Katz, Street square off in Annenberg debate

The two mayoral candidates stuck to soundbites in their televised showdown Sunday. Sitting on the Zellerbach Theatre stage Sunday morning, Philadelphia's two mayoral candidates faced off in their second televised debate. John Street and Sam Katz rehashed their positions on crime, education, jobs and taxes before approximately 200 citizens gathered at the Annenberg Center. But although only two weeks are left in the furiously competitive campaign, they failed to deliver anything new, instead sticking to standard soundbites -- for Street, his experience and political party, and for Katz, his desire for innovation in government. During the hour-long event -- broadcast Sunday morning on WPVI-Channel 6 -- the candidates fielded questions from a panel of citizens who have been meeting throughout the election season to discuss critical issues to the city. The panelists sometimes became frustrated that the candidates avoided specific answers by sticking to vague statements and campaign slogans. At one point, moderator Marc Howard, an anchor for Channel 6, turned to a questioner who had just heard the candidates dodge his question and asked, "Did you hear an answer?" Katz repeated his goal of running the city more efficiently and drawing people and businesses to the city with lower taxes. He did not give any specific examples of spending cuts he would make to offset the tax cut. And Street cited his experience on City Council and seven-year partnership with Mayor Ed Rendell, stressing that he helped save the city from a financial crisis in the early 1990s and can responsibly guide the city into the future. The debate was sponsored by The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Compact, the League of Women Voters and the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. Sitting side by side before small glass tables, Katz in a blue suit and Street in a black one, the two levelly discussed campaign issues. Wage taxes were a focus of the event, with Katz referring to tax plan for the city -- in which he pledges to cut the wage tax from 4.6 percent to 4 percent over the next four years. Street criticized the plan, saying it will cost the city $250 million and would damage city services. "I don't believe we have to cut services," said Katz, who explained that the key to making the cuts was to increase government efficiency. Street touted Rendell's five-year financial plan, which he would continue. "My tax reduction program is designed to give us some balance," he said. Education was another major concern on the table. The panelists questioned Street and Katz about the future of the city's suffering public schools. "I want to have a fully funded system," said Street, who said the schools need more money for qualified teachers and good facilities. He said he plans to demand more education funding from the state legislators in Harrisburg. But Katz criticized this plan, saying it will damage public schools. "My opponent has said that he will go to Harrisburg? that if we don't get what he calls funding, that he will close the schools. I think that playing brinkmanship with the school kids of Philadelphia is not only bad politics, it's bad policy," he said. Katz supports school vouchers, while Street does not. "I don't make the case that vouchers will improve education," Katz said, instead insisting that vouchers provide parents with a choice. Street countered that vouchers "drain desperately needed resources." Another issue the candidates addressed was race relations in the city. Street said he would try to improve the quality of life across the city -- fighting against blight, crime and drugs to improve the quality of life. Katz noted that "racism is a cancer." He said he will try and promote minority hiring and publish statistics on minorities in the workplace. At the debate's end each candidate hit the audience with a decisive closing statement. "Ed Rendell and John Street literally saved this city from financial disaster," Street said. "We can't take a chance on inexperienced leadership." Katz said Street was being unfairly critical of his ideas. "My opponent has suggested that thinking outside of the box, which has so successfully helped other cities become 21st century competitive places is radical, risky and reckless," Katz said. "Well, it's not."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.