Posts for category ‘Scranton’

Scranton City Councilman Pat Rogan is a fellow West Sider and we share a lot of mutual friends.  I like the man.  I don’t like the politics.  It’s nice that that can still go on in this particularly hypercharged rhetorical climate.

In any case, why I disagree with Rogan’s endorsement of Barletta, which has been making the rounds in political circles, is why I disagree with anybody supporting Barletta: “Boohoo” Lou is misguided on illegal immigration, he has ruined his city’s finances for a full decade, and his economic philosophy is of the Republican school, i.e. cut taxes for the rich, let corporations do what they want, and the little guy can go to hell.

The controversy, though, is that Pat Rogan is a Democrat supporting a Republican.  Honestly, but how is this unexpected or scandalous?  Sure, I’m a Democrat and I’ll vote for a Democrat before anything else because 99% of the time it’s better than the alternative.  Maybe even 100% of the time.  Probably 100% of the time.  Definitely, I mean.  But still.  Rogan ran on an anti-illegal immigration platform.  He supported Barletta actively in 2002 and 2006 against Kanjorski.  I don’t get why it’s news.  It’s consistent.  He ran as a Republican the first time! People who voted for Pat knew what they were getting, he wasn’t hiding anything.  This didn’t surprise me.  Why did it surprise and/or anger others?

This is news anyway, because PA2010, one of the big statewide blogs, picked up on his endorsement.  This means we can probably expect Kanjorski to trot out Republican endorsements.

So, sure, I disagree with him, just like I disagree with every Barletta supporter.  And actually, the wording in the release, that “our country is heading in a very dangerous direction” seems a tad too fearmongerish to me.  On top of that, if that’s the case, the Republican party is not the one to dig us out of any hole.  The only ones with the ladders who can climb out are the super-rich.  And the ladders are gold plated and poor-people proof.

In any case, here is his release:

Scranton Councilman Pat Rogan Endorses Lou Barletta for Congress

Today, Pat Rogan, a Democratic member of the Scranton City Council, publicly endorsed U.S. Congressional candidate Lou Barletta.

“I admire the way Lou Barletta fought for his city and for what he believes in, and that’s why I am endorsing Lou today.  Now more than ever, we need to look at the person, not the party, and Lou Barletta is the best person to represent the people of Scranton in the U.S. Congress,” Rogan said. “This isn’t the time to simply vote a straight-party ticket on Nov. 2. I encourage the people of Scranton to look beyond the party label and at Lou Barletta’s policies and his record and his opponent’s policies and his record. There are very clear differences that make Lou Barletta the best choice for Scranton.

“Our country is heading in a very dangerous direction, and Lou Barletta will help get us back on the right path. I’m proud to offer my public endorsement of Lou Barletta for Congress, and I encourage other elected Democrats to join me,” Rogan added.

Lackawanna County has the opportunity to build a new stadium.  Many are against this due to the cost and that’s understandable.  I’m sure that’s why Governor Rendell promised $20 million for its construction.

One thing I learned on my travels last week was that urban planning is a pretty important facet of urban development.  Now, that seems obvious, but not so much if you live in Scranton (the SAPA vote aside).  Greenville put a Single A stadium in it’s downtown, spurring development around it.

If a new stadium were built in or near downtown Scranton, the development that is spurred by such a location would be tremendous.  Montage Mountain is, sadly, turning into a corporate and commercial wasteland.  Pushing corporate and commercial development out of urban areas pulls citizens out of urban areas, which means less in taxes, less in growth, less in development.  Aside from the Shoppes having duplicated what the Viewmont Mall and Mall at Steamtown both do, they are out of the way and not connected.  My point is that in and around a stadium, expect shops to pop up, restaurants to move in, and foot traffic to increase.  Right now, there is nothing in walking distance to the stadium.  If a new stadium were in the city, I’m sure attendance would increase due to the convenience of location.

I am not an urban planner, but I am researching the concept.  While traffic seems like it would be the biggest concern, I’m certain it can be mitigated.  As for a location, I’ve heard the Silk Mill by the River as a location.  I would like to see the car lot wasteland in Pine Brook (which I’ve always found unsightly) converted.  The location at least abuts town and would develop an area that has the wonderful contrast of blight and Scranton Prep.

I’m just throwing ideas out there, but ultimately, I think a new stadium is a good idea and it should be considered only in conjunction with smart urban development.  Scranton could use it.

In terms of cost, I don’t mind the idea of a sale of the franchise, because it seems odd for a government to own a sports team.  The only real term that I think necessary, other than a decent sale price that covers the rest of the cost of a stadium, is that the team commit to staying in the area indefinitely.  In addition to all this goodness, having a stadium in the city means bigtime tax revenue from the stadium itself, not to mention whatever growth it spurs.  And think about the money pumped into the local economy from the construction work!

Benefits outweigh potential problems, methinks.

Mayor Doherty vetoed the new Comcast legislation passed by Scranton City Council which seeks to get a contract for the PEG channel (right now run by ECTV) and will likely put the PEG out to bid.  The reason he chose to veto it was in part because he feared the legislation could lead to potential lawsuits.

How?  ECTV has no contract with the city, which is utterly absurd.  What grounds could they possibly have?  I can’t see how Comcast could sue.  I just can’t wrap my head around this.  Legal minds, care to weigh in?

I got my hands on a press release concerning a disturbing vote that occurred last night at Scranton City Council.  Turns out that Council voted to amend the contract with Comcast and defund ECTV.  Here’s the release (forgive the formatting):

It’s official, we have to use the “L” word in PILOTgate.  That’s right, somebody’s a liar.  Janet Evans, along with Council Solicitor Boyd Hughes, said the U of S suggested the quid pro quo.  The University of Scranton’s lawyer, though, is saying it was Janet Evans who suggested it.  (The “it” in question is the trade off of increased PILOT payments in return for an aerial easement, which some have argued is extortion.)

Again, it’s more he-said-she-said, but now the University of Scranton is hitting back.  This ill will between government and the University isn’t good, as it removes incentive for the University to give PILOTs to the city at all.  I mean, there is no legal way we can get them to contribute, we just have to rely on good will.  It’ll be interesting to see what happens next year.

The drama over PILOTgate continues!  In an interesting twist, Janet Evans said it was Rev. Pilarz that offered the quid pro quo, officially turning this into a he-said-she-said situation.

It is plausible that Pilarz offered to increase PILOT payments in exchange for an aerial easement and that Janet’s number, $1 million, was too high.  It’s also plausible that the opposite happened.  Either way, I don’t think it matters.  The most important item worthy of note in all this is that Lancaster gets $1.5 million from its non-profits and we get next to nothing.  People shouldn’t forget that.

Do you like PILOTgate?  I do.

Mayor Doherty finally weighed in on the Janet Evans approach to extracting more money from the University of Scranton.  Predictably, he didn’t like it.  Nor did Bob McGoff.  Fair enough.

But Evans (and Chris Phillips, who did the analysis that showed the millions the U of S has taken off the tax rolls over the years) had a bit of validation: Today’s Times points out that other cities see more generous contributions from their respective non-profits.  Lancaster, a city smaller than Scranton, gets $1.5 million from their nonprofits.  That compares to Scranton’s roughly $180,000.  I’m sure Lancaster’s budget looks a little nicer.  An extra million per year would go far in this city.

With the Mayor’s exemption estimate at 32% of city property, the other two-thirds of the city, name, you know, the people, have to pick up the tax burden.

This isn’t fair, regardless of the “economic engine” everybody keeps calling the University.  Sure, it is an economic engine.  But they utilize city infrastructure and services and should contribute fairly.  Heck, I contribute to the city through money spent on businesses and through my property taxes, just like many residents do.  Businesses pay their taxes to the city.  Everybody should pay their fair share, non-profit or no.  We are all Scranton.

The dislike that the Scranton Times has for Janet Evans is a pretty well-known fact.  The feeling is mutual on her part, I’m sure.  Both have their respective platforms to get their message out.  Janet has TV, the Paper has its readers.  Wow, did they slam her today.

Ultimately, the goal Janet Evans has — to get the University to contribute more to the city — is totally reasonable and she should be applauded for her attempts.  The most recent method by which she attempted to do so, by seemingly linking the granting of an aerial easement to increased payments generated a lot of questions about ethics.  I usually see ethical violations as having intent and while I don’t agree with the method Evans used, she definitely didn’t deserve the raging harangue she faced in the Times today.

Both Chris Kelly and the Times editorial went in guns a’blazin.  Okay, I laughed like hell at Janet riding down Mulberry yelling, “The Jesuits are coming!  The Jesuits are coming!”  I also take issue with the term “pyrrhic victory” which I happen to like, whne used appropriately.  A pyrrhic victory means the battle was one, but at such a great cost that the cause is crippled.  Janet didn’t win the battle.  She’s also not crippled, as far as I can tell.  Maybe damaged by the bad press, but her political life isn’t over.

But the real issue is the loss of taxable property and the utilization of city infrastructure and services.  We shouldn’t lose sight of that.  On that note, frequent commenter canoe suggested that pushing the idea of a tuition tax would definitely put pressure on local universities to contribute more.  In addition, the Council could’ve just created a hefty fee or increased the fee for buildings 7 stories or higher.  It would’ve spared us all from this trouble.  But hindsight is 20/20.

Last night, I had the pleasure of speaking with Councilwoman Janet Evans at length about her position on the PILOTs (Payments in Lieu of Taxes) from the University of Scranton.

On this issue, we are of like mind in that both of us, along with many Scranton residents, believe that the University of Scranton should contribute to the finances of the city because they utilize infrastructure that city taxpayers support.  The argument that the University provides a solid economic impact and should therefore not have to pay taxes doesn’t jive with me, because for-profit institutions have a positive economic impact as well.  They happen to pay taxes.

My perception was that if a million dollars would’ve gotten the University what they wanted, then that could mean people could just pay the city a million and get anything they wanted rezoned or easemented (I just copyrighted this word).

Not so, said Evans, who rejected the “extortion” moniker, and said this was not quid pro quo (fancy talk for “this for that”).  Getting the University to contribute was one goal, and the University’s desire for an aerial easement was another.  Evans pointed out that the Recovery Plan says that the Mayor and City Business Administrator will take a proactive role in attempting to get non-profits to contribute to the city’s coffers.  That hasn’t happened, so Evans took the opportunity to sit down with University officials to press the issue.  Makes sense.

I’ve proposed looking into taxing properties used for residential (i.e. non-educational) purposes and Evans pointed out that the University has actually driven out local business by having cafés on campus, which sit on University property and so don’t contribute property taxes.  That never occurred to me before – a non-profit can house businesses on its property, thereby giving the businesses a huge advantage.  Evans also pointed out that wedding receptions have been held at the University.  The University presumably makes money off of these things, neither of which have educational purposes.

We also talked about the analysis Chris Phillips did of the amount of money the city has lost because of property loss to the University.  I didn’t know this, but according to Evans, over 50% of University of Scranton property acquisitions have taken place since the year 2000.  That’s pretty exponential growth.

What the University does for the economy and the Hill section can’t be unacknowledged here.  They’ve done wonderful things in terms of bringing in permit money and cleaning up the areas they take over, but they utilize city infrastructure and should contribute more than a $170,000 PILOT when they’ve taken millions off the tax rolls over the years.

Yesterday, I wrote about the increase in PILOT contributions to the city from the University of Scranton and the Janet Evans attempt to get $1,000,000 in return for a change in permits.

I applaud the spirit of this, because the University does need to contribute more.

I totally ignored the implications of this, however, and, as many have been pointing out, it sounds like extortion.  The goal – to get the University to pay – is good.  The means, in this case, are not acceptable.  If throwing money at the city is all one needs to get city law or ordinances reconfigured, then, well, that sounds pretty corrupt.  How much would it cost me to rezone Hyde Park Industrial?  $10,000,000?

Yes, I’m being facetious. I’m not saying Evans’ intentions were corrupt, her goal, as I said, was good.  Method, though, not so much. There has to be a better way.

The University of Scranton listens to the people, it seems.  Complaints have rung out about their lack of financial contribution to the city and their new residence hall in the Hill, which would’ve required an aerial easement so they could build a seven-story building.  Neighbors were unhappy, as this would literally cast a shadow over the area.

Rather than accede to City Council’s request for increased PILOTs (Payment in Lieu of Taxes), the University decided to change their plans for the Residence Halls.

This shows that they are willing to listen only in that they don’t really care so much about the neighbors and the lack of fiscal contribution to the city’s coffers, but rather they listen to possible plans and changes that’ll cost them in the long run.

Janet Evans and Chris Phillips have taken the lead for some time on the issue of the University of Scranton dominating an entire neighborhood and taking it off the tax rolls.  As I’ve proposed, they should pay taxes on homes and residence halls, which have nothing to do with education.  They simply rent these out to students and/or charge dorming fees.

Hopefully Evans, as Council President, keeps the pressure on.  It seems to me that the general consensus is that the University’s contribution isn’t enough.  Sure, they generate economic activity, but that doesn’t bring it property taxes, does it?  At least, not the same amount that they are taking off the rolls, despite their study.

The university’s contributions to the Hill, i.e. making it nicer, are not to be ignored.  But that doesn’t excuse the loss the city has felt as a result of their never-ending expansion and consumption of private property.

Last year, I had the privileges of reading some of my short stories at the Pages & Places Book Festival in Downtown Scranton.  The event was wonderful – panels, authors, people all over downtown, and, of course, books!  I highly encourage people to attend this coming October and I’ll be posting reminders as the time draws nigh.

The reason I’m writing about this so early is that Christopher Hitchens will be coming!  I imagine he won’t be all that popular with local residents, given this religiosity of this area, as he is a very prominent atheist and the author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, which was nominated for a National Book Award.

Hitchens has just released an autobiography at age 61 entitled Hitch-22, with apologies to Joseph Heller, I’m sure.

Aside from prominent atheism, he is a prolific social commentator and wrote a fascinating article about American education, which I routinely return to for guidance and insight.  Hitchens (who taught at UPitt) points out that dialectic approaches to teaching are absent in America (or at least on the decline) and reminds us that asking questions about material (the dialectic, or Socratic method) is the best way to achieve understanding.  I teach AP classes, so this is essential.  There is no memorize and regurgitate for the purposes of testing.  There is analysis, synthesis, and understanding.  Incidentally, this helps with testing, too, and leaves students with a critical thinking ability that will stick with them through life.

Education aside, Hitchens is, of course, in the sights of conservative evangelicals (maybe literally in the sights of Palin) due to his consistently vehement and vitriolic assault on all things religion (no religion is spared).  His work excoriates the negative aspects of religion and points out the positives, like the Golden Rule for example, aren’t exclusive to religion.  Atheists can be moral and ethical without religion.  Sometimes the religious don’t see how that’s possible.  In addition, he cites passages from various holy works that condone immoralities and atrocities in both literal and figurative senses.  The Old Testament is rife with examples, and, for anybody familiar, I don’t need to provide reminders.

All in all, it’s rather exciting to see Hitchens coming to the area.  I always enjoy his perspective and his rather brash approach when dealing with those who hold opposing viewpoints.

Pages & Places, headed up by Liz Randol, has scored here and this year’s incarnation of the festival promises to be exciting.  Maybe people will even protest!

When an organization endeavors to prove its value to the community by performing its own statistical and economic review of itself, anybody looking should maybe do a double-take or two.

According to the University of Scranton, it does lots of great stuff for Scranton.  This is, of course, indisputable.  Residents and politicians alike know and understand that the University of Scranton provides economic benefits to the city.  The contention that many have is that the University doesn’t provide enough to the City to warrant not paying taxes.  After all, they get police and fire protection from us.  They use our infrastructure.  They routinely take property off of the tax rolls, shifting the burden to the rest of us.

It’s important to take note of the methodology used by da U, which happened to have been a model inherently favorable to universities.  That’s number one.  Number two, which I mentioned earlier, is that they evaluated how awesome they are.  I mean, if, on a scale of 1-10, I had to rate myself, I would probably be a little biased.  Unless I had self-esteem issues.  But neither I, nor the University, have self-esteem issues.

Here is my proposed compromise: All university properties directly related to education, as per law, must be exempt from property taxes.  The City, however, should endeavor to tax residence halls or residential properties used to house students.  The reason for this is two-fold: residences removed from the tax rolls account for the majority of properties the city has lost and University-owned residences have no role in educating students.

The legality of this would have to be determined by lawyers, but it seems, at least on its face, reasonable and workable (If I do say so myself, anyway – remember, I’m a 10).

The University of Scranton hasn’t given any PILOTs (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) in a few years.  It’s time, instead, to tax their properties, or assess fees on their properties, which do not serve a direct educational purpose.  This would, of course, include other local colleges and universities and would generate revenue for the city while requiring institutions of higher education to pay their fair share (other than illusory numbers from economic impact studies).

Many people complain about taxes at Scranton City Council meetings, but about eighty cents on the dollar goes to the Scranton School District.  People should be paying close attention to what we’re getting for those tax dollars.

I’m a teacher, as many readers know, and I’m a product of the Scranton School District (a proud West Side graduate) and I had a superb education.  Years ago, I heard an aphorism about parenting that stuck with me, “Every parents’ goal is to see their child do better than they themselves did.”  This resonates with me now, because I see the parallels with teaching.  I want my students to have a better education than I did.

Since so much of my property taxes go to the Scranton School District and I’m a teacher, I looked on with interest at today’s report from the Times on the performance of local school districts.

For all our money, this is what we got: Out of 21 sets of standards, the Scranton School District was at the state average on 10.  That is less than half.  In attendance, Scranton is 454^th of 500 school districts.  In graduation, Scraton is 362^nd of 500 school districts.  Scranton is 396^th in per pupil spending, which is absolutely ridiculous because the district has a budget almost the size of Lackawanna County.  If we have a budget this big, why are we only 396^th, where is all that money going?  Pocono Mountain is only slightly bigger than Scranton and they are 62^nd in per-pupil spending.  This is pretty bad and we can do better.  In fact, we have.

In my younger days, I went to John Marshall Elementary School (I’m a Marshall Man, as many friends affectionately call it), which used to be a Blue Ribbon School – a wonderful mark of success, it’s national recognition showing that a school improved in all academically tested areas.  Now, the district is closing the school and having Highland Associates (of Cordaro-Munchak alleged bribery fame) build a multi-million dollar facility to replace it.  You’ve read my complaints about this: Western Wayne is building a state-of-the-art green elementary for millions less.  Why couldn’t we?  In any case, what happened to the district with the Blue Ribbon schools?  We’re below the state average, that’s what’s happened.

And Paul O’Malley, board president, wants to lay off teachers.  That’s going to help?  Increasing class size will not help students do better.  It’s common sense.  It’s in statistics.  And I’m a teacher, I’ve seen it.  Thirty students in a room is a disaster.  That’s 30 egos, 30 different sets of wants and needs.  Lower class sizes will increase performance, hands down.

There should be two goals in mind for the Board: treating taxpayers fairly and providing a great education for the kids.  Both groups deserve better than we’ve gotten.

Yesterday, I got into a discussion with commenter canoe about the merits of shooting down SAPA, the Scranton-Abington Planning Association.  The plan put forward by SAPA would have made the area’s zoning laws more cohesive, drove development in certain areas, limited sprawl, and conserved land.  It sounded like a good deal to me.  I read about it on SAPA’s poorly constructed website.  I’ve read about it in the news.

Canoe’s contention that SAPA didn’t do enough to inform Council or the public about its benefits is a good point, SAPA did not.  I don’t necessarily think that it’s reason to abandon it though.  To that effect, Councilman Pat Rogan, whose main concern was its exclusion of nearby areas and its potential costs, said he was open to revisiting this issue and learning more about it.  Good for him.  Hopefully something constructive comes of this.

Since Scranton has the strongest infrastructure of the communities involved in SAPA, along with SAPA’s concentration on Scranton for development, it seems as though the adoption of this plan would’ve benefitted the city immensely.  Rather than a business park on a former farmer’s field in the Abington’s, zoning would push it into Scranton.  That would increase the tax base, which is a concern of Councilman Rogan’s.

At least the issue isn’t totally dead.

The potential for a County Democratic Party shake-up is big news, and the news that Art Moran isn’t running for re-election as City Chair isn’t far behind.  John Murray, who is part of the Democratic Party Cabal (the current one, anyway) is running against Mike Costello.

I called Mike and asked him why he was running.  Here it is:

“I’m running for this position because nothing positive has been done for the last four years.  It’s a good old boys club and I want people, both voters and committeemen and women to be active, voting, working for the community.  That’s the only reason I’m running.

“The current Party leaders help themselves and that’s it.  They don’t even send out letters informing people of their meetings.  We want everybody to pick good Democratic candidates, not just leave it to five people in a back room.

“I’m running to make the Party the way Packy Diskin had it.  This Democrat fighting Democrat mentality has to stop.  We need to get people along.  The Democratic endorsement used to mean something, but it’s been hurt.  People think it’s the kiss of death.   That’s not right, and if I win, I’m going to make sure to make the party work for the community and earn its respect.”

Bob Sheridan, newly elected member of the Scranton School Board, will be challenging Harry McGrath for County Chair of the Lackawanna County Democratic Committee.  Sheridan filed the papers today and made it official.

I had the opportunity to attend a meeting with Sheridan and his compatriots.  What struck me was that he gave a speech when everybody there obviously supported him.  This was only my second time speaking to Bob and I hadn’t heard him give a public speech before, but what he said impressed me.  What he said was quite a bit similar to something I posted earlier today:  That the Party ignores the little guy and works for its own cabal-like structure.  Now, that statement in and of itself isn’t impressive, even if it’s accurate.  Instead, what got me was that he talked about the Party of the old days, the one that helped people the one that included people and the one built consensus and the one that represented the whole county and the one that, he said, would come back if he won the committee election.

Having worked on a race where the County Party did nothing for a county candidate (not only did they give no money or institutional support, Harry McGrath showed up to no events), I can tell you that Bob Sheridan is exactly right.  I looked at their vote totals (this was my first time having met with this group, so it was kind of them to let me look) and it’s looking good — they have a plurality of support up and down the County.

Not only that, but Mike Costello, former chair of the 113th (the Democratic Committee position that corresponds to the legislative district) will be challenging Art Moran for City Chair.  When I spoke to him, his sentiment was similar to Sheridan’s and he cited similar reasons for running.  I’ve know both Art and Mike for some time and it’ll be interesting to see them battle it out and while I’m loathe to criticize Art (he’s a nice guy), he is closely involved with Harry McGrath’s institution, which may not help him with the anti-Harry element out there.

This is a total side note, but since I broke this, shall we take bets on whether or not Borys will give me credit when this appears in the Times?  Just asking.

Editor’s Note:  Glenn Cashuric had the Sheridan info out there before I did.  Credit where it’s due!

Way back, I wrote about how John Loscombe’s appointment to Council could lead to a halt in his pension.  Well, that happened, and now he’s suing the City.

One cannot collect a paycheck from the City while also collecting a pension.  That’s double-dipping.  In addition, if Loscombe were to collect a pension, then that would be a conflict of interest because, as a Councilman, he would be an overseer of his own benefits.  So, the City cut him off from his pension.  He can resume collecting it when he is done serving on Council.

His lawsuit says that the City violated his First Amendment rights.  Not sure how that makes sense.

Loscombe said he didn’t think the law would apply to him, but, frankly, I can’t understand why he would be an exception.

Whether or not the law is fair is a different issue, because, at the heart of this, is the idea that persons retired from the city should be able to serve and still make enough money to live.  But the conflict of interest still needs to be considered, and the law is still on the books, so, as a Councilman, Loscombe should follow it.

Dave Evans called me and left me a message to dispute the Tom Charles post about the recent Zoning Board appointments. Turns out, according to him, that Tom Charles called Janet Evans about the appointment, not the other way around.

We now have a he-said-she-said situation on our hands.

But the underlying issues here don’t change no matter who made the call: The Evans camp didn’t dispute anything about cronyism. Nope. That post was totally accurate. And my assertion that Tom Charles didn’t get the job because he wasn’t an Evans crony, not disputed.

But who asked whom, that’s an issue.

Right.

Dave accused me of not checking my sources (or the facts), and, of course, I posted what Tom Charles told me. Just because it isn’t Janet’s “side of the story” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. On top of that, Dave Evans is Janet’s unofficial spokesperson evidently, which isn’t valid either. Maybe she can publicly appoint him. Also, one big reason I don’t like to talk to the camp: Everything I’m told is “off the record” which means I agree to listen but cannot share. I dislike knowledge I can’t share with people.

In any case, cronyism is alive and well and undisputed. That’s what’s important here and that’s where the failure of leadership is.

A few days ago, I spoke to Tom Charles, who told me he would be applying for the Zoning Board position at the behest of Janet Evans who had called him and asked that he apply. So when I saw yesterday’s paper, I found it odd that he didn’t get an interview, let alone the position. I called him to talk to him about the issue, especially since this is the second time the Evans crew burned him.

Background.

Tom Charles ran unsuccessfully for Council last time around. He is rumored to be running again. I asked him about this, just to try to set the record straight. He said, “I can’t say for sure just now. My gas station was heavily vandalized last year and it nearly put me out of business. I just got it back up and running. I would love to represent the community on Council, but I couldn’t commit to a run unless I could give it my all.”

The potential for a Council run, I think, plays into why the Evans clan played this game with him. Hear me out.
When Bill Courtright’s seat came up, Tom Charles was told to have his application in by the end of the business day. For most, that’s 4 PM. For the City of Scranton, or Janet Evans, that’s 2 PM. His application got in after 2 PM (but before 4 PM) and he was not interviewed or considered for the position. Burn #1.

So why would Janet Evans call Tom Charles, ask him to apply to be on the Zoning Board, then not bother formally interviewing him?

Well, she admitted that she only accepts cronies, which Charles obviously is not.

But there are two political possibilities here, one complex, the other, not so much.

My initial thought was that this was an easy way to set up a potential thorn in her side for failure and ridicule. The paper mentioned Charles didn’t get his application for Council in by the deadline. Now he failed to get this seat. It is an easy way to make a rival look irresponsible and unqualified.

A friend told me that the Evans crew isn’t capable of that kind of deepthink, and instead said that it’s there way of stringing him along. After all, Charles applied for the Council position, but was misled. Now, they string him along again for the Zoning Board and try to look like the good guys: Hey, Mr. Charles, we considered you for the job. That’s a compliment, isn’t it?

I sincerely hope Charles wins next year, not to be a thorn in the Evans side, but to represent people without a pro-crony policy. He would still be in the minority, but that’s fine. I would rather somebody with independence be there than not.