Ed Rendell: Here’s what I believe is the most important personal quality needed in Philadelphia’s next mayor

In 1992, I faced a choice.

Just a few months after being sworn in as mayor of Philadelphia, I was preparing to sign an executive order that would have allowed for the creation of a syringe exchange program to help prevent the spread of HIV and other diseases.

I had been warned that the state’s health commissioner would arrest anyone who was involved in the program — then, and now, syringe exchanges are technically illegal in the commonwealth — and I knew that everyone would be looking to City Hall to see how I handled the issue.

I signed the executive order anyway. At the news conference on the decision, our health commissioner, Robert Ross, announced that “if anyone is arrested for needle exchange, [Rendell] wants to be the first in line.” No one was ever arrested. The program — Prevention Point in Kensington — is still in operation today, and I’m told that countless lives have likely been saved by having access to clean needles.

I share this anecdote not to pat myself on the back for anything I did while in office — the work of Ross and so many others in our administration was instrumental in creating the order — but to underscore an important addition to the excellent list of traits needed for the next mayor recently prepared by one of my successors, former Mayor Michael Nutter.

» READ MORE: Michael Nutter: 10 traits we should be looking for in Philadelphia’s next mayor | Opinion

Let me begin by saying it is an extremely accurate list prepared by a mayor who worked hard and effectively to keep moving the city forward. However, Mike forgot one trait that might be the most important of all: courage.

The next mayor must have the will to do things that may be unpopular in the present but that he or she believes will bring benefit to the city in the long run. To do this successfully, the next mayor must accept the real possibility that doing the right thing for the future of the city may make it likely that they would not win reelection. Whoever becomes mayor must govern without being influenced by what effect their decisions would have on the chance of being reelected.

When I first became mayor in January 1992, we had to cut virtually every service that we provided to the citizens. We did so because it was necessary to keep the city from going bankrupt and for us to have the time to make changes that would allow the revenue growth we needed to eventually increase those services.

But advocates for many of these services — like libraries and recreation centers — hated the cuts and as a result, I was picketed at every appearance I made in our neighborhoods.

We also insisted on a contract with our unionized workers that reduced or took away numerous benefits and instituted a wage freeze. Needless to say, the municipal workforce hated it, and I was picketed by them almost daily at City Hall.

The good news was that by doing tough, difficult, and unpopular things at first, we were able to turn the city’s financial situation around. By the start of my fourth year in office, we fulfilled our pledge to increase funding to the services that we had to cut and lived up to our promise to our workforce that these benefit cuts and wage freezes would allow us to get out of the worst financial hole the city had faced in its history without laying off a single worker.

It is not an easy task to ask the next mayor to begin making decisions on day one that might jeopardize their reelection, but it may be necessary and it may be a crucial factor in helping the city overcome its challenges and keep us moving forward. Doing this will make being mayor a lot less fun than if you say yes to all of your citizens who want something. But it will likely ensure the long-range progress that will let us overcome our challenges and keep us going forward.

In truth, no citizen, no for-profit organization, or business entity wants anything new located in their area and will likely be dead set against it. If you yield to every one of these naysayers, we will not be able to locate halfway houses for those who were incarcerated, drug rehabs, trash transfer stations, firehouses, health centers, or supermarkets anywhere.

When I took office I was aware that many citizens and institutions were members of the NIMBY crowd, as in “Not In My Back Yard.” But I was shocked to learn from my staff that two new unofficial factions had formed: NOPE (Nowhere on Planet Earth) and BANANA (Build Absolute Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody).

The best advice I can give the next mayor would to be to listen to the concerns that the naysayers might have and try your best to address them. And when you’ve reached the point that you can do no more, the best thing you can do is tell them you are going forward and remind them in the next election they can vote against you if they wish.

Over the 46 years that I have been deeply involved in politics and government, I have become grudgingly convinced that fear of losing reelection is what stops many of our elected officials from doing what they know is best for our citizens. When it comes to making tough decisions, no one is in a more difficult spot than a mayor, governor, or president because they must take responsibility for the decision by themselves — but none of them can be successful by letting their decisions be determined by what is popular at the time.

I would urge the next mayor to remember what President John F. Kennedy said: “We do these things not because they are easy, we do them because they are hard.” The success of the next mayor — and the city of Philadelphia — will be determined by how many “hard” decisions they make. So, we must look for someone we believe will have the guts to do just that.

Ed Rendell served as the 96th mayor of Philadelphia (1992-2000) and the 45th governor of Pennsylvania (2003-2011).