Resources

2006-06-06T09:23:00.000-07:00

Movers-shakers named to Olympic bid committee

By DAN GERINGER

geringd@phillynews.com 215-854-5961

Dawn Staley, the three-time Olympic gold medalist who has head-coached the Temple University women's basketball team to national prominence, will co-chair the Philadelphia region's bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games, organizers announced yesterday.

Staley will share the chair with two of Philadelphia's savviest businessmen - David L. Cohen, chief of staff for former Mayor Ed Rendell and now executive vice president of cable-and-sports-venue giant Comcast, and Joseph M. Torsella, another Rendell cabinet alumnus who returns next Monday to his former job as president/CEO of the National Constitution Center.

The trio will coordinate a gold-medal team of sports, business, government and education leaders in an attempt to land the 2016 Summer Games. The United States Olympic Committee is in the process of deciding whether to put up a candidate city for those Games.

"It's a great group, and if they [USOC] go forward, it's a great team to help us get there," Torsella said yesterday. "With most enterprises like this, it comes down to the quality of the people, and this is an A-plus group."

The Philadelphia 2016 Board of Directors includes:

• RENÉE AMOORE -

Founder/president of The Amoore Group, Inc., which includes Amoore Health Systems, Inc., 521 Management, Inc. (communications), Ramsey Educational Development Institute, Inc., and Liberty Services (engineering, construction).

• CLARENCE D. ARMBRISTER -

Former city treasurer and Philadelphia School District managing director, is senior vice president at Temple University responsible for managing many of Temple's administrative units.

• FRANK BALDINO JR. -

The biologist who founded Cephalon in 1987, and grew it into the country's largest publicly traded biotech company with a 2005 revenue of $1.2 billion.

• DORRIT J. BERN -

Internationally experienced president, CEO and board chairman of apparel-retailer Charming Shoppes, Inc., who grew revenue from $1 billion in 1995 to $3 billion today.

• JOHN K. BINSWANGER - Chairman

of Binswanger Company, a major national real-estate developer.

• ROBERT W. BOGLE - President and

CEO of The Philadelphia Tribune, the country's oldest newspaper serving the African-American community.

• WILLIAM G. CHADWICK - Former

assistant district attorney who is president of Chadwick Associates, a risk-consulting firm in Washington, D.C., and co-founder of terrorism-risk insurer, Homeland Indemnity Company.

• BETSY COHEN - Attorney who

founded Jefferson Bank in 1974. Board chairman of The Bancorp Bank since November 2003.

• A. BRUCE CRAWLEY - A founder of

Philadelphia's African American Chamber of Commerce is president of Millennium 3 Management (professional services, communications).

• PAT CROCE - Sports-medicine

pioneer and former 76ers president who took the team from the cellar to the NBA Finals in 2001-01, where it ran into two guys named Shaq and Kobe.

• NICHOLAS DEBENEDICTIS -

Chairman and CEO of Aqua America, the country's largest U.S.-based, publicly traded water company, who chairs the Philadelphia Convention & Visitors Bureau Board of Directors.

• ANDRE L. DENNIS - Civil litigator

for more than 35 years and former chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association will help oversee ethics.

• JOANNE DENWORTH - A land-use

and environmental lawyer currently in Gov. Rendell's Office of Policy.

• NELSON A. DIAZ - Former city

solicitor and Common Pleas judge who is a partner at Blank Rome LLP.

• VALERIE C. FERGUSON - Loews

Philadelphia Hotel regional vice president who was general manager of the Ritz Carlton Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics.

• DANIEL K. FITZPATRICK -

President of Bank of America, Pennsylvania, has over 20 years experience in Philadelphia-area commercial banking.

• NIKKI FRANKE - United States

Fencing Association Hall of Fame coach starting her 35th season at Temple as head coach of women's fencing, and was a member of the 1976 and 1980 U.S. Olympic fencing teams.

• JAMES P. GALLAGHER - President

of Philadelphia University since 1984, and a member of the Philadelphia School Reform Commission.

• KENNETH GAMBLE - Created

soulful "Sound of Philadelphia" during the 1960s-'70s with partner Leon Huff; now focuses on Universal Community Homes, a nonprofit developer that rehabs neighborhoods.

• PATRICK B. GILLESPIE - Business

Manager of the Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, for more than 20 years.

• DEXTER GREEN - Former safety

director for the Philadelphia School District's 264 schools.

• AMY GUTMANN - President of the

University of Pennsylvania since July 2004.

• ROBERT HALL - Former publisher

and chairman of Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., which publishes the Daily News and the Inquirer.

• WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY -

Former president of the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation who is now chairman/president/CEO of Liberty Property Trust, a $6 billion real-estate investment trust in the U.S. and the United Kingdom.

• APRIL HOLMES - Won a long jump

bronze medal at the 2004 Paralympic Games in Athens, and was ranked No. 1 in the world in the 100m and 200m from 2003-05.

• RON JAWORSKI - Quarterbacked the 1980 Eagles to Super Bowl XV, is president of the Philadelphia Soul Arena Football team and an ESPN broadcaster.

• BILLY KING - President/general

manager of the 76ers.

• JOEL S. LAWSON III - Independent

financial consultant and private investor; former investment banking CEO.

• MERYL LEVITZ - President/CEO for

the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, whose leadership has seen a 55 percent rise in overnight leisure visitors and $6.8 billion in direct visitor spending.

• PAUL R. LEVY - President/CEO of

Philadelphia's Center City District, which provides downtown security, hospitality, cleaning, marketing; a major player in Center City's revitalization.

• HUGH C. LONG II - A 30-year

banking veteran who is Pennsylvania and Delaware State CEO for Wachovia Bank.

• ALBA E. MARTINEZ -

President/CEO of United Way Southeastern Pennsylvania, former Philadelphia Department of Human Services commissioner and executive director of Congreso de Latinos Unidos (bilingual/bicultural human services).

• VIRGINIA McDOWELL - Executive

vice president/chief information officer for Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc., which owns/operates Atlantic City's Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, Trump Marina Hotel and Casino.

• TRAVIS MOHR - Native-son

Paralympic swimmer who won gold and silver medals at the 2004 Athens Paralympic Games, and is a three-time Paralympian.

• J. WHYATT MONDESIRE -

Publisher/editor of The Philadelphia Sun; Philadelphia NAACP president.

• TOM MULDOON - Philadelphia

Convention & Visitors Bureau president who helped realize the city's goal of building 2,000 new hotel rooms by the year 2000.

• STEPHANIE NAIDOFF - Kimmel

Center's founding president, currently serving as Philadelphia's City Representative and Commerce Director.

• LARRY NEEDLE - Executive

Director of the Philadelphia Sports Congress, which produces the Army/Navy Game and brings major sports events to the city.

• PETER J. NEESON - Senior partner

at Rawle & Henderson, LLP, honored as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer in 2004, 2005, 2006.

• MARCUS O'SULLIVAN - Villanova's

former track star and current track- and-field director, he is a four-time Olympian, three-time world indoor champion in the 1,500m, and one of only three men to run more than 100 sub-4-minute miles.

• CONSTANTINE PAPADAKIS -

President of Drexel University since 1995, which has doubled full-time enrollment to 9,000 students and grown its endowment from $90 million to $550 million under his leadership.

• SAM STATEN SR. - Business

manager for Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 332.

• DAVID THORNBURGH - Former

executive director of the Pennsylvania Economy League, a public policy think tank, he is president and CEO of the Alliance for Regional Stewardship, which develops competitive regional economies around the country.

• KENNETH I. TRUJILLO - A founding

member of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC, former city solicitor and former assistant U.S. Attorney.

• JUDITH M. VON SELDENECK -

Founder/chairman of The Diversified Search LLC, an executive search firm and the biggest woman-owned firm in the country.

• WILLIAM L. WILSON -

Principal-in-charge of Synterra Ltd. and Synterra Partners - planners/developers of commercial and residential projects.

• KENNETH WONG - Managing

Partner of Smith Wong Associates, LLC, consultants to U.S. companies seeking business in China.

2006-06-05T06:09:00.000-07:00

Your own TV show? Anywhere but here

February 19, 2006 Sunday

SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. A01

LENGTH: 1814 words

HEADLINE: Your own TV show? Anywhere but here;
Public-access TV is big - 1,700 stations - except in this area, which has just 3.

BYLINE: Diane Mastrull, Inquirer Staff Writer

BODY:

Few have done more, or less, for public-access television than two mythic teens named Wayne and Garth.

From a basement in Aurora, Ill., they overexercised their FCC-given right to rock the local cable station with heavy metal, hormones and calls to "Party on!"

Since Saturday Night Live debuted the dorky duo in 1989, the number of real public-access channels where ordinary people can put on a show or make a point has surpassed 1,700 nationwide - all aspiring not to be "Wayne's World."

But as increasingly polished, community-programmed cable stations have proliferated elsewhere, the Philadelphia region has been asleep on the sofa, its citizens still largely unaware that they could be laying claim to their own channels.

In the seven suburban counties, just three such ventures are to be found, with a fourth now struggling to life on the Main Line. As for Philadelphia, it has the distinction of being the only major city with no public-access station.

In theory, there could be hundreds in Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey, where advocates contend that PATV (the shorthand) would go a long way toward countering the isolating effects of sprawl.

Federal law entitles each of the area's 336 cable-wired municipalities to at least one channel run by and for the people.

Those local governments get more than $35 million a year in franchise fees, chiefly from the behemoth provider Comcast. They could use the money to help their residents set up and operate PATV stations, but they don't have to. So the fees - $10 million annually to Philadelphia alone - typically are absorbed into general budgets.

The $50,000 that flows to the small Montgomery County community of Narberth represents "one police officer or foreman of the highway department," said Borough Manager Bill Martin. Spending it on PATV would "create a void someplace else."

That explains, in part, the region's meager trio of channels - Pottstown in Montgomery County, Radnor in Delaware County, and Tredyffrin in Chester County - that reach only 45,000 of the two million households subscribing to cable. If a group in Lower Merion succeeds in its yearlong effort to get a spot on the remote, the total would go up, but by fewer than 20,000 homes.

The Founding Fathers would not be pleased, said Tony Riddle, executive director of Alliance for Community Media, a Washington-based advocate.

PATV, he said, is the 21st century's "town square... . It gives each community the place to have its say."

That's not necessarily a selling point for municipal councils and commissioners, whose vote decides the fate of any PATV station proposed in their bailiwicks. Most of them already have their own local cable stages: the government-access channels, prescribed by the same federal law that guarantees the right to public-access television.

The region has 78 of those.

Community-run stations, however, give many local officials pause. They'd have little, if any, control of content, and that makes PATV "a too-risky business," said Matthew Lahaza, assistant manager of Abington Township, Montgomery County.

It's not just the specter of those boys in babe land, Wayne and Garth. High on the anxiety meter: What if far-side elements - often cited, the Ku Klux Klan - want to be on television?

One of the nation's oldest (30 years) and well-regarded public-access stations is Berks Community Television in Reading. Its ambitious 24/7 programming ranges from auto repair, financial planning and candidate forums to the hit Dance Party, where viewers might catch the deli manager and the librarian doing the Funky Chicken.

But at 11:30 p.m. on the last two Thursdays of the month, they can also catch Roy Frankhouser, pastor of the Mountain Church of Jesus Christ in Reading and the Klan's former Pennsylvania grand dragon.

"There may be people who will forever be offended that we carry that," said Ann Sheehan, the station's executive director.

Yet it represents a core principle of PATV, she added. "It is freedom of speech."

In the Philadelphia area, however, PATV has a bigger problem than who might show up on the bandwidth. With rare exceptions - notably a fractious nine-year campaign in Philadelphia - the public doesn't know enough about community television to clamor for it.

In Montgomery County's Lower Gwynedd, population 10,800, no one has ever asked to start up a public-access station, said Andrea Collins, assistant to the township manager.

"Could be," she said, "that a lot of our residents don't know it's available."

Even Don Mobley didn't. A longtime community activist in Bristol Township, Bucks County, he recently led a successful fight to restore live broadcasts of council meetings to the government-access station. Members had halted the practice, citing cursing in their sessions.

"Nobody is even aware" of the public's right to a channel, he said. "I love that idea."

PATV traces its roots to Dale City, Va., where in 1968 the Junior Chamber of Commerce launched a two-year venture.

In 1972, the Federal Communications Commission called on cable systems in each of the top 100 markets to provide three channels called PEGs: public-, education- and government-access. But it wasn't until 1984 that the federal Cable Communications Act allowed all municipalities to demand PEGs as part of their franchise agreements with cable companies.

Those contracts vary from town to town. But in this region, they often require Comcast not only to pay fees to local governments (up to 5 percent of gross revenues), but also to help out public-access ventures. That could mean some operating costs, training, even a studio.

If asked by local officials, "we honor those agreements to the letter," said Comcast spokesman Jeff Alexander.

Irene McNeil, of Wynnewood, stumbled across this little-known trove of rights and resources in January 2005.

McNeil, a former broadcast journalist and Canada's chief public relations officer, had asked to use the Lower Merion government channel - whose annual budget exceeds $100,000 - to carry a local history show she planned to produce. When her request was denied, she picked up the township's 43-page franchise agreement. There, she found the provision for PATV.

McNeil resolved to light it up.

More than a year later, she is still asking the same question: "Will the great institutions and neighborhoods of our community be allowed to use their own television channel?"

It's not for lack of trying. McNeil has spent more than 50 hours a week and $5,000 of her own money on the embryonic Lower Merion and Narberth Public Access Television. She formed a nonprofit corporation with a 10-member board of directors, set up a Web site, and collected endorsements as hefty as the governor's.

For a primer, McNeil studied stations nationwide, and one right next door: the six-year-old Radnor Studio 21, powered by 100 volunteers and serving 8,800 subscriber homes.

At its headquarters in an old library, Studio 21's programming board is a dizzying roster of youth sports, concerts, parades, how-to shows - enough, when generously rerun, to fill 168 hours weekly.

"Everybody with a story, a passion, a point of view is welcome in this door," said general manager George Strimel. "We will get you on TV."

In Lower Merion, McNeil might have worried about the supply of on-camera talent. In 1984, Comcast had dispatched an employee, Monica Weaver Lalor, to run a quasi-public-access channel in the township. It limped along for six years before fizzling. Not only were residents too busy to participate, but also "back then," Lalor said, "nobody had a camcorder."

Not so now. As her efforts have generated publicity, McNeil says that community groups, institutions and individuals are stepping forward at a rate of at least one a week with offers to create shows.

Science teacher Mimi Shapiro has signed up to read children's bedtime stories. College student Casey Ford Alexander and friends plan to dish about life while dining in the Main Line restaurants. Jerry Francis, historical society president, would show township treasures. McNeil, a Quebec native, would parle françaiswith the fluent.

The community's enthusiasm, however, has yet to infect the township hall. For McNeil's plan to move forward, the 14 commissioners would have to approve it, and instruct Comcast to activate the channel. To comment on the prospects would be "premature," said Commissioner Jennifer Brown.

One big question: how much money and where from?

First-year costs are estimated at $290,000, with annual expenses from $201,000 to $311,000 in the succeeding four years. Comcast already has agreed to provide at least a studio.

In neighboring Radnor, Studio 21's $99,000 annual budget consists of $57,000 from Comcast, $8,595 from the township, and the rest from grants and private donations.

McNeil's group envisions its operation eventually running on a mix of public and private funds. But for the first two years, it is looking to be largely subsidized by the township, which expects $728,000 in franchise fees this year.

In a meeting Thursday, the township's cable advisory committee lauded the PATV effort but said it wasn't convinced that a penny should be put to it. That question will be punted to the commissioners.

As they say, stay tuned.

Even before most people in the region have experienced public-access television beyond "Wayne's World," some advocates are convinced that new technologies and new competitors in the cable marketplace will be the death of PATV.

From Congress to the statehouses of New Jersey, Virginia and Indiana, controversial bills would allow phone giants such as Verizon to provide television services to communities by negotiating only statewide franchise agreements - not the reams of municipal contracts required of cable companies. Texas passed one such law last fall.

Verizon spokesman Brian Blevins said PEG channels wouldn't be in danger. "We will provide access for [them] to be broadcast on our system," he said.

Those on the other side of the debate question how long that would last. Local access channels represent "TV democracy," said Mark Nevins, spokesman for the trade group, New Jersey Cable Telecommunications Association. "And TV democracy is being threatened."

Futurists suggest, however, that it is myopic to think of public access as inseparable from cable. Blogs, cell phones, iPods - all will be venues for community interaction, said Red Burns, a New York University arts professor who helped create Berks Community TV.

In years to come, she said, "we won't see it the way we now envision public access."

But what a shame, said Sheehan, the current Berks station director.

"You can go on the Internet," she agreed. But on PATV, "you see the people you live with."

ONLINE EXTRA

To learn more about the proposal for Lower Merion and Narberth Public Access Television, visit http://www.lowermerionpatv.org

Contact staff writer Diane Mastrull at 610-313-8095 or dmastrull@phillynews.com.

2006-06-02T11:48:00.000-07:00

Casino design presentations
Daily News forum results

2006-05-30T08:20:00.000-07:00

Principal investors in Philadelphia Media Holdings

Philadelphia Daily News, May 24

These are the principals in Philadelphia Media Holdings, which is buying the Philadelphia Daily News and Inquirer from the McClatchy Co.:

Bruce E. Toll founded Toll Brothers, a household name in the home-building industry, with his brother Bob in 1967.

The brothers started out building two houses in Chester County, according to a 2005 profile in the Inquirer. The company now has profits in the billions and in 2005 built nearly 8,800 luxury homes in 21 states.

He received a bachelor's degree from the University of Miami in 1965 and attended graduate school in business also at the University of Miami. Before getting into the home-building business, he was an accountant.

Leslie A. Brun, chairman and CEO of Sarr Group, LLC, a diversified holding company and former Hamilton Lane Advisors chairman, has more than two decades of investment-banking, commercial-banking and financial-advisory experience.

Brun, a private-equity consultant and international-investment adviser whose firm notched earnings in the billions, had gained such status by 1995 that he was among African-American financial pros written up in Black Enterprise.

Before co-founding Hamilton Lane, Brun was managing director and co-founder of the investment banking group of Fidelity Bank in Philadelphia, VP in the Corporate Finance Division of E.F.Hutton & Co. in New York, and VP of Lloyds International Corporation, according to a biographical sketch on the Internet.

Brun studied social work and received a bachelor's degree in 1974 from the State University of New York at Buffalo, where he has been recognized as a distinguished alumnus.

William A. Graham IV has a pillow in his office with the legend: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

In other words, he's a realist, especially in his dealings with government.
In a lengthy interview with the Inquirer in May 2004, Graham recounted his experiences in coping with political favoritism in the awarding of subcontracts to minority- and women-owned companies in the city.

He went along with every suggestion to keep his insurance contracts with the Delaware River Port Authority and Philadelphia International Airport.

Graham, 65, owns the Graham Co., which brokers insurance for high-risk businesses and industries. Graham and his wife of 29 years, Fran, an artist, have two children, Laura, a professional photographer and kickboxer, and Quint, who's in the insurance business in New York.

Katherine Crothall has been a successful entrepreneur for 25 years, most recently as the founder, president and CEO of Animus Corp., of Frazer, Chester County. Animus makes insulin-infusion pumps for diabetics.

Animus was recently bought by Johnson & Johnson for $518 million. She was elected this month to the board of Othera Pharmaceuticals Inc., a speciality pharmaceutical company developing proprietary drugs to treat and prevent the leading causes of blindness.

Crothall founded Animus in 1966. From 1988 to 1993, she was president and CEO of Luxar Corp., manufacturers of CO2 lasers for cosmetic, oral, surgical, dental, dermatological and surgical applications.

She holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania and a doctorate in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California.

Michael J. Hagan, in his 40s, helped turn around the flagging NutriSystems of Horsham, a provider of weight-loss products and services, of which he became CEO in 2002.

Before joining NutriSystems, Hagan co-founded Verticalnet, Inc., a business-to-business Internet and software company, and held other executive positions -- including chairman of the board -- with that company since it was founded in 1995. VerticalNet was among the earliest business-to-business e-commerce companies to deal with the needs of industrial firms.

Hagan is a trustee of Saint Joseph's University and American Financial Realty Trust.

Patricia Harron Imbesi, principal of Patriarch Media, comes from a family of pioneers in cable television.

Imbesi's father, Paul F. Harron, Sr. started in the media business by selling ads on vaudeville curtains, and later owned and operated broadcast radio and television outlets, according to a company Web page. Harron Communications, which then had 300,000 subscribers, was sold in 1999 to Adelphia Communications, but remained involved in cable TV in New England.

Imbesi has served as a trustee of the Philadelphia Orchestra and Villanova University, and on the steering committee for the Campaign for Villanova.

The Carpenters Pension & Annuity Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity: Fund is controlled by Ed Coryell, 60, who has been executive secretary-treasurer of the union since 1981, and is one of the most-powerful labor leaders in Philadelphia.

He has been politically connected as a friend of city Democratic boss and U.S. Rep. Robert J. Brady and other leaders. "I don't want the limelight,"
he once said. "I'm just doing my job."

2006-05-25T12:03:00.000-07:00

Make No Law

EDITORIAL

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider
bills on warrantless wiretapping. None should move.

Thursday, May 25, 2006; A28

THE SENATE Judiciary Committee is scheduled today to mark up legislation dealing with the National Security Agency's program of warrantless domestic surveillance. What kind of bill it will report out is anyone's guess. Three different bills are floating around -- one by Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one by Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) and one by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) -- and they would do wildly different things. What the committee should do now is clear: nothing. Any legislation is premature, because most members of the committee still have no firm sense of what the NSA surveillance program consists of.

We sympathize with members eager to get the program under some legal control. But action, in advance of real understanding of the surveillance, risks authorizing too much or failing to address the issues that led the administration to act outside of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which regulates domestic electronic surveillance. Mr. Specter's bill is a good example. He has rightly sought to conduct oversight of the program, an effort largely frustrated by the administration. And he has described his goal as getting the FISA court system, which normally approves requests for national security wiretaps, to rule on the program. Yet his bill would do a whole lot more. It would repeal the provision of FISA that makes it the exclusive legal means of conducting national security surveillance, thereby seemingly recognizing President Bush's assertion of power to spy on Americans on his own authority. It would also appear to allow the FISA court system to authorize whole surveillance programs, in addition to wiretaps of individuals -- though Mr. Specter insisted in an interview yesterday that it would permit review of only the one NSA program.

Mr. DeWine's bill is considerably narrower; it would authorize some warrantless surveillance but would not repeal FISA's insistence that all surveillance must be authorized by statute. It would impose important restrictions on the use and retention of information collected and would force the administration to seek a warrant as soon as possible. It also, however, would allow warrantless surveillance to continue in some instances with a certification to Congress -- not the FISA court -- of its necessity.

By contrast, Ms. Feinstein's bill, which Mr. Specter is also co-sponsoring, actually reaffirms FISA's exclusive authority and would prohibit the use of federal money for any program that does not comply with the law. It would relax certain FISA procedures to make compliance easier. Ms. Feinstein, who serves on the intelligence committee, has been briefed on the program, as has Mr. DeWine. Her bill warrants careful attention and study, but given that it materialized only yesterday, that hasn't yet been possible.

The goal of legislation should be to legitimize important surveillance by requiring judicial review, limiting the use of material collected to counterintelligence purposes and ensuring that irrelevant material is not retained. The best way for the Judiciary Committee to move toward this goal is to hold off on a markup and insist that it receive more information about the program -- so that it's not shooting in the dark.

2006-05-25T08:04:00.000-07:00

Senators Feinstein and Specter Seek to Reaffirm FISA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Scott Gerber

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Senators Feinstein and Specter Seek to Reaffirm FISA as the Exclusive Means for Domestic Electronic Surveillance on Americans

- Bill also streamlines FISA procedures to allow process to move faster -

Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) today introduced legislation that would reaffirm that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is the exclusive means by which our government can conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons on U.S. soil for foreign intelligence purposes.

Beyond this, the legislation makes significant changes to the existing FISA authorities and procedures to prevent bureaucratic delay in an emergency circumstance. These changes are designed to allow applications to move faster from the field to the FISA Court, and to allow it to handle any increased caseload that will result from bringing the current National Security Agency (NSA) program into the FISA regime.

“Our nation is at war against terrorists, who seek to attack us in unpredictable and asymmetric ways,” Senator Feinstein said. “It will be a long war, and it will be mostly fought in the shadows. Our intelligence agencies must have the necessary tools to thwart those who seek to do us harm.

“But it is important that we wage this war in a way that upholds our laws and our principles. We must not sacrifice the basic rights enshrined in the Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

“The terrorist surveillance program threatens those protections. As one who has been briefed on the details of the NSA surveillance program, I have come to believe that this surveillance can be done, without sacrifice to our national security, through court-issued individualized warrants for content collection on U.S. persons under the FISA process.”

“The way the Administration has moved forward with this program has brought us to the brink of a Constitutional confrontation. The legislation that Senator Specter and I are introducing today ensures that the surveillance program is being carried out under the law and restores the checks and balances between the branches of government.”

Specifically, the bill would:

• Re-state that FISA is the exclusive means by which our government can conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons on U.S. soil for foreign intelligence purposes;

• Prohibit the use of federal funds for any future domestic electronic surveillance that does not fully comply with the law; and

• Expressly state that there is no such thing as an “implied” repeal of FISA laws. In other words, no future bill can be interpreted as authorizing an exemption from FISA unless it expressly makes an exception.

The legislation also streamlines FISA procedures and provides additional resources to allow the process to move faster. It would:

• Extend the period of emergency electronic surveillance from 72 hours to seven days;

• Allow the Attorney General to delegate his authority to approve FISA warrant applications to two other Senate-confirmed Justice Department officials;

• Authorize designated supervisors at the NSA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to initiate emergency electronic surveillance to prevent bureaucratic delay in an emergency circumstance, provided that the surveillance is reported to the Attorney General within 24 hours, and approved by the Attorney General within three days and the FISA Court within seven days;

• Expand FISA’s allowance for 15 days of warrantless surveillance following a declaration of war to also authorize 15 days of surveillance following a Congressional authorization to use military force or a major terrorist attack against our nation;

• Authorize additional personnel at the NSA, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the FISA Court, to reduce the time it takes to initiate, review, and file a FISA application;

• Allow for additional judges to be appointed to the FISA Court as needed to manage the caseload;

• Facilitate a review of the FISA application process, culminating in a report to Congress designed to eliminate any unnecessary delay in the filings;

• Mandate the creation of a secure, classified document management system to facilitate electronic filing; and

• Require that the full Intelligence Committees be briefed on all electronic surveillance, and related programs.

“We’ve added these changes to help transform the FISA process into one agile enough to meet the Administration’s timeliness needs, while also preserving judicial oversight and our important constitutional privacy protections,” Senator Feinstein said.

Background on FISA Court

The FISA Court was created in 1978, following the Church Committee’s investigation of some of our government’s worst civil rights violations – J. Edgar Hoover’s spying on Martin Luther King, Jr., and Vietnam-era “enemies lists,” for example. These abuses were the result of domestic spying – electronic surveillance – under the guise of foreign intelligence.

In response, Congress, working with both the Ford and Carter Administrations, drafted and later enacted FISA to be the exclusive means to conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons. It created a special court that has to approve a warrant for every domestic wiretap, and provides for careful congressional oversight.

###

2006-05-23T11:09:00.000-07:00

The Philadelphia Inquirer

May 22, 2006 Monday

Editorial |

The Further Adventures of State Sen. Seymour Boon

Earthquake!

Pennsylvania voters irate over the legislative pay raise tossed out at least 14 incumbents on Primary Election Day. We take you now to the campaign headquarters of State Sen. Seymour Boon, as he plans with his political adviser for the November campaign.

Sen. Boon: Fourteen of my friends are gone! What a bloodbath.

Adviser: The voters are still furious.

Sen. Boon: The top Republican in the Senate - gone! The Senate majority leader - gone! Where did we go wrong?

Adviser: How much time do you have?

Sen. Boon: Not much. The general election is less than six months away. We must do something, fast.

Adviser: I agree. You need to take bold, decisive action to avoid the same fate as your colleagues.

Sen. Boon: The voters aren't going to kick Seymour Boon out of office. I'll retire when I'm good and ready. But I need a plan to win in November.

Adviser: Senator, I think you can turn a negative into a positive. You can use the voters' anger as an opportunity to make history in Pennsylvania.

Sen. Boon: I like the way you're talking. Tell me more.

Adviser: Just three words: "campaign finance reform."

Sen. Boon: That's funny. For a moment I thought you said "campaign finance reform."

Adviser: I did! Just hear me out. Pennsylvania is like the Wild West of political fund-raising. There are no rules - virtually no limits on how much fat cats can give to candidates. Even the U.S. Congress limits individual donations to $2,100 per election. But in Pennsylvania, a person can give $10,000 or $25,000 to a candidate.

Sen. Boon: You say that like it's a bad thing.

Adviser: It is! The voters think politicians in Harrisburg are more likely to be swayed by all that money.

Sen. Boon: Rubbish.

Adviser: Even so, senator, the system is spinning out of control. The top Senate Republican raised $1.3 million - for a state Senate seat! The Senate majority leader spent about $700,000. And they both lost! You should propose limits on campaign donations. You could be the reformer, the man who cleaned up Harrisburg.

Sen. Boon: Part of what you just said makes a lot of sense.

Adviser: Which part?

Sen. Boon: The part about the losers. By my rough calculations, the Senate leader spent about $72 per vote. And the majority leader spent about $65 per vote. And both lost.

Adviser: Such a waste.

Sen. Boon: But the second-ranking House Democrat spent about $84 per vote. And he won. See the point?

Adviser: I'm afraid to ask. What?

Sen. Boon: To win in November, I need to spend at least $84 per vote! No, make that $90 per vote.

Adviser: But senator, that will mean raising millions of dollars.

Sen. Boon: Right! Let's get busy! We need to start raising money right away. Check the majority leader's fund-raising report. Hit up anybody who gave him $1,000 or more. Don't bother with the smaller donors - we haven't got time!

Adviser: But senator, you can stop the madness!

Sen. Boon: No way. As I always say, spend what you need to defend your record.

Adviser: In that case, let's figure on an even $100 per vote.

2006-05-23T11:08:00.000-07:00

The Philadelphia Inquirer

April 25, 2006 Tuesday

Editorial |

Pennsylvania Per-Diems
Harrisburg's inn crowd

News item: Some Pennsylvania legislators get reimbursed more than $20,000 per year for hotel rooms and meals - drawing per diem even when they don't stay overnight in the state capital, or when the legislature is not in session.

We take you now to the front desk of the Hotel Carpe Diem in Harrisburg, where state Sen. Seymour Boon has just arrived....

Clerk: Welcome to the Carpe Diem! Checking in?

Senator: Sort of.

Clerk: Excuse me?

Senator: Yes, I'm checking in.

Clerk: Wonderful! Name, please?

Senator: State Sen. Seymour Boon.

Clerk: Is this your first time enjoying the Carpe Diem experience, senator?

Senator: You must be new here.

Clerk: It's my first week! Do you prefer a nonsmoking room?

Senator: It truly doesn't matter.

Clerk: I have a nonsmoking room on the third floor with two double beds, for $80. Is that OK?

Senator: No, I'd like something higher.

Clerk: Hmmm. I have a room on the eighth floor. Would that be all right?

Senator: No, I mean I'd like something higher in price. My taxpayer-funded room allowance is $96 per night.

Clerk: I see. Well, I have a room on the fourth floor with a king-size bed for $95, tax included.

Senator: I'll take it.

Clerk: Wonderful! Just sign right here. Do you have any baggage?

Senator: I won't know until election day.

Clerk: Excuse me?

Senator: Never mind. No, no luggage.

Clerk: Well, here's your room key, senator. You're in Room 415. Have a pleasant stay at the Carpe Diem, and please let me know if there's anything else I can do for you!

Senator: Yes, there's one more thing.

Clerk: What's that?

Senator: I'd like to check out.

Clerk: But you just checked in.

Senator: Exactly.

Clerk: Um, I'm not sure how to handle this.

Senator: Just handle it like any other checkout.

Clerk: Well, all right. Did you enjoy your stay with us?

Senator: Can we speed this up?

Clerk: Right. Let's see, your bill comes to $95. How will you be paying for your room?

Senator: Here's the fascinating part. We both know I never used that room. So it wouldn't be fair to charge me for it, now would it?

Clerk: I guess not.

Senator: So just give me a receipt, and I'll be on my way.

Clerk: Um, senator, I know that I'm new, but why do you want a receipt?

Senator: So I can get reimbursed. Taxpayers are getting angry about our daily expense accounts. If anybody checks up on me, I want to be able to prove I was here.

Clerk: But you're not staying in the hotel!

Senator: Why should I? My house is two blocks from here.

Clerk: Then shouldn't you decline to take money for hotel expenses?

Senator: And receive less compensation than my Senate colleagues? Why, I'd become a laughingstock.

Clerk: Imagine that.

2006-05-23T11:07:00.000-07:00

The Philadelphia Inquirer

April 18, 2006 Tuesday

Editorial |

The Pa. Legislature

Open for Business; Call it 'Freebies R Us'

News item: Pennsylvania lawmakers say they are not influenced by generous perks from lobbyists, including free ski passes, movie and sports tickets.

We take you now to the backyard of state Sen. Seymour Boon, who is chatting over the fence with his neighbor....

Neighbor: Mornin', senator! Nice day. Got any plans for the weekend?

Senator: Mornin', neighbor! Yes, on Sunday I'm taking my wife to a movie.

Neighbor: Which one?

Senator: It's called Friends with Money. Seen it?

Neighbor: No, we haven't been to a movie in months. Things are a little tight lately. How much does a movie ticket cost these days, anyway?

Senator: Um, actually, I don't know. I get free movie tickets.

Neighbor: How'd you wangle that?

Senator: The theater owners association gives them to lawmakers as a courtesy.

Neighbor: Nice work if you can get it! What do they want in return?

Senator: Nothing. It's just a gift.

Neighbor: C'mon. They must want something. Why else would they give movie tickets to the entire legislature?

Senator: No strings attached, honest. All I owe them is a cup of coffee and five minutes of my time if they want to talk to me. But I would do that for anybody, gift or no gift.

Neighbor: Then the theater owners must be really stupid.

Senator: Why do you say that?

Neighbor: Because they're spending money on gifts for you, when they could talk to you for free. Why waste the money on you?

Senator: Because I'm influential.

Neighbor: But you just said you can't be influenced.

Senator: You don't understand.

Neighbor: I think I do. Say, speaking of five minutes and a cup of coffee - some of us neighbors would like to talk to you about high property taxes. Can you meet with us in Harrisburg?

Senator: Just call my scheduler, and she'll hook you up with my legislative director. They'll be happy to help.

Neighbor: We were kind of hoping to meet with you personally.

Senator: Yes, but I am terribly busy. You understand.

Neighbor: I think I do. Anyway, I've been meaning to ask if you're free next Saturday. We're having a barbecue and would love to have you.

Senator: Next Saturday? Gee, I can't. I have free tickets to a NASCAR race.

Neighbor: What if I scheduled the cookout for the following Saturday?

Senator: Nope, sorry - free tickets to a Rolling Stones concert.

Neighbor: Geez. Can you join us for our annual block party on Oct. 14?

Senator: No can do. Free tickets to the Penn State-Michigan game.

Neighbor: Wassailing on Dec. 16?

Senator: Doubtful. I promised the boys I'll take them skiing next winter as often as possible with my free season passes.

Neighbor: Well then. See you here at the fence same time next year?

Senator: Unless the circus is in town.

Neighbor: Looks like it already is.

2006-05-19T11:15:00.000-07:00

Taxed to the Max

Sun, Apr. 23, 2006

Despite cuts, Philadelphia remains, by many measures, America’s most-taxed large city.

By Larry Eichel

Inquirer Staff Writer

In each of the last 11 years, Philadelphia has cut its wage and business tax rates, something that's happened nowhere else in America.

Over that time, the effort, aimed at making the city more competitive, has saved taxpayers more than $1 billion.

Yet, with the possible exception of New York, Philadelphia remains the highest-taxed major city in the land.

In 2006, the city still has:

The nation's highest wage-tax rate.

One of the heaviest overall state and local tax loads for residents.

The steepest combination of state and local business taxes.

And Pennsylvania suburbanites who work in Philadelphia face the highest overall tax burden for commuters in the country, largely because of the city's nonresident wage tax.

Many economists and business leaders say it is no surprise that the city has continued to lose people and jobs - although at a slower pace than in past decades.

They argue that wage and business taxes haven't been cut enough to help reverse a half-century of economic bleeding.

And they note that Philadelphia's greatest current success story - the residential construction boom - is the result largely of the most dramatic tax cut of all, the 10-year real-estate tax abatement.

But city officials say the rise in property values and vibrancy show that Mayor Street has struck the appropriate balance between taxes and quality of life.

"If the only thing that mattered to people was taxes, they'd all move to North Dakota," said Lance Haver, the city's director of consumer affairs. "The market has spoken. It's saying the city's got it right. People want to live in Philadelphia."

Accelerating the pace

There is a chance that the city may creep down the national tax rankings in the years to come.

Street's proposed budget calls for enacting small, scheduled cuts in the wage tax while making deeper business tax reductions.

Some of his would-be successors at City Hall want to accelerate the pace of tax reduction. Then there's the state gaming money, some of which will start flowing to the city once the slots parlors are up and running.

The state legislature is all but certain to earmark that money - headed for property-tax relief elsewhere in Pennsylvania - for cutting the wage tax in Philadelphia. In a few years, the wage-tax rate, currently 4.301 percent for residents, could be pushed below 4 percent.

"I think we have a heck of a success-equation building here," said Mark S. Schweiker, president of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, referring to the prospects for tax relief and the general condition of the city.

"But left as they are now, [business] taxes are a deterrent to expanding the job base," he said. "It's hard to conduct a business marketing campaign and have to try to keep that deficiency stowed away."

Taxes are hardly the sole determinant of a city's economic well-being. Businesses and people consider a lot of factors in determining whether to come, stay or go.

Relocation factors

In appraising a prospective locale, CEOs weigh the cost and availability of office space, access to markets and resources, the nature of the labor force, and the price of utilities. Families look at crime, schools, housing prices, job opportunities and quality of life.

Much of what both groups see when they look at Philadelphia is positive. In the last few years, Center City and other neighborhoods have blossomed as places to live.

But recent Census Bureau estimates show Philadelphia's population continuing to decline. As for jobs, the city has lost a net of about 16,000 since 1995, reports the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"It feels frustrating," said Cary Borish, whose family owns the six Marathon Grill restaurants. "You have a wonderful residential and retail rejuvenation in Center City, but our business depends on office jobs. It seems so clear that we need to compete on taxes to help jobs come."

Like Street, some economists, including Robert G. Lynch of Washington College in Chestertown, Md., assert that services often have more impact on business-location decisions than do tax rates.

But other experts who have looked at Philadelphia say that tax rates remain a drag on the city's future.

"The city's tax system has improved," said Richard Voith, an economist with Econsult, a consulting firm in West Philadelphia. "But if you want to preserve services in the long run, you need a tax system that's less destructive."

The numbers tell the story. Philadelphia remains the land of high taxes.

Taxes on city residents

The resident wage tax, at 4.301 percent (down from a peak of 4.96 percent in the mid-1990s), is the highest in the country.

Among major cities, New York comes in second, taxing income at an average of about 3.6 percent. Most cities don't tax residents' income at all.

In terms of combined state, local and school taxes, Philadelphians bear among the heaviest burdens in the country, according to an annual report prepared by the Finance Office of the District of Columbia.

The study looks at families of four in the largest city in every state - across five income categories.

In one of those categories, income of $50,000, Philadelphia had the biggest tax load in the most recent report, which covered 2004. In the four other categories, it was third.

Philadelphia ranks at or near the top despite having relatively low real-estate taxes - and a sales tax, at 7 percent, the lowest among the nation's 10 largest cities.

What Philadelphia does have is a combination of state income tax (3.07 percent) and city wage tax (4.301) that amounts to 7.371 percent - the highest rate in the country, except for a few places, such as New York, where graduated taxes make the wealthy pay more.

Business taxes

On the business front, the picture is similarly daunting.

According to the California-based Kosmont-Rose Institute Cost of Doing Business Survey, which looks at 368 cities, Philadelphia is the most expensive place in America for a business to operate - in terms of taxes and fees.

Why? Only a few of the nation's largest cities, Los Angeles and Memphis among them, tax a company's local gross receipts, as Philadelphia does (at 0.19 percent last year, down from a peak of 0.325) through its business privilege tax.

Only a few others, including Washington and New York, tax net profits as Philadelphia does (at 6.5 percent, a rate that has not fallen). The wage tax also is a business cost, to the degree that companies must increase salaries to offset it.

The Pennsylvania suburbs have lower taxes on gross receipts and none on corporate profits, and the wage tax (called the earned-income tax is capped by the state at 1.0 percent for those municipalities that choose to levy it.

Commuter taxes

The region also ranks as the nation's highest-tax location for suburban commuters.

Runzheimer International, a Wisconsin consulting firm, crunched 2005 data on average taxes - including real estate, state income and sales - paid by families with wages earned in the central city and a home in the suburbs. It looked at the largest metropolitan area in each state.

Here again, Philadelphia was number one, beating out New York and Chicago.

The main reason the region ranks so high in this category is the commuter wage tax - 3.7716 percent. Pennsylvanians bear its full brunt; New Jersey residents get a credit against their state income tax.

Of the nation's 20 largest cities, only three others - Columbus, Ohio (2.0 percent), Detroit (1.25) and Indianapolis (0.175) - have commuter taxes. New York's commuter tax was repealed in 1999.

Philadelphia's rate is the largest in any city, large or small, by a considerable margin.

That the city and region are in this situation demonstrates just how high taxes were when the tax-cutting began 11 years ago.

Mayor Rendell got it started, after resolving the city's financial crisis of the early 1990s, and Street continued it, sometimes grudgingly. With the passage of time, some of the current mayor's allies have grown tired of the business community's focus on the issue.

Said Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, "We keep cutting taxes, and businesses still can't create jobs. If they could tell me, 'If you cut the net-profits tax, we'd create 10,000 jobs over a specific period,' I'm on board. But so long as I don't see it, you can't expect me to keep reducing the numbers of city jobs."

To those who question the value of cutting taxes, advocates point to the city's borders, where businesses are plentiful on the lower-tax, suburban side - and to the long-term numbers: 265,000 jobs and 450,000 residents gone since 1970.

It may not be easy to prove that lower taxes create jobs. But Philadelphia's experience demonstrates that being seen as a high-tax city doesn't help.

"We've undersold what we've done," said David B. Thornburgh, executive director of the Pennsylvania Economy League, speaking of the recent tax cuts. "We should be saying: 'We have high taxes. We know it. We've cut them by a billion dollars, and we're going to continue to cut them.'

"But until you see the private-sector-jobs numbers start trending positive - not just [jobs] in education and health care and local government - then we're losing ground."

Glossary of Tax Terms

Resident Wage Tax: A flat tax of 4.301 percent on all wages earned by city residents, regardless of where the work is done.

Commuter Wage Tax: A flat tax of 3.7716 percent on all wages earned in Philadelphia by all nonresidents.

Business Privilege Tax: A tax on business activity that has two elements: the gross-receipts tax and the net-profits tax.

Gross Receipts Tax: A tax of 0.19 percent on all city-based revenues generated by all companies regardless of location. A company owes the tax even if it doesn't make any money. For every $1,000 that comes in the door, the company owes the city $19.

Net Profits Tax: A tax of 6.5 percent on a company's net income. How much of a company's net income is subject to the tax depends on what percentage of its business - in terms of facilities, personnel and sales - is located inside Philadelphia.

Contact staff writer Larry Eichel at 215-854-2415 or leichel@phillynews.com.

2006-05-19T11:08:00.000-07:00

Balancing act: Taxes vs. Phila. Services

The Philadelphia Inquirer

April 24, 2006 Monday

The city has been cutting rates for years but has little to show for it. What's left? A bigger levy on real estate is one option. But such an increase might be a hard sell.

By Larry Eichel

Inquirer Staff Writer

After 11 years of cutting taxes, Philadelphia still ranks among the American cities with the highest taxes. The remedy may seem obvious: Keep cutting taxes.

To some degree that's happening, with City Council on track to make another round of reductions in wage and business taxes this year.

In addition, projected slot-machine revenues should help the city lower the wage tax further, perhaps pushing the residential rate (currently 4.301 percent) below 4 percent for the first time since 1975.

And yet, the city may be approaching a moment of reckoning.

Will these cuts ever be enough to spur economic growth? So far, the approach hasn't generated a revival of jobs and population, although both have declined at slower rates than in years past.

If deeper reductions in the much-loathed wage and business taxes are made, will any city services - also seen as important in attracting jobs and businesses - have to be axed?

And will the city have to turn to another unpopular levy - the real-estate tax, which is relatively low here by national standards - to make up for lost revenue?

These are questions that the city's next mayor will have to address.

For his part, Mayor Street stresses that tax rates are only one of many factors shaping the city's future.

"The link between a city's quality of life and its economic growth is just as important as the link between tax reduction and economic growth," he said in his budget message this year.

On the tax issue, Philadelphia finds itself in a strange and uncomfortable place.

The city has been in the tax-cutting business since 1995, with little to show for it.

Many residents, meanwhile, are adamant that the services that most visibly enhance their quality of life - such as police, parks, and libraries - not be reduced.

"There is a basic disconnect between what we need to do to be economically competitive and what the electorate demands of its public officials," said Paul R. Levy, executive director of the Center City District and an advocate for more aggressive cuts.

State Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.), a potential mayoral candidate, said that voters don't get excited about tax reductions but do worry about service cuts.

Economist Joseph Gyourko, of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, sees the city's reliance on wage and business taxes as self-defeating in a world where computer software and human capital are eminently portable.

"It is difficult to imagine a worse choice of tax instruments for a single municipality..., " he has written.

But if you cut taxes too much, Street says, you threaten the ability of future administrations to govern. Sharon Ward of Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth questions whether taxes really are the problem.

"If you could take taxes off the table and ask businesses to move in, they'd cite other reasons for not coming," said Ward, part of One Philadelphia, a group formed to counter the business community on the tax issue. " 'The schools aren't good enough. We can't find a site. Permitting is a pain. Crime and security are a concern.' "

At the root of this conversation is the question of how to balance the various goals that a tax system is asked to accomplish.

A tax system needs to raise enough money to fund basic services. It should be efficient and fair, and not get in the way of economic expansion.

But those goals can come into conflict. If a city takes too much from the haves in order to serve the have-nots, the haves are likely to pick up and leave, as they have been doing for decades.

Sooner or later, the flash point for a lot of these concerns figures to be the real-estate tax, which may have to generate more revenue if other levies are to keep falling.

No politician is calling on City Hall to raise property-tax rates now. But a report written in 2003 for the city's Tax Reform Commission concluded that shifting away from wage and business taxes would be good for city.

On the whole, property taxes in Philadelphia today are lower than in a lot of other major cities. They are also lower than in many of this region's suburban communities.

"People in Philadelphia, mostly, have no idea what a real property tax is," said City Councilman Michael A. Nutter. "The property tax isn't what's scaring business away. I have never had a conversation with a business person about property taxes."

Brett Mandel, executive director of Philadelphia Forward, which is pushing the recommendations of the Tax Reform Commission, said recently: "All of the city's tax problems can be traced to not wanting to put pressure on the property tax."

His theory is that local politicians have been loath to raise property taxes in a city where home ownership has traditionally extended deep into the lower middle class.

To understand how low real-estate taxes are in Philadelphia, consider Boston, a city that has thrived in recent decades.

There, the average property-tax bill on an owner-occupied home is $2,750. In Philadelphia, the figure is $1,136.

City government in Boston, which also funds the schools, gets 57 percent of its revenue from property taxes. Philadelphia's property taxes fund only 20 percent of city and school costs.

Looking just at Philadelphia's general fund, only 11 percent comes from real-estate taxes, compared with 23 percent for New York, 31 for Pittsburgh, 41 for Houston.

As an institution, the residential property tax comes in for constant criticism, here and elsewhere. It is said to be unfair and regressive because the value of one's home often bears little relation to one's ability to pay.

But David Brunori, a tax specialist at George Washington University, says it is a better tax than widely perceived, if only because it's a reliable source of revenue and because the alternatives may be worse.

Property, after all, can't run off to the suburbs when taxes rise. People and businesses can. In this area, they often do.

A 2001 study found that a Philadelphia family with an income of $40,000 paid almost $2,000 more in local taxes than a comparable suburban family not subject to the city's commuter wage tax.

The gap may have narrowed since because of rising suburban taxes. It hasn't gone away.

Advocates of cutting wage and business taxes say a shift to greater dependence on the property tax will come naturally. Lowering taxes on wage earners and companies, they say, will make the city more attractive and property more valuable. So assessments will rise, and tax bills with them.

Hiking property-tax rates in Philadelphia, though, will not be an easy sell - if and when the time comes.

"Whether there's a political will to raise the real-estate tax is a big question," said Philip R. Goldsmith, former city managing director. "Actually, I think it's not a question. I think there isn't the will."

Earlier this year, state legislators held citywide hearings on the general subject of taxes. Witnesses said they were not interested in seeing one tax raised to lower another.

And a lot of homeowners, not all of them seniors on limited incomes, are grumbling about property taxes already.

The rise in property values in some neighborhoods has sent tax bills soaring as the local real-estate market has boomed. Many homeowners also resent the 10-year tax abatement that the city has bestowed on new residential construction. As those abatements end, the new houses and condominiums will provide millions of new property-tax dollars.

In addition, there is widespread trepidation about the shift to full-value assessment planned for next year, a shift that David Glancey, chairman of the Board of Revision of Taxes, has said will mean "severe" increases in assessments (and thus tax bills) for some and declines for others.

The debate over real estate taxes vs. wage taxes has surfaced in Harrisburg, as well.

In 2004, the state legislature earmarked the city's share of proceeds from the yet-to-open slots parlors exclusively for wage-tax relief. This year, Democratic State Rep. James R. Roebuck Jr. of West Philadelphia sponsored a bill to split the money between the property tax and the wage tax.

The bill didn't get anywhere. But the proposal resonated with a lot of homeowners.

What to do about taxes figures to be a key issue in the mayor's race next year.

All of the city's major prospective mayoral candidates - Nutter, Evans, former City Controller Jonathan A. Saidel, former mayoral deputy Tom Knox, labor leader John Dougherty, and U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.) - say they want to keep reducing taxes, if possible. Some express more concern than others about preserving and enhancing city services.

But in Philadelphia, there's no underestimating the power of the status quo, even when it comes to taxes.

"It's hard for me to believe," said Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, "that there's another municipality in the country that hates change as much as this one."

Glossary of Tax Terms

Resident Wage Tax: A flat tax of 4.301 percent on all wages earned by city residents, regardless of where the work is done.

Commuter Wage Tax: A flat tax of 3.7716 percent on all wages earned in Philadelphia by all nonresidents.

Business Privilege Tax: A tax on business activity that has two elements: the gross-receipts tax and the net-profits tax.

Gross-Receipts Tax: A tax of 0.19 percent on all city-based revenues generated by all companies regardless of location. A company owes the tax even if it doesn't make any money. For every $1,000 that comes in the door, the company owes the city $1.90.

Net-Profits Tax: A tax of 6.5 percent on a company's net income. How much of a company's net income is subject to the tax depends on what percentage of its business - in terms of facilities, personnel and sales - is located inside Philadelphia.

Contact staff writer Larry Eichel at 215-854-2415 or leichel@phillynews.com.

2006-05-18T11:02:00.000-07:00

Legislative District Maps

U.S. Congressional Districts in Southeastern Pa.

State Senate Districts in Philadelphia

State House Districts in Philadelphia

State House and Senate Districts in Montgomery County

State Senate and House Districts in Chester County

State Senate and House Districts in Delaware County

State Senate and House Districts in Bucks County

2006-05-09T05:58:00.000-07:00

The Philadelphia Inquirer
April 30, 2006 Sunday
Editorial

Medicare Part D
Prescription plan helps, but tweaks are needed

For all its early glitches and needless complexity, Medicare's new prescription drug benefit appears well on its way to winning over America's retirees.

An ABC News poll found that nearly two-thirds of those enrolled in the program are saving money, and almost as many seniors regard the costs of Medicare Part D to be reasonable.

Whodathunkit?

Still, millions of eligible seniors have yet to sign up. The deadline is May 15. So now is the time to review the program's early good notices and consider what they portend.

Part D is not an easy program to get to know, since it requires Medicare recipients to sift through dozens of offers for drug coverage from privately run insurance plans. (Best way to do that is online at the www.medicare.gov Web site.)

Nor is it like shopping for a Model T Ford, where you could get any color as long as you chose black: Various plans authorized by Medicare to provide drug coverage differ on their monthly premiums and co-pays, and even vary in the drugs covered.

In creating Part D, President Bush and congressional leaders opted for privately run plans in a bid to foster competition and savings. They just as easily could have let Medicare run the plan as a traditional benefit, using the federal government's clout to command the lowest possible drug prices.

But retirees have to go to the drugstore with the Part D plan they have, not one they might want. Tweaks have improved the program, like the decision last week to safeguard seniors against insurers dropping coverage for certain meds in mid-year.

There's no disputing that Part D offers genuine benefits. The program will provide drug coverage costing nearly $800 billion by 2015, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But the doors to the drugstore will close soon, figuratively speaking.

The May 15 deadline for the initial six-month sign-up period presents a challenge to Medicare recipients who have not joined a Part D plan. If they don't have other drug coverage from their job or union, they should sign up for Part D, even if they're not clear which plan is the best for them.

Why? To avoid a minimum 7 percent lifetime surcharge on their Part D premiums, for starters.

The federal rules call for that penalty; actually, 1 percent a month until the next sign-up period starts Nov. 15. So health-care experts and retiree advocates advise that, even if seniors are unsure they'll fully utilize the drug plan, it's worth signing up now - perhaps by choosing the lowest-premium plan. They can switch to another plan later.

Not surprisingly, with 10-million-plus Medicare recipients yet to pick a Part D plan, folks on both sides of the aisle in Congress have called for extending the deadline.

But it's not like people haven't had enough time to decide. An extension is just as likely to lead to more procrastination as it is to less confusion.

A better plan would be for Congress to pledge to revisit - and possibly repeal - the sign-up premium penalty should it become apparent that too many retirees have not met the deadline.

In evaluating the Part D plans, Medicare recipients also need to keep in mind some fine print that recently came to light: The dreaded "doughnut hole" is closer than you may think.

That's the point at which annual out-of-pocket expenses reach $2,250 and Part D no longer pays for medicines (until catastrophic coverage kicks in after recipients' expenses reach $3,600). Many people wrongly assumed "out of pocket" meant only what a retiree pays in co-pays. But the tally also includes what the Part D plan pays for drugs.

Feels like a little bait-and-switch by Congress. But at least some insurers offer to close the doughnut hole - though you'll have to pay higher premiums every month to get that protection. For someone with substantial drug expenses, such plans are worth a close look.

There's good news for low-income seniors on two fronts. First, under recently revised rules, many will be exempted from the May 15 sign-up deadline. Second, they'll still be able to seek out charity drug supplies offered free by drugmakers (see the online clearinghouse for patient assistance programs at www.pparx.org.) Medicare officials at first banned those efforts under Part D, then wisely relented.

or their part, Medicare officials had better ensure that thousands of customer-service reps are standing by to answer retirees' questions - accurately - in the hectic days before May 15.

2006-05-05T11:51:00.000-07:00

Councilman Clarke's memo to ward leaders

MEMORANDUM

Date: April 27, 2006

To: Ward Leaders

From: Darrell L. Clarke,

Councilman 5^th District

Re: Public Safety Video Camera Ballot Referendum________________________

In order to effectively reduce crime and related violence there is an increasing need to identify and utilize new and effective strategies. In that regard, the use of public safety video surveillance cameras is a tool that has proven successful in several municipalities across the nation. Given the seemingly endless plague of gun violence here in Philadelphia, it is time we consider their use to ensure safety in our neighborhoods, and do so in a manner that sufficiently addresses community privacy concerns.

Currently the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and New York, among others, are reaping the benefits of deploying video cameras. Data from these cities has shown the use of video surveillance is overwhelmingly supported by businesses and residents whose neighborhoods are plagued by crime and related violence. Even further, many cities including Baltimore and Chicago report community demand for video cameras that far exceeds supply.

As it stands, the Philadelphia Police Department currently has the authority to use video surveillance. However, I believe any such initiative in Philadelphia should entail a strong community component. Priority for video camera use should be to deter criminal activity and ensure safety around our schools, along commercial corridors, and in notoriously high crime areas. Decisions regarding placement should be made with community input and with sufficient notice to residents. Furthermore, any video surveillance program in Philadelphia, should be implemented in accordance with the American Bar Association’s standards which work to ensure that surveillance decisions don’t impinge upon anyone’s personal autonomy or privacy.

In an effort to ensure full constituent involvement, I introduced and Council passed legislation that will place the following question on the May 16^thballot:

Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to state that the citizens of Philadelphia believe that video surveillance has proven to be an effective tool to fight crime and violence, and to require that the City consider the use of video surveillance, in a manner that protects civil liberties and legitimate privacy interests, as part of the City’s anti-crime, anti-violence program?

I am respectfully requesting your support in this effort.

2006-05-05T11:48:00.000-07:00

Memo from City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke

Public Safety Video Surveillance

BALTIMORE

· Several years ago, Baltimore's Southeastern Police District began to use a very small CCTV system to monitor areas of Eastern Avenue. This District experienced a 40% reduction of criminal activity in the areas covered by the 24x7 cameras.

· In addition, in Baltimore's downtown, thus far, video surveillance has been proven effective with a 25% reduction of street crime.

· Baltimore is deploying 80 cameras in its high crime neighborhoods and an additional 55 in its Westside revitalization area. In addition, 20 temporary camera systems, PODDS, modeled after Chicago's cameras, will be installed in drug market areas.

· Baltimore has a comprehensive port camera system that feeds images from the mouth of the harbor and inner harbor tourist areas back to the Police Department watch center at headquarters where those high threat areas are monitored 24/7.

· The Baltimore Sun endorsed the video surveillance program, asserting optimistically that "there is no reason to believe the machines will be used to impinge on people's civil liberties."

· Baltimore Mayor O’Malley

“Baltimore Mayor O’Malley called the network of cameras a “force multiplier” for the police department. The cameras would be monitored around the clock and officials hope they will act as “scarecrows” deterring crime…..Cameras will not be forced on any community that does not want them.” Associated Press.

· Baltimore Camera Funding

“More than Half of the funding comes from assets seized from drug dealers, the remainder comes from the US. Departments of justice and homeland security Grants.” Mayor Spokesperson Raquel Guillory.

CHICAGO

· In Chicago, crime has plummeted within a block of each camera. Narcotics calls dropped 76 percent over the 1st 7 months of operation and minor crime such as property damage were down 46 percent.

· The New York Times reported on January 2, 2005: Chicago, which had the unwanted distinction of having more homicides than any other city in the nation a year ago, seems in a single year to have undergone a remarkable turnaround, with killings in 2004 at their lowest tally since 1965.

· The authorities credit new policing methods--surveillance cameras in heavy drug-trafficking areas and more officers on the street, particularly in the most notoriously gang neighborhoods,--for the 25% drop, from 598 homicides at the end of 2003 to 447 in 2004. It has been nearly four decades since Chicago's homicide rate dipped below 500.

· Chicago Mayor Daley

"Cameras are the next best thing to having police officers stationed at every potential trouble spot." www.usatoday.com/news/nation/ 2004-09-09-chicago-surveillance_x.htm - 55k -

· Ron Huberman, Exec. Dir. of Emergency Mgt. and Communications.

"The value we gain in public safety far outweighs any perception by the community that this is Big Brother who's watching,"… "The feedback we're getting is that people welcome this. It makes them feel safer." www.nytimes.com

CINCINNATI

· Cameras have triggered little vocal opposition in Cincinnati. Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), usually on the front lines of issues with such constitutional implications, has remained largely silent about Cincinnati's surveillance cameras. City Beat Cincinnati www.citybeat.com/1999-07-15/cover.shtml

· Unlike hiring more police officers surveillance cameras are inexpensive. “Each of Cincinnati’s cameras cost less than $20,000 to purchase and install and require little maintenance.” City Beat Cincinnati.

NEW YORK

· Between 1998 and 2001, New York Police Department expanded its operations to include more than 1000 surveillance cameras, focusing exclusively on three areas: subway stations, parks, and public housing. Most of these cameras monitor five public housing projects. gothamgazette

· According to the Gotham Gazette, the cameras are monitored around the clock, seven days a week, by "video patrol officers" (usually, according to the department, officers who have been taken off street duty because of an injury).

· Guidelines issued by the NYPD prohibit officers from peeping into private apartments or using cameras for non-police purposes. They also require that tapes that do not document criminal activity be used again for new recording after seven days.

· New York Mayor Giuliani

In New York, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani boasted that “cameras slashed crime by up to 40 percent in public housing projects.” www.citybeat.com/1999-07-15/cover.shtml

2006-05-05T11:38:00.000-07:00

Eyes on the street: Crime-fighting technology, or privacy assault?

2006-05-05T09:18:00.000-07:00

Dec 12, 2005

N.J. Wind Farms

Build towers of power

New Jersey needs to stop tilting at windmills and actually build some.

The state faces enormous energy and environmental challenges in coming years, and clean, efficient wind power needs to be a part of its electricity portfolio.

The questions are: How much and where?

The state's first wind farm is coming online this month near Atlantic City at the county's sewage treatment plant site. Its five 262-foot towers, with their 118-foot rotors, will be visible for miles. It will power the plant and several thousand homes and businesses.

Unfortunately, unlike other states, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey has little space for many such farms. The state's real potential for wind energy lies about five miles offshore, where the wind blows most consistently.

Although offshore wind has successfully powered United Kingdom and Scandinavian households for several years, ocean wind farms are proving a tough sell in the United States, especially along the East Coast, where many residents don't like how the windmills look.

A 130-turbine proposal for Cape Cod has pitted neighbor versus neighbor. They're debating the trade-offs of less air pollution and more electricity against potential harm to tourism, property values and the aquatic ecosystem.

A year ago, acting Gov. Richard Codey placed a moratorium on wind development and appointed a commission to investigate concerns. Proposals have included 1,000 turbines scattered over 234 square miles in sites off Asbury Park, Ocean City, Wildwood, Avalon and Cape May.

Although purported to be neutral, the panel's interim report, released Nov. 30, tilts against offshore wind , instead of setting up standards that might make it possible in appropriate locations.

For example, while acknowledging New Jersey 's growing electricity needs, the report rejects wind because wind alone cannot make up the difference. It also blows off wind because wind alone cannot mitigate the effects of climate change or imported air pollution. That's dubious "all or nothing" thinking.

It's true that too little is known about the potential danger of turbines in the Atlantic flyway, a vital annual migratory path for millions of birds. But the report doesn't address seasonal shutdowns, or whether some locations would be safer than others.

As to aesthetics or loss of tourism, where are the surveys of Shore town visitors, residents and officials? They're also most affected by the state's periodic brownouts and blackouts. Responses may surprise.

The panel should offer a variety of options in its final report, due to new Gov. Corzine by March. The state needs to develop new energy sources, not drive them away.

The commission's next public hearing will be 6-9 p.m. Dec. 20, Committee Room 1, State House Annex, Trenton. To read the interim report or submit a public comment, go to www.njwindpanel.org.