July 31-August 6, 2003

city beat

Street Talk

Johnny On The Spot: As the race heats up, Street tries to keep his cool. Photo By: Michael T. Regan

What’s on the mayor’s mind?

by Howard Altman

Last Thursday morning, in his City Hall meeting room, John Street waxed political about his re-election, strained relations with his brother, gambling and even blowing off a prime minister. Arriving alone and talking for nearly two hours, the mayor stood up the president to chat with City Paper.

City Paper: Is this a tougher fight than in 1999?

John Street: I think it is a little early to tell for sure, but the signs out there are good. I think people -- in 1999 -- people had no idea, really, how I would be as mayor, always worried about what this guy would be like as mayor, what would this guy be like in a new position? People were comfortable with my role as Council president, working with Ed Rendell and things like that. I think that Katz's campaign in 1999 did a pretty good job of saying you never know who this guy will be. It's a very different campaign now. There is a kind of innuendo --

CP: What kind of innuendo?

JS: Oh you know, will the old John Street show up in the mayor's office? It was interesting, because he has zero record. No record of having done anything and they ran that campaign. I'm not suggesting they crossed the line. I thought they did a good job, but I think it is different now. There are people who come to me every day who saw a snow plow in their neighborhood for the first time in 50 years, or their life was miserable because of a drug corner or because of abandoned cars or because, you know, any number of things. There are areas of this city that have huge, huge, huge problems -- lack of attention to certain kinds of detail in the neighborhood. I grocery shop on Delaware Avenue and I can't go in that store without someone saying thank you for something. And that makes it very different. This time, Sam has to come up with a plan or a platform and he has not shown anything. He spends his time reading the paper looking at what you guys are writing and what others are writing and looking to find what his stance of the day is, what his story of the day is. That's not going to work. People want more. I spend a lot of time out on the street and people are really concerned about the global issues, but the one thing they want to know, how is the quality of life going to change? How is it going to improve?

CP: You expressed surprise at the amount of money that Sam has been able to raise. What does that say?

JS: It says he's a Republican. Look at the amount of money Republicans have raised nationally and they all out-raise Democrats. Sam is a prolific fundraiser. His top 18 contributors have donated an average of $92,500 apiece. And most of them are people that Sam runs to and is able to talk them out of a lot of money. I don't know if it says anything more than that.

CP: Does it worry you at all?

JS: No, it doesn't worry me. I mean, well, yeah, you always have to be concerned about money. Money is an important factor. I will have as much money as I need. I won't be lacking for money. We will all set new records for funding. Rendell spent $42 million being elected governor. We will all set new records and Sam will probably outspend me. He spends all his time raising money. He's been raising money for the past three and a half years. [In] December 1999, Sam Katz went to the Pennsylvania Society and was walking around as the loser of the general election that had just happened, saying, "I am running in '03." All he has been doing in the course of last three and a half years is preparing to run for mayor, making his contacts, arranging for his funding and his finances. And [business advocacy organization Greater Philadelphia First, where Katz served as chief executive] gave him a big boost. They gave him a job, gave him a good salary. [They] let him run around and do almost anything that he wanted to do, completely unsupervised and uncontrolled. A lot of his failed business ventures happened during that time and he was largely getting ready to run against the mayor.

CP: Do you think he is a bad businessman?

JS: I am waiting to hear about his first successful business venture. Maybe I just don't know. I don't know of one successful business venture. I don't know one successful job -- he created a job for himself -- but I don't know one successful job that was created by my Republican opponent. He started a lot of businesses. Most of them are out of Philadelphia and most of them have been failed businesses, right on up to his effort to get the Byberry site and put in one of those recreational facilities and they ran him out of the Northeast. [laughs] They just wouldn't let him do it.

CP: You've been criticized for pay to play. Will Sam Katz be beholden to the Republican Party?

JS: He is going to be beholden to a whole lot of people, including the folks in Washington who are supporting him and raising a whole lot of money. Including the [State House Speaker] John Perzel faction of the Republican Party that is supporting him and helping him raise money. And those people who are writing some pretty hefty checks. He has a lot of nerve criticizing anybody on pay for play. He has a long history, I am talking about a 15- [to] 20-year history of being involved in pay for play. Running around, getting contributions. Most of his business deals -- he's not a businessman, he's like a dealmeister -- most of his so-called business deals are with local municipalities that he has developed a political connection with and gave them campaign contributions. That's just a way of life. I looked at his filings and he's gotten money, big money, from all the law firms and the people you go to traditionally to get money.

CP: How is that different from what you do?

JS: Not so much different at all. Everybody is raising money largely the same way. I raise money just like he raises money just like Ed raises money. Just like all the other people who raise money.

CP: What do you say to people when you are asking for money?

JS: I need help. I want to be re-elected. I think I have done a good job. The city is in probably better fiscal shape than almost any other city in the country. We are challenged by the economy just like everybody else and I say we have a great program for the city. We have done a good job and I'd like their help. I will tell you, in 1999, as well as 2003, I don't sell off any positions in the city. I don't get campaign contributions in return for appointments. Never bartered a piece of business, positions on boards. I don't do that.

CP: How are things with you and your brother, Milton, right now?

JS: They're fine.

CP: Is he still going to sue you? Do you talk about that much?

JS: Ah, no. How long have you been knowing him?

CP: What's that?

JS: How long have you been watching Milton?

CP: Since I have been here.

JS: A long time.

CP: A long time.

JS: Do you know what Milton is going to do? I don't know what Milton is going to do. He's a great guy. He's worked real hard. But I am comfortable with my decision. And he has to make his decision.

CP: How often do you get together?

JS: I talked to Milton twice this week.

CP: How many times you get together for a big family deal?

JS: Oh, we get together for most holidays. We don't get together every Sunday.

CP: Back in January, your old friend Carl Singley posited a mathematical analysis of the race. He asked that of the 51 percent of the people who voted for John Street, how many will vote for you again? And, of the 49 percent of the people who voted for Sam Katz, how many of those people will vote for Katz again? He thought that showed you are going to have a tough time. What do you think of that analysis?

JS: I have no idea what he thinks those numbers say.

CP: He thinks they show you are in trouble. He says that a significant number of that 51 percent who supported you will support Katz this time.

JS: [pauses] It's all raw speculation. Self-serving speculation. [laughs] He doesn't any basis for making any conclusions like that. If that's his opinion, that's his opinion. I think it is sort of ridiculous. But that's his opinion and he is entitled to it.

CP: Did you read that interview?

JS: I did not.

CP: You don't read a whole lot of press, do you?

JS: I read some. But I did not read that interview. That was not an interview that was going to add anything to my day.

CP: Let's talk about slots. Do they belong here?

JS: Yes. It is time for us to have -- I like to say, gambling when appropriately done is appropriate for the city of Philadelphia. There is too much gambling around and people are doing to gamble and they are going to New Jersey, they are going to Delaware. They are going everywhere around us and there is just a lot of money in it and we have too many people who leave the city and go to other places and gamble, and there is a huge amount of tax revenue involved.

CP: Where should the slots be?

JS: I think we are going to have to take a good look at that. They shouldn't be at the Convention Center.

CP: Why?

JS: There shouldn't be slots at a convention center. You have people who come to a convention, even the show managers and exhibitors won't want slots. They'll be down there trying to do their stuff and some people will be downstairs, playing slots.

CP: Where might be better?

JS: There is a location at the Navy Yard that is under consideration for a racino. I would want to see a little bit of a study, I would get the planning commission involved and you know, get other folks involved and try to find a place. You have to worry about amenities and transportation and all of that and I wouldn't want to try and speculate in the vacuum of not having someone with a real study, including seeing what happened in other cities and making sure it is not a nuisance.

CP: How would it be a nuisance?

JS: Traffic. These things would draw a lot of traffic, draw strangers into the city. There are people who might come here from out of town, I just don't know. This is something we want to take a little bit of time to study.

CP: Is there a study under way now?

JS: There are people who are looking at it. We don't have a formal process. They are looking at the Navy Yard, sites with proximity to Center City. I know people who are talking about 12th and Market streets. There are people running around now taking options on properties on the waterfront.

CP: That happened years ago and it stalled waterfront development because people were waiting for the riverboats.

JS: I know people who still have options. I know of one property owner who sold an option for millions and millions of dollars and it still might be a valid option.

CP: So we might see something on the waterfront?

JS: I think that is possible. I don't want to do too much speculating about that. You really need to bring in the professionals. Look at New Orleans' experience and other experiences and figure out where the best place is to situate this. How much parking should they have? Is there an additional security risk?

CP: The New Orleans experience is interesting. Not only did they have financial problems --

JS: A couple of riverboats went right out of business

CP: Right. And the governor had problems with corruption because a lot of casino-boat operators were his pals, which brings me to a question: How should operators get licenses? Can there be an auction for these licenses?

JS: I think the governor contemplates a gaming commission, a five- or seven-member gaming commission. And I think those are the people who would be responsible for licensing.

CP: You're the mayor. What criteria would you like to see?

JS: We are not quite at that point. The first thing I am going to do is take a look at the experience of other communities and entities that license these. The first thing to do is look at how other municipalities deal with gambling in other states. This is going to be an activity that has a fair amount of state regulation. I don't know yet how much local control we will have over it. We will get a certain amount of revenue out of it. I know we will have a whole lot to say about where they are placed. A lot of these issues are going to be controlled by the state.

CP: How far along is the planning?

JS: I think the planning commission is informally looking around and trying to figure out what standards and guidelines to use for site selection. I know that a racino -- there's been a fair amount of work done on putting a horse track at the Navy Yard. You need a good deal of land. We looked at a central site and there's actually been talk about making sure that it is centrally located so it does not interfere with waterfront development. So, there is a lot of working going on.

CP: How does Philadelphia Park factor into this? Can you both survive? The racing industry has been hammered.

JS: I don't know. All I know is we are getting ready to jump into this thing in a much more significant way. There is a commitment to make sure that there are slots at racetracks. There is also a preliminary plan -- the state senate has a huge problem with all of this. We don't know the extent to which there are going to be the votes for this. It passed in the house, but it is my understanding that the senate might not pick this stuff up again until September.

CP: Is the city actively lobbying the senate?

JS: We are supportive of slots, sure. We would like to get $100 million of resident wage-tax reduction out of this. We would like to get something additional. Part of [John Perzel's] plan is that you fund the Convention Center expansion out of that revenue so we don't have to force the general fund from having to pick up a local share.

CP: Have you heard much concern from restaurateurs or other business people about this?

JS: We actually haven't heard a whole lot about that. We are just very, very clear that we will fight vigorously any great big huge gambling facility that is proposed that would be giving away food and otherwise interfering with the restaurant industry. We don't want to compete with Las Vegas, Atlantic City. That's not where we are. We are going to do what we do. We want to be basically the same family-friendly kind of historical town that we have always been. We would just like to have a little touch of gambling.

CP: Will we see John Street at the slots? Do you gamble at all?

JS: [laughs] I have gambled. I might take $10 worth of quarters or $20 or something like that. When it is gone it is gone.

CP: Ever win a big pot?

JS: I may have won $50 once, then I put $20 back. I am not a gambler. I gamble a little bit less than I drink. Not very much.

CP: The Convention Center deal must be a great relief.

JS: Ah, it is a relief. It is a relief to the Commonwealth, to the region and to the city. It is just unfortunate that the Republicans played what amounts to a very political game with the city. This thing could have been done last September. And unlike some other people, you know, I had a standard and I knew exactly the kind of deal that could be struck and needed to be struck and always agreed and understood that. It just really took 10 months too long.

CP: How come it didn't get done back then?

JS: Because of the Republicans. Sam Katz was in it, he went to John Perzel, he went to [carpenters union head] Ed Coryell and said, you don't have to sign, we'll take care of you.

CP: You know Sam Katz went to Perzel and Coryell?

JS: Oh yeah. They all talked about it. It was a Republican conspiracy in Harrisburg.

CP: And Sam is to blame?

JS: He is a part of it, yes. There was a concern that this was a really, really good thing that would help the mayor. Because Michael Nutter was his pick to be the chairman of the Convention Center authority. They were going to take this thing over after the general election and Coryell didn't have to worry about signing this [agreement] because they were going to work out a new deal and they were going to take care of him. They didn't understand what they were dealing with. This could have been done last September. Part of the reason why the carpenters signed and everyone signed is because they didn't have any place to go.

CP: How much business did this cost the city, because the reputation of the Convention Center is pretty bad?

JS: That is a lot of speculation.

CP: If you can't speculate --

JS: It is harder. We had 9/11, we had SARS, we got a bad economy. Corporations and people aren't travelling. They aren't doing the things they were going to do. So, there are about four circumstances that played into the downturn in business. I am not trying to minimize the effect of a bad labor/management situation, but I am just saying, you can't know that with any degree of certainty.

CP: Maybe not specifically, but can you talk about whether this exacerbated an already bad situation?

JS: Oh, absolutely. Every time we got a bad article or every time an exhibitor complained, or left out of here saying, "Oh, I think it cost too much," or, "It was such a hassle dealing with the unions" or when people said, "Maybe I'll go to Las Vegas instead," and there were some people who started canceling. A lot of cancellations were years out. There's a lot of speculation. The new agreement starts getting touted and some of those people are going to come right back. They love the city. They love the building. You know, they just didn't like some of the rules and work environment, but those people will be back.

CP: When do you anticipate construction might be completed on the expansion?

JS: I don't want to start speculating on that. I think that it will be probably five years.

CP: Let's talk about Aramark and other companies whose leases are set to expire. How are the negotiations to keep them?

JS: They are going like they always go. These are companies that are looking to get any economic advantage they can get and we are working with the Commonwealth.

CP: What can you do to keep them here?

JS: We can give them economic development assistance. Give them low interest loans. Do a bunch of things. Give them grants. Give them money. We compete with a lot of other places. We compete with Delaware. We compete with New Jersey. Inevitably, we end up competing with other states. We typically don't compete with other cities, which is very different.

CP: Is that because this state doesn't get behind Philadelphia?

JS: The state works with us, but the state has money problems too.

CP: But the state would also be a loser if Aramark or any of the other large companies left.

JS: The Commonwealth is in it with us.

CP: But are they in it as much as other states?

JS: We have never -- there is an expectation that the city would be able to keep these businesses in the city. And people that we compete with offer incentives and economic development packages that are developed by the states. In other words, when we compete, when you hear that a company is threatening to move to Camden, we aren't competing with Camden. We are competing with the state of New Jersey. The state of New Jersey is trying to get them and we have always known in order for us to compete, we have to have a partnership with the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth has to come in and that usually happens. That will happen in these situations.

CP: One of the things that Sam Katz touts is that instead of giving individualized tax breaks, eliminate the wage tax. There has been some bad news of late in terms of the budget surplus.

JS: That is so interesting. People act like I didn't give my last three budget addresses. They act like they woke up one day and said, "Oh my God, the surplus is disappearing." I have been saying that for probably six weeks to two months after getting into office. I instituted a hiring freeze. We started preparing for this two and a half years ago. People saw the headlines -- one of the headlines said, "The Economy is Catching Up to the City." [laughs] I have been saying this almost since day one. People are running around acting like this is news. We have a whole plan. We are going to reduce payroll by 2,500 people. I got rid of 50 people in the mayor's office. And they are acting like this is news. This is not news. All they have to do is look at what Ed Rendell is facing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to know this is not news. We are a little bit better prepared to handle it. In New York, they are laying off cops, laying off firefighters, closing fire stations, closing police stations and closing facilities. We have states in this nation that are releasing prisoners, cutting afterschool programs.

CP: Let's focus on the wage tax. With reduced revenues, is it more difficult to cut?

JS: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely it becomes more difficult. We have to make a decision, right? We all end up making these decisions. We decided that we were going to continue with the tax-reduction program and we were going to shrink the size of the government and we are working on all of that right now and some of it is going to be less painful than others, and others will be more painful. We have this whole crop of city employees who are exiting the government as a result of the DROP program and we will not be doing any rehiring. We won't be refilling those jobs.

CP: The front page of our paper today [July 24, 2003] is about the DROP program, created by Ed Rendell, that will end up costing the city $700 million. It is out of control. [Finance Director] Janice Davis said you will get rid of this program --

JS: We will ultimately end the DROP program.

CP: When?

JS: I don't know. It will probably be in the next six months. I don't want to start being the finance director but we will end the program.

CP: How devastating is the DROP program to the budget?

JS: I wouldn't want to comment. I would want to get briefed by the Finance Department about the long-term economic impact. We are confident that we can handle it, but we are not going to renew obviously the program and we won't rehire and we won't fill those the slots and we will downsize the government and make it possible to continue with our roughly $350 million worth of cost reductions in the current five-year plan.

CP: Is it fair to say DROP is dead?

JS: It is not dead until --

CP: But you will eliminate it?

JS: Yes, we will end the DROP program.

CP: Any concern about the union fallout? They love this thing.

[Street shakes his head in the negative.]

CP: Have they approached you and asked you to keep it?

JS: No.

CP: I have been critical about your lack of participation in the Corporate Council on Africa biennial summit that took place in Philadelphia in 2001. Can you talk about your lack of participation?

JS: I participated. I am aware that I participated. There was nothing I wasn't involved in on a daily basis. One of the concerns that we all have here is that local government has a responsibility to provide basic services. We are responsible for cleaning up the trash, providing a modicum of recreation and social services, those are the things we focus on, those very basic goals and objectives. Yeah, we have people in our city from all over the world and yeah, we are concerned with a whole lot of issues, but we are really concerned on our focus here.

CP: What upset me is that this was a chance to help foster economic ties between the continent and the city of Philadelphia, where the port and the airport are uniquely positioned to be a direct hub to Africa and that according to the Corporate Council on Africa, there could be a billion dollars of revenue for our region on the line. So it is not just a concept, this would be a great benefit to the city.

JS: We do a lot of that and we do foreign [trade], we do missions, we had a trade mission sponsored by the city's Commerce Department. We need to do that activity in conjunction with the state. We really have to work with the state. You can get yourself into -- there are some very, very sensitive issues and we have to work within the framework of that and I think we have done a very, very good job.

CP: You were supposed to be at a ceremony honoring the prime minister of Cote d'Ivoire and you didn't show up. What kind of message does it send when the leader of our city doesn't show up for something that could help foster business ties?

JS: Let me tell you something. You can't imagine the number of meetings I have with a number of heads of nations, a lot of them African nations, a lot of them Caribbean nations, that come here. A lot sit right here in this room. We actually do a fair amount. Just talk to [First Deputy Commerce Director] Mjenzi Traylor and find out the amount of that work we do.

CP: Should Philadelphia be a hub for flights to and trade with Africa?

JS: We should be a hub for whatever businesses we can generate. And I don't want to overlook our investment of $500 million in the international terminal [at Philadelphia International Airport]. We will want to make the best use of that and we should. Our Commerce Department should work with the state Commerce Department and we should work with the federal government and we should do was much as we possibly can. But I tell you, we end up having to work within a different framework that we don't always control because a lot of the work that has to be done can't be done by city alone. Since I have been mayor, we work with the Chamber of Commerce to develop these missions and make sure we are where we need to be when we need to be there. But this isn't anything -- the city can be a partner in all this and in some cases we can be an instigator in all this -- but this is one of those things we would like to do better and more of because we think we will have a better working relationship with the state.

CP: What's the city's position on Fastship?

JS: We support Fastship.

CP: Do you know when that might develop?

JS: I don't know. I would love to see it happen. I have been to meetings and was briefed on Fastship. When I was in Washington, probably in the last three weeks, meeting with the regional congressional delegation, Fastship came up. I don't know. So hard to say.

CP: Anything I didn't ask you?

JS: One thing people should focus more on is substance. I have an opponent who doesn't seem to have one plan about anything. He reads you guys then runs around and he criticizes. That's all he does, criticize. Like I said, maybe he's told you guys some things that he hasn't told me or hasn't told the general public. I think somebody really ought to look at his business deals, because everything is out there. Everything that I have ever said or done in the last 25 years is known to the public but people don't know very much about Sam Katz. They don't know where he is from and [the press] doesn't seem too interested in looking into that.

CP: What specifically about his business deals needs greater examination?

JS: He sells himself as -- he says, "I'm qualified to be the mayor of this city because I am a businessperson. I am a businessperson and I think we should run it like a business." Here is a guy who says he wants to be the mayor of the fifth largest city in the country, and it is going to continue to be the fifth largest city in the country --

CP: Forget about Phoenix?

JS: Right, the fifth largest city in the country, and I ask, name one business that he has run. Just one. Name me one business that he's run that had more than three employees or four employees. People come up to me and I know these people. "You give money to Sam. Name one business he's run." They can't name a single business that he's ever run. They can't name a job that he has ever created. He wants to create the idea that he is this businessperson. I don't know any business that he has run. You tell me. I know he talks a whole lot about doing this, that and the other, but I don't know one thing that he has ever done. I don't know one thing. The only thing I know that he ever did was run for mayor. And governor. And in the interim he just disappears. He largely disappears and prepares for what he is going to run for next.

CP: This race seems more intense, clearly.

JS: You know. I had an exhaustive primary in 1999. Probably the most expensive primary in the history of this city.

CP: Quite entertaining.

JS: Yeah. I think the mayoral primary gave Sam a little bit of an advantage in that he didn't have to go through what we had to go through and I had to survive all of that. And I had to get beat up for four months. All right? And I think Sam got a free ride out of some of that stuff. People weren't paying any attention. And I don't know why people shouldn't pay attention. I don't know why people shouldn't pay attention to what he is saying and what he is doing.

CP: We speculated about the future of Frank Keel after his wife wrote a letter to the Daily News. Is Frank going to remain with the campaign?

JS: Don't know.

CP: Is there a possibility he might be asked to leave?

JS: There is a possibility that he might go.

CP: Of his own volition or your choice?

JS: I don't supervise him. I don't micromanage the campaign.

CP: Do you think he should go?

JS: I don't know. Whether or not he should go depends on a whole lot of things. I hold him responsible for the actions of his wife. He knew or should have known [that his wife used her maiden name and a business address to send a letter blasting Sam Katz]. And he is responsible for that. On the other hand, I don't know of the things that he does that are good things that might offset that. I am not responsible over there for monitoring, but I know there is still a chance that he might be out of here.

CP: You are the boss. So do you want him gone?

JS: I will entertain that recommendation. But I do not think, at least in my mind at this point, what he did was definitely enough to say, "You're gone."

CP: If you do replace him, will it be with someone from Philadelphia?

JS: A mixed bag. This is a very specialized job. You have people who do this and this is what they do. And you have a group of professionals who tend to move around. If I got a recommendation that we should hire person X out of Washington or Chicago -- I mean, we have a media guy out of Chicago, he is a great guy. If we had a local person who was equally talented, we would probably go local.

CP: Clearly, your campaign in 1999 was rescued by people from outside.

JS: I don't know what rescued means.

CP: In the early going, the campaign was in disarray. Then when the folks from Chicago came in, your story was getting out better.

JS: I don't know. You might be in a better position to make that judgment because I am up real close to it and in some respects, I have to put blinders on. I can't try to be the media guy and all those things. You gotta be responsible, but on the other hand you have to be a candidate. I can't take it upon me to go get all the clips and read all the clips. And be in the meetings to figure out how to respond.

CP: You'd go nuts.

JS: As a matter of fact, there is a great story that gets told about [former] President Clinton. At least in the beginning of his administration he was real sensitive about news coverage. He would get up and demand the clips early and read through everything and then they couldn't even get him through his day because he was so busy telling people who to call, let's get this information out, and he got caught up in it. I just think you can't do that. You have to get yourself a team and you have to work through these things. That is just the way it is. You just have to let some of it go. There are people who have a responsibility to be all over every dot and tee and there are people who are good at it, whether they are local or not. Look what happened yesterday to that councilman in New York [a city councilman was shot to death in City Hall by a political rival]. Not to take you off on a tangent, and I know how it is being in a legislative body, you have to make sure you do everything you can. There is always stuff happening, people call you, they write stuff, they say stuff. You have to make sure you are on top of it, but you can't let it control your life.

CP: Speaking of New York, when I walked into City Hall this morning about 7:30 a.m., the officer downstairs didn't even give me a glance. The guy upstairs was very nice and said, "Hi, how are you doing?" Do you have any security concerns or worries?

JS: Well, everybody knows who Howard Altman is.

CP: But do you have any concerns?

JS: The managing director yesterday walked reporters through our plans.

CP: Well, those are reactions to 9/11.

JS: Some are reactions to 9/11, but it is also out of a general concern. I was in City Council for 19 years and it's not the first time a council member has been injured.

CP: Just ask John Street and Franny Rafferty.

JS: You worry about that. It's just kind of in the back of your mind but there is only so much you can do. A certain part of it is the risk of the business. It may not be as risky as being a Philadelphia police officer, but it is a little more risky [than being an average citizen].

CP: Do your kids or wife ever say, "Hey dad, we're worried about you"?

JS: I have had that. I don't ever want it to get in any story -- [goes off the record] There is a certain amount of risk, but it is something you live with.

CP: Do you worry about your family?

JS: You know, you always worry about it. There have been about a half-dozen incidents over the year when I get a call saying, "Go to the school, you better go check on your son." Then I run over to the school and check. Part of the reason why I don't travel around and I don't bring my children around is that you really want to keep them in the background, because you don't want people to start focusing on them. Some people really get -- turn that off please. [goes off the record again]

CP: Why not greet the president today?

JS: It would have taken an awful lot of time. I would have had to go all the way out to the airport, travel all the way out there, put off my meeting with you

CP: That would be unfortunate

JS: You know what I mean and I have two, three other events I have to do. People are all expecting me. If I call you and say I can't make it, you are going to understand. But now I have two more meetings and I got a couple of other things that are happening today and they ain't happening tomorrow. And the president will be gracious. I will stand right there and meet him when get gets off the plane and I will follow his car out there and I will sit out there in the audience and he will recognize me in the office and I will be out there three or four hours. That's a lot of time.

CP: He'll be back. Next week, the week after. It's an important state.

JS: It is a big state.

CP: He has some concerns and troubles.

JS: Well, I don't mean any disrespect, 'cause I usually go. I suppose if I didn't have so much traveling to do after. If he was going to do something a little more local

CP: The Northeast is so far.

JS: He's not even going to Philadelphia County. Where he is going is out of the county. I think it is in Bucks County. Landing in our airport, but traveling to someone else's district.

CP: Let's talk education.

JS: We took a big chance. You are either going to fund it -- we are not going to continue to have you not fund it then cut off our legs, then accuse us of not being able to walk. You are going to have to come here and get involved and be in the position today where we are. We have a [School District CEO] Paul Vallas here and an SRC [School Reform Commission] and the city has a very substantial and legitimate role in running our schools and all that enhanced school funding and when you compare where we were when I became mayor, I think that is a huge accomplishment. They wanted to give credit to John Perzel and those people in Harrisburg, but their plan was to have Edison running our schools. That was their plan. Their plan was not to have the SRC and give the city its say and recruit a top-notch CEO. Their plan was to turn it over to Edison. That was their plan and thank God it didn't happen. It would have been a disaster.

CP: How are you going to reduce auto insurance?

JS: We think that we have made a great case to the insurance commission and our case is pending right now.

CP: What's your argument to the commission?

JS: Our argument is -- there are a number of different arguments, but the number of people taking limited tort [limiting your right to sue for damages or pain and injury in return for reduced insurance premiums] in the city of Philadelphia is significant. My understanding is, and I am talking off the top of my head and I don't always like to do that, with the caveat, there are about 500,000 people who are paying insurance and roughly two-thirds of them have limited tort. They have never gotten an appropriate reduction in rates commensurate with the reduced risk insurance companies take when people opt for limited tort.

CP: Like me. It's ridiculous.

JS: That's right, it's ridiculous. And so the risk is down. Premiums have not been lowered in a way that is comparable to the reduced risk and there are a number of things we cited that we feel justify a pretty hefty reduction in insurance rates. We have a great opportunity to reduce insurance rates. We have a Live Stop program that has taken thousands and thousands of cars off the streets and the Police Department has worked to reduce the number of auto thefts and if you start thinking about it, I mean, we get these automobile insurance rates down, and improve the schools, and no question that the schools are better and they are certainly headed in the right direction. You have $100 million of wage tax reduction, pursuant to the Rendell plan. Our city on the crime front is clearly headed in the right direction. We made a major investment in public safety and open-air drug markets aren't operating anymore. We are attracting capital to the neighborhoods in this city in unprecedented ways. Look at the Citizens Bank commitment. We are now attracting capital out into the neighborhoods. Mortgages. A lot of that is working off the NTI [Neighborhood Transformation Initiative]. We have cleaned up these neighborhoods in a significant way. This thing is headed in the right direction.

CP: Let's get back to insurance. When do you expect a ruling?

JS: Some time in the next 30 days.

CP: Any indication of how that might go?

JS: I don't want to start speculating. You know how that is.

CP: Let's say they move in favor of the city. What does that mean to motorists?

JS: What that means is, probably sometime in the next year, we are going to see reductions go into effect. Your next insurance bill is going to be lower. And these insurance companies are regularly petitioning for increases, so the fact that we have this petition out there is serving as a deterrent from them coming in and asking for more money.

CP: Any chance that insurance companies might decide not to insure in Philadelphia if they lose?

JS: No, there is just too much business out there. You will get some of them that will do that, but the big insurance companies have to write in this city. Let the insurance companies try to redline the city. That's a whole different problem.

CP: See you in court. Thanks, mayor.