Both And: How council can make Philly better by solving problems instead of saying no
Imagine if City Council were an improv group that said "yes, and". "Hi, we're the City Council of Philadelphia—can we get a one-word suggestion, please?"
TL;DR: Philadelphia's progress is too often stalled by a council culture of reflexive "no" without alternatives – blocking a good thing because of avoidable side effects. Yet recent examples from the Vision Zero conference show a promising shift: some councilmembers are moving from opposition to problem-solving, embracing a "both/and" approach rather than "either/or" thinking. This problem-solving politics creates more options for everyone and offers a path to an abundant Philadelphia where tradeoffs move us forward, instead of holding us back.
At the 2025 Vision Zero conference at Temple, Council President Kenyatta Johnson addressed a room full of advocates who once considered him their opposition. Three years after killing a road-narrowing project with protected bike lanes on Washington Avenue, Johnson stood at the podium and said something remarkable:
"I know some folks said, 'But you didn't support protected bike lanes on Washington Avenue. So how can you actually advocate to make sure that we're going to be a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly city?'" Johnson told the crowd. "And I always say: 'Well, listen, don't make one act define who I am as an individual.'"
He then pledged to fight for more Vision Zero funding in the budget, called for "a real shift away from car dependency," and suggested Philadelphia should follow Paris in prioritizing "clean mobility" like cycling and transit.
The room erupted in applause. The urbanist group 5th Square described his speech as "truly incredible."
Why was this moment significant? Because it highlighted a critical shift that's beginning to happen in Philly politics: the move from saying "no, because it highlights another problem" to asking "how can we solve both problems?"
The Council of No
Philadelphia council has long operated with what feels like a default setting of "no." When a proposal arrives—whether it's protected bike lanes, new housing, or zoning changes—the reflex is often to block rather than improve.
Just last month, Councilmembers Young, Bass, and Brooks tabled a bill that would implement speed cameras in school zones—ostensibly, because it may cause financial harm to folks speeding who couldn’t afford the fines. But holy heck—why would our answer to “low-income folks need to speed!” be “guess the kids better watch out for cars better”?
The real answer is: we need to stop speeding in school zones AND we need to help folks who would be financially devastated by a ticket.
Too often, the reflex is to solve neither, when it should be to solve both.
This reflex happens for understandable reasons. Councilmembers hear vocal opposition from constituents who fear change. They work within a system of councilmanic prerogative that makes it easier to veto than to solve. And solving problems is genuinely harder than simply opposing them.
But this pattern has consequences. Our streets remain dangerous. Our housing remains scarce and expensive. Our public spaces remain underfunded. All because we've gotten stuck in a political culture where tradeoffs seem inevitable—where every proposal must have winners and losers.
But Johnson's evolution suggests another way is possible. (And notably, he explicitly stated in his speech at the conference that the aforementioned bill will pass, “you have my word”)
From "No" to "Both/And"
What changed for Johnson? He still represents the same constituents. He still works within the same political system.
What changed was his approach to problem-solving. Rather than viewing the Get Out the Bike Lane bill as a win/lose proposition, he championed it and even lobbied fellow councilmembers to expand it citywide rather than just his district. He found a "both/and" solution where cyclists get safer lanes and residents get loading zones for temporary parking.
This is what I call problem-solving politics. Instead of reflexively opposing change, it asks: "How can we address everyone's legitimate concerns while still making progress?"
We saw the same approach from other councilmembers at the Vision Zero conference:
Councilmember Jamie Gauthier framed traffic safety as "a racial justice issue," noting that "roads are more dangerous by far in Black and brown communities." Rather than accepting potential federal funding cuts as a reason to hold back, she advocated for creative local solutions.
Councilmember Isaiah Thomas has championed bus lane enforcement legislation and recently introduced the Safe Streets for Students Act to put speed cameras in school zones—that one that was tabled in the Streets Committee. When pushing these initiatives, he doesn’t say that drivers who can’t afford a ticket are out of luck—he also advocates for support for folks so they can pay their bills AND keep kids safe.
Community Problem-Solvers
It's not just councilmembers showing what problem-solving politics looks like. At the conference, residents shared stories of successfully pushing for safer streets through creative engagement:
Whether it’s Leonard Bonarek collecting petition signatures and video evidence to get a protected bike lane on 48th Street, or Mark Green working with his state senator, state representative, PennDOT, and other officials to get traffic calming measures on Allegheny Avenue, or Nia Daye spent years pushing for a Slow Zone in Tioga, where persistence paid off—construction is finally set to begin soon—all of these efforts have been worth it. Every life saved is worth it.
Perhaps most strikingly, in Fishtown on a small residential street with speeding through-traffic that endangers the 20+ children living on the block, the neighbors decided to put in their own speed bump when the city declined their request for traffic calming based on outdated regulations about street width. Cars were slowed, kids were safe, all thanks to the residents on the block.
Then a driver complained and the city removed it.
This, my friends, is the city coming forward with “no” thinking. I empathize with the folks in Streets or OTIS that have to field complaints from folks coming in hot with road rage.
But the answer is not to silently remove the solution that neighbors found. The answer is to reach out to the neighbors and find a new solution together.
And, frankly—if the regulation about where traffic calming can and can’t go doesn’t make sense anymore: remove it, for the love of all that is holy.
Cars are not—and this is true—more important than kids’ (or anyone’s!!) lives. For whoever needs to hear that, please shout it from the rooftops.
Maybe I’d have more appreciation for the Harleys riding down South Street with decked out speakers if they were just reciting that on loop through them.
The Math of More
What all these examples share is a fundamental insight: cities aren't zero-sum games. They're engines of abundance—places where proximity and density create more opportunities, more connections, and more possibilities than would otherwise exist.
The spatial math supports this. A protected bike lane moves 7,500 people per hour compared to a car lane's 1,000. A five-story mixed-use building generates 10 times the tax revenue of a single-story building with parking. A well-designed bus network connects exponentially more people to jobs than a car-dependent system.
When we design for efficiency rather than individual convenience, we create more total value. This isn't abstract theory—it's practical urban economics. More mobility options mean less congestion for those who need to drive. More housing options mean more affordable neighborhoods for everyone. More public space means more vibrant communities.
A Problem-Solving Framework
What would a problem-solving council look like in practice? Instead of saying "we can't do X because of Y," they would ask "how can we do X while addressing Y?"
For example:
Instead of: "We can't add protected bike lanes because people need to park."
Problem-solving approach: "Let's design protected bike lanes with dedicated loading zones, smart parking policies that ensure higher turnover, and expanded transportation options that ultimately reduce parking demand."
Instead of: "We can't build more housing because it will price out current residents."
Problem-solving approach: "Let's permit the next increment of density by right across the city, so that the overall increase in housing actually lowers cost-per-unit throughout. Then, with the new tax revenue inevitably generated by having more people, let’s invest new tax revenue in community benefits."
Instead of: "We can't improve bus service because it will remove car lanes."
Problem-solving approach: "Let's implement dedicated bus lanes with automated enforcement that moves more people more efficiently, while using time-of-day regulations that maintain car access when needed."
Breaking the Scarcity Trap
Why is this approach so rare in city politics? Because scarcity thinking is a powerful trap.
When constituents believe there's only so much good stuff to go around, they fight harder to protect "their share"—creating precisely the contentious dynamics that make politicians retreat to the safety of "no."
Breaking out of this cycle requires leadership that isn't afraid to say: "We can have multiple good things. We don't have to choose."
Johnson's evolution is promising precisely because it suggests this dynamic can change. If a councilmember who once killed a high-profile bike lane project can stand before advocates and pledge to prioritize "clean mobility," there's hope for a broader shift in our political culture.
The Path Forward
Philadelphia faces real challenges—housing affordability, traffic violence, climate resilience, economic inequality. We need a council that approaches these issues with a problem-solving mindset, not a reflexive "no."
This requires:
Constituents who demand alternatives, not just opposition. When your councilmember opposes a project, ask them: "What's your alternative solution to this problem?"
Advocates who propose comprehensive solutions, not just singular changes. Frame proposals in terms of benefits for multiple stakeholders.
Media coverage that highlights problem-solving, not just conflict. Success stories like those shared at the Vision Zero conference deserve just as much attention (more, even) as contentious meetings.
Councilmembers who lead conversations about change rather than simply reacting to the loudest voices. (Looking at you at various points in time, district councilmembers)
The real choice facing Philadelphia isn't between bike lanes or parking, new housing or stable neighborhoods, transit improvements or car access. It's between a politics of problem-solving that creates more options for everyone, and a politics of "no" that leaves us stuck with the status quo.
Let's make saying "no" suck less by making solving problems suck less too.