The mayor of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Ed Pawlowski, helped out a generous campaign contributor named Ramzi Haddad.
Haddad had purchased an industrial building that was vacant. He wanted to convert it to a charter school.
He asked the mayor to expedite zoning hearings. The mayor did. The mayor got a campaign contribution.
Haddad gave $15,000 to Pawlowski over the course of three years, according to campaign finance records. The indictment against Pawlowski alleges that Haddad also caused several associates, two of whom were identified in court documents only by initials, to give an additional $25,000 to the mayor.
After Pawlowski expedited the zoning hearing, emails show, Haddad asked for three other favors to get the proposed Executive Education Academy Charter School off the ground. Haddad asked Pawlowski for a letter of support to the Zoning Hearing Board for his proposed tenant, an appearance by a city employee at the zoning meeting and to hurry up the city permitting process for the school. Emails show Pawlowski complied with at least two of those requests.
At the meeting, Haddad secured the variance needed to move a charter school to the industrial property, giving him the go-ahead to rent most of the Union Boulevard building to the charter school.
In August, an investment group led by Haddad netted a handsome payout after selling the property to a foundation formed by the Executive Education Academy Charter for $32.5 million, according to bond documents. Haddad and his business partner bought the land for $850,000, property records show.
None of this was criminal, it seems.
Pawlowski’s efforts to help Haddad with the building were not part of a 54-count criminal indictment filed in federal court against the mayor in July, nor a guilty plea entered by Haddad in 2015. The interactions were the first of many between Haddad and the mayor detailed in the city emails that show an established relationship between the pair.
It was just part of the ordinary pay-to-play that we have come to expect in politics.
As for the property, think of it: Haddad and his partner paid $850,000 and sold it for $32.5 million.
The question is, why did he give so little to the mayor? Why did the mayor sell out the public trust for only a few bucks when the developer was getting ready to pocket millions?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The new “startup” of choice seems to be charter schools. Low/no risk, high upside, no experience necessary, built in consumers in every community… If it doesn’t work out, hang a “closed for business sign” in the window. Just make sure to cash your taxpayer subsided check first.
In nutshelll!
Pennsylvania ed reform is as corrupt as Ohio’s. I don’t know why it doesn’t get more attention- maybe it takes a while.
It’s – Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania – in that order although I don’t know anything about the western states and people say Arizona and California are also really bad.
Developers have worked hand-in-hand with government to open charters, and we have seen this type of symbiotic relationship before. What is unknown is what type of improvements Haddad made to the property. If he totally renovated the property for use as a school building, he added substantial value to it. The building should have been appraised before it was sold. The commonwealth should have a law on the books that requires the sale to be in line with market value. If not, there may be some fishy dealings at play. We would really need more information to make a determination. In any case someone intends to make a lot of money from this building. It is common practice that expensive charter buildings are often used to lure white families away from the public schools. They are used to encourage white families to buy property in the center of a city with the unwritten understanding that “your kids won’t have to go to school with THOSE kids.”
It defies the imagination to believe that the developer quickly sunk $30 million into renovations!
Charter schools serve many purposes. They are vehicles for personal and corporate enrichment, social engineering, union busting, reputation laundering, etc. They are also, always, a real estate play, whether it’s Eva Moskowitz taking over actual public school buildings, or slimy development deals like this one. They always have been, whether hiding behind the fig leaf of “non-profit” status or not, and they always will be.
Disregard their purported progressive origins back in the mists of the 1990’s, or that Al Shanker once said a good word about them (which he later retracted).It’s time for supporters of public education to take a strong and non-negotiable position that charters cannot be reformed unless and until they come back under the mantle of public control, and submit to transparency, equity and fair labor and educational practices. Barring that, they need to be relentlessly opposed, exposed, starved of taxpayer money, and eventually have a stake driven through their hearts once and for all.
FYI-The Supreme Court will rehear the union fee case now that they have Neil Gorsuch to sway the vote. If the conservatives get their way, it will be a significant win for union busting.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/28/supreme-court-hear-challenge-public-union-fees/711745001/