We have a presumptive mayor-elect who won less than a third of the vote. This is because we have a first-past-the-post system. It is not a democratic system because the absolute lowest bar you can set for a democratic system is majority rule. Cherelle Parker is a Black woman who beat a Jewish woman and an Asian-American woman who (the latter two) had very similar policy positions and together won about 45% of the vote. I mention race here not because it should matter, but because racial politics are a reality in this city and some voters are never going to cross racial lines no matter what policy positions or records of achievement are on display.

Now, I wish presumptive Mayor-elect Parker well. I promise to give her some time and ultimately judge her by her actions and not just her rhetoric. But during her campaign, she did not speak to issues that matter most to me. She spoke mostly about violence and education. Of course, I care about violence and education. I am raising (incidentally, mixed-race, not that it should matter) children in this city. But the mayor ultimately has limited control over these issues. Nobody knows, absolutely 100%, what has caused the current spike in gun violence. You can come up with some ideas, look at the evidence for what has worked in the past and in other cities, and try some things. But Cherrelle Parker is not a candidate who talked about evaluating evidence or best practices from other cities. In fact, a large part of her campaign pitch was that other candidates had spent time in other cities and were bringing ideas from elsewhere, and Philadelphia voters do not want people from elsewhere “telling us what to do”. As for schools, they are controlled by the School District of Philadelphia, which the mayor has only some limited control over, and which is limited by decisions of state legislators, some with pointy white hoods in their closets. Again, you can look at evidence and best practices and try some things, but her campaign platform if anything had an anti-intellectual bent, and that seemed to appeal to a plurality of voters in this city. Cherelle Parker was a state legislator at one point, and she is clearly a talented, successful politician, so maybe she will have some ideas on how to get more state funding and remove barriers imposed by the anti-city pointy white hood crowd in the middle of the state.

Philadelphia has outdated sanitation practices. Mayors have 100% direct control over these practices. The trash situation is a major nuisance, and the Atlantic Ocean will be full of Philadelphia trash for 10,000 years after our civilization is gone. I am a civil engineer and an environmentalist, and I am morally outraged by this. I somewhat doubt Mayor Parker is going to fix it, but again I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

Philadelphia has outdated and, I will just say it, incompetent street design practices. Whether children are dying on our city streets from gun violence or car violence, they are dying and this is morally outrageous. I somewhat doubt Mayor Parker is going to fix it, but again I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

You see my point here. Competent leadership at the Philadelphia Streets Department, which oversees sanitation and street design and maintenance, is absolutely crucial. Our city is decades behind even average practice elsewhere in the county, let alone the world, and people and the environment are suffering as a result. Part of Cherelle Parker’s campaign pitch, which apparently resonated with voters, is that she has spent her whole life in Philadelphia and never lived anywhere else. Will she be the one to bring our city up to even average standards of safety? Prove me wrong, presumptive Mayor-elect Parker.

Here are some insights into what happened.

This is so obviously a false choice. Safe, modern street designs, along with reliable public transportation, allow people to get to work and earn a living. They keep children from dying on public streets. But people don’t see it this way. Philadelphia has a concentrated poverty problem. The field of economics predicts that people whose basic needs are not met will not be advocates for what are seen as luxuries, such as environmental quality and convenient, safe travel. People whose basic needs are not met are going to be advocates for the basic needs such as food and shelter. Then, when people whose basic needs are met advocate for a higher level of services, such as safe streets, people whose basic needs are not met resent this. People also just tend to be resistant to change, and opposition to upgrades to safe street design reflect this, even if they would mean fewer dead children.

Sadly, concentrated poverty is the result of a century or more of racist land use and housing policy. It can’t be solved within the narrow political jurisdictions where it occurs, but rather needs to be solved by some income distribution and basic service provision at the state and federal scale. The working class and middle class in Philadelphia is absolutely tapped out when it comes to taxes, so even those of us who might support some level of income redistribution at the state and federal level are struggling to get by. Meanwhile, our local politicians try to address concentrated poverty by narrowing the tax base, restricting development, and creating disincentives for affluent taxpayers to move into the city or university graduates to stay and join the tax base. We were a city of 2 million people at our peak and are down to about 1.6 million. Like it or not, growing the tax base would benefit the poor. Safe modern streets, excellent public transportation, and schools that just meet modern building codes would all help. But our politicians just can’t get out of their own way.

I love you, Philadelphia. Prove me wrong, Mayor Parker.