Parker is putting your money where her mouth is

Mayor Cherelle Parker has talked the talk, and is now trying to walk the walk by asking City Council for $100 million for a drug treatment center and shelter for 600 people. [Update: Council approved her request.]

Mayor Parker is walking the walk on addiction (Photo: Inquirer)

Any way you look at it, $100 million is a shitload of money, a shitload that requires tight supervision to make sure it is spent on quality treatment for the “residents.”

But if you — like me — oppose the soft headed and softhearted addiction-enabling policies, such as those that distribute “clean” syringes or offer a so-called “safe” place to shoot up, providing treatment is the logical alternative.

As the new sheriff in town, Parker already moved to shut down Kensington’s revolting open-air drug market, and has repeatedly talked about “public safety,” which is the substitute phrase moderate Democrats use instead of  “law and order.”

Looking at her public safety programs, I have facetiously referred to Parker as “Frank Rizzo in a dress.”

It’s beginning to feel like a real thing. A safe city is better than a politically correct city.

But shaking $100 million loose from City Council is no walk in the park, because of progressive members such Kendra Brooks and Nicolas O’Rourke, who are so far left they didn’t even run as Democrats; plus progressive African-American Jamie Gauthier, open lesbian Rue Landau, and South Asian Nina Ahmad. I’m pretty sure they prefer the soft glove approach, while more traditional Council Democrats such as Mark Squilla, Mike Driscoll, Jim Harrity, might choke on the price tag. Council President Kenyatta Johnson himself is moderate.

The choice is either pay for treatment — even involuntary — or live with drug-addicted zombies forever, and the social cost they incur. I choose the former.

21 thoughts on “Parker is putting your money where her mouth is”

  1. I just wish any program was long-term enough to completely break the “habit” and “stinkin’ thinkin’ “ part of the addiction and ideally have some sort of relocation effort to prevent the “people, places and things “ effect that causes people to relapse.

  2. My prediction: another $100 million down the drain. Programs like these are judged by intentions, not results, which are usually minimal but make the pols look good.

  3. Placement of treatment facility in a non residential area is a good idea. There will be issues with treatment members dropping out or absconding from therapy. The city council gang of five will be a drag on common sense government in our city. The fact that decisive action is being initiated to help solve these enormous problems is a start toward normalcy for our residents. The city needs to identify the out of county residents living in addiction who are coming to Philadelphia to buy drugs. Those individuals should be reported to the appropriate authorities in their county of residence to ensure help is available in their home county to share the financial burden placed on our city. Hopefully the drug settlement money that Big Pharma has to pay will be used to offset the city’s financial responsibilities for this initiative.

  4. Oversight, oversight, oversight…that’s the key question that comes up with this volume of $$.

    The City (and many other jurisdictions across US for that matter) has a long history of good ideas that as a taxpayer I can fortify paying for yet we find out later where our money really went. There is a reason I tend to vote NO on almost any ballot initiative starting with “Should the City pay for…” Not b/c I am against spending but I don’t trust the City’s spending.

    I agree with the Mayor’s idea in concept but first, need to know the line item budget for the $100 million, contractors who are involved and their background, past audits and overall risk assessment, how contracts and other exp will be monitored, requires ppl/proc to make changes to the line item budget and the controls to ensure compliance.

  5. A “brick and mortar” facility dedicated to treatment and rehab/shelter for drug abusers is a step in the right direction.
    The project should be coordinated by a blue ribbon committee tasked to assure that best practices are followed at every stage of development and operation.
    Community volunteers can be used as resources and advisors with no fiscal responsibilities.
    If successful, this approach may be the template for addressing other societal ills such as homelessness. I can dream can’t I…

  6. If we had re-elected Trump he would have finished the wall and closed the border. He would have stopped a lot of the drug flow that comes over the border and saved thousands of lives. The only things that work in the drug culture is tougher laws and punishment. We are just throwing this money out the window.

    1. Per ICE, the vast majority of illegal drugs smuggled into the U.S. are via trucks that go through border crossings. Very little drugs are smuggled by illegal aliens sneaking across.
      BTW, you aren’t an architect nor geologist are you? Ever see the terrain along the SW border? It’s very hilly & rugged. It would take at least 10 years and a trillion dollars to build a wall on the Mexican border.

  7. You have tou WANT to get clean and get back into society, what percentage do you think that is?

  8. The addiction/rehab/treatment business is already rife with corruption. A lot of people make a lot of money in this racket. They have no skin in the game and don’t care if the patient gets clean or not. In this Democrat run city, this will be a disaster. If it comes to fruition you will see so much corruption and scandal and people in handcuffs being lead out of City hall saying ‘I dint do nuffin!’
    Yeah, go ahead, do it. LOL

  9. A100 million dollar drug treatment center is a step in the wrong direction. It is nothing more than a big giveback to the City’s Building Trades Union for supporting the Mayor in her election. I’m sure there is a standing structure in the city that could be turned into a drug treatment center with a much smaller price tag. Two many of these modern day Progressive Liberal Mayors spend our cities into bankruptcy. Voters need to consider who they are putting in charge of the purse strings of our cities.

    1. Cherelle is not a progressive. And getting a neighborhood to accept a rehab facility is REALLY hard — except where you have an existing prison.

Comments are closed.