COLUMN: The city's 'obligation' to Penn

From Mike Madden's, "Opiate of the Masses," Fall '98 From Mike Madden's, "Opiate of the Masses," Fall '98Apparently, Penn really is the proverbial 800-lb. gorilla that can get whatever it wants. "We have an obligation to the second-largest employer in the City of Philadelphia," Street said in a much-reported remark. "If you don't think that I and all the other members are conscious of all the economic benefits that flow from [the University], you're wrong." Street and most of his fellow City Council members were, by all accounts, almost unanimous in their support for the bill, which will probably become law tomorrow. Not necessarily because of the ordinance's merits, but because Penn is a potent economic force in the city. Ignore questions about vending (and there are quite a few to be ignored), and assume Penn's food plazas will materialize as promised, thus keeping some vestiges of the food trucks that students, faculty and staff flock to daily. Let's give the University the benefit of the doubt, and figure that it will all work out. Then ask yourself: Is this how government is supposed to run? Is Street's cold economic calculation really good for the city? Penn is, indeed, the largest private employer in town -- second only to the municipal government for the total jobs it provides. In a democratic society, though, that shouldn't entitle it to special treatment of any sort. Nearly all the University's political power in Philadelphia derives from its economic might. It shouldn't. Street and the rest of City Council seemed happy to fold when Penn's vending ordinance finally reached the agenda. Penn officials wanted the ordinance passed; the bill only covers University City; done deal. This unthinking eagerness to please wealthy institutions plagues government all the time, especially municipal governments that seek to keep major local employers happy. The result is that already powerful businesses -- like Penn -- see their power multiplied by dollar signs, and the potential for input by normal citizens shrinks. After all, even in a fair fight, Penn has the resources to win most battles over issues affecting campus. Its officials are talented and experienced. Its pockets for public relations are much deeper than most opponents'. It has enough control over some campus issues to get things done without any city involvement. Most importantly, Penn ought to have enough brainpower at its disposal to come up with sound proposals that won't incur much public outcry and won't need kid glove handling from the local government to win approval. Not to mention the number of city government folks with Penn ties -- like Mayor Ed Rendell and most of his top staffers. Add that potent mix of forces to attitudes like Street's -- "We have an obligation" -- and how can anyone hope to derail Penn's plans? Matters of public interest are supposed to be decided on their merits, and by the public, not by the size of one side's budget. When City Council decides to yield to Penn on anything and everything involving University City, regular citizens lose out. Why should it be that way? Why does Philadelphia "owe" Penn for employing people? Penn needs those jobs done almost as badly as the city needs jobs for its residents. The University has taken plenty of handouts from Philadelphia and Pennsylvania over the years -- ever notice how many campus buildings were constructed with state funds in the 1960s? And when it's forced to help out the city with things like "Payment In Lieu Of Taxes" or Mayor's Scholarships, Penn has complied only begrudgingly. The University's students often wreak havoc on the neighborhood near campus, and few of us stick around in the city after we graduate, depriving Philadelphia of countless potential taxpayers and intelligent citizens. On balance, it seems like Penn and the city are about even. An attitude like Street's is most pernicious not when the fight involves convenient access to good lunchtime falafel, but when much more serious issues are concerned. In the 1960s, for example, local residents fought tooth and nail against Penn's request that the government condemn blocks and blocks of housing to make way for complexes like Superblock, 3401 Walnut Street and the University City Science Center. Penn's economic clout won out handily. The land was condemned under "eminent domain," turned over to Penn and incorporated into the growing Quaker empire west of the Schuylkill. The Market Street construction decimated a neighborhood that had flourished for decades -- which surely contributed something to the crime Penn now asks the city police force to help fight. Of course, city officials looked at the issue rationally and decided a food court at 3401 was much more important to the city than affordable housing for people who had lived there for years. Political and economic considerations didn't have anything to do with it. Right? Nothing that Penn is doing now even approaches the colossal insensitivity that ran through the construction boom 30 years ago, but when the city's elected officials look at the University's demands without question, the potential for more disaster remains. Ideally, Penn would recognize how unfair it is for the city to weigh its side more heavily than normal citizens'. A world-class university shouldn't act like the local car factory or baseball team, demanding things left and right from the city. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely top Penn administrators are going to have a civic-minded change of heart any time soon. So what can concerned members of the Penn community do to keep things in check? For a start, stay informed about what the University is doing in the world at large. The Daily Pennsylvanian has, rightly, made an effort over the past few years to increase its coverage of city issues, and that helps. But it also helps to know the citywide issues Penn might involve itself in, and for that, follow local news in The Philadelphia Inquirer or Daily News or on television and the Internet. Armed with that background, get involved in Penn organizations that intersect with policy toward the city. The more viewpoints that are represented in offices like Community Relations, the better -- it means more front-end input goes into decisions on how the University handles local issues. Rather than reacting to proposals after they're on the table, take an active role in shaping them. If the city government is going to bow to Penn's demands as a matter of "obligation," students, faculty and staff have an equal obligation to make sure the University doesn't abuse that misplaced trust. If you pay attention, you just may be able to cage that 800-lb. gorilla after all.