Citizen blogger Beth Lewis, who previously about the civic leaders' summit for Great Expectations, returns to give us her take on the Dec. 2 Citizens Convention. She writes:
There was no question that Michael Nutter’s presence, and the determination with which he spoke about Philly already being great, buoyed up the spirit of the group that had gathered at last Sunday’s Great Expectations Citizens Convention with the sense that a “new day”, as he described, was dawning. But equally uplifting, I felt, was the opportunity to meet people from the entire Philadelphia community and together discuss the strengths and shortcomings of the Citizens Agenda. While the problems we face as a city are large, the recognition that we need to pull together to dialogue about what needs to be done to address them, to me, represents the value of the Great Expectations effort.
In the workshops I attended (First, “Neighborhoods in Flux”; then, “Poverty”), while the small group discussions were delimited by the agenda items we were asked to evaluate, this structure also served as a kind of springboard for additional ideas. And indeed -- alternative ideas were offered.
In the “Neighborhoods in Flux” workshop, we first dealt with what was right about the agenda: The need for mixed housing (everyone agreed). Most also felt that community land trusts should be used to support the building of affordable housing with limits on sale prices. We also felt that the city needs to support and welcome new populations, and help existing city residents to do the same.
A major issue related to housing development was raised in my small group, the gist of which was: “What will developers offer back to the community?” By this was meant: what about developers contributing to “community” by supporting things that are missing from, and desperately needed, in many of our neighborhoods: a corner store, or market; a laundromat, a playground, a recreation center? And it’s true: Who hasn’t walked through Philly and felt the difference between neighborhoods that have these kinds of resources and those that don’t? And how do we connect the development that is going on with a plan for providing this?
In this workshop we also talked about what was wrong with the agenda: several attendees addressed what they felt were shortcomings of the tax abatement program. There was a lot of discussion in my small group about who actually benefits from the tax abatement – was it the (new) property owner, or the developer? I had a sense that these questions reflected a feeling on the part of many long-standing city residents of being left out of the planning process; that they didn’t necessarily stand to gain from such programs. Some felt that the abatement period should be shortened to 5 years from the current 10, with the remaining 5-year savings contributed toward improving city services. An alternative idea was that the abatement be provided on a sliding scale basis over 10 years and the savings reinvested into the community. This last idea received strong support from several attendees.
In the workshop on Poverty, someone raised the question: When did we start using the term “at risk” as a blanket term for people who live in poverty? While it’s true: If you can’t get schooling that will lead to a better paying job, then you may be “at risk” for remaining in a minimum wage job. And if you live in a city where decent housing is out of reach for those earning minimum wage, then you may be “at risk” for living in substandard housing or becoming homeless. But several people pointed out that poverty is never actually defined in the document. Some felt that the substitute focus on “at risk youth” felt like blaming the victim; that – as one participant put it - youth are already isolated and this document seemed to isolate them further.
The last time I looked, poverty meant lacking income. Or did that change and I didn’t know it? Google “poverty” and here’s what comes up:
"the state of having little or no money and few or no material possessions;
"a condition in which a person or community is deprived of, or lacks the essentials for a minimum standard of well-being and life"
Yet, surprisingly, there was little if any reference to this definition in the agenda materials. Instead, the agenda approached the issue of poverty through the recommendation of after school programs, summer jobs, and access to government programs (programs we also know to be woefully underfunded). This caused several attendees to become frustrated.
Along these lines, several attendees decried the fact that there was no mention of permanent jobs at a living wage in the agenda. In fact, the agenda item that came close to addressing job creation was actually aimed at creating incentives for business. While this is one piece of the equation, having this as the only strategy puts me in mind of the Reagan years, when the “trickle down” theory was offered as a cure for all ills. [Look around: where has a reliance on this strategy gotten us over the past 25 years? Who has benefitted…and who is worse off?].
But even providing jobs at decent wages is not enough. We need an all out assault on poverty, such as the one suggested by workshop attendee Stan Shapiro (Coordinator, “One Philadelphia” and Vice Chair, “Neighborhood Networks”): Create a Public Service Jobs program, using the WPA created during the Great Depression as a model. As Stan pointed out: There are so many areas of job creation -- from building affordable housing, rehabilitating our crumbling schools, fixing our roads, developing mass transit, creating recreational facilities and open spaces – that would employ people and at the same time add to the quality of life for all residents – particularly those with low-incomes.
Just imagine if we had a program that would employ Philadelphians to rehabilitate houses to provide affordable housing for low income residents…. instead of the current approach that primarily offers tax abatements to those who can afford housing at the current market rate?
In response to the question from the moderator about what he would be willing to give up or trade off in order to make this happen, Stan replied that he would accept fewer tax cuts. I second that! But it was hard to know how many of the other attendees agreed.
The agenda suggests making a blueprint and convening a task force to develop support for a strategy against poverty. As a follow up to this point, someone suggested that the groups represented in the Great Expectations effort join together to develop a city-wide coalition to address poverty, so that our insistence does not fall on deaf ears. This model may already be underway in other beleaguered cities.
Another attendee recommended that our agenda for addressing poverty needed to include urging the mayor to join with others across the country (because Philadelphia is not alone in facing this issue) to advocate for massive investment in cities on the part of the federal government. Of course, left unmentioned was the fact that we would also need to call upon our government to reorder its current priorities, to make this a reality.
One person said she liked everything on the list… but wondered how we would do it? Another pointed out that it missed two huge things: a call for National Health Insurance (the lack of which is a leading cause of personal bankruptcy); and that starting with “youth” was too late – families with children living in poverty should receive in-home supportive services from nurse practitioners at the time of birth, supporting parenting skills and school readiness. According to this attendee, this has been tried in other cities with good results.
More than one individual pointed out that there was no mention of homelessness, a glaring omission since we know that poverty and homelessness are so connected. Is it that we feel that homelessness is so intractable a problem – or worse, so accepted as a part of city life - that we need not even address it?
Finally, Ed Schwartz (Institute for the Study of Civic Values) offered another model, that of creating community service internships (such as, in public schools) in jobs that pay living wages for low-income individuals and those receiving public assistance. He also urged that every income-related service be made known to those who would stand to benefit.
I came away from the afternoon feeling that this series of conversations was a start. And that we will need to continue to raise our collective voices – in forums like the one that Great Expectations has provided – to keep the issue of addressing the concerns of residents living in poverty at the forefront of the next mayor’s agenda, if we want our city to be great.
Comments (11)
we have a city that is falling apart and a lot of people that need good paying jobs. It would seem that it would be logical to use these poor, underemployed people to rebuild our housing stock and public facilties but that can't happen because you need to be in the union to get work on publically funded projects or major private projects in this city. This is one of the issues that has lead to the problem at the convention center. The unions control the labor force in the city and their prioirity is creating more wealth for their members, not getting impoverished people steady, high paying jobs. Something has to be done. I see no reason why high paying jobs (often on project in poor areas) should be reserved for a racially homogenous, mostly suburban group of men.
Posted by Sjones | December 13, 2007 12:29 PM
Posted on December 13, 2007 12:29
Hiring non-union labor is the only way one can hire minorities in Philly. I know, I hire a crew of almost all minority folks, and not one is union. And they are all master craftsmen who have no interest in giving money away in dues for groups that they feel do nothing for them.
Simple as that. Frank DiCicco make not just a brilliant strategic move in coping with dug-in unions, he really is going to get unions to buy in.
Sam Staten, Jr. is part of the problem of a few token black union men who are themselves part of and affiliated with traditional Philly corruption, including do-nothing minority add-ons, the policy of just having some minority guy, usually one generous to the mayor, "added on" to someone's contract proposal or permit request (minority hiring is an issue unofficially when you request large scale permits for buildings in Philly).
Do-nothing union sanctioned minority add ons just further corrupt the intent and effect:
-- the same few guys benefit over and over
-- those same few guys are the ones that get mentioned in pay to play scandals
-- those same few guys are using pay to play to justify "minority participation" so it just props up another bad mayor and bad city council, etc.
Unions are not inclusive, period. MBEC was one ineffective way to try to counteract that effect, but it only caused pay to play a la Faridah Ali, etc., and only benefited those who already had cash to play with in the political process.
Plus, the city will save beaucoup bucks if it hires non-union where union minorities are not available.
If non-union guys want health care, they self-insure, use the city health system, or buy contractor/self-employed health insurance plans.
They end up with more money in the pocket in the long run compared to viciously high union dues.
All the unions locally violate campaign and ethics reform. While they claim it is legal locally and statewide, uh, hello, it's sure as hell isn't legal at the federal level, hence the prison term for Corey Kemp.
DiCicco is savvy enough to know that if you want to hire minorities, you just have to stop doing things the same way over and over again to get a different result.
That is the most significant thing Philly can do to fight poverty. Remove the obstacles to the market working here.
Posted by Anonymous | December 14, 2007 1:23 AM
Posted on December 14, 2007 01:23
Sounds like the panel is just approaching poverty from the same old, same old. The only problem I have with that is ... these suggestions are exactly what Philly has been doing for years.
1. Lots of federal funding for housing and poverty relief
2. It has lots of affordable housing, it's just that much of this affordable housing is in areas that are not safe. Addressing crime will create access to this housing. Philly keeps trying to just have the government get in the real estate business, a costly, marginally effective solution.
3. High taxes. Philly's got 'em. Instead of using high taxes to pay for the government to hire people, let the businesses come here because it isn't more costly to do business here than it is in King of Prussia.
Business will hire and train on its own.
4. Lots of nonprofit, and private, and government antipoverty programs. Philly has a huge, long tradition of philanthropy to address poverty. Philly has a huge tradition of offering free private and funded government health care from federal, state, and local sources. What it doesn't do is examine the results.
Is it efficient? Is it evidence based? Are their bench marks? Is the agency open to the public or are its books inscrutable? Philly never looks at results for fear of seeming "rude" to the nonprofit, but nonprofits taking government money need to be examined with as much scrutiny as any business required to file an annual report. We are all stockholders.
Philly has the money, it has the talent, but it keeps doing things the exact same way it has always done them, in a sort of calcified high tax, high spend, low accountability version of the Great Society.
Can we examine how what we did in the past failed, and how to make what we do now work better?
I have a feeling that this will tread on quite a few political toes, where money is going to less-than noble performers for less than noble reasons.
A lot of anti-poverty and housing money just goes to subsidizing a nonprofit industry that has no stake in getting rid of what it was mandated to address.
We have to change that entirely
Posted by Anonymous | December 14, 2007 1:33 AM
Posted on December 14, 2007 01:33
How much vacant land does PHA and the city hold? Why?
The city and PHA get federal funds with hardly any strings attached to address this blight and bad housing. Guess what the city needs to keep getting the same amount of money every year?
That's right -- the SAME amount of blight and unlivable housing.
PHA has vacant lots and vacant houses 'cuz it gets a per property subsidy no matter if it does anything with the properties or not.
Ditto with the city.
But the market will buy and build on this property if it was only made available.
More supply of housing means lower costs to buy and rent. Supply and demand curves. It's in the best interest of the whole city and all its members to demand that PHA and the city stop holding and land banking property that it does nothing with for years and years.
Two years is too long to hold property in limbo, not letting anyone who wants it buy it and build. But there are thousands of properties held by PHA and the city that have been held like this for over a decade.
Where the market will work, we have to let the market work. Where the market won't build, that's where we have to focus the resources of the city.
Right now, the RDA is not doing its job of following up on who got property that didn't do anything with it.
End of story. Ditto PHA. Our federal reps have to stop the practice of funding PHA per property no matter if they make the property available or not. And communities must have a say in how PHA property is used. Right now, PHA holds scattered site housing that is druggy, filthy, unkepmpt, and that brings down all the surrounding property values.
That means the potential property tax revenue to the city is lost. That means school and other city revenue us not there that could be.
Growing a property tax base over just having untaxed, or nonpaying owners such as government, has to be the first order of business in ANY attempt to have revenue to address poverty better.
We have to have every property that is eligible in the city paying its property taxes in full, and on time. That includes PHA, RDA, the city, HUD, all of them. PHA doesn't even get charged one dollar per property to the city.
Let's ask ourselves if that really makes sense given what PHA is able to do right now. PHA isn't providing affordable housing if it can't rehab what it holds in limbo, and schools have to forfeit revenue to have PHA properties.
Ditto for any agency that holds/land banks properties for several years at a time.
Land banking has to be reevaluated in Philly. It has become a pay to play giveaway to pals of corrupt pols, while cheating the city and school children out of critical revenue.
If we aren't smart, there's no way to address poverty effectively.
Right now, all these attendees must task themselves with city revenue, budgeting, city finance, and the public agencies operations tasked with any aspect of coping with local poverty.
Otherwise, the vague dreams of a collection of individuals are utterly unrealizable.
Posted by Anonymous | December 14, 2007 1:46 AM
Posted on December 14, 2007 01:46
Poverty covers several different topics, which compete for the same pot of funds. If you fund housing (Street's focus), then you create housing that pays no property tax, such as the PHA stuff. That takes away from schools.
If you try to keep property taxes ridiculously low ($100 a year, $300 a year, or something like $500 a year in areas that are literally walkable to Center City) you cheat schools, although you "make housing more affordable" or as Street likes to say "low property taxes prevent homelessness." Not true, but he likes to say it.
For every house or property that pays too little in property taxes, a school kid is cheated out of the chance for the city to have fully functioning schools.
This is the issue behind why Vallas left. Street would not touch his housing/OHCD policies/property taxes.
Whole zip codes have half of all owners owing property taxes, and of course, these are the areas where schools are the worst.
Good schools and a good education is a far more effective way to address poverty than under market cost housing.
More of a balance between the two competing interests is essential, but that means that school children (or their parents) have to start voting outside of the party to make it happen.
I don't think people realize how ugly it will have to get to force city council to cause its docile, unquestioning voters to pay more property taxes for the sake of school children.
No city values public education less than Philly. Detroit is more cognizant.
That has to completely change. Nutter is just the dear soul to do it, thanks wholly to Olivia.
Can people give up one line item of their pet liberal agenda for gains on a more critical, neglected item in the list?
That is really the issue -- the fight for funds among competing good causes and how to budget in such a way that takes into account what works, and what doesn't.
Posted by Anonymous | December 14, 2007 1:55 AM
Posted on December 14, 2007 01:55
Abolishing the wage tax will help people have more money in their pocket, and more businesses will take the chance on moving or starting up here.
The BPT is such a stupid concept, that there are few local do-gooders who really seem to comprehend it. It taxes GROSS PROFIT. Then there is another tax on NET profit.
That is NUTTY. That alone is enough to kill all but the most intrepid businesses, and it certainly is enough to make it impossible for minorities or anyone to start a business.
The old liberal canards have to be examined thru a new, pragmatic lens of economics. There is no "right" party answer, but there are proven, studied ideas that can work.
Don't drive business out, and you'll stop the diaspora to where jobs are in suburbia. THAT will address poverty better than any government program or tax funded charity.
People want jobs. But using the city to hire the jobless is not possible. The city must shrink the rosters, not grow them. Businesses over and over state that they want to be here, but can't.
When are liberals going to listen? Good business decisions by the city is good for the impoverished.
No one wants to just get a check for nothing. People want dignity. Can this local democratic machine mentality give it to them? I genuinely doubt it.
These local pols are too afraid to seem pro-business, even if it does what they themselves are trying to do by employing people!
I hope the forum is not so anti-business that they continue the push to keep jobs out.
Posted by Anonymous | December 14, 2007 2:04 AM
Posted on December 14, 2007 02:04
No government agency is going to put itself out of business, or even seem like it is succeeding by decreasing the need for its own services.
So where does the incentive come in? How can we create incentives to get an agency that depends upon per head funding to reduce the number of people served?
Street seems to have just created a huge poverty industry that can never really succeed, but that costs a lot, employs people, and depends on a constant stream of the poor to continue funding levels.
We have to fund by results, not by unit of poor person counted.
That means we need people who are good at accounting, not people who are just dreamers. Every city agency needs a team of forensic accountants to evaluate and recommend changes for greater productivity.
Posted by Anonymous | December 14, 2007 2:10 AM
Posted on December 14, 2007 02:10
Wharton has to take over city government.
Posted by Anonymous | December 14, 2007 2:11 AM
Posted on December 14, 2007 02:11
Street loved the idea more than the result. He got bored by the time the results came in. Or if the results disagreed with what he assumed had to be real, he ignored the problems.
Problem with that is, results don't lie. If you are not really serving the poor well, then what are we doing? Rewarding friends? Creating political coalitions?
One good example is outlined here:
www.phillymag.com/articles/features_king_kenny/
When is Philly going to stop wasting assets and money, and direct this where it will do the most good per dollar?
Posted by Anonymous | December 14, 2007 4:42 AM
Posted on December 14, 2007 04:42
George Curry wrote that the answer (to homicide) is jobs. That's fine, since it's the answer to poverty most effectively, over time.
So why are we encouraging people who have no jobs to fit their skills to stay in the city?
Is it really a morally honest position to try to create all this "affordable housing" for people if the jobs are in the outer burbs?
Past a sane commuting distance, out where better schools and safer streets are, that's where the most new jobs for entry level skills are.
Why do we keep trying to move the mountain and not Muhammad?
Posted by Anonymous | December 14, 2007 9:10 AM
Posted on December 14, 2007 09:10
Let's not forget that crime creates poverty. People can't work well or at all when recovering from a violent crime.
Safer streets are a must to help people gain their footing.
Posted by Anonymous | December 14, 2007 9:11 AM
Posted on December 14, 2007 09:11