Thursday, March 31, 2011

City Council - See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil with the Philadelphia Sheriff's Office

Today, a poignant Daily News editorial reported on today's City Council budgetary hearing for the Philadelphia Sheriff's Office. 

Despite a missing $53 Million due to what the editorial accredited to poor record keeping (which I wager to say is THEFT), a complete dereliction of duty attributed to the lack of field deputies in the street working to collect owed funds and seize properties in a timely manner, and being known as a well known patronage pit for completely under qualified personnel; City Council member Curtis Jones, Jannie Blackwell and James Kenney openly praised interim Sheriff (and Green accomplice) Barbra Deeley and the Sheriff's right to remain an elected office. 

This may come as a shock, but I am in full support of the Sheriff's Office staying an elected office. Not for ANY of the reasons offered by City Council, but because I have no faith in the decision making powers of the city's democratic machine to pick an honorable appointee for this historical law enforcement position. Then again, the Republican City Committee hasn't even bothered to find a qualified law enforcement professional to run for this office (even in the midst of heavy scandals in the current administration this election year). 

I want to see this office stay elected because I hate breaking up traditions that can be traced back to revolutionary times because we've let the Sheriff's Office fall in the hands of patronage and racial politics for the last 23 years. 

What Curtis Jones, Jannie Blackwell and James Kenney need to be asking is why Sheriff Deeley has no plans to recruit and expand the Sheriff's Office into what it should be, the chief civil law enforcement agency in Philadelphia. The Sheriff should absorb the judicial warrant squads, have a field collections unit (like NYC has), and should be the primary agency for non-911 based law enforcement in Philly (protection of the courts, city buildings, etc). These council members think nothing of funding the PPA to the tune of $109M to pay a staff of over 1000 officers to collect redundant, short money parking fiines, but funds a Sheriff's Office that should be collecting $1B in owed bail and MILLIONS more in owed business and property taxes $20M to staff roughly 200 deputies, just enough to mind the courthouse and prisoner transports.

If you ask council members, they clearly have either no idea of what a Sheriff is SUPPOSED to do (which Bill Green should considering he lived in South Florida where Sheriff's are the chief law enforcement agency in the county). This is irresponsible and a key contributor to Philadelphia's crippling budget crisis. 

Vote carefully for Sheriff this year. DO NOT ELECT JEWELL WILLIAMS who was the candidate anointed by the same corrupt machine that gave us 23 years of John Green. 

Contact your council members (and those running for the six seats up for grabs this year) and tell them that you (as a taxpayer) are FED UP with paying taxes when scores of Philadelphians fail to do so with no threat of enforcement by the Sheriff's Office.

More Importantly, contact your state rep and the Attorney General's Office and demand a STATE criminal investigation into the missing $53 Million at the Sheriff's Office. 

As citizens, we are responsible for keeping our city agencies accountable foor doing their jobs.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

PICA Calls the Mayor and City Council Out on Property Tax Estimates

On March 23rd, the Mayor and City Council publicly expressed a plan to hike assessments to raise property taxes. 

This plan demonstrated a fallacy. The fallacy is that new assessments cannot raise taxes by 10% when they are based on property values, which in fact have been declining throughout the Delaware Valley by over 15% in the 18 months.

Just when you thought nobody was watching, enter former Republican Mayoral candidate Sam Katz and the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority (PICA) board to the rescue...

The PICA Board,  Philadelphia's fiscal watchdog, sent a letter to Mayor Nutter today to question the property tax assumptions made in his budget.

As reported by the Inquirer, the current five-year plan doesn't sunset the two-year temporary tax increase enacted by Nutter and Council last year. Critics are calling it a backdoor tax hike, while the administration has framed this as simply a way to show an increase in property values.

The PICA letter is linked here.

  1. Do you think the PICA letter will have any effect?
  2. If it does, how will the city plug its deficit?
  3. If taxes are increased, will they be spent properly?
  4. If due taxes and fees are collected, would it have offset any proposed increase?

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Republican Mayoral Debate: Featherman vs. Brown

Kevin Kelly from the Loyal Opposition is teaming up with Philadelphians for Ethical Leadership to host a debate for the Republican Mayoral Primary, 4/20/11 at 6:30. at the German Society.

The media has covered the quirky primary races on both sides of the aisle this year, but what is notable is the fact that this represents one of the first times there has been a challenged republican primary in many years.

Come hear both candidates address the issues effecting our city, the political landscape of Philadelphia, and the future of the local Republican party in a formal, moderated debate.

This debate will allow voters to see candidates address the issues facing Philadelphia and make an educated decision on which candidate is right to take on the 6:1 challenege in the general election.

RSVP at:

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Verna's Council Bill 110134 emphasizes the ethical double-standard in identity politics

Today, "A wary Point Breeze confronts its demographic shifts" appeared in the Daily News, discussing the emotionally charged debate over Bill 110134, introduced by Council President Verna, which aims to "curb gentrification" in Point Breeze (now called Newbold).

This bill is a great example of the kind of identity politics utilized by career politicians that is not only damaging to a community, but also would create an unethical and borderline racial double-standard effecting all Philadelphians.

For those who haven't reviewed the article, the bill specifies a one-year ban on construction of three-story dwellings and on any third-story additions or roof decks. Its stated purpose is "to give Council the opportunity to explore ways to preserve the uniformity of the street scape and the current scale and density of the area." in the Point Breeze section of Philadelphia. On the surface, that doesn't sound so terrible. The story behind the story lies within a law that requires new homes in Philadelphia to have off-street parking, which normally means it will need to have three floors to give it the livable space necessary to raise a family in it. The bill was introduced by Verna at the request of "Concerned Citizens" president, Betty Beaufort, who said that the ongoing development in the neighborhood "is profit over people."

"This is causing gentrification, and people are beginning to stress and worry if they will be able to live in the community where they have lived all their lives," Beaufort said. "Before we know it, they won't be able to afford to live in Point Breeze because they will be taxed out." Point Breeze, just south of Center City, is roughly bordered by Washington Avenue and Broad, Moore and 25th streets. Its main commercial thoroughfare, Point Breeze Avenue, is pockmarked with vacant buildings. The community, too, is marred by empty homes and trash-strewn lots. Crime has long been a problem, and the neighborhood has repeatedly been ranked among the city's most dangerous.

Last year, Concerned Citizens caused a stir in the area with a flyer that warned against the influx of "yuppies."

It featured two photos: One of a $300,000 home on 19th Street and another of a cluster of white patrons sitting at sidewalk tables outside the Sidecar Bar, at 22nd and Christian streets.

"This will begin removing the poor, seniors, fix and low income, working class families and minorities," the flyer said.

"This will begin removing the poor, seniors, fix and low income, working class families and minorities," the flyer said. (Emphasis is Concerned Citizens'.)

Another Concerned Citizens member, Tiffany Green, speculated during the hearing yesterday that Martin Luther King Jr. would have come down on their side.

"I was thinking about what Martin Luther King would say about three-story luxury homes being built in low-income, minority communities," she said. "Many of you celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday and pay tribute to him, but I believe if Martin Luther King was alive today that he would be advocating on behalf of low-income minorities."

What I find unethical is that our Council President can introduce a bill that is clearly based in racial undertones to block the development of one of the few Philadelphia communities that is growing in population and value. If any reader thinks that any of the discussion boards displaying heated arguments about this bill are over reactions, allow me to make our point.

I am a PROUD resident of Philadelphia, in the neighborhood bordering Kensington. Having lived in New York during the interesting years of Koch, Dinkins, and Giuliani as well as working in the Southeast, Northeast, and Anacostia sections of Washington, DC; I can speak with a great deal of experience on living among the urban landscape. Therefore, I propose an honest discussion about this double-standard and the angst it causes among citizens who should be neighbors, not adversaries within a community.

As long as the following questions sit like the white elephant in the room (or in this case, the council floor), then a segment of our society responsible for producing a great deal of blood, sweat, tears, and tax revenue in the name of returning Philadelphia to greatness will continue to feel marginalized and alienated in our own communities.
  • What would happen if I created a civic "organization" like "concerned citizens" that proposes a council bill banning real estate development or zoning changes to a neighborhood where the demographic changes were reversed (i.e., an increase of African-American, Latino, or south Asian residents moving into a neighborhood)?
  • Would any career politician entertain such a bill if the color of the proponents were different?
  • If the "gentrification" label is used for when professionals develop a neighborhood, clean the streets, increase property values and lower crime; then what is the appropriate label for the many Philadelphia neighborhoods where an influx of new residents have caused a rise in urban decay and crime, causing long-term residents to relocate to the suburbs?

Just because one feels as if they have a good reason for it, doesn't make racism wrong. It's high time that ALL Philadelphians stop looking at things from a racial perspective, and start looking at things as citizens who need to come together as a collective to make our city a better place to live and work.

Remember, while us Americans continue to bicker, point fingers, and blame one another for bad blood created generations before we were born (and in many cases before our families were even living in America); millions of Chinese, Indians, and Brazilians are working hard with little to no complaints...making their countries undeniable world powers.

When are we going to wake up and start making common-sense decisions?

It is in this spirit that I ask you all, regardless of race, religion, background, sex, financial status or sexual orientation to oppose this bill and make your opposition known to your elected leaders.
Get Involved - Join us at:

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Local GOP Candidates Betrayed by the City Committee, All in the Name of the PPA

Today's weekly told a story that many of us have followed outside the media for quite some time. For those of us who often wondered why we have such a poorly run city GOP in Philadelphia, that fails to create checks and balances like clockwork; the below article shows us that it's not an's intentional:

Philadelphia Weekly - Philadelphia Republican Candidates Betrayed by Their Own Party, All in the Name of the PPA

It should OUTRAGE the citizens of this city that we grant $109M to the PPA to have over 1000 employees chasing redundant $35 parking fines when we only give $20M to a corrupt Sheriff who operates a measly 250 deputies who should be collecting tax, bail, and fine revenue at no less than $500 per assignment...who also has to protect the judiciary and transport prisoners as well.

If this city doesn't elect a Giuliani-type outsider (like Featherman could be) to create checks and balances to this 60-year democratic stronghold, then be assured - we are ASSURED to end up like Baltimore, DC, or Detroit; awash in identity politics, devoid of jobs, wrought with crime and starved for professional leadership.

1st District Council Debate - APRIL 6, 2011 at 6:30PM

Philadelphians for Ethical Leadership will be hosting a moderated debate for the 1st District City Council election on April 6, 2011, 6:30PM at the Veteran Boxing Association hall, 2733 Clearfield St (at Richmond St) in Port Richmond. All four candidates have been invited as well as special media guests. $2.00 beer, food and drink specials as well.

As space is extremely limited, it's important to RSVP for this FREE event by calling Fred Druding, Jr. at (215) 221-2374. More information is linked below. Please come and be a part of this election for what is arguably the most vital council seat up for grabs in this year's election.


You know that change is in the air when the FOP wont endorce Franny Rizzo

While we all fodly remember and respect Commissioner and Mayor Rizzo, his son has fallen out of grace with the FOP, specifically over the DROP issue.

More at:

Philadelphia eyes a boost in real estate tax revenue

In today's inquirer, the topic of tax hikes once again surfaced. This time, the city wants to boost assessments to raise property taxes. The fallacy is that new assessments cannot raise taxes by 10% when they are based on property values, which have actually declined in the Delaware Valley by over 15% in the 18 months. The article and a lively group of discussion posts are linked below:

Philadelphia eyes a boost in real estate tax revenue by Jeff Shields, 3/23/11

The answer to this argument is quite simple. It is unethical to consider new fees or tax hikes while we are not making every effort to collect what is already owed to our city. Therefore, the state should create a financial control board to oversee the city's fiscal management the way that D.C. did after the Barry administration and the city of Camden and Atlantic City do in New Jersey.

For those who talk in the dicsussion forums about impeachment, they should know that impeachment cannot be possible if Council does not make a motion to impeach (which they wont do from within the same party).

However, we should pressure our state reps to make the new State Attorney General investigate and prosecute Sheriff Green and Clerk of Quarter Sessions Miller for failing to collect outstanding taxes, fines, fees, and bail for the entireties of their administrations. Their criminal failure to carry out their duties was done to canter political favor among a base of voters (identity politics) which has resulted in a budget catastrophe for the city.

New Sheriff + zero tolerance = collection or seizure. This rather unpleasant policy will result in an uptick in revenue without a tax increase in no time!

Please feel free to post your thoughts in our forum...

Friday, March 18, 2011

Federal auditor calls PHA legal payouts 'outrageous'

Michael P. Stephens, the acting Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, who is responsible for a great deal of the funding for the Philadelphia Housing Authority said on Thursday: "Having reviewed many housing authorities over the years, it is clear that the board and executive director of the Philadelphia Housing Authority tremendously abused their positions".

While this comes as no surprise to many of us, it signifies a slippery slope that has been made famous in cities like Washington, D.C. where local jurisdictions and states don't provide the proper oversight and integrity monitoring for it's own agencies...resulting in a federal takeover. While I am happy and relieved that HUD risked political fallout and stepped in to stop the graft and abuse at PHA, I can't help but wonder where the PHA Inspector General, the Philadelphia Inspector General, the State Attorney General, and the two opposing city council members were while $11M was being given to Ballard Spahr and $967K was being given to the "victims" of Carl Greene's sexual harassment complaints?

Folks, my point is that the waste, fraud, and abuse extends FAR beyond PHA. When a former mayor who was known for federal corruption probes heads a allegedly corrupt PHA board that includes a ranking city council member, the WIFE of a congressman (who recently had a search warrant served on his home and is an integral member of the Democratic political "machine"), and had appointed a Director that spent public dollars to keep his unwanted sexual advances quiet; you have a problem that cannot run "under the radar". Therefore, it's reasonable to assert that many powerful members of our government, from city hall to Congressman Brady knew that this type abuse was going on at PHA and did nothing to stop it until the Greene scandal surfaced.

Either they assumed that the public was too apathetic to catch them or they had no respect for the underprivileged segment of the public they served, but it's wrong to think that $12 Million couldn't be spent in ways that would serve PHA's core mission of creating safe, stable low income housing for low-income Philadelphians...not ridiculous legal bills and swanky staff retreats in the country.

See more in the below linked story:
Federal auditor calls PHA legal payouts 'outrageous'

Estelle Richman - wrong choice to oversee PHA?

As the below linked story will tell you, Estelle Richman, Mayor John Street's former Managing Director has been picked by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to oversee the scandal-ridden Philadelphia Housing Authority.

Woman picked to repair PHA is widely respected - Inquirer 3/14/11

While we agree that federal oversight/takeover (HUD) is warranted, appointing ANYONE connected to the prior PHA administration (a former Street & Rendell appointee) would signify a bad start for cleaning up the PHA. While Ms. Richman's resume is quite impressive, it is obvious that Street, Brady, and Rendell still have her number programmed in their phones and that the political experience she comes from is in the very administrations that took part in tainting it.

Remember, as has been discussed in our group, the deterioration of the PHA, Sheriff's Office, Clerk of Quarter Sessions, and City Council have been building up for up to decades and at least the last two, if not Three or Four Mayoral administrations due to a lack of oversight and two-party checks and balances. Whoever we bring in to clean up our municipal government should be a complete outsider, which is NOT beholden to the Philadelphia political "machine".

Why does Mayor Nutter want Commissioner Ramsey to stay?

Thanks to Chris Brennan for posting this interesting bit of news regarding Commissioner Charles Ramsey:
Mayor Nutter Says He Wants Ramsey To Stay

When Mike Nutter ran for Mayor as a reformer, I looked on with a very optimistic heart. It all changed for me a lot earlier than most of my fellow Philadelphians when Mayor Nutter announced his pick of Charles Ramsey as Police Commissioner. As someone who served proudly with the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), my career has personally suffered at the hands of Ramsey's political hackery, so when I tell you all that I think that Ramsey should be ashamed to wear the uniform that so many true police officers have worn and sacrificed their lives in; it's partially based in a great deal of personal bitterness. When I got to the Metropolitan Police, I knew I had made the mistake of joining a department that lacked the police subculture that existed in my native New York (and use to exist here in Philadelphia). Years of corrupt leadership at the hands of Marion Barry had gutted MPD of "true blue" police officers, who joined the department because of a sincere desire to serve the community and fight crime. The legacy police officers (with families on the job), tireless crime fighters, and analytical thinkers had been all but replaced by local residents looking for a steady J-O-B. Among this decay, however, was a group of roughly 10-20% of MPD officers who worked hard and lived the job. When Ramsey got to DC, he made a lot of noise about being a "reformer", but instead went after the working 10-20% as their aggressive policing generated citizen complaints and negative press from the Washington CityPaper (as if they'd ever write a pro-police article anyway). Ramsey's legacy in DC were hundreds of unlawful terminations that ended up in reinstatements with back pay, mostly after he had left for Philly and at great cost to the District. These terminations had a greater effect than robbing manpower from the already understaffed 3,600 member department; they resulted in a morale level that forced officers to be less aggressive and therefore, less effective.

If Police Officers fear legal or administrative penalty from unwarranted citizen complaints (similar to the suit that was just settled between Marc Lamont Hill and the Philadelphia Police Department), then they tend to lay back from active street patrolling, stop and frisks, and traffic enforcement; choosing to just do the minimum policing of responding to radio runs as to avoid complaints and reprimands. Who suffers from this? First, the citizenry in high-crime areas suffer because the criminal element in the community quickly learns how to operate without police interdiction. Crime goes up but reports stay low. Guys like Ramsey can claim crime is down but people feel no safer in their communities.

Another group that suffers is the police officers in his command. When cops start seeing other cops losing their job and reputation over what can arguably be defined as doing their jobs...they tend to be more cautious over what can create complaints and use of force reports. In 2000, Ramsey required watch commanders (only one per district) to review all arrest reports, which anchored them to desks and created hours long waits for officers processing arrests. In 2002, Ramsey entered into a voluntary memorandum of understanding with the US Department of Justice, which allowed DOJ to track MPD's use of force. This created an "early warning tracking system" for police officers and classified certain tactical precautions, like readying a weapon as an actual use of force. When force was implied or used, officers were required to fill out an additional three page report which, justified or not, tracked officers based on their use of force (not the quality and quantity of their arrests). Many officers had scrutiny when up for civil service promotions based on unsubstantiated civilian complaints and/or use of force reports. So I ask you - if you're a police officer and you know that you're going to have a report filed for being tactically correct and having your weapon ready at dangerous calls, you may delay your decision to ready that weapon. When I think about the horrible run of officers killed in the first 18 months of the Ramsey administration, I shutter when thinking that any one of those heroic officers could have hesitated tactically based on fear of being terminated over a citizen complaint. If you read this and think I'm being irrational, compare Philly or DC's tactics to that of the highly trained Los Angeles Police, who pioneered the use of the Taser, putting multiple suspects on their knees with the weapon ready, and less-lethal shotgun munitions. Many have criticized the paramilitary demeanor of the LAPD, especially in the wake of Rodney King, but nobody can deny that an agency of 9800 officers patrolling a city of 3.9million over 498 square miles is far more efficient than the police operations of DC and Philadelphia.

As far as the above-linked story on, Ramsey was not wooed here from DC by Nutter, he was job hunting after Fenty was elected and he was shown the door. In his last year there, DC had 181 murders (in 61 square miles and 1/2 a million residents) and a lower morale among the rank and file than when Barry was mayor.

In a group known for ethical leadership - I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Ramsey's penchant for what's commonly referred to as "stat-fixing". Currently, both Ramsey and Nutter are taking credit for a decline in overall crime (which is heading back up this year). How closely are we watching this? First, Ramsey rezoned the police districts and did away with beats, creating Police Service Areas (PSAs). He did this in DC are well. As we all know, crime is measured on a per capita basis, so if he makes the districts massive and re-draws the lines, the numbers change. Furthermore, while I cannot attest to what he is doing in Philly, I can testify that my PD-251 police incident reports were often rejected and I was told to reclassify property crimes to misdemeanor thresholds and/or non-criminal incidents. Crime was still there - numbers weren't. That's policing in the Ramsey administration. This was a far cry from the use of COMSTAT in combination with aggressive policing that made Bill Bratton and Jack Maple famous in New York in the 1990s.

It's well known that Charles Ramsey has been trying to go back to Chicago since he was passed over by Superintendant Terry Hilliard in 1998 and that he was paying into his Chicago pension during his tenure in DC. If Rahm Emmanuel wants him...I say good riddance. It's time to stop politicizing our public safety agencies and bring back the era where a top cop was picked to lead a department based on their knowledge of the job and their ability to earn the respect of the rank & file - not their ability to spin facts and cater to the media/special interests.

If you ask this resident, that's the only ethical way to protect the citizens of our great city.

State Auditor General comments on the safety of Philly Schools

When you review the Auditor General's recommendations in the below Inquirer article, you have to wonder why the Philadelphia School Police isn't living up to its potential. When one looks at the School Police, he/she sees a municipal security guard. Philadelphia School Police officers are unarmed and do not enjoy the Act 120 authority that Philadelphia Police Officers haven which makes it hard for them to police an immature urban environment in an era where parenting and family values are at a minimum.

In contrast; Baltimore, Miami, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Dallas, San Diego, Albuquerque, Indianapolis, San Diego, and various other cities maintain actual School Police Departments; who carry out their own arrests, investigations and protective operations. I think our state Auditor General is on to something, as schools should be a place where students feel safe from the dangers of the street; not a place where young victims are preyed upon by bullies and criminals. Let's turn our school police into, well...police.

State auditor to Philly schools: keep violence monitor -

The Philadelphia Ethics Board - conflict of interest?

Today, on his column, Dave Davies reported that over HALF of the candidates for elected municipal offices have failed to notify the Philadelphia Ethics Board (as legally required), failed to pay for legal services with campaign finance money, and are engaged in legal challenges against opponents' ballots.

47 Criminals running for city office - 3/17/11

While this is an extremely good article that will hopefully bring our candidates into compliance, I have to ask - is our Ethics Board doing their part? If you go to their website, you see three board members and two staffers highlighted; all of which are attorneys. These members include Charisse R. Lillie (of Ballard Spahr), Daniel McElhatton (of Christie, Pabarue, Mortensen & Young), and former city Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz, Jr. (under Mayor John Street)

The board is required to have five members, and in my opinion the members should come from different areas of expertise to provide fair and even decisions on ethics issues. Recently, former members Sister Mary Scullion and Pastor Damone Jones resigned. Following this resignation, I contacted Suzanne Biemiller at the Mayor's office to find out about how these board openings would be appointed, and to throw my hat in the ring (so I can do more than just rant). Ms. Biemiller politely informed me that Mayor Nutter nominates his picks to Ethics Board and City Council approves them.

I immediately knew that there was no way, at this point, a former cop and outspoken critic of the city's lack of government oversight would get his honor's nomination or the approval of the council.

What is concerning is the process in which these independent monitors are selected. One of the current members, Romulo Diaz, is the former (appointed by John Street) city solicitor. First, his presence alone is arguably a conflict of interest. Second, he is a holdover from the Street administration, which was wrought with ethics issues and federal corruption probes. Third, he was the City Solicitor that ruled in favor of our council members participating in DROP, then violating the irrevocable commitment to retire when their term was up.

What's even more concerning is that last week, Mayor Nutter nominated former Superior Court Judge Phyllis W. Beck and lawyer Michael H. Reed (of Pepper Hamilton) to the city's Board of Ethics.

If anyone is still reading at this point - allow me to summarize. Over 1/2 our candidates are not reporting their candidacy to the Ethics Board, who is two members short, is appointed by the very "machine" they would be sworn to reform, and is (and would continue to be) made up of a combination of lawyers from large firms known to make campaign donations and perform outside counsel for the city...with the exception of a former Superior Court Senior Judge who just happens to have been the judge that the current Ethics Board General Council, Evan Meyer clerked for (for over two years).

Is this really the independent body we want reforming the Ethics of Philadelphia Government?

PPA violates election laws and campaign's for Brown

The republican party is supposed to be the ethical alternative to the entrenched democratic machine that's run Philly for the last 60 years. However, party bosses Canuso and Meehan have put their support behind a vocal democrat then had city employees campaigning for them. This is unethical and possibly illegal. Whatever Feaherman said to Canuso and Meehan, it must have been caustic...because their going to great lengths to avoid recognizing his candidacy.

In a perfect world, the Sheriff would be better staffed and funded than the PPA, so that we can collect funds already owed to the city - and not nickel and dime our citizens to death with over-aggressive parking tickets.

Imagine if the anemic Sheriff's Office was to have over 1,000 members (which the PPA currently has)- how many derelict homes could be auctioned and rehabbed, how much of the $1.5 Billion in missing bail money could be recovered and how many delinquent taxes can be brought in to our city's deficit?

If you ask me, the $109M budget used to discourage tourists and business deliveries from parking in the city could be used for more constructive purposes.

Need GOP petition signed? PPA's just the ticket

Follow us on Meetup

Each weekday we discuss topics about our city's unethical leadership. 

Join us at: