Inky "darted" for lynching Daylin Leach

If you're a journalist, there's one prize you don't want on your resume.

It's a distinction called a Dart, and the Philadelphia Inquirer received one from the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) for their unmeritorious shafting of state Rep. Daylin Leach. The CJR, arguably the nation's leading review of journalism, dedicated a half-page in its most recent issue to lacerating the Inky for unethical behavior.

Leach represents the Main Line and Upper Merion; for years, the former standup comedian has shared his comic insights on the net with a couple thousand subscribers.

But somehow Leach's political satire missed the notice of the newspaper's Harrisburg correspondent, Mario Cattabiani—until the legislator lodged a few barbs in the reporter's derriere late last summer.

After eight years, Leach's satire was suddenly breaking news, sharing the front page with Hurricane Katrina. In a 1,500-word story, Cattabiani set out to get conservative talking heads foaming at the mouth over Leach's various panty-raid jokes—which also include a hilarious riff about blowing dope with Henry Kissinger.

In the gangbang that followed (two more news stories, a column by John Grogan, an unsigned editorial), the Inquirer never told its readers about the proximate cause of the revelations. It was a vendetta, and CJR concludes their Dart by quoting me: "The Inquirer savaged this young legislator because his satire was hitting the mark: Them."

The breach of ethics was condemned locally by the Allentown Morning Call and the Main Line Times. But at least one sage in the Tower of Truth on Broad Street remains unrepentant.

In his year-end recap, Grogan thanked Leach for topping his list of buffoons and bullies. "Fish in a barrel, Lord; fish in a barrel," crowed Grogan about the turkey-shoot that Leach provided him.

Maybe so, John. But while you and your colleagues low-five yourselves for blasting Leach, your journalistic peers are jeering at you.

Just when it looked like David Auspitz's testes had finally matured, the Zoning Board chief dropped the ball. Again.

In October, I reported that a red-faced and raging Auspitz claimed he'd soon compel the company responsible for hundreds of illegal billboards to appear before him ["A Court of Rubes," Oct 6.].

"You're treating us like rubes," Auspitz bellowed at a flunky lawyer sent in the place of real estate attorney Carl Primavera, who has represented the shadowy North Jersey billboard company for over a decade.

Within 60 days, Auspitz said, all 900-odd billboards would come down, or the company would have to apply for a variance, one-by-one, for each sign it wanted to keep.

But 60 days have passed, the signs remain and a hearing date has not been set. Meanwhile, Primavera is meeting with the city's lawyers about the illegal billboards in talks the city say are confidential.

The good news is that in a recent City Council committee meeting about billboards and alcohol advertising, some councilmen began asking publicly why city lawyers are bargaining over illegal billboards that blight their neighborhoods. In particular, Councilwoman Donna Miller will be asking some tough questions pretty soon.

In November, I wrote how the merchants of the Reading Terminal Market were standing up to City Hall cronies trying to wrest control of the historic market ["Terminal Politics," Nov. 10]. Ricardo Dunston—a campaign contributor to John Street, who also "consults" in retail operations at Philly International Airport—apparently wants to work some of the same magic for merchants of the market.

Dunston, through deputy Paul Steinke, summarily tossed out six "underperforming" merchants, in a move clearly designed to intimidate other merchants into signing a new lease that would let the market management peek into their books.

For the first time ever, merchant leases were not renewed; and instead of being granted the standard lease, each merchant now has to negotiate solo with management.

But in a surprise move, the Merchant Association has turned the tables on management, demanding that they open their books for a forensic audit. At issue are rising fees for security and housekeeping, services now being performed by outside contractors.

At their December meeting, Dunston's board reportedly spent the entire three hours trying to fend off the audit. Meanwhile the intimidation from Steinke, say some merchants, continues.

I've repeatedly asked Steinke and Dunston for comment, but both have declined. And why should they talk, after Steinke received such a sympathetic stroking by Inky columnist Rick Nichols? Wake up, Rick, they're trashing our city's treasure.