We're Going to Make $90MM off the new Property Tax, Nutter Says

[billy ross]

No, you are simply wrong and isn't the first time you have thrown out that incorrect statement. The first year it was raised almost 10%. The second year that 10% remained and another 4% was added.

If you were going to do an "average" over the two years (even though it is an irrelevant stat), it would be a 12% over two years (10+14)/2 = 12. for some reason you keep pushing this notion that the tax increase was spread out over multiple years. It wasn't. It was increased FOR multiple years.

Clearly you're math challenged. No wonder you don't understand taxes and tax increases. I'll elucidate by way of example. Let's say that your taxes were $1,000. Then they went up by 9.9% to $1,099. Then they went up again by 3.8% to $1140.76. The increase would have been suspiciously close to $140.76, which works out to an average rate of increase of 7.038%, not compounded annually. If you're using annual compounding, which is normal, the annual increase is LESS THAN 7% per annum, since 7% per annum compounded annually for two years would cause your $1,000 to grow to $1,144.9. Dude, it really is just basic math. Reduce it to real numbers and it'll make more sense to you.

Meanwhile I pointed out that over the past 10 years the total increase in values was 45%. This 14% increase over two years plus whatever increases happened in the previous eight were more than, equal to, or less than 45%? It should be easily teased out of the city's budget, assuming a constant rate of collections / tax delinquency and no change in the total number of units subject to tax (I'm guessing that these may combine to cloud the picture, but I'd still like to know).

You really need to get it through your skull that real estate taxes and most other taxes are ad valorem and not per capita. Think of it this way. Real estate taxes are levied per dollar, not per gallon or per parcel. When the tax base grows through increasing gas prices or increasing real estate prices, tax revenues go up, even if the number of gallons sold remains the same and the number of parcels taxed remains the same. That doesn't mean that taxes have gone up. What matters is the effective tax rate. When that goes up, taxes have been raised, and when that goes down taxes have been lowered. What doesn't matter so much is the total take. This is the whole basis of supply side economics. If you lower the rate by less than the base is growing, you can combine lower tax rates with increasing tax revenues. That's the magic Philly's been trying to pull off since Rendell became mayor, and I think that Philly's been succeeding at achieving this tax alchemy.

[Cro Burnham]

I think your math may be a little challenged:

If taxes go up by 10% above the base year in year 1 and and additional 4% in year 2 (i.e., 14% above the base year), then your average increase over the base year is equal to 10% plus 14% over two years, which is 24% divided by 2, which is 12%.

Compounding only describes annual growth rate, which is irrelevant - people only care about the increase over the base year, not the increase in year two over the increase in year one. That's essentially saying that the 10% (or ~7% if you are looking at the compounded rate) increase in year one should be viewed as a new base.

No, the base is the base from BEFORE any of the so called temporary increases were enacted.

Why are you so insistent in defending the city's policies with such contrived rationalizations?

[billy ross]

Using your numbers, I'll make it even easier. If your taxes are $100 per annum and they go up by 10% in year one, they are now $110. If in year two they go up again, this time by 4% as calculated off of the original base, then now they're $114. That means they went up by $14 over two years. That works out to a average rate of increase of 7% per year. I just don't see what is so hard about this. Property values have gone up by 45% in Philly over the last 10 years. It would be reasonable to expect that property taxes should have increased by roughly the same 45% over the same time period, or hopefully slightly less, so that the effective tax rate would drop. It would be unreasonable to conclude that property taxes should remain the same or increase minimally in that time period.

Do I want the city to get medieval on tax delinquents? Of course. Do I want the city to return exempt parcels to the tax rolls? Of course. I paid $150k in property taxes this year - I don't want property taxes in Philly to rise more than they need to. However, unlike some I do expect them to rise as the city heals what ails it and property values rise, as they have been doing, quite nicely and at 2x's the rate in our burbs and at 2.5x's the national rate over 10 years. the city needs an attaboy for doing a good job.

I think your math may be a little challenged:

If taxes go up by 10% above the base year in year 1 and and additional 4% in year 2 (i.e., 14% above the base year), then your average increase over the base year is equal to 10% plus 14% over two years, which is 24% divided by 2, which is 12%.

Compounding only describes annual growth rate, which is irrelevant - people only care about the increase over the base year, not the increase in year two over the increase in year one. That's essentially saying that the 10% (or ~7% if you are looking at the compounded rate) increase in year one should be viewed as a new base.

No, the base is the base from BEFORE any of the so called temporary increases were enacted.

Why are you so insistent in defending the city's policies with such contrived rationalizations?

[billy ross]

Why do I want the city to raise property taxes as values go up? For two reasons. One is that the city needs money to fund its operations. I want to see more trails in the parks, more charter schools open, better public transportation infrastructure, and a million other things which will enhance our QOL here. Two is because I want to see business and wage taxes drop. Those, combined with our QOL issues, chase people and businesses away. Tax land, which can't move, and not activity, which can. Then if we get enough activity our property taxes will be easily affordable. On top of that, higher property taxes discourage speculation. Far too many people in Philly are sitting on underdeveloped buildings or land. Make it hurt more to be able to do that, to get these people off the dime. It'll increase all of our QOL, which is fundamentally what I'm after.

I think your math may be a little challenged:

If taxes go up by 10% above the base year in year 1 and and additional 4% in year 2 (i.e., 14% above the base year), then your average increase over the base year is equal to 10% plus 14% over two years, which is 24% divided by 2, which is 12%.

Compounding only describes annual growth rate, which is irrelevant - people only care about the increase over the base year, not the increase in year two over the increase in year one. That's essentially saying that the 10% (or ~7% if you are looking at the compounded rate) increase in year one should be viewed as a new base.

No, the base is the base from BEFORE any of the so called temporary increases were enacted.

Why are you so insistent in defending the city's policies with such contrived rationalizations?

[NE19149]

Why do I want the city to raise property taxes as values go up? For two reasons. One is that the city needs money to fund its operations. I want to see more trails in the parks, more charter schools open, better public transportation infrastructure, and a million other things which will enhance our QOL here. Two is because I want to see business and wage taxes drop. Those, combined with our QOL issues, chase people and businesses away. Tax land, which can't move, and not activity, which can. Then if we get enough activity our property taxes will be easily affordable. On top of that, higher property taxes discourage speculation. Far too many people in Philly are sitting on underdeveloped buildings or land. Make it hurt more to be able to do that, to get these people off the dime. It'll increase all of our QOL, which is fundamentally what I'm after.

Bullsh!t.
Raising property tax is a lame way of conjuring up the funds that are needed to run the city due to the mismanagement and squandering going on.
The lack of efficiency is obvious - I've seen it personally on multiple occasions.
Get the bums out, put people who DO their jobs right in their place.
Leaning on the taxpayers so heavily for help all the time is nonsense - milking them dry is weak.
Straighten out the ROOT causes, don't rely on others and other ways to compensate. - lessen/stem the spiralling out of control effect that turns people off.

I'm sure tired of all this, and I know many others are as well.

[Cro Burnham]

Using your numbers, I'll make it even easier. If your taxes are $100 per annum and they go up by 10% in year one, they are now $110. If in year two they go up again, this time by 4% as calculated off of the original base, then now they're $114. That means they went up by $14 over two years. That works out to a average rate of increase of 7% per year. I just don't see what is so hard about this.

I wonder why you write past people as though you never really saw what they wrote before.

As I said, what you are describing is an average year-over-year growth rate [i.e., (x_n/x₀)^(1/n)-1]

Most people think of the "average" as the arithmetic mean [i.e., ((x₁+x₂+......+x_n)/n)/x₀-1], if expressed in percentage terms.

x₀ = base year value

To make things explicit so you cannot confuse them any further:



Year-----n----tax: x_n----------------Arithmetic Mean------------------Avg Year-over-Year Growth

0--------0-----100-----------------------na--------------------------------------na-------------

1--------1-----110--------------(110/1)/100-1 = 10%-------------------(110/100)^(1/1)-1 = 10%

2--------2-----114-----------((110+114)/2)/100 -1 = 12%---------------(114/100)^(1/2)-1 = 7%



You are deliberately confusing arithmetic means and average growth rates when you know that 99.9% of the time when ordinary people think of the "average", they think of the arithmetic mean.

Before you argue further on this point, imagine if people described "everyday" averages with your geometric approach:

Example 1: Say the typical daily rainfall in your Amazon village was 10" per day. But it rained 12" this Monday, 14" on Tuesday, and 13" inches on Wednesday. Would you say the average daily rainfall (over the normal 10") from this Monday to Wednesday was a) 3" and 30%, or b) 3" and 9.1% ? If you answered "a", you are sane; if you answered "b)", you are insane.

Example 2: Say the typical football team goes 8 and 8 (0.500) in a given year. Say the Eagles went 9 and 7 (0.562 - 1 game or 12.5% above average) in 2008, 10 and 6 (0.625 - 2 games or 25% above average) in 2009, 11 and 5 (0.687 - 3 games or 37.5% above average) in 2010, and 8 and 8 (0.500 - 0 games or 0% above average) in 2011. Would you say their average winning performance over 0.500 over that 4 year period was a) 1.5 games and 18.75% (i.e., , or b) 0 games and 0% ? If you answered "a", you are sane; if you answered "b)", you are insane.

Like I said, compounding does not make any sense in this context. Raider is right and you seem to be confused or deliberately avoiding common sense. I suspect the latter.

[billy ross]

I wonder why you write past people as though you never really saw what they wrote before.

As I said, what you are describing is an average year-over-year growth rate [i.e., (x_n/x₀)^(1/n)-1]

Most people think of the "average" as the arithmetic mean [i.e., ((x₁+x₂+......+x_n)/n)/x₀-1], if expressed in percentage terms.

x₀ = base year value

To make things explicit so you cannot confuse them any further:



Year-----n----tax: x_n----------------Arithmetic Mean------------------Avg Year-over-Year Growth

0--------0-----100-----------------------na--------------------------------------na-------------

1--------1-----110--------------(110/1)/100-1 = 10%-------------------(110/100)^(1/1)-1 = 10%

2--------2-----114-----------((110+114)/2)/100 -1 = 12%---------------(114/100)^(1/2)-1 = 7%



You are deliberately confusing arithmetic means and average growth rates when you know that 99.9% of the time when ordinary people think of the "average", they think of the arithmetic mean.

Before you argue further on this point, imagine if people described "everyday" averages with your geometric approach:

Example 1: Say the typical daily rainfall in your Amazon village was 10" per day. But it rained 12" this Monday, 14" on Tuesday, and 13" inches on Wednesday. Would you say the average daily rainfall (over the normal 10") from this Monday to Wednesday was a) 3" and 30%, or b) 3" and 9.1% ? If you answered "a", you are sane; if you answered "b)", you are insane.

Example 2: Say the typical football team goes 8 and 8 (0.500) in a given year. Say the Eagles went 9 and 7 (0.562 - 1 game or 12.5% above average) in 2008, 10 and 6 (0.625 - 2 games or 25% above average) in 2009, 11 and 5 (0.687 - 3 games or 37.5% above average) in 2010, and 8 and 8 (0.500 - 0 games or 0% above average) in 2011. Would you say their average winning performance over 0.500 over that 4 year period was a) 1.5 games and 18.75% (i.e., , or b) 0 games and 0% ? If you answered "a", you are sane; if you answered "b)", you are insane.

Like I said, compounding does not make any sense in this context. Raider is right and you seem to be confused or deliberately avoiding common sense. I suspect the latter.

In both of your examples you are describing deviation from trend or from average. However, we're talking financials here, year over year performance, where each year builds upon the previous year, and changes in financial numbers are generally measured per cent per annum. Thus stock market returns and interest rates would generally be described per cent per annum. Sometimes a cumulative return over a longer period is used, as I earlier used a 45% increase over 10 years in property values in Philly, but that tends to confuse things since everything else is measured per annum and not per decade. The fact that we're talking about a stretch which lasts at least two years here means that changes need to be adjusted to account for how many years they are averaged over. In this case it is at least two years, but it may be longer. If I pay 7% per annum to the bank for money I borrow and it goes on for two years, I'll have owed them 14%. However, most people would still consider that I paid 7% per annum. Similarly, if I only borrowed the money for one month, the interest may be calculated on a per diem basis, but it is generally expressed and understood on a per annum basis.

Fundamentally in every period the base changes due to what happened in the previous period, and the change during that period is calculated relative to the baseline at the beginning of the period. To calculate things relative to day one all of the time would be quite confusing. I think the reason you're confused is that you for whatever reason refuse to use compounding. Any successful investor knows and appreciates the value of compounding your return. To use real numbers, the real increases are less than 10 and 4. In reality, they're 9.9% and 3.8%, I believe. Despite the fact that they're less than the numbers that you use, the front-end loading of the tax increase combined with the effect of compounding causes the tax in year two to be $114.08, which is less than 7% per annum. Do you calculate your annual salary increases based upon what your salary was when you first joined the company, or do you calculate them based upon what it was immediately before the latest increase? If you started out at $10 per hour and after much hard work you get a raise from $20 per hour to $22 per hour, you got a 10% raise, not a 20% raise.

There are places I own where the rents are twice what they were when I first bought the place. I have a place coming up now where the rent was $700 per month when I first renovated it. Now the rent is $1,300 per month. There is great interest in the house at $1,400 per month. While the rents will have doubled (if I get a taker at that number) since I first renovated it back in 1999, I only count it as a $100 rent increase, since my baseline rent now is $1,300 per month. I have another place where I granted a concessionary rent of $400 per month temporarily before I put someone else in at $550 (I believe) back in 1998. Now the rent is $800, and it has been for over two years. If I rent it at $850 or $875, I'll count it as an increase of $50 per month or $75 per month, not $450 or $475 per month. I think the problem is that you're not changing your baseline for year two, and that's why you see it as a whacky 12% average increase. You're averaging two years increase over the baseline in the very first year, which of course wasn't even the very first year, since Philly has been collecting property taxes for centuries. I'd love to see a regression comparing the property taxes in Philly versus property values in Philly over time, and to know how that compares to our suburbs and other cities. My suspicion is that it would show that in Philly property taxes have been trending cheaper, both relative to our historical performance and relative to our competitors. I'm not sure, though. This recent 14% jolt has been an attempt to rectify that, and I hope that it trends back to the mean.

[thesomersteam]

Great discussion in here. There is more wisdom in here than in City Council the last several years, that is for sure. Higher real estate taxes for the 3rd year in a row is going to suck, period. And that is without any relief anywhere else to date (BPT, NPT, corporate tax). And to continue to fund the black hole of the City of Philadelphia and ailing Philadelphia School District is a concern. I would not mind paying more real estate taxes but my biggest concern is how the funds are operated and how the City Programs are run and managed in the past through the likes of Arlene Ackerman with the Philadelphia School District and Carl Greene with PHA. As an owner of 10 properties or so, I am not thrilled about the higher real estate taxes at all. And this year, it will be the biggest percentage increase ever when it is finally announced. The bigger picture is for the City to get their act together in managing the funds that they do collect and doing a better job at collecting the delinquent real estate taxes owed as well and selling off those properties in tax sales when the owners are number of years behind.

[NE19149]

Great discussion in here. There is more wisdom in here than in City Council the last several years, that is for sure. Higher real estate taxes for the 3rd year in a row is going to suck, period. And that is without any relief anywhere else to date (BPT, NPT, corporate tax). And to continue to fund the black hole of the City of Philadelphia and ailing Philadelphia School District is a concern. I would not mind paying more real estate taxes but my biggest concern is how the funds are operated and how the City Programs are run and managed in the past through the likes of Arlene Ackerman with the Philadelphia School District and Carl Greene with PHA. As an owner of 10 properties or so, I am not thrilled about the higher real estate taxes at all. And this year, it will be the biggest percentage increase ever when it is finally announced. The bigger picture is for the City to get their act together in managing the funds that they do collect and doing a better job at collecting the delinquent real estate taxes owed as well and selling off those properties in tax sales when the owners are number of years behind.

Bingo!

Why BURDON others, when current rules/laws are not enforced?
Taking more money from the good people effects their quality of life, while the losers get a free ride.

[Cro Burnham]

In both of your examples you are describing deviation from trend or from average. However, we're talking financials here, year over year performance, where each year builds upon the previous year, and changes in financial numbers are generally measured per cent per annum. . . . .

I am not disputing the notion of growth rates and how / when they are useful. It's just that growth rates, what you refer to, are not averages.

Taxes were raised 10% in one year and a further 4% the next. The average tax increase over two years was 12%. The compounded growth rate in taxes was about 7% per year. One shouldn't speak of averages and growth rates as if they were identical concepts, to make it seem as if the taxes haven't been raised as much as they have.

Particularly given that the increases were intended to be temporary, and not part of an indefinite 7% annual incease in property taxes, it is not appropriate to think of these increases in the same manner as annual rent increases or stock market returns.

You just seem to like using the 7% "average" rather than 12% average because it supports your position that the city's policy's are less drastic than they appear. But the bottom line is a growth rate and an average are different. The average temporary tax increase is 12% ((10 +14) / 2). This is basic indisputable arithmetic. It's amazing that you pretend that this is not so.

It reminds me of the Eddie Murphy stand up routine where he describes a situation in which a man's wife walks in on him in bed with another woman. The other woman leaves quickly, and the wife starts screaming at the man about how could he do such a thing. His response: "it wasn't me". "But I saw you!" "No you didn't". "But there was a woman in bed with you in there!" "No there wasn't". "But . . ." "It wasn't me". The point of his routine of course, was that by repeating a falsehood enough times, the man might be able to get the wife to believe that he is telling the truth. That seems to be your MO.

Well, keep saying "I wasn't me". But an arithmetic average is an arithmetic average. Basic arithmetic doesn't change because you insist "no, that's not true". I am pretty sure you are the only person on this board who is convinced that the average tax increase is 7%.

Why be so disingenuous?

[EJW]

On the topic of delinquent properties, I just saw this:

City tries new sheriff's sale policy: Sell some properties for less than what's owed, and bring properties to sale for L&I liens | Philadelphia City Paper | 04/11/2012

[raider.adam]

On the topic of delinquent properties, I just saw this:

City tries new sheriff's sale policy: Sell some properties for less than what's owed, and bring properties to sale for L&I liens | Philadelphia City Paper | 04/11/2012

That's great news. A simple change that can make a big difference.

[seand]

Another change: "We've been authorized by the Finance Director to work with L&I to sell properties for tax delinquencies that we would not choose solely for revenue-raising purposes, but that L&I has determined are a nuisance to the neighborhood," Beckley says. "We just got our first list of L&I properties that are tax delinquent." That means the first such properties should hit sheriff's sale in about six months.

Gee six months ago on certain high profile factory in Kenso might have been even better, but it is a good and common sense news.

[raider.adam]

Gee six months ago on certain high profile factory in Kenso might have been even better, but it is a good and common sense news.

It's a simple message the City can send. "If you don't maintain your property in a safe and responsible manner, you will lose it".

[billy ross]

It's a simple message the City can send. "If you don't maintain your property in a safe and responsible manner, you will lose it".

Are they aping the Parking Authority?

[raider.adam]

Are they aping the Parking Authority?

No. They are mimicing just about every other functioning city in America.

[thesomersteam]

Baby steps.

The Somers: Real Estate Philadelphia, Best Home, Buy a House Philadelphia, Fishtown, Old City

TheSomersTeamBlog

[sharkey]

In both of your examples you are describing deviation from trend or from average. However, we're talking financials here, year over year performance, where each year builds upon the previous year, and changes in financial numbers are generally measured per cent per annum. Thus stock market returns and interest rates would generally be described per cent per annum. Sometimes a cumulative return over a longer period is used, as I earlier used a 45% increase over 10 years in property values in Philly, but that tends to confuse things since everything else is measured per annum and not per decade. The fact that we're talking about a stretch which lasts at least two years here means that changes need to be adjusted to account for how many years they are averaged over. In this case it is at least two years, but it may be longer. If I pay 7% per annum to the bank for money I borrow and it goes on for two years, I'll have owed them 14%. However, most people would still consider that I paid 7% per annum. Similarly, if I only borrowed the money for one month, the interest may be calculated on a per diem basis, but it is generally expressed and understood on a per annum basis.

Fundamentally in every period the base changes due to what happened in the previous period, and the change during that period is calculated relative to the baseline at the beginning of the period. To calculate things relative to day one all of the time would be quite confusing. I think the reason you're confused is that you for whatever reason refuse to use compounding. Any successful investor knows and appreciates the value of compounding your return. To use real numbers, the real increases are less than 10 and 4. In reality, they're 9.9% and 3.8%, I believe. Despite the fact that they're less than the numbers that you use, the front-end loading of the tax increase combined with the effect of compounding causes the tax in year two to be $114.08, which is less than 7% per annum. Do you calculate your annual salary increases based upon what your salary was when you first joined the company, or do you calculate them based upon what it was immediately before the latest increase? If you started out at $10 per hour and after much hard work you get a raise from $20 per hour to $22 per hour, you got a 10% raise, not a 20% raise.

There are places I own where the rents are twice what they were when I first bought the place. I have a place coming up now where the rent was $700 per month when I first renovated it. Now the rent is $1,300 per month. There is great interest in the house at $1,400 per month. While the rents will have doubled (if I get a taker at that number) since I first renovated it back in 1999, I only count it as a $100 rent increase, since my baseline rent now is $1,300 per month. I have another place where I granted a concessionary rent of $400 per month temporarily before I put someone else in at $550 (I believe) back in 1998. Now the rent is $800, and it has been for over two years. If I rent it at $850 or $875, I'll count it as an increase of $50 per month or $75 per month, not $450 or $475 per month. I think the problem is that you're not changing your baseline for year two, and that's why you see it as a whacky 12% average increase. You're averaging two years increase over the baseline in the very first year, which of course wasn't even the very first year, since Philly has been collecting property taxes for centuries. I'd love to see a regression comparing the property taxes in Philly versus property values in Philly over time, and to know how that compares to our suburbs and other cities. My suspicion is that it would show that in Philly property taxes have been trending cheaper, both relative to our historical performance and relative to our competitors. I'm not sure, though. This recent 14% jolt has been an attempt to rectify that, and I hope that it trends back to the mean.

In the rainfall and football examples that were given, each year was being compared to the same, non-changing baseline (8-8 for the football team and 10"rainfall for the village--although by right the average rainfall would change very slightly upward after a few days of higher amounts, but we can ignore that change as neglible). With taxes, or wages, increases are not usually compared to some unchanging baseline but to the year before. Therefore, the baseline for comparison changes each year. An analogy to football would be a coach who takes over a team that is 6-10 and then in 6 successive years goes 7-9, 8-8, 9-7, 10-6, 11-5, 12-4. You could say that his average improvement was 3.5 wins per season (static baseline of 7 wins) but you could also say his average improvement was 1 win a season (changing baseline of comparison).

[sharkey]

Using your numbers, I'll make it even easier. If your taxes are $100 per annum and they go up by 10% in year one, they are now $110. If in year two they go up again, this time by 4% as calculated off of the original base, then now they're $114. That means they went up by $14 over two years. That works out to a average rate of increase of 7% per year. I just don't see what is so hard about this. Property values have gone up by 45% in Philly over the last 10 years. It would be reasonable to expect that property taxes should have increased by roughly the same 45% over the same time period, or hopefully slightly less, so that the effective tax rate would drop. It would be unreasonable to conclude that property taxes should remain the same or increase minimally in that time period.

Do I want the city to get medieval on tax delinquents? Of course. Do I want the city to return exempt parcels to the tax rolls? Of course. I paid $150k in property taxes this year - I don't want property taxes in Philly to rise more than they need to. However, unlike some I do expect them to rise as the city heals what ails it and property values rise, as they have been doing, quite nicely and at 2x's the rate in our burbs and at 2.5x's the national rate over 10 years. the city needs an attaboy for doing a good job.

From his posts its clear that Billy Ross just does not believe Phila. should have revenue neutral r.e. reassessments as are required in every other county in Penna. as well as most other places in the U.S. He believes that politicians should not have to go on record and raise tax rates when they want ever more funding for the black hole of Calcutta aka tha Phila. Sch. Dist. He believes that we should make it easy for them by having a system wherebye increased property values automatically result in increased total tax receipts.

[billy ross]

From his posts its clear that Billy Ross just does not believe Phila. should have revenue neutral r.e. reassessments as are required in every other county in Penna. as well as most other places in the U.S. He believes that politicians should not have to go on record and raise tax rates when they want ever more funding for the black hole of Calcutta aka tha Phila. Sch. Dist. He believes that we should make it easy for them by having a system wherebye increased property values automatically result in increased total tax receipts.

Your last sentence is what I'm looking for. It's what is standard across the US. However, I'd like to have a mechanism where the increase in taxes doesn't quite keep up with the increase in values. I'm somewhere between the two extremes whereby taxes never go up or annual taxes are always a certain percentage of a property's value.

If you were to do the math, Philadelphia contributes about $4,500 per year per pupil to educate (or not) the 200,000 Philadelphians in public and charter schools. We're not pulling our weight, and that's disgraceful.