Remember Him When You're Stuck in Traffic: Pennsylvania's Lieutenant Governor

Commuting around Philadelphia is expensive, unpleasant, and time-consuming.  But Lieutenant Governor and former Northeast Philadelphia State Senator Mike Stack recently came close to arriving at an ingenious fix for the problem.  

Too bad Stack himself would have been almost alone in benefiting from his proposed solution.  Reportedly, he tried to secure the insertion of a provision in the annual budget bill that would give him the legal authority to force traffic to get out of the way so that a car in which the Lieutenant Governor was a passenger could pass through unimpeded.

This special rule would not have applied only in an emergency, but all the time.  Basically, the people who Stack would have been allowed to force all other drivers off any road in Pennsylvania for his own convenience.

Nine states don't have a separate office of Lieutenant Governor, perhaps because people there don't like to waste money employing one.  In our state, the office exists to give some political worthy a fat salary, personal staff, and a state-leased vehicle.  The incumbent's function, if it can be called that, is to attend ribbon-cutting events.  Stack apparently believed that the office should come with power to push around ordinary people, and figured that the state's roads were a good place to accomplish this.  (He was recently quoted as saying, "PennDOT is the best," and has got to be one of the few people in the state who thinks so.)

Fortunately, if the news report about the matter is correct, state legislators and Governor Tom Wolf decided not to give Stack the privilege the desired.  Unless Stack manages to get the provision slipped into another law, he may be forced to sit in traffic with the rest of us.

Roadways in Philadelphia are congested. and the major ones seem like permanent construction zones.  Despite that, they're often in disrepair.  Pennsylvania's taxes on gas and diesel fuel are, at the time of this writing, the country's highest.  Gas tax revenues are being used to repair the state's highways, but after decades of neglect, improvement is very slow.  Roads in the city deemed too unimportant to be targeted for this money (the vast majority of roads here) get barely any attention.  The only consistently well-maintained road, the Turnpike, has seen tolls rise for nine years in a row to high levels far out of line with turnpikes in other states.  It's no illusion that Turnpike tolls nearest to Philadelphia are the most expensive.  The rest of the state likes it that way.  If you drive into Philadelphia, you'll pay massively for parking.  If you think you can avoid trouble by not taking your car, most people familiar with SEPTA, the public transit system, would tell you to think again.  It isn't good even when it's running at its best, and it hasn't been at its best lately.

Political connections shouldn't be the ticket to getting around hassles like these that ordinary people must face everyday.  Rather than trying to add more comforts to their own privileged lives, politicians should be thinking about how to help other people.  

But what should happen isn't always what does happen.  In 2013, Stack, some relatives, and James Anderson (the head of a big construction firm that often performs services for public agencies in Pennsylvania, and a man whose name appears on the "contributions" schedules of several local politicians' campaign finance filings) reportedly came close to profiting from an interesting land deal.  A company that they owned, known as the Beach Street Corporation, had somehow acquired more than a million square feet of riverfront land at 2001 Beach Street for $1 in September 2008, according to the city's online property tax database.

Casino gambling had been legalized in Pennsylvania in 2004, and two of the casino licenses were mandated to be issued for casino sites in Philadelphia.  Licenses were awarded in December 2006, but controversy persisted over where casinos would be built.  Casino operator Steve Wynn reportedly wanted to buy the Beach Street Corporation's land and, with one of the two Philly licenses, build a casino.  Wynn was slated to pay a lot of money for the site, enough to net many millions of dollars for the Beach Street Corporation's owners.

At some point in the process, Wynn must have noticed that our region would soon have so many casinos that the one he planned might lose money.  (Incidentally, despite recent interest, only one casino, the Sugar House, has been built so far.)  When the Wynn deal fell through, the Beach Street Corporation continued to hold the land.  According to the city's property tax database, it still does.  But without a casino deal in the offing, the site, which is in an area surrounded by old warehouses and industrial sites on the Delaware River side of I-95, wasn't worth anything like what the Wynn deal might have yielded.

In July 2016, State Senator John Sabatina, an ally of Stack's and his successor for his old Senate seat, announced that he had helped steer a state grant for planning for riverfront development to the Delaware River City Corporation (DRCC).  According to the DRCC's webpage, its chairman is former Congressman Robert Borski. James Anderson sits on the DRCC's Board of Directors, which also includes two City agency managers, another from the Port Authority, and a proxy for City Councilman Bobby Henon.  (The board's other members own or manage local businesses.) 

The DRCC is not well-known to people in Northeast Philly despite the influence it wields here.  It will use the grant to update the "master plan" for the Delaware River Greenway.  The Greenway is a public park project many years in the making.  When completed, it's supposed to stretch along the waterfront from Port Richmond to the Bucks County line.

Currently, the Greenway plan doesn't call for it to extend quite so far to the south as the Beach Street Corporation's property.  But plans can change, and Sabatina's grant is intended to pay for changes of some kind in the Greenway plan.  One can easily imagine changes that might favorably impact development prospects for the Beach Street Corporation's idle land. For instance, the Greenway's planned route could be extended to reach the property.  Or plans for access to the Greenway could be changed to favor the property.  Either way, the property's value and development potential would increase.

I don't know whether Stack, his family, or any of his friends are currently the beneficial owners of the Beach Street Corporation, as the Inquirer reported they were in 2013.  But Anderson's name is listed as president of the Beach Street Corporation on the state's corporate entities search page.  And Stack has expressed interest in the recent Greenway grant.  A post on Stack's Twitter account thanked Sabatina "4 securing vital funding 2 update N. Delaware waterfront."

It would be nice to see the Greenway project completed.  It has been talked about for years, but implemented only in spots, and a trail that exists only in spots leaves something to be desired.  A completed riverfront trail would be great for local recreation.  It would attract people to visit and to live in its vicinity.  

Changing plans for the Greenway might actually push its date of completion farther into the future, and cost more money.  Any changes made mainly for the benefit of a few well-placed people could make the plan worse, rather than better, from the public's point of view.  And the idea that public projects might be changed to aid people who know people, rather than the public at large, is objectionable in itself.  The project is supposed to be a Greenway, not anybody's way into the green.

Here's hoping that whatever the DRCC does with its recent grant, and with its plans for the Greenway, is done solely in the public interest and done well.  And here's hoping that Stack has better luck in the future avoiding traffic snarls, even if he didn't gain the right to blow past them.  I'd hate to think that any of the very important things the Lieutenant Governor does might be delayed.

Long Lines and Late Trains: SEPTA Rides Its Passengers

Few should have been surprised when it was revealed last month that the new, custom-made regional rail cars that SEPTA has been purchasing for the last few years to replace its aging fleet all have faulty welds that pose a threat to safe operation.  More surprising is SEPTA's recent claim that its decision to force people to wait through lines to pay fares before even getting to the very late, jam-packed trains during the evening rush hour is an "issue of equity" and "fair treatment."  

Massive overcrowding due to a third of the system's rail cars being out of service made it impossible on some trains for conductors to walk up the aisle, collect fares, and inspect passes.  A SEPTA spokeswoman suggested on the evening news that some riders actually contacted the transit agency to demand that fares be collected for the miserable service being provided.

For the record, I'm not one of the riders who insisted that SEPTA charge for the privilege of riding trains that are often twenty, thirty, or forty minutes late, with all possible space for sitting or standing occupied by sweating, miserable commuters, and with some people turned away and told to wait to pay for similar space on the next late and overcrowded train.  Nor do I know any other riders who demanded that fares be collected.  (The fares, by the way, have been continually raised by SEPTA when energy costs were peaking, but since those costs have come down, SEPTA has never broached the subject of reducing its fares.  It has only postponed another increase.)

Perhaps SEPTA was telling a fib.  No one asked to pay it money.  It just needed a way to collect without having to acknowledge that the payment of full fares would still yield terrible service.  Of course, some people might question whether the cause of "equity" and "fair treatment" is really served by making people pay for a service that isn't worth the cost.  But that, apparently, isn't the kind of equitable treatment SEPTA is concerned about.

SEPTA's board of directors, like those of many other public entities in our region, has long been dominated by people selected for their political connections.  By law, elected officials appoint the board, and appointees aren't required to possess any particular skills.  Without such a requirement, the only criteria that applies to selecting appointees is loyalty to elected officials.  

Alas, toadies and hangers-on may find it challenging to run the complicated public entities they direct.  Buying decent equipment for a railroad sounds like one of many activities involved in running a public transit agency that might be beyond the ken of SEPTA's board. Lately, it has proven to be so.

Why Do Northeast Philly Politicians Want to Bankrupt the Catholic Church?

The monsignor at my parish church in Northeast Philadelphia had some good news to share, more than usual, in fact.  He said that the Catholic Church had lately dodged a bullet aimed at it by state legislators in Harrisburg.  He was partly right about that, for reasons I'll explain below.  

But when the monsignor told the congregation that their calls and letters to local state legislators had, as he put it, "made a difference" in securing the removal of an anti-Church provision from a pending piece of legislation, he was being too kind.  In fact, local legislators ignored their Catholic constituents' calls and letters.  Members of each of the three political factions in our part of Philadelphia who sit in the state legislature-- the Democrats tied to the Boyle brothers, the Democrats connected with John Sabatina, and the Republicans-- all voted wrong on the anti-Church provision.

The provision in question concerns how long a person has to bring a lawsuit against the Church alleging that they were abused before reaching age 18 by a priest or other Church employee.  Current Pennsylvania law gives people twelve years, until they reach age 30, to bring a lawsuit alleging that they were abused as a child.  Both the Pennsylvania House and Senate have passed bills that would give people twenty more years, until they reach age 50, to bring suit against the Church.  The retroactivity provision included in the House bill but omitted from the Senate bill would apply this change not only prospectively to cases that arise in the future but retroactively.  That means that people who have remained silent about abuse they claim to have suffered in the 1970s and 1980s-- people who could no longer sue under current law-- would be allowed to sue the Church now.

If adopted, this anti-Church provision could cause Catholic dioceses across Pennsylvania, including the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, to go bankrupt in the coming years.  Parish churches and schools would fold.  Charity work by a Church that is one of the biggest charitable organizations in the state would be curtailed.  Church property would be sold off to pay creditors.  It seems unthinkable, but it has happened elsewhere, and it could happen here.

It's well known that a child sexual abuse scandal has plagued the Church in recent years.  Over many years, a very small percentage of Catholic priests inflicted serious harm on some children with whom their ministry brought them in contact.  Very rightly, many of those abused as children have sued the Church.  Suits against dioceses throughout Pennsylvania and the country have proliferated in recent years, and many victims have been justly compensated.

As noted above, both the House and Senate bills would give future abuse victims until age 50, rather than age 30, to sue the Church.  20 extra years is a long time by any human measure.  It's an extremely long time when it comes to proving something in court.  Current law hasn't stopped abuse victims from obtaining compensation.  Whatever social stigma used to attach to accusing priests and other authority figures of wrongdoing of this nature is long gone.  People haven't had trouble making accusations in the twelve years the law currently allows.  In fact, some dioceses have gone bankrupt as a result of the many payouts made to abuse victims.

In the case of abuse allegedly perpetrated by a priest, the priest may well have died by the time a person abused as a child reaches age 50, leaving the priest unable to testify in court.  Even if the alleged abuser remains alive, evidence gets stale over time.  Witnesses' memories fade and physical and documentary evidence is lost or destroyed.  The Church and other institutions to which the proposed legal changes will apply will have to keep detailed records dating back an additional 20 years to have any hope of mounting a defense if false claims are made.  

Adding 20 years to the statute of limitations may thus encourage false claims.  But it has the support of both houses of the legislature. The bills they passed were not identical, though, so no bill will be sent to Governor Tom Wolf for his signature unless agreement on identical language is reached. If they manage to agree, Wolf would probably sign the bill into law.

The retroactivity provision in the House bill was left out of the Senate's bill, which resulted in the difference between them.  The bill attracted surprisingly little controversy as it moved through the House months ago.  Church leaders were either not paying attention, or hoped that the bill would fail without their intervention.  Either way, they did not call for a campaign against it, and only a few people who saw its harmful potential contacted their legislators.  When the bill reached the Senate, though, Church leaders like the monsignor told Catholics to call and write to their Senators.  The Senate's Judiciary Committee chose to eliminate the retroactivity provision, and the whole Senate did not restore it before it passed its bill.

The monsignor was right to be happy about the Senate's action, but it didn't fully resolve the retroactivity issue.  The conference committee may still agree to include that anti-Church provision in the bill it sends back to both houses.  Then, it would be up to the Senate to decide whether it could accept the bill with retroactivity included.

Although I think that changing the statute of limitations for cases that arise in the future won't serve the interests of justice, I can understand why it's likely to happen.  The Church waited too long to change its personnel policies to prevent child abuse, and legislators like to be seen to do something about widely publicized problems.  The Church appears to have made the needed changes in is personnel policies to reduce the incidence of abuse, and it can change its recordkeeping policies going forward to at least attempt to protect itself from false claims.

But to change the statute of limitations retroactively is a different matter.  It would expose the Church to much more legal liability than it faces now at the stroke of a pen.  Catholic dioceses across the state may well have discarded records that they would need to defend against allegations of abuse that might have no basis in fact.  Practically anyone who was a child 40 years ago and crossed paths with a now-deceased priest could sue alleging that they were molested way back when.  Often, it would be their word against no one's, with little other evidence available either to support or refute the claim.  The Church would have to litigate endlessly and would lose some cases to fraudulent claimants, with dire consequences for its finances and its future.  In short, retroactively changing the statute of limitations is unfair.  It may also be unconstitutional, and the precedent that such a change would set has worried business groups the members of which think that other statutes of limitation might be retroactively undone in the future.

Until the bill is finally disposed of, Catholics should keep contacting their legislators.  Unfortunately, those in Northeast Philly who have contacted them already have so far been ignored.  Local legislators from three political factions in our area ignored the pleas of their Catholic constituents and cast their votes to include the provision in the bill.

State Senator John Sabatina doubtless received numerous calls and letters as Catholic voters throughout his district were urged to contact him.  Although he is a Church member, Sabatina ignored those pleas.  As a member of Senate Judiciary Committee, he voted to include the retroactivity provision in the legislation.  Luckily, a majority of Sabatina's committee colleagues recognized that the bill was unfair, probably unconstitutional, and likely to wreck the Church, and they voted to remove the retroactivity provision.  When the bill reached the whole Senate, it was clear that most senators would not support putting the retroactivity provision back into the law, but Catholics in Northeast Philly have other senators, not Sabatina, to thank for that.

A Sabatina understudy and another Church member, Matt Darragh, is running for State Representative.  Darragh is a Democratic committeeman in the 66th Ward, where the Democratic Party is led by Sabatina's allies.  One of the two ward leaders there works in Sabatina's office.  The other was Darragh's boss at the state Auditor General's office. (Good luck getting a job in that office straight out of college, as Darragh's website says he did, it you aren't the stooge of such people.) Darragh's campaign appears to rely on groups that also donate to Sabatina, and his published statements conform with positions taken by Sabatina. While Darragh hasn't published a stance on the retroactivity provision, he seems otherwise beholden to Sabatina. I doubt that he would do things differently.

That, however, is no reason to vote for Darragh's opponent Martina White, the incumbent and a Republican.  In the House, she voted to amend the bill to add the obnoxious provision, then voted for it on final passage in the whole House.  The House passed the bill before Church leaders paid much attention to it.  But the people who argued for the bill didn't hide their intention to subject the Church to big damage lawsuits.  The bill's potential to ruin the Church financially should still have been clear to White and to other House members.

But White, also a member of the Church, voted for retroactivity anyway.  Then she feigned surprise when Church leaders grew alarmed as the bill moved to the Senate and told those in attendance at masses to contact their legislators.  "Choking back tears," White told the Philadelphia Inquirer how, after the vote, she faced a hostile reception from priests at some parishes in her district.  Her unconvincing sob story concluded with her accusation that the Church wasn't living up to its reputation for "acceptance and forgiveness."  If White knew or cared that the Church had these qualities, it's a wonder that she voted to bankrupt it.

And what of the third political faction, the Democrats led by Congressman Brendan Boyle and State Representative Kevin Boyle?  The Boyles, too, are Catholics.  But Kevin Boyle voted to add the retroactivity provision to the House bill, then voted for it on final passage.  Like White, Boyle did so before the Church campaigned actively against the bill.  But that doesn't excuse his support for a measure that threatens the earthly existence of the Church, its schools, and its charitable activities in Pennsylvania.  Fifteen of his House colleagues had the courage to stand up against an unfair bill.  He didn't.

What do you make of a situation in which politicians representing every political faction in an area feel free to ignore the interests of a potentially decisively influential bloc of voters?  To me, it's one among many reasons why a new, more responsive political grouping needs to emerge and sweep the three rotten existing ones aside.  Until that happens, voting in local races isn't worth my time or yours.  Once a Boyle Democrat, a Sabatina Democrat, or a Republican from the Northeast gets elected, they care only about a few donors.  Northeast Philly needs an approach to politics that is less about money than about people.  None of these three groups can deliver it.