NEWS . Citizen Mom

You've Got to Pay to Play

Philly's budget crisis has secondary effects on suburbanites.

Published: Mar 11, 2009

If there's been one thing even less fun this week than listening to New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's brutal state budget address on Tuesday, it's been watching Philadelphia's ongoing money struggle. For those of us who don't live in the city but count it as a vital resource for work, play and the all-important "culture," Philadelphia's fortunes lie close to our hearts.

Over here, there's ominous talk of a two-day furlough for state workers, but most people can more easily run down a list of the deep cuts and higher taxes Mayor Nutter has threatened — first the libraries, then the city pools, then a possible trash fee. (That last idea, potentially workable but clearly not thought out, went in the Dumpster on Monday.) It's all over local media — Philly, after all, is the area's dominant economic and cultural engine.

ADVERTISEMENT

Looking at the issue from across the bridge, it's hard to make judgments about what taxes the city should raise or which services it should cut. Many choices — pools or parks, libraries or homeless shelters, trash removal or a successful tourism campaign — will hurt city residents, especially the most vulnerable ones, most acutely.

But they have secondary effects for those of us who love the city but don't live within its borders. Closing a library may not hurt us, but an increased commuter tax would. Closing a city pool in July isn't going to keep me out of Philly, but dirty streets will. It's taken the city years to shake that "Filthydelphia" image; cutting back on sanitation is a surefire way to keep suburbanites, and our money, away. The increased fees for parking meters in Center City, at $2 per hour and set to increase to $3 in July, are already rapidly eroding my Smart Card, and this on top of the $4 Delaware River Port Authority cover charge just to cross the bridge.

Of course, at this point you're thinking, "OK, then stay in the suburbs," which sounds about right until you actually think about what would happen if all my brethren from the 'burbs suddenly kept all of our parking, eating, drinking and museum-going dollars in New Jersey. Yes, it would be easier to find a parking spot on First Friday in Old City, and there would likely be fewer drunks peeing in alleys off Main Street in Manayunk. But beyond that, a vital stream of revenue for the city would dry up.

There are certain cuts that would undoubtedly keep suburbanites away. Losing more than 500 family shelter beds in the city isn't going to affect my home in the suburbs, but the homeless are everyone's problem. Proposed cuts to the city's prisons would require reducing the inmate population by 300, combined with possible Police Department cutbacks it means fewer officers and more criminals on the street. A 1 percent increase in the city's amusement tax would hit everyone who travels into the city for concerts, movies, plays and sporting events. Next time you're sitting in traffic trying to get out of the sports complex after a game, take a minute to count all the New Jersey plates and think about what happens if everyone in South Jersey decides it's cheaper to stay home and watch on TV.

Potential cuts to the Fairmount Park's budget are a special area of concern. Last week's City Paper included dire scenarios for what could happen if the Fairmount Park Commission is forced to cut as much as 30 percent from its budget. Reductions of just 10 percent would mean fewer public restroom hours, 20 percent cuts could see 13 of the city's tourist-magnet fountains dry up, and at 30 percent, all the city's historic mansions and JFK Plaza would close and more than 100 parks employees would lose their jobs.

Again, the city's ultimately got to do what it's got to do, but cutting back on things that draw people like me across the bridge doesn't seem logical. What might make more sense is to begin charging a fee of some kind for use of the city's parks, for example the jogging and running trails along Wissahickon Creek. Uh-oh, I can hear my relatives in Roxborough screeching in protest already.

Actually this is an area where Philly could learn something from its neighbor across the river. Here in New Jersey, we're already used to so-called "user fees," the most common being the infamous beach tag. Tourists and residents alike love to squawk about having to pay for even a reasonably priced beach badge, even though many towns use the proceeds to pay for lifeguards and maintenance crews. But for as much as people complain, given the choice between clean beaches and free beaches, most people are willing to pay. When it comes to keeping Fairmount Park clean, beautiful and accessible, the same principle might apply.

Amy Z. Quinn blogs at citizenmom.net.

Comments

It sounds to me like you expect Philadelphians to put suburbanites before actual city residents. Your post reeks of elitism and I don't mean the GOP definition of 'elitism' which seems to encompass anybody with more than a high school education.

I live in a state which has a very high number of out-of-state winter visitors; we welcome their money but if a snowbird made to me the kind of suggestions you are making, by virtue of the reasoning, 'I don't live here but I spend money here!', my retort would be 7 letters long and would begin with "F" and end with "U".
by r€nato on March 16th 2009 2:40 PM

TANSTAAFL

Whine, whine, whine Parking whine, whine, whine, Bridge Toll whine, whine, whine, I want culture and infrastructure but don't want to pay for it whine, whine, whine. I have the right to drag 2 tons of metal with me where-ever I go for free. whine, whine, whine, tax the minor healthy activities like jogging and beaches but don't touch the car (elephant) in the room.

Whiner, you could take one of the Septa trains, join humanity, and save on the precious parking and gas money.

Or you could remain being a stuck up Gary Numan in his Cars Video,

Here in my car
I feel safest of all
I can lock all my doors
It's the only way to live
In cars


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldyx3KHOFXw


by Charles on March 16th 2009 3:52 PM

Really? The homeless are everybody's problem? Actually, the homeless are people. Homelessness is a problem. Also, you could save a bunch of parking, gas, bridge toll and vehicle maintenance money by taking advantage of the extensive transit system that serves the region - including South Jersey. The park idea is reasonable as long as city residents get their park "tags" for free. Consider the extra half percent that we pay in wage tax to be our park user fees.

All in all, a very thought provoking piece that provides some interesting insight in the suburban mindset.
by Dan on March 16th 2009 11:00 PM

Dan,
Point gratefully taken. Homelessness is the problem, not the homeless people.
Amy
by Citizen Mom on March 17th 2009 10:48 AM

To be fair, a difficult balance to strike in difficult economic times. Points well taken regarding suburban moola, but I think you've oversimplified things regarding urban "quality of life." Lose pools, libraries, etc., quality of life goes down, nobody wants to live there, and your dirty, unsafe streets are sure to follow. (Property values drop, abandoned buildings produce no property taxes, etc.) It seems, if posed with the question of a livable city with outside visitors disinclined to visit, versus a less livable city where those visitors ultimately become disinclined to visit anyway, the answer is obvious.
by Mustard is Evil on March 17th 2009 11:39 AM

Free the Weed. That would clear out the prisons and lessen the cost of law enforcement. The taxes from legalization could fun all form of community development. Prison industrial societies are not nice, nor inexpensive to maintain. Plus, we could stop shooting unarmed college kids in the chest while they sit peacefully in their campus apartments.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/MI_cops_shoot_unarmed_20yearold_marijuana_0316.html

Enjoy.
by The Tim Channel on March 17th 2009 12:23 PM

Yes, please stay in New Jersey and support your world class Art Museum, your major league baseball team, the plays staged by your many theaters, and all the drinking and eating establishments you can park once and walk to from there. What? You don't have those things? Oh well. You do save a lot on parking meter fees.
by demit on March 17th 2009 1:07 PM

You sound as though you think Philadelphia is New Jersey's playground: you drive here, take up a resident's parking space, walk on the residents' sidewalks, and benefit from police protection and other amenities that residents' taxes pay for.

It's hardly unreasonable for Philadelphia to "charge admission" to people who come here to visit but choose not to live here. The economic recession affects everyone, even suburban visitors to Philly.
by Glomarization on March 17th 2009 1:11 PM

Glomarization,
I don't see Philly as NJ's playground any more than I see NJ as Philly's playground.
Which is to say that yes, in fact, we both use each other -- you guys come to NJ to vacation and we come to Philly to patronize the Art Museum, Rittenhouse Square, Franklin Square, the Wissahickon Creek etc.

If you want to cast it as a mutual-use relationship, that's fine. We contribute to each others' fortunes and each others' problems. Perhaps co-dependency is a better word.
by Citizen Mom on March 17th 2009 1:21 PM

South Jerseyites and Philadelphians deserve each other. Up here in North Jersey and NYC no one gives a flying frijole about you or your crappy sports teams or Art Museum. LET'S GO METS!
by Bim Bim the Bastard on March 17th 2009 3:46 PM

Shorter Quinn: "Wah wah wah! As a spoiled suburbanite, although I concede that Philadelphia needs money, I still want it to give me all the same services and conveniences, but don't you dare ask me to PAY for them!"
by Luke on March 17th 2009 7:00 PM

Way to get it exactly wrong, Luke.
I am pretty spoiled, though.
Thanks for reading!
by Citizen Mom on March 17th 2009 7:20 PM

Citizen Mom says, "No, please don't raise the parking meter rates! That's not fair. Instead, charge user fees for public space under the city's control that people want to use."

Wait, what?

Aside from ignoring the fact that user fees are regressive taxes that keep less-rich citizens from using public property, your argument makes absolutely no sense.

by thomast on March 17th 2009 11:25 PM

"think about what happens if everyone in South Jersey decides it's cheaper to stay home and watch on TV."

So you're saying everyone in South Jersey thinks it is cheaper to go to a game than watch it on TV?

Like earlier commenters, I agree it seems like you think the city should have sprawlers as it's primary concern. I mean the homeless people bothering you for those 4 minutes you spend a day at stoplights in your car and all - how unseemly! Pretty arrogant and sophomoric overall.
by When I go to China, they should all speak English! I'm a TOURIST DAMMIT! on March 18th 2009 2:53 AM

People from Jersey will still come to Philly and NYC for fun no matter what congestion pricing or inconveniences crop up. Do you know why? because the suburbs really really really suck.
by Dan in Caldwell on March 18th 2009 7:31 AM



Also In This Week's News Section

The Mayor's Ear
by Doron Taussig

Dispatch:
The Man in the Coffin
by Mike Newall

Sports:
Sixer Savior
by E. James Beale

The Bell Curve
 
 
ADVERTISEMENT