Friday... it's Friday? who wants to blog on Friday!
- Tax heads-up: if you just got a PA Dept of Revenue mailing (and I did), it was wrong -- they used the numbers from the previous year. Hopefully they'll mail corrected versions, but double-check against your records.
- Pennsylvania considering moving up its Presidential primary to March.
- Apparently we may find a school tax reform measure on the May ballot, which would switch part of school funding from property to some type of income tax. But wait, isn't the casino revenue solving all of our problems? (clap louder!)
- Brady announcement official, with promises of piles of new police officers and putting the BPT on the cutting block (and mockery with those with broader ambitions). Also, um, a promise that we'd have elephants in the zoo again, but I don't think that's under the mayor's control. Dan at YPP thinks Brady's announced goals had some holes, not least the fact that you can't slash the budget and increase spending at the same time.
- More open to complexity than Brady, the Next Great City Coalition released their 10-point action plan for a cleaner, better-functioning Philadelphia. Nutter, Fattah, and Evans have already signed on to these rational suggestions.
- City Council takes aim at trans fats.
- Fattah suggests free annual checkups for the uninsured. And who pays if some problem is uncovered?
- The head of Penn Praxis gives a prognosis for the Philadelphia riverfronts and invites the public to an expert panel discussion on the subject.
- Apparently Young Philly Politics will be collaborating with the CityPaper on some election coverage features. The first topic is how health-care in the city can be improved, and ideas that come out of YPP discussions will be woven into a piece for the CP next week -- a good time to add your two cents!
- Albert is frustrated about the inadequacy of city 911 service capabilities.
- The Daily News offers some cheerleading to those opposing the arrival of casinos in Philadelphia, even if all they achieve is to re-engage the citizenry.
posted by ACM at 5:02 PM
1 Comments:
Just a little thought here on the upcoming judicial races, specificaly the Phila. Court of Common Pleas. I think spending some time to review the Bar Association's ratings is a very good way to get a feel for where these folks will stand on important issues. Further, and possibly even more important, is to see which candidates do not submit responses or appear for interviews. This is significant because the Legal Intelligencer will post the responses from the judicial candidates and also will note those who choose not to be rated. The judicial elections are very important but often we, the voters, dont get much information on them. If a candidate refuses to answer the surveys and is not rated by the Bar, then think seriosuly about not casting your vote for them. From what I have seen thus far, it looks like we will have a good crop of candidates and I am hopeful that they will provide the voters with as much information as possible before election day. I recall during the last round of judicial elections, one of our elected officials was advising all the committee people and ward leaders to vote for all the candidates endorsded by city committee, despite whether they responded to the surveys or not. Some of the endorsed candidates did refuse to answer the surveys. We need competent and qualified judges and to advise people to simply support a candidate who refuses to share their positions and qualifications for such an important job, is wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home