Meeting Michael Nutter
The only declared candidate for mayor, Michael Nutter, paid a visit to Drinking Liberally last night, and the only disappointment I felt was that the rain kept people away. As hard as I have been on Mr. Nutter, I give the guy tons of credit for stepping up to plate, stepping down from his seat in council, and openly declaring himself. None of these other guys, from Saidel to Knox to Fattah have done so. And while I understand why Fattah, who represents Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in Washington, might be waiting for the results of the 2006 election to make his decision, the same cannot be said of self-made millionaire Tom Knox or Jonathan Saidel, or even Dwight Evans for that matter. Make up your minds: stop dicking around.
I also appreciated the fact that Nutter came out when he knew that the guy who jumped on him about public transit was going to be his host. So before anything else, let me be the first to thank the candidate for gracing us with his presence. Nutter says he’ll be dropping by again, and I sure hope so. And once his colleagues actually get around to declaring themselves, they are welcome as well. I really enjoy it when candidates come by, because the atmosphere at Drinking Liberally is so casual: no stump speeches, no forums, just one-on-one conversations. And when someone like Nutter, who is clearly a policy wonk, shows up, it’s a really educational evening.
When I got a chance, I told Mr. Nutter that I appreciated his visit, especially in light of our harsh words at the Irish Pub. “I think I was a little harsh on you about public transit.”
“Thanks for having me,” he said, “and I shouldn’t have responded the way I did. But the thing is, at an event like that, you simply can’t pander. I mean ‘ride SEPTA every day? No, I can’t do that!” he added, laughing.
“I wasn’t asking you to pander,” I said, “but I also think my request was a little over the top. But you should ride SEPTA at least twice a week. Bloomberg does, and so does Menino in Boston. I mean, do you know why I think that’s important?”
“So I have to smell the urine just like everybody else does?” he said wryly.
“No, not at all. Not at all,” I replied. “Look, as a councilman, as mayor, you have meetings to attend and hearings to lead, and all sorts of things important to the city, right?” Nutter nodded.
“And you can’t be late for those meetings, right? You have places to go, people to see.” he nodded again.
“Well, so does everyone else here. And quite frankly, when I think of the where the good jobs are, Philly doesn’t have that industrial base anymore, they’re all in the suburbs. You know a lot of Philadelphians have to travel out of the city to get to work. heck my housemate has to leave at 7:30 AM to get to Willow Grove, which isn’t a problem, but it takes him over two hours to get home, and that’s not right!
“The fact is that if someone like the Mayor or a councilman misses an important meeting because of SEPTA, the Mayor has a much louder voice than someone like me, or anyone at this table. And an angry Mayor who’s been inconvenienced by SEPTA can effect change in a way that I cannot. That’s why you should ride SEPTA regularly.”
“I never thought about it that way,” Nutter replied, which is to his credit. He added, “But even if I don’t have to deal with SEPTA every day, you know who does? My daughter.”
It was an effort not to roll my eyes and sigh, because with all due respect Mr. Nutter, your daughter isn’t running for Mayor. YOU are.
Another discussion that arose was relations with Harrisburg, or Philadelphia’s lack thereof. Mr. Nutter argued that he would establish better relations with the State House and the suburbs, saying we all have to work together as a Southeastern Pennsylvania Bloc. I think that is a fine idea in theory, but in practice, I simply don’t see that happening. For starters, for the seven years that I’ve lived in Philadelphia, the suburbs have treated our City as a colony. They come here for work and leave. They come here for entertainment and leave. Our sports stadiums are a reflection of this colonial mentality, situated away from local businesses and restaurants. Compare that to Fenway Park or Wrigley Field, surrounded by local businesses. For that matter, look at how SEPTA’s regional lines give short shrift to people returning to the city late at night. The service just isn’t there.
Nutter seemed to suggest that a lot of the troubles we have with Harrisburg are a direct result of Mayor Street’s poor relations with the State House, pointing to the state’s takeover of the parking authority, which happened under Street’s watch (he didn’t mention anything about how the takeover was supposed to give us more money for our schools, and how the Republicans welched on the deal). “We have no relations with Harrisburg,” he said, “and when you act like a jerk you get treated like a jerk.” This may be true. While I don’t know Mayor Street personally, I’m not a big fan of the personality he seems to portray. He can be grating, but then so can Michael Nutter. Street’s response to the violence in our city amounted to reading a Teleprompter while he sat staring into the camera like a wooden indian. It was embarrassing.
That said, Mr. Nutter is not running against Mayor Street. I don’t care if the current mayor has a lousy attitude or not, he’s on the way out. It is my feeling that relations with Harrisburg are not going to be changed by a mayor who wants to work with Republicans. For example, the Republicans in Harrisburg will never do anything about the guns, as Mr. Nutter correctly pointed out, not even in the wake of the Amish shootings. Harrisburg seems committed to screwing over philadelphia in any way, shape or form, as yesterday’s slots parlor legislation surely demonstrates. Call me naive, but I think what we need is a mayor who stands up to Harrisburg, not who works cordially with the Republican majority there. (Added 10/19/06: This is not to excuse Democrats like Vince Fumo who up until the very last minute favored stripping Philadelphia of zoning power. Fumo’s actions on the slots parlors have been disgraceful, and the same is true for Marie Lederer, who stabbed her constituents in the back. And shame on Frank DiCicco as well. There is more than enough shame to go around, and its not limited to the PA GOP.)
After Mr. Nutter left, Tattered Coat Matt asked me what I have against the guy’s candidacy. “I’m a Nutter supporter,” he said. “I think he’ll be a great mayor, and I don’t understand your objections.”
“Despite what he may have said this evening,” I said, “the record shows that Michael Nutter isn’t a friend of public transit.”
Andrew Chalfen, who knows more about trolleys than just about anyone I know, piped up, “That’s true. He tried to stop the Girard Avenue trolley from re-opening.”
“And,” I added, “it’s my understanding that he voted against timing the lights on Lancaster to speed up the Route 10 trolley, because it was inconvenient for cars. And that’s not cool.
“Every single person here knows that public transit is really important for our city. It’s less polluting, and fewer cars would mean less jam-ups in the streets.
“I’m also not excited about the idea of putting curfews in dangerous neighborhoods. I live in one of those neighborhoods. A lot of my neighbors don’t have the luxury of working 9-5: a lot of them get home at midnight, 2:00 AM. Why should they be subject to arrest and harrassment? For that matter, I like to drink at my local bar, and I regularly get home after last call. Why should I be subject to arrest?
“Remember when Seth Williams, the candidate for DA came by a couple of years back?” I continued. “If Williams is correct, and I think he is, that 5% of the population in Philly is reponsible for the majority of the crimes, then a curfew is going to disproportionally affect law abiding citizens. If Mr. Nutter was calling for community prosecution, he would have no argument from me.
“Finally, there’s the matter of the smoking ban, which I am adamantly against. Not only is it bad for businesses, I don’t like the idea of the state telling me what [legal] things I can put in myself.” And with that the discussion veered into smoking bans, and whether defecating and urinating on the floor in public places was a worse health hazard.
Some people who have commented on my earlier articles about Mr. Nutter accuse me of having a vendetta against the man, of being a Saidel supporter, or of being guilty of anger (as if anger invalidates my personal opinions). None of these things are true.
I think Michael Nutter is a well-meaning politician who has a lot of ideas for the city. I don’t agree with many of those ideas, but that is what politics should be all about: sharing ideas in the service of the public interest.
Quite frankly, I am impressed by Mr. Nutter’s self-confidence, and his willingness to debate his ideas on their merits. I’m not so impressed with his role in Philadelphia’s obsolete and corrupt political machine (and even less impressed with Carol Campbell, the corrupt hack who was appointed to replace him, no election necessary, suckers). I’ll give the guy credit for voting against her appointment: that was brave. On the other hand, his comment about SEPTA (”so I can smell the urine like everyone else”) revealed what seemed like a personal sense of exceptionalism. One of the criticisms of Mayor Street is that he has a tendency to be high-handed with the people he represents: comments like the one above don’t give me hope that the candidate is especially different. A little populism goes a long way.
Regardless of my own feelings, I was delighted that Michael Nutter visited Drinking Liberally. Sir, I hope you come back again. Your visit last night ignited several discussions after you left, and I hope you had as much fun as we did. Good luck in your campaign!
15 Responses to “Meeting Michael Nutter”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 19th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
[...] Brendan discusses Philly mayoral candidate Michael Nutter’s visit to Drinking Liberally. I wasn’t there because I was away. [...]
October 19th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Very interesting. I am a Nutter supporter, but I agree with you completely on Septa and mass transit.
My only major complaint with what you write is that a smoking ban is bad for business. According to all the numbers I have seen, the opposite is true. And it’s not about telling you what legal substances you can and cannot use. It’s about protecting others from the secondary effects of that use.
October 19th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Stephen,
with regard to bad for business, i respectfully disagree. I drink at bars regularly, and I’ve already seen a lot of nights that would otherwise be packed: instead, the smokers gather outside, leaving the bar empty. One of the waitresses at Drinking Liberally has already confiremd to me that business is down.
I do have an open mind about it though: I’m a nonsmoker myself, and I very much enjoy not smelling like cigarettes at the end of the night. I think proof of the pudding will happen during the winter, when people aren’t going to be so excited about leaving the bar to enjoy their cigarettes.
“And it’s not about telling you what legal substances you can and cannot use. It’s about protecting others from the secondary effects of that use.”
That was one of the same arguments used during prohibition: the temperance union pointed to lawlessness, domestic violence, etc etc.
I have to admit, I am VERY conflicted about the smoking ban, and to be honest my position is still evolving. I LOATHE the cigarette industry in every way: their product is disgusting, their politics are vile (every time you smoke a cigarette, you’re putting money into the right wing’s pocket), but at the same time I feel very strongly that people have the right to decide for themselves what to put in their bodies, free from state interference. On the other hand, I know lots of smokers that are actually happy about the ban, because it forces them to smoke less. Go figure…
I fully support banning smoking in the workplace, in public enclosed areas like shopping malls etc, and in restaurants. But BARS? C’mon. Why not something like a tax credit for bars that voluntarily ban cigarettes? That offers an incentive instead of having a policy imposed.
Related question: why doesn’t that ban apply to the slots parlors?
October 19th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Hey! That bit about public defecation is about me! Yay!
October 19th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Hey sweetheart,
In reference to protecting others from the ill effects of cigarette smoke and the similarity with arguments made during prohibition, I disagree.
You site the temperance movement as wanting to protect people from the lawlessness and domestic violence caused by the evils of drink. These are behavioral issues that are influenced by alcohol. Cigarette smoke causes physical ills.
As a waitress I had to work 12 hour shifts in cigarette smoke that was so thick at times I could barely see the two tables away from where I was standing. It made me sick, and I was an otherwise healthy girl. Not everyone employed in a restaurant or bar should be exposed to smoke. They may have asthma, be pregnant, or have another physical complaint that interferes with their enjoyment of secondhand smoke. They do not have an option of leaving when the smoke is too thick. They need the money.
October 19th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Hey Sweets,
“Not everyone employed in a restaurant or bar should be exposed to smoke. They may have asthma, be pregnant, or have another physical complaint that interferes with their enjoyment of secondhand smoke. They do not have an option of leaving when the smoke is too thick. They need the money.”
First of all, I have clearly stated my opposition to smoking in restaurants, and that I favor a ban in those establishments. But I would be willing to bet that a lot of restaurants are already voluntarily smoke-free.
As for bars, I do understand the concern you raise, and that’s why my view on the matter is conflicted and evolving. I’m generally against state-imposed bans.
Drinking at dahlak is hilarious these days. Everyone, including the bartenders, steps outside for a smoke literally every five minutes, while the two or three nonsmokers sit at the bar lonely and waiting for their drinks. Surreal.
October 20th, 2006 at 1:45 am
Brendan –
If you really need the money, the best tips are to be had waiting tables at bars. I was non-smoker who was constantly craving cigs when I was a waitress, I have to agree with the smoking ban: Its just not fair to the working stiff.
Also, I’m soooo much happier and willing to hang out at bars now that there is the ban in place. I feel bad for my smoking friends having to go outside. But I comfort myself hoping that this will help them to quit smoking and live perhaps a little longer.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:47 am
[...] So candidate for mayor of Philadelphia in 2007 Michael Nutter stopped by Drinking Liberally on Tuesday night and I missed it. But Brendan was there and he wrote up a recap of his conversation with Nutter. [email this post] Explore posts in the same categories: Events, Politics [...]
October 20th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
isn’t the curfew only for people under 18? I don’t think that most of the working stiffs you mention would be affected…
October 20th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
ACM:
In a week marked by Philadelphia’s 300th homicide of the year, Democratic mayoral candidate Michael Nutter said Mayor Street should declare a state of emergency in pockets of the city that have endured the worst violence.
Such action, according to the city code, would allow the government to clear people from public sidewalks, close bars, prohibit liquor sales, and establish curfews for children and adults alike.
The proposal definitely covers adults.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:54 am
Glad you gave the guy a second chance. I’m not sure I totally agree with the statement “[Nutter] tried to stop the Girard Avenue trolley from re-opening.” He himself said he had a problem with how SEPTA handled the situation, and ultimately did do whatever he did to get the line running (I was pretty mad about that whole debacle, but I’m not prepared to put all the blame on Nutter not knowing exactly what went down).
That’s interesting about the traffic lights on Lancaster Ave, though. I’d like to think that Nutter’s the kind of guy who will work at issues his constituents care about, though, so keep the dialog on transit going.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:06 am
P.S. I think Nutter was talking about improving relations with his suburban counterparts, if elected (think business relationship) and not with suburban residents who think Philly is a crime ridden cesspool.
Also keep in mind that suburban residents, by definition, don’t live in Philly, so of course they go home after hitting the bars or watching the game. SEPTA’s also just as unfriendly to them when it comes to getting home as it is to us. I think a lot fewer of them would clog up our streets and build up demand for parking garages if SEPTA actually got them home past midnight.
Finally, the stadiums are so isolated because nobody’s done anything to encourage development down there. I think Anna Verna and the neighborhood associations are even opposed to it. Personally, I’d rather see them down there than in the middle of Center City since they would be terrible for walkability (imagine walking around one of those things). There may have been better places to put them, but I don’t think Chinatown was one of them.
November 21st, 2006 at 3:54 am
Me:
In Boston, suburban residents com into the city to see the game, then spend their money in the noeighborhood around the stadium, spreading the wealth. Same is true in Chicago. I’m not talkign football stadiums, I’m talkign baseball fields. It’s VERY good for the neighborhood. Check out the history of the neighborhood around Connie Mack… the field was very good for the nieghborhood.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:24 am
Ok, I see your point about Boston and Chicago. There still no excuse for not developing the area around the stadiums, though. Maybe the planned Naval Yard corporate park will help.
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:34 am
[...] Read more: here [...]