NOT A STRONG MAYOR BUT A COWARD AND A BULLY
Gid Tanner and the Skillet Lickers: Bully of the Town
Earlier this week, I called out our Mayor for being a liar and a hypocrite, which is amply echoed byDaniel U-A in the Daily News
I voted for Michael Nutter for mayor last year because he’s an extraordinarily smart man with a deep commitment to open government and bringing Philadelphians into the process of governing their city.
I knew that I wouldn’t like everything the mayor did, but I thought that, policy disagreements aside, his commitments meant that the voices of ordinary Philadelphians would be heard. And yet, as our new chief executive has dealt with two huge issues in office – where to put casinos, and now a once-in-a-generation budget crisis – what have we seen? Closed-door meetings, silence, secretive rationales and town-hall meetings that provide zero chance for meaningful input into to his decisions.
When the administration has spoken, it has done so with dizzying contradictions. We have heard from the mayor that, as a champion of libraries, he knows how painful these cuts will be.
Meanwhile, his spokesman says they’d already contemplated cutting libraries because there were too many branches in the city. Needless to say, candidate Nutter said no such thing on the campaign trail. Similarly, only after tussles with residents did the administration release its criteria for what libraries were to be cut, only to show that, in many cases, they were ignoring their own rationale.
In fact, he boasted about SAVING THE LIBRARIES in his campaign literature. So we know the Mayor’s a liar and a hypocrite from his actions. But he’s also, as Dan points out, a coward and a bully:
Other proposals have come fast and furious from around the city, from Dave Davies of the Daily News suggesting that the city could run a one-year deficit to those who suggest we raise money by taxing land rather than buildings to others who wonder why the mayor hasn’t taken on patronage-heavy row offices or dealt with inefficient, wasteful agencies like the Redevelopment Authority.
What is the mayor’s response to our desire for alternatives?
That the cuts are non-negotiable, happening faster than you can say “due process,” and nothing else can work, so don’t bother asking.
It appears that not only is he ignoring the willingness of Philadelphians to help, but is substituting tough, long-term battles against entrenched political power with the ones he can instead win quickly. And, meanwhile, meekly riding shotgun on the budget-cut express is a City Council that seems to find little reason to do anything but keep quiet.
I called the Mayor’s office on Monday and was told there were no plans to try to wring that back debt out of the Eagles, or out of Sunoco either for that matter. In Philadelphia, we have what’s know as a “strong mayor system”: “the Mayor is the chief executive and the City Council is the legislative body.”
Is it strength when a “strong mayor” allows his most vulnerable citizens to take service cuts when our wealthiest corporate citizens get away without paying their debts? No: it’s a cowardly mayor who won’t leverage his political capital, except to play the bully and beat up on those who can’t fight back.
And if Isaiah Thompson is correct, it’s worse than I thought:
But where exactly does that figure come from? The answer isn’t clear. (I’ve asked the Mayor’s office; if and when I get an answer, I’ll post it).
This fits the pattern of stonewalling that Councilman Green’s office mentioned to me on Monday.
In a recent town hall meeting, Free Library Deputy Director Joe McPeak said that each library branch requires (on average) $565,000 to $575,000 per year.
That doesn’t add up to $8 million — rather, the figure is closer to $6.2 to $6.3 million…
But there’s more.
According to a source in City Hall, ,b>Free Library Director Siobhan Reardon offered a very different figure early on in the budget cut saga: In a Nov. 10 conversation with some Council members, Reardon put the cost of operating a branch at only $350,000.
This number has been confirmed by other sources within City Hall as well as sources within the Free Library system.
That would mean that closing 11 libraries would save not the $8 million stated in the plan, but in fact somewhere between $3.5 to $4.5 million — potentially less than half the amount cited by the administration…
When the numbers start getting that low, it’s time to ask a new question: Are the libraries really being closed — as the public has been told — to remedy the budget shortfall? Or, as has been suggested to me by several sources, did the shortfall create an opportunity to enact a plan longer in the making?
It’s not a crazy idea. In 2005, 20 city libraries were slated for drastically reduced staffing and hours. Of the 11 libraries threatened with closure in 2008, 10 were on that first list three years ago (only the Logan branch was not).
One of the opponents of these cuts? Then-Councilman Michael A. Nutter.
The Nutter administration and the Free Library may have worthy motivations for wanting to restructure Philadelphia’s library system. But the cuts were billed as a response to a fiscal crisis. If the city’s savings are as small as they appear, it may be worth taking a second look at the true motivation behind the closings.
Liar. Hypocrite. Coward. Bully.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:30 am
[...] NOT A STRONG MAYOR BUT A COWARD AND A BULLY Gid Tanner and the Skillet Lickers: Bully of the Town Earlier this week, I called out our Mayor for being a liar and a hypocrite, which is amply echoed byDaniel U-A in the Daily News I voted for Michael Nutter for mayor last year because he’s an extraordinarily smart man with a deep commitment… [...]