Unveiling the Philadelphia Mayoral Debate: Education, Wage Tax, and Kensington - Exploring Key Issues and Solutions
As the Philadelphia Mayoral election rapidly approaches, the debate between candidates Cherelle Parker and David Oh has taken center stage for citizens trying to understand the nuance of current issues. In my recent appearance on NBC, there wasn’t enough time to truly delve into all the topics. I’d like to break down the ones we missed now that deserve our attention: education, wage tax, and Kensington.
Year-Round Schooling: A New Approach to Education
The education system in Philadelphia, like many other big cities, faces its fair share of challenges. Cherelle Parker champions the idea of non-mandatory year-round schooling as a solution, but what’s needed for that to work? The city calculates that public school structures require a hefty sum of up to $5 million in refurbishments, reconstruction, and essential updates—an amount that the city isn’t currently capable of spending. Implementing something like year-round school would require significant changes to our school buildings, which are hardly suitable for unseasonably warm October weather, let alone the heat of July. It’s a substantial—but essential—investment in our students and the foundation of their future.
In contrast to Parker’s suggestion of year-round schooling, David Oh took the approach that time off is necessary for teachers, students, and families—and that equity needs to take the forefront when discussing education in the city. That all children have an equal amount of resources is a sticking point for Oh, understandably.
The big takeaway here is that creative solutions for long-term challenges have to be part of the overall strategy to address our schools.
Wage Tax Cuts: The Uniformity Clause
Cherelle Parker put forward the notion of utilizing the Uniformity Clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution. This clause stipulates that every class of taxpayers must be taxed uniformly across the state, to lower wage taxes in Philadelphia.
Wage tax reductions can catalyze economic growth, generate employment prospects, and lure new businesses to our city. Nevertheless, it's imperative to strike a balance between lightening the tax burden and ensuring that crucial services receive the funding they require.
While both candidates support the notion of tax cuts, they differ on how they would address replacing the lost revenue that comes with the cuts. While Parker proposed seeking state approval to tax commercial property owners at a higher rate than residential, Oh said that’s unrealistic, stating that the State would likely never approve a change to the uniformity clause.
The next mayor's challenge is to navigate a way to economically develop the city of Philadelphia, and still take care of our citizens.
Kensington: The National Guard as a Solution
The ongoing public health crisis in Kensington ignited a fiery debate between Oh and Parker. Oh, understandably, is “concerned about armed, uniformed military members interacting with residents, saying guardsmen are not trained in urban policing.” Parker advocates the deployment of the National Guard as a solution, an idea that some perceived negatively. In reality, the National Guard is dispatched for health crises like COVID-19 or natural disasters such as hurricanes, boasting logistical capabilities that far surpass those of the city's police force. To alleviate the burden on the police, the National Guard would be a strategic response to a complex problem that the city faces. We don’t need militarized streets—we need logistical expertise, helping hands, and rapid response.
As the Philadelphia Mayoral election nears, we must remember that these topics are not isolated issues but interconnected aspects of our city's future. A mayor's ability to address these concerns and provide thoughtful solutions will undoubtedly shape the path that Philadelphia follows in the years to come.