Re: [UC] 311 system for tourists
Glenn, You originally published claims that 311 was designed to serve the tourist industry, and that Free Library personnel were being cut to staff this new center. I contacted a direct source of data on 311 at the Mayor's Office to check these claims. Both turned out to be false. Now you are proposing that non-residents be forbidden to call 311 with inquiries about City services. Wow! How about 911 as well, while you're at it? I assume you don't want police and firefighters to serve visitors either. I don't think this one will fly, Glenn. But you are free to call 311 and suggest this policy to the appropriate City agency. Your own concerns about your trash tickets, by the way, are commercial, are they not? Your business is that of housing provider. So I don't understand why you now want commercial callers like yourself to be banned from calling the City to complain about things like trash tickets. One management innovation that 311 promises is a built-in call-tracking and response system. This would be an enormous improvement over the current 686-1776 system and that is one problem 311 is designed to confront. Will it work? Time will tell. There are models in other cities, however. -- Tony West Thanks Tony, But you forgot to include the lead quote from the Daily News from my post: “Philadelphia's widely anticipated 311 call center opened yesterday, offering for the first time a free phone number that residents, businesses and visitors can dial 24 hours a day to get information about a wide array of city services.” http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20090101_Philadelphia_opens_311_call_center.html Did Maura Kennedy promise that non-governmental commercial referrals would be forever banned from this system? Why would visitors call about bogus trash tickets, etc.? I wonder why Maura Kennedy didn't mention that we had 686-1776 for decades? That was exactly the same operator as 311. I didn't use the operator when no one would return calls or answer phones as I investigated the corruption over bogus trash tickets. In fact, why hasn't anyone explained how 311 will magically bring great service when 686-1776 never made a difference? Since this customer service department is not linked to, and cannot be expected to lead to better service responses for citizens; I would feel much better if commercial or tourist referrals were forever forbidden from the system. The tourist industry could benefit from such a system even though it will not benefit taxpayers whatsoever. Sometimes press releases introduce one thing, and then the public finds out much later, when it is too late, that it never was intended to be what was initially spinned in the propaganda. Sorry, I meant press release. The enforceable limitations of 311 are what is important, not press releases. You and I know, better than many people, that press releases can be nothing more than hooey. Example: We thought UCD loved us and only wanted to make us cleaner and safer-hahaha Tired of lies, Glenn You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Straw man alert, 311 system for tourists
Definition: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Warning! This poster, Tony West, engages the straw man fallacy. Warning! Ignore this barking cheese poster. Here is a good example of the danger of censored private listservs masquerading as community discussion forums. When members of the cheese gang publish distortions and misinformation regularly using various fallacies, responsible citizens do not see and cannot correct the lies for unsuspecting readers. Mr. West, thank you for publishing your false interpretation on the public listserv where readers tend to function with much greater comprehension and analytical ability than frightened bullies on the Penn censored list, barkingche...@hector.upenn.edu. In pubic view, Mr moyer -Original Message- From: Anthony West anthony_w...@earthlink.net Sent: Jan 3, 2009 6:28 AM To: UnivCity listserv UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] 311 system for tourists Glenn, You originally published claims that 311 was designed to serve the tourist industry, and that Free Library personnel were being cut to staff this new center. I contacted a direct source of data on 311 at the Mayor's Office to check these claims. Both turned out to be false. Now you are proposing that non-residents be forbidden to call 311 with inquiries about City services. Wow! How about 911 as well, while you're at it? I assume you don't want police and firefighters to serve visitors either. I don't think this one will fly, Glenn. But you are free to call 311 and suggest this policy to the appropriate City agency. Your own concerns about your trash tickets, by the way, are commercial, are they not? Your business is that of housing provider. So I don't understand why you now want commercial callers like yourself to be banned from calling the City to complain about things like trash tickets. One management innovation that 311 promises is a built-in call-tracking and response system. This would be an enormous improvement over the current 686-1776 system and that is one problem 311 is designed to confront. Will it work? Time will tell. There are models in other cities, however. -- Tony West Thanks Tony, But you forgot to include the lead quote from the Daily News from my post: “Philadelphia's widely anticipated 311 call center opened yesterday, offering for the first time a free phone number that residents, businesses and visitors can dial 24 hours a day to get information about a wide array of city services.” http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20090101_Philadelphia_opens_311_call_center.html Did Maura Kennedy promise that non-governmental commercial referrals would be forever banned from this system? Why would visitors call about bogus trash tickets, etc.? I wonder why Maura Kennedy didn't mention that we had 686-1776 for decades? That was exactly the same operator as 311. I didn't use the operator when no one would return calls or answer phones as I investigated the corruption over bogus trash tickets. In fact, why hasn't anyone explained how 311 will magically bring great service when 686-1776 never made a difference? Since this customer service department is not linked to, and cannot be expected to lead to better service responses for citizens; I would feel much better if commercial or tourist referrals were forever forbidden from the system. The tourist industry could benefit from such a system even though it will not benefit taxpayers whatsoever. Sometimes press releases introduce one thing, and then the public finds out much later, when it is too late, that it never was intended to be what was initially spinned in the propaganda. Sorry, I meant press release. The enforceable limitations of 311 are what is important, not press releases. You and I know, better than many people, that press releases can be nothing more than hooey. Example: We thought UCD loved us and only wanted to make us cleaner and safer-hahaha Tired of lies, Glenn You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Straw man alert, 311 system for tourists
Glenn, On 1/1/09 you posted, writing about the 311 system: This is a taxpayer subsidy for the tourist industry. Nothing else is believable. 311 does not actually function in the way you state above, which was your actual position two days ago. -- Tony West Definition: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Warning! This poster, Tony West, engages the straw man fallacy. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
[UC] Set backs, height and safety
Liz has stressed the potential problem of smashing the setback requirements in residential, R5, zoning. Safety does seem to be the intent of setback requirements, and not something that can be simply dismissed as an aesthetic consideration when granting zoning variances. The spot zoning required for Campus Inn smashes both the height restrictions and setbacks at this gateway site for the residential district. Normally 35’ is the height limit for this residential district. When variances are requested for greater height, with a maximum of 60’, these are tied to greater setbacks. (Perhaps the designers of zoning code realized how easily beer bottles could be dropped from the third floor swimming pool onto unsuspecting neighbors in the dark shadows of their backyards or onto public sidewalks.) By both requesting a massive height exception and simultaneously eliminating setbacks, the safety provisions of zoning code are rendered null and void. Should safety and zoning codes simply be eliminated? Or should these be officially recognized as laws only for those with less than a certain number of millions? Why would taxpayers want to keep a null and void ZBA when essential city services like fire houses and libraries are being outsourced or eliminated? Glenn You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
[UC] Developer's zba tactic apparent
Dear hotel opponents, I’ve attended nearly all hearings for the Campus Inn studying the tactics of the developers and the commissions serving them. After reading extensively about zoning, the tactics going into the upcoming ZBA are apparent to me. The developers are going to attempt to shift the burden of proof! Theoretically, Penn must now prove to ZBA that they should be granted several variances. The neighbors, who have attended PCPC and PHC hearings, remember that the developers have argued about hardships, but have not provided any actual evidence to back their case. (I don’t consider testimony from a few real estate cronies to be evidence). The help from the commissions to date has been to shield the development team from the burden of any proof. But theoretically, these commissions are simply advising. But the ZBA hearing will not be strictly a hearing de novo! The work of the PCPC/PHC commissions is considered legitimate and helpful, and that is the developer’s opening. Penn is going to walk in again without any evidence, and the representatives from PCPC and PHC will be present to claim that the hardships had, in fact, been previously proven before their staffs and commissions. While we expect that they will be finally required to prove their hardships, they are planning to claim that denial or further delay is unfair to them because they already have proven the hardships! This is why Penn has repeatedly requested continuances from ZBA until after th other commissions provided cover Please look at page 6 from the “minutes” from the PCPC on this link. These minutes are bogus but foreshadow the focus of the next portion of the rubber stamp process! http://www.philaplanning.org/pubinfo/minutes/9-16-08%20mins.pdf The synopsis indicates the “proof” which will be asserted at ZBA. 1 This is a transit oriented site. (Hospital families and not Penn families will fill it) 2 This is a commercial strip (The commercial strip ends at Locust. This is actually the gateway to a large residential district) 3 This is necessary to stop blight (The financial hardship, no possible alternative use, has been proven.) Neighbors, since the developers cannot possibly prove their positions that justify these exceptions, we should expect that some relief is planned. All of the data points to this transfer of the burden of proof, and the important cover provided by the previous commissions. With this one maneuver, they will excuse themselves from all burden of proof while insisting that opponents failed to prove otherwise in the previous lengthy, exhaustive process. That’s my assessment of what is planned for Jan. 8th. Glenn You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
[UC] Dicken's Christmas Carol - LAST NIGHT - at Calvary 48th and Baltimore
Last night I finally got a chance to see this incredibly good production from Curio Theatre! Acting, staging, lighting -- all wonderful! Enter on the Baltimore Avenue side, 7 pm curtain. This is the LAST performance! Roger Harman
[UC] Taxation and the libraries
The fate of the 11 libraries is now before City Council. Mayor Nutter had to make some tough decisions to balance the City's budget, and the library closing choice seems to have been a particularly poor one. But, Mayor Nutter is not the villain here. Our city's tax structure is a more likely candidate for that role. It is totally out of whack and unreasonable in many ways. And City Council has a large role in our tax problems. My 2009 Philadelphia property tax bills came a few weeks ago, and when I look at them, the City's financial problems become somewhat more understandable. For my large stone house on 46th St. (counting the apartment in the rear, it has 14 rooms), my tax bill for 2009 is just $3306. Further, looking at the Board of Revision of Taxes (BRT) web site, I see that I've been paying that same amount since 2003 - if not earlier; the web site only goes back to 2003. Though of course, the City's costs have gone up every year. My sister in law who lives near Princeton (in Plainsboro, NJ) told me last week that the taxes on her much smaller 7 room house are about $12,000 a year. The City certainly needs to become more efficient and accountable in its spending. I have stories, and I'm sure many others on the listservs do also, about employees not doing their jobs and/or not being given a very rigorous workload. But in addition to demanding cost-cutting and streamlining from City departments, it may be time to face the likely reality that it's simply impossible for the City to function professionally and take care of its citizens' needs in 2009, on the amount of tax money it is currently billing. I've heard quiet rumblings about property and wage taxes throughout the library battle. Folks are beginning to feel that the City should be asking those of us who can afford it, to pay a little more. This sounds reasonable to me. But City Council would have to raise the tax rate, and expecting them to handle that quickly and conscientiously is perhaps unrealistic. Taking a step backward here, City Council and the BRT have joint responsibilities for taxation, and they have been grappling with - well actually, trying to avoid grappling with - another property tax situation for several years now: currently, our taxes aren't equal or fair, based on our property values, though the law requires them to be. Right now, neighborhoods with lower property values pay disproportionately high taxes, compared to neighborhoods with higher values - including University City. For example, in November, 2005, a buyer of mine bought a 3-story row house in Mantua, in the 700 block of NORTH 43rd St. (north of Lancaster) for $40,000. The block was shaky, and the house needed just about everything. The taxes for that house were $550. Checking up on it now, I see that the City has INCREASED that homeowner's taxes in 2007. Now he pays $592. Meanwhile, on the 400 block of SOUTH 43rd St., the BRT's records show a 3-story row house which sold 4 months later, in March, 2006, for $450,000. Its taxes also went up after the sale - from $1745 to $1878. Property taxes are supposed to be based on property values! Rounding off the numbers a bit, shouldn't a house selling for $450,000 be taxed at ten times the amount of a house selling for $40,000? If North 43rd St. is paying $592, shouldn't South 43rd St. be paying $5920? Or if South 43rd is paying $1878, shouldn't North 43rd be paying $188? That's the BRT's part of the equation - to get the assessments accurate, actually based on the current sales prices for the locations. But then, City Council needs to change the rate. Under the Actual Value Initiative (the plan to set the assessments accurately), the idea was that the rate would go down, because the City wasn't trying to collect a huge new amount of taxes - it was only trying to get the taxes to be fair, so that the folks in Mantua would be paying at the same percentage of property value as the folks in University City. The end result was supposed to be revenue neutral - not a huge tax increase city wide. Some folks would pay less, and some folks would pay more, but all would be taxed fairly and the City's receivables would be the same. The South 43rd St. tax bill wouldn't go up to $5920 - though it would go up some, as would taxes in Society Hill, Chestnut Hill, Rittenhouse Square, etc. After a long, long lead-up, the BRT has been working on the valuation, but City Council has not been very brave about preparing to set a new rate. After all, the owners of the higher-priced properties squawk louder than the row house owners in Mantua, and Council members need to be concerned with their voters' reaction, worried about the next election. An organization called Philadelphia Forward ( http://www.philadelphiaforward.org) has been working on this issue for years already. They have the facts
Re: [UC] Taxation and the libraries
It's how the City will operate in the future. For that, we need fair and appropriate taxation. Those of us who can afford to pay more, will probably not be happy living in a city where we have spare cash, but some folks living nearby don't have libraries or other city services. We need to think long term here. Unfortunately, but realistically, taxes are a really important part of the equation. Bravo Melani!I haven't studied the merits of the local taxationplans and detailsas you have, butyou're points are right on the money. And what yousay about fairness in your closing is applicable to the regressive tax structure, which has been hurting our fellow Americans and our cityat an alarming rate over the past 30 years. Thanks for taking the time to organize these examples for us. I am not so sympathetic to the mayor as you. The process he engagedsuggests that he is not working for the fair , more egalitarian society, thatyouand I believe in. (You knowI reactstrongly tounfair undemocratic processes) This vision for society is very different than the vision of separating the UC district from the rest of our city. Great post. Glenn -Original Message- From: mlam...@aol.com Sent: Jan 3, 2009 1:57 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com, pf...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Subject: [UC] Taxation and the libraries The fate of the 11 libraries is now before City Council. Mayor Nutter had to make some tough decisions to balance the City's budget, and the library closing choice seems to have been a particularly poor one. But, Mayor Nutter is not the villain here. Our city's tax structure is a more likely candidate for that role. It is totally out of whack and unreasonable in many ways. And City Council has a large role in our tax problems.My 2009 Philadelphia property tax bills came a few weeks ago, and when I look at them, the City's financial problems become somewhat more understandable. For my large stone house on 46th St. (counting the apartment in the rear, it has 14 rooms), my tax bill for 2009 is just $3306. Further, looking at the Board of Revision of Taxes (BRT) web site, I see that I've been paying that same amount since 2003 - if not earlier; the web site only goes back to 2003. Though of course, the City's costs have gone up every year.My sister in law who lives near Princeton (in Plainsboro, NJ) told me last week that the taxes on her much smaller 7 room house are about $12,000 a year. The City certainly needs to become more efficient and accountable in its spending. I have stories, and I'm sure many others on the listservs do also, about employees not doing their jobs and/or not being given a very rigorous workload. But in addition to demanding cost-cutting and streamlining from City departments, it may be time to face the likely reality that it's simply impossible for the City to function professionally and take care of its citizens' needs in 2009, on the amount of tax money it is currently billing.I've heard quiet rumblings about property and wage taxes throughout the library battle. Folks are beginning to feel that the City should be asking those of us who can afford it, to pay a little more. This sounds reasonable to me. But City Council would have to raise the tax rate, and expecting them to handle that quickly and conscientiously is perhaps unrealistic.Taking a step backward here, City Council and the BRT have joint responsibilities for taxation, and they have been grappling with - well actually, trying to avoid grappling with - another property tax situation for several years now: currently, our taxes aren't equal or fair, based on our property values, though the law requires them to be. Right now, neighborhoods with lower property values pay disproportionately high taxes, compared to neighborhoods with higher values - including University City. For example, in November, 2005, a buyer of mine bought a 3-story row house in Mantua, in the 700 block of NORTH 43rd St. (north of Lancaster) for $40,000. The block was shaky, and the house needed just about everything. The taxes for that house were $550. Checking up on it now, I see that the City has INCREASED that homeowner's taxes in 2007. Now he pays $592.Meanwhile, on the 400 block of SOUTH 43rd St., the BRT's records show a 3-story row house which sold 4 months later, in March, 2006, for $450,000. Its taxes also went up after the sale - from $1745 to $1878. Property taxes are supposed to be based on property values! Rounding off the numbers a bit, shouldn't a house selling for $450,000 be taxed at ten times the amount of a house selling for $40,000? If North 43rd St. is paying $592, shouldn't South 43rd St. be paying $5920? Or if South 43rd is paying $1878, shouldn't North 43rd be paying $188? That's the BRT's part of the equation - to get the assessments accurate, actually based on the current sales prices for the locations.But then, City Council needs to change the rate. Under the "Actual Value Initiative" (the plan to set the assessments accurately), the
RE: [UC] Taxation and the libraries
Glenn, While the fact that the city needs additional revenue is obvious, any changes to the property tax structure have to be made with careful deliberation as to the consequences of dramatic increases. A property tax has the potential to be very oppressive, because it taxes an asset whose value exists only on paper until it's sold (called unrealized gain). Even the dreaded Internal Revenue Service does not tax an asset until it's sold; whether it's a home or a stock, the IRS bases its tax calculation on realized gain-- what the seller actually received at sale. The value of a stock isn't taxed every year that it's owned; it's taxed only when it's sold and when the seller has the money to pay the tax. But as long as an owner is living in a house, there is no relationship between the current value of the house and the owner's ability to pay an annual tax based on that current value. The result would be a lot of people losing their homes because the value went up on paper, creating a tax bill that they can't afford to pay. In the case of landlords, they'd pass the increase on to tenants, making rents exhorbitantly high. If the City wanted to have a property tax based on initial purchase price, with a small percentage increase each year thereafter, I would have no problem with that. Or based on square footage, lot size, whatever. Or if they wanted to raise the wage tax, I'd have no problem with that because that would be based on what I earn; I would have the money to pay it and it would be withheld so I would never even see the money. If the City wants to levy a tax on the gain when a house is sold, I have no problem with that. Same with a sales tax.There are many ways to tax based on money the taxpayer actually has.No one wants to be forced to sell their house because they can't afford to live in it anymore. Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:09:01 -0500From: glen...@earthlink.netto: mlam...@aol.com; univc...@list.purple.comsubject: Re: [UC] Taxation and the libraries It's how the City will operate in the future. For that, we need fair and appropriate taxation. Those of us who can afford to pay more, will probably not be happy living in a city where we have spare cash, but some folks living nearby don't have libraries or other city services. We need to think long term here. Unfortunately, but realistically, taxes are a really important part of the equation.Bravo Melani!I haven't studied the merits of the local taxation plans and details as you have, but you're points are right on the money. And what you say about fairness in your closing is applicable to the regressive tax structure, which has been hurting our fellow Americans and our city at an alarming rate over the past 30 years.Thanks for taking the time to organize these examples for us.I am not so sympathetic to the mayor as you. The process he engaged suggests that he is not working for the fair , more egalitarian society, that you and I believe in. (You know I react strongly to unfair undemocratic processes) This vision for society is very different than the vision of separating the UC district from the rest of our city. Great post.Glenn -Original Message- From: mlam...@aol.com Sent: Jan 3, 2009 1:57 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com, pf...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Subject: [UC] Taxation and the libraries The fate of the 11 libraries is now before City Council. Mayor Nutter had to make some tough decisions to balance the City's budget, and the library closing choice seems to have been a particularly poor one. But, Mayor Nutter is not the villain here. Our city's tax structure is a more likely candidate for that role. It is totally out of whack and unreasonable in many ways. And City Council has a large role in our tax problems.My 2009 Philadelphia property tax bills came a few weeks ago, and when I look at them, the City's financial problems become somewhat more understandable. For my large stone house on 46th St. (counting the apartment in the rear, it has 14 rooms), my tax bill for 2009 is just $3306. Further, looking at the Board of Revision of Taxes (BRT) web site, I see that I've been paying that same amount since 2003 - if not earlier; the web site only goes back to 2003. Though of course, the City's costs have gone up every year.My sister in law who lives near Princeton (in Plainsboro, NJ) told me last week that the taxes on her much smaller 7 room house are about $12,000 a year. The City certainly needs to become more efficient and accountable in its spending. I have stories, and I'm sure many others on the listservs do also, about employees not doing their jobs and/or not being given a very rigorous workload. But in addition to demanding cost-cutting and streamlining from City departments, it may be time to face the likely reality that it's simply impossible for the City to function professionally and take care of its citizens' needs in 2009, on the
[UC] lost tabby cat - 46th kingsessing
from craigslist: please flag with care: miscategorized prohibited spam/overpost best of craigslist lost cat male tabby (west philly 46th kingsessing) Reply to: comm-979050...@craigslist.org [?] Date: 2009-01-03, 5:21PM EST male tabby wearing yellow black collar lost in 46th kingsessing area, dec. 30th, 2008 please email time/date/location and please offer food water if possible. shy of strangers see photos here: http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/laf/979050155.html
