recent developments

[desh]

Yesterday was a great day for Philadelphia! The Phillies and Michael Nutter both won! I was at the baseball game, listening to news radio and updating Lesley and flyinbutrs and dredpiraterober on the election results, just as Brett Myers blew a save for his first time ever. A few minutes later, when the three of them were all debating whether to stay for potential extra innings, dredpiraterober said, "It won't matter, this guy [Ruiz] will hit a homer." And he was quite right. I usually disagree with him almost all of the time, but I gotta give credit where due.

Mayor Nutter. I can get used to the sound of that. But Mr. Nutter, I voted for you because of your record and rhetoric for going against the status quo and the corruption for the good of the city. [Assuming you win the general election, which I guess is technically not a definite thing yet,] I'm going to hold you to that.

Also, for Ballot Question #1, the "Yes"es won by a score of 835 to 359, or 70% in favor. The total vote on this question was about 0.4% of the total vote for mayor. The official, legal text of this question: "REMOVED BY COURT ORDER". (For the record, I was one of the 835.)

EDIT: I can't believe I forgot to post this! In Tom Knox's concession speech, he said (and I believe this is a direct quote) "I vowed to spend whatever it takes to take the 'For Sale' sign down off of City Hall." This man spent over ten million dollars of his own money in this campaign, while all the other candidates were severely limited by local campaign finance laws. I'm glad this man, who apparently has no sense of irony, will not be our mayor.

Comments

[evr1bugsme.livejournal.com]

Yes, you put police where there is crime. But a big problem that I have with Nutter's plan is that the rules apply to EVERYONE in his zones. It's not just about additional cops, which yes, it makes sense to distribute where they are most needed. But, in general, or, at least in theory, if 5 or 50 cops are in your neighborhood and you aren't doing anything you should be fine. I think if 50 cops are in a neighborhood AND there are these additional restrictions on people AND it is easier for cops to stop people, you have a much lower chance of being left alone. And yes, clearly, living in a neighborhood gripped by shootings also gives you a lower than average chance of being left alone.

I don't think you have to treat every neighborhood the same. Quite simply, I don't think it is necessary to stop crime by breaking (or bending to almost the point of breaking) the law. I think it is entirely possible to address crime without infringing on peoples' civil liberties to that degree. And yes, education is a part of that. Nutter also supports other parts of that, like more job opportunities for former prisoners and working on decreasing recidivism. That's great! I want more of that.

Living in fear that you can be shot because your neighborhood is unsafe is not fair. I just don't see the cost-benefit value in adding some more unfairness, the targeted restriction of rights. (Basically, sure, it may work, but at what cost? I'm not willing to pay that cost, and I think it's pretty interesting that people in those neighborhoods also do not seem eager to pay it.)

[desh]

I wonder how the people in the highest crime areas did vote. I haven't seen stats on that yet.