Questions for Harrisburg Mayor Linda Thompson about Act 47?

Tuesday, 23 August 2011 11:06

Questions for Harrisburg Mayor Linda Thompson about Act 47?

Written by Megan Lello, witf Reporter and Producer

Radio Smart Talk for Wednesday, August 23:

Harrisburg's financial troubles have been widely reported for years. But eight months ago, with the city in at least $310 million dollars in debt due to its trash incinerator, the state Department of Community and Economic Development secretary entered Harrisburg into the state's Act 47 program for financially-distressed municipalities.

Since City Council has rejected the Act 47 plan drawn up by state-appointed financial advisers, Mayor Linda Thompson is charged with creating her own proposal. Thompson has said a majority of her plan adheres to the original, but she also proposes a commuter tax as a way to help the city make money. City Council is expected to vote on Thompson's plan next month.

We'll take your questions for Mayor Thompson about Act 47 on Wednesday's Radio Smart Talk.

LISTEN TO PROGRAM:

Published in Smart Talk

Tagged under

comments

# Carl 2011-08-23 19:31

I don't have a particular question for the mayor but I have an observation for your host. That is that the mayor is a guest on the program and should not run roughshod over the dialogue. Every time she has been on either radio or television, public or broadcast, the interviewer has been unable to get a word in edgewise. She tends to be a verbal bully and doesn't realize that the world doesn't revolve around her. She dominates the conversation with her malaprops and non sequitors. There are tough questions needing answers and I think it's up to the interviewer to extract answers from the mayor rather than just the mind-numbing blame and sound bites that are her repertoire.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# bill 2011-08-23 21:15

why are there so many grammatical errors in such an important document. E.g. stature instead of statute at least twice. eminent instead of imminent.

did you accept any comments or suggestions from the public in the revised plan?

the union concessions are a critical component of the savings required to balance the budget in the next 5 years. how will you balance the budget if you don't get the amount of concessions called for in the plan?

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# Tim 2011-08-24 08:53

Have you had any direct conversation with the Govenor, if yes what advice did he offer, if not why not?

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# Vince 2011-08-24 09:19

The Management Partners (MP) report, which was received almost 2 years ago, contains similar recommendations as the Act 47 Report. Why haven't any of the MP recommendations been implemented? Why not move forward with some of the Act 47 recommendations . Is your administration capable of moving forward without support?

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# Michael 2011-08-24 09:54

Is a commuter tax taxation without representation?

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# Rob 2011-08-24 10:00

Wouldn't a commuter tax violate "freedom of movement"

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# Michael 2011-08-24 10:02

Well, the Mayor sure did side step the "taxation without representation" question. What a bunch of deceptive rhetoric. If you live outside of a taxing jurisdiction and are taxed by that jurisdiction it most surely is taxation without representation. Just because the Mayor says it is not is not sufficient!

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# Rob 2011-08-24 10:05

All of the comments about the "previous coordinator" making errors are unacceptable. Her whole stance that this isn't her fault is that there were errors made in the past. To say that you didn't read through the plan for spelling and grammar or that you didn't double check any of the numbers is unacceptable. If this wasn't her fault, this clearly makes the problems that are being encountered now her problem.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# CJ 2011-08-24 10:13

What is the status of the department of parks and recreation? Does it still exist and if so, what is its current mission and who is directing it? Also, I noticed that there is no lighting on the Walnut Street bridge at night. Not even the overhead lighting that was in place after the decorative lights were turned off. Isn't the city concerned about the safety of those people walking on the bridge at night???

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# bill 2011-08-24 12:58

CJ- PRE Department acting director is Rev Dr Brenda Alton. Her formal nomination was referred last night by City Council to committee. The Mayor's Act 47 plan at page 35 calls for disbanding this department. However, in another section it calls for study and evaluation of outsourcing parks aspect.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# Frank 2011-08-24 11:27

I listened to the interview with Mayor Thompson in the hope of getting a better understanding of what the debates on this issue are about. Unfortunately, Mayor Thompson has a strong propensity for jargon, euphemism and something close to malapropism -- as well as a rather creative approach to grammar -- that makes much of her speech nearly unintelligible. In addition the whole conversation seemed to presuppose that listeners all possessed a thorough detailed knowledge of the all aspects of the debates that have occurred up to this point.

So I now know almost as little about the issues as I did when the program began.

Perhaps one task for a radio host/interviewer is to mediate between the expertise of his interviewee and the sometimes-limited knowledge of his listeners. Just a thought for future reference.

Finally, a suggestion for the mayor: Strunk & White. Get it. Use it.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# Craig Layne 2011-08-24 12:13

Hey Frank, my apologies for a lack of clarification about the sometimes esoteric jargon that swirls around the Act 47 issue. I've covered this for months, and I can be guilty of supposing "normal" people are as in-touch with this particular topic as the folks inside City Hall are. Thanks for bringing me back to the ground. You're right, I could have infused a bit more context. It's my third time doing the show - not that it's an excuse - but I hope it helps you understand where I'm coming from. I really appreciate your feedback and thank you for listening.

Also, one of my college professors had the class buy Strunk & White as a textbook. Handy. Very handy.

--Craig Layne

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# Frank 2011-08-24 12:49

Thanks for the response, Craig. Believe me, I understand how hard it must be to "translate" clearly, live on the air, the details of issues as complex as this. I'm sure it takes a huge amount of practice; I know I couldn't do it.

I've been reading a bit on the Patriot-News site about the current proposal. A question: if the mayor has the power to implement her plan regardless of the results of the city council vote, why hasn't she done it already? Why vote at all? The mayor's "threat" seems to imply the council's function is essentially that of a rubber stamp for decisions that are really in her hands. If that's not the case, then what would be legal basis for implementing this plan against the results of the upcoming vote?

I hope no one reads any veiled hostility to the mayor in what I'm saying. I'm just trying to understand what's going on.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# bill 2011-08-24 13:00

Frank- the plan contains many initiatives. most of them can be implemented without need to approve the plan, such as increase in fees, parking rates, hiring legal counsel. Under act 47, a plan must be approved or else the city will lose state funding.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# Craig Layne 2011-08-24 14:12

Quoting bill:

Frank- the plan contains many initiatives. most of them can be implemented without need to approve the plan, such as increase in fees, parking rates, hiring legal counsel. Under act 47, a plan must be approved or else the city will lose state funding.

Bill has a good handle on things. -- Craig

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

# Craig Layne 2011-08-24 13:05

Frank,

That's a great question. So far, no one has really been able to answer it, to my knowlegde. We're in uncharted territory because no city in Pennsylvania's Act 47 program has ever had its council reject the financial recovery plan drawn up by the state-appointed advisers. To my knowledge, the state Department of Community and Economic Development has to accept the plan provided by the city. Whether that plan has to be approved by council or if it can just be sent directly from Mayor Thompson remains a grey area where no one I've talked with is certain what the appropriate, legal course of action would be. I'm sorry I don't have a better answer than that. City council votes on August 31. I'll be anxious to see what the next step is if they vote "no."

--Craig

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post