From the Inquirer.
I always thought that the people who recorded our contentious board meetings themselves were a little over the top.
Maybe not..
Note: For the benefit of our younger readers, info on Rose Mary Woods, and her "improbable stretch".
A 5-minute gap in L. Merion record
By Bonnie L. Cook, Posted on Thu, Jan. 15, 2009
A five-minute segment is missing from the cable-TV videotape of a meeting Monday night during which the Lower Merion school board adopted an unpopular redistricting plan.
The school district says the cut was made because the speakers were out of order and it has the right to alter any tape in accordance with school-board policy.
The unedited version would have shown South Ardmore parent Aaron Williams, 37, interrupting board member Susan Guthrie as she read a statement just before 9 p.m. Williams shouted about his frustration over a plan to bus children from a narrow swath of South Ardmore, a largely black community, to Harriton High School, though the children could walk to nearby Lower Merion High.
Portions of North Narberth and Penn Valley also are slated for busing under the redistricting plan.
Williams' sons, Benjamin, 6, and Curtis, 8, live in the affected area and will be bused to Harriton if the family stays in the community.
As Guthrie told the audience that the plan's second version had shown the pitfalls of redistricting because it isolated pockets of children, Williams stood and shouted: "You just said it yourself. It's just a small group of children. Look at the blue line."
He went on to lambaste Guthrie: "You're going to sit here and say this is the best you can do?" Then he turned and walked out of the meeting, and was followed by other African Americans.
None of that appears on the video, shown on a public-access channel in Lower Merion Township and posted on the school district's Web site, www.lmsd.org. (A direct link to the video can be found here.)
The gap is about halfway through the video. The edited video picks up at 9:05 with acting President Lyn Kugel's plea for order and civility.
"If there is another outburst, we will ask that you leave, and we will provide an escort," she said. There were no outbursts during the rest of the meeting.
Doug Young, the school district spokesman, said in an e-mail yesterday that the district acted properly in excising the five minutes of tape.
"I've been advised that there was a single edit made to the tape in accordance with two district policies," Young said in an e-mail. "Mr. Williams' comments were edited from the recording pursuant to Board Policy 7 'Meetings' specifically Section G.1.c.
"In this case, Mr. Williams' comments and other comments from the audience at that time were out of order in that they were made during board member deliberations after public comment was closed.
"The manner in which the comments were made also violated Board Policy 6 'Civility' which the meeting chair, Ms. Kugel, had referenced multiple times during the meeting."
Responding to an e-mailed question about whether the board had invoked those guidelines before, he wrote: "Yes, this practice has been invoked multiple times in the past few years when there have been direct violations of the policy. The district vehemently opposes censorship, and has aired numerous comments that might be deemed controversial or in opposition to district views. The difference is that these comments have come during the designated time allotted for public comment at each meeting."
In an e-mail to school officials, Lynn Brandsma, an opponent of the redistricting plan from South Ardmore, said she was "bothered by this censorship." She saw the tape on cable TV.
"Mr. Williams did not use profanity," she wrote. "There was no motion to strike his or other comments from the record. Why are these comments and actions (specifically walking out in anger) by our black citizens edited out?"
Young said last night: "The goal is to maintain an environment where public dialogue can be most effectively shared, considered and respected by all."
Friday, January 16, 2009
Gaming law has been a bust
From the Inquirer.
Commentary
Gaming law has been a bust
As Pa. officials tout a rise in revenue, they overlook the cost, and an unfair tax system.
By Daniel R. Reynolds, Posted on Thu, Jan. 15, 2009
A journalist living in Jenkintown
This year will mark the fifth anniversary of Pennsylvania's gaming law, originally conceived as a way of protecting the state's horse-racing industry. Neighboring states such as Delaware and West Virginia had instituted slot-machine gaming to boost purses at their racetracks.
But the bill's initial intent got hijacked at some point. Signed by Gov. Rendell in July 2004, the bill was sold not as horse-racing protectionism, but as a tax-relief vehicle. Revenue from gaming, it was said, could be used to trim property taxes.
Written by the office of now-indicted former State Sen. Vincent Fumo, the bill expanded gaming way beyond the imagination of the framers of the horse-racing protection bill, who merely envisioned slot machines at the state's four racetracks. As it turns out, when slots casinos become operational in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania will have 61,000 slot machines - more than any other state except Nevada.
State officials say they are cutting taxes with gaming revenue. In fact, they are subjecting Pennsylvanians to higher taxes.
The government says nearly $1 billion in gaming revenue has been made available to trim property taxes, but it isn't fluttering down from heaven or being printed by the Federal Reserve. It's coming out of the pockets of Pennsylvanians who are walking into casinos, putting it into slot machines, and not getting it back.
Expanding gaming in Pennsylvania is simply an additional de facto tax - on top of the state lottery implemented many years ago.
There is work to be done on the issue of taxation in Pennsylvania, but it is not the work that Rendell, Fumo, and their brethren in Harrisburg have done - and that, in the end, can benefit only casino operators. Lawmakers must lead for the good of the entire public, not just a segment of it, and abolish the property tax as a means of funding public education in Pennsylvania.
The residential property tax is a regressive tax - that is, it taxes poor people at higher rates than it does rich people. Because of their lower property values, poor communities are forced to implement higher property taxes to raise enough money to fund their schools. And communities with high property values can afford to keep their property taxes lower.
In Allegheny County, for example, the borough of Wilkinsburg, which is predominantly poor and African American, had a 2008 school-district property-tax rate of 3.5 percent. A home valued at $100,000 there had an annual school property-tax bill of $3,500.
In Fox Chapel, a well-to-do, predominantly white suburb north of Pittsburgh that is home to the likes of Teresa Heinz Kerry, the corresponding rate is 2.03 percent. A $100,000 home in Fox Chapel has a school property-tax bill of $2,030.
So the school property-tax bill for a low-income resident of Wilkinsburg is 72.4 percent higher than the same bill for a millionaire heiress who lives in Fox Chapel.
In Montgomery County, where I live, consider the plight of Cheltenham Township, which has a school property-tax rate of 3.54 percent - the highest in the county. Compare that with well-heeled Lower Merion Township, which has a school property-tax rate of 1.89 percent, or a little more than half Cheltenham Township's.
Until we address this government-instituted disparity, which advances well-off communities and punishes poorer ones, there is really nothing for the state to be proud about on the issue of taxation.
The solution is to do away with the residential property tax and fund education with a tax on income. Then education could be state-funded on a per-student basis, ensuring that every school gets adequate funding without imposing gruesome property-tax rates on poorer communities.
You like to gamble? I'll bet such a change doesn't happen in my lifetime.
Commentary
Gaming law has been a bust
As Pa. officials tout a rise in revenue, they overlook the cost, and an unfair tax system.
By Daniel R. Reynolds, Posted on Thu, Jan. 15, 2009
A journalist living in Jenkintown
This year will mark the fifth anniversary of Pennsylvania's gaming law, originally conceived as a way of protecting the state's horse-racing industry. Neighboring states such as Delaware and West Virginia had instituted slot-machine gaming to boost purses at their racetracks.
But the bill's initial intent got hijacked at some point. Signed by Gov. Rendell in July 2004, the bill was sold not as horse-racing protectionism, but as a tax-relief vehicle. Revenue from gaming, it was said, could be used to trim property taxes.
Written by the office of now-indicted former State Sen. Vincent Fumo, the bill expanded gaming way beyond the imagination of the framers of the horse-racing protection bill, who merely envisioned slot machines at the state's four racetracks. As it turns out, when slots casinos become operational in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania will have 61,000 slot machines - more than any other state except Nevada.
State officials say they are cutting taxes with gaming revenue. In fact, they are subjecting Pennsylvanians to higher taxes.
The government says nearly $1 billion in gaming revenue has been made available to trim property taxes, but it isn't fluttering down from heaven or being printed by the Federal Reserve. It's coming out of the pockets of Pennsylvanians who are walking into casinos, putting it into slot machines, and not getting it back.
Expanding gaming in Pennsylvania is simply an additional de facto tax - on top of the state lottery implemented many years ago.
There is work to be done on the issue of taxation in Pennsylvania, but it is not the work that Rendell, Fumo, and their brethren in Harrisburg have done - and that, in the end, can benefit only casino operators. Lawmakers must lead for the good of the entire public, not just a segment of it, and abolish the property tax as a means of funding public education in Pennsylvania.
The residential property tax is a regressive tax - that is, it taxes poor people at higher rates than it does rich people. Because of their lower property values, poor communities are forced to implement higher property taxes to raise enough money to fund their schools. And communities with high property values can afford to keep their property taxes lower.
In Allegheny County, for example, the borough of Wilkinsburg, which is predominantly poor and African American, had a 2008 school-district property-tax rate of 3.5 percent. A home valued at $100,000 there had an annual school property-tax bill of $3,500.
In Fox Chapel, a well-to-do, predominantly white suburb north of Pittsburgh that is home to the likes of Teresa Heinz Kerry, the corresponding rate is 2.03 percent. A $100,000 home in Fox Chapel has a school property-tax bill of $2,030.
So the school property-tax bill for a low-income resident of Wilkinsburg is 72.4 percent higher than the same bill for a millionaire heiress who lives in Fox Chapel.
In Montgomery County, where I live, consider the plight of Cheltenham Township, which has a school property-tax rate of 3.54 percent - the highest in the county. Compare that with well-heeled Lower Merion Township, which has a school property-tax rate of 1.89 percent, or a little more than half Cheltenham Township's.
Until we address this government-instituted disparity, which advances well-off communities and punishes poorer ones, there is really nothing for the state to be proud about on the issue of taxation.
The solution is to do away with the residential property tax and fund education with a tax on income. Then education could be state-funded on a per-student basis, ensuring that every school gets adequate funding without imposing gruesome property-tax rates on poorer communities.
You like to gamble? I'll bet such a change doesn't happen in my lifetime.
Bread Crumbs in Bucks
From the BCCT.
Signs would promote, link towns
By JOHN ANASTASI
Consultants working on the Landmark Towns of Bucks County project Thursday presented a vision of four unique communities linked by a network of related signs.
Some of the signs luring visitors to New Hope, Yardley, Morrisville and Bristol would serve, they said, as “bread crumbs” to lead travelers in. Others would make sure they know where they were when they get there.
“The idea is to promote the town and its economic development,” said design consultant Barbara Schwarzenbach, of Philadelphia’s Cloud Gehshan Associates. “Sometimes you drive through a town before you realize you missed it.”
The solution the consultants presented at Bristol’s borough hall Thursday evening starts with signs on roadways surrounding the towns that indicate their direction with arrows and list their distance in miles. Many of those would have to be discussed with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation because they would be set up on state roads.
The boroughs themselves would be dotted with different types of signs. Some, at the gateways, would simply list the name of the town.
Others signs would provide passersby with history, directions to shopping areas, cultural centers or other amenities. While the information would be different with each town, the signs would share the same feel. The colors would be different but the schemes would be the same.
“You want to create a new brand and support that brand,” said Adam Krom, a planner at Wallace Roberts & Todd LLC in Philadelphia.
Krom said the project could establish more than 100 signs between those set up in each town and those erected in their surrounding areas and along a byway that would link the four municipalities using Route 32, South Pennsylvania Avenue and, eventually, Farragut Avenue in Bristol.
“I don’t have any problem with the concept or the color schemes and I like what they’ve done,” said New Hope manager John Burke.
He worried, however, that New Hope already has a large number of signs on its narrow streets and that more could clutter the sight of the town.
“That’s something we’ll have to take a serious look at,” he said.
Landmark Towns obtained $100,000 in state funding plus $30,000 from the Bucks County Conference and Visitors Bureau to fund the consultants’ work, said Donna Boone, regional Main Street coordinator for Landmark Towns.
Preliminary plans are being presented in each town. The next presentation is scheduled for Feb. 10 in Morrisville. A final design should be completed by April. Boone said Landmark Towns is seeking out additional grants to begin phasing in the signs after the project receives the blessing of each town’s borough council.
Signs would promote, link towns
By JOHN ANASTASI
Consultants working on the Landmark Towns of Bucks County project Thursday presented a vision of four unique communities linked by a network of related signs.
Some of the signs luring visitors to New Hope, Yardley, Morrisville and Bristol would serve, they said, as “bread crumbs” to lead travelers in. Others would make sure they know where they were when they get there.
“The idea is to promote the town and its economic development,” said design consultant Barbara Schwarzenbach, of Philadelphia’s Cloud Gehshan Associates. “Sometimes you drive through a town before you realize you missed it.”
The solution the consultants presented at Bristol’s borough hall Thursday evening starts with signs on roadways surrounding the towns that indicate their direction with arrows and list their distance in miles. Many of those would have to be discussed with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation because they would be set up on state roads.
The boroughs themselves would be dotted with different types of signs. Some, at the gateways, would simply list the name of the town.
Others signs would provide passersby with history, directions to shopping areas, cultural centers or other amenities. While the information would be different with each town, the signs would share the same feel. The colors would be different but the schemes would be the same.
“You want to create a new brand and support that brand,” said Adam Krom, a planner at Wallace Roberts & Todd LLC in Philadelphia.
Krom said the project could establish more than 100 signs between those set up in each town and those erected in their surrounding areas and along a byway that would link the four municipalities using Route 32, South Pennsylvania Avenue and, eventually, Farragut Avenue in Bristol.
“I don’t have any problem with the concept or the color schemes and I like what they’ve done,” said New Hope manager John Burke.
He worried, however, that New Hope already has a large number of signs on its narrow streets and that more could clutter the sight of the town.
“That’s something we’ll have to take a serious look at,” he said.
Landmark Towns obtained $100,000 in state funding plus $30,000 from the Bucks County Conference and Visitors Bureau to fund the consultants’ work, said Donna Boone, regional Main Street coordinator for Landmark Towns.
Preliminary plans are being presented in each town. The next presentation is scheduled for Feb. 10 in Morrisville. A final design should be completed by April. Boone said Landmark Towns is seeking out additional grants to begin phasing in the signs after the project receives the blessing of each town’s borough council.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)