I wasn't arguing Penn's actions on public safety, or anything else, are always wise or effective. My point was merely that their goals must appeal to the working-class majority, thus ultimately to City political and administrative leaders, whenever they are permitted.
That regular City services might ultimately be diverted from a NID might be true. Center City should make a good case in point. Has anyone studied City streetcleaning services in CCD, for instance, comparing 1987 to 2007, Center City to other areas without a special service district? But I don't think the average City voter will see NIDs and BIDs as a bad thing if they think their extra costs largely fall on a handful of nobs. Wherever that holds true, such schemes will prove popular with the masses, right or wrong. Then City leaders will be apt to endorse them. The original question was, "What constraints on Penn's power are there?" My answer is, "These are the constraints," not "These constraints are great." I was using the word "ethical" ironically. It may not be wise for private universities to support political candidates financially, but I'm not sure it'd be unethical. Every walk of life is prone to its own ethical pitfalls. I do think (on modest evidence) Ivy Leaguers tend to assume their own networks of social advantage are inherently ethical, whereas other folks' networks are ethically suspect until proven innocent. -- Tony West Al wrote: I beg to differ -- although my disagreement hinges on the word "direct." Penn's doing things like lavishing $5 MM on streetlights that may have the opposite effect from that touted, providing an omnipresent police state in the form of Penn Security and UCD Safety Ambassadors, picking up people's garbage from containers nominally clogging our street corners for litter, etc are all promoted amongst the politicians as money spent for services the city doesn't have to provide and is therefore available for other things. Officially, for instance, if the NID were to come into effect (probability is very low, of course -- but there's always the famous "black swan" effect), the city is obligated not to divert funds from what it would otherwise spend for things this program will ostensibly provide. But nobody at City Hall believes this -- in fact, the opposite is the only reason the cockamamie concept has survived this long. PS: and if they're so damned ethical, how do you explain the student loan kickbacks? One bad apple? An aberration? C'mon. The anointed rationalize whatever they please in terms such as "the end justifies the means" and "the greater good." at AOL.com.
