philly

John's comment is a good one and it deserves an answer and below is a copy of the letter describing the reasoning my POD crew used in deciding who to endorse and work for.

Dear Neighbor,

Because Tuesday's primary election is so complex, with each ballot featuring 9 questions and over 90 candidates for 25 offices (including 19 candidates for 5 council at large seats), our small group is issuing recommendations. We are 6 people who live and work in Center City, and have the time and interest to attend candidate forums and research ballot questions. We volunteer for candidates who will serve the interests of residents and small/local businesses and improve life in our city. When we're not involved in elections, we work on preservation, greening, and relocalization issues. These attached materials may be taken into the election booth. Please use them as you see fit.

OUR CRITERIA FOR CANDIDATES

We looked at three things:
1. Does the candidate have a vision for the city that is realistic, sustainable, and equitable?
2. Does the candidate have plans to secure the city's environment, infrastructure, and local economy in the face of climate change and emerging energy constraints?
3. Has the candidate made significant contributions to the quality of life in our city?

Our recommended judicial candidates received the highest available rating from either the Philadelphia or Pennsylvania Bar Association, support privacy and other civil rights, cared enough to attend meetings and candidate forums, and were well-informed and responsive during interviews.

A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION

Because we hope to replace entrenched machine politicians with independent candidates who meet the above criteria, and because non-incumbents are at a disadvantage, especially in primary elections, we strongly recommend bullet or limited voting in this election. Bullet voting is choosing one candidate for a given position when you have the option to choose two or more. This maximizes the chance for that one candidate to win. Limited voting is where you choose more than one, but fewer than the permitted number of candidates, again enhancing the likelihood that your preferred candidates will win.

The enclosed sample ballot shows the candidates we feel best meet our criteria, in order of strength.

NOTE: All of our non-judicial candidates oppose casinos in our neighborhoods, seek tax and zoning reform, ethics reform, excellent public education, environmental enhancement, and improved public safety through community policing.

MICHAEL NUTTER (Mayor): Served as Councilman for Philadelphia's 4th district for 15 years before resigning to run for Mayor. Pushed through ethics reform and led efforts to pass the smoking ban, along with numerous measures to improve the quality of life for people and businesses in the 4th District and citywide. Nutter has a well-developed set of issues papers, and among the candidates seems the most committed to reform. Two things about Mr. Nutter impressed us. We attended many, many Mayoral forums over the past several months. Unlike some candidates, Nutter showed up at all of them. During this time, he significantly improved his position on public transportation, accepted both criticism and new information with grace, and adjusted his views accordingly. In other words, he's not an inflexible ideologue or a puppet. He is the only mayoral candidate with a child who attends a Philadelphia public school.

ANDY TOY (Council At-large): Andy brought millions of dollars to the city for cleanup and redevelopment of polluted brownfield sites as part of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, and helped to develop opportunities for small and large businesses while at the City's Department of Commerce. He seeks to build a cleaner and greener city, eliminate the Gross Receipts Tax, preserve neighborhood commercial corridors, and ensure public safety through improved lighting and other measures. If elected he would be the first Asian-American ever to serve on Council.

MATT RUBEN (Council At-large): Matt is President of the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association, where he has worked to promote beneficial development and improve quality of life for long-term residents, new neighbors, and small businesses. He wants to eliminate the Gross Receipts Tax for small and medium-sized businesses, extend the 10 year tax abatement program, obtain a fare share of education and transportation funding from the state, and restore local control over handgun laws.

MARC STIER (Council At-large): Marc is a co-founder of Neighborhood Networks, which is working to bring a more progressive voice to Philadelphia politics. Marc wants to bring new businesses to the city, revive our commercial corridors, and expand our port. He advocates revenue neutral tax reform that gradually replaces the Business Privilege Tax and wants to move away from our current real estate tax to a land based tax.

SUPREME COURT

C. DARNELL JONES II

DEBRA TODD

SUPERIOR COURT

ANNE LAZARUS: Judge Lazarus has an excellent reputation. Every lawyer we interviewed spoke of her in glowing terms.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

ALICE BECK DUBOW (Judge): When we interviewed Alice, she stressed her concern for Family Court, which has long been the ugly duckling of the Philadelphia court system. Family Court is important because it handles cases that affect the lives of children and families. Family Court does not get the resources that other Common Pleas divisions receive. If elected and assigned to Family Court, an assignment she would seek, Alice will work hard to dispose of cases fairly and quickly, which is especially critical where minors are involved, and would try to obtain a fair share of funding so that the court can operate more effectively.

THOMAS MARTIN (Judge): Thomas Martin graduated cum laude from Villanova University Law School in 1977, where he edited the Law Review. He has thirty years experience as a trial attorney in the areas of wrongful discharge, employment discrimination, personal injury, and contract actions. Martin thinks government should support the rights of the individual, not the other way around, and seeks to bring fairness to cases involving zoning and land disputes in our neighborhoods, where powerful business interests and community interests are often at odds.

MUNICIPAL COURT

DIANE THOMPSON (Judge, Municipal Court): Diane has 16 years experience in family law, where she worked to mediate settlements whenever possible. She believes everyone deserves fair and qualified representation and her pro bono work backs up her belief. Diane taught school from 1973 to 1986, spending the last few years teaching in the Philadelphia public schools.

SHORT VERSION: Vote YES on 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Vote NO on 2, 3, and 9.

NOTE: QUESTION 1 HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BALLOT BY THE PA SUPREME COURT, BUT YOU CAN STILL CAST A BALLOT FOR THIS QUESTION AT 18TH AND WALNUT, NE CORNER OF RITTENHOUSE SQUARE, WHERE CASINO-FREE PHILADELPHIA WILL HAVE A BALLOT BOX BETWEEN 10AM AND 8PM.

LONG VERSION:

1. Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to prohibit Council from taking any action that would permit licensed gaming within 1500 feet of a residentially zoned district, Development District, or certain residentially-related uses, and to prohibit the Department of Licenses and Inspections from issuing any license or permit authorizing licensed gaming with such areas?

OKAY, YOU NEED A MAP AND A COMPASS TO PARSE THIS SENTENCE. THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IF YOU DON'T WANT CASINOS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS — VOTE YES.

2. Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended so that effective January 1, 2008, City elected officials may become candidates for nomination or election to any public office without first resigning from their City office?

IT'S ARGUED THAT LETTING THE CITY'S ELECTED OFFICIALS RUN WITHOUT RESIGNING WOULD LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD WITH STATE AND FEDERAL CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE. IN PRACTICE, HOWEVER, WE THINK RESIGNING TO RUN ACTUALLY BENEFITTED MR. NUTTER. IT MEANS THAT OUR LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE NOT CAMPAIGNING ON THE PUBLIC DIME AND ON CONSTITUENTS' TIME. AND WHILE IT MAY BE UNFAIR TO OFFICIALS, HAVING YOUR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE SKIVING OFF WORK TO RUN FOR ANOTHER OFFICE IS A LARGER DISSERVICE TO THE PUBLIC. OUR ADVICE IS: VOTE NO.

3. Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to create a Youth Commission, with members between ages of 12 and 23 years of age, to be responsible for advising the City Council and the Mayor regarding issues affecting children and youth in order to ensure that children and youth have a voice regarding policies and decisions affecting them?

NOT TO BE SCROOGES, BUT THIS COMMISSION WOULD COST THE CITY $250,000 FOR TWO FULL TIME STAFFERS. WE THINK THE CHILDREN WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY SPENDING THAT QUARTER MILLION ON THE SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES. COUNCIL CAN TAKE TESTIMONY FROM INTERESTED CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITHOUT ESTABLISHING A PERMANENT COMMISSION. VOTE NO.

4. Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to provide that the six appointed members of the City Planning Commission shall include an architect, an urban planner, a traffic engineer, an attorney experienced in land use issues, and two representatives of Philadelphia community groups that participate in land use issues?

CURRENTLY, THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IS COMPOSED OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, CITY REPRESENTATIVE, AND SIX MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR. IT IS POSSIBLE, INDEED COMMON, TO HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION WITH NO EXPERTISE WHATEVER IN LAND USE PLANNING. THE CURRENT COMMISSION IS COMPOSED OF A DEVELOPER, A COMMUNICATIONS EXPERT, THE PRESIDENT OF THE AFL-CIO, AND THE REQUIRED CITY OFFICERS. NOT REASSURING. VOTE YES.

5. Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to provide that the City Planning Commission may extend for up to 45 days the time period within which it must provide a recommendation to Council on pending legislation affecting zoning, the City's physical development plan, land subdivision, or authorizing the purchase or sale of real estate?

CURRENTLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS 45 DAYS TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL ON WHAT ARE OFTEN COMPLEX ZONING, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES THAT AFFECT MANY STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMUNITIES, AS WELL AS THE ENVIRONMENT. DOUBLING THAT PERIOD TO 90 DAYS IS REASONABLE, CONSIDERING THE LONGTERM IMPACT OF SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, AND WILL GIVE GREATER OPPORTUNITY FOR AFFECTED COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUALS TO BE HEARD. VOTE YES.

6. Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to provide for the creation, appointment powers and duties of an independent Zoning Code Commission which would recommend amendments to the Philadelphia Zoning Code to make the Code consistent and easy to understand, and to enhance and improve Philadelphia' city planning process while encouraging development and protecting the character of Philadelphia's neighborhoods.

ZONING CODE IS BADLY IN NEED OF REVISION. A COMMISSION DOES NOT GUARANTEE RESULTS, BUT AT LEAST IT'S A START. VOTE YES.

7. Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to state the citizens' views regarding the mission served by U.S. troops in Iraq and that the citizens of Philadelphia urge the United States to make year 2007 the time to redeploy U.S. troops out of harm's way in Iraq?

CITY COUNCIL HAS ALREADY VOTED 16-1 ON A RESOLUTION URGING THE UNITED STATES TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME "AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE." THOUGH THIS QUESTION IS POORLY WORDED AND HAS NO BUSINESS IN A CITY CHARTER, WE DON'T HAVE REFERENDA HERE, AND THIS IS THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY THE CITIZENS OF PHILADELPHIA WILL HAVE TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES ON RECORD. WE THINK IT'S WORTH SUPPORTING IN PRINCIPLE. IF YOU AGREE THAT THE TROOPS SHOULD COME HOME THIS YEAR.VOTE YES.

8. Should the City of Philadelphia borrow $129,595,000 for and toward: Transit; Streets and Sanitation; Municipal Buildings; Parks; Recreation and Museums; and Economic and Community Development.

SADLY, WE COULD NOT OBTAIN MORE PRECISE INFORMATION ON HOW THIS MONEY WOULD BE SPENT. HOWEVER, THE CITY HAS RETIRED LARGER BOND ISSUES, AND SO ON BALANCE WE THINK THIS BOND IS PROBABLY SOUND. VOTE YES.

9. Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to add a provision stating that the citizens of Philadelphia urge the stopping of real estate tax assessment increases which would result from the Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes' use of a new method of figuring tax assessments called "Full Valuation"?

"FULL VALUATION" DOES NOT CORRECT THE EXISTING INEQUITY OF PENALIZING OWNERS WHO MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE THEIR PROPERTIES, WHILE REWARDING THOSE, INCLUDING SPECULATORS, WHO LET PROPERTY FALL TO RUIN. IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH ACTUAL VALUE, THAT IS, THE PRICE OF PROPERTY UPON ACTUAL SALE. "FULL VALUATION" REMAINS FULL SPECULATION. IT DOES SIMPLIFY THE CALCULATION OF TAX, MAKING IT A PERCENTAGE OF ASSESSED RATHER THAN DISCOUNTED VALUE. IT IS INTENDED TO STANDARDIZE METHODOLOGY AND (IN THEORY) LOWER THE TAX RATE. HOWEVER THIS QUESTION SEEKS TO RAISE THE ASSESSMENT OF MOST PROPERTIES WITHOUT ANY GUARANTEE THAT COUNCIL WILL LOWER THE RATE OF TAX IMPOSED. THAT SAID, THE SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW IS PERFECTLY AWFUL FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, AND WHICHEVER WAY WE VOTE, IT IS NON-BINDING. ON BALANCE, WE RECOMMEND VOTING NO.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 15th, 2007 @ 2:20 am. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can comment below, or trackback from your own site. Your comments will be moderated [if you have never previously commented] but will appear as soon as humanly possible.