Arnie

Non-emergency call.

 

 

Towering need

Chestnut Hill has never been a place to just take whatever it’s been given from the City of Philadelphia and leave it at that. In the 1850s, there was the issue of a lack of waterworks in this part of the city, a problem that led several prominent citizens to establish the Chestnut Hill Water Company. The group built the stone water tower we see today on Ardleigh Street and, below it, a large reservoir, where the playing fields are now located. Recognizing a good thing when it saw it, the city eventually purchased the facilities.

Today, when we say “water tower,” we usually mean the recreation center of the same name, located where those waterworks once existed. In the face of the obvious need for repairs and renovation at the center, Chestnut Hill once again finds itself wondering if it should step into the breach created by the city’s inability to bring needed improvements. The question is not whether the local community should get involved — it has been a major player in maintaining the center for a long time, through the efforts of the Chestnut Hill Youth Sports Club (with funds provided by the Chestnut Hill Community Fund), the Water Tower Advisory Council, the Random Garden Club and other entities — but whether and how this involvement should increase, and if the Chestnut Hill Community Association should take the lead in any effort to do so.

CHCAWater Tower committee member Robert Previdi has compared this effort to that spearheaded by the Friends of the Children’s Park in Chestnut Hill to build the playground at J.S. Jenks School — a recent, successful example of a community group working with the city to bring improvement. The analogy is a good one, but it’s important to recognize the differences. The Water Tower has a hard-working staff and existing advocacy group that have made strides in recent years (new mulch and plantings, a bettermaintained playground, the refurbishing of some inside rooms) and any CHCA effort must dovetail with these initiatives. It is also critical that the association respect the wishes and needs of longtime users.

The community, on the other hand, should not prejudge the association’s efforts. Committee chair Tia Burke has stated that the CHCA understands and appreciates the level of service the center currently provides. The committee has stated a desire to follow the lead of nearby residents — for whom the Water Tower is a beloved community hub — in determining what sort of enhanced role it should play, including whether or not it should try to bring new programs to the site.

The Water Tower does need help. All residents of Chestnut Hill should therefore see this CHCA initiative for what it is: an opportunity.

James Sturdivant

Opinion:
Spreading the word of a rate increase: a little effort goes a long way

by JIM FOSTER

A temporary 13 percent water rate increase approved by largely off-the-record hearings for the Philadelphia Water Department this past February will escalate to an astounding 30 to 40 percent by the end of July as a result of a barely legal process that allows the water commissioner to actually rule on his own policies with very little public oversight.

If your first reaction is something like “Why didn’t I hear about this sooner?” you are not alone. The process required by the city to inform the public makes it very easy for this legal monopoly to meet the bare minimum requirement and rubber stamp its own operational and financial activities.

Although hearings are held to review the requested changes, the public at large is informed only through an archaic system that is almost guaranteed to keep the vast majority from knowing the details and amount of the increase until it first appears on their bill. From what I can gather, our local press made little effort to cover these initial hearings and report these historically large rate increases.

Our City Charter, revised in 1954, requires the Water Department to advertise the proposed increases in two newspapers, without specifying the size or placement of the notices. This requirement apparently remains unchanged to this day and the department claims it meets the letter of the law by placing relatively small print data in the Daily News and Inquirer and some community newspapers.

While that placement, with accurate data, might have reached the majority of Philadelphians in the 1950s, it hardly does the job today. It is reported that nearly 70 percent of Americans do not get their primary news from the old-line newspapers, but from multiple sources, most of which did not exist in the 1950s. The management of the Water Department could not be that naïve to think that conforming to that minimal requirement was sufficient to meet their public responsibility.

In fact it has been reported and verified that only 23 citizens appeared at the four localized hearings that were “advertised.” As far as I can determine, no easily understood explanation of their rate increase was ever included in the water bills themselves; the most natural location to reach ratepayers.

Councilman-at-large Frank Rizzo closely followed the process, finding that the final reports from the hearing examiner, Henri Marchal, were only made available last week with a target date of July 21 for final implementation of the increases. Rizzo requested Public Utilities Committee Chairman Michael Nutter hold a special hearing on the matter open to concerned groups and individuals and requiring the presence of the water commissioner. Nutter agreed and that hearing was held in City Council Chambers at 2 p.m. on Thursday, July 14.

I was told of this end-of-the-month deadline only last week (and I don’t miss much local news), and my first reaction was outrage at how something this significant was so far off the radar screen. Along with some others, I testified at the July 14 hearing. Consumer advocate Lance Haver and others made various points opposing the terms and methods of this “done deal” that will seriously raise the cost of living in the area. The single point I emphasized was that in this case, the process itself was suspect and that alone should be enough to delay implementation.

Using some statistics regarding newspaper circulation, and suggesting easy alternatives to expand distribution of the information, I challenged the abrupt certification that is less than two weeks away. I suggested to the chairman that at this point only an injunction might stop the process. Recalled to the witness table, the water commissioner and an entourage of attorneys and experts did little to refute the slipshod manner in which the public information was disseminated and fumbled over when and on what page the public announcements were actually printed.

To my mind, the Water Department clearly understood the public had not been informed and probably intended that outcome. The published data does not mention the 13 percent “temporary” increase already approved, or convey the end result — that after three years, compounding rate increases will reach 30 to 40 percent. Apparently the rates will vary with the type of usage, but none of that is spelled out. What was published was duplicitous at best.

Methods that could have easily been implemented include advising the city’s community organizations well in advance, brightly colored large print notices in water bills, brief radio announcements on news stations, advertising in all local newspapers and the free SEPTA Metro, not to mention a number of local city and civic Web sites.

Clearly this was a misuse of process in today’s world that needs immediate remedial action. If you agree, call your councilperson, state representative, mayor’s office, write or call any newspaper and make every neighbor aware of how a carefully crafted process will turn a temporary 13 percent little-known increase into a permanent 30 to 40 percent one.