At the end of his book "A Prayer for the City," about the Rendell Years in City Hall, Buzz Bissinger warns Philadelphia could easily slip into the bad old days if the next mayor allowed it. After eight years of John Street, Bissinger’s words are eerily prophetic. Philadelphia is, once again, at the precipice. �€�
Violent crime rules the very neighborhoods the mayor promised to save. The city has become a synonym for corruption. Pay for play is a way of life. The Street administration has failed to halt the flow of jobs out of the city. The vibrant hope of the Rendell Years is but a distant memory. The mayor’s only answer seems to be things are just as bad everywhere else. In Tuesday’s Democratic Primary, there is no bigger issue than the decline in our city presided over by Street.�€�
We are a one-Party town and this election is not going to change that sorry fact. The near miss by Republican Sam Katz the last two times around did not alter the political landscape. If you can name the Republican running for mayor this year, we’ll move the Rocky statue into the middle of your living room. Al Taubenberger may be a good man. He may even make a good mayor. But after the fall election, he’ll join the long list of Republican non-entities who failed to win in the last 50-something years.�€�
If it is true Katz still harbors visions of becoming mayor, he will have to do it as an Independent. Even he realizes no matter how bad the Democrats run City Hall, the voters are not ready to turn it over to a Republican. Thus, any analysis of where we’re going and how we’re going to get there has to assume the Republican Party in Philadelphia will not have much to do with it. For better or worse, our hopes for the future rest once again with the Democrats, who have given us both the best and the worst of times in the last half-century.�€�
American elections are all about corrections, as Chris Matthews likes to say. Philadelphia is no different. This election is about the perception the voters have of what went wrong during the last eight years and who is best poised to make the corrections. What went wrong wasn’t that we didn’t have a bright man with the necessary municipal experience in City Hall; Street has both the intellect and background necessary to be an effective mayor. Why he failed should be a caution to those who want to replace him and the voters who will make that choice.�€�
Street’s vision of governing the city has been "my way or the highway." He has shown a startling inability to work with a Council overwhelmingly dominated by members of his own Party. This is all the more puzzling because Street was president of City Council and he was an instrumental part of the success of the Rendell tenure. He came to City Hall to "correct" the Center City emphasis of the Rendell administration. His charter was to pay attention to the neighborhoods. However, his aloofness, and even arrogance, cost him his vision. Instead of building on the Rendell legacy, he inadvertently helped tear it down.�€�
Street’s failures are best recognized by Michael Nutter. He was able to separate himself from the other candidates with his vehement anti-Street message. Nutter has the major media endorsements, for what they are worth. He appears to be the guy promising the strictest reforms. His idea of reform is not without controversy. His push for antismoking laws resonates with some who don’t like to breath in other carcinogens, but others see it is an example of the "Nanny State" running wild. In the same way, Nutter’s idea of invoking search-and-frisk measures in high-crime areas may strike some as necessary to stop the violence, but it is certainly the kind of policy that, if a Frank Rizzo had suggested it, would have brought howls from the same people who are supporting Nutter.�€�
This election campaign has been as much about the failure of our finance laws as it has been about the failure of the Street administration. That brings us to Tom Knox. If ever there were a case of unintended consequences, it is how the campaign finance laws got stood on their head by one wealthy candidate willing to spend his own fortune to get elected. Those laws were intended to limit the influence of big money buying itself a mayor. Instead, they only guaranteed one candidate could buy the election for himself. Only one candidate’s spending has not been limited in seeking the mayor’s job, and that is Knox. This doesn’t necessarily make him a bad guy, but it has allowed him to leap the twin hurdles of his inexperience and anonymity. It also has helped him mute criticism of shoddy business dealings. �€�
Bob Brady seems like a good guy who would have to delegate the nuts and bolts of governing the city. His strong union ties would make him the least likely candidate to be able to face down the municipal unions come budget crunch time — something every big-city mayor eventually faces. Chaka Fattah seems to be running in the wrong decade. Dwight Evans has the background, the commitment to lowering the crime rate and the experience — everything but the votes.�€�
We need a return to the reform of the Clark-Dilworth era. Philadelphia is at the precipice of the cliff. Tuesday, voters will pick the person who will either offer us a lifeline or shove us over it.
