Inquirer Editorial: Tax hike to the rescue

OK, by now most Philadelphians get it. They have a mayor who, like Underdog, or Fearless Fly, or, maybe in his mind, Superman, likes to ditch his tie and spectacles and come to the rescue in a crisis.

That's good. If any city needs a hero, it's Philadelphia. Of course, the problem with a leader who only seems to excel at crisis management is that his achievements are short-lived. In a city that desperately needs some long-term solutions, that's not good.

A hero is always looking for that Sweet Polly, or Flora Fly, or Lois Lane who needs rescuing. In the latest episode of Philadelphia's adventures, that role was ably played by schools Superintendent Arlene Ackerman, the central character in the School District's search for cash to fill a $629 million budget hole.

Nutter deserves real applause for the way he threw himself into the fray, rightly pointing out to anyone who would listen that the welfare of Philadelphia's schoolchildren should outweigh any political considerations in figuring out what City Hall could do to ease the district's budget crunch.

He had to appeal to people's emotions because any pragmatic look at his proposed solutions - a property-tax hike, or a new tax on sugary drinks, coming within two years of previous property-tax and sales-tax increases - would ordinarily lead to questions about a politician's sanity.

But because City Council couldn't agree on other revenue ideas nor specify enough City Hall spending cuts to produce the funds that Ackerman sought, it voted Thursday to follow Nutter's lead and impose a one-year 3.85 percent property-tax hike. Street-parking fees will also rise.

So, once again, the mayor has come up with a short-term solution to a problem that deserves long-term answers. Indeed, the consequences of this transfer of $53 million from one building on Broad Street to another will last longer than the one-year life span of the tax increase.

That's because the state's "maintenance of effort" rule prohibits the city from lowering its contribution to the School District once it has been set. So, if the tax increase is allowed to expire, City Hall will have to come up with some other way to produce the same money for schools.

One idea originally suggested to increase the city's contribution was to give the district a larger percentage of the tax millage directed to schools, but discussion of that proposal quickly dried up. Critics said such an arrangement would rob City Hall of needed flexibility to handle fiscal issues.

True, but if you're trying to get the state to give city schools more money by demonstrating your commitment, then re-divvying tax money to give the district a larger share would certainly make a big impression. It would be evidence that all the talk by various public officials about putting schoolchildren first wasn't just theater.

That's not to say the message the mayor and Council have sent by passing the property-tax hike isn't valuable. However, it is not the long-term solution that still needs to be crafted. That solution will require carefully reviewing the financial information promised by Ackerman to see how the district can be more frugal.

Nutter's rescue may have saved the schools for now, but it's not the long-term heroics the city needs.