PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread X

[PHLtoNYC]

Originally Posted by cardeza

well this will be a test to see how the actual voters feel about some of these issues. At the end of the day, it's their call. One thing is for sure, if there are no altenatives on the ballot its pointless to go on and on about how backwards, anti business and inept people on council are- if things are that bad there should be folks running. Still waiting for the gentrified class in center city, south philly, NL, etc. to get in the game and go for some of these seats.

Speaking of which, I have a friend in South Philly who is planning to run for city council. He is a smart guy (moderate democrat) and in the gentrified class.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC

Speaking of which, I have a friend in South Philly who is planning to run for city council. He is a smart guy (moderate democrat) and in the gentrified class.

Is your friend Gregg?

[cardeza]

this is interesting and likely a boost for Rynnhart. I can imagine Nutter endorsing her as well. It would be quite a shocker to see them align behind the same person considering their differences in the past.

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/ph...-20230124.html

[McBane]

Originally Posted by cardeza

well this will be a test to see how the actual voters feel about some of these issues. At the end of the day, it's their call. One thing is for sure, if there are no altenatives on the ballot its pointless to go on and on about how backwards, anti business and inept people on council are- if things are that bad there should be folks running. Still waiting for the gentrified class in center city, south philly, NL, etc. to get in the game and go for some of these seats.

The gentrified neighborhoods have been gerrymandered and are voiceless. Rittenhouse is tied up with North Philly; Manayunk and Roxborough are thrown in w/ West Philly, etc. The district boundaries make no sense at all. Why isn't Center City combined into one? Why isn't Manayunk and Rox together with East Falls, Mt. Airy, and Chestnut Hill? It's quite obvious.

I'm a cynic, what can I say?

[mcgrath618]

Originally Posted by cardeza

this is interesting and likely a boost for Rynnhart. I can imagine Nutter endorsing her as well. It would be quite a shocker to see them align behind the same person considering their differences in the past.

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/ph...-20230124.html

Awesome. Rhynheart is currently my favorite.

[Gatorade_Jim]

Originally Posted by McBane

The gentrified neighborhoods have been gerrymandered and are voiceless. Rittenhouse is tied up with North Philly; Manayunk and Roxborough are thrown in w/ West Philly, etc. The district boundaries make no sense at all. Why isn't Center City combined into one? Why isn't Manayunk and Rox together with East Falls, Mt. Airy, and Chestnut Hill? It's quite obvious.

I'm a cynic, what can I say?

It is incredibly frustrating and makes no sense to me. Maybe someone with more knowledge on why the districts are what they are can chime in here

[skyhigh07]

Originally Posted by PHLtoNYC

Speaking of which, I have a friend in South Philly who is planning to run for city council. He is a smart guy (moderate democrat) and in the gentrified class.

I think there’s an enormous demographic for this type of politician but no one has really claimed it yet. It could be a unifying tent spanning both sides of the aisle to some degree. Dems could probably run the table if they got back to who they were in the 90’s and 00’s. There’s still a lot of us out there.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Gatorade_Jim

It is incredibly frustrating and makes no sense to me. Maybe someone with more knowledge on why the districts are what they are can chime in here

Center City is carved up into so many districts because council doesn't want all of the high donor constituents in one.

[Justin7]

Are we using "gentrified" as synonymous with wealthy now? Gentrified class? Rittenhouse is a gentrified neighborhood? Huh?

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Are we using "gentrified" as synonymous with wealthy now? Gentrified class? Rittenhouse is a gentrified neighborhood? Huh?

I thought 'professional' was the word we were really looking for there.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Center City is carved up into so many districts because council doesn't want all of the high donor constituents in one.

Thats not true. The divisions are based on population and they expand/contract the borders every 10 years. And there are very tight limits on contributions so there isnt much one person can do from a donation standpoint.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by McBane

The gentrified neighborhoods have been gerrymandered and are voiceless. Rittenhouse is tied up with North Philly; Manayunk and Roxborough are thrown in w/ West Philly, etc. The district boundaries make no sense at all. Why isn't Center City combined into one? Why isn't Manayunk and Rox together with East Falls, Mt. Airy, and Chestnut Hill? It's quite obvious.

I'm a cynic, what can I say?

you cant be serious. Do you realize that in Philadelphia some upper middle class areas are only BLOCKS from poor areas? Every council district has to have roughly the same population. You can divide the population by 9 to get that approximate number. Center city proper has about 50k people so even if it was fair to make a center city only district you wouldnt have enough people.

This stuff can all be looked up- it's not just pulled out of thin air. These procedures don't just vanish because certain parts of Philadelphia have seen a resurgence.

[McBane]

By your logic, if CC has 50,000 people it would make EVEN MORE sense for all of them to be in the same district rather than divided into two. And then the remaining population should be filled from other gentrified neighborhoods. I don't know what exactly that looks like. Regardless, it's logical for districts to be demographically cohesive (as much as possible while ensuring evenly populated districts of course). I mean, if we were talking about minority populations rather than wealthier gentrifiers, this wouldn't even be an argument.

Also, the process is entirely done behind closed doors without any public feedback, which doesn't help things either. Of course Darell Clarke knows that he would never be elected by such a constituency. Most of the bozos there wouldn't stand a chance if they had to run in a district populated by the highly educated. No wonder our best council people are voted at large.

[chimpskibot]

Originally Posted by McBane

By your logic, if CC has 50,000 people it would make EVEN MORE sense for all of them to be in the same district rather than divided into two. And then the remaining population should be filled from other gentrified neighborhoods. I don't know what exactly that looks like. Regardless, it's logical for districts to be demographically cohesive (as much as possible while ensuring evenly populated districts of course). I mean, if we were talking about minority populations rather than wealthier gentrifiers, this wouldn't even be an argument.

Also, the process is entirely done behind closed doors without any public feedback, which doesn't help things either. Of course Darell Clarke knows that he would never be elected by such a constituency. Most of the bozos there wouldn't stand a chance if they had to run in a district populated by the highly educated. No wonder our best council people are voted at large.

Wholeheartedly agree. How can someone prioritize so many constituents demands and differing viewpoints? The non at-large seats are gerrymandered for power and grift, that's it. To argue for the current maps is disingenuous and is actively harming the growth of the city.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by cardeza

Thats not true. The divisions are based on population and they expand/contract the borders every 10 years. And there are very tight limits on contributions so there isnt much one person can do from a donation standpoint.

Ok. Let me rephrase.

Center City is carved up into multiple districts because council people don't want all of the most influential people in one district.

Council also doesn't want Center City to have a voice, frankly. Why have all the like minded people packed into one district when you can split them up to have no say.

[allovertown]

Originally Posted by McBane

By your logic, if CC has 50,000 people it would make EVEN MORE sense for all of them to be in the same district rather than divided into two. And then the remaining population should be filled from other gentrified neighborhoods. I don't know what exactly that looks like. Regardless, it's logical for districts to be demographically cohesive (as much as possible while ensuring evenly populated districts of course). I mean, if we were talking about minority populations rather than wealthier gentrifiers, this wouldn't even be an argument.

Also, the process is entirely done behind closed doors without any public feedback, which doesn't help things either. Of course Darell Clarke knows that he would never be elected by such a constituency. Most of the bozos there wouldn't stand a chance if they had to run in a district populated by the highly educated. No wonder our best council people are voted at large.

Why would Center City be in one district? You seem to be focused on the result and are trying to reason your way there, but on the surface I have no idea what intrinsic reason there would be for center city to be all one district.

What does Society Hill have to do with Fairmount other than they're both wealthy? Makes a lot more sense for Society Hill to be Old City, Northern Liberties, Bella Vista, Southwark etc. You know, the neighborhoods nearest them geographically.



This looks gerrymandered to you? Come on. Districts one and three have some slightly funky stuff going on, but overall, these are some pretty compact sensible districts. Especially compared to the gerrymandering that goes on with congressional districts, this practically looks like it was created impartially by a computer, and for all I know it was.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Ok. Let me rephrase.

Center City is carved up into multiple districts because council people don't want all of the most influential people in one district.

Council also doesn't want Center City to have a voice, frankly. Why have all the like minded people packed into one district when you can split them up to have no say.

Exactly.

Allovertown, just to clarify, you think it's odd for Fairmount and Society Hill to be in a single district but Society Hill with Port Richmond makes sense? Fitler Square belongs with North Philly but not with Old City? Why is it your kneejerk reaction to always defend everything the City does, not matter how dysfunctional it may be? And to answer your question, besides wealth: more educated, more diverse, less families, more young professionals and empty nesters; is that enough? Now please list all the things that Society Hill and Port Richmond have in common.

[Gatorade_Jim]

Originally Posted by allovertown

Why would Center City be in one district? You seem to be focused on the result and are trying to reason your way there, but on the surface I have no idea what intrinsic reason there would be for center city to be all one district.

What does Society Hill have to do with Fairmount other than they're both wealthy? Makes a lot more sense for Society Hill to be Old City, Northern Liberties, Bella Vista, Southwark etc. You know, the neighborhoods nearest them geographically.



This looks gerrymandered to you? Come on. Districts one and three have some slightly funky stuff going on, but overall, these are some pretty compact sensible districts. Especially compared to the gerrymandering that goes on with congressional districts, this practically looks like it was created impartially by a computer, and for all I know it was.

Rittenhouse and Hunting Park are in the same district. Those two constituencies could not have more different needs. There is no universe where that makes sense.

[mcgrath618]

I think its pretty obvious to most people with even a cursory knowledge of how the city is laid out that District 5 is incredibly gerrymandered.

[bdurk]

Is there any chance we could maybe create a separate thread for politics? I get excited to come on here every day and see news about new skyscrapers but for the past month I feel like this thread has been mainly about politics. I don't mind the talk about who we want as mayor as I know it's important discourse but I think a separate thread might be nice.