May 2025 Primary Election Ballot Question Review
The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter (adopted by voters in 1951) is similar to the U.S. Constitution in that it stipulates the structure of government, along with the roles and responsibilities of its members, departments, and various offices. In order to delete or add new structures, roles, or responsibilities of government in Philadelphia, a ballot measure must be presented to the voters for approval and a simple majority allows for its passage. Additionally, all general obligation debt (significant borrowing) must also be presented to the voters for approval.
Historically, most ballot measures pass. One notorious exception was the “resign-to-run rule,” which failed in 2007 and again in 2014. This year, 9th Ward Committeemembers shied away from making reflexive “Yes” recommendations and strove instead to balance the generally accepted reasons for voting “Yes” with equally compelling reasons for voting “No.” Unfortunately, ballot measures – as presented to voters – often lack sufficient detail regarding funding requirements and context for the decision-making process (i.e., what alternatives exist to a permanent change in the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, and whether those alternatives were previously tried and funded). See the short list below to understand some of the fundamental philosophical differences behind the rationales for “Yes” and “No” votes. This page of background information is followed by the 9th Ward’s suggested vote, as well as perspectives in support or opposition of each ballot measure. We trust this information will give you the insight you need to reach your own decisions.
Generally accepted reasons for voting “Yes” on a ballot measure:
- Some believe that by amending the City Home Rule Charter we can effectively rehabilitate City government’s characterization of a structural problem and approach to its resolution.
Compelling reasons for voting “No” on a ballot measure:
- Others believe that amending the City Home Rule Charter should be done only when the structures of government and/or the roles and responsibilities of officials must change to meet the ongoing and permanent needs of Philadelphians. Legislative and administrative changes can and should serve as alternatives for managing temporary issues facing Philadelphia.
Ballot Question #1 Submitted to the Voters By: Bill No. 240005 (approved June 12, 2024); Resolution No. 240030 (adopted May 30, 2024); Ballot Question: Should The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to create the Office of Homeless Services Ombudsperson to assist residents experiencing homelessness, help provide fair access to essential resources, improve quality of life in the shelter system, investigate client complaints, and provide oversight and recommendations to the City’s providers of homeless services? Statement: The City’s Home Rule Charter sets up the framework of City government. The Charter is the City’s constitution. A “yes” vote means you approve the creation of a new Office of Homeless Services Ombudsperson in City government. This Office will help people who don’t have homes get the services they need, and work to improve the City’s homeless services.
Background: The catalyst for the creation of this new office in the Home Rule Charter was the FY24 mismanagement of funds, which led to nearly $15M in unapproved overspending on the Office of Homeless Services’ (OHS) approximately $130M budget (a rising annual budget to address increasing rates of homelessness in the aftermath of COVID). Advocates also complained about the quality of services at OHS. City Council proposed this measure to address these issues, as well as the lack of data tracking, and dispute resolution process. If approved, the City must fund and create an Office of Homeless Services Ombudsperson that provides direct oversight over these services. The Office would be staffed and have independent authority to advocate for the homeless, as it pertains to issues of law, policy, practice, and resources, and also to individual, judicial, administrative, and investigative matters.
The 9th Ward Democratic Committee voted YES by majority, in favor of Ballot Measure #1
Perspective in Support of this Ballot Measure:
Given the vulnerability of this population and the recent mismanagement of funds and operations, increased oversight is necessary. We must prioritize protecting individuals experiencing homelessness and invest in leadership committed to that mission.
The proposed Office of the Homeless Services Ombudsperson would help meet this need by providing dedicated staff to support individuals and families relying on our supportive housing programs. This office would address quality-of-service concerns, ensure proper notification of individual rights, and help with navigating the system.
The new Office would be empowered to conduct investigations, hold public hearings, play a key role in educating the public about homelessness, track strategic data, formulate policy recommendations, and advocate for meaningful change. The Office of Homeless Services Ombudsperson will provide independent and dedicated attention to ensure that the needs of this vulnerable population are adequately evaluated and addressed by the City of Philadelphia.
Perspective in Opposition to this Ballot Measure:
While ensuring the proper treatment of our most vulnerable community members is a critical priority, creating a permanent structural solution in response to what were temporary issues—such as mismanaged finances (now corrected), poor office culture, and insufficient leadership—would be premature. Instead, the City could explore viable alternatives, including establishing new positions focused on service delivery management and performance oversight under the direction of new mayoral leadership. Additionally, the Mayor and City Council might consider replacing current executive leadership to directly address the mismanagement and lack of accountability that contributed to the organizational challenges and quality of service issues.
City government, as is, has the capacity and authority to oversee necessary improvement efforts at OHS and/or mitigate the mismanagement of funds. City Council’s Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development, and the Homeless is well-positioned to provide ongoing oversight of the improvement efforts it feels are necessary (finance, leadership, service changes) as can the City Controller who may conduct performance and financial audits of OHS at their request.
Finally, the absence of a clearly defined budget or staffing plan for this new office leaves too much uncertainty. These critical details would be left to City Council and the Mayor to determine after the public vote, raising concerns about transparency and long-term accountability.
Ballot Question #2 Submitted to the Voters By: Bill No. 240061 (became law September 4, 2024); Resolution No. 240068 (adopted June 6, 2024) Ballot Question: Should the Home Rule Charter be amended to increase the minimum amount that must be appropriated for spending on Housing Trust Fund purposes in the City’s operating budget each year? Statement: The City’s Home Rule Charter sets up the framework of City government, including the rules for how the City can spend money. Currently, the Charter requires that a certain amount of City money must be available to spend on programs related to building and maintaining affordable housing. That amount is based on overall City spending. If you vote “yes” on this ballot question, that means you approve of requiring inclusion of an additional amount for that same purpose. The additional amount would be equal to the amount of money developers pay the City each year for zoning benefits.
Background: The Philadelphia Housing Trust Fund (HTF) was established in 2005 through a collaborative effort and serves as a dedicated funding source to develop affordable homes, preserve existing homes, and prevent homelessness. Funding derives from fees collected when mortgages or deeds are recorded, or when additional funding is negotiated between Council and the Mayor through the annual budget process. A ballot measure, approved by voters in 2021, amended the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to mandate an annual appropriation to the HTF equal to 0.5% of the City’s General Fund appropriations (operating budget) to ensure a dedicated funding stream for affordable housing.
Philadelphia’s Zoning Code currently offers developers the option to build beyond existing zoning limits if they include affordable or mixed-income housing units. As an alternative, developers may opt to make a “payment in lieu of” providing those units. The 2025 ballot measure aims to strengthen the impact of this policy by requiring that all such payments be directly allocated to HTF rather than be dispersed into the General Fund (which funds all City operations). Specifically, the measure mandates that the total amount of “in-lieu” payments collected in the previous calendar year be appropriated into the HTF for the current fiscal year.
The 9th Ward Democratic Committee voted YES by majority, in favor of Ballot Measure #2
Perspective in Support of this Ballot Measure:
Housing costs in Philadelphia continue to climb, forcing many residents to spend more than 30% of their monthly income on housing. Philadelphia is unique, with both one of the oldest housing stocks and one of the highest homeownership rates for Black residents in the nation. However, the rates of Black homeownership in the city are declining in recent years due to an inability to maintain aging homes. The HTF funds essential programs that provide stability and opportunity for vulnerable residents—and these programs operate on relatively modest annual budgets. Currently, the HTF budget is overspent with the anticipated demand for these funds exceeding supply. Protecting this funding ensures that the City’s commitment to affordable housing is not only upheld but insulated from shifting political winds and budget pressures.
This 2025 ballot measure aims to protect and prioritize affordable housing by ensuring that all payments made by housing developers in lieu of building affordable units are permanently directed to the HTF, not diverted into the City’s General Fund. When the payment options were originally established by previous Council leaders, it was their intent that these payments be used to directly support the HTF and its provision of affordable housing.
Perspective in Opposition to this Ballot Measure:
While the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) is undeniably important, permanently earmarking all fees or payments for HTF would tie the City’s hands and undermine its ability to respond to future challenges. City budgeting requires flexibility and negotiation of priorities. Locking funds into a single program—no matter how worthy—prevents the City from adapting to shifting priorities and urgent needs.
This approach sets a risky precedent: that every fee generated by a City initiative must stay within that program. No General Fund department operates this way. Fees collected across the City contribute to a shared pool of resources that supports essential services—public safety, health, infrastructure, economic development, planning and more. Our ability to reallocate these funds is what allows the City to serve its residents effectively, especially in times of crisis or rapid change.
By embedding a permanent restriction in the Home Rule Charter, we sacrifice smart, responsive governance for the sake of a single funding stream. True support for the HTF comes not from inflexible mandates, but from thoughtful investment—something the City has already demonstrated. In 2018, City Council and the Mayor increased HTF funding by $19 million mid-year, without any structural changes made to the Home Rule Charter. That kind of responsiveness should be preserved, not constrained. In short, we can and should fund the HTF—but we must also preserve the City’s ability to govern wisely, adapt quickly, and serve all of its people.
Ballot Question #3 Proposed Charter Change 3 Submitted to the Voters By: Bill No. 240817 (approved February 12, 2025); Resolution No. 240834-A (adopted December 19, 2024); as amended by Resolution No. 250018 (adopted January 30, 2025) Ballot Question: Shall The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to provide for the creation of an independent Philadelphia Prison Community Oversight Board and Office of Prison Oversight and to further authorize City Council to determine the composition, powers and duties of the Board and Office? Statement: The City’s Home Rule Charter sets up the framework of City government. Under the current Charter, an advisory board called the Board of Trustees of Philadelphia Prisons adopts standards and guidelines for the City’s prisons. If you vote “yes” on this ballot question, that means you approve replacing the Board of Trustees of Philadelphia Prisons with a new City office headed by the Director of Prison Oversight and a board called the Philadelphia Prison Community Oversight Board. The Office of Prison Oversight would be responsible for reviewing policies, investigating practices, and recommending changes at the Department of Prisons. It would also support the work of the Philadelphia Prison Community Oversight Board. The Board would hold regular public meetings and advise on how to make the City’s prisons operate better and more fairly.
Background: In 2014, Philadelphia voters approved a ballot measure amending the Home Rule Charter to establish a new Department of Prisons—formerly the Philadelphia Prison System—and to replace the outdated Board of Trustees of the House of Correction (which was deemed ineffective) with a new Board of Trustees of the Philadelphia Prisons. Over time, this new Board ceased functioning as an active board, no longer meeting regularly or providing oversight of the Prisons for City officials.
In 2022, then-Councilmember Helen Gym introduced legislation to reconstitute the Board as an independent oversight body with investigative and subpoena powers. Her proposal was driven by growing concerns over safety and transparency, particularly in response to COVID-related deaths among incarcerated individuals.
Building on that foundation, City Council introduced new legislation in 2024 to create a Prison Community Oversight Board and an Office of Prison Oversight. Appointed by the Mayor and City Council, these bodies are designed to restore accountability, ensure public transparency, and provide stronger oversight of Philadelphia’s prison system.
The 9th Ward Democratic Committee voted NO by majority, not in favor of Ballot Measure #3
Perspective in Opposition to this Ballot Measure:
The proposed 2025 ballot measure marks the third attempt to impose yet another layer of oversight on Philadelphia’s correctional system. It calls for new, undisclosed funding amounts to establish an Office of Prison Oversight—staffed with up to 15 employees—and to cover ongoing expenses for a new oversight board. Yet the central problems plaguing the prison system are no mystery. They’ve been clearly identified over recent years: aging infrastructure that undermines efficient operations, and a critical staffing crisis, with nearly 40% of full-time correctional officer positions vacant as of November 2024. These two factors are the driving force behind supervision lapses and the ongoing health and safety challenges inside City correctional facilities.
The Department of Prisons is already under robust, continuous oversight by the Mayor, City Council, the Federal Courts, City Controller, the Philadelphia Criminal Justice Advisory Board (CJAB), the PA Prison Society, and when necessary, the Inspector General. Another costly oversight office is a distraction—the Department requires real investment to implement long-standing recommendations. Every dollar spent on duplicative oversight is a dollar not spent on hiring and retaining correctional staff, expanding programming, or upgrading facilities to meet modern standards.
Under the leadership of a new Commissioner, the Department has offered a more practical path forward—expanding the roles of trusted organizations like the PA Prison Society and the Defender Association, both of which have the credibility, access, and expertise to drive real reform without creating a new, multimillion-dollar bureaucracy. Rather than funding another layer of oversight, Philadelphia should direct its limited General Fund resources toward solving the actual problems: hiring more officers, improving conditions, and investing in safer, more effective correctional facilities.
Perspective in Support for this Ballot Measure:
Philadelphia’s Department of Prisons currently houses approximately 3,600 incarcerated individuals (as of April 14, 2025) —the lowest number in decades. Yet despite the decline in population, poor and dangerous conditions have persisted for years, resulting in multiple court-ordered consent decrees. Previous attempts to provide oversight and guidance to the Prisons Commissioner and Mayor have fallen short, and serious concerns about the treatment of incarcerated individuals remain.
The proposed Office of Prison Oversight, in coordination with the new Prison Community Oversight Board, builds off of lessons learned from previous attempts to provide oversight to the prisons that have failed: promoting the health and safety of incarcerated people, investigating the policies and conduct of the Department of Prisons, and developing public education initiatives around the justice system. The Board will specifically provide advice and recommendations to ensure transparent, just, and effective correctional management, hold regular public meetings and may be granted additional powers by City Council—including the authority to issue a vote of no confidence in the Prisons Commissioner or Director of Prison Oversight.
With these expanded powers and a renewed focus on accountability, Philadelphia is positioned to finally bring meaningful reform to its prison system and improve the treatment of those in its custody.
