The moderators of this forum were Michelle Charles and Louise Giugliano.

It was a small but diverse and enthusiastic group of 14 South Philadelphia residents who tackled the 2010 scenario on this chilly winter evening.

There was no question what these folks like about their city: the friendliness of the city, the neighborhood feel, the convenience of living within walking distance of most necessities.

And there was mostly agreement on what needed to be done to make Philadelphia “most livable” by 2010:

No. 1 was attracting and growing quality, “living wage” jobs in all neighborhoods of the city. And the group was emphatic that the way to do this was not in giving huge sums of “corporate welfare” to big companies or sports teams. Even in the neighborhood that was home to the Philadelphia Navy Yard, the Kvaerner deal came in for sharp criticism from several Voices, and an absolute no to city investment in sports stadiums drew a round of applause.

“Giving Jeff Lurie millions for corporate welfare while thousands are coming off real welfare is the worst kind of reverse Robin Hood,” said Scott Drake.

The citizens saw clear connections between the quest for quality jobs and two of their other top issues: taxes and schools.

On taxes, they of course wanted to see them lowered - both for individuals and businesses. On the trickier question of how, their suggestions were: no corporate welfare, increasing the efficiency of the city’s social programs and services (e.g. limiting patronage), and luring more middle class tax payers back to the city.

They saw schools as the key to that last goal. While one person strongly favored school vouchers, the panelists agreed that Philadelphia improved its schools by decentralizing their management, upgrading training for teachers to the point that they bought into reforms, reducing class size, having a mayor who advocated effectively for school aid in Harrisburg, and by building community support and participation by turning schools into community centers where all neighborhood residents felt welcome.

On another key issue, the panelists said the city attacked crime by stressing community policing, by improving the department’s relations with minority communities, and enforcing laws against quality of life crimes.

A big emphasis of the panel was on how all these improvements came about because average citizens became more active. “People were more responsible, individually and locally,” was how one person put it. With the neighborhoods better connected to City Hall, sidewalks weren’t covered with trash; vacant buildings were torn down promptly and empty lots weren’t left to fester, but were turned into yards and gardens known as “block parks.”