UNDERSTANDING THE BRT (Board of Revision of Taxes) in Philadelphia is like making sense of long division the way it's taught in the fifth grade, say, 93,745 divided by 743. No one in the room can figure out how it works and yet the teacher goes through the motions on the blackboard. Multiply the party loyalists times years of service, carry the drones, subtract college degrees in professional courses dealing with taxation and real estate appraisement, add inconsistancy and political connections, divide by common sense. The result is divination rather than mathmatical certainty. The best precision Philadelphia property owners and taxpayers can expect from the BRT in appraising the market value of real estate is, at best, a guesstimate. At worst, a travesty. In sum, the same old same old.
In the past week the Board of Revision of Taxes, a seven-member patronage plum where politically favored board members are paid $70,000 to $75,000 a year to attend a handful of meetings, has come under withering fire in a front-page investigative series in the Philadelphia Inquirer that resulted in Mayor Michael Nutter calling for the board members resignation.. The BRT board members answered with a unified, "nuh-uh." The mayor can suggest, cajole and encourage board members to resign, but he can't fire them. BRT board members are appointed by the Board of Judges of the Philadelphia Courts of Common Pleas (BJCCCP) another powerful yet obscure political oligarchy in city government. On the surface having important and well-compensated appointments made by sober minded black robes from the judiciary seems like an ideal way to assure quality selections to important governmental posts. In practice the Board of Judges deliberations can more closely resemble a nest of vipers where bald political considerations and double crosses are as common as courtesy.
Years ago the chairman of the Democratic City Committee lobbied individual members of the Board of Judges on behalf of the party's preferred candidate to fill a vacancy. The chairman of the Democratic party received verbal assurances from each of the eleven voting judges that he/she was committed to voting for the party's preferred candidate. In a secret ballot the judges voted eleven-to-zero for the other guy, meaning that every single one of them had lied to the chairman's face. Had a single judge cast a vote for the party's candidate, the chairman would never know which judge had told the truth. But faced with a unanimous lie by the men and women holding the scales of justice, he did the honorable thing and resigned as Democratic party chairman. And he was rewarded by appointment to the Board of Revision of Taxes.
Leave a comment