What do you really or want expect from your city government and officials, services, responsibilities, etc? (Philadelphia: real estate, home)

[selhars]

I tend to think limited government is better.

At the base of it priorities are safety and protection.
If the government can't or doesn't keep you safe what good is it?

I look at some of the city departments and I wonder why is the city involved in that?
Why am I paying taxes for that?

One was a "minority juvenile outreach" or minority job creation liaison, something like that. I can't remember exactly what it was. But I DO remember wonder why is that a city job? or the city's responsibility? Do we need a CITY department of aging? What departments could we do without?

Yet you look at the city's film office. And people have said having that office increased the number of movies filmed here to that brings in revenue. (And it seems to be a very small department.)

So let's presume police and fire protection. After that:
-- what would be your priorities?
-- what departments would you diminish or eliminate?

I suppose we have to have:
-- building code and safety. Although I've heard horror stories about L&I.
-- streets and sanitation (BUT not necessarily trash collection. there are lots of places where that's contracted out or communities pay for their own. BUT if you think a major city needs the city to handle trash collection I can see that argument.)
-- vital records, deeds, marriage certs, wills, official documents, etc.
-- a school district
-- water department
-- revenue (tax collection) department

BUT how big does the city ADMINISTRATIVE department need to be.

Look at some of the job titles city workers have, especially administrative and professional titles.
I've seen what looked like some some made up, make-work titles. There's a liaison to this group, and a liaison to that group, an assistant deputy associate person for this department, an assistant deputy associate person for that department, a Mayor's special assistant for this or for that.

-- Does city council HAVE to have the number of council people it does?
-- Do city council people deserve the pensions and salaries they get? How about restructuring that?
Cutting pay and other compensation?

Also, I don't want to bash city employees that's not what this is about. While they have a bad rep, every interaction I've had personally has been a welcome surprise, and the exact opposite of the reputation. So it's not about that issue.

This is about reasoned, cogent discussion about the purpose and responsibilities of Phila. city government.

Thanks. I'm anxious to see the discussion.

[bursitis]

I don't know, but one thing we should stop wasting money on is ethnic/lifestyle parades.


If a group wants to have a parade, they should have to pay for every penny of it out of their own pockets.


If they can get donations from corporations, that'll work.


But it shouldn't cost the city a dime.


Send them a bill afterwards for cleanup.

[bursitis]

Stop with the free breakfasts and lunches in schools and in the rec centers during the summer.


That's what the Access card is for.


Enough with commissions for Native American affairs and the like.

[b-nasty]

As a libertarian, I pretty much agree with your post: the government should be as small and as local as possible. Law enforcement, in so much as it is necessary, is obviously something the state needs to do (monopoly on violence), but almost everything else should be private, where possible.



Trash is a good example, because almost every suburban area uses private companies for that, and it works just fine. Competition keeps them all honest/cheap, as they have to bid for an exclusive local contract. That's a pretty good balance, in my opinion: the local gov/area/HOA guarantees exclusivity to one company, which is cheaper than every home contracting with their own hauler. Assuming, of course, that the contracts are decided on fairly without kickbacks.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by bursitis

I don't know, but one thing we should stop wasting money on is ethnic/lifestyle parades.


If a group wants to have a parade, they should have to pay for every penny of it out of their own pockets.


If they can get donations from corporations, that'll work.


But it shouldn't cost the city a dime.


Send them a bill afterwards for cleanup.

Haha.

You are a beauty.

[2e1m5a]

Originally Posted by b-nasty

As a libertarian, I pretty much agree with your post: the government should be as small and as local as possible. Law enforcement, in so much as it is necessary, is obviously something the state needs to do (monopoly on violence), but almost everything else should be private, where possible.



Trash is a good example, because almost every suburban area uses private companies for that, and it works just fine. Competition keeps them all honest/cheap, as they have to bid for an exclusive local contract. That's a pretty good balance, in my opinion: the local gov/area/HOA guarantees exclusivity to one company, which is cheaper than every home contracting with their own hauler. Assuming, of course, that the contracts are decided on fairly without kickbacks.

New to late-stage capitalism are we? Monopolies and colluded no-bid contracts are the standard in our Federal Government, long bought and owned by private capital. State/Local Governments are catching up to the blatant corruption.

[Patmcpsu]

Originally Posted by 2e1m5a

New to late-stage capitalism are we? Monopolies and colluded no-bid contracts are the standard in our Federal Government, long bought and owned by private capital. State/Local Governments are catching up to the blatant corruption.

In my suburban town, there are no government contracts for trash collection. There are three companies in the area, and each household picks one to work with. For me, it's $29/month (all three companies are roughly the same price), which seems fair for 4 trash cans, 4 recycling cans, and 1 bulk pickup per month, which equates to $3.22 per can/bulk item.

At the same time, I'm scratching my head about how you can blame capitalism for government corruption.

[b-nasty]

Originally Posted by 2e1m5a

New to late-stage capitalism are we? Monopolies and colluded no-bid contracts are the standard in our Federal Government, long bought and owned by private capital. State/Local Governments are catching up to the blatant corruption.

Well, it only works if you keep in mind my first point about the government needing to be small and local. I can view the bids submitted by various haulers during the negotiation period on my township's website. I can also review the full balance sheet, and understand it, since it is only about 40 total lines.



I can also attend every local government meeting if I wish and ask why this or that wasn't decided. The members live in the township (by law) and they meet down the street in open-to-the-public meetings.



It's the oversized Federal and State governments that are the problem. Too distant to represent me, and too large and bureaucratic to ever be accountable.

[FindingZen]

Originally Posted by selhars

I tend to think limited government is better.

That will sooner fly in some of the suburbs or an emancipated "Liberty County" than the city proper for a variety of reasons.

One was a "minority juvenile outreach" or minority job creation liaison, something like that. I can't remember exactly what it was. But I DO remember wonder why is that a city job? or the city's responsibility?

Some people like to harp on personal responsibility...but if you're working two or more often low-wage jobs to feed your family, you may not have the time you prefer to keep watch on your kids. Also it can be hard to find a job in the city for a poor, young person of color. Connecting such with programs and companies who want to help can be beneficial.

Do we need a CITY department of aging?

Yes. Senior Philadelphians are often poor as well and/or without family to support them. Harrisburg, as alluded to in this thread, is not close enough to know what is going on here...unless one is suggesting the state should establish an office here.

Yet you look at the city's film office. And people have said having that office increased the number of movies filmed here to that brings in revenue. (And it seems to be a very small department.)

Fair enough. But perhaps the goal isn't always to make money but (purportedly) take care of the people.

Look at some of the job titles city workers have, especially administrative and professional titles.
I've seen what looked like some some made up, make-work titles. There's a liaison to this group, and a liaison to that group, an assistant deputy associate person for this department, an assistant deputy associate person for that department, a Mayor's special assistant for this or for that.

I will concede that there's a lot of patronage jobs out there. Without digging into details, there are likely (more than) a few make-work jobs that could be cut.

-- Does city council HAVE to have the number of council people it does?

It depends. Would less council members mean less districts and therefore more area for each member to cover?

Or are you saying that at-large members should be eliminated? I sorta see that point except it would leave the remaining district members basically concerned about their respective fiefdoms with no one to advocate for the city as a whole.

-- Do city council people deserve the pensions and salaries they get? How about restructuring that?
Cutting pay and other compensation?

Definitely a subjective question. I see that City Council members make $130-132K per year. That salary alone would generally put you in at least the upper-middle class if you're in a family of four or less. My instinct would be to suggest that members are required to give up any other active employment and put any passive income in a trust. But even that becomes complicated as many members have pensions from previous government work. Allan Domb took a page from another well-known real estate professional and donated his salary...but he's still making serious bank.


No one (whose household doesn't depend on city employment, at least) will argue that the Philadelphia government structure shouldn't be streamlined to some degree. However, in a city with a disproportionate amount of poor people (of color), cutting back or eliminating most city jobs will impact them the most. They won't be able to afford privatized services (as suggested later in this thread) and without regional/state level cooperation - a recurring theme of mine, I know - the odds of their pulling up bootstraps they can't afford are slim.

[Nitro2985]

Originally Posted by bursitis

I don't know, but one thing we should stop wasting money on is ethnic/lifestyle parades.


If a group wants to have a parade, they should have to pay for every penny of it out of their own pockets.


If they can get donations from corporations, that'll work.


But it shouldn't cost the city a dime.


Send them a bill afterwards for cleanup.

Why should public money only not be spent on "ethnic/lifestyle" parades? Why wouldn't you say "parades"