend on the audio and the fleeting images of a punch or a kick to understand what's going on. The parts that can be seen make liberal use of slow motion and blur effects to convey the experience of one who is in the midst of a violent encounter. Time slows down and the victim, who's perception of the incident while it's happening is hazy at best, wonders if it will ever end.

After telling his story, Floyd then interviews several people from in and around his neighborhood, a place where violent crime is a regular occurrence, all of whom seem to have little in the way of answers for this scourge. In their voices and in their words, you get a sense that hope is very slowly slipping away. Ultimately, the answer to the question posed in the title of Floyd's film seems to be that violence is slow deterioration of a people and their community until any thought of a better way is extinguished.

One can hope that 8 years from now, when an open seat in the mayor's office brings together a project such as this again, that violence is a topic only explored in films about the past.

Click on "Continue Reading" to check out the film.

Dan Rubin's column today featured a Philly transplant who learned a little something about some Philadelphians' favorite past time - littering:

Have you ever wondered what, if anything, runs through the mind of a kid who walks down the street jettisoning candy wrappers and soda cans as though he's a spacecraft reentering the atmosphere?

She and some other annoyed activists decided to ask 27 kids, ages 6 to 19, about their attitudes toward trash, hoping the playground questionnaire would open a window into underlying issues - how they feel about themselves, whether they think what they do has any impact on those around them.

Some of the answers she were downright scary:

Asked 'What's the most important thing in your life?' one 11-year-old answered "blowing stuff up," "weapons" and "mom" - in that order.

Another, asked how to prevent others from littering in his neighborhood, replied, "kill people." It's "insulting," he wrote.

She's doing something on a small scale that I wish could be done citywide. Every time I see someone throw litter on the ground, I don't necessarily feel any anger as much as I am curious. I want to know why they did it. Who, in that person's life, taught them that it was ok simply to throw their trash on the ground? Once I found that out, I'd want to find that person and ask them where they got their attitude about litter.

Until we have an idea of why people toss their trash on the ground in the first place, we're never really going to be able to solve the problem. For every "citywide clean up," neighborhood activist, or just regular joe who picks up a piece of trash that's not his, there's five or ten people who don't give a second thought about pitching a cigarette butt, soda bottle or newspaper onto the sidewalk.

Kudos to Stephanie Kruel. When she's done surveying Point Breeze, I hope she can move on to the rest of the city.

When I read about some of the things that go on in City Council, like potentially banning a Wawa from opening within 1000 ft. of any residence, I'm reminded of the DJ 3000 and its uncanny ability to "keep up with the news" when it said, "Those clowns in congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns."

Mr. Luigi, a regular poster over YPP, wrote yesterday about what seems to be a misguided attempt by City Council to rein in those infamous Stop-and-Go's that have brought down many a neighborhood.

My very preliminary reading of this bill seems to fall in line with many of the responses to Mr. Luigi's post, namely, that City Council is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Only, this sledge hammer has the added force to allow City Council members even more power over what kind of businesses can and can not open in their districts.

We all know where this goes. How long will it be before Philly Blog is inundated with stories of wannabe coffee shop owners who could not get the proper variance to open their store because some friend of a relative of a City Council person already has a coffee shop and is afraid of the competition?

Does anyone have a different reading of this bill?

We've heard that Charles Ramsey -- who Nutter has designated as his chosen police chief, but who, like Nutter is definitely not on the job yet -- may be headed to Philadelphia murder scene right now.

Very, very interesting. Is he that much of a take-charge guy, or could this be something that has to do with the BBC crew that's also in town right now, doing something on gun violence?

If you've even been the least bit interested in the work I've been doing since the Friday before last to review each of the finalists of the Great Expectations Film "Hopes and Fears" Film contest, then you've undoubtedly seen the winner already. If you attended the Citizen's Convention the Sunday before last, you saw it there as well.

"Prayer for Philadelphia" by Richard Power Hoffman was the Grand Prize winner, undoubtedly because it is quite an achievement in short film making. Hoffman uses a variant of stop motion photography with a lot of quick zooms and pans to challenge the viewer to see Philadelphia in a way that they don't often view it - thoughtfully, artistically and in fine detail. At one point he drills down to a single fleck of pebble in sidewalk to drive home his point that in the city, in all of its gritty glory, is ingrained into its residents. Why else would they choose to live here?

That's the question that Hoffman seeks to answer. Why would we choose to live in a city that seems to revel in its position in the shadow of New York and root for the team with the most losses in major league history? If we can find the answer to that question, then we can possibly tap into it - whatever "it" is - and use it to revitalize and rebuild the city to a place of glory.

Hoffman also employs a haunting soundtrack that pulses throughout the film to represent the beating heart of city that refuses to die. The narration is effective and the background narration with its John Facenda-like quality pulls the viewer in and forces us to listen to his every word.

Clearly, Hoffman is skilled with his editing and apparently, like his "Fridays at the Farm," he's used this style on other films. This type of creativity and the very fact that techniques like this exist are what make me want to go to film school to broaden my knowledge of the medium beyond my self-taught and very basic Final Cut skills.

As cool as the film is, I still think that I'd go with "Mayor for a Day" as my choice for winner. While "Prayer" is the crafted more finely than any of the others, the raw emotion of "Mayor" and the films ability to connect viewers of all different backgrounds with the hopes and fears of members of the most vulnerable population in the city set it apart.

Click on "Continue Reading" to check it out and feel free to leave some comments here and at the film's Great Expectations page.

Thanks for taking part in this cinematic journey. Let's hope that Great Expectations and/or the Greater Philadelphia Film Office does this again next year!

I've tried several times to explain that "stop and frisk," the three word phrase that most media have used to summarize the entire Nutter crime plan, is much more than its detractors have tried to portray it. So many times, in fact, that I don't feel like linking to all of them.

Today, in the Daily Pennsylvanian, Professor Lawrence Sherman, who has studied the deployment of targeted gun patrols, explains why it can work and be consistent with civil rights. In fact, if practiced as its supposed to be, it can actually aid in the relationship between the police force and the residents of the city's most crime-plagued neighborhoods. Sherman points out that the recent murder of police officer Chuck Cassidy and the intense search that followed (including many stops that might push the constitutionally accept "Terry stop" criteria) should not be taken as examples of what a properly executed strategy would look like.

Sherman:

In the aftermath of the tragic murder of Philadelphia police officer Chuck Cassidy, hundreds of Philadelphia police looked for a young black male suspect in high-crime areas. Before the confessed killer was found in Miami, many observers alleged that police conducted illegal searches without adequate reason to suspect the persons searched. Opponents of stop and frisk cited that as evidence of the risks of such a policy.

No complaints of misuse surfaced in any of these tests. Under proper guidance, the Philadelphia police are more than capable of training such units to operate legally and politely.

The cops who would carry out this tactic in specifically targeted zones would be carefully selected, most likely through a rigorous screening process to determine whether they are likely to operate "legally and politely," and highly trained. They would strive to become familiar and trusted faces within the targeted communities and they would explain what they are trying to do and try to allay any concerns that law abiding residents may have.

Sherman continues his op-ed with some excellent points about targeting the resources of Philadelphia's law enforcement system (the "Law"and the "Order" duhn duhn) towards the people most likely to commit the crimes.

Sherman again:

The idea of "triage" in criminal justice resources has even broader implications. Just as the National Academy of Science report found policing to be more effective when focused on a few "hot spots" of crime rather than spreading police evenly across a city, so to could the entire criminal justice system take the same approach. Prosecution, trial preparation and sentencing could all emphasize the cases that pose the greatest harm to the public.

Philadelphia could reduce both crime and taxes with fewer people in prison.

In other words, put the police where the crime is most likely to happen and focus the prosecutors on the people most likely to commit the crimes again if they happen to go free.

The guy's pretty damn smart. Let's hope someone in City Hall puts him on speed dial.

The Nutter transition team sent out a media advisory a while ago announcing that tomorrow the mayor-elect would be naming his new Managing Director. This one was a little different in that it specifically stated that the document was for "planning purposes only" and that the "INFORMATION EMBARGOED UNTIL PRESS CONFERENCE." I took that to mean they didn't want anyone talking about the fact that Nutter would be making the announcement.

Silly, newbie "journalist." Since Heard in the Hall already announced it, I guess I misunderstood.

Place your bets, folks. Who will it be? So far Nutter has mixed up his appointments with folks who have been in city government before and folks from outside of city government. In an almost Lincoln-esque move he even appointed a supporter of one of his rivals to be his Chief of Staff? Will he go that route and pick Jonathan Saidel as Managing Director?

Maybe he'll go with experience. Could Phil Goldsmith be making a comeback or did the mayor-elect convince one of his more talented City Council At-Large colleagues to join him in the administration?

Perhaps we're looking at someone completely different who has experience running a business or organization that comes close to the size of the City of Philadelphia. Judging from the salaries of the CEOs of Philadelphia's largest businesses, any one of them could take a few years off and probably be pretty financially secure.

Trivia question. Can you name the last Managing Director to hold the job for every day of his boss's 8 years as mayor?

(edited to add)
I see that in the 9 minutes it took me to type this post, Wendy scooped me with the announcement. See next post.

Tomorrow at 11 a.m.

From today's Inquirer:

The mayor-elect told the crowd that he had come to his decision after talking several times with the Democratic presidential front-runner and determining that "her priorities are the right priorities for Philadelphia."

"It's time for cities and metropolitan areas to take their prominent place in America again," he declared.

At this point, it seems that the choice of whom to endorse comes down to either Clinton or Obama for most major political figures. Nutter has decided to throw in for Clinton. Considering that he's gone so far as to appoint supporters of his primary rivals to high level posts in his administration, I think it's unlikely that Nutter chose not to endorse Obama because of his support for Fattah in the primary. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it appears that he simply chose Clinton because he thinks she's the better candidate.

Leaving aside the obvious point that the endorsement of the mayor-elect of Philadelphia is unlikely to make much difference in the outcome given the lateness of Pennsylvania primary, do you think this was a smart, savvy move? If Obama is able to pull off the improbable win, much like a certain 5th place candidate was able to do in last May's mayoral primary, is Philadelphia now in a bad spot with the next President? Or would it not matter given that Obama's background in another big city (Chicago) makes him naturally inclined to paying special attention to cities?

So many rhetorical questions, so little time. Discuss.

Oh, and stay tuned for video from Nutter's Managing Director announcement. (The answer to the trivia question I raised yesterday is in the comments section of this post.)

There's going to be one in City Hall at least.

Dr. Camille Cates Barnett will be the new Managing Director of the City of Philadelphia. I'll have video a little later but for now, here are some of the highlights of her biography:

She is currently Strategic Consulting Director for Public Financial Management (yes, the same PFM that was founded by Sam Katz and others but according to Nutter there's no connection with Katz) in their Washington DC office. One of her consulting jobs while at PFM was working with the City of New Orleans.

She's worked in Grand Rapids, MI, Sunnyvale, CA and Houston, Dallas and Austin, TX. She was City Manager in Austin.

Dr. Barnett went from their to the Center for International Development at the Research Triangle in North Carolina where she "advised governments around the world on transferable, city government innovations."

While in North Carolina she got a call from the folks in Washington DC and was asked to serve as that city's Chief Management Officer until DC completed a transition to home rule.

She has a Ph.D. in public administration from the University of Southern California.

Nutter said that he first met Dr. Barnett at a National League of Cities conference at which she was giving a presentation on budgeting based on outcomes.

Video and some more of my thoughts (as if you're waiting for them with bated breath) later today. I'll also be keeping an eye out for what WHYY and some of the other news outlets get as reactions to this selection. For now, have at it in the comments.

While I'm piecing together the video from the Managing Director announcement, I figured I'd share with you a very lightly edited piece that features the mayor-elect taking questions about the Convention Center issue.

For background on this issue, check out the Daily News coverage here and here and Inquirer coverage here, here, and here.

The Daily News also editorialized about it today.

Anyone care to chime in on this issue?

As promised (several hours ago), here are some highlights from today's announcement of Dr. Camille Cates Barnett as the new Managing Director:

Keep the comments coming. I especially love the part where she says, "I'm really good at running things." I guess we'll find out how good she is soon.

Take a quick look at some of the major stories in the news today. Do you see what I see?

Not one. Not two. Not three. But at least four pieces of good news related to local, government-influenced issues. (By that I mean I'm not counting the Sixers' fourth win in a row.)

First, and most important from this blogs perspective, is the mayor-elect's choice for a new Managing Director. (DN, WHYY, Next Mayor video, Inky, Metro, Bulletin)

By all accounts, she's a smart, capable and successful city manager who can claim that she was part of the transformation of Austin, TX into the coolness mecca that it is today. Although, I'd have to give this movie just as much credit. At the press conference yesterday she came across as outgoing, charismatic and focused. Hopefully she can use that to create the kinds of wide-ranging, cultural transformations that it will take to shape up a city government that can be a little resistant