Stupid is as Stupid Does

As usual, the mayor is left to do the thinking for everyone. City council recently passed a bill allowing wall wrap ads, over the recommendation of citizens groups,the planning commision, the zoning board of adjustments, commonwealth courts and the court of common pleas. Also opposing the bill were officials in Harrisburg who claimed it violates state law, as well as jepardizing highway funding for the city. All that to wrap some buildings in advertisements, seems worth the fight, no?
The bill was introduced by Councilman Diccico, who is on his way out for having enrolled inDROP and enraged voters, he declined to run in the face of certain defeat. It seems to be a parting gift to a developer who owns a building in his district and has been to court over this issue.

 Key part of the article...
"City Solicitor Shelley R. Smith pointing out "a serious legal issue" with the bill. The memo, dated Dec. 8, said the bill "makes just one zoning change to the area within its defined boundary: it permits a single wall-wrap billboard on a specific building."
Federal Highway Administration regulations consider that kind of change "sham zoning," Smith wrote"

Additionally, the new zoning code deals with this issue, so again its unclear why Diccico would need to address a single building with a bill. Unless it was for personal reasons.

Let me kick you in the ass on my way out the door

As a farewell flipoff, certain council members have decided to use their privilege to pass several controversial zoning changes which were either opposed by their constituents, or at the very least, still being fleshed out.
Council members singlehandedly passing controversial spot zoning changes is not historically unusual, however the practice has slowed in recent years since Councilman Mariano went to jail, and John Street's office was bugged.
Fortunately, council recently moved to okay the new zoning code, so this proactice should again fall by the wayside. One would think with a brand new code there would be little reason to need, and less justification of, spot zoning changes. Although in this case, no justification was offered.

Councilmanic Extortion

Councilman Darell Clark argues why a single council person should retain the right to deny a project, and to be able to extort money, or other personal favors from teh developer. He claims, "We offer our opinions and our suggestions, but we will vote on the proposal only after the district Council member has exhaustively evaluated it in a transparent process that includes public hearings and meetings with community advocates." Yet this is very often the exact opposite of what happens.
Often there is no public discussion, there is no transparency, and quite often, the councilpersons demands are unrelated to the project in discussion.
For example, in 1997, in west phila, Jannie Blackwell refused to discuss allowing the new childrens court to move to her district, without first recieving $11,000 worth of unrelated district improvements as, "a conversation starter".

Bringin' up that old shit again

I can't help myself. I have a taste for the classics, here's one where a council aid is caught on camera, bringing beer into a council persons house, during the workday, while she is being paid to be working, ($100,00 per year no less), and her response is pure gold. She shows up at a legislative hearing, and holds up handmade signs accusing people of racism. She is still on the payroll. Why wouldn't she be!

DROP: Council Overrides Mayor Veto

The program doesn't function as intended (supposed to retain highly valued employees), cost more than it was expected to (zero) according to the Mayors study, and Councils study of the study, and is being used by elected officials as a windfall (city council). Oh yeah, and the citizens of the city are overwhelmingly against having their money used this way, but none of this matters to the WLBITFW.

Council is Pro Backroom Deal

Unsurprisingly city council does not have a problem with elected politicians exerting clandestine pressure to swing public money toward longtime friends and political donors. At this point its not so much news, just more of the same. Unfortunately the only people surprised to see this in this paper are council members themselves, who thought that was their job, "What's wrong with that?" says Marian B. Tasco., "having this out in the public ...is a tremendous disservice" says James Kenney.

I'm sure it is, Councilman.

Don't confuse City Council with the current Mayor, who actually gives a shit about ethics.

But what to expect from a group who continuously shows disregard for their employers? According to the wicked witch of the west, "I'm for not having a (public) hearing before we know what we're doing...you could get people angry". As the saying goes, treat the electorate like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them shit.

Deferred Retirement Option Plan

Ahhh DROP, the gift that keeps on giving.
Council has decided to ignore the clear will of the people and vote to keep DROP anyway. Its all over the news, but check out the article below...
There's one last chance for Council not to DROP the ball

The program was intended to save the city money, currently the only argument is how many tens of millions it is costing us, but for council the point is moot. Unions like it, so it stays.

Inquirer Editorial: DROP can't be fixed

Intro

This blog is intended to keep track of the new lows that Philadelphia City Council achieves. I believe it was Mayor Green in the 1950's who accused Council of being the worst legislative body in the free world. They have only gotten worse.