Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_Clamer t1_isar9na wrote

Reply to comment by this_shit in The captain of a busy Philly police district is often absent. Yet he’s in line for promotion. by BroadStreetRandy

I agree they aren’t going to the polls to spite Philly residents which was my original point. Sadly yes there is an impressive track record of rural politicians making choices that negatively impact the city, but in general the people in those rural areas aren’t voting for them because of that. Anyways go vote and donate to reasonable candidates in rural areas if you want to see change.

−1

this_shit t1_isawdai wrote

> but in general the people in those rural areas aren’t voting for them because of that.

I mean...

Does it matter if it was 'intentional' or not? If my elected leaders were fucking with the democratic self governance of other parts of the state, I would hold them accountable. When was the last time Philly's legislative delegation got together to take control of York County's schools away from York County voters?

Rural PA voters vote for reactionary ideological blowhards who have long used the power of state government to hurt the prosperity of the state's largest city. You can't call it anything other than what it is.

4

AbsentEmpire t1_isb8pi3 wrote

This is bit disingenuous as rural officials did not seek to take over the Philly school district. The school district declared bankruptcy, the city refused to bail it out, and the state was required to step in. As with any state bailout for a municipality the state gets to appoint oversight of the financial distressed government, which is what it did with the school district.

Are you going to complain about rual officials bailing out the city with PICA next?

1

this_shit t1_isbaigr wrote

SDP did not declare bankruptcy, Act 46 was passed without the support of Philly representatives. Act 46 gave the state the power to unilaterally take over school districts by declaring them 'distressed'. Only Philly was targeted.

More to the point, the SRC was not a receivership because most receiverships end when the financial woes end. The SRC stuck around for ~two decades to implement an unpopular and unwanted program of school privatization that hasn't produced better results for either taxpayers or students (but it did weaken the teacher's union...).

You can disagree, but you can't call me disingenuous. Your analogy to a receivership is just wrong - it's a completely different thing.

Addl important context: the Philly school board was suing the state at the time for violating the civil rights of minority kids because state school funding to the city was so little. The SRC was imposed on Philly to counter the political and legal campaign for more state funding of poor school districts.

1