Group Number 12
Moderators: Carole Cohn and Rebecca Subar
Total points: 14

Group Description:
The group started at 20 people but by mid-session, the number was 18. It was quite a diverse group. There was a mix of ages, from young adults to middle-aged to seniors, with an about equal number of men and women. Although whites were the majority, there were at least six people of color, including African Americans, Hispanics and at least one or two Asian Americans.

The group was very energized for the entire session. Although we ended up with few points, we had very rich discussions. For the most part, group members were respectful of one other, expressing their views and listening to others. There were two young people who came in together, with a lack of trust in the city government and the forum process, and had many ideas with them that were not included in the work sheet, most of them revenue-generating. They wanted the group to focus on and discuss those ideas, but we came back to the importance of doing the intended process and including their new ideas.

However, their suspicion of the city and the PPCE process opened up a discussion in the beginning of the session about trust, with questions that they and others had, such as: “Is there a commitment from the city to listen to citizens and do what citizens want?” and “Is this just a PR set-up?” Some people in the group said that, of course, the city has to make the final decisions, but citizens should take advantage of the forums as an opportunity to give input that can have real impact. If enough citizens feel strongly about specific issues, the city will pay attention. What happens at the forums will be on public record, and the city will be held accountable to that record at the next election.

Other opinions that were expressed as part of the session opening were displeasure that the work sheet had many more cuts listed than ideas for revenue sources, and that there must be a way to bring in and discuss more fully new ideas that are not listed on the work sheet, such as tax abatements.

Because the opening discussion took a long time, the group was only able to complete two buckets, “Low Hanging Fruit” and “No Way, No How.” However, at the end of the opening discussion, group members trusted the moderators and one another. Although the opening discussion was a bit “contentious,” it was productive. If we had more time, we could have completed a lot more. The group was primed for it.
Everyone was engaged in the small groups, and most people participated in the large-group discussion.
One person completed an individual work sheet.

Low Hanging Fruit
Total points: 14
• #20 Eagles: 4 points
o 100% of the vote
o They need to pay what’s due.
• #21 Parking: 2 points
o 95% of the vote
o Pro cut: Not a necessity to park. If you park, you can afford it.
o Con: I have two cars and it’s taxing, even though we do car pools.
• #16 Vehicle Fleet: 6 points
o 100% of the vote
o Fleet is too bloated with too many cars.
o Not fuel efficient and bad for environment.
o They have use of Car Share / Zip cars.
• #17 Amusement: 2 points
o 95% of the vote
o Pro cut: It’s a luxury, not a necessity.
o Con: Tickets for sports and movies are already high, and people will be discouraged from buying tickets.

Items that did not have enough of the vote to make the NWNH list:
• #1 Administrative
o 62% of the vote
o Pro cut: Not life or death; for example, the film office could be cut. Also it’s fair that if neighborhoods and individuals have cuts then administration has cuts.
o Con cut: Administrative cuts hard to make because they all have important jobs and the film office brings money, taxes and tourists into the city; 20% is too high a cut, but the city has to start weeding out the waste.
• #3 DROP Program
o 68% of the vote
o Pro cut: Leaders get lots of money and then return to work. Just the kind of thing that led to bloat.
o Con: Even though some Council people took it, it’s not a reason to get rid of DROP for hard-workers. It encourages them to work longer and not retire as soon as they can so we keep people with knowledge and experience.

No Way, No Hows
Total points taken off the table: 37
• #7 Housing: 7 points
o 100% against reducing
o You can’t put families on the street.
o 30% is a lot. It’s a decent program.
• #13 Public Health: 7 points
o 100% against reducing by 30% and 79% against reducing by 20%.
o Pro NWNH: People who can’t afford health care can’t go elsewhere.
o Pro NWNH: Don’t want to touch it.
o Con NWNH: OK if people have a small co-pay ($5.00) for OTC drugs - it’s possible for people to deal with it.
o Pro NWNH: Seniors with SSI have to choose between meds and being indigent.
• #14 Recreation: 3 points
o 100% against reducing
o Prevents crime.
o Helps keep kids are off the streets.
o Cultural programs
• #5 Fire: 20 points
o 78% against reducing
o Pro NWNH: Already closed one station in my neighborhood.
o Pro NWNH: Safety - fire and ambulances’ response time has decreased - puts people at risk.
o Con NWNH: We should be able to find 10% if we have to do all the draconian things in other categories.

Items that did not have enough of the vote to make the NWNH list:
• #11 Police, discussion
o 72% against reducing
o Pro NWNH: safety
o Con NWNH: 10% OK to cut. Corrupt cops are getting paid on streets and then getting their salaries.
o Con NWNH: Police don’t cut crime. (Libraries and other services do.)
• #6 Free Library, discussion
o 68% against reducing
o Pro NWNH: Kids depend on it for after school and helps with delinquency, safety.
o Con NWNH: Possible to combine with recreation centers and save money.
o Con NWNH: Libraries going downhill; people are using them less and going elsewhere.

Shared Pain
Total points: 0

Gut Wrenchers
Total points: 0

New Ideas
• Tax abatement
• Include some recreation centers and libraries together, to serve in a combined capacity.

Other
• Equity was a value that permeated many of the group’s discussions. It kept coming up again and again.

Ending Statements
Because our group didn’t have time to deal with many of the issues, we asked the participants to close by saying three or four words about any other messages they wanted the city to hear. The statements are below:
• “Actively participate and vote vigilantly.”
• Casinos are bad.
• Open Foxwoods Casino for revenue.
• Stay informed.
• “Hold kids harmless.”
• “Save the children.”
• Protect the most vulnerable.
• Graduated income tax.
• Progressive revenue / income stream.
• “Tax the rich and luxuries.”
• No library cuts.
• Close one prison.
• “Focus more on revenue increases than cuts.”
• “Consolidate employee benefit plans.”
• Keep the big picture of the Philly you want in mind.