with DON BRENNAN
Editor

NG: This has been an especially busy term for you, with Social Security and transportation issues, two major concerns in this district.

Borski: And there's a third one that I spent an enormous amount of time with, and it's gotten no publicity (because) in the end we didn't get a bill. I am the lead Democrat on the Water Resources and Environmental Subcommittee, and we worked almost all year trying to reach accord on a Superfund bill.

NG: Had you been able to reach an agreement, what kind of impact would it have had?

Borski: There's a very basic premise with Superfund. If you're the polluter, and you caused the problem, you ought to pay to fix the problem. In the mix of this, you wind up bringing in some small (businesses) who are stuck in the law. For example, the (Environmental Protection Agency) holds two firms responsible for cleaning up a site. Now, these firms can go after the smallest people involved in this and cause them all sorts of financial trouble. We were trying to figure out how to keep the big firms on the hook, and not allow them to pass off the costs to the little guys.

NG: On April 6, President Clinton kicked-off a national debate on Social Security, and one of the sites he chose to speak live to was here in Northeast Philadelphia.

Borski: You know how long I've been involved with Social Security issues. What I've been saying to (recipients) for many years is, this system has worked very well for you and you're in no real danger. This system is solid and will be for a while. The potential problems could come later.

This is a problem that has to be resolved in a bipartisan manner. It's a national issue that goes beyond politics. In my view, Social Security is the single best government program ever, and we've got to make sure that it continues.

There are 10,000 people in my district who are on Social Security and live below the poverty line. There are close to 90,000 Social Security recipients in my district who are over 65. It's a huge issue with me, and, frankly, it always has been.

NG: SEPTA's General Manager Jack Leary told a Frankford group of businesspersons last month that the proposed Frankford Transportation Center could not even be considered without Bob Borski's help.

Borski: Well, again, this is something we've been working on for years. We specifically got an earmark of $10 million for the changing and relocation of bus traffic in and around the (Bridge Pratt Terminal) area. That intersection (where Bustleton and Frankford aves. meet at Bridge St.) is one of the worst intersections in America. It's dangerous no matter whether you're walking or driving.

But, more importantly for this city--and for urban America, really--is that the federal government has increased spending on transit by almost 50 percent. We're going from $4.6 billion to $6.4 billion, an enormous increase (that is) desperately needed and will hopefully complete the Frankford Transportation Center project in and of itself, and do much more for SEPTA and the rest of the system.

NG: I've heard you explain the link between public transit, and getting folks off welfare and into work.

Borski:I voted for welfare reform, and it's the one vote that troubles me the most in my whole career. Now, we're going in the right direction, obviously, because it's working. We've got millions of people off the welfare rolls and into work. Still, we've got a huge number of people . . . who cannot get out to work. When you couple that with a lack of skills, and the continuing job drain the city, it's a deadly situation.

But, there is job growth in suburbia. So, we need to find a way to get people from the city out to the jobs in the suburbs in a cost-effective way. For instance, you can't give a welfare recipient a low-paying job in the suburbs and ask him to spend a chunk of his salary on a train ride every day. We need bus routes to these jobs, and that's where the commitment to mass transit comes in.

NG: And in Frankford, there's going to be economic spinoff from the new center.

Borski: Yes, I believe that will happen. The Frankford Transportation Center is going to be the crown jewel of the SEPTA system. It's going to increase riders. It's going to spur retail activity. It's going to positively impact the Frankford community unlike anything before. I am very excited by it.

NG: What are some of the other major projects your office is working on?

Borski:I-95. This district really took a hit when they planned I-95. We wound up with ramps right in the middle of neighborhoods. It's unbelievable. The Princeton Ave. on ramp goes right through a neighborhood, right in front of a Catholic church and school, with kids and weddings and funerals. It has to be the worst ramp in the United States of America.

We're trying to change that by moving the northbound ramp off Princeton Ave. (State Rep.) Mike McGeehan brought it to my attention, and we're working with the civic association there, and we've brought in PennDOT. I am committed to relieving at least some of the traffic on that street.

Also, with regards to I-95, I am working to get some of the truck traffic off the streets of Bridesburg, and deal with the issue of the off-ramp at Girard Ave. The highway goes from four lanes at Allegheny Ave., to three lanes at Girard. Every day, there's a huge backup of cars. My idea here is to add a lane, which would relieve some of the congestion, and turn the southbound exit, so to speak, so that it goes directly to Columbus Blvd.

NG: Is the money there for these projects?

Borski: I am trying to dedicate money for these two specific projects: Princeton Ave. and Girard. I am going to propose to PennDOT that they must use this money from Congress on these projects, or lose it. Of course, this is only a proposal at this point. Nothing has been finalized. But I am committed to alleviating these problems. It's just not fair to the people who live near these ramps.

NG: Let's talk politics since you're running for reelection in May. Do you think you've been underestimated throughout your career?

Borski: Yes.

NG: Do you like it that way?

Borski: It's fine by me. Look, I think I am an unusual politician. Years ago, when I told friends what I wanted to do, they said, Hey, that's not you.' Well, the truth is, I love this job. I love the service part. I love trying to help people.

NG: So, then, there's the question of style.

Borski: I believe I am effective. I am not one who looks to run home (from Washington) and hold press conferences. I try to keep people informed. I don't shy away from the issues. Frankly, I'm in this to serve the public, not to serve myself. My satisfaction is in getting the job done. The people (in this district) have been so kind to me that it's beyond my wildest dreams. Every two years I go before the public and ask, 'What do you think?' And every time they've been very good to me. For that, I'll be forever grateful.

NG: Did you give any thought to not running for reelection?

Borski: No. I am fully committed. I think I am effective. I think I do a good job for the people, and, really, I enjoy the job.

NG: Philadelphia magazine took a shot at you recently, and described you as the second worst legislator in the tri-state area. How did you react to that?

Borski: It hurts, and I am disappointed more than anything. The saddest part for me is that (it was) anonymous, and the person who wrote that should have had the courage of their convictions and signed their name. Maybe it's somebody who has an intimate knowledge of Congress, or maybe it's somebody with an ax to grind.

One of the things they did was flat-out wrong. They (quoted) an old editorial from the Inquirer. Now, if they read the old (editorials), they had to read the newer ones. And the newer ones are pretty nice to me. So, they had to search back for what they wanted. The intent of that was malicious in my opinion.

NG: How did you react to the news that for the third time, Charlie Dougherty was going to be at least your major party opponent, given, of course, that you win the primary?

Borski: I'll tell you the truth: We don't really pay attention to who the Republicans select. I have no input into the selection . . . nor should I.

NG:But the name Charlie Dougherty had to strike a chord.

Borski: Charlie's been there. He understands this process as well as anybody. I think he's a good person. He's got friends and connections in Washington, so I think the potential is there for him to be a formidable candidate.

NG: Have you approached this campaign much the same as the others?

Borski: I am going to run hard, of course. On (April 6 at the Park Hyatt in Center City) we had one of our most successful fundraisers ever. We raised over $100,000. We will be competitive (in this race).

NG: What is this race going to cost?

Borski: I read somewhere where either Charlie or some of his supporters think it will be around $800,000. I think that if you look at some of the competitive races in our area, that ($800,000) is cheap. If you look at (Jon) Fox's races (in Montgomery County), and if you look at some of the most competitive races for Congress, you'll see how expensive they are. Too expensive, really, but that's another matter.

NG: Where do you spend most of this money?

Borski: It's expensive when you (advertise) on television. That's where the lion's share of the cost is. If you're saying a race costs $1 million--and I am not saying this race is going to cost that--then, you'd be looking at about $700,000 on major media. If you look at Fox and (Ed) Mezvinsky or Fox and (Joe) Hoeffel, you'd see that kind of split.

NG:Do you anticipate that kind of competitive race against Dougherty, as, say, Fox and Hoeffel?

Borski: I have to anticipate that kind of race. You can't wait until the race is over, and then say, Well, I've got to go out and raise money.' Look, it's hard to do. But we have a plan, and we're pursuing it, and we need to have enough money to defend ourselves in case our opponent is able to raise large sums of money to get his message out.

NG: Let's talk about Section 8. You were quoted in the Northeast Times as saying it was a state issue. What did you mean by that?

Borski: That was flat-out wrong. I didn't say that. It was wrong, and I believe a correction was printed (the next week).

But, let me just say this about Section 8: It is a real problem here in Northeast Philly. It's not an illusionary problem. It is not racism, in my view. It is a problem where middle class people have invested their life's savings in their homes, and built a nice place where their children can be raised, and all of a sudden you're getting an influx . . . of folks who are coming in and who are not living up to the standards of the neighborhood.

That is wrong. That is wrong to the extent that if I live in a house and I put my trash outside in a trash can, and my next door neighbor decides to throw his trash all over the neighborhood . . . that's wrong and no neighborhood should have to put up with it. Now, there should be a mechanism whereby the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) can punish and/or throw people out of properties if they do not behave. Part of the problem is that PHA hasn't been doing this.

NG:Why not?

Borski: For a variety of reasons, so I've been told. Not enough inspectors, backlog of complaints, etc. etc. We all need to be raising cain about that.

Take the so-called homeless preference for Section 8 housing that PHA has talked about. It's flat-out wrong. Congress took away that preference. It doesn't exist anymore. Now, PHA can still (continue the practice), but it isn't a federal requirement anymore. In fact, I believe Mayor Rendell has looked into it and is ending it here, too.

NG: What is your office trying to do to solve the Section 8 problem?

Borski: We're trying to do a number of things, but one is that I do believe that greedy landlords are taking advantage of this system, and that's not what (Section 8) is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be helping poor, elderly people or people who have run into a bad time. A battered wife with a couple of kids, situations like this. That's why this program should work. But, (Section 8) shouldn't allow people to get rich off it.

The process is set up now so that a property in say, Mayfair or Tacony, is not valued the same as the other homes in these neighborhood, but rather as valued in the five-county region. This brings the rent level up. So, if the open market rent should be $500, and the Section 8 rent is say, $750, so a landlord will take the $750--and most of it is guaranteed by the federal government--and (the landlord) doesn't care what happens to the neighborhood.

What we're trying to do is make sure that neighborhood by neighborhood, block by block, the values are the same. The incentive then is not there to exploit the program.

NG: This is your piece of legislation?

Borski: Yes, I've introduced it. It's in committee now. Another piece of legislation we're looking at is limiting the number of properties a landlord can operate without the approval of the local housing authority. This way, if we have a bad (landlord), we can place limits on him.

And, there's another thing we're trying to do with Section 8. You know, part of this is just pure dollars. You don't have Section 8 people moving into the Main Line . . . because the property values are so high. The federal government isn't going to pay someone several thousand dollars a month to rent a house when they can get one for a couple of hundred dollars.

What I am trying to do is say, on a $900 monthly rental, a tenant should have to pay at least one-third of that. The way it stands now is that a person is asked to pay up to one-third, and even if they don't, it's OK. My idea is that they must pay one-third of the rent, so at the least you'd be getting a working person who is contributing something towards his home, and hopefully would now have a stake in his community.

If we have a working class neighborhood, we want working class people. If you're at the bottom and you're trying to work your way up . . . you (still) have to be a good tenant and a good neighbor.

NG: This legislation would help neighborhoods that have higher property values.

Borski: Sure, because the tenant must pay one-third. And, if it's a neighborhood with higher property values, then the rent is going to be higher.

NG: What is your opinion of clustering with regards to Section 8 homes?

Borski: Clustering is how you grew up. I think it's what we've always done. I grew up in a working class neighborhood. Everybody in the neighborhood was the same. My Dad was a letter-carrier. He worked a second job when he needed to. It was like that with everybody. We were all in the same boat. That's why I don't understand why the poorest person in the city should live in a middle class neighborhood. I would be embarrassed if it were me.

NG: It puts a tremendous about of pressure on that person in terms of money.

Borski: Yes, it does. You wouldn't want to be spending all of your money on a house, so now you can't live day to day. It doesn't make sense. I think the folks who are against clustering are misguided.

NG: Two topics that will come up during the campaign are crime and education. First, please comment on the selection of John Timoney.

Borski: It looks enormous. The potential for greatness is here. I really believe that. Also, with respect to crime, is the crime bill (Congress) passed a few years ago and gave the cities 100,000 police officers. This bill has given the impetus to getting more police on the street. I think that's happening right now, in Philadelphia and all across the country.

NG: The Philadelphia public schools are always in the news. According to who you speak to, there are good things happening in the schools or there are very bad things happening.

Borski: We've got to find a way to make public education work. We've got to come up with a way to make the investment here. The city of Philadelphia cannot do it alone.

Back to Front Page | News Archives | Contact Us | Advertising

The Week In Review | Police Report | Community Calendar | Trips
Reunions | Movie Reviews | Web Links | Classifieds