Posts tagged ‘Janet Evans’

Janet Evans took the time to respond to the release from ECTV, clarifying what happened at Council last night.

“It is absolutely false that City Council is pulling the plug” Evans said.  ”I spearheaded the fight to get cameras back in after the Mayor had them removed years ago.”

Evans explained that, yes, the agreement was amended, but that there would most certainly be a PEG channel (basically a public access channel). Comcast itself has no dealings with ECTV and it’s up to the Mayor and Council to administer funds to it.

The point of contention for Evans is that there is no contract between ECTV and Scranton.  This is amazing, because if there’s nothing in writing, how do we know what services ECTV is even supposed to provide?  They originally said they would put Council meetings up on the Internet, and for people like me with no Comcast, the Internet is the only way for me to watch my government meetings.  Since there is no written agreement, ECTV isn’t obligated to do this (which is why they haven’t).

According to Evans, “ECTV has no accountability.  They answer to nobody.  They simply do their own programming without input from the city.  The city funds their operations, but they have never provided any accounting to us in the two years they’ve existed until July of this year.”  The city requested invoiced, Evans said, and the invoice they finally received was for unpaid salaries, but didn’t provide a breakdown of employees or job descriptions.  One charge was for 300 hours of carpentry work, but no description of the work was included.

Evans pointed out that ECTV received a $90,000 loan from OECD, but never made a single payment on it and had the loan forgiven in 12 months.  This is ridiculous.

Evans continued, “This amendment opens the door to have a new PEG provider through a request for proposals, but we need a contract.  We will provide guidelines as to what we expect.”  Putting this out to bid will give the city the best bang for its buck.  In fact, ECTV purchased its equipment with city money and if, after bidding is done, they do not get selected as a provider, they must return the equipment.

To conclude, Evans said there would be public access no matter what and that was never and will never be in question.

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.

The Zoning Board Appointments caught my eye today for a few reasons. First, I know that Janet Evans, and her Enforcer, husband Dave Evans, asked Tom Charles to apply for this position. Why they would do that only to throw him to the wayside is beyond me. Actually, I’m sure it’s because Charles is rumored to be running for Council next year and she’s trying to mess with him. But I’ll investigate this further and let you all know.

The second, and far more interesting bit that caught my eye is that Janet Evans said it’s important to know applicants personally so that trust is developed.

There you have it, totally admitted: Cronyism is superior to qualifications. Does knowing somebody help? Maybe. Hell, it can help you figure out whether or not a person deserves the position. But trust isn’t the issue. Qualification is. What Evans is basically saying is that the most qualified person in the country could apply for a position, but if she doesn’t know them personally, and therefore can’t trust them, they won’t be considered.

Furthermore, she’s not actually bringing the applicants before the Council! They just appointed them based on whether or not she’s friends with them.

This is appalling and farcical and Evans, righteous cult-leader that she is, should try a little harder next time to either mask her cronyist-buffoonery, or actually follow some of that populist rhetoric she spouts and do what’s right for the city.

From the beginning of the battle over the budget between Council and the Mayor, I’ve thought it was a waste of time.  The last Council passed the budget in December.  The only reason Evans wanted to amend the budget was to stick it to the Mayor, because now she had the power to do it (I await angry e-mails from Evans supporters).

The Judge pointed out how much of a joke this all was.  I happened to catch his comments on WNEP (the Times didn’t quote too much) but he pointed out how mindless it is to cut 4 federally funded positions.  I mean, the City isn’t paying for them.  You can’t just move the money around (I think that’s what Council believed).

Look, next year, they’ll be able to cut Mayor-friendly positions and add Council-friendly positions all they want.  The fact that this budget ADDED clerical jobs just shows how Council was just using this as a way to pad city government in their favor.  Good governance?  Necessary cuts?  Give me a break.  I’m glad they lost this game.  They can be glad that next year, they’ll win.

Doherty and Evans are doing the impossible: Meeting! Yes, I said it and you heard it right, they are going to sit down and talk with each other!

I’m dumbfounded and have nothing more to say. I’m going to stare blankly at the walls for twenty minutes or so while I try to comprehend the magnitude of this moment.

The Scranton Times today made an interesting assertion about Janet Evans: that she (they are careful to say possibly) arranged her meeting with the FBI and that her choice of words (that the meeting didn’t involve her or the current council) implied the wrongdoing of others.

Well, the second part is correct.  It sounds as though she is implying, by omission, that either a previous council or the mayor was the topic of conversation.  This isn’t very nice of her, because if she’s going to keep quiet about the FBI, then she shouldn’t be picking and choosing.  I wonder how they felt about it all.

But the initial claim, that she called the meeting, is irresponsible.  She didn’t confirm it, and the FBI wouldn’t comment.  Since they were the two parties involved, I don’t see where the Times is coming from here.  Is it possible?  Sure.  It’s also possible that an alien invasion will occur tomorrow.

If it is true that she called the meeting, then, sure, it was to score political points against the Mayor.  But the Times should have some solid ground here.

Hey, I’m a blogger, leave the speculation to me.  You guys are the newspapers, you’re supposed to “report” things like “facts” I thought!  Stop muscling in on my territory!

Janet Evans, in her defense of the choice of Giovanni Piccolino to head the Scranton Parking Authority, cited his ownership of a small business and the parking issues that he has to deal with downtown.

In other news, I have to park on my street and I own a garage. Does that make me qualified?

Next up, Evans defended the selection of Andy Sbaraglia as the head of the Redevelopment Authority because he’s attended a lot of meetings.

In other news, Ray Lyman, who has attended many Council Meetings, will be applying for the next vacant seat, should any vacancies arise.

Both bits of logic here are flawed and neither is really qualified. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are bad choices, but I seem to recall Evans wanting resumes for anybody applying for these positions. The current heads of both authorities, by virtue of their experience on those authorities, have more experience, and therefore a better resume, than the Supermajority’s choice.

So it goes, I suppose.

And on a semi-related issue, Janet Evans, as many know, is a teacher, but has been out for some time due to illness/injury/something-or-other. I ask this in total seriousness: How is it that she can attend Council Meetings, sit at Court for a full day testifying, and go campaigning, but not work?

I’m now at the point where all I want to do is plead to City government to just get along. I probably should’ve reached this point earlier, but I’m starting to lose what little faith I had in city progress.

Both Janet Evans and Mayor Doherty look like mutual obstructionists, subservient not to the people, but to their own public personas and agendas. That’s my take. Doherty has never been inclusive or cooperative. Neither has Evans, and now that Evans has Supermajority power, she’s using it.

The issue is whether or not Evans can amend a lawfully passed budget. It appears that she cannot.

The Times coverage of this is fascinating, because, as user Canoe pointed out, whether or not Council talked to Doherty before making budgetary changes is irrelevant. That issue is routinely mentioned in the Times, and while it may make Evans & Co. look bad, it isn’t really an argument for Doherty. Doherty’s actual argument would be whether or not Evans had authority.

But, as per Scranton politics, this issue has degenerated and degenerated. It isn’t fun anymore.

Is it so much to ask both sides to sit down and talk this over and maybe just fix it?

Judge Mazzoni has issued an injunction preventing Scranton City Council’s budget amendments from taking effect until their legality can be determined.

As I’ve said, it looks like the budget changes won’t stand. Evans should just live up to her word, you know, the one where she said she wouldn’t waste taxpayer dollars, and drop this until next year, when she’ll have full, obvious authority to screw the Mayor however she wants.

More than anything, I’m wondering how much money the taxpayers will have to waste (on both Doherty and Evans’ end) before this sideshow is over with.

The Council vs. Doherty battle is hobbling along just fine. Council rejected Doherty’s appointments to city authorities and then moved to put their own people in.

Janet called for resumes and said she didn’t get them from Doherty’s nominees, and so went with her people. I’m sure that’s the only reason. I would like to see all of these resumes and qualifications, by the way.

But I think this is all a farcical waste of time, just as the budget issue, which I’m sure Evans will lose as well. Not that I enjoy agreeing with Lee Morgan, but he’s right, she should make the cuts for next year because she will lawfully be able to do so then. The 2010 budget was voted on by the 2009 Council. That’s just how it works.
It’s amusing that she said she “won’t play political games on the backs of the taxpayers” when that is pretty much a given for everything she, or any politician, does. That’s just how the game works.

I know most Scrantonians are sick of this fighting. When do you think Evans and Doherty will be?

Scranton City Council’s move to lower the bidding threshold is a great idea, as it will allow for more contractors to compete and it will save the city money. Evans, of course, is doing this so that Doherty cannot award no-bid contracts to people, but the end result is a good one.

Council should go further, though, and mirror the Obama administration’s “union only” policy. All contracts should employ union labor, or not get hired. They should also give preference to local contractors, particularly those based in Scranton. I dislike seeing Harrisburg and Philly firms getting local taxpayer dollars, basically shifting investment away from us.

Chris Kelly’s op-ed on Janet Evans says it all today.  Janet Evans and the Mayor both are more interested in themselves than actual governance.

I often criticize Evans for her behavior and I want to highlight two points that Kelly makes.  First, Evans often criticizes and rarely provides solutions.  This I’ve written about.  And second, far more worse, and something I’ve never considered, is that Evans, in constantly disparaging what she says the Mayor has done to the city, continually makes the city look bad.

Think about it.  Every time she says the city is a fiscal disaster, that the parks are wastes of money, that businesses close because of the Mayor, that people suffer because of the Mayor, that the city suffers because of the Mayor, she is harming the city as much as her political enemy.

To hear Evans speak, you would think Scranton was the biggest disaster on the East Coast.  But not so.  Like the Mayor or not, the city looks better than it has in years.

Kelly points out that this disparagement only discourages the business community.  After all, if a prominent Councilwoman is deriding her own city, how great can Scranton be?

It can’t.

So, Janet Evans should stop being a Negative Nancy, and, instead of talking about how bad everything is, talk about how good the city can be.  Drop the constant barrage and provide real solutions.  And sorry, that budget is not a solution.  It’s revenge.

New entrant into the State Senate race for Mellow’s seat, Chris Doherty, is still a’battlin with Janet Evans and Scranton City Council.  No wonder he wants to get out.

Doherty points out something a little fishy.  Evans was a member of Council during the original passage of the budget and brought up absolutely none of the amendments she ended up putting into this budget, which proves her changes are just there to stick it to the Mayor.

He won’t be going to Council meetings, he says, but Council can come to him.  It’s his budget, he says, they can come to him to talk about it.

Fair enough.  We know they won’t.  Strike against them.

But much like the President’s question time, which I loved, Doherty should be open to questions. We know he won’t.  Strike against him.

Maybe they need to meet on neutral ground?  Anybody have a free kitchen table then can sit down at?

Or maybe both sides should stop trying to score points against the other and just govern.

Fat chance.

Today, we learn that Janet Evans wants Mayor Chris Doherty to come to Council to voice his concerns about this budget that she altered. We all know that won’t happen. But, just as he hasn’t called her about her changes, she has not called him. This is a two-way street. It is the Mayor’s responsibility to draft a budget and submit it to Council. Janet had the opportunity to establish a direct dialogue with the Mayor, and chose to ignore it. Of course she did, that’s her prerogative.

But to then turn around and ask the Mayor to do what she’s refused to do is just appearing silly to me. She has control and power now. Does she need to ram it home at every opportunity? Don’t answer that.

If Doherty were to show, he would only be exposed to Janet’s grand-standing, long-winded, never ending sentences and speeches, all while not changing a thing about the budget. She would just score some more points. She’s already scored a ton. Nine-run rule anybody?
To top it all off, Janet basically said she would punish the Mayor in next year’s budget if she couldn’t this year and Lee Morgan backed her up.

Janet will win this war.