Great Expectations

Which greening initiative should be at the top of the list for the next mayor? Is there a difference between what move would benefit the most people and what would be the easiest to get through the city bureacracy?

To me, Fairmount Park is the top priority. It is an important place to many residents; it is a tremendous asset to neighborhood revitalization, and it still plays an important role in the health of the watershed. Its governance and finances are a mess. The Street administration wanted to merge it with the recreation department; I understood their argument about overlapping domains, but in my view, at least, what the park needs is more insulation from a given mayoral administration's proclivities, not less. What we need is a Timoney or a Vallas for the parks - an outsider with a record of accomplishment and a zest for reform to come in and do what's needed. You won't get that under the current goofy governance system. You also have no incentive for the park to be creative in generating revenue, because it doesn't get to keep what it raises. That has to change, too.
Some of the other stuff mentioned in today's piece is easier, like continuing and boosting support of the fabulous work Philadephia Green does.
The green building standards will take longer to fully implement, but you can start now with baby steps.

How much longer must those of us who recycle on a regular basis listen to the weak and unfounded excuse of not being able to understand the capricious schedule of when to put their recycle material out for collection. All of the instructions I have seen were written in "good old English," including statements that recycling is the law and failure to do so is subject to a financial fine. Let's enforce the law on an equal basis, without exempting entire sections of the city having a ZERO RATE. My feeling is that these same citizens will fully understand recycling instructions when they must pay a fine. Make such fine a progressive amount to emphasize the city means business and will not tolerate failure to understand instructions. May I respectfully suggest that our poor recycling rate is based on the attitude that laws are enacted for other people and do not apply to me? This same attitude is evident in the failure of all too many drivers who drive under the influence and probably in vehicles not properly insured or registered. Fines levied in amounts more than the price of a "Big Mac" and a six pack of beer will get their attention and enable them to interpret the recycling instructions. Thanks for listening.
David W. Campbell
Rhawnhurst

David - Thanks for your comment.
I don't live in the city, so I can't comment on it first hand. But we heard the complaint about unreliable schedules repeatedly at Great Expectations forums, from citizens up to and including Republican nominee Al Taubenberger.

Perhaps it's more reliable in some neighborhoods than in others. I just don't know. Can anyone help us with facts here?

The question, as always, is whether the carrot or the stick would be more useful in increasing compliance. The RecycleBank experience in parts of Mt. Airy and Chestnut Hill suggest that carrots, in the form of store coupons as a reward for recycling, do work. That program's also a way of rewarding green businesses, if they are the only ones whose coupons you distribute.

Chris

Based on what you heard at the citizens forums, the environment/greening was a top issue for residents and was important enough for you to include in the "challenges ahead" series. But where do you think it will actually fall on the next mayor's to-do list? Top five things to address? Top three? Top 10? What will rank ahead of it?
Thanks.

Assuming the next mayor is Michael Nutter, I think his interest in this set of issues is sincere, and he's very well-versed. It's not lip service. That said, his first year is going to be mostly about labor contracts, crime and schools.
What we'll need to see if this is an administraton where the mayor leads, recruits and delegates in a way that enables major initiatives to move on multiple tracks.
The current mayor is a very bright guy, and he tried to so some big things, but decisions and information seemed to all funnel through him, and stuff often seemed to get jammed up somewhere near his desk.
What I'm trying to say is that green issues won't be what Nutter's days are all about - but things might get done if he gives clear direction and authority to a go-getter deputy.
I'm sure, as I said in this piece, that an attack on litter will be one of Nutter's big first moves. He seems very intent on getting the recycling rate up, because he sees that as a money-saver. If park reform goes smoothly on Council, that could happen; if various constitencies turn out not to like the Parks Alliance approach, that could stall.
I would expect a lot of pr and some cosmetic stuff on green building, but to embed that in code the way some cities are trying to do will take a long while and entail a lot of politicking.

Enjoyed the editorial, and I think things are definitely looking up for Philadelphia's parks. I've written more about it at malcolmxpark.org, but essentially what's being advocated for Fairmount Park is its corporatization, with the idea that it would be run by a "CEO" right? I worry that making the park system balance its own books will force a realignment in priorities, subjecting competing uses to the equivalent of a highest-and-best-use calculation. I don't really see how isolating the parks from the general fund will work out well in the long run. It'll increase pressure on the parks to create or raise fees and be more accommodating to developers. That seems to fundamentally change the way we think about our parks now. Andrew

Andrew - I understand the concern, but I'm hoping that it turns out to be overstated.
Right now, the park system is caught in one of those situations which the city charter, with its reform-minded, 50s-era mania for avoiding concentrations of power, specializes in. Nobody is really in charge of the park system, so no one is really accountable for it and no one really sees it as his/her primary job to defend it.
The idea isn't to force the park system to balance its books; there will always be a healthy subsidy from the city general fund, as there should be, to recognize the park's innate value in bolstering neighborhoods, protecting water and air quality, and providing recreation. And the goal isn't to isolate the park from the general fund; it's to create a specific fund within the budget for the earmarked park revenues.
The park could, as many other park systems do, generate a lot more revenue without tarting itself up. One way that may not seem obvious is by applying for federal and state water quality grants, which would reflect its status as one of the main protectors of the Schuylkill watershed.
Chris