PHILADELPHIA | Lowrise/General Developments Thread

[jaysb]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

Maybe, although that won’t be pushed through by next year. Rank choice voting can get messy and ugly, but the precedent so far seems to be that the winner tends to be a more moderate candidate.

Genuine question...when you say 'messy and ugly' what exactly do you mean? Confusing for the populace?

I can see how it may upset the parties if the 2nd choice is a moderate of another party....but my biggest issue is the two party system.

I'm probably not fully educated on the detractors of the ranked choice

[jaysb]

I do think Shapiro 'gets it' from a business perspective and he will proactively help bring more high quality jobs to the state, building on our Life Sciences & Advanced manufacturing (PGH) centers...which of course should mean continued developments in the city and surroundings.

[PHLtoNYC]

Originally Posted by jaysb

I do think Shapiro 'gets it' from a business perspective and he will proactively help bring more high quality jobs to the state, building on our Life Sciences & Advanced manufacturing (PGH) centers...which of course should mean continued developments in the city and surroundings.

What does Josh Shapiro's win in Pennsylvania mean for the business community?

https://www.bizjournals.com/philadel...-business.html

Shapiro said he wants to cut the corporate tax rate in Pennsylvania to 4% by 2025. The corporate net income tax currently sits at 9.99%, but Gov. Tom Wolf's administration recently passed legislation to reduce it to 8.99% beginning Jan. 1, 2023. It would then decrease incrementally by 0.5% until it reaches 4.99% in 2031.

The 9.99% corporate tax rate is the second-highest in the nation. A 4% corporate tax would put the Keystone State among the lowest rates in the country, behind North Carolina at 2.5% and six states without a corporate income tax.

Shapiro said he wants to create "innovation hubs" for technology and manufacturing across Pennsylvania. He has been voicing his intention to focus on "growth industries" like biotech, robotics and autonomous vehicles — and he doesn't just want to grow those fields, he wants the state to lead in them.

"Under my administration, Pennsylvania will lead the nation in biotech and autonomous vehicles – we’ll connect businesses with leading research institutions, get companies access to capital, and create a talent pipeline from high school and college to the workforce," Shapiro said in July.

He also wants to expand the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development's Manufacturing PA initiative, which connects students in colleges, technical schools and nonprofit organizations to manufacturing jobs. Shapiro mentioned investing in research and development at Pennsylvania universities and providing technical support to manufacturers in the state.

As governor, Shapiro wants to introduce a new Office of Economic Growth and Workforce Development devoted solely to providing opportunities for businesses and access to employment for jobseekers. The office would report directly to the governor. The office would likely be similar to the Department of Community and Economic Development but more dedicated to helping businesses navigate red tape and regulatory obstacles.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by jaysb

Genuine question...when you say 'messy and ugly' what exactly do you mean? Confusing for the populace?

I can see how it may upset the parties if the 2nd choice is a moderate of another party....but my biggest issue is the two party system.

I'm probably not fully educated on the detractors of the ranked choice

I’m still rather confused by it myself but here are my two cents…

Rank choice is typically used in a handful of state primaries and within some jurisdictional elections. The two most prominent examples were the relatively recent Alaska senate special election and NYC mayoral election. It can be a convoluted and long process that can leave voters confused and burnt out.

There’s also the concept of ballot exhaustion where your vote is thrown out because your top choices were eliminated in the first or second rounds of voting. This leads to candidates being elected who were not the first choice of a majority of voters. Sometimes a marginal candidate that no one particularly likes can rise to the top. It took me awhile to understand and wrap my head around it. There’s quite a few articles out there discussing the pros and cons.

Some make the argument that more extreme candidates can get elected while others claim it elevates moderates. It can lead to a lot of inter party infighting which is what happened in Alaska with Palin and Begich - neither of them ended up winning in an R state lol. The NYC mayoral primary election also turned particularly contentious toward the end as well. In both cases, some of the candidates told their voters who to choose as their second choice (sometimes going against their own party). There were allegations that the candidates were trying to disenfranchise voters.

Bottom line, it can be a big confusing headache

[jaysb]

Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC

What does Josh Shapiro's win in Pennsylvania mean for the business community?

https://www.bizjournals.com/philadel...-business.html

Shapiro said he wants to cut the corporate tax rate in Pennsylvania to 4% by 2025. The corporate net income tax currently sits at 9.99%, but Gov. Tom Wolf's administration recently passed legislation to reduce it to 8.99% beginning Jan. 1, 2023. It would then decrease incrementally by 0.5% until it reaches 4.99% in 2031.

The 9.99% corporate tax rate is the second-highest in the nation. A 4% corporate tax would put the Keystone State among the lowest rates in the country, behind North Carolina at 2.5% and six states without a corporate income tax.

Shapiro said he wants to create "innovation hubs" for technology and manufacturing across Pennsylvania. He has been voicing his intention to focus on "growth industries" like biotech, robotics and autonomous vehicles — and he doesn't just want to grow those fields, he wants the state to lead in them.

"Under my administration, Pennsylvania will lead the nation in biotech and autonomous vehicles – we’ll connect businesses with leading research institutions, get companies access to capital, and create a talent pipeline from high school and college to the workforce," Shapiro said in July.

He also wants to expand the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development's Manufacturing PA initiative, which connects students in colleges, technical schools and nonprofit organizations to manufacturing jobs. Shapiro mentioned investing in research and development at Pennsylvania universities and providing technical support to manufacturers in the state.

As governor, Shapiro wants to introduce a new Office of Economic Growth and Workforce Development devoted solely to providing opportunities for businesses and access to employment for jobseekers. The office would report directly to the governor. The office would likely be similar to the Department of Community and Economic Development but more dedicated to helping businesses navigate red tape and regulatory obstacles.

haha, I'm sure I read that at some point and subconsciously regurgitated it.

[KDD]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

I’m still rather confused by it myself but here are my two cents…

Rank choice is typically used in a handful of state primaries and within some jurisdictional elections. The two most prominent examples were the relatively recent Alaska senate special election and NYC mayoral election. It can be a convoluted and long process that can leave voters confused and burnt out.

There’s also the concept of ballot exhaustion where your vote is thrown out because your top choices were eliminated in the first or second rounds of voting. This leads to candidates being elected who were not the first choice of a majority of voters. Sometimes a marginal candidate that no one particularly likes can rise to the top. It took me awhile to understand and wrap my head around it. There’s quite a few articles out there discussing the pros and cons.

Some make the argument that more extreme candidates can get elected while others claim it elevates moderates. It can lead to a lot of inter party infighting which is what happened in Alaska with Palin and Begich - neither of them ended up winning in an R state lol. The NYC mayoral primary election also turned particularly contentious toward the end as well. In both cases, some of the candidates told their voters who to choose as their second choice (sometimes going against their own party). There were allegations that the candidates were trying to disenfranchise voters.

Bottom line, it can be a big confusing headache

I don't quite understand the opposition to instant runoff. Its really no more complicated than our judicial races "pick up to 4 candidates from the below 13" that you've never heard of. I think it is a great way to make more and more places competitive, and that is great for a healthy democracy. It is literally the reason why Sarah Palin is not in congress.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by KDD

I don't quite understand the opposition to instant runoff. Its really no more complicated than our judicial races "pick up to 4 candidates from the below 13" that you've never heard of. I think it is a great way to make more and more places competitive, and that is great for a healthy democracy. It is literally the reason why Sarah Palin is not in congress.

Lol, see this is the problem with everyone these days. You like it until it ends up hurting your side. If I had a nickel…

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

I'm guessing he may have meant Pennsylvania's own James Buchanan who, at least before Trump, was widely considered to be one of the--if not THE--worst presidents in history.

There's a third President associated with PA and like Trump his association with the state comes from the fact that he attended UPenn, (although he never graduated) William Henry Harrison. Harrison famously died 31 days into his term and was sick his entire presidency and literally accomplished nothing. So he also often finds himself rated among the worst presidents in US History. Not a great group. If Shapiro is ever elected President, as long as he lives longer than 31 days in office, doesn't steer the country into a civil war or start an insurrection, he should easily go down as the best Pennsylvanian President.

I certainly hope Shapiro isn't thinking about 2024 though and is focused on PA. Winning the PA House is incredible and unexpected and may not occur again anytime soon. Mastriano and Oz were truly terrible candidates who were incredibly disliked by the electorate even among republicans. With these two clowns on the ballot, no doubt a lot of republicans stayed home yesterday and local republican politicians payed the price.

The structure of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives gives rural voters an incredibly outsized voice on how this state is run, and no doubt those rural voters will be out in large numbers again 2024. We may only have 2 years to accomplish stuff that is critical for Philadelphia's health and continued growth and improvement. The uniformity clause, the makeup of the Septa Board, etc. need to be handled with incredible urgency. I hope they're up for the task.

As far as ranked choice voting goes, it's much more effectively used in a primary. In a general election it still rarely results in a third party candidate being elected. Everything in how we elect our leaders in this country is geared towards an inevitable two party system. Ranked choice voting doesn't fundamentally change any of those incentives, so when people look to it as a way to escape the two party system, they'll inevitably be disappointed. So proponents definitely overstate the positives and what it is capable of doing, but at the same time, the negatives that people complain about are generally off base as well. Alaska's election was a mess, but Sarah Palin was deliberately misleading people and telling them not to rank any other choices. It's hard for a system to work as it should when the participants are willfully disrupting its ability to work. So yea, overall, not a big deal, a slightly better way to conduct primaries if anything.

[jaysb]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

I’m still rather confused by it myself but here are my two cents…

Rank choice is typically used in a handful of state primaries and within some jurisdictional elections. The two most prominent examples were the relatively recent Alaska senate special election and NYC mayoral election. It can be a convoluted and long process that can leave voters confused and burnt out.

There’s also the concept of ballot exhaustion where your vote is thrown out because your top choices were eliminated in the first or second rounds of voting. This leads to candidates being elected who were not the first choice of a majority of voters. Sometimes a marginal candidate that no one particularly likes can rise to the top. It took me awhile to understand and wrap my head around it. There’s quite a few articles out there discussing the pros and cons.

Some make the argument that more extreme candidates can get elected while others claim it elevates moderates. It can lead to a lot of inter party infighting which is what happened in Alaska with Palin and Begich - neither of them ended up winning in an R state lol. The NYC mayoral primary election also turned particularly contentious toward the end as well. In both cases, some of the candidates told their voters who to choose as their second choice (sometimes going against their own party). There were allegations that the candidates were trying to disenfranchise voters.

Bottom line, it can be a big confusing headache

Appreciate the response. And like the other poster said, if it keeps Palin out of congress, I can get behind that !

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by allovertown

As far as ranked choice voting goes, it's much more effectively used in a primary. In a general election it still rarely results in a third party candidate being elected. Everything in how we elect our leaders in this country is geared towards an inevitable two party system. Ranked choice voting doesn't fundamentally change any of those incentives, so when people look to it as a way to escape the two party system, they'll inevitably be disappointed. So proponents definitely overstate the positives and what it is capable of doing, but at the same time, the negatives that people complain about are generally off base as well. Alaska's election was a mess, but Sarah Palin was deliberately misleading people and telling them not to rank any other choices. It's hard for a system to work as it should when the participants are willfully disrupting its ability to work. So yea, overall, not a big deal, a slightly better way to conduct primaries if anything.

This a a very fair take

I’m not against rank choice voting per se - like you said it’s probably more effective and less problematic in primaries. I think some people only saw the part that it hurt Palin and thought “Palin bad = RCV good” lol.

The situation also happened with Yang in NYC where he told voters to do the same - his opponents accused him of racism in trying to disenfranchise black and Latino voters. So it can apply to D’s as well.

If people are happy that Palin lost in AK because of RCV then you have to accept the possibility that if applied to NY or CA, a Republican could very much end up winning there by allowing the D’s to cannibalize themselves as well. It’s a relatively new way of voting in the US.

[Philly Fan]

Originally Posted by allovertown

If Shapiro is ever elected President, as long as he lives longer than 31 days in office, doesn't steer the country into a civil war or start an insurrection, he should easily go down as the best Pennsylvanian President.

And there you have it: the script for Shapiro's first presidential campaign ad.

[McBane]

I don't claim to understand all the nuances of RCV but I believe it creates a dynamic where the candidate with the most appeal across both ends of the political spectrum ends up with the most votes. The only ones getting disenfranchised under this setup are fringe voices. RCV is a way to get more moderates, compromisers, and problem solvers into power at the expense of uncompromising ideologues.

Our government would be able to get much more shit done without the "Squad" and folks like MJG, Boebert, Cruz, and others of their ilk. We need more people who WANT to work across the aisle to advance legislation that appeals to the widest range of the electorate, not just the hardcore partisans who participate in the primaries. So even gerrymandered districts, become more competitive.

I'm a big supporter.

[jaysb]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

This a a very fair take

I’m not against rank choice voting per se - like you said it’s probably more effective and less problematic in primaries. I think some people only saw the part that it hurt Palin and thought “Palin bad = RCV good” lol.

The situation also happened with Yang in NYC where he told voters to do the same - his opponents accused him of racism in trying to disenfranchise black and Latino voters. So it can apply to D’s as well.

If people are happy that Palin lost in AK because of RCV then you have to accept the possibility that if applied to NY or CA, a Republican could very much end up winning there by allowing the D’s to cannibalize themselves as well. It’s a relatively new way of voting in the US.

My main beef is with having just two polarized options in a lot of elections. I think RCV helps moderate that a bit. Yes it could elect a moderate on the other side of the aisle that will still vote with the crazy's 95% of the time. It's not perfect but I'd prefer it to current state of things. Who knows, maybe this past elections kills off the Matriano-types for a long while.

I'm mainly worried about the mayoral primary next spring.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by jaysb

I'm mainly worried about the mayoral primary next spring.

I think Gym has to be more confident given the issues voters turned out for in PA. Word on the street is she’s planning on making an announcement soon.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

Lol, see this is the problem with everyone these days. You like it until it ends up hurting your side. If I had a nickel…

Or you recognize that it's a better system and if it "hurts your side" you behave like a rational adult and move on.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Or you recognize that it's a better system and if it "hurts your side" you behave like a rational adult and move on.

Exactly, but I’ve been around the block to see that’s not how most people think. Would love to be proven wrong lol.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

If people are happy that Palin lost in AK because of RCV then you have to accept the possibility that if applied to NY or CA, a Republican could very much end up winning there by allowing the D’s to cannibalize themselves as well. It’s a relatively new way of voting in the US.

Palin lost because many Republicans in Alaska recognize that she's awful. The only way ranked choice leads to an R winning NY or CA is if people like the R more than one of the Ds, which is how it should be. There's no cannibalization. It's not like an open general where the vote is being split.

Ranked choice leads to fewer extremists in government (which benefits everyone but the extremists) and allows people to vote for third parties without throwing their votes away. There is no downside other than confusing the easily confused.

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Palin lost because many Republicans in Alaska recognize that she's awful. The only way ranked choice leads to an R winning NY or CA is if people like the R more than one of the Ds, which is how it should be. There's no cannibalization. It's not like an open general where the vote is being split.

Ranked choice leads to fewer extremists in government (which benefits everyone but the extremists) and allows people to vote for third parties without throwing their votes away. There is no downside other than confusing the easily confused.

Bit insulting to people who find it confusing but ok. The AK R vote was split between her and Begich. More than likely she would have garnered more than half vote share.

If they had rank choice in NY right now, Zeldin would likely be Governor instead of Hochul. Just sayin

[McBane]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

If they had rank choice in NY right now, Zeldin would likely be Governor instead of Hochul. Just sayin

That's not how it works at all. In NY, the race for governor only had 2 candidates and Hochul trounced Zeldin. No way that RCV would have netted Zeldin a win. When you only have 2 candidates on the ballot, RCV shouldn't yield different results. Heck, with only 2 choices, I'm not even sure how RCV would function differently than normal voting.

But in Georgia for example, it could have helped Walker, assuming that those who voted for the libertarian candidate would have thrown their second preference towards Walker. Having said that, if GA used RCV for primaries (where it really shines), Walker would probably not have received enough votes to advance.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

I think Gym has to be more confident given the issues voters turned out for in PA. Word on the street is she’s planning on making an announcement soon.

I don't know why some are so fearful of people RUNNING in a primary- the field is packed and the fact someone like Gym (or whomever people are so opposed to) may run means nothing in a field of 5+ legit candidates. Anyone who does not have a strong message or track record on crime and QOL issues stands no chance of winning in my view.