Councilman tweets to the tune of 29k

Worst title ever? I don't know, I leave that to you, my lone reader, to decide. As for me, I'm sadly not stunned any longer to find, although I am amused, and I am still speechless, that our council knows no low to which it doesn't seek to find a way to, nor will it cease to search for new lows to grace us with.

Philadelphia city councilman pays 29k to centercity based firm, Chatterbox to manage his twitter account. Which amounted to approx 28k more than a co-op from nearby Drexel or Penn would have cost.

As interesting was the councilman's response that , ""I, at 53 years old, do not have that facility,".

Thats what we've been saying all along...But about ALL of you.

Taking the cake though, for most interesting part of this meaningless indicator of average incompetence, are the tweets themselves, what rich and robust language, surely some piercing thought, was contained within them, you are thinking, no doubt. Lets take a peek...

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/our-money/More-on-Kenneys-Twitter-contract.html

....SIGHhhh...

Council Gets Uppity

Guess they dont like to be the center of attention.

Problem is, the facts.

And so the mayor is left to veto the advertising wall wrap bill.

Do Nothing Council

TODAY is Thursday, but don't bother going to City Council chambers; Council is not meeting. As the Daily News reported this week, Council is off for Presidents Day - a holiday that fell on Monday.

Apparently this is not unusual since Council regularly takes thursday off if there is a vacation day during that week. And how many days of work had they attended since the new year began by Feb 22nd? Six.

I suppose some would argue that we are better off when they are not in session. But I'll bet if they were paid for showing up, they'd be there more often...

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".