What seems to be the crux of Richard Florida's argument is that people choose where to live independently of economic factors. This surprising assertion does not seem to be supported by any evidence, including his own study. Perceptions and ideals appear to be more explanatory of his conclusions.

For example, while San Francisco reputedly attracts some of the world's best and brightest artists and professionals, it is in no way "the most highly innovative center" that Florida alleges; partly as a result of deflated hopes for the high-technology sector, the city's downtown has a 25-percent office vacancy rate. Silicon Valley, the duly named swath of suburbia south of the city where taxes are lower, is the nation's true seat for modern invention. But with the highest housing prices in America and no "bohemian" culture to speak of, is it really any more receptive to the "Creative Class" than, say, Pittsburgh?

People and businesses alike tend to locate where they have good access to each other. Florida is correct to note that businesses will move to cities with a better job pool, but he apparently ignores that in itself to be a sound economic decision. He does not take into account that the reason excellent employees tend to congregate in certain cities is that they have a pre-existing, strong economy. American firms operate in order to maximize their profits, not to employ "creative professionals" in cities with a flourishing "people climate."

Likewise, people need to pay their bills. If Philadelphia had a tax policy more in line with the rest of the tri-state area, decent schools, and efficient mass transit, the city would attract blue-collar firms, high-tech startups, and every other kind of business; soon, "immigrants and gays," along with everyone else, would migrate here as well. Instead, if the city donated millions of dollars to establish a "vibrant indie rock scene," for example, progress would be limited to heavier traffic on the inbound Schuylkill Expressway on weekend nights.

Florida seems not to recognize that neither Gucci-clad yuppies like himself nor "artists and musicians" are the exclusive lifeblood, or even an especially important one, of a city. It is the diverse agglomeration of electricians, performers, investment bankers, housecleaners, students, families, and all other individuals that make a city function. For the government to subsidize the creative ambitions of one subclass of the urban matrix would amount only to the sort of economic inefficiency that cities can no longer afford. City Hall should promote a diversification of the local economy, not an acutely higher reading on Florida's "bohemian index." That will come later, after a strong labor market.

The unilateralist approach to urban economies that Florida embraces makes debatable your claim that he is an "urban guru." While this is characteristic of many well-meaning urban reformers, it nevertheless calls into question the usefulness of his research to those who are working toward making Philadelphia a better place for all of us to live.

Kudos to Dan Brook for last week’s cover story on current urban policy “it” boy Richard Florida. The debate over the extent to which public investment in Philadelphia should focus on improving the city’s business climate versus catering to an emerging “Creative Class” is an important one. However -- and I hate to break this to all those Homo Econimus wonks out there -- more goes into an individual’s decision about where to live than jobs and lifestyles.

For all of the thought and energy that goes into growing Philadelphia and reversing population loss, there is virtually no acknowledgement of the role of community or social networks in the Creative Class's (read: those with choices) decisions to stay or leave. In reality, people learn about jobs through their social networks, get acquainted with cities through their social networks, and ultimately place a strong value on staying close to their social networks. This is the stuff that location decisions are made of. So instead of debating stadium subsidies versus supporting a local arts scene, maybe we need a different kind of investment policy. One that supports organizations and programs that build relationships and networks among the city's prized student and creative populations while getting them engaged in their own backyard.

All that energy spent on economic development -- traditional or otherwise -- is fine and good, but it may ultimately yield little without creative investments in social capital and community building.

In the cover story "I Can Fix Your City," writer Daniel Brook poses a question: "Should the Pew Charitable Trusts stop funding the Kimmel and start funding the Khyber?"

Mob Mentality

I recently hurt somebody I truly love and respect. In my mind I was doing the right thing by getting her away from me and the bad predicament I am in, but how could hurting someone be the right thing to do?

I did a very dumb thing to the woman I love and the only person on Earth who truly cares if I live or if I die! I also made a fool of myself, but it doesn't matter what people think of me. I only care about what this woman thinks and that is why I am willing to humiliate myself again in writing this public apology. Only a real man can admit when he is wrong and I was wrong for a long time. So to this person I say I am sorry and I love you. I only pray that God gives you the strength to forgive me and still be in my life because I cannot live without you. You are the only thing that matters in my life. You are Ruthann Seccio and you are amazing!

No Dittos Here

"We're trying to win a war here, so you liberal assholes need to just shut the fuck up and stay out of our way."

I was surprised to read that Mr. Veith conveyed those lovely sentiments to the City Paper via e-mail. I wonder how long it took him to drag his knuckles up from the ground to use the keyboard.

A Date That Will Live in Controversy

I don't believe in criticizing free expression as "un-American," so I won't. In Mr. Rall's case I don't have to because his one-sided assessment of the government's handling of Sept. 11 (before, during and after) is simply un-journalistic.

The article admonishes the war on terrorism as "opportunistic assaults on the Bill of Rights, old-fashioned oil wars and a cynical neo-McCarthyism." But in a subsequent paragraph, Mr. Rall criticizes the government for not saying whether any meaningful information came out of the questioning of thousands of people in connection with 9/11. So which is it? You can't criticize the McCarthyite methods then turn around and criticize the government for not sharing the outcome of those methods.

He asserts that perhaps bin Laden was not responsible because that's not his modus operandi. I guess Mr. Rall is so self-assured as to now deem himself an expert on a man whose stated purpose is to kill Americans. Perhaps Mr. Rall didn't hear the reports on NPR last November regarding bin Laden's Sept. 10 call to his mother. Maybe he forgot to watch interviews with bin Laden in which he says the WTC attack was more deadly than he expected.

I also find it blatantly one-sided that the article only focuses on the Bush administration. In case anyone forgot, that administration was nine months old on 9/11. Why does he obviously avoid criticizing the previous eight years of the Clinton adminstration? Bin Laden was implicated in the attacks on the WTC in '93, U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and the USS Cole. Yet Clinton was more interested in prosecuting Microsoft. This would be worthy of mentioning in a balanced article. What dumbfounds me even more is that Mr. Rall is naive enough to imply that our lack of military readiness and our military policies are solely attributable to the then-new Bush adminstration.

The truth is that Bush and Clinton, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives will all share some responsibility for our ill-preparedness in the past and for correcting that ill-preparedness in the future.

I believe we are right to ask questions about 9/11 and we are right to want to improve our domestic security so such a tragedy never happens again, even if it means stepping on some Republican and Democrat toes. But to publish blatantly unbalanced criticism solely for the sake of criticism is unprofessional. If Mr. Rall wants to write political propaganda, he's done well. If he wants to be a journalist, he's got some homework to do.

(Re: Slant, “‘Democracies die behind closed doors’,” Howard Altman, Sept. 5, 2002)

You seemed to capture a core issue of concern for those of us that feel less safe today than pre-9/11 because of the new "government order," which seems to rely on promoting secrecy and fear in order to gain support for limiting our most fundamental constitutional rights.

You know, we could use a piece that would profile those who died on 9/11. An understanding of who the victims were might shed new light on what we should be doing as a nation. As an example, it is my understanding that many workers who perished were members of Local 1199. These were janitors and office workers and, I understand, many of these workers were legal residents (not citizens). Ironically, the increased abuse of INS enforcement procedures has had an adverse impact on Latinos who are currently legal residents and are at risk to be deported for any reason Ashcroft might devise. After all, out of every five Latinos in this country, two are legally working residents.

Maybe 9/11 is not simply about revenge and kicking ass, but about listening to the spirits of those that passed.