The Next Mayor

Wonk, wonk, waaaaah.

Here's a few links for my fellow policy nerds out there.

Philadelphia Bicycle News goes ga-ga over the Streets Department's new online street defect reporting tools. My response... who designs the city's websites? If our tax dollars are going to pay for municipal websites that look like that when any Joe Sixpack can design a nice looking, easy to use blog for free...

Speaking of nice looking and easy to use websites, Policy Map from The Reinvestment Fund gets high marks from the godfather of on-line wonkery - Dan UA at Young Philly Politics.

Finally, the Daily News editorial page reminds us again how important cities are. Like Atrios often writes, there are some who would never, ever want to live in a city, but if our nation can just make it easier for those who are on the fence to give up their cars, their yards and their big box shopping centers, then everybody wins. The Brookings report referred to by the Daily News editorial makes it clear that most of us, whether we know or not, are living in "cities" which we now call "metropolitan areas."

The It's Our Money home page is your gateway to all of the latest news on contract negotiations.

With a work stoppage authorized by the membership of District Council 47 and a new deadline of July 15 set by the city workers, the strike watch is on. Reports of the authorization can be found in DN, Inky, Metro and KYW.

On the subject of contract negotiations, the Nutter administration has maintained their Steve Carlton-like freeze out of the media leaving us with only the union's side of the story to give us insight into what the hold up has been.

In Chris Brennan's story for the Daily News, Cathy Scott, President of District Council 47, said that the City offered a one-year extension of the current contract so that it could buy time to shore up the pensions and rework the health care arrangement. Scott also indicated that the city was looking for changes to the pension plan:

Scott said her union members are concerned about the pension changes. "There are no specifics about it, so we don't really know what the city is proposing on pensions but we know it is not to keep the present pension plan that we have," she said.

Could the city be looking to get the union to agree to some of the changes recommended by recent reports on the pension fund by Pew and PICA? We wrote about the Pew report back when this was The Next Mayor blog here.

Details may be hard to come by until the final agreements are hammered out. This is, however, the first public indication that we've seen that the Nutter administration may be looking for some pretty significant changes to the way the city pays for health care and pension benefits.

Young Philly Politics' Dan U-A has entered a very exclusive club. He has obtained one of just 150 passwords to the election results compiled by the Philadelphia City Commissioners office.

When he's not trying to get a spot on the U.S. Olympic team, Dan has been on a crusade to obtain information that any other county in the country (hyperbole but probably true) gives away for free - ward by ward or division by division election results.

His quest, complete with lawyer speak of "Freedom of Information" suits and "appeals" (I'm just a caveman), was documented recently by Bob Warner of the Daily News.

Here's an idea for the City Commissioners: dump all the data on to a site in the rawest, easiest form they want. Invite the "crowd" of internet users to come up with an easy way to organize and present it. Sit back and watch us do the job for free. No million dollar contracts. No insider deals. Just let the crowd take it and run with it. It's not like election data needs to be confidential or private.

Heck, SEPTA's already doing it. And by doing it, I mean doing nothing and letting smart folks figure it out on their own.

How about it? Then maybe the rest of City government can operate this way. We could have a virtual, open-source City government that's a combination of Firefox, Twitter and Wikipedia.

Today's The Philadelphia Tribune did the yeoman's work of breaking down the state budget to see which city departments won, which lost and which are just happy to be alive.

The winners: schools (+$51m), municipal and traffic courts (+$600k), Lincoln (+$700k) and Temple (+$2.6m) Universities, and the African-American Museum (+$3k).

Losers: Drexel, Penn, Children's Hospital and veteran's housing programs.

Mayor Nutter held a press conference this morning to discuss the contract awarded to the city's police officers by the arbitration panel that makes that decision. Ben will have more later about the event and any questions that Nutter took following his statement.

The arbitration panel definitely zigged when most thought it would zag by actually decreasing the amount that the city has to pay into the health care fund for the city's police union. The usual dance has been for the arbitrators to award a contract that the city considers too generous. The city appeals. Eventually the appeal is denied and PICA releases a report about how the award will make it really tough to balance the budget in future years.

Not so this time. The city is happy with the decision so they won't appeal. And it's unlikely that the cops will appeal since the awarded contract is only for one year anyway.

That's the important part. As you'll see from Mayor Nutter's statement, reprinted in its entirety below, the administration is happy to use the extra year because it gives them "the time we need to develop a comprehensive, cooperative approach that will preserve the city’s fiscal health and the ability to deliver services for many years to come" and "an historic opportunity to the FOP and city administration by providing a framework for both parties to work in partnership to identify long-term solutions to the skyrocketing health care costs for union employees."

So we're not out of the woods yet. The real test will come over the next year when its time to work out a new contract. There is also the matter of the contracts for the city's white and blue collar non-uniformed employees. The new deadline for those negotiations will be on us in 5 days.

One thing is for sure. Today's decision will have a major impact on those negotiations.

Nutter's full statement is below.

Last week, "It's Our Money" brought you a detailed explanation of the process used to negotiate contracts for police officers and firefighters. Well, it turns out we published that information just in time. An arbitration award was issued for police officers and we now have the details of the new contract for more than 6,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police.

You can read Nutter's statement on the decision by clicking here. Also, the FOP has put a copy of the actual decision on their website.

So, what is in the new contract? The agreement, which only lasts for one year, provides a modest pay increase and decreases the city contribution for healthcare. Police officers will receive a 4% salary bump. Pension benefits for most employees will remain unchanged. An increase will be given to the beneficiaries of police officers who are killed in the line of duty. The bump is retroactive and will include the family of Sergeant Stephen Liczbinski.

Probably the biggest shocker in the award was the decrease in the amount of money that the city is required to contribute for health insurance. The city pays a fixed dollar amount per employee for a plan that is administered by the union. The award lowered that amount from $1,303 per employee in FY08 to $1,165 per employee in FY09. The total cost per year will change from from $100.7 million to $95.4 million. This is the first time in recent memory that the cost has actually gone down. It's particularly surprising because the overall cost of healthcare is rapidly increasing.

Another interesting component is the creation of a healthcare cooperation committee. According to a post on Philly Clout, many insiders believe this might be the first step towards consolidating all of the union-run healthcare funds into a single plan.

However, one union source told me that the committee is a "toothless tiger" because it has no real power. Alternations to the health plan will need to be approved by both sides, which makes radical change unlikely. It will be worth keeping an eye on this committee and see what develops. I wonder if the other unions will join the committee as as result of their contracts.

Still, this contract does not really address one of the major issues facing the city: pensions. As we've covered previously on "It's Our Money", the city pension system has been chronically underfunded. Despite this fact, the pension benefits for police officers was not changed by the award.

Why? Well, it seems likely that the Nutter Administration is hoping that the proposed pension obligation bond-- which would borrow $3 billion to bring the funding level of the pension system to 95%-- can be worked out over the next year. In fact, the pension issue might be one of the reasons that the contract only lasts for a year. The Administration might go for a longer agreement when (or if) the pension bond is approved.

Finally, this arbitration award has interesting implications for the other unions. Will the Nutter Administration seek a one year deal with them? If so, that means that negotiations for all four unions could happen all over again in twelve months. I'm personally happy about that prospect, because it means that we'll get to use the countdown clock again.

Also, the lower healthcare payment has to worry the firefighters union. Currently, the city pays more money for healthcare for firefighters than any other municipal employee. The arbitration panel that decides the firefighters contract will see much of the same information presented to the police arbitration panel. It therefore seems likely that the panel might lower the amount of the city's contribution.

Last week, an arbitration panel issued the terms of a new contract between the City of Philadelphia and the Fraternal Order of Police. The one-year award governs wages, benefits, and working conditions for more than 6,000 employees. The deal also included the creation of a joint committee between labor and management to examine how to control healthcare costs. There are a number factors, both internal and external, that could possibly impact the price of health insurance in Philadelphia over the next year.

Currently, each municipal union is responsible for administering healthcare plans for their members. The city pays a fixed amount of money per employee each month to the unions. The award for police lowered the amount from $1,303 per employee to $1,165 per employee. Overall, that means a decrease from $100.7 million to $95.4 million. This portion of the contract was historic, since it's the first time in more than ten years that healthcare payments have actually decreased. The award was particularly surprising because healthcare costs have been rising over all.

So, what might impact healthcare costs? Well, according to a story in Friday's Daily News, the joint committee on costs might be the first step towards the consolidation of union health plans. Currently, each of the four municipal unions is responsible for administering their own plan. A fifth plan covers exempt employees, like department heads or political appointees. Nutter reportedly wants to put all the employees into a single plan to save money. If it actually happened, it would be a major change in how healthcare works for municipal employees.

Changes are also happening at the state level that might impact healthcare costs. First, there is the potential merger between Independence Blue Cross and Highmark Inc. This gigantic company would dominate about 50% of the Pennsylvania health insurance market. It's not clear if costs would go up or down, but the merger is sure to impact the price of healthcare.

Another factor is the healthcare proposal being pushed by Gov. Rendell. His plan, called Prescription for Pennsylvania, would expand coverage for the uninsured. It might drive healthcare costs down through increased efficiencies in hospitals and other caregivers. If the proposal passes, it could drive down health costs for municipal employees.

Finally, a solution to the high cost of healthcare might come at the national level. If Barack Obama is elected president, it is safe to assume that he will try to do something about the millions of uninsured in the United States. The solution is going to be big and complicated, but a byproduct might be the lowering of healthcare costs in Philadelphia. That means potential savings in the next police contract, which will be up for negotiation in a year.

Harrisburg has once again been rocked by scandal. According to charges brought by Attorney General Tom Corbett, millions of taxpayer dollars were misdirected for partisan purposes. A dirty dozen that includes former legislators, sitting lawmakers, and top legislative staffers has been accused of rewarding state employees with bonuses for working on political campaigns. You can read more by checking out this editorial in the Philadelphia Daily News. Some in Harrisburg responded to the allegations by calling for a special session ethics. Here is a quick rundown of some the reforms being suggested and how they relate to the current scandal.

Campaign finance reform. Currently, there are no contribution limits for individuals or Political Action Committees (PACs). If some billionaire wanted to drop a $1 million into the coffers of someone campaigning for state office, there is nothing stopping them. As a result, lawmakers are forced to raise large amounts of cash to remain electorally competitive. This creates a lot of pressure for high dollar fundraising. In fact, one of the staffers indicted by Corbett is alleged to have run an illegal fundraising operation directly from the state capitol. Campaign finance limits-- like the limits set at $2,300 for contributing to federal candidates-- could help change the cash soaked culture that produced the bonus scandal.

Redistricting. It's impossible to know the motivation of those who handed out bonuses, but clinging to power had to be near the top of the list. Tax dollars were used to fund an incumbent protection racket to protect entrenched leaders. The current system for drawing legislative districts operates the same way. Lawmakers game the system to ensure that the majority of districts are either overwhelmingly Republican or Democrat. As a result, very few elections are actually competitive. Reformers have suggested giving responsibility to a nonpartisan agency that would draw districts based on population data and existing geopolitical boundaries.

Budget reform. Ultimately, the bonus scandal is about the misuse of tax dollars. The actual dollar amount-- $1.9 million-- is small compared with a much bigger item: the $23 billion state budget. Given the willingness of politicians to use state funds for bonuses, it seems likely that other allocations of tax dollars might be suspect as well. Reformers have suggested a number of changes to make the budget process more open and accountable. These include requiring that negotiations between top legislative leaders be made public, creating an independent authority to review revenue projections, and penalizing lawmakers for failing to produce a state budget on time.

None of these changes will happen without pressure from outraged citizens. If bonusgate makes you angry (and it should), check out some of the organizations below that are working to change Harrisburg:

Common Cause - PA * Democracy Rising PA * League of Women Voters - PA

We learned yesterday that Mayor Michael Nutter is planning to take some time off. Over at Heard in the Hall, Marcia Gelbart makes an interesting point for anyone who has been following contract negotiations between the city and the municipal unions:

But the great significance of Nutter's Great Escape is this: Looks like labor negotiations with District Council 33 and District Council 47 won't be getting resolved in the immediate weeks ahead.

The union said it would not be seeking another formal extension.

The worst kept secret in urban planning for the past few days has been the plan to fund $17 million worth of improvements to the Ben Franklin Parkway through a combination of state, city and philanthropic money.

Well, today the official announcement was finally made. Here's the Nutter Administration press release about the Parkway and an additional $2 million for a new park at 12th and Catharine.

Coverage of this announcement has been pretty extensive starting with the Inquirer yesterday and continuing with KYW and the Metro today. (Edited to add How could I forget the Daily News coverage?) The most complete coverage comes from PlanPhilly - not surprising considering the obvious planning and urban design elements of the story.

The $17M for the Parkway will probably be pretty universally praised because of its iconic status and the use it gets from folks who live throughout the region I wonder, however, if the $2M for the Hawthorne park could be a little more contentious - at least among blog and story commenters. Will there be a PIMBY (Please! In my backyard!) among folks in other neighborhoods who also want new parks and green space?

Hopefully this represents the city's commitment to revitalizing the parks and green spaces in neighborhoods throughout Philadelphia.

In a related bit of information, the pedestrian improvements and amenities coming to the Parkway should go a long way in boosting Philly's ranking with Walk Score. Our fair city boasts the 5th best walkability score overall. You can also see the rankings of each neighborhood. I'm happy to say I live in the 4th highest ranking neighborhood in the city but I'm going to call it the 3rd since "Riverfront" seems to include I-95, the Ben Franklin Bridge and Penn's Landing.

As reported in the Daily News today, the Board of Revision of Taxes took a step towards what they are now calling "Actual Value" assessment. The plan would reassess every property in the city to accurately reflect their current market value. Tax rates would then be levied against that value. Once these values are established, appealed and finally settled, the Board would focus on minor tweaks from year to year to keep up with changes (hopefully increases, but you never know) in property value.

City Council and the Mayor would be in charge of changing the tax rates to get the amount of revenue they need for the year's budget.

Yep, you heard that right. City Council and the Mayor would be in charge of determining your property taxes. Your property value would be determined by what it should be determined by - the market and what you could get if you sold it. BRT would just have to worry about getting that as accurate as possible.

On the one hand, it's good to know that our taxes will be determined by the folks who we can boot out of office by the power of the ballot box. On the other hand, a lot of people are going to be worried about the impact of this move on their household budget.

Anyway, this is your thread to weigh in on this very preliminary step by the Board of Revision of Taxes and let City Council know what you expect when this is all over. Have at it!

(I'll go first: At least they recognized how scary the name "Full Value Assessment" is. "Actual Value" seems to fall right in the middle between "Full Value" and the oft-used alternative "Fair Value." The power of words, after all...)

Ben just ran off to DC 47's office to report on what the union is calling a "major announcement" about their contract negotiations with the Mayor.

Could it be that union President Cathy Scott is going to head off to Spain with the mayor for his vacation and continue negotiations over a few glasses of good Spanish wine?

Somehow I doubt it.

We'll let you know as soon as Ben gets back.

Well, I'm back from the press conference at AFSCME DC 47. I'd write up the details, but the good folks over at Philly Clout already beat me to the punch. Here's the crux of the message delivered by DC 47:

DC 47 President Cathy Scott says the union ­– which represent 3,372 employees – would accept a one year deal like the Fraternal Order of Police got last week, if they can get the same terms as police.

Scott said DC 47 has offered to join the committee Mayor Nutter is establishing to examine city healthcare costs. But she said they weren’t interested in merging their healthcare fund with the other three city union heath funds.

I swear that DN reporter Chris Brennan was still inside the building when I left, so he must of used some kind of ESP to make the blog post happen. Or he has a telephone. Either way, it's just more proof that print reporters can still kick blogger butt-- even on our turf.

Since Clout has already covered the news angle, I guess all that is left for me is analysis. The press conference was interesting because it was one of the few times that any of the parties involved in negotiations have spoken publicly. Scott said that her statement was a response to things said by Mayor Nutter when the contract for the FOP was awarded. DC 47 was the only union to call a strike vote and demand a contract extension, so it's not too surprising that they're the ones breaking the silence. I wonder if their unwillingness to play by the rules laid out by Mayor Nutter will have any ramifications at the bargaining table.

The other interesting little tidbit was Scott's description of the proposals that have been offered by city negotiators. She called them "draconian." As mentioned above, Scott rejected the idea of merging the health funds and putting those dollars under city control. She also said that the city has offered no pay increases and called for drastic changes to the pension plan. According to her, the city wants to switch from a defined benefit pension plan (which guarantees a certain level of benefits) to a defined contribution plan, which would be closer to a 401(k).

Those are some tough proposals and I bet we won't see any of them in the final contract. The city is just talking tough. Instead, I think we're much more likely to see a deal closer to what the police got. No major changes, but enough time to give the administration breathing room.

Have you seen Philadelphia police officers riding around on Segways? The self-balancing vehicles, which sort of look like motorized scooters, cost about $5,500. Police began using them for patrols back in April. To be honest, I've been sort of skeptical about spending so much money on these things. After all, a bike seems just as effective and costs a heck of a lot less. Also, what's wrong with foot patrols? I can't imagine that the crime fighting ability of Segway riding officers is magnified enough to justify the cost.

That's why I was happy to read that Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey is looking to raise private money to pay for the Segways:

The Philadelphia Police Foundation, a nonprofit charity started in 1999 by Commissioner John F. Timoney as a way for business to provide tax-deductible support for law enforcement, has agreed to raise about $80,000 for the two-wheeled electric transporters, foundation president William C. Whitmore Jr. said yesterday.

I like the idea of private companies helping to subsidize public safety. It's great that businesses located in Philadelphia are doing their part to keep us safe. This has the added bonus of making companies feel invested in our city. After all, they are less likely to relocate if they've put up a lot of money to improve things in Philadelphia. Mayor Nutter has made clear that he expects the private sector to provide opportunities for ex-convicts and high school students through internships and entry level jobs. Providing funding for police equipment is a good addition to the list.

However, there was one part of the article that concerned me. Apparently the New York City police department relies on private funding for several specialty units. This includes a small task force that focuses on copyright infringement. The squad is funded by the fashion industry and companies that produce DVDs. Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture?

I really don't want law enforcement focusing on specific areas based on what gets funding from businesses. I'm all for using private donations to fund police work, but I guess I draw the line at allowing the donors to set the crime fighting agenda. The money raised should be spent on the areas prioritized by the police, not the companies ponying up the dough.

***Coming soon, Ben will have a more detailed analysis of the agreement that was reached between the mayor and DC 33. This post is for anyone who wants to know who/what DC 33 is and read the coverage of the agreement.

If you're a regular reader of this you probably don't need me to explain what DC 33 is but for those of you who may only catch this collection of numbers and letters in passing as you skim the headlines or listen to the news, a little primer may be in order.

DC 33 stands for District Council 33 - the Philadelphia arm of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. AFSCME is the national labor union that represents a large percentage of every civil servant whose paycheck is derived in part or in full from our tax dollars.

In Philly, DC 33 is known as the "blue collar city workers union" because its members include the folks who do the physical labor of picking up the trash, filling in the potholes, mowing the grass, etc.

Like all of the city's unionized workers, DC 33 members work under a contract that is negotiated between the city and the union and includes annual wage increases, health care benefits, pension benefits, vacation days, and work rules. In fact, we have the text of the entire contract that was signed in 2004. In times of labor strife, this union provides the muscle in the form of striking garbage workers.

Fortunately for you and me, this doesn't seem to be a time of labor strife. Our trash (and recyclables) will be picked up for at least another year.

Ok, having gotten that primer out of the way, now you can go ahead and read all of the coverage:

Daily News: DC 33 approves contract: No raises, health costs steady

Inquirer: Phila. and its largest union reach 1-year deal

KYW 1060 AM: Phila. and Largest City Workers Union Reach Tentative Agreement

WHYY News: City, DC 33 reach a 1-year agreement

Feel free to comment and check back for Ben's analysis.

Click on "Continue Reading" to see the complete text of the mayor's announcement about the contract.

Mayor Michael Nutter interrupted his vacation to come home and announce a labor agreement with the city's largest municipal union. The leadership of AFSCME DC 33 has approved a one-year deal for more than 9,000 blue-collar employees. The proposal keeps the members' at their current pay rate and makes no major alterations to their healthcare or pensions.

DC 33's blue-collar workers will be given a $1,100 signing bonus instead of a pay increase. That represents a significant long-term savings for the city because the payment will only be made once-- for a total cost of $6.3 million.

There is a big difference between a pay raise and a bonus. Bonuses are only awarded once. Pay raises have a reverberating impact. A worker who receives a pay raise half the size of the bonus make a lot more money in the long run.

Let's look at two workers who make the same amount and see how both are impacted by bonuses and raises. Below shows the impact on a municipal employee making $46,000 dollar a year. That's the average salary of DC 33's membership.

Worker who received $1,100 bonus ( 2.3% of salary)

Y1: $47,100
Y2: $46,000
Y3: $46,000
Y4: $46,000
Y5: $46,000

Total earned: $231,100

Worker who received 1.15% pay raise

Y1: $47,529
Y2: $47,529
Y3: $47,529
Y4: $47,529
Y5: $47,529

Total earned: $237,645

Difference: $6,545

So, as shown by this scenario, a worker will make more in the long-term from a raise than a bonus. However, this assumes two things: first, that a worker will keep the same job for five years. Second, nothing will change during that period.

Many of the previous contracts between the city and AFSCME contained a bonus in the first year instead of a raise. Raises followed. The current deal only lasts for one year. If DC 33 can negotiate raises for subsequent years, the contract will look very similar to previous agreements.

Negotiating new contracts was touted as one of the first big challenges facing the Nutter Administration, We are already halfway through the process. Binding arbitration is expected to begin soon for firefighters and AFSCME DC 47 is currently in negotiations. However, the short length of the contracts already signed indicates we will watch this dance again fairly soon.

If you've never seen any of the great coverage coming out of PlanPhilly.com, then I suggest you head over there and start digging in (as soon as you're done with this blog post). PlanPhilly starts with the basic assumption that good, thoughtful planning and design with an eye towards sustainability and lessening our impact on the world are desirable outcomes that policymakers should be aiming towards. From that basic assumption, PlanPhilly provides coverage of all of the latest news in city and regional planning, design, and policy as well as offering a way for other people who are interested in these topics to convene and have some say in the built environment of their neighborhoods and the city.

I bring this up because of some recent coverage of one of the good ways that our money is being used by the state:

The 46th St. station is the focus of one of two transit-oriented development projects in Philadelphia that has received Transit Revitalization Investment District funds from the state to develop a TRID planning study.

The state funding comes at a time when the reconstruction of the El in West Philly and the station face lifts are on the verge of completion. Setting aside for a moment the amount of taxpayer money that was spent on that reconstruction, the delays in the project and the cost to local businesses in the area, that portion of the Market-Frankford line is poised to become a real asset to its surrounding neighborhood. The are below the El will be more open and well-lit and the stations more accessible and safer.

The state and city planners realize this and want to figure out how to leverage that asset into making the areas surrounding the stations more walkable, livable and economically vibrant. At the same time, the TRID process acknowledges that the most important opinions about the future of a neighborhood come from the residents of that neighborhood themselves. These kinds of things can not be done from on high.

From the meeting as reported by PlanPhilly:

Following the presentation, the audience broke up into smaller groups to give their feedback and prioritize those possibilities mentioned by the planners. Many in attendance seemed pleased with the overall direction of the plan, but voiced their concerns about some of the specifics. Lilian, a longtime neighborhood resident, was concerned about the possibility of rising property taxes as a result of new development, even though those funds would be specifically targeted for the TRID. She also addressed the issue of safety in accessing the station and said that she rides the bus instead, specifically because of concerns about crime and poor lighting.

So there's the balance that needs to be reached. Everyone wants a clean, well-lit, safe, walkable, crime-free neighborhood. The planning process for the area surrounding the 46th Street Station (Pine to Brown, 41st to 51st) seeks to do that in an area that has traditionally seen more than its fair share of dark, trash-strewn, crime-ridden streets. Many of the residents of that area have essentially put up with this in a sort of devil's bargain that in exchange their property taxes would be low. The government, whether it's the state government who is funding this TRID study or the city government with the most direct jurisdiction, needs to make sure that the residents who didn't flee aren't forced out before they get to enjoy the fruits of this process.

It would be a shame if our money went to something with such good intentions as this TRID study only to end up creating hardships for the folks who held down the fort until the reinforcements could come in.

Turns out that today is going to be sustainable development day on the It's Our Money blog.

Atrios weighs in:

...hopefully increased demand for amenities like mass transit might lead to some minor land use changes around existing transit corridors (lowered parking requirements, increased residential density). The changes really are quite minor in some sense, and despite NIMBY fears they aren't going to turn your suburban outpost into an urban nightmare.
(snip)
Philadelphia's extensive commuter rail system has long, in most places, not lived up to its full promise due to poor land use around stations.

Want some evidence of this? Just check out the satellite view of the Levittown station on the R7. That's just one of several examples of a train station surrounded by acres of parking and more acres of scattered housing.

Greater Greater Washington - one of my new favorite blogs, sort of the PlanPhilly of DC except with a more distinctive voice - continues its countdown of reasons not to mandate parking around new developments. Number 5: minimums deter good projects:

Exhibit A is... a former KFC site at 15th and Pennsylvania SE, near Potomac Avenue Metro. The developer wants to build a two-story building spanning the entire frontage of the lot, creating a continuous streetwall. The neighbors want a two-story building spanning the entire lot. Good urban design principles would call for a building spanning the entire lot.

Zoning, however, mandates 28 spaces of parking. That would take up too much of the lot, and underground parking is presumably too expensive for such a small building. The result? A long, drawn-out BZA process or a bad project.

These minimums aren't just mandated by the government however. How many new supermarkets or Targets or even, gasp, Walmarts could be built in the city if we just did away with the need for parking. Imagine a multi-story Best Buy (for example) at 8th and Market with those cool escalators that take your shopping cart between floors. Now, if only I could figure out how I could carry a 46-inch plasma home on my bike or the train. Perhaps a few free spaces for car share vehicles?

From TOD to parking to alternative forms of travel: the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia brings attention to this story about a former rail line right-of-way that will become a new bike path.

From the story:

The county has entered into a nominal lease with SEPTA to use the land for a hiking and biking trail.

SEPTA in 1983 "temporarily suspended" commuter rail traffic on the line, which extends from Fox Chase to Newtown in Bucks County. Since that time, despite pleas from some to reactivate the line, parts of the rail line have been paved over.

I have mixed feelings about this. I love the idea of more bike trails, especially trails that link up with other trails and offer the recreational rider a chance to go very long distances safe from road traffic. On the other hand, it does seem a little shortsighted to take more potential commuter rail lines out of play. I suppose we should worry about getting the development correct around the stations and lines that already exist before we turn our attention to adding new lines. At least the line isn't being converted into a road for car traffic. If the time comes when there's a high demand for a train line directly to Newtown, it will be a lot easier to build it over a preserved right of way than a paved over road.

Via many sources, including Greater Greater Washington and Atrios, I stumbled upon this interesting piece from Philly's own Next American City magazine, or what I like to call "The Little Magazine About Smart Urban Policy That Could."

From the piece:

Although known for wide beaches, lively boardwalks, and amusement activities, a deeper look reveals that a good deal of the vibrancy in resort towns like those at “The Shore” may be attributed to something that many visitors would claim revulsion to in their hometowns: density.

Folks who fight any kind of changes to the land use policies in their spread out suburban towns flock like lemmings to vacation spots that are more dense, walkable, and car "unfriendly" than many neighborhoods in Philly. People drive to their vacation destinations and take a break from their cars. This is something to remember the next time a proposed high-density town home or mixed-use retail/residential development shows up at the borough zoning board meeting.

Whenever I read or write about SEPTA, I wonder how Mayor Nutter feels when he think about this city's most schizophrenic quasi-governmental agency. On the one hand, he has no statutory power over the regional transportation authority, which, to be fair, is not just a Philadelphia agency. Sure, he gets to appoint a couple members of the board and the city does send a little bit of cash its way, but other than that, he has very few hard power tools at his disposal.

On the other hand, when SEPTA screws up (Market Frankford reconstruction in West Philly comes to mind), people aren't rushing to the voting booth to vote out the general manager. As with many of other quasi-governmental agencies, when things are running smoothly, you don't hear much about them. When things are going badly, however, people invariably look for someone to blame.

I was reminded of this when I came across this post from one of my favorite blogs, SEPTA Watch:

What is going on at SEPTA? Even after I complained to the new customer service leader at SEPTA back in May, and he looked into it, the clerk who can't sell tickets or do basic math is still there, just as rude as ever.

How can SEPTA possibly claim that they are trying to treat customers better? It's just absurd. And by the way, why doesn't a SEPTA transaction produce an itemized receipt? You have to do all the math in your head or watch out, you will get taken advantage of, and nothing is written down.

Public transportation is one of the most frequently used, highly visible services provided by the government but SEPTA's status as a "regional authority" necessarily makes it impossible to pin the responsibility on any one elected official. The suburban county commissioners, the governor, the mayor and the region's state legislatures all have enough political cover to keep them from really feeling the effects of any unfortunate performances by SEPTA.

While most experiences with SEPTA are probably quite positive (and by that I mean neutral, which is about as good as it can get unless they put television screens and bubble baths in the trains and buses), it only takes one bad experience to permanently color a person's impression. That's pretty clear from the excerpt above which was actually the second such experience by that writer.

Anyway, I don't really have any prescriptions for how to fix this. I just like to write about SEPTA because its like the kid in the school whom the teacher REALLY wants to do well because you like him but he just keeps making bad decisions.

Really, SEPTA, I want you to do well. I really do.

On WHYY this morning, Elizabeth Fiedler's piece about the multi-day conference that is convening to discuss the casinos and their place in the riverfront plan included a great quote from Sugarhouse spokeswoman, Leigh Whitaker:

"We're not going to participate in a process designed to get us to move," said Whitaker, "by all accounts of what I've read publicly this is about finding all the reasons why these locations are bad. It just didn't seems reasonable for us to participate in that process."

In other words, Sugarhouse (and I'm assuming Foxwoods) are hesitant to go to a meeting which features a bunch of people telling them how much they suck. They apparently feel like John McCain at a college Dems rally.

What they might be missing, however, is just how much they could help themselves by attending, listening and enacting EVERY change recommended by the group. That includes changes to the design, the location of the parking, access to transit, even hours of operation. If this group says the casinos should look like a couple blocks of low-rise, ground level retail, with walk up apartments and parking lots near the airport with shuttle or rail service, they should do it not matter what the cost.

I don't know much about gambling as a business but if Ocean's 11 has taught me anything, it's that running one of these things is basically like a license to print money. Whatever the cost of making the casinos palatable in a design sense to the mayor, the neighbors and the riverfront stakeholders, the casino owners will eventually make it back.

Why?

Because the gamblers don't care what they look like. Put a few hundred slot machines in an abandoned subway stop and they'd be in use nearly 24 hours a day.

In the meantime, as the casinos push back and resist on any attempts to change or even re-site, they lose money in the foregone revenue. This solution doesn't satisfy those who don't want any legalized gambling at all in the city, a group which counts me among its number. Largest city with legalized gambling is not really a distinction we should be striving for. How about largest city with an all green zoning and building code? Or largest city with an infrastructure for plug-in hybrids?

So no, this doesn't keep casinos out totally, but at least it keeps the casinos from getting in the way of the community-generated vision for the waterfront.

Plan Philly continues its yeoman's work with gavel-to-gavel coverage of Penn Praxis' casino feasibility conference.

Interesting point from yesterday's proceedings: a realization around the table that casinos are probably inevitable so it may be best to figure out how to make them work. As I argued yesterday, the casinos would seem to benefit by just listening to what this group has to say.

Turns out, according to one of Praxis' guest experts, other casinos have done just that:

In the meantime, [Tim] Magill [a Hollywood architect] said that in his experience, casino developers usually listen to well thought-out alternatives, if only to see if they would make financial sense. Also, trends in the gaming industry have been drifting toward smaller “neighborhood casinos,” even in the Las Vegas and Reno metropolitan areas, Magill said (relatively speaking, SugarHouse and Foxwoods are not considered especially large gaming destinations). These venues have generally placed interactivity with their neighbors as a high priority, even when initially opposed.

See, Foxwoods and Sugarhouse, listen to the Hollywood guy and consider Praxis' suggestions.

Let me add my two cents: batting cages. If Foxwoods agrees to put in some batting cages, I'm sooo there. Everybody else line up behind me and tell us what you'd want to see in these complexes.

Allow me to weave a couple of loosely related pieces that I found on the internet today. Ok, one of them is something I actually placed on the internet but you get the picture.

This morning, WHYY's Bill Hangley did a quick piece about the implications of the latest federal housing bill for the city of Philadelphia. While housing and anti-poverty advocates are hailing the bill for for the funding that it sends along to endangered homeowners, others are a little wary of what it could mean if the city uses funding to buy up foreclosed properties:

...block grant dollars will help Philadelphia replace some of the property tax revenue lost on foreclosed homes. The same funding could allow the city to buy up foreclosed properties.

"My concern is that cities aren't the best property management organizations," said Goldstein. "Some cities have tried to do this with various degrees of success and failure. The last thing I want to see is the City of Philadelphia becomes landlord to thousands of abandoned properties. We need a really good plan in place."

It's a point well made and it's a point that Matthew Yglesias made on his blog when he wrote about "the limits of local action."

He writes:

Since urban areas tend to contain both pockets of poor people and pockets of liberals, it's to some extent inevitable that city governments will wind up taking the lead on poverty issues. But for the sake of poor people, we shouldn't be content to leave it that way. On the local level, after all, the easiest and most effective way to eliminate poverty is just to make it too expensive for poor people to live there. Your typical low-poverty suburb hasn't discovered some miracle formula that turns all its citizens non-poor. Instead, land in the suburb is relatively expensive and its enacted regulations that prevent you from building small houses, from building dense apartment buildings, from crowding a lot of people into a single family home, etc. Basically, if you make it illegal to do anything that would make it possible for a poor person to rent a home in your town, you can ensure yourself a low poverty rate.

Essentially, Philadelphia's poverty rate is so high relative to other cities, boroughs and townships in the region because it's possible for low-income families to live here. We have an extensive mass transit system, high density in the housing stock, access to public health services, etc. Cities are, by necessity, the places where lower income people can actually live. Yglesias goes on to make the point that even if a city, and let us use Philadelphia as an example, were able to consistently help lower income people move up the income ladder, whether individually or across generations, other lower income families will move in to take advantage of the services.

This is ok and probably the only feasible solution but it requires the federal government to realize this role for cities and fund it appropriately rather than leave local governments on their own. Otherwise, cities will be forced to devote more of their own tax revenue to this role, leaving other basic services - public safety, streets, parks, libraries, and so on - underfunded. The other solution is for the federal government to really shake things up and encourage suburban areas to create the kind of support structures and land use policies that would allow for people with lower incomes to live there.

Which do you think is more likely?

Props to MalcomXPark.org for pointing out the following:

...numbers reported on the Philadelphia Police Department website are showing 187 murders for 2008 as of midnight on the 30th. By my calculations, that means there have been 24 murders this month. That is, of course, still a terrible number, but to put it in perspective, in July of 2007, there were 42 murders in the month of July. That number for 2006? 49.

Should the Nutter administration get the credit for the apparent slowdown? They're sure as shootin' going to get the blame if the numbers skyrocket so I say let them have this one. Now, if we could only figure out whether any new crime fighting policies are actually the cause of the drop in murders. Thoughts?