The "Soda Tax" Myth 2: It Will Help Raise Money

Or, in another way, "Why the Soda Tax doesn't make fiscal sense."

This is going to be a long post, folks, so I'm diving it up into a few sections:

1. The Fiscal Argument for the Tax
2. The Key Problem with the Tax
3. Who's Hurt By the Tax Economically
4. The Social Cost of the Tax
5. What About Jobs?
   
6. How To Raise the Funds Without a New Tax

So, point one:

1. The Fiscal Argument for the Tax

When you look at the economic outlook for the City of Philadelphia... it's pretty grim. Millions of dollars are needed to keep the city afloat another year, and the deficit just seems to keep getting bigger. To make up the money, the city has floated around some really unpopular ideas: Taxing trash bags, taxing plastic bags, closing down libraries and pools... even threatening to shut down the court system in order to get more money from Harrisburg. Yet it never happened. With unions working without a contract and the problem only getting bigger, these new harsh economic times called for new thinking.

Sadly, it wasn't for the better.
The argument for the Sugary Drink Tax is not based on health. Let me be clear; this argument isn't about your health. While other states may have thought about doing this in order to help keep health care costs down and, in turn, add more money to health care, this has NOTHING to do wit that.

Instead, the tax would be seen as a way to make more money for the city.


2. The Key Problem with the Tax

The problem, though, is multi-pronged.

For starters, revenue from soda will go DOWN after the first year alone.

Let me explain: The reasoning behind a "Sin tax", which is a tax that is imposed on certain items because we've deemed them harmful, is to REDUCE consumption of an item. Let me repeat that: The idea of taxing soda in the first place is to reduce the actual consumption of the product. In turn, you guessed it, revenue goes down.

While some analysis think it could bring in $18 Million or so the first year, keep in mind its based on the idea that people would continue to consume soda at their present rate. Adding an extra 40 cents to a 20oz bottle really isn't going to help.

So, we've covered that the tax isn't to make you healthy, and that the tax revenue from taxing it don't make any economic sense. But who else is hurt?



3. Who's Hurt By the Tax Economically

Retailers, namely the small ones, will be hurt most by this tax. But also you.

Without going into the much detail, in a capitalistic society, the idea is that the market itself determines what people want. In essence, supply and demand. Over the past few years in terms of health, we've seen more demand for healthy food and healthy food alternatives, and the market has responded by creating more healthy choices. But we also understand that the government needs to help from time to time to make sure that businesses look out for us.
The Sugary Beverage Tax would be leveled against retailers first.

Here's how it works:

Retailers would have to pay an annual tax of $.02 per ounce based on what they sell during the year. In turn, this will do three things; either force retailers to cut back on the drinks, force them to raise prices on their soda, or force them to levy the fee to their customers by raising prices across the board on certain items. To be honest, I couldn't even guess which route would be taken by most.

But, lets assume that retailers put it across the board to lessen the blow across the board. In the end, nothing is being done to stop you from buying soda because, well, you're only seeing a minor price increase in soda itself.

It also means that if you don't drink any sugary drinks yourself, you are now a victim of this tax. If you are in favor of this tax, you may be taxing yourself in a new way without even realizing it.

Grocery bill will go up if this law is passed. If the tax is spread across the board, and it could, it means that food prices will go up for everyone. The casual soda drinker is still hurt as much as the habitual one.

Wouldn't it make more sense to offer an incentive to both retailers and citizens to cut back on soda instead of taxing them? Allowing retailers who either cut back on selling soda a tax incentive or even if they stopped entirely would be more effective than a tax!



4. The Social Cost of the Tax

Now we get the the toll this can, and most likely will, have on society in this city. IF this tax is levied, do not expect people to simply stop buying soda. As I mentioned yesterday, diet soda wouldn't be effected and thus presents a new set of problems. Businesses will lose money and many corner stores keeping neighborhoods alive may disappear since they would not be able to compete against the larger stores offering lower prices on basically one item that everyone wants that the smaller places couldn't.

On top of that, people will start to simply cross the county or state line in order to get a cheap soda instead, or maybe stock up.



5. What About Jobs?

We're also talking about jobs.

Some people scoff at the idea that Coke and Pepsi, who both have factories in Philadelphia employing hundreds, if not thousands, are in danger of losing their jobs. To a degree, they may be right. But, please, tell me this; If the city where you had a major plant started to pass laws exclusive to you and their area, wouldn't you think twice about having a factory there?

Is job lost feasible under this tax? Yes it is. Demand would be down in the city, but its likely that outside the city demand would grow thanks to people simply going across either the county or state line to grab as much cheap soda as possible. So while it is possible we could see job lost at these plants, I doubt we'll see them shut down.

But the local stores and operators will be hurt and we will see job loss there.



6. How To Raise the Funds Without a New Tax

So, we've seen that the tax isn't about your health but about making money. I've shown that the reasoning for the tax itself doesn't make economic sense and that the impact on your wallet is effected even if you don't drink soda since the tax could be applied to everything thanks to retailers. I've stated that I think we won't see Pepsi or Coke leave town, but jobs were still in trouble at small retailers thanks to the tax.

How do we make the money back?

It's insanely simple: First, we don't need new taxes. The idea of a tax is to raise revenue, and as I've pointed out, there is no reason this one would work.

Instead, we need to start enforcing laws. We can start with tax evaders.
The City of Philadelphia is projecting a $150 Million Dollar Deficit. The City of Philadelphia IS OWED $300 MILLION DOLLARS. So let me make this so easy, even Mayor Nutter can understand:
-$150 Million + $300 Million = $150 MILLION SURPLUS

Easy enough?

So, that solves our short-term problem... what about long terms problems? How do we keep crime down while making money? Again, another easy one based on simply enforcing the law.

Currently in Philadelphia, minor crimes, a.k.a. Nuisance Laws, are not enforced. These laws include jaywalking, spitting, and littering among other things. All of these offenses can also be ticketed, thus revenue thanks to fines. The idea of enforcing these "minor crimes" is that it reminds you that the police are there for a reason; to enforce the law. How many times have you seen someone break the law in front of a cop and the officer did nothing?

If people start to respect the people who are supposed to protect them, crime goes down. If crime goes down, you don't need to much police presence. The revenue from ticketing may go down, but you've also reduced costs as well.

To be honest, I could go on and on about this. I've written twice with ideas on solving this mess, and the ideas always seem to get ignored. With City Council and Mayor Nutter trying to get more funds, I hope they look toward this and start using these ideas.

Tomorrow, I'm going to explore the issue even more and discuss your health, personal responsibility, and what it all means to soda.

The "Soda Tax" Myth Part 1: It Will Make You Healthy

Today, I'm going to take the time to debunk the myth that the soda tax will make people healthier. Now, before I start, I want to say a few things: First off, I'm not with a beverage company, I'm not paid by one, nor am I getting free swag from this. Not only that, I also want to point out that I'm not dismissing the fact that soda isn't great for you, but it isn't inherently bad. It seems so many people want to make it an either/or debate, when really, it isn't. But more on that later.

Soda alone does not make a person fat. In fact, simply put, soda in moderation isn't bad at all. If you have a can of soda once every two days, you're not doing that much harm to your body. If you exercise, you're in even better shape. Every day, you see people eating fast food, buying junk food, and simply consuming what they can either get their hands on the easiest or they enjoy. If, in the end, they exercise, stay active, and balance it with healthy food, really, what's the problem?

The idea of "taxing soda" is that it reduces consumption. There's a few problems with that logic.

For starters, it only taxes soda made with sugar and/or high-fructose corn syrup. You know what it doesn't tax? DIET Soda. So, the guy who wants to buy soda still can buy it without paying tax if he's willing to put something worse into his body.

Wait, what?

Point 1: DIET SODA IS BAD FOR YOU

For starters, Aspartame, the sweetener found in Nutra-Sweet, is commonly used in diet sodas. For me and others, it can actually trigger asthma attacks and other problems not related to caffeine consumption itself. Side-effects of it include dizziness, headaches, diarrhea, memory loss, and mood. The FDA has approved it, but it's only allowed in 90 countries out of over 150. In fact, it's 180 times sweeter than sugar. Neat, huh? So all the joy of sugar, but with much more painful side-effects. Throw in the fact that some people seem to ignore the fact that it is just as bad as soda itself, minus the calories, and you have yourself a recipe for disaster. The FDA has approved it, but it's only allowed in 90 countries out of over 150. Just to be clear, the stuff isn't going to kill you unless you drink a keg full of the stuff, and even then you just won't leave the toilet for a week.

Point 2: IT TAXES YOU FOR BEING CHEAP
Now, again, people keep referring to this thing as a "soda tax". The problem, though, is that it isn't a SODA tax; it's a SUGAR tax.

So, lets say you decide to not drink soda anymore because you hate the tax, so you go to the store to buy some juice. You have a choice between Mott's 100% Fruit Juice at $3.99 a gallon or a no-name brand for $2. You go up to the counter, pull out your $2... and then you're hit with a 2-cent per ounce tax! WHAT?!

Well, here's the problem: The juice you just bought has sugar in it. Yep, sugar! That means you would be required to pay an added tax on that juice to make you healthier. Your cost of living just rose thanks to this tax!

So the tax that was supposed to encourage people to make healthier choices may do just the opposite in some cases. Instead, they may buy bottled water which, in some cases, is actually pretty bad for you. It also makes it more expensive to make a healthy choice as well.


Point 3: IT TAXES YOU FOR BEING ACTIVE AND HEALTHY!

OK, lets just say you don't drink soda, and you only drink 100% natural juice. Awesome, and good for you! Personally, I couldn't do it, but still, good for you.

You've just hung out with your friends and played a great game of basketball, or maybe you just got done riding your bike around Fairmount Park, maybe even to work. You've worked hard, you're tired, and now you need to get some nutrients back in your body. So, just like most people, you go into the store and buy a Gateroade, Powerade, or maybe some other sort of sports drink.

BAM! 2 CENT AN OUNCE TAX!

Yes, your sports drink is now taxed thank to this law, so now there's a tax on being active and fit and not paying to drink bottled water. What? When was the last time you saw a water fountain in Philadelphia?

Point 4: TAXING THOSE WHO NEED IT

And now, the final group. Diabetics.

Now, this law, to those who want to point to the health benefits, is supposed to help stop people from getting diabetes, and to be honest, that's a great thing to try and stop. But, sadly, some people have it, and some people develop it at even a young age.

Thanks to this law, their little energy boost just got taxed.

In my life, I only knew of one person with the disease, and I want to state now that I don't know what type it was. I don't know if it was because they had low blood sugar, or if it was high. In the end, I knew they had the disease and it was a problem. Periodically while we were out, their blood sugar would get low and, being out of whatever it was that they may have had on them, we would go into the store and get a bottle of soda, or tea, or anything else with sugar in it to drink.

This tax will effect them as well.




I started by saying that we all want to paint soda in one way or another in this debate. There are people who so easily want, and do, compare it to smoking tobacco when, really, it's apples and oranges. There are also those who may go to far in their love of the drink to say it isn't bad at all. These people are also wrong.

Soda is fine.

We, as a society over the past 30 years, have taken the easy way out in these problems too many times. We seem to look to our government not to protect us, but to protect us from ourselves. This is one of the instances where we must start saying enough. This is when we need to start saying we need to be treated as adults, not children.

Soda isn't great for you. Personally, I drink about 20 - 32oz a day. Everyday. How and why can I do that, you ask? Because I can, and I know how much I can take. Everyone on this planet is different. What's right for you may not be right for me, and vice-versa. As Lemmy Kilmeister would tell you, "Anything that's good for me is fucking poison for a human being!" Actually, that one is true and no exaggeration, but you get my point.

I'm not trying to preach to everyone that soda is great, but I am saying that we need to start treating this just for what it is; a personal health matter.

Parents: Don't give your kid too much soda or sweets, it isn't good for them. A little treat now and then is fine, but not all the time. If you're an adult, just make sure you know how much you can handle and make sure you exercise properly.

In my humble opinion, if the City of Philadelphia cared about your health and that of everyone around, they would instead talk to Trojan and give out free condoms to the people in the city. Considering it's cheaper and easier to prevent STD's than it can be to treat it ($1 a condom if you're lucky)... yeah, lets focus on that and save a few more lives.

Philadelphia New Sugary Drink Tax Would Add 2 CENTS AN OUNCE!

2 CENTS AN OUNCE?!

Those greedy bastards are at it again! The details of this stupid, unhealthy, non-beneficial, and ultimately harmful plan have come out.

They want to tax you 2 cents AN OUNCE to drink ANY sugary drink bought in Philadelphia.

The sound of 2 Cents an ounce may not seem like much at first, until you realize what it adds up to. A 12-0unce drink gets an added quarter, 1 20-ounce goes up an added 40 cents, a 2-liter bottle get's an added $1.36, and a 12-pack goes up $2.88! Throw in an added cost of basic sales tax, and things get worse!

Now, you may be thinking to yourself, if you don't drink soda, "Ha ha! Those losers who drink soda are going to have to pay through the nose!" Well, your wrong. This tax effects ALL SUGARY DRINKS.

So say "Hello" to a tax on Apple Juice, Orange Juice, Prune Juice, and ALL Fruit Juices! Oh, and sports drinks are also subject to this tax.

Let me see if I get this straight: The City of Philadelphia, trying to make people "healthy", has decided to impose a tax that would raise the cost of even healthy fruit alternatives so that the low income citizens of Philadelphia will be outraged and unable to afford them, thus meaning that if you want to drink ANYTHING in Philadelphia, your best bet is tap or bottled water. The odd thing being that bottled water IS harming not only Philadelphia's bottom line, but also the environment.

Soda has become a scapegoat in a war to TAX YOU as much as possible.

Folks, welcome to the modern day stamp tax!

Photo courtesy of NorCalLabs

How To Solve the Current Fiscal Problem in Philadelphia Without New Taxes or Fees!

Here we go again...

It was nearly a year ago when I posted the first time about how to solve the fiscal situation in Philadelphia, but has seemingly always been the case, no one really listened.

The ideas were simple: Start enforcing the law, go after Tax Evaders, raise only one tax to help raise cash in the long term, close down maybe one library that most likely isn't needed that much... oh, and instituting a bike license. Actually, that last one gained some ground, but by the same guy who now wants to tax my soda and wanted to impose a fee on plastic bags. Ever notice that laws and taxes designed to make things "better" always limit what little freedoms we enjoy?

Oh, and I proposed legalizing same-sex marriage to help with the budget more times than I can count.

So, how do we fix it this time? What, exactly, is the "magic pill" this time?

1. STOP THE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS!

"Wait, isn't that why Philadelphia gained so many residents over the past few years and caused a rebirth in Northern Liberties in Fishtown?" Yes, it is. Now it needs to stop.

For those not familiar with what an abatement is, its basically the city of Philadelphia saying you don't need to pay taxes on the home you just bought. This abatement is supposed to go on for 10-years. Mind you, during the time we've had this program, despite more and more residents coming to town, tax revenue has gone down and now the city is going broke.

I think you can see where I'm going with this.

2. RAISE PROPERTY TAXES (On Out-of-Towners)

Well, here we go, another really fierce-sounding idea, but one that needs to happen. Why?

At the corner of Juniper and Chestnut, above the Valu-City store, is one of the most beautiful examples of architecture in Philadelphia. The facade of this building has deteriorated over the years thanks in large part to the owner who refuses to do any basic upkeep on the property over the store. Why? Because he is simply squatting on the property, waiting to sell it.

The owner lives in New York City.

When it comes to property owned by people who don't live in Philadelphia who let their property crumble either because they simply don't care enough to take care of it or because they refuse to keep it in a decent condition, we need to start doing something! I'm not saying Philadelphia should only for Philadelphian's, but I am saying that charging those who let their property decay a extra fee of 25% - 50% of their real estate taxes is what we need to do to either get them to fix up their property or sell it to someone who will.

3. REFORM THE WAY PROPERTY TAXES ARE DONE

When it comes to the issue of gentrification in Philadelphia, people constantly yell about property taxes going up. One problem; that hasn't really happened at all over the past 5+ years in most of the city.

For the most part, the only real part of Philadelphia over the past 10 years I've seen where people who had lived and done business for forever and a day was South Street, and literally ONLY that street, although the effects were felt on a few other places about 1/4th of a block surrounding it.

Philadelphia Forward does a better job of explaining it than I can in a short post, but basically the way taxes are done now, it should be about 8% of the value of a property, but in certain cases its as much as 34%, and its all done on rough estimates. Again, this is a gross over-simplification on my part, but that's a general idea of what we're looking at here.

Apply the same rate to everyone in Philadelphia (Which is basically what the current law is) and start making sure houses are assessed to their real value.

4. OK, ONE NEW TAX: BOTTLED WATER

OK, this one is more of a vanity idea for me, but hear me out: The plan now is to tax soda because the city of Philadelphia needs the money. But what about bottled water? Bottled Water, in essence, is actually one way the City of Philadelphia is losing money every year. How many people refuse to drink Philadelphia Tap Water and, instead, rather drink bottled water? Considering the fact tap water is "virtually free", and you have people electing to drink bottled water, doesn't it make more sense to tax that instead of soda?

5. LEGALIZE IT!

I'll say it: We need to legalize two things in this city, and that's Same-Sex Marriage and, yes, Marijuana. I want to state now that I'm not a big fan of the second one, but it really makes sense.

As I've stated time and time again, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE MAKES A TON OF CASH! Most states have passed laws allowing it, and the occasional city has legalized it anyway. And marijuana? Not a fan, but considering the fact it's easy to tax, would reduce crime, and generate revenue in various ways (more 24/7 convenience stores, anyone?), tourist dollars, and more people moving here because of the easy access.

And if you're morally opposed to that, remember: Jesus wasn't a big fan of gambling, but this Quaker-based state already approved that. ;)

6. STOP THAT IDIOTIC DROP PROGRAM!

Remember in 2007 when Joan L. Krajewski decided to retire for one full day? In return, she got nearly $300,000!

You would assume that with the city in such financial straights right now that the other people in City Council would, instead, save the tax payers money and not use the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) program and vote to have it removed.

You would be wrong.

Six city council members have opted into the program – and city officials say combined, they stand to collect more than $2 million when their terms end in two years.

Council president Anna Verna stands to collect the largest sum: $571,679. Marian Tasco will take home $467,566. Payouts for Frank DiCicco, Jack Kelly, Donna Reed Miller and Frank Rizzo range from $189,000 to $392,000.

Source- CBS 3

Notice any interesting names on that list?

Throw in the fact that the cities unions are STILL without a contract, largely because they can't get anything for their pensions, and that $2 Million that these 6 little piggies look even greedier.

So, there you have it! 6 ways to save the city a ton of money, and make a ton as well. I plan on these ideas being ignored, just like always, and wonder why no one listens to common sense.

DOOMSDAY DOOMSDAY! - Eliminating Libraries, Less Cops, and NO COURTS?!

Mayor Nutter is somewhere between a brilliant politician using Machiavellian techniques, and a man who is trying to get his way by making threats that would, in the end, hurt the very people he was elected to help and make better.

Nutter is in between a rock and a hard place with the Philadelphia City Budget. Despite the cries and protests from residents last year, Nutter not only has Libraries on the chopping block, he has them up front, ready to shut them down in a heartbeat if the PA State Budget doesn't get approved.

But to a much more important and scarier end, he wants to shut down the Philadelphia Court System.

WHAT THE HELL?!

The problem with this is actually very simple: It is next to impossible to do that. Why? Largely because his Plan C budget, the "Doomsday Budget", isn't legal. He has no legal right to shut down the Philadelphia Court System, and it has been decried by critics as being nothing more than a scare tactic.

So lets get this straight: We have a Mayor who is threatening his citizens with no legal system in his city if his budget doesn't get approved. At the same time, other cities and states have faced similar problems but have made other cuts in other places. Nutter is simply using a scare tactic to get what he wants, which is a pension freeze and a 1% raise in the city Sales Tax for "only 5 years".

When I ran for office, I kept saying the same thing over and over again: I want long-term solutions for long-term problems. You can't just put a band-aid on something and hope it works, you need something that will have a long-term effect.

The thing that urkes me the most is the fact that, while Philadelphia got money from the Stimulus earlier this year... does anyone know where it went? What happened to the money?! All I've seen so far is that they re-paved some streets that really didn't need it! We got over $700 MILLION!

So what should Nutter do? How does he save Philadelphia from fiscal collapse and make sure he can actually deliver on his promise? The Committee of Seventy says it best:

The proposals include reducing the cost and size of city government; fixing how property taxes are assessed; evaluating the need and functions of the city's four independently elected row offices; consolidating city housing agencies; and improving the 311 call system to generate greater savings.

Is it going to be easy? No, but, really, this needs to happen and it needs to happen NOW.

Philadelphia's Doomsday Averted?

BREAKING NEWS:

House and Senate leaders announce that they have reached a compromise that will end the state budget impasse. The tentative agreement calls for the adoption of a $27.945 billion spending plan that includes no broad-based tax increases and uses a combination of one-time revenues and recurring revenues to produce a balanced budget for the fiscal year.

Pennsylvanians deserve an end to the uncertainty, and, with a continued spirit of teamwork, House Democrats are committed to working with the Senate to finalize the details and send the budget to Governor Rendell.

Please visit www.pahouse.com to learn more.

Does this mean Nutter will not be able to implement Plan C? More as this develops.

Nutter Has Gone Insane: How I Would Help Fix the Budget Problem

I'm not going to state that this idea of mine is perfect, but honestly, it's better than Nutter's ideas of either charging residents $5 a week for basic sanitation services, forcing us to buy "special trash bags", or paying to have to go to jail.

1. Have officers start punishing for minor crimes!

During the election, I preached that the Broken Windows policy would help Philadelphia by deterring people from committing crimes. Broken Windows states that by ticketing and targeting minor offenses, it deters them from committing larger crimes. At the same time, this policy would make the city money. A LOT of money. Ticketing and fines for littering, jaywalking, and not recycling would be a boon for Philadelphia. That said, I think we need to crack down and start ticketing heavily for the following:

• Littering
• Vandalism
• Jaywalking
• Selling goods on the street without a permit
• Not recycling

That's a short list, and there are laws in place banning these activities and fines in place for offenders. One thing that was discussed during the election was raising the cost for dumping/littering in Philadelphia. More needs to be done to actually enforce it and collect the fines from it. At the same time, there are laws in place already concerning even trash cans and recycling, but they're not being enforced!

2. Tax Evaders!

In 2007, the City of Philadelphia was owed, get this, $700 MILLION DOLLARS IN TAXES! The City of Philadelphia has not done enough to crack down on this problem and, in turn, we are facing a over $1 Billion Dollar Deficit. Why isn't more being done to correct this?! Treat these guys as the criminals they are! Remember in 2002 when John Street launched his "Safe Streets" program and randomly raided houses where they were selling drugs? Do that again NOW, but with Tax Evaders! Well, the big ones; the smaller ones, send letters, take them to court... etc.

3. Raise Taxes, but Not all of them!

Someone pointed out that raising the City Wage tax by .5% would equate to only $20 a year per $25k a person made a year. That isn't bad, it isn't bad at all. I'm fine with that. But raising the City's Sales Tax?! NO! 7% is already high, raising it to something like 8% would just be insane. It drives away commerce, and makes residents cranky and poorer, and no one is really going to benefit in the end since it most likely would never go back down.

4. Close 1 Library

Yes, yes, people complained non-stop about closing the libraries. Closing 1, I think, isn't that bad and it's fair. Pick the one that isn't going to be missed that much and cut it, at least for now.

5. Institute a Bike License

OK, this last one may seem as bad as what I was complaining about, but it can actually be a boon. A Bicycle License system is already in effect in a town in California, and for $5, you get a lifetime license. In turn, if your bike is ever stolen, its treated like a stolen car since its serial number is tagged with the city and everything. That actually isn't that bad an idea, although, personally, I'd charge $25 a year to bike couriers... but that's me.

In the end, this is going to raise a lot of money for the City of Philadelphia and help the standard of living here.

Councilman Wilson Goode, Keep Your Money!

This is relatively new and I just heard about it:

Philadelphia city coffers are $836 richer thanks to a check from Councilman W. Wilson Goode Jr.

The personal check, hand delivered Friday to City Controller Alan Butkovitz, comes ten days after Goode promised to reimburse the city for what he calls "mistakes" his controversial aide, Latrice Bryant, made on her timesheets this summer.

Source: Fox 29 News

Councilman Goode, do us a favor: Keep your money.

Your money means nothing to the hundreds of thousands of citizens who have witnessed the devastating toll you've taken upon our city government. You and your aid have made a mockery, dear sir, of what our city government is about. It is nothing short of terrible that you have not done the one deed, the one single action that would redeem you. The one thing that anyone looking at this situation, anyone who has the facts they have concerning you, your employee, and your relationship with said employee, that would redeem you and her actions.

Fire Latrice Bryant.

The fine you paid, this fine of $836, was supposed to be paid by YOUR STAFFER. Because she didn't, you did. The City Controller said, "This is a clear signal to all government workers that bad behavior won't be tolerated."It is, dear sir, anything BUT! Instead, you've given an example of what happens if you don't follow the rules and the laws. You've shown that if you don't follow the rules and do as your supposed to, your boss will pay to bail you out, especially if your sleeping with them.

You've shown the citizens of Philadelphia that the laws do not apply to the members of City Council or it's staff. You've shown that lying about when you work is fine unless your caught, you've shown that racism and slander and liable is fine and should not be fought against, you've shown that sleeping with your boss and having relations with them, even when your supposedly working, is fine. Wilson Goode, Jr, you've just shown that you believe City Council and it's staff is, in fact, ABOVE the law.

Keep your filthy, dirty, stinking, no-good money!

If you want to do some idiotic P.R. stunt to save yourself, if you want to try and make some idiotic and EMPTY gesture as to why the citizens of this city shouldn't storm your office and demand you leave... well, don't bother. The sooner you fire Latrice Bryant, the better. The sooner you simply admit that she was wrong for having those racist signs, the sooner you simply admit that, yes, THIS IS AN ISSUE.... the sooner you finally dismiss her, the better off the City of Philadelphia will be.

City Council and Mayor Nutter: SAY SOMETHING, YOU BASTARDS!

Mayor Nutter, you should be ashamed of yourself! For not saying ANYTHING, for not speaking out against this... this OBVIOUS corruption, you have instead simply resided yourself to letting this happen! By not doing anything you've become as much of a problem with this as if you had witnessed this yourself! Yes, I understand the need of keeping peace with the Council Members. Yes, I understand that speaking out of this may, in the future, make working with the City Council harder. And, yes, I understand that the current City Budget are a slightly bigger deal.

At the same time, Mayor Nutter, this scandal is just going to get worst by the day without you squashing this in the bud! The longer this goes on, the worst it looks upon yourself and your promise, dear sir, your PROMISE to end corruption in City Hall.

Councilman Goode, keep your god-damn money. We sure as hell don't want it.

The Horrible Things Mayor Nutter has Done!

...is actually a really, really, really short list.

Part of the reason for the name change and keeping this blog alive came from the simple fact that I also wanted to keep an eye on the Nutter Administration and, overall, it's been 99% effective from what I can see. But there is, at the very least, one STUPID, IDIOTIC, HORRIBLE thing he wants:

He Wants You To Pay for the City to Pick Up Your Trash

The Nutter administration is researching whether to charge residents for trash collection, according to city officials.

Environmental experts say this would encourage recycling because there is typically no charge for collecting recyclable waste.

And the fees would help pay for trash collection and disposal, which currently costs the city $95 million a year, according to Deputy Streets Commissioner Carlton Williams.

Why is this such a stupid and horrible idea? Aside from the obvious fact that we already pay sanitation fees to have our trashed picked up, there's also the fact that his recycling program, which I think is great, isn't being pushed hard enough. First off, there actually is a law in place stating that, yes, you must recycle in the City of Philadelphia or pay a fine. Not only that, but there are a lot of things the CITY needs to do in order to get us to recycle more:

• Aside from the TV ads and billboards, simply either mail the information about the single-stream recycling program to everyone or put little door-hangers on all the homes. This has worked in the past when it came to changes, this should be implemented now.
• Recycling Bins in Center City. Think about it; we already have trash cans, why not have a blue can for recycling? Information on the sides state it's for recycling, and you can only put in metal, paper, and plastic. That creates awareness of the program and gets more people recycling.
• Following through with the law and actually having sanitation workers give houses warning tickets that they need to start recycling. If the house fails to after 2 weeks, they get fined.
• Give all citizens new recycling bins with a nice and simple reminder; "Recycle or get fined."

While some of these methods may be a little costly at first, the long term savings from these initiatives would more than make up for it. The recyclcing cans in Center City alone will do more to show the world that Philadelphia is cleaning its act, allow citizens to do more to clean up and, if it works there, should be spread throughout other sections of Philadelphia.

Ramsey Loves the Police State Idea!

About two weeks ago, I discussed in length and in great detail the Crime Emergency Plan, what I felt was wrong with it, how the Ramsey's could impact it, and what could be done instead.

Despite all of this, he still wants to declare it!

"Declaring a state of emergency is fine with me," Ramsey, the former Washington police chief, said in an interview Friday. "Crime is at an unacceptable level. . . . It's certainly something we have to get a handle on real quick."

How Ramsey will carry out the emergency response is less certain. He spent much of last week getting his bearings in his new city - meeting with Johnson and the department's command staff as well as attending several district roll calls to introduce himself to the rank and file.

Again, we're left scratching our heads on how, exactly, this will happen. Despite how "peaceful" where you live is, it could still be declared "dangerous". What if your in an area and don't know it's under lock down, are you still in trouble for being out there late?

This plan is FLAWED! This idea is FLAWED! Ladies and gentlemen, I implore you, write Nutter yourself, tell him NOT to declare this Crime Emergency! IT MUST BE STOPPED!

I Finally Congratulated Nutter

Not exactly headline making news, but it was worth mentioning. I'm a pretty good sport, so on the night of the election I called Nutter to congratulate him on his win. I'm not sure he ever got the message, though, and I'm sure I didn't leave a call-back number for him, either.

At any rate, on Tuesday I was downtown to complain directly to Czar, I'm sorry, Councilman Darrell Clarke about his insane new bills. I went down dressed as myself, so I was more comfortable than usual. After I left, I ran into Rikard Larma. He is the awesome guy who did the photo shoot of me when I was on the cover of the Philadelphia Metro. He's since taken photos of me at the big Anti-War Rally that took place at City Hall in March.

When I ran into him on Tuesday, he wanted to get some more photos and ask me about how the election went, as well as my feelings. I told him I was OK with the results and was OK with Nutter as long as he never declares a Crime Emergency. He tried to call Brian X. McCrone, the guy who did that awesome story about me, but his hands were tied. After speaking a bit, an old friend popped up! We talked a bit when Rikard interrupted. "Hey! Nutter is here!"

I pardoned myself to walk over and shake his hand and say Hi and congrats. Nutter was surrounded by 5 guys (You know, I can't tell you how many times I wished I had either bodyguards or a "posse"!) and some photographers. He was in a rush, so I congratulated him, he said thanks, and walked off.

Rikard got a good photo out of it, and the Philadelphia Metro blog did a little article about it. Good time was had by all!

PS: BRIAN! If you read this, I still owe your lunch! Send me an e-mail when you can!

Civil Rights and a Possible Crime Emergency: Part 1.

I want to state one fact here: Despite how much I disagree with him on the Crime Emergency issue, I highly respect the man and was ready to hire him myself once elected. I agree with a large portion of what he wants, but on this issue and mainly this issue alone more than anything else, I feel he is wrong. This article, along with Part 2, are serious looks and criticisms I have about this and I have, and will, state as many facts as possible to back me up on not only my view, but the counterpoint as well.

When it comes to any and all comments, I ask you keep them civil. Thank you.

-Larry

The keystone of why I ran for mayor after the May Primary can be summed up into these words:

To make sure Nutter NEVER declares a Crime Emergency.

In essence, a Crime Emergency is this:

• prohibit or limit gatherings of people on sidewalks, streets, or any outdoor place in the designated neighborhoods;
• halt or limit the movement of vehicles through or within the designated neighborhoods;
• establish a curfew limiting the hours people could be outside their houses; and
• prohibit the sale, carrying or possession on the public street or public sidewalks, or in any public park or square, of weapons of any kind.

Let's stop for a second and look at this. To quote Nutter himself:

Title 10 of the Philadelphia Code authorizes the Mayor to take specified measures if the Mayor determines that “the City or any part thereof is suffering or is in imminent danger of suffering civil disturbance , disorder, riot or other occurrence which will seriously and substantially endanger the health, safety and property of the citizens.” Parts of Philadelphia are clearly suffering a wave of violence that endangers the safety of residents.

In other words, it's exactly what it sounds like: A last resort in case it is incredibly dangerous to even leave your house. For example, say we're under a real threat of terrorism and we've been attacked, that would be grounds to declare a Crime Emergency. Or a massive gang war erupted, where you have two rival gangs killing each other and anyone in their way. That's a good reason to declare it as well.

But at what cost? As you can see for yourself, Title 10, or as he likes to call it "Code 10", states that the local government now has the power to restrict where you can walk, where you drive, and where you go. The government becomes the baby-sitter, giving adults a curfew and telling them when they're allowed to leave their houses. It also restricts your ability to defend yourself.

I've been robbed multiple times in the past. It got to the point when I was 16 that I had to start carrying mace to defend myself. It has sense died-down a bit, but I still carry something at all times to defend myself just in case. This is the right to bare arms.

In order to give safety to the residents of Philadelphia, or at least the appearance of it, the following rights and amendments of the U.S. Constitution will be broken:

1. Freedom of Speech- The law limits gatherings on public sidewalks in certain areas. This permits the government to limit peaceful demonstrations and marches, as well as the ability to protest itself is now in jeopardy, as well as the ability to simply stand on the corner and sing, preach, or talk.

2. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness - A fundamental principal of our democracy, the right to the pursuit of happiness is tampered by a curfew on adults. How many people will be effected? How many people will not to go out at night and have fun in town? How many bars will lose business, how many clubs will shut down, how will nightlife in this city be effected?

3. The Right to Bare Arms - The ability to just defend yourself if your attacked is basically suspended now. Anything can be used as a weapon. Will it simply be limited to guns and knives, or will it go to even mace and other legal non-lethal weapons?

I've covered two basic amendments and one ideal. At the same time, I've also mainly focused on extremes this "Extension of Powers" can go. While a bit far, they should and must be considered before we simply allow this to happen. We also must consider just WHAT this Crime Emergency will mean.

It should be noted that, per his own website, he makes the following statement:

Declare a limited crime emergency in targeted enforcement zones, as authorized by the City Code.

Now, considering Mayor-Elect Nutter wants this in "certain sections" of the city, he has never said or explained just how long it would last, and he never said which sections. This leaves a very, very, VERY wide hole of just how long our basic civil rights will be suspended, and just how it will be handled.

What would be to decide which sections are picked? Would it be based on police districts with high crime? Would it be based on a block-by-block quotient? For example, I live in the 14th Police District. Office Cassidy, who was shot and killed, worked in the 14 District and the place where he was shot is also in this district. Would the entire police district be put under the Crime Emergency?

At the same time, would this be block-by-block? If, for example, a block 5 blocks away saw crime but mine didn't, would the emergency be declared there and not here?

Could this possibly lead to criminals in targeted errors simply going to non-targeted areas to commit these same crimes?

Now, we are left to ask this same question over the Crime Emergency plan.

In fact, just how long could this be effective? Considering the fact that Operation: Safe Streets worked on criteria similar to a Crime Emergency without declaring one, and we did see a reduction in crime during the first year it was implemented, could we see a similar temporary effect, or do you think it could have a good, positive long-term effect?

At the same time, criminals in targeted areas simply moved to non-targeted areas. The Safe Streets program did not adapt using the CompStat program they had in place, and thus crime got worst. Resources have also started to dwindle, and you now have officers sitting in their cars waiting to go to the next crime instead of helping to prevent new ones.

That leads to the same problem we have now; most of the people out there committing these murders have been in jail before, are out now, and are now doing the same thing again. I understand Nutter's rehab program, but is it really going to be effective in 5 years when there new people come out of prison, let alone 10 after he's out of office?

These are questions we need to ask now before he takes his oath of office.

This is part one. Tomorrow, I'll discuss his new Police Commissioner and his history with Civil Rights, what this may mean for the Crime Emergency, and just how effective it could be. I'll also discuss more my feelings into what should be done instead.