You may be relieved to hear that Philadelphia is not alone in holding fast to this aberrant practice, which is a favorite way to generate campaign contributions. The prerogative is still invoked in Chicago, where local aldermen are legendary for ruling their districts like medieval fiefs. It's also used in Dallas, where a federal civil rights lawsuit was supposed to produce a fairer, cleaner system.
Yet nowhere in Philadelphia's city charter will you find a word about councilmanic prerogative, or its most common application, zoning by fiat. "It's tradition," members declare in the same booming tones favored by Zero Mostel's Tevye. Maybe so, but it's one that should have gone out with smoke-filled rooms and envelopes fat with cash.
Council members defend the practice on the grounds that they know what's best for their districts. What they have failed to notice is that such paternalism doesn't play as well as it used to.
There are now signs, however faint, that the prerogative's days may be numbered. This fall, residents of Germantown and Chestnut Hill rose up in revolt after retiring Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller used the prerogative to change the zoning of two sites, Chelten Plaza and Magarity Ford, to clear the way for controversial developments.
It was no coincidence that the constituents' revolt occurred while Council was debating a new zoning code to replace the city's bloated, Kennedy-era rule book. Weighted down with amendments and clauses, the old code was nearly impossible to understand without the assistance of a high-priced lawyer.
