Holy Family U. Shows Catholic-Style Forgiveness

Northeast Philadelphia’s Holy Family University has a new rule in place for its students: Park off campus three times and you’re expelled. Even if you go to confession!

Yes, it’s not bad grades or killing a teacher that will get you expelled, it’s parking in the neighborhood. The new rule is a result of a deal City Councilman Brian O’Neill brokered with the school, allowing it to build a new dorm, parking garage and business school.

Neighbors across Frankford Avenue were worried students at the once-commuter school would be parking in their neighborhood, so they came up with a draconian policy to let students know just what the real world is like: Ridiculously stupid and full of idiots!

The first time a student parks off campus, it’s a $100 fine. The second time, the car will be towed. The third time, it’s expulsion, and if you think that’s a little overboard, I’m sure the fine residents across the street from Holy Family were actually pushing for the guillotine for the first offense. Parking in Far Northeast Philly will cause nuclear holocaust one day, just wait.

Want to Get Rid of a Truckload of College Students? Try This! [Heard in the Hall]

City Council Backtracks, Panders, Wastes More Time

Last week, Philadelphia City Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown helped pass a resolution declaring Philadelphia a “pro-choice city.” This was, of course, a pointless resolution that wasted more time than Mark B. Cohen does reading buying books.

Those in City Council who voted for the proposal apparently forgot a few things about this city. (1) Many citizens of this fine city are members of the Roman Catholic Church — official motto: “Complicit in the spread of AIDS in Africa since 1981″ — and (2) Philadelphians love to get really angry over things that don’t mean anything.

And, so, City Council is prepared to waste even more time with new resolutions declaring the city both pro-choice and pro-life! (Hey! What about Philadelphians who have no opinion?) I can’t wait ’til the resolution declaring the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as “sad” and one saying embryonic stem cell research is “an issue currently being debated.”

Frank Rizzo has simply planned a bill rescinding the pro-choice label, while Brian O’Neill have planned resolutions declaring Philly both pro-choice and pro-life and even Blondell Reynolds Brown is thinking about voting for O’Neill’s bill. Looks like somebody got an earful from her constituents! In fact, several people who voted for the “pro-choice” bill are suddenly backtracking, proving it’s not just national politicians who pander at every opportunity.

Councilman Darrell Clarke, who supported Brown’s resolution last week, said yesterday that he sees O’Neill’s alternative as “reasonable. It understands the diverse nature of the city and that we have diverse views on all issues, so I can probably support his resolution.” He said he was “not comfortable” with Rizzo’s language.

Councilman James Kenney, likewise, said he wants to reconsider the pro-choice resolution, which he supported last week. “I clearly support a woman’s right to choose,” said Kenney, who had not decided between the two resolutions that will be submitted today. “That’s my personal belief, but in retrospect probably we should not be forcing that belief or label on the city as a whole.”

In retrospect, City Councilpeople got a bunch of calls from angry little old ladies who go to church every day. And since those are the only people in this city who vote, it looks like it’s time to waste some more time!

Pro-life? Pro-choice? Hey - we’re both! [Daily News]
June 8: City Council Wasting Its Fucking Time Once Again

Blunts Once Again Free To Be Sold In Philly

While we’re on the subject of praising judges, it’s time to give a hearty Philadelphia cheer to Judge Gary S. Glazer, who on March 7 threw out the city’s blunt ban.

John Street signed the blunt ban into effect back in January, and cigar manufacturers and distributors challenged it in court seven days later. The ban criminalized the sale of any item used to “convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance in violation of [the Pennsylvania Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act]” in situations “where the seller knows, or under the circumstances reasonably should know.”

But, apparently, there are pesky state laws that prevent municipalities from criminalizing random legal items — such as bongs, pipes, rolling papers, blunts, apples and two-liter soda bottles. Let’s just quote here from the Northeast Times article:

In overturning the law, Glazer wrote, “Although the ordinance has a laudable anti-drug objective, its operation is inconsistent with state law. The ordinance converts a specific intent offense into a strict liability one, subjecting legitimate businesses selling legal dual-use products to the arbitrary enforcement of the City of Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspections.”

That is, state law requires that local authorities enforcing restrictions on drug paraphernalia prove the intent by the seller, buyer or possessor to use the item as such. State law outlines 13 factors to consider when making such a determination.

The factors include verbal statements, written instructions, visual depictions, proximity of the alleged paraphernalia to controlled substances and expert testimony concerning its use.

Wait, people have to be guilty to be found guilty under the law? How dare they! City Councilman Brian O’Neill, who originally sponsored the bill, will attempt to pursue the issue. The city might appeal. But for now, smoke away on your blunts, as long as they don’t have marijuana in them! And you’re not in a public work place. And you’re not within 20 feet of a door. And you don’t litter afterward.

Law banning the sale of ‘blunts’ overturned [Northeast Times]
[Photo via that biggest purveyor of Phillies blunts, Sam's Club]

T-Minus 1 Day ‘Til Street Doesn’t Sign Smoking Ban

Oh, yes, folks. It is only one day until John Street does not sign the smoking ban, and things are starting to heat up in City Council as well. Michael Currie Schaffer’s story in today’s Inquirer is a great, depressing look at how politics works in this country.

Michael Nutter even comes out to ask the simple question of why does his resignation from council mean the bill should be vetoed? Councilman Darrell Clarke says, well, he wouldn’t have voted for it if he knew Nutter was going to resign to run for mayor. He doesn’t say why, of course, but take a few guesses.

Street is still against smoking in outdoor cafes, probably the only sensible exemption to a smoking ban if one should be passed. And he says he still hasn’t decided if he’s going to veto the bill, but he does say there will be a ban by the end of his administration.

Councilman Brian O’Neill, who voted against the bill, essentially declares himself sick of it all and says he hopes the mayor signs the bill:

“If he vetoes it, no matter how they try to spin it, he’s sticking it to Nutter,” Councilman Brian J. O’Neill said.

Many members - including some who voted against Nutter’s bill last spring - hoped it wouldn’t come to that. “I hope he signs it,” said O’Neill, who voted against Nutter’s bill because of the exemptions, which he said unfairly helped some businesses.

“I didn’t like the deal that was being made. But I think it’ll be difficult to put nine votes together again… . You’re at the one-yard line here.”

Indeed! There’s, really, only one way to save the smoking ban now: Right before Street goes to veto the bill (and do a celebratory crotch-chop) afterward, Michael Nutter’s music plays. The mayor hopeful dashes in, hits Street in the head with a steel chair and signs the bill himself.

Yeah, that’d do.

Smoking ban rears its head again [Inquirer]
Archives: Smoking Ban