Three Rivers Fishing Report

Game on!

2009-03-09T13:21:00.004-05:00

The PG reports today on Mr. Ravenstahl's campaign, "Ravenstahl kicks off re-election bid with 11-point plan" .

"I know that not everybody will agree with my plan," the mayor said. "There will be those among us who differ. Some will do so altruistically. Others will do so with ill motive. Yet others will do so because they are contrarians, still others because they can't see the good of our city, and simply believe the grass is always grener elsewhere.

"We can't let those voices among us compomise our hopes, dreams and aspirations for this place we call home."

Some also don't agree because they don't trust this mayor and are, therefore, chronically skeptical of his intentions.

Franco "Dok" Harris for Mayor of Pittsburgh

2009-03-09T11:27:00.001-05:00

Oh yes!

http://www.harrisforpittsburgh.com/

Another blow to the intergrity of the Allegheny County Democratic Committee

2007-08-03T08:21:00.000-05:00

There's a saying that company is like fish - after 3 days it stinks. Well, applying that to the integrity of the Allegheny County Democratic Committee and you have - after 3 scandals, something stinks.

Of all the good things Howard Dean, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, had to say about what the Democrats are doing and how it is essential to "get involved with the people whose votes you're looking for" (thanks for the report Dayvoe!), he may be uninformed about the struggling integrity of the ACDC. Remember the hoopla about DPW's Democratic committee members caught up in 'campaigning on the city's dime' and 'politicizing street paving' scandals? (If not, check here). From the PG and much discussion in the burgosphere that:

The manager of the Redd Up crew wearing "Re-elect" Jeff Koch t-shirts was Kevin Quigley, Democratic Committee member from Brighton Heights.
Quigley's sup (cool nickname for supervisor) was Robert Kaczorowski, a ward chairman from Crafton Heights.
Three of DPW's six streets maintenance supervisors were committee members, as were the department's deputy director, operation manager and one assistant director. The result was that 46 members of the Democratic Committee were slated to get fresh asphalt on the roads in front of or right next to their homes, and three of nine council members have parts of their streets, or streets very close to their homes, on the paving list.

Now another scandal that should raise some skepticism about ACDC's integrity, particularly committee members from Brighton Heights, involves stolen vehicle inspection stickers and a stockpile of guns. From the PG:

Paul J. Grguras, 47, of Brighton Heights, was arrested July 23 after police identified him as a suspect in the theft of state inspection stickers from Sullivan Chevrolet in Etna. Mr. Grguras is also a Democratic committee member from the 26th Ward, Brighton Heights.

Among the 43 firearms seized by police were vintage machine guns, various styles of rifles and shotguns. Some bore no serial numbers. Police also found ammunition for all of the guns.Police checked his criminal record and learned that he had been convicted in 1980 in two separate felony cases, and convicted in a third felony case in 1983. State law prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms.

So dude had 43 guns, some bearing no serial numbers, and ammo for all of them. And we've got a problem with AK47's on the North Side and guns in the hands of idiot thugs killing people around town? And now a Democratic Committee member from Brighton Heights (now that's Mayor Ravenstahl's part of town - a quiet, friendly, and family-oriented neighborhood, right?), a DPW heavy-equipment operator who used to work with City Council Member Jeff Koch, is busted for a pile of unregistered guns he isn't legally allowed to possess because he's a convicted felon and is a suspect of a robbery of a car dealership in Etna?

Whereas convicted felons, as a shameful legacy of the 'Old South', lose their voting rights for the rest of their lives in some states, in Pennsylvania, one only loses his right to vote while incarcerated or completing sentencing (through probation, halfway house, etc). In Allegheny County, however, convicted felons 3 times over are functional mechanisms within the Democratic machine. While the ACDC did not grow up with the mob history that the Chicago political machine did, there is growing evidence that local committee members are stinking up its image and integrity. At minimum, there seems to be a cabal in Brighton Heights. I suggest Jim Burn re-evaluate the merits of current Democratic Committee members and think longterm about what the ACDC represents both locally and nationally.

All About Govt Efficiency....but shhh, it's a secret.

2007-08-01T09:56:00.000-05:00

The editorial board of the PG writes today, "Stick to it: Ravenstahl and Onorato need to pursue efficiency". It mentions the Advisory Committee to Enhance Efficiency and Effectiveness of City and County Government headed by Univ of Pittsburgh Chancellor Mark Nordenberg.

While we're not sure ourselves whether the Louisville model [see this for a little background] is good for Pittsburgh, both leaders should wait to hear from the Advisory Committee to Enhance Efficiency and Effectiveness of County and City Government, the latest bipartisan group of civic leaders to study the operations. The committee, headed by University of Pittsburgh Chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg, has completed its fact-finding and is ready to start working on recommendations. Five meetings are scheduled between now and the end of October, which means the answers won't be known anytime soon.

While I'm glad to see that civic leaders are engaging local source of academic wealth (since public officials are rarely informed on evidence-based delivery of public services) I am a bit confused of the secrecy surrounding these recommendations. The advisory committee has completed it's report and 5 meetings will be held behind closed doors prior to a mayoral election? The contrary seems more reasonable to me in a democracy; candidates would hold a series of public debates on a non-partisan report produced with academic oversight on recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government. We've been hearing about this committee for quite some time and each time I read about it I am confused about the justification for keeping its findings from the public.

Is the assumption that the public is too stupid to understand the findings? Why not institutionalize an advisory committee like this and allow it to release independent reports which the public can access? Stretch this idea--why doesn't a staff person handling administrative tasks (such as editing, printing the printing the report, etc.) for the advisory committee anonymously leak some of its findings to the press.

Political scientists Weir and Skocpo l in 1983 wrote (start p. 359):

Our analysis of the responses of Sweden and the United States to the Great Depression emphasizes the political effects of their sharply different state structures rather than primarily focusing on class interests or balances of class power.

They analyzed social policy outputs and argued that because Sweden had university economists as part of formal state structure, that institution had a stronger influence on public policy whereas, in the US, industry had a stronger influence (think Michael Moore's 'Sicko' here and why 40million Americans don't have health insurance).

With Mr. Ravenstahl (and Onorato) kicking it and doing 'official business' on golf courses with interested parties but meeting behind closed doors on what the hell to do about improving govt efficiency, I think they owe the public prompt access to the Advisory Committee's work. They also might want to consider institutionalizing such an Advisory Committee to maintain a consistent source of well-reasoned recommendations for the city and county for administrations to come.

Tunesmith and Anthony

2007-07-30T13:21:00.000-05:00

Just when we all need a dose of humor, Tunesmith and Anthony deliver. Introducing Lou Cravenstahl. Brilliant. Just brilliant!

DeSantis Begins to Bring Ravenstahl's 'Surplus' Budget Into Focus

2007-07-26T09:13:00.000-05:00

When you fish, there's a really easy way to make a picture of your catch look huge. Hold it out in front of you and the fish (in that perspective) appears much larger than it is actually. This is a little trick that adds to the storytelling of fisherman. When Ravenstahl claimed his budget 'surplus' he demonstrated that he can tell the tall tales that us fishermen take as our recreative liberty. Well, DeSantis is bringing the picture of the fish back into focus. Trib reporters Brown and Boren sat down with DeSantis and wrote, "Pittsburgh mayoral hopeful urges frank talk".

DeSantis boldly pokes holes in Ravenstahl's budget:

"So fudging numbers or coming up with phony or phantom numbers, or giving extraordinary estimates on revenue from gambling, and all those other fun things, all the tricks you can play -- let's stop doing that," he said. "Let's give people ground truth to what our situation really is and work off that."

I'm glad that he is doing so. I wrote on the fallacies of the budget 'surplus' in a previous post and I'm happy to see DeSantis taking public the difficult issues our city faces. And that is a demonstration of the type of transparency he would bring to the office. Making information public.

"As a private citizen, I cannot get good numbers, and I know how to get good numbers, and I can't get them, so right away there's a problem. Informed speculation: probably bad numbers."

In the previous post, I had to do some acrobatics to estimate how much Ravenstahl overstated his surplus and the problems that came with it. Numbers aren't readily and publicly available. One point he raises that is very interesting:

Consolidation of the budgets of the city's major authorities such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority, Water & Sewer Authority and Housing Authority under the city's annual operating budget to demonstrate the city's "true debt" and spending.

Now that is a point I never considered. The city's debt is considerably larger when one includes the financial health of the city's authorities.

The trick here is if DeSantis can whip public sentiment over the city's debt into a frenzied froth, and make Burghers listen. This would be his strength as a candidate. However, with the Peduto campaign we learned that the public didn't want to hear about issues, the CP offering an interpretation that the city was still grieving over O'Connor and tired of thinking about mayors for two straight years. With his several crashes, Ravenstahl may have re-interested the public in who is serving them as mayor. At minimum, I don't think they are buying the picture of the kid with a huge fish anymore.

County Controller finally exercises rightful authority

2007-07-19T13:19:00.000-05:00

In a previous post, I commented on the role of the controller and why this county position had never provided oversight to the approximately $25 million the county turns over to the Port Authority each year. We learned how the 'crisis' in the Port Authority's budget was years in the making and how Onorato, during his years as controller, said the authority had 'resisted' efforts to scrutinize what happens to that $25 million. When news of routes cuts went public he passed this hot potato to Flaherty, who would be the first controller actively involved in the authority. Ed Heath had commented then, "Now if the Authority raises rates or cuts routes, or even just has a mini-scandal, people will say “Where was the county in all this?” Well, were learning were the county stands on the authority.

State budget approval on Tues as reported in the Trib:

The bill, passed by the state House on Tuesday, would add about $55 million to the state's $135 million annual share of the chronically cash-strapped Port Authority budget. The state money, however, is contingent on Allegheny County coming up with about $30 million to $35 million in matching funds, which Chief Executive Dan Onorato has said he'll release only if the Port Authority cuts costs in the next labor contract.

So, the move by Rendell, seeming to be the theme of his budget proposal across the board, is to put more responsibility on the municipalities to attend to municipal problems, taking public pressure off the state.

"No more coming back each year and saying, 'We have a crisis.' No more living hand-to-mouth, month-to-month," Rendell said, adding that the bill provides enough resources to keep the transit agency afloat for at least 10 years.

What this has done is give municipalities a legislative option (alcohol tax or rental car tax) to levy taxes to solve their budget probems. Consequently, the burden moves from the state to the municipality (from Rendell to Onorato to Flaherty) and the Controller's role is forced to exercise its responsibility and account for expenditures, thereby assuring better delivery of services (in theory, of course). And Onorato shouldn't release that money until the Port Authority Board produces a plan marrying efficiency and good service.

Today we learn the result of the audit the controller began back in April.

Among other inefficiencies, Flaherty said:

"We recommend that the board of directors and management of the Port Authority set a near-term goal of improving operational performance to at least meet, if not exceed, the average performance of benchmarked agencies."

From WPXI:

- Over the last five years, Port Authority's budget exceeded its revenue.
- Current rider-to-bus ratios show that 46 percent fewer buses would be needed if the trend continues.
-Pension contributions significantly increased between 2005 and 2006.
-Forty-three percent of the Port Authority's health care costs go towards retirees.

Hopefully, whatever suggestions proposed for the Port Authority's ills will include consultation with the employees' union this time. In the spring, a union rep had mentioned how the service and employee benefit cuts were news to him since the Board had never consulted the union.

It's a shame that it took so long to get the Port Authority to consider meeting benchmark performance standards - and responsibility for past failures rests with the Board alone. Perhaps we can consider what role a one-party rule in this region has contributed to the problem (that would take some investigation to make that argument).

Unnecessary Complication in Off-duty Police Assignments

2007-07-17T10:19:00.000-05:00

Back in April, when the off-duty police assignment system was proposed, there was a great deal of discussion about this topic and I offered my perspective. I linked four parts of The Admiral's work on contracting and calculations. As expected, this issue has demonstrated itself to be unnecessary complicated and, most importantly, compromises the accountability of the police bureau. Bram and Ed offer a perspective on the current situtation when Rich Lord reports, "City making money on police officers' side jobs".

In the April post, I wondered where the money from the surcharge fee was going and what proportion would go to the police union's legal defense fund.

Assistant Chief Regina McDonald said much of it is instead covering overtime stemming from court dates. "If an officer makes an arrest while working a secondary detail, the court time is paid for by the secondary employment payments," she said.

Money from the side job fee also is going for uniforms, training and equipment, she said, with some left over to defray injury claims or lawsuits.

"I'd hate to see that money end up in asphalt or something," said union President James Malloy, calling the decision not to squirrel it away "a damn shame."

I don't remember reading anything in the MSM about the fee covering court dates, training and equipment. In fact, Jeremy Boren had reported that "The fee will feed the police union's legal defense fund and cover medical liability costs if an officer is hurt while working off duty." Now, only "some" is left over to defray injury claims or lawsuits. Might those fees end up contributing to the Ravenstahl administration's surplus budget? What, in fact, is the system on where this pot of money should go? I thought the first priority of the project was to prevent bankrupting the city coffers from suits against abusive police officers.

I had wondered about why private schedulers were still allowed to schedule officers and the fidelity of those schedulers to report off-duty assignments and secure the surcharge fee for city revenue. Yet:

The administration considered eliminating the practice of allowing officers to run small businesses scheduling their colleagues for private security work. In a concession to the union, though, the mayor allowed a two-pronged system, in which employers can ask the Police Bureau to assign officers on a rotating basis, or use a scheduler.

That concerns attorney Tim O'Brien, who represented Mr. Werling and has handled numerous cases stemming from police side jobs. He said better monitoring of the side work is a step forward, but private schedulers undermine that.

"If individual schedulers means less supervision, that is not desirable," he said. All side jobs should be "regulated from within [the bureau], in all respects."

So:

As a result, the scheduling business, viewed by some as the Wild West aspect of the side job industry, is alive and well.

Of some 830 active officers, 80 are registered with the bureau as side-job schedulers, Chief McDonald said.
Of 640 employers approved to hire off-duty police, 203 have chosen to use private schedulers.

Now, about one-tenth of the officers are registered as side-job schedulers and about one-third of employers have chosen to use private schedulers. Those numbers don't tell us if big contracting businesses for off-duty assignments account for a majority of the scheduled hours. What is absent from this report is if there is a accountability check on the schedulers to report (and collect the surcharge) for every single hour of off-duty service. The scheduling business is 'wild west' because something is in it for schedulers. What is that motivating factor of being a scheduler? Are these schedulers skimming off surcharge fees? Is there a separate fee for providing desired officers for contracting businesses such as the Pirates who want the same officers they have used in the past?

"I won't use the city [rotation] system, because I don't know who I'll get," said Station Square Security Director Paul M. Wolak. The $3.85 charge cost him $900 last month, he said -- money he would rather have used to add 30 more hours of police protection.

"All it is, is a tax on the business," he said.

Well, yes sir, you could frame it as a tax on business. You could also frame it like James Malloy, police union president:

Whether the fee drops or not, business won't dry up, Mr. Malloy predicted. That's because businesses want something private security firms can't provide.

"They're buying the psychological appearance of a uniformed officer," he said, "who has the power to point a finger at someone and say, 'You're under arrest.' "

That ability is the police bureau's comparitive advantage. If you don't want to pay the fee than you are free to hire private security firms.

This whole piloting of a system to regulate and secure fees from off-duty police assignments has resulted in a display of unnecessary complication. What is clear is that this program should be revisited and ensure that ALL contracting for off-duty assignment goes through the bureau. Since Malloy has thrown a few fireballs at Ravenstahl in recent weeks, perhaps the mayor would use this as an opportunity to go against the union and remove the opportunity for private schedulers to exist. Perhaps, like Bram stated, "likely dates to watch for the "pilot program" to end would be just prior to the start of football season -- or just after the election".

HB 1631 and Hill District Community Benefits Agreement

2007-07-05T17:01:00.000-05:00

Last week, the PA House passed a bill that seems to provide casino-generated funding that could be used for development projects in the Hill. According to the PG's report:

House Bill 1631, which still lacks Senate approval, authorizes an additional $500,000 per year for up to 30 years for a "community development fund for infrastructure, construction and redevelopment projects" near the proposed arena.
That money could go for development in the lower Hill District, adjacent to the new arena. Hill officials, including state Rep. Jake Wheatley, have insisted on being involved in the overall development of the lower Hill, including the land where Mellon Arena is.

Calling up the bill, the wording is somewhat vague:

(D) Payments related to the construction of a facility designated for use by a professional hockey franchise, including $500,000 $15,000,000 to a nonprofit community development fund to fund infrastructure, construction and redevelopment projects
(Base Project Allocation - $8,000,000)

This is to be $500,000 for 30 yrs yielding $15 million total to this development fund. That accounts for half a million of the base project allocation but does the rest of the $7.5 million go towards state grants to Allegheny County and city of Pittsburgh for infrastructure (new plumbing/electric/roads in and out of arena) improvements for the arena? Is that a reserve for overage costs that the state and the Penguins will share (up to $10 million to each)?

Secondly, did anyone check with community members about how it might be publicly interpreted that activists, many Hill District residents, refused to have a casino in their neighborhood but will be given casino-generated funds?

Thirdly, the Hill District is left with a 'good faith' arrangement with the Penguins for their share of a community benefits agreement. No master plan on development in the Hill has been coordinated with arena construction plans.

At least this is a start, but of what is the question.

LCB is a Barrier to PA Businesses

2007-07-05T10:06:00.000-05:00

Buy fresh. Buy local. Wouldn't you like to sample and maybe purchase reasonably priced wines that are produced within a 1 or 2 hour drive from your home in Pittsburgh? Wouldn't it be nice to purchase some fresh locally grown produce, locally smoked salmon, but not locally caught, (and bacon!), fresh bread and then find a nice Riesling or a Cab to go with it? And right in your neighborhood? Well, if the LCB (Liquor Control Board) had its way you wouldn't.

A spokesperson for the LCB said:

Approval of special permits should be limited to wine and food expositions, where the focus was on educating participants about the availability, nature and quality of Pennsylvania wines. Events like fairs, arts festivals, flea markets and farmers' markets do not qualify for permits under current law.

Legislation permitting PA wines to be sold at Farmer's Markets was recently introduced by State Rep. Tim Solobay (D-Canonsburg) and was easily passed in the House and the Senate's Law and Justice Committee. The full Senate should vote on this legislation within a month or so.

And we wonder why we have such non-adaptive and silly alcohol laws in this state? Like Pittsburgh's Department of Public Works (think Quigley), the LCB is a public entity that often serves as a repository for hacks.

Check here for a Farmer's Market close to you. Maybe by the fall (likely next year) you'll be able to buy a bottle.

Ravenflop; Flippinstahl; FlipFloppin like fish

2007-06-29T14:37:00.000-05:00

Thursday June 21:

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, who approved the promotions, could not be reached for comment. His spokeswoman, Joanna Doven, said the mayor would not discuss the promotions or their effects on women.
"He's not going to talk about that," Doven said.

Friday June 29:

The promotion of these police officers and the resulting controversy has provided us all an opportunity to see how flawed the City's long-standing system is for officer promotion.
Today I will start implementing several reforms to address this situation in the future. I am announcing a new policy that will set a standard of zero tolerance for domestic abuse.
The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police will institute revisions to their current Domestic Violence policy to incorporate the best practices recommendations of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
Mandatory Domestic Violence training is currently provided to all Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Officers. They will work in conjunction with the in the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office and the Women's Center and Shelter to supplement the mandatory Domestic Violence training.
A review of each candidate will be conducted by an internal panel of senior supervisors to examine all data contained in the candidate's PARS and OMS files along with any OMI and Citizens Police Review Board complaints. A written recommendation by the review panel will be submitted to the Chief.
The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police will initiate a list of disqualifiers for cause that could eliminate a candidate from consideration for promotion.
The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police will implement new procedures to more closely track all Police Officer involved Domestic Violence related incidents.
The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police will take a holistic approach to the overall well-being of its Officers and their families. They will encourage, or mandate when necessary, Officers to avail themselves to counseling and/or other social service resources, especially in Domestic Violence related situations.
These steps are just the beginning of the reform, not an end.
With regard to George Trosky, I have stated previously that I was aware of his decade-old issues. I was also aware of his decades of exemplary service. While promoting him was a hard decision, it is one that I stand by.
With regard to Charles Rodriguez and Eugene F. Hlavac, as I have said, I was unaware of there being any issues in their background prior to public reports last week. That is a result of the Police Department not reporting to me that information. Had I known of that history, I would have urged that extraordinary steps be taken to further look into their respective issues, just as I had done with Detective Trosky. I have reprimanded Chief Harper for not sharing that information with me.
The problem that we face today is a legal one. The City's obsolete and flawed system for promoting officers has bitten us today. While I would like nothing better than to hold back these promotions pending further scrutiny, the law is not on our side. Legally, these men have already been promoted and the only action that could now be taken by Chief Harper would be to demote the two officers. I have been told by counsel that such an act would violate the current rules and the City would be on thin ice legally; therefore, the officers will not be demoted at this time.
I am upset and frustrated by the existing obsolete City rules that allowed for these promotions to take place in this way. It won't stand. It must change. We must make those changes necessary to restore faith in City Government. That is the good that has come this day. Today, we'll begin to change a practice and a process that has been going on for decades. It's time this City embraced a zero tolerance policy on domestic violence.
------------------------------------------

"The problem we face today is a legal one". While that might be true, literally. Kind of like a, "that depends what your definition of is....is". Really, the problem we have faced since last summer is LEADERSHIP.

We should all pay attention to 'incorporating the best practices recommendations of the IACP". "Incorporating" may mean, like in other depts around the country who have used this policy, using a 3-hole puncher and place it in the personnel manual.

City Contracts and M/WBEs

2007-06-29T09:58:00.000-05:00

A previous post, presented a United States Commission on Civil Rights report entitled, "Barriers Facing Minority- and Woman-Owned Businesses in Pennsylvania". Charlie Deitch wrote a piece in the CP this week on a new pitch to increase M/WBE contracting regarding all of the casinarena construction:

Phil Petite, manager of the city's Equal Opportunity Review Commission, came to Pittsburgh City Council June 20 looking for authorization to implement a "sheltered markets" program. The program takes large contracts that would normally be won by large contractors -- most of which are not owned by women and minorities -- and breaks them down into smaller contracts that minority-owned firms can manage.

In addition to the hundreds of millions in contracts available to registered M/WBEs, perhaps Mr. Petite wants to apply this to non-bonanza contracts, like with Pittsburgh Public Schools.

Police Dept Best Practices

2007-06-28T19:50:00.000-05:00

The PG reports, "Women's groups, Ravenstahl meet amid uproar on police promotions". One aspect of the article is disturbing.

The city Police Bureau has a handful of policies dealing with domestic violence involving police officers.
Regulations call for a supervisor to respond to the scene if an officer is involved in suspected domestic violence. Officers are obligated to notify their supervisor if they are named in a civil suit involving allegations of domestic violence.
If an officer is served with a protection from abuse order, the city's Office of Municipal Investigations must be notified.

So, the police bureau's policy regarding domestic violence involving officers is basically for the bureau to be made aware of it. So long as the bureau knows about it, bureau regs are being met. Now, that's crap. When you read the transcript of the OMI interview with former Chief of Police Costa it becomes clear that one reason Officer Frank Rende was not suspended from the bureau for calling off sick numerous times to work side jobs was because of a technicality. Bureau regs called for 'counseling' about the infraction within 120 days for the officer receiving a disciplinary action report.

But for an officer who breaks his wife's nose or leaves marks on his child (while OCYF cleared the officer in this case, generally, leaving marks on a child qualifies for a 'childline' and an investigation into whether it qualifies as child abuse) just notify the officer's supervisor? No 'counseling' on what is going on at home and how this cannot happen again, etc. Maybe leave it to the discretion of each supervisor on how best to handle each individual case. That is not really a policy of remedying a serious behavioral problem among police officers. Whoever it was that said recently (was it Deputy Chief Paul Donaldson?) that domestic violence rates in the Pittsburgh Police Bureau weren't any different than the population at large. Hmmm.

The National Center for Women and Policing produced a "Police Family Violence Fact Sheet" which relays the following:

Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10% of families in the general population. A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24%, indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general.

And then the mayor was quoted in the article.

More important may be "a long-term policy and plan to deal with domestic violence and domestic abuse," the mayor said, starting with police, but extending throughout the city workforce.

Mayor, and Chief Harper, if you would care enough to take 5 minutes to search the web on best practices for officers committing domestic violence you would find a pre-made comprehensive policy to tailor to your needs that was put out by the International Association of Police Chiefs.
Like the PG indicated, the policy provides for prevention, training, early warning, intervention and responses. That seems like best practices for the dept.

What makes Ravenstahl a Democrat?

2007-06-26T08:20:00.000-05:00

The Trib provides some analysis on DeSantis' campaign launch today. From the previous Republican mayoral nominee:

Weinroth thinks the GOP eventually could win the office, if enough Pittsburghers conclude one-party control hurts the city.
"We don't even have a one-party system," he said. "Bill Peduto dropped out because he knew he couldn't beat the anointed one, so to speak, the person supported by the (Democratic) committee and the leadership, and that's Luke Ravenstahl right now."

Others think that the Democrats in Allegheny county have co-opted Republican principles.

DeSantis has vowed to go for a full merger of city-county services and purchases (economies of scale), minimizing bureacracy within the school system (and likely other municipal bodies), and is business-minded (having had plenty of work experience). He seems to embody paleo-con Republican values of being fiscally conservative, keeping govt and public dollars out of private enterprise, and minimizing govt, generally. I have been wondering for quite some time but without much of an argument one way or another:

What makes Ravenstahl a Democrat?

Ravenstahl attempting to establish performance? or loyalty?

2007-06-15T12:29:00.000-05:00

Michael Hasch at the Trib is reporting, "Mayor asks for several directors’ resignations". This comes after making a few high-level changes in his administration last month. The mayor stated:

"All directors are admirable colleagues of mine who have been working very hard," Ravenstahl said in a statement.
"However, I am not satisfied with the condition of city government. As mayor, I owe it to the people of Pittsburgh to build our government with the best people who are capable of doing the best job."

Joanna Doven, the interim spokesperson for the mayor said:

"It doesn't mean they are going to be fired. The mayor wants to make sure they are the best people for the position, and he's encouraged all of the directors to apply."

So, the mayor asks all these dept heads for their resignation letters but tells them to apply for their job back? That they can serve until they are replaced? That a national search will begin immediately for the best talent?

In organizations and companies I am familiar with, one reviews the job performance of an individual against the responsibilities and goals of that position to see how that individual adds up. You don't ask for resignation letters and then review their application for their job.

How does this benefit the Ravenstahl administration? I'd bet it will motivate some lazy department heads (if any are, in fact, lazy) but, moreso, it will shore up which department heads are loyal to this mayor.

And I'd bet that that Zober had something to do with the resignation letter approach. Remember last summer? Zober was at the center of all of it - and, in the past, has been known to prepare resignation letters for people to sign.

The whole move smells fishy if you ask me.

UPDATE
The PG reports the mayor said that "he felt it was time to put his mark on his administration by making his own selections for department heads". The PG also notes that under the city's home rule charter, Mr. Ravenstahl has 90 days to fill the positions. Let's see what will happen by Sept. 15th.

WPXI, though, notes that the mayor is calling for the City Solicitor and EMS Department head to resign.

Don't know how I missed this, but some good discussion about the events in the comments section.

URA to the Hill District: Don't worry about it!

2007-06-13T14:29:00.000-05:00

Mark Belko on the URA vote today:

The city URA today approved a development agreement with the Penguins for about 9 acres of land known as the Melody Tent site near Mellon Arena, despite protests from a small group of Hill District residents.

The residents had urged the URA to delay the agreement until the team agreed to a community benefits program as part of its new development. The team and community leaders have had several meetings about the types of projects that should be part of the new development to benefit the neighborhood.

Authority members said there will be other opportunities for the city to hold the team to its promise of community benefits and the team wanted the development agreement signed before it would approve its 30-year lease for a new arena.

Just as expected. I started writing a post yesterday regarding this matter (see below). Who on city council sits on the URA board and will soon be up for re-election? Tonya Payne.
----------------------------------

We learn from Mark Belko a little more of the specifics in the public shafting agreement made between Penguins owners and Onorendellburklestahl, Inc. In a previous post, I listed some findings of the Allegheny Institute's analysis of the agreement and the $15 million in an SEA 'redevelopment' credit. Now, we learn about the vote on the URA-owned Melody Tent Site pictured here which was included as part of the agreement to give Penguins control of the development rights.

According to Belko's article, a few things are attention worthy.

Board members are expected to vote tomorrow on a 10-year option agreement with Pittsburgh Arena Real Estate Redevelopment, a Penguins affiliate, that would give the team control over the URA-owned Melody Tent site, now used as a parking lot.

The team gets control of the development rights but the property remains under ownership of the URA? Sounds good right? If I'm not mistaken, that means that the Penguins keeps all profits from events and use of the space but pay no property taxes since they won't own the property. What revenue does this bring the city? A portion of the sales tax from hot dogs and Penguins jerzees?

The team is required to develop 10 percent of the land each year, or face the risk of losing all or a portion of it. The Penguins must pay fair market value for the land, but will have access to $15 million in credits to offset the purchase price as a "further incentive to development," according to a URA report discussing the Melody Tent site.

Well, being forced to develop 10% of the land each year or face losing it is no incentive to consider and negotiate community input on redevelopment. Without a provision in this contract to ensure community input, the URA will effectively be negotiating a steamrolling of the public, in whose interest it claims to serve.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh is more than a redevelopment authority -- it is the City of Pittsburgh's economic development agency. As a developer of last resort, the URA develops properties which the private sector will not undertake. Our goals are to create jobs, increase the city's tax base, and improve the vitality of businesses, neighborhoods, and the City's culture as a whole.

Increase the city's tax base? Develop properties the private sector will not undertake? The Penguins are getting $15 million to put towards buying up prime real estate downtown! What authority will the URA retain regarding development of this property?

The development rights could provide the Penguins with another revenue stream once the new arena is up. The team also has the option of using some of the land for parking before it is developed.

What new revenue streams (for the city) will come from signing over development rights? Great for the Penguins but what benefit for the city? Remember, the Allegheny Institute remarked how the SEA retained ownership of the arena site; retaining the land, potentially good, but also forgoing the opportunity to collect property taxes from the arena. Furthermore, the Penguins get to keep all proceeds from sporting and non-sporting events (like Bon Jovi concerts) while infrastructural improvements (and maintainence, likely), such as plumbing and electric for the new arena, are paid for with public monies.

As part of the Isle of Capri Inc. bid for the Pittsburgh casino, the Penguins had teamed with Nationwide Realty Investors of Columbus, Ohio, to redevelop the 28-acre site with offices, housing, restaurants, retail and entertainment facilities, and to re-establish a street grid to reconnect the Hill with Downtown.
Nationwide dropped out of the picture after Mr. Barden won the casino license.
The Penguins have yet to select a new developer as part of the arena deal, but are expected to look at similar uses for the land.

It will be interesting (i.e. I will be surprised) if a redevelopment plan with a new realty company is concerned at all with reconnecting the Hill with Downtown.

Real cool cats

2007-06-12T15:00:00.001-05:00

2PJs posted a funny picture of the mayor crashing Tiger's party and provide a summary of links from many around the burghosphere commenting on the mayor's uninvited attendance at the Oakmont Country Club. Mostly, the perspective is that the mayor has been embarrasing. Reading much of the commentary I began to think of how the mayor's behavior has been making a case for a council-manager style of municipal government. Other cities have this style of governance and, while it hasn't worked everywhere, there are good arguments for and against this system. In the case of Pittsburgh, the 27-year old mayor is now taking the opportunity to use the US Open as an opportunity to promote the city. Perhaps moving away from a mayor-council form of local government isn't a bad idea.

My favorite piece of Rich Lord's article is:

He led a tour of the city, touted the April finding that the city was again the Places Rated Almanac's Most Livable City, and was filmed knocking golf balls from Point State Park into the rivers.

Perfect! Another piece of trash that goes into our rivers. We were worried about mine drainage and sewer overflows (to follow in a future post) and now the figure head of the city is knocking golf balls into the river. Maybe I'll start fishing for golf balls.

Reading Lord's article we see how focused the mayor is on promoting the city. That's great in a way. Lord (both of them) knows this city needs a cheerleader. But so much so that he will "spend much of the week" there in Oakmont, 15miles from the city-county building? Since the mayor's primary concern is focused on hobnobbing and wooing golf fans and its clientele then maybe considering having a different kind of city government isn't such a bad idea.

Consider the history of the shift from mayor-council governments to council-manager governments. From City Mayors:

Council-manager government was conceived in response to entrenched one-party political machines that had dominated many city governments by the beginning of the 20th Century. During that period, party politics and corruption prevailed and were perceived as being an impediment to fair local government. Partisan elections, dominated by local political machines, limited candidates to party regulars and patronage systems prevented qualified people from serving in local government leadership positions.

As a description of the system:

The mayor, or chairman, of the council and council members are the leaders and policy makers elected to represent the community and to concentrate on policy issues that are responsive to citizens’ needs and wishes. A manager is appointed by the governing body to carry out policy and ensure that the entire community is properly served. If the manager in question does not respond to the governing body’s wishes, it has the authority to dismiss that manager at any time.

A study of North Carolina cities has found that the council-manager system needs certain contributions from the mayor in order to operate smoothly. At the very least, the mayor must take on leadership of the coordinator type to facilitate an exchange of information between the public, council, and staff and to help the council operate more effectively. The study noted that “[t]his attention to the internal dynamics of city government and relationships with the public is crucial for complete leadership. If a mayor is to shape both the process and direction of city government, he cannot ignore the coordinative dimension; he can achieve victories over the short run but may become an isolated reformer.”

Mayors, in this arrangement of city government are considered "soft" mayors because they are coordinators and their primary agenda is not concerned with policy issues. "Soft" is not considered 'less than', the roles are just different.

Applied to the Pittsburgh case, Ravenstahl would have every freedom to blow smoke to senior citizens like Elaine Lee, meet with kids who want new developments in Pgh to be green, hang out in Oakmont, and generally put his face everywhere he can (no small thanks to Lamar Advertising). The favor that is (was?) bestowed upon him would then be warranted because he would be the pretty face of the city. He could then chime in on issues but not really have to be burdened with the minutiae of city policy; like tax-payer financed campaigning, equitable street-paving, city contracting, n@. Better for everyone. Given the 'catty' email the mayor sent Shields, a cat could be a cat and the Tiger could play golf!

East End Anarchists? What anarchists?

2007-06-12T08:39:00.000-05:00

There seems to be a little broad stroked painting going around Pittsburgh since the window smashing of the Quiet Storm and the East End Food Co-Op. The night after they were hit, "anarchists" struck again. This time the manager of the Co-Op got a call from the police at 4am saying their new front windows were smashed again. Later that morning we learned that the windows of a number of Shadyside businesses were broken and tagged with anti G8 slogans and circle A's. My problem is the lumping of all black- clothes-wearing, bike-riding, Eastenders as "anarchists". Very little attention is paid to how this subset of Eastenders differ from one another. And the issue of lumping all these groups together then raises the age old political economic question of "who does it benefit"? Let's see.

Coverage from WTAE:

Police said they received a report of two men wearing dark clothes, riding bikes and throwing rocks through windows on Walnut Street.
Pittsburgh councilman Bill Peduto held a news conference Wednesday with community leaders regarding the recent vandalism.
Officials said they believe the Pittsburgh Organizing Committee, a group that organizes anti-war rallys, is behind the vandalism, which targeted national chain stores.
Peduto said the vandals are only hurting local businesses.

Two men wearing dark clothes, riding bikes. Hmm, that's a pretty regular site in the East End. Pittsburgh Organizing Committee? Nope. It's the Pittsburgh Organining Group, not committee.

Coverage from WPXI and real insightful quote from James Ford, owner of Shadyside Market:

James Ford: "I heard that it was, some people on bicycles throwing river rocks because of the G-8 summit that they were protesting against some of the things going over in Poland and Russia... Probably environmental. I think so, the activists get pretty extreme. "

Police are not saying that there are protesters or anarchists involved.

Thanks Mr. Ford for your informed perspective on the matter. Sorry your windows were smashed but putting the blame on 'protesters', organized by POG that walked passed your store peacefully en masse by the hundreds before and after the invasion of Iraq are not equivalent to Greenpeace or, better yet, the Animal Liberation Front. But thanks for broad stroking and lumping together anything different from wooly cotton brained Shadyside. Sounds like you haven't gotten over the "love it or leave it" argument. Poland and Russia, huh? You obviously have no clue as to the well-intentioned aims of the alternate-globalization movement. It's the entire global South that is starving from the unfair political-economic policies of the North. Judging by the prices of your wax-polished produce for expensive palates I wouldn't expect more from you.

Initial coverage from the PG:

Vandals left the messages "Smash money" and "Down with G8"
The food co-op had windows broken, and an anarchy symbol -- a circled 'A' -- was drawn in several places along the building's front, as was this stenciled message in red: "There are no good corporations. Stop [word intelligible] selling."
Rob Baran, the general manager of the cooperative, said he spoke with Jill McDowell, owner of the Quiet Storm "and we think it's the same folks. I can't even think of these people as anarchists."

Righteo, Mr. Baran. I can't even think of these people as anarchists either. Pittsburgh labor organizers of the late-19th century wouldn't consider these dudes anarchists either.

Finally we arrive at the resulting conflict from all the coverage. Peduto has apparently struck a chord with POG, and rightfully so. The PG covers this today:

"They're losing the one elected official they had because of the accusations and tactics in the field. They're proving their actions don't work and actually are counterproductive," Mr. Peduto said.
"They're saying it's irresponsible for me to isolate any one group. What other group of anarchists are there in this city?"

POG, an anarchist group? POG is a well organized group that often holds "radical" positions on the war in Iraq and other global justice issues. They are a 'radical' group, not anarchists. Their stated position of identity is to "seek to understand and oppose the inter-connected forms of oppression while utilizing non-hierarchical, consensus-based organizing". And they do so, often collaborating with the Thomas Merton Center, which follows the principles of the Catholic monk by the same name.

"I am against war, against violence, against violent revolution, for peaceful settlement of differences, for nonviolent but nevertheless radical changes. Change is needed, and violence will not really change anything: at most it will only transfer power from one set of bull-headed authorities to another." --Thomas Merton

Consensus, as a principle, does not translate well to anarchy. Various groups who self-identify themselves as anarchist do not often agree with one another on ideological principles, and particularly on economic models.

So, POG has written an open letter , referred to in the PG article above, asking Peduto to take back his statements which was sent out to its mailing list and is also posted on its site.

Councilman Peduto's comments at the June 6 press conference were highly irresponsible for a public official to make, detrimental to local movements for peace and social justice, and a slap in the face to those progressives who have previously considered him an ally. He was the first, and as far as we are aware, only non-police official to attempt to link us to these events. His statements have contributed to a public perception of our guilt, caused division within the local anti-war movement, drained our time and resources away from important campaigns, and damaged our personal relationships with members of the community.

When you see dark-clothed bike-riders around town, they are likely NOT anarchists. From my perspective, they fall into three rough categories. They fall into what I term hipster vampires, DIY, and youngsters. Hipster vampires hang out at all the cool bars in the East End, are fashion conscious, and are vampires in the sense that their social circles are very insular and difficult to access to a non-hipster. DIY (do-it-yourself) are those progressive thinkers and actors who are really contributing to the new Pittsburgh. I would place active POG members in this camp (apologies in advance if I offend) as well as Free Ride volunteers, Construction Junction affiliates, and many many other progressives active in organizations, several newer organizations, that are driving much of the great culture-shift happening in the city. Youngsters are those who may appear as 'dark-clothed bike riders' but have not yet developed the nuances in their ideological positions to understand how to navigate tactically. Therefore, their tactics are to tear down and destroy (economic systems, Starbucks, everything). They likely don't understand that people in the resource-poor countries they are arguing for would probably not understand their position at all.

It doesn't seem as though POG would be involved in window smashing in this instance for a number of reasons. As they said, they are a public organization and it would not benefit them to have windows smashed at, among all places, the Quiet Storm or the Co-Op. When they came into being they were made up of young, smart, cleverly tactical members. They were well organized and carefully picked issues to which they would attend. They never sanctioned breaking the windows of Navy buildings during anti-war protests. When people choose to do this, they do so as free-choosing individuals. POG has been a great contributor to the organization of Pittsburghers against war and social injustices. Breaking windows of local businesses just seems too dumb and organizationally immature as a POG tactic.

If POG affiliates did commit the crimes, public pressure from Peduto and media attention will likely force the organization through growing pains. Peduto is not backing down from his statements. I would trust that he has good information to make such a claim but without definitive evidence that POG did, in fact, do this, perhaps Peduto could make some concessions that he may have overstepped his claims. There is a way that he could defend his constituents in the business district on Walnut St. without lambasting POG. Go after the criminals, not the radicals.

Finally, who does this all benefit? To make the argument that all those who are opposed to global injustices are to blame for smashed windows is being an intellectual cheapskate (ahem, James Ford-ians). According to WPXI, the police were not saying that protesters or anarchists were involved. Let's stay with that mindset and not benefit those whose worldview equates anti-war and freedom hating.

ADDENDUM:
Whoever did this at the co-op cut themselves pretty badly and bled on the front windows and sidewalk. Know anybody that wears dark-clothing, rides a bike, AND has a pretty bad cut on their body somewhere, likely their arm?

Old Quarrel, Old Battle; And just who represents the Hill?

2007-06-05T11:26:00.000-05:00

Bill Toland over at the PG did a fair job on Sunday of painting the political landscape on the Hill in securing a benefits agreement regarding casinarena issues. I've been following this issue (Pt.1 and Pt.2) and find that his title, "Old quarrel shapes new battle over Hill District" really should be Old Quarrel, Old Battle. I argue this because there is always a battle over who represents a 'community', this is not particular to the Hill District, and because residents in the Hill were not passive when the Civic Arena was originally built. I reprint the entire article below with comments and interpretations based on attending the original community forum at Weil Elementary last month and some previous articles. Apologies in advance for the format - just had to get these thoughts down. And last night, 230 concerned citizens came to the arena to voice "their concerns, frustrations, and thoughts about the proposed $290 million arena and its impact".
-------------------
In August Wilson's Hill District, where political memories are long and family loyalties run deep, late city councilman Jake Milliones still has disciples, 14 years beyond his death. And those disciples, harnessed by ousted city councilman Sala Udin, have their antagonists, given voice by current city Councilwoman Tonya Payne.
It was Ms. Payne who defeated Mr. Udin in the 2005 primary, eventually winning the right to represent the Hill and city council's District 6, and it was Mr. Udin who fired Ms. Payne from his council staff 10 years ago.

Yes, but the word on the street (and please take it as such) is that Mr. Udin hesitated for months and months before firing Ms. Payne because he didn’t feel he could/should do it. But after he was convinced that she WASN’T DOING ANY WORK as a city council staffer he had to fire her. When he decided to explore running for mayor he neglected to attend to his re-election campaign for his council seat. Folks not with Mr.Udin in the Hill (and some of Mr.Udin’s downtown adversaries with $$$) encouraged and backed Payne to oust him.

And it's this split -- the Payne class pitted against the Udin guard -- that is shaping the latest tug-of-war over the soul of the Hill. The winners will be able to make the claim, for the moment, that they are the authentic voice of the community, and will be better able to control the jobs, contracts and tens of millions of dollars in future investment at stake as the Pittsburgh Penguins prepare to build an arena in the Lower Hill.

This seems to be a fabricated interpretation of what is happening in the Hill right now. The “One Hill” group, the likes of Monroe/Wheatley/Milliones/Udin is aiming to unify the Hill in one voice. I have seen my past suspicions modified regarding how it would benefit Onorendellburklestahl, Inc. if the Hill was divided and could be conquered. Jake Wheatley, in solidarity with ALL Hill District stakeholders, said that the Hill should work to come up with a unified voice – especially among public officials. There is not this explicit drive to badmouth one another from the “One Hill” side. From hypocritical Tonya Payne’s perspective, Mr. Toland has a point because she seems to be fomenting a power struggle.

Also at stake are the development rights themselves -- will the Pens develop the 28 acres around the new arena exclusively, or will the team cede some of it to Majestic Star gaming head Don Barden and his allies? In the back of everyone's mind is the specter of the old Civic Arena and the sense that if they don't get it right this time, there may not be another chance.
"It's all about power," said DeWitt Walton, head of the Crawford Square Homeowners Association and an observer of the Hill's politics and power plays. He was an early supporter of the Isle of Capri, the St. Louis company that partnered with the Penguins and hoped to build a casino next to the new arena. "Power translates into dollars."
And the Hill wants dollars. Marimba Milliones, daughter of Jake Milliones, wants to collapse the Community Development Corporation that she heads into a nascent umbrella group, the Greater Hill District Development League, which would direct investment money in the Hill. Ms. Payne, part of the Hill's next generation of leaders, wants to be the funnel through which cash flows into her district. Carl Redwood wants his Hill Consensus Group to be a primary arbiter of development in the neighborhood.

Who would you trust? Payne, who collaborated with Robinson lobby for the Isle of Capri that your constituents clearly rejected, who collaborated with Robinson’s friend Rev. James Simms who was paid by the casino to appear as some independent Hill District advocate with the “Pittsburgh First” organization fronting as a community group? Or, Marimba who worked with the CDC, along with its board members for the past year or so without payment to ensure fair development practices in the Hill; who worked hard to secure the Bedford Dwellings , which has been a great success in terms of participatory community development; or Jake Wheatley who told the PA House that an independent community survey found that 65% of the Hill District opposed the Isle of Capri plan “unlike the privately funded survey done by a signature-gathering company which was paid for by the Isle of Capri/Pittsburgh First organization.” ; who also suggested that the Gaming Commission should visit the Hill residents and hear for themselves what the community’s perspectives are. Or Sala Udin, who spent 4 years of his life as a Freedom Rider in the 60’s taking beatings again and again down south for the civil rights struggle, who established a drug treatment center and addressed AIDS injustices early on in the bay area, and developed a multicultural training resource center before PCness.

Deciphering the political alliances in the Hill is like playing a game of connect-the-dots -- it takes a few minutes, but eventually, a picture emerges. Mr. Udin was the quiet nexus of the group that ended up fighting to derail the proposed Isle of Capri casino. Mr. Udin was Jake Millione's chief of staff; later Mr. Udin hired Jake Wheatley, now a state representative, to work for him during his city council tenure. (Mr. Wheatley, for a time, was engaged to Ms. Milliones.)
Entertainer-activist Kimberly Ellis (or you could call her Kimberly Ellis, PhD head of the Hill District’s Historic Hill Initiative, doing good work to maintain the history of the Hill, and also this), the self-proclaimed "Dr. Goddess" who helped whip up opposition to the Isle of Capri, is the niece of the late playwright August Wilson -- one of Mr. Udin's best friends.
Meanwhile, Mr. Udin's relationship with ministers in the Hill, including the Rev. Johnnie Monroe, pastor of Grace Memorial Presbyterian Church, is more of the old-fashioned back-scratching variety -- he helped them during his years on city council, and now many of those Hill ministers continue to be faithful to him. (A coalition of ministers supportive of Mr. Udin and distrustful of gambling on a moral level, called Raise Your Hand, was one of the Hill's chief anti-casino mobilization forces.)
"There's a connection everywhere," said Perline Coleman, who has spent decades in her Sweeney Way home above Wylie Avenue, is the secretary for the Hill's Third Ward. She falls into the Payne camp and the Hill Consensus Group, which has emerged as a counterweight to the influence wielded by Udin subordinates.
Ms. Payne?
She has been supported by the city's Democratic establishment (wow, lots of faith in her once you mention she is supported by the city’s junta), winning the endorsement of the party committee in 2005 over Mr. Udin. That solidified her alignment with County Councilman Bill Robinson, the same Bill Robinson who once served in the state House of Representatives -- until he was defeated by a young man named Jake Wheatley.
Mr. Robinson and Mr. Udin, it's fair to say, are political archrivals. Mr. Robinson, meanwhile, has been a political and personal friend to the Rev. James Simms over the years -- it was Mr. Simms who was a paid consultant for Isle of Capri's public face, called Pittsburgh First, which tried to organize community support for the Lower Hill casino.
Ms. Payne and company, who were front-and-center in lobbying for Isle of Capri, were delivered a setback Dec. 20 when Isle of Capri lost its bid for the Pittsburgh casino license in favor of Mr. Barden's PITG Gaming and Majestic Star operation, which plans to put its casino on the North Shore. But she's tried to rebound and is horning in on what Mr. Wheatley, Mr. Udin and Ms. Milliones view as their rightful winnings -- to the victors go the spoils.
And in fighting off Isle of Capri, and aligning themselves by default with Don Barden, they view themselves as the victors.
But the road to victory is littered with casualties, and at times these skirmishes have been nasty, as is often the case when politics bleeds into public theater. Ms. Payne said Mr. Wheatley and Ms. Milliones' tactics reeked of "extortion." Mr. Wheatley said "Tonya Payne and Bill Robinson should be embarrassed" after they struck a side deal with Isle of Capri to create the Hill Entertainment Services District, which was supposed to pay for public services and other neighborhood improvements.
Mr. Udin, who has publicly stayed above the fray, said he's disappointed by the sniping in the media, but otherwise had no comment. Ms. Milliones wouldn't talk for this story, either.
Mr. Wheatley, on the other hand, said the divisions, while long-standing, are natural over such high-stakes issues.
"Ever since I've been in Pittsburgh, I've heard about the division in the Hill District like it's unique," Mr. Wheatley said last week. "Sometimes, we're going to be working together, and sometimes we're going to be working against each other."
That's politics, he said. And when politics mixes with business -- which is nearly always -- those divisions emerge.
Some of those divisions, said several people who were interviewed for this story, are being stoked by the Penguins, who seem to prefer dealing with Ms. Payne's group, largely because of its early support of Isle of Capri, and partly because the Penguins think that Mr. Wheatley and Ms. Milliones overreached when they tried to negotiate their first agreement with the Penguins -- they wanted $10 million for the Hill annually, plus a portion of parking proceeds and 25 cents from every hot dog sold.
"Don't get out in front of the community," Ms. Payne said. "It didn't make much sense to me to come up with a list of demands" without consulting others in the Hill first, she said. "They're all connected that way. They work together. And that's fine, as long as it's not going to be harmful to anybody ... I just don't want you to make decisions for everyone."

By that last statement, Ms. Payne, do you mean exactly what you and Robinson did? Get funding to lobby for a casino corporation, have a 'reverend' front as a community activist to try to garner support from residents, and then secure for your and Robinson's political benefit a side deal with the corporation to create the Hill Entertainment Services District without consulting the needs and wishes of the community? Let me restate your comment, "I just don't want YOU to make decisions for everyone".

The alternate view in the Hill is that Mr. Wheatley, Ms. Milliones and company got "out in front" because they didn't want the Hill's viewpoint to be steamrolled in the process, as was the case when Mellon Arena was built. Ms. Milliones, in the past, has said she and her allies represent the "indigenous leadership" on the Hill. "I think from their perspective at the time [nobody] was speaking," said Elbert Hatley, former director of the Hill CDC, now known affectionately as the "mayor" of the Hill District.

I agree with you Ms. Milliones. I think your group does represent the indigenous leadership on the Hill. And yes, that’s why the Wheatley/Milliones/Udin/Monroe group stated they were going to have a community forum on the arena issue. NO ONE WAS STEPPING UP TO PREVENT THE HILL FROM GETTING STEAMROLLED AGAIN. And that includes you, Ms. Payne.

"There was some urgency in getting an audience with the appropriate policy-makers and stakeholders," he said.
Mr. Redwood, head of Hill Consensus, said there's a difference between urgency and legitimacy.
"They went Downtown first and talked to folks," Mr. Redwood said. "That's all it takes for Downtown to appoint leaders."
One city business leader, who likened the fractured Hill District to the Balkans, said cooperation is the key to the neighborhood's salvation. Otherwise, they'll continue to blow through millions without the resurrection they've long been pining for. "There have been other places where money has been spent," he said, pointing to the North Side neighborhoods, "with much better results."
That bothers stakeholders in the Hill, such as the Hill House Association, a community services group. And that's why it's so important to get it right this time -- and why so many people want to flex their muscles, said Evan Frazier, Hill House president.
"I don't think it's unlike any other neighborhood. ... Everybody sees the opportunity and the challenge. People are just coming at it from different angles."
Despite continued behind-the-scenes sniping, there have been outward signs that the factions might be able to patch up their differences, or at least suspend them, for the good of the Hill. A late April meeting between the Penguins and the Hill's community and religious leaders, where the parties discussed a "community benefits agreement" for the Hill, went well. Ms. Payne characterized it as a "team-building" effort. The Rev. Monroe and Mr. Wheatley said they were encouraged by the session.
But it's hard to know how much of that was political grandstanding. One person who attended the meeting said the two factions didn't get along, with Ms. Payne questioning who the Hill's true leaders were -- her alliance or Wheatley-Milliones-Udin.

Again, Ms. Payne foments a division among stakeholders. At the first community forum, Wheatley encourage all parties, including Ferlo and Payne, who represent parts of the Hill to not publicly appear divided on this issue. But, since Payne was not personally there, maybe her representative forgot to pass along this central piece of information from the forum. Better yet, she could have attended such an important Hill-wide meeting.

Mr. Wheatley, striking a diplomatic tone, said he hopes to get past the age-old battles. "There's always some tension when you have energetic leadership around the table," he said. "At the end of the day, none of us hold ultimate authority in the Hill District."
That sort of talk was echoed across the board -- consensus, however it is achieved, is preferable to the alternative, said Mr. Walton, the Crawford Square homeowners' leader.
"These people are my friends. These people are my neighbors. Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable."
----------------
What will be interesting is to see who will represent the Hill in this very important case. You can bet your butt Skip will be using the fish finder to keep this one on the radar.

Exploring cuts to Pittsburgh EMS?

2007-06-04T11:03:00.001-05:00

Just last month Rick Earle broke a story on Pittsburgh EMS being below national standards. In a previous post, I was concerned with the performance of Pittsburgh EMS but listened to the perspective of Paramedic Union president Jeff Vesci who stated that budget cuts in the past have eliminated 30 EMTs. He also stated that the city needs 4 additional advanced life support units to "make the system right". And the state oversight board wants to explore budget cuts?

Yet, Jeremy Boren reported first today, "City overseers study cuts". Oh yes. The state oversight board will use part of its $632,000 allotment to pay for a $74,000 study on how to explore cuts to and improve efficiency with EMS's budget. While it is unknown whether Vesci's comments were based upon internal performance/need audits, this study will be based on data. The best part, however is that, "The results of the studies could show ways of merging fire and EMS services to cut costs, oversight board officials said today". The oversight board contracted out the study to Tridata Corp of Arlington, VA.

The oversight board commissioned a $193,000 study of the city's Fire Bureau to TriData last year. Preliminary results of that analysis are expected to be available later this month.

Rich Lord covers the story as well, "City medic service, merger with Fire Bureau studied". From the PG:

"They're looking at everything from equipment to safety to training to coverage," said Barbara McNees, chair of the ICA. Given changes in the city, from increasing Downtown housing to a coming casino to the transformation of East Liberty, the city needs "a plan on where we are and what we need to look like" in the public safety bureaus, she said.
---

"We're respectful and mindful of the fact that the three uniformed services have collective bargaining agreements," said ICA Executive Director Henry Sciortino.
"The more data, the better," said city Finance Director Scott Kunka, adding that Mayor Luke Ravenstahl hasn't committed to implementing whatever recommendations come out of the study.

Merging fire and EMS? If it is based on good data and reasonably conservative interpretations, why not? Well, interest group coalitions like the respective fire and EMS unions might block such a merger even though it might be better for the city in terms of cost-effectiveness and improved service delivery. There is more to the equation than sound efficiency analysis when a policy like a fire/EMS merger is on the table. Of course, the mayor is going to be hesitant and give a prelude to his refusal to restructure city government and spend some of his unearned political capital. Will this analysis of Tridata Corp. vindicate those who believe the city needs to renegotiate its contract with the firefighters? While results of the Fire Bureau study will be available later this month will we, the public, have access to its results?

On a side note, why would the oversight commission not use the funding allotment it receives from the state to contract with either locally-based companies providing these kinds reports (RAND, for example) or the many skilled academics in public policy or related departments who are capable of producing such reports? That might encourage some linkages and engagement between local policy-making bodies and the wealth of skill we have at our universities in Pittsburgh.

2007-05-25T15:25:00.001-05:00

Traffic for the Casino and the City Budget

2007-05-22T08:33:00.000-05:00

If not a traffic jam than it is a certainly congestion for coordinating stakeholder interests for the North Shore casino, and Ravenstahl wants to get it done quickly. In an earlier post, I cited something Sala Udin said back in 2000 regarding the lack of political will among city officials to follow the city's guidelines regarding contracting with minority and women owned businesses. He said, "There is no really strong political will for [the Sports & Exhibition Authority] to be strident in their enforcement of the guidelines because the goal is to get these projects moving". Following this pattern of city officials, Ravenstahl is prioritizing "moving the casino construction fahrd" because it plays a serious role in his loose city budget projections.

Back in March, Chris Briem pointed out some fallacies in the mayor's budget. He notes:

Why would the ICA be so concerned if things were looking up for city finances? One reason is that the city budget projections count on revenue from the casino coming in next year. I'd have to go check, but I bet the budget counts on some casino revenue this year. You really need to look carefully at the previous year's finances, which are said to have ended with $25 million in the bank. Superficially you may think that going from a $25 year-end balance in 2005 to $38 mil at the end of 2006 is a good sign. You have to dig just a tad deeper than that. Just consider that in 2006 the city:
Borrowed $50 million additional dollars.
Deferred ~$12 million in debt payments coming due into future years
Received at least $10 million in one-time payments from the state for capital purchases.
had more unfilled positions than planned as city employees rushed to retire before Jan 1, 2006 when certain retirement benefits would expire.

The city does count on casino revenue. Briem cited an article from the Trib regarding the perspective of the state oversight board chair:

Pittsburgh's financial watchdog said Friday it wants Gov. Ed Rendell to guarantee the city's local share of gambling money even if a planned North Shore slots parlor doesn't open on schedule next year.
According to Pittsburgh's $419 million 2007 budget and five-year plan, the city expects to receive $1.9 million in gambling revenues in 2008; and at least $10 million in 2009 and EACH YEAR THEREAFTER.
"There will be gaming monies coming to the state even though our casino won't be built," said Barbara McNees, chairwoman of the state-appointed financial oversight board. "Can those monies be directed to the city of Pittsburgh in the interim? That's certainly what we'll be requesting."

Other assumptions in the original budget proposal and a perspective from Peduto from an Oct 2006 PG article:

The budget assumes the city will collect $7.7 million next year from a slots parlor, down from the original estimate of $17.7 million. It figures the city will lose $6 million in collections on the $52 tax on people who work in the city, because of a change in the collection schedule the Legislature is considering.

Councilman William Peduto said he supports the lower council budget, but will vote against the overall five-year plan because it overestimates state aid, nonprofit group contributions and age tax revenue.

"This is not a five-year recovery plan," he said. "It's a one-year recovery plan, and it's a five-year financial disaster" that could lead to layoffs or tax hikes in later years.

Well, those projections have now come to bite the administration in the behind and Ravenstahl is now stuck in traffic in order to remedy threats to the soundness of his budget. We learn that he has gone to Harrisburg to lobby for guaranteed casino revenues (also pension relief and, all of a sudden, public transportation), even though it will not likely even open in 2008, and for the $10 million the he wants for the city even though it was only offered last year as a one-time payment from the state for capital purchases. The PG covers this lobbying trip here and here. From the PG:

The mayor is trying to boost the amount of state aid to the city from the $6 million proposed in Gov. Ed Rendell's 2007-08 budget to the $10 million the city got in the fiscal year that expires June 30. The city's 2007 budget and long-term plan count on $10 million from the state every year.
The mayor said that much of the $10 million in state operating funds the city got in 2006-07 went for public safety costs, but added, "The money is flexible and we will work with the state to be creative and help meet our needs."

In the event that the state does not come through with the $10 million requested and doesn't guarantee the shortfalls in the casino revenue projections for the city, Ravenstahl's budget will be short about $6 million ($1.9 from casino revenues and about $4million from the gap between the $10million requested and the $6 million in Rendell's budget).

So, what to do? Like Sala said, we see why the goal is to get these projects (the casino) moving. Anticipating these budget gaps, Ravenstahl is pushing the casino construction 'fahrd' before stakeholders agree on what new traffic problems will arise because of the casino. The PG reported over the weekend, "Mayor wants casino construction before traffic study".

"I understand the concerns the Steelers would have with waiting until after the casino is open," Mr. Ravenstahl said. "I think it should be studied. Obviously you won't have as good of a feel for the impact until the actual traffic is there. But nevertheless, I think it is important to have a study completed prior to the facility opening."

Why study the damn traffic ex post facto? I don't see the logic unless I consider Ravenstahl's motivation for doing so - the city's budget. However, Rooney understands casino traffic and he's not happy with Ravenstahl's proposal to 'move fahrd'. From the Online Gambling Paper:

Rooney's family owns Yonkers Raceway outside New York City, and Art Rooney II says that he is very familiar with casino traffic, and that a study must be conducted before the casino building plans are approved. He fears casino traffic could double exit times for some fans leaving Heinz Field on game days, especially those heading across the West End Bridge.

Both this publication and the PG are reporting that the Steelers are threatening to sue the city if it goes ahead with construction prior to studying and resolving the traffic concern. Remember the Science Center had its own concerns. Elsewhere (and I can't find the source now), PITG, operating company for Barden's casino, said that they were frustrated because they had provided the gaming commission with everything requested and this is yet another barrier to getting the casino up and running. And Rendell has said that the state would put up the financing for the Penguins arena construction (but not the casino, right?) if the casino is not up and running according to schedule.

So, Ravenstahl proposes loose projections in his 'big surplus' budget, probably anticipated having
to appeal to the state to remedy it, goes to the state to lobby for $$$, and now risks yet another lawsuit against the city because he needs to rush the casino ahead of civic planning concerns so that his 'big surplus' doesn't turn into a big boondoggle. But perhaps this is the right time to bark at the state anyway.

Outcome Based Budgeting n'at

2007-05-17T00:19:00.000-05:00

There has been some wonderful analysis of Tuesday's primary election results in the burghosphere and much deserved props to campaign managers, staff, and volunteers of our newly elected city council members Dowd, Kraus, and Burgess. While this has yet to be exhausted because of the many perspectives of analysts and the important things it symbolizes, I have begun to think of how policy-making for city government functions might take a turn.

Rick Earle broke a story "Pittsburgh EMS Response Time Below National Standards". He presents a shocking case of an 86-year old woman who waited almost half an hour for an ambulance to arrive after a neighbor called 911. He reports that:

National Standards call for paramedics to arrive at life-threatening emergencies within eight minutes 90 percent of the time.

Here are Pittsburgh EMS response times for the last four years:

•2003 : 75 percent of the time
•2004 : 70 percent of the time
•2005 : 65 percent of the time
•2006 : 66 percent of the time

EMS Chief Robert McCaughan told Earle that when the call came in at 4:32 p.m. the two units on the North Side were already out.

Paramedic Union President Jeff Vesci told Earle, “When the service gets taxed it's not uncommon for a half- hour to an hour to wait for an ambulance.”[because life-threatening emergencies take priority]
Vesci said budget cuts forced the elimination of 30 EMTs several years ago and that may be affecting response time.
Vesci told Earle,” We need four more ALS (advanced life support) units to make the system right and then we can handle anything.”
Vesci also told Earle there are other problems with the priority system.

Now, it was confusing in March when we heard that we did/didn't have a great disaster preparedness plan for the city. But the stewards of tax dollars must make decisions on what city services to prioritize and then how to fund those services. But city EMS is functioning below national best practice standards. And, while I'm sure they are doing the best they can, EMS experienced budget cuts and can only deliver the best services they can with that budget.

Back in 2005, Peduto was campaigning on "outcome based budgeting":

The budgeting method "is a move away from the special interests to the general interest of taxpayers ... completely overhauling the way we do budgeting in this city,"Peduto says.

Peduto is proposing a full-scale change in the city's budgeting methods, adopting an "outcome based budgeting" method that has been used by state governments such as Florida and Washington. Governments first identify their most important initiatives -- such as parks or police protection -- allocate their taxes and other resources according to those goals, and regularly benchmark their implementation.

Recently, Peduto advocated a performance based system with the issue of street paving. Dowd's campaign promises include listing second that "[he] will work to deliver city services at the high standard working people deserve by monitoring and assessing performance". And that's a smart and transparent delivery of city services.

It's not well known that Pittsburgh gave birth to emergency medical services, the model that is now used WORLDWIDE, with Freedom House. It's sad that the city that pioneered this essential public service is now underperforming according to national standards. Perhaps this swelling of progressive candidates will divest the old patronage system of its negative human capital and return city government to the people with transparency and accountability.

Jim Burn on Lynn Cullen's Show

2007-05-16T18:33:00.000-05:00

Remember the snappy editorial written by Allegheny County Democratic Chair Jim Burn? Remember the problems with the piece pointed out by Admiral and Bram? How about John Riegert's letter to the editor of the PG today? If you have an opinion about the ACDC, and you are able, you can share your opinion with Mr. Burn on Monday morning.

Dianna Wentz, Allegheny County Dem Cmte's spokesperson, will be subbing for Lynn Cullen.

Details:
Monday, May 21st from 9 AM to 10 AM on radio station WPTT – 1360AM

Wentz will interview ACDC Chair Jim Burn and Executive Director Ian Harlow "about all the changes and progress being made at the County Committee".

WPTT call in: 412.333.1360

New Jobs for Skrinjar, Dobkin and Cassidy

2007-05-14T10:02:00.000-05:00

The Trib's Jeremy Boren reports, "Cassidy offered parking authority post". Whereas salaries and job titles were uncertain before, 23-year old O'Connor loyalist-now interim mayoral spokesperson Joanna Doven released the info on salaries and position titles for Dobkin and Cassidy. One point, however, I don't get in Boren's report:

Cassidy, 51, shares a Point Breeze home with Ravenstahl's former Director of Operations Dennis Regan, a close O'Connor friend. Regan resigned Dec. 1 after Ravenstahl suspended him in October amid accusations that he meddled in a disciplinary matter involving Cassidy's brother, Frank Rende, a city police officer.

The accusations weren't proven.

How about this from Judge Ambrose's preliminary injunction ruling on the McNeilly-Regan-Ravenstahl case (h/t to The Burgher for the originally posting of the poignant quote):

"Furthermore, let me make something very clear. Contrary to how some may perceive this case, this case is not about corruption in the Police Department. It is about allegations of wrongdoing and improper and undue influence by officials within the Mayor's office in Police Department matters."

Is there some semantic difference I am missing that allows Boren to write, "The accusations weren't proven"? Haven't we been through this already? Doesn't reporting like this give the public the impression that the issue was just about some accusations that were later proven untrue. Those accusations only cost $85,000 in taxpayer money, right? The cost of the lawyer's fees, additional details that follow, and the story, altogether, is then sunk, not because it describes corruption within the mayor's office but because it no longer is a sexy story? Am I off here?

Everybody's Doing It

2007-05-09T17:44:00.000-05:00

"But everybody else did jump off the bridge, mom!" Well, that seems to be one of the arguments Teamsters Local 249 Vice President Joe Rossi is making in defending the city's Redd Up Crew. Today, Rich Lord reports, "Union defends city workers on campaign T-shirts".

"The city's past practice is that we've been allowed to do this," Mr. Rossi said of the wearing of political shirts and buttons. "If the city wants to [suspend the workers], that's fine, if they think they need to do that to keep up public perception. . . . If the city wants to suspend these guys, it'll probably cost them $15,000 in arbitration and then [the workers will] end up getting five-day paid vacations."

The Redd Up crew, he added, had long been allowed to diverge from the city's public works uniform policy, and members of that group often wore shirts emblazoned with the name of the late Mayor Bob O'Connor, who created the special unit of the Department of Public Works.

Let's see, Mr. Rossi. Policy and practice are two different things. ReddUp crews wore shirts emblazoned with Mayor O'Connor's name on it because the program was Mayor O'Connor's Redd Up initiative. Street cleaning trucks also used to display Tom Murphy's name and a phrase, "We're cleaning up", because that was Mayor Tom Murphy's program. Koch is no O'Connor or Murphy. City code is city code, and only when local media or vocal citizens bring them to our attention does it get enforced. In officer, now detective Rende's case, no city law or logic, for that matter, seem to apply. While that is a problem in its own right, that's the way it seems to go in Pittsburgh.

You have a point insofar as Mayor Ravenstahl's co-opted Redd Up initiative picture appears as his campaign logo. I've seen Parking Authority employees wearing "I Like Luke" buttons, and Ravenstahl and others have campaign signs posted on public roadsides, abandoned properties, and potentially URA-owned properties. But, just because the law wasn't enforced in the past is NOT a legal argument.

What you might argue is that the Ethics Board hear complaints in an even-handed fashion and enforce these city laws across the board. In that case, documentation to file your complaint is found here and here. That would help solidify the "public perception" that this city follows its own laws.

While you're at it, drop this one on them. And you might also want to follow up whether Ravenstahl repaid Burkle for the flight to NYC. Put that in your broadway show.

We need to Redd Up city government.

Taxpayer Financed Campaigning Revisited

2007-05-08T13:35:00.000-05:00

Mayor Ravenstahl isn't the only one who can whore out the Redd-Up Campaign. Kraus crosschecked Koch today. PG's Rich Lord reports, "'Redd-up' crew caught wearing campaign T-shirts". And the Trib's Jeremy Boren, "Photos show city workers wearing campaign shirts".

It's really too bad. Thanks to the political campaigns of Ravenstahl and Koch, the public will likely start perceiving the Redd-up Campaign as a political tool instead of a sincere aim towards the culture shift we need in the city against littering and illegal dumping and to reclaim abandoned property.

Kraus to comment shortly.

UPDATED DETAILS:
Pittsburgh Comet
Burgh Report
2PJs
Agent Ska

Grant St. vs Main St.: Tax Abatement

2007-05-07T18:15:00.000-05:00

Bob Zebra, a board member of the Carrick Community Council, said of the mayor, "I used to think he was a good guy. Now I don't. It is bad up here now".

Nanny boo boo. You get nothing! Looks like Onorato's gesture could be applied to Mr. Zebra's concern about the mayor's tax abatement proposal. We knew that with either Peduto's or the mayor's proposal there would be some neighborhoods left out. But neighborhoods would be left out for different reasons. Today, the PG's Diane Nelson Jones reports, "Mayor's tax plan leaves out some city locations". Josette Fitzgibbons, a principal planner for the city, described the criteria the city used in its proposal.

One is the planning department's vitality index, developed from an analysis of neighborhoods over the past year with help from Carnegie Mellon University's community information system. The indicators include population loss, education levels, single-parent families, tax delinquency and violent crime.

I mentioned my concerns about the mayor's proposal because we hadn't seen it before it went to council. However, the Admiral posted a link to an overlooked portion of an article from Rich Lord that provided some details about the mayor's plan. I take issue with the 'vitality index'. This is quintessential top-down non-participatory policy planning, that is, it is generated only out of the mayor's office with 'help' from CMU's community information system; criteria that may not align itself with concerns from local CDC's, such as the Bloomfield Garfield Corporation, where Rick Swartz sits as director. Peduto's plan was generated by a working group, a number of stakeholders with different perspectives and concerns (listed on p.2 of Peduto's report).

Aggie Brose, deputy director of the Bloomfield-Garfield Corp., said she has heard from those concerned that "people will follow the money and leave us behind if we don't have the incentive. But we have a three-year abatement incentive that we're benefiting from now in Garfield," where community nonprofits have developed new housing over the past decade.
The mayor's proposal may be one way to ameliorate imbalances between neighborhoods that have strong development presences and those that don't, she said.

Notice that criteria stated by Fitzgibbons does not indicate that neighborhoods with weaker development presences were targeted. Secondly, the plan does not develop upon strengths, such as CDC's, that would harness the tax abatement and guide development according to the needs of the particular neighborhood. Again, Mr. Zebra:

“We've been fighting and fighting, and it's like hitting your head against a brick wall." In Troy Hill, a housing plan for Cowley Street had been foundering for years when, in March, the contractor "took off," said R. Dennis Hughes, chairman of Troy Hill Citizens Inc. "We had contracts with them, and it took a long time to get stuff in order. March 15 was the deadline for them to get back to us, and they don't respond. Now, we're seeking other contractors." A tax abatement might be a sweet lure, he said.

Peduto has his concerns:

"There is no safeguard that absentee landlords won't develop and make neighborhoods worse," he said.

Mr. Peduto proposed the incentive for areas of large-scale, very costly development, including the Strip, South and North Shores, Uptown and the lower Hill. The abatement span of 10 years is applicable to such heavy investment, he said, while other incentives, like $1 houses and elimination of closing costs, are better fits for neighborhood projects, he said.

Indeed. There is no safeguard against absentee landlords making neighborhoods worse. He was also not quoted this time but said previously that partnering with the school board was essential to any tax abatement plan. There was no mention of partnering with the school board in the mayor's plan.

"I want to express gratitude for Elliott[which made the mayor's list]," said Norene Beatty of the West End-Elliott Citizens Council. Elliott made the mayor's "in" list. "But it's important to have a follow-up of how these properties are maintained."
She admonished City Council to "look hard at why people left the city. They left for safe streets, good schools and quiet neighborhoods. This is a start, but we need to do more."

Well, Ms. Elliot, we need updated info on that one. Chris Briem had a nice post about why peeps left the city and it seemed to be related to earned income taxes. There are probably too many variables to consider to really understand why people left the city anyway. But the quality of city schools and public safety need to be addressed regardless of tax abatement.

Finally, I've been concerned about arena 'development' in the lower Hill. You'd think that with the amount of construction in the corridor 'spurring economic development' and the concerns of Hill District residents to redevelop Centre Ave. and attract some investment in the Hill the tax abatement plan would have included the Hill. Nope. While Peduto's plan included the lower Hill, Ravenstahl's plan does not. You'd think that with all of the meetings Ravenstahl has had with concerned Hill District leaders the Hill would be on his mind. It might seem like a good idea to piggyback arena 'development' with tax abatement for the Hill so that the neighborhood might be able to use it as a tool at this critical time to attract investment. Nope.

This is top-down public policy. Grant St. vs Main St. development.

UPDATE:

Breen from Progress Pittsburgh is also concerned.

Luke Crashes Tiger's Party

2007-05-06T09:44:00.000-05:00

From the Trib:

The story making the rounds in political circles has Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl getting the folks at the Oakmont Country Club upset recently after Tiger Woods played a round of golf there.

Seems that after Woods was done practicing for next month's U.S. Open at Oakmont he attended a private party sponsored by American Express.

Political insiders say Ravenstahl showed up at the event uninvited and angered folks by worming his way into pictures with Woods and others.

Country club officials would neither confirm nor deny they were perturbed at the young mayor. Nor would they comment on whether Ravenstahl was able to secure Woods' autograph.

Casinarena and Community Coalitions: Pt. II

2007-05-04T21:13:00.000-05:00

Onorendellburklestahl, Inc. tried to wash their hands of a community benefits agreement with concerned Pittsburgh residents of the Hill District. Ervin Dyer reported yesterday in the PG, "Family meeting aim is to unite Hill neighbors". This meeting was characterized as a 'family' meeting in one sense because it was aimed to unify the voice of various fraction 'coalition' groups that have popped up to secure community benefits for the Hill District out of the arena deal. I was very happy to hear that this was the aim of the meeting since, in a previous post, I was concerned that opportunists like Payne and Robinson, who seemed to be vying to represent the Hill to score political points, and other coalitions, such as those made up of concerned Hill and non-Hill residents and Milliones/Developer's, would do Onorendellburklestahl, Inc. a favor. The favor would be creating the public perception that the Hill can't unite in one voice about what needs to happen. Therefore, they could operate with the old British tactic of divide and conquer and get away with whatever is in their interest.

Backtrack to before the arena contract was formalized. An original coalition from the Hill, of concerned Hill District residents and community leaders including Rev. Johnnie Monroe, had in fact organized and approached Onorendellburklestahl, Inc. and began discussions about their concerns and pressed for some kind of community benefits agreement. After some time they were told not to worry and lay off the pressure so the deal could get finalized. They were assured a community benefits would be worked into the package. Alas, this was not the case. A clear community benefits arrangement was not secured in the contract and, rightfully, this original coalition was alarmed. The Allegheny Institute's analysis of the contract pointed out how the Penguins will retain all profits from all events in the new arena, hockey events or concerts. Not only was the Hill District shafted, the public, generally, was shafted.

Several things did not make it into Dyer's report on this meeting held on Wed night at Weil elementary. One is that Wheatley specifically addressed the large energetic crowd in the auditorium and asked representatives of the Hill in public office to come up to the front of the room. Robinson was there early but left by the time Wheatley spoke. Payne was not there but sent a representative. Some speculation (not discussed at the meeting) about why Payne was not present is that she is too aligned with the Penguins. Ferlo sent a rep. Other public officials representing the Hill were not present. Onorato and Ravenstahl were not present. Wheatley was sincere and eloquent in encouraging the crowd to avoid publicly condescending their representatives, which is warranted, and work toward coming up with a unified plan for a community benefits agreement.

Another is that the folks in the room are very concerned, very motivated, and very determined in preventing another catastrophic 'development' in the lower Hill. The mindset that contributed to the original 'development' in the Hill is captured in a statement in 1943 by George Evans, a member of city council.

"approximately 90 percent of the buildings in the area are sub-standard, and have long outlived their usefulness, and so there would be no social loss if these were all destroyed."

If the original coalition had not started to organize prior to the current arena deal this mindset, very much alive but perhaps unconscious among Onorendellburklestahl, Inc., would have helped to repeat the same mistakes of the fifties.

I also must retract my previous suspicions of Milliones' motives. After her presentation Wed night I am convinced that she is operating with sincere intentions and is of the right philosophy on community development.

If this broader coalition is successful, and I believe it will be, Onorendellburklestahl, Inc. will hear a unified position on a demand for a community benefits from the arena deal. There will be no operative argument, "Oh, the Hill doesn't know what it wants and we don't want to prefer one group's demands over another", and then drop the issue or throw a bone their way. They will have to satisfy the demands of the group. If they don't, this issue will fester and grow. If they don't..... well, fuck that.

After the broken promises of 'urban renewal' and the original civic arena, after Heinz feild and PNC park, this coalition is serving the public interest in amplifying the concerns of citizens as stakeholders in 'development'.

Future meetings will be held on Wednesdays at 6pm at Weil Elementary at 2250 Centre Ave.

Tax Abatement Debate

2007-05-02T10:24:00.000-05:00

The PG covers the city council tax abatement debate.

Pittsburgh City Council held a public hearing yesterday on the merits of a property tax abatement plan that Mayor Luke Ravenstahl proposes to offer housing developers over 10 years Downtown and in 20 other neighborhoods.

Numerous representatives of the 21 neighborhoods and developers lauded the proposal while advocates of excluded neighborhoods took umbrage. Councilman Jim Motznik said his whole South Hills council district was excluded "and needs a shot in the arm."

Others questioned the criteria that included neighborhoods that have some momentum over those with none. Josette Fitzgibbons, a principal planner for the city, said two criteria were used. One was neighborhood ranking based on a vitality index of 11 indicators, a system that resulted from a year of neighborhood analysis. The other was sluggish property investment.

Council's next move will be to schedule a preliminary vote on the matter.

So, the 'vitality index' does seem to indicate a fair and systematic approach in offering abatements to neighborhoods. I did not attend, nor did I watch (I don't have Comcast! rrrrrgh - shouldn't these be taped and posted online?), the council debate the mayor's plan so I can't put these critiques in context of the entire debate.

While the 'vitality index' seems reasonable, there is no indication that it is a validated approach to successful tax abatement. 'Successful', or the targeted goal of this tax abatement attempt, is centrally defined by an increase in investment in residences within the city and, therefore in 10 years, an increase in city revenues generated from property taxes. I'm missing the indication that a 'vitality index' accomplishes this goal. Peduto's plan specifically targeted downtown and neighborhoods that have a high likelihood of accomplishing that goal, build on strengths that already exist in those areas within the city, and decided upon by an 18-member team including real estate experts along with other stakeholders affected by tax abatements.

The fact that Motznik raised some concerns with the proposal raises a red flag for me. By providing some resistance he accomplishes two things. First, he shows his constituency that he is arguing on their behalf (which may or may not be the case). Secondly, he seems to be giving some resistance to Ravenstahl's plan and displaying distance from Ravenstahl (which we know isn't really the case) while giving the plan legitimacy in the sense that MLR's yaysayers aren't just going along with it. Sort of like "creating a challenge" that MLR must struggle to push through council. Motznik did this before (for the emergency preparedness plan) feigning rough and tough headbutting with the administration but really just acting to give an air of legitimacy in an otherwise yaysaying pro-Luke council.

Public Hearing on Tax-Abatement: May 1?

2007-04-25T12:40:00.000-05:00

When Ravenstahl had Peduto as a challenger in the mayoral race, he couldn't offer enough promises to the public to release the details of his tax-abatement proposal. He kept saying he would release details soon or "in 2 weeks" each time he was asked by the media since February, much like the building contractor in the movie The Money Pit. Remember, Ravenstahl said he had a plan the day before Peduto was to release an 8-month long study he commissioned as the Working Group on the Shared Tax Abatement for Neighborhood Development (STAND) District for Downtown entitled, "Tax Abatement Policy Review: Analysis and Recommendations". This proposal has been posted on Peduto's city council page since then for public review. Mayor Ravenstahl's plan? Still no details released to the public. The most we've heard of details has been from Matt H in comments. So, without releasing a detailed plan to the public beforehand, the public is invited to a hearing on amending the city code for tax-abatement?

Is the city going to use Peduto's plan? Is that plan amended? Has that plan been co-opted and branded as Ravenstahl's plan?

Ravenstahl Campaign Signage: City Code Violation or Ethics Board Referral

2007-04-24T17:44:00.000-05:00

With a competitive mayor's race in Philly focusing on crime and corruption, the lack of a challenger to Ravenstahl prevents the scrupulous adherence by candidates to law or ethic in campaigning. We've seen Ravenstahl's name and image everywhere from garbage collection schedules and mail and billboard advertisements for both the Redd Up campaign and the 311 line, bolstering t he case for filing a complaint with the State Ethics Commission. Most recently we've seen this political branding at a former porn theater. Though without a challenger to his campaign for mayor, Ravenstahl still has the right to display campaign signs - but not on vacant or municipally owned property!

CHAPTER 423: UNAUTHORIZED ROADSIDE AND UTILITY POLE SIGNS PROHIBITED is the title behind chapter 423 of the city code, the entirety of which you can find here. Title 4 Article I Chapter 423 excerpted can be found here. The legslative intent behind the code is explicit.

§ 423.01 LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
The City Council makes the following findings:
(a) Unauthorized signs along City roads and on utility poles are a danger because they are intended to distract motor vehicle operators and because they often obstruct views of other vehicles;
(b) Unauthorized signs along City roads spoil the natural beauty that is an invaluable asset treasured by residents, commuters and visitors;
(c) Residents, commuters and visitors have frequently asked City Council members what could be done to eliminate roadside signs including, but not limited to, signs supporting candidates for elected public and labor union offices and signs soliciting for a variety of business interests; and
(d) There are a number of alternatives available to advertisers that do not have the negative impacts that signs on roadsides and utility poles have.
(Ord. 4-1998, eff. 3-16-98)

The penalty is as follows:

§ 423.99 PENALTY.
A violation of this Chapter shall be a summary offense. Each sign in violation of this Chapter shall constitute a separate offense. The owner of the sign and/or any person who caused the violation of this Chapter shall be subject to prosecution and fine. The fine shall be no more than three hundred dollars ($300.00) per sign and no less per sign than the total cost to the City to remove the sign (including proportionate wages and benefits for employees while removing the sign, attempting to locate the offender and storing the sign; proportionate vehicle cost, maintenance and fuel for transportation of the sign; storage costs and disposition costs).
(Ord. 4-1998, eff. 3-16-98)

If you drive along Centre Ave in the Hill you will see this at the intersection of Centre and Robinson Ext:

The property above is either public property or municipally owned, along city roads, and should not be used to display political campaign signs.

At 2521 Centre Ave. there is a vacant lot. For all the rhetorical hoopla about abandoned properties and vacant lots, it is quite ironic that the mayor has a campaign sign displayed there. The property is back due on taxes since at least 2004 and represents precisely what is discussed about vacant lots in the city. Apparantly, Ravenstahl sees a use for this vacant lot:

Take a slight left onto Reed St. and at the intersection with Soho St. you will find another sign next to the fire hydrant and stop sign.

Again, this is municipally owned property, along city roads, and should not be used for political campaign signage. Take a left on Kirkpatrick and head towards the Birmingham Bridge, you will see this at the corner of Kirkpatrick and Bentley. Take a guess on who owns this property.

If you happened to head up Herron Ave from Centre you would have seen on your left the open lot shown below. According to the County Assessment website this property appears to be owned by the Urban Redevelopment Authority.

So, on a quick drive yesterday evening (April 23) I spotted these 7 signs on either abandoned property or municipally owned property. That totals up to $1800 (not counting the summary offense) in fines to the Ravenstahl campaign for violations to Title 4 Article I Chapter 423 of the city code. If this is not the correct application of the city code or if there is another code that better accounts for posting campaign signage along city roads or on public or abandoned property I am all ears.

This either warrants the attention of DPW, which, according to how I read the city code, is responsible for enforcement or to the city ethics board. To make a big deal about buying back liens on abandoned properties within the city and then post campaign signs on a vacant lot seems hypocritical. Together with the earlier case for the State Ethics Commission this might be something for the city's ethics board to consider once it (or if it ever) begins holding meetings.

The fact that Judge Williams and other candidates have done this is not a legal argument. That this whole post is a waste of time - not a legal argument. The fact that everybody does it and that city residents don't pay attention are also not ethical arguments. The law should be enforced equally.

Are there more campaign signs on public or vacant properties around town?

What's going on here?

2007-04-24T16:26:00.000-05:00

Today the Trib reports, "Penguins officials to meet with Hill District residents". It seems as if there are competing coalitions developing between Payne/Milliones/Robinson's unnamed group and Pittsburgh UNITED. This is a development on a previous post.

Gun Violence in Pittsburgh

2007-04-19T13:03:00.000-05:00

Today the PG reports that a man was shot multiple times in broad daylight downtown on Smithfield St. The killer pulled someone off a public phone, realized he had the wrong person, sat back in his car, found his man, grabbed him, shot him, and continued to empty 7 more shots into the man's chest once he fell to the ground. This is both tragic and symptomatic of the failures of our city and society. We can debate endlessly about causes for the violence (the quality of education within the Pittsburgh school system and job opportunities comes to mind) but we should agree that the phenomenon is likely overdetermined by a number of causes and should act in some way to minimize the number of lives being lost and injured due to gun violence.

A study released from the Violence Prevention Center on Jan 29 2007 indicated that Pennsylvania leads the nation in the per capita rate of black homicide victimization. The state's black homicide rate of 29.52 per 100,000 is six times the national overall homicide rate of 4.86 per 100,000. Among other findings described in the report, in 2004:

There were 398 black homicide victims, resulting in a homicide rate of 29.52 per 100,000. Of these, 348 were male and 50 were female.
For homicides in which the weapon used could be identified, 86 percent of victims (335 out of 389) were shot and killed with guns. Of these, 81 percent (273 victims) were killed with handguns. There were 48 victims killed with firearms, type not stated. There were 25 victims killed with knives or other cutting instruments, 7 victims killed by bodily force, and 9 victims killed by a blunt object.

The Courier covered the release of this study and has been monitoring gun violence in Allegheny County. The paper states, "It is our hope that as the list of victims grows, so will a true understanding of how these lost lives effect the mental health, economic well-being and self-images of the region’s Black neighborhoods." The paper publishes monthly accounts of the number dead from gun violence in the county. As of March 31 this year, the Courier reports that there have been 30 homicides in Allegheny County —24 of which have taken the lives of Black people, 22 of those Black men.

BPEP, the Black Political Empowerment Project, declares that, indeed, the time for talk is past. BPEP, along with and at Hill House, organized the One Hood press conference and community action group in February to seek public engagement to address the growing problem of black on black homicide in Pittsburgh neighborhoods.

“Due to the overwhelming show of support, what we will do is ask everyone to write down their ideas and suggestions to put in a hat and discuss each one and determine which ones can be implemented within our communities, and the ones that require outside resources for implementation will then go downtown,” explained Stevens.

“We intend to hold the mayor, Doug Shields, Bill Peduto and the other officials to their word of support.”

The PG reported:

"Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, who attended last night, said he could not pretend to understand what crises the young men face but that he would work with the community to try to get illegal guns off the street"

From the PG report today, the mayor was attending a groundbreaking for a library in the Hill District when he heard of the incident and headed to the scene.

"To have an act of violence on Smithfield Street in broad daylight with hundreds of witnesses around -- it raises concern," the mayor said.
"I want to assure the public that this is an isolated incident," he said. "Police believe it is a targeted shooting. There are a lot of witnesses who are cooperating. Despite this today, we are one of the safest cities in America."

Well, after yesterday's awful tragedy at Virginia Tech, there should be no doubt that gun violence is a problem and we must act to address this problem locally. We may have one of the safest cities in America -in general terms- but looking at the data much more closely, certain groups in Pittsburgh are disproportionately affected by gun violence. Community groups are essential in advocating and organizing awareness to community problems but it will take political will to translate that concern into legislative action, mobilizing resources to address the problem. Let's hope that BPEP and other concerned citizens hold the mayor and other public representatives to their word in getting illegal guns off the street or doing whatever it takes to address this problem.

UPDATE:
Sadly, yesterday was a hat trick .
The PG editorial board suggests the mayor take action.

Casinarena and Community Coalitions

2007-04-17T09:31:00.000-05:00

The bigger the coalition, the bigger the fish to fry. The organizing force in the Hill is growing and developers and public officials have a problem on their hands. And that's a good thing. If our mayor weren't lollygagging in NYC last month and missing meetings with Hill District leaders to listen to their concerns he might have been able to take proactive measures to prevent a coalition from forming. Both he and Onorato also could have considered these likely concerns prior to establishing the contract with the Penguins. Rich Lord reports today, "Groups unite to demand arena benefits".

Thanks to pre-existing organizing infrastructure of UNITEHERE and SEIU, the Pittsburgh UNITED coalition is an umbrella group of 15 organization which will demand arena benefits. Its membership is growing. PIttsburgh UNITED has not endorsed the 'terms sheet' provided by Milliones' group last week. In case you missed last week's post, it's here.

Hopefully, her group will join Pittsburgh UNITED and not allow public officials and developers to play coalitions in competition against one another and defeat both their aims. One of those aims on the 'term sheet', according to Lord, was for the Hill to share in arena revenues. According to The Allegheny Institute's documentation on how the public was shafted in the arena deal, revenues generated by ALL arena events remain under control of the Penguins. If this is the case, no one will be able to argue for sharing revenues since this arrangement is already in contract with the Penguins.

Other demands such as minority and women owned business contracting is already set in guidelines passed by the city. Good reporting work on monitoring adherence to these guidelines has been done by Christian Morrow of the Courier here and here. Given that the arena is a joint city-county project it will be interesting to see how this will play out. According to Morrow (last paragraph of the first article), pass-through contracting is already being utilized.

It is likely that compromise will have to be reached on creative community benefits as Lord describes in the article such as those in the Staples' Center or the Atlantic Yards development.

Mr. Ravenstahl said, "I think that's fair for them to have a seat at the table". Yes, I believe so.
That's why there was such opposition to having the casino built in the Hill and why it is important to consider what to do with the site of the current/old arena. Lord writes, "The Penguins have said they will meet with Hill residents and consider their concerns, and Mr. Onorato said he's trying to schedule a meeting for next week. It's not yet clear whether alliance leaders will be at that meeting." I'll continue to harp on the leadership issue again but why isn't Ravenstahl, instead of Onorato, try to schedule these meetings? What does it say when Onorato is symbolically the leader in these negotiations? One interpretation is that our 'fresh leadership' mayor is so 'fresh' that he doesn't have the seasoned negotiating skills to navigate the concerns of all of the stakeholders in this matter.

"We don't settle until we all settle," said Hoffman, SEIU programs director. That includes North Siders concerned with casino construction. Will that grow to include organizations from other neighborhoods within the city that want casinarena benefits? It's going to be interesting to see how this unfolds.

UPDATE

According to the PG, the city wants to relocate the last remaining synagogue in the Hill District to build the new arena.

City-Allegheny County Sports & Exhibition Authority officials disclosed yesterday that they are seeking to relocate the Beth Hamedrash Hagadol-Beth Jacob synagogue on Colwell Street to clear the way for the $290 million arena.

However,

Rabbi Stanley J. Savage said he had heard nothing about a possible relocation.
"I just think it's a shame that the last of 23 synagogues can't stay here," he said.

Funny how the rabbi of the synagogue in question had "heard nothing" about the plans. Think about the 'Grant St. vs Main St.' mindset of development. Perhaps the seeds to an addition to the community coalition have been planted.

Moonlighting Cops and Accountability

2007-04-13T13:15:00.000-05:00

Well, it seems to be an Allegheny Whitefish floating casually by as if it wanted to blend into the scenery so you wouldn't notice it. When you do, though, you're taken aback because your gut reacts, "gross!" Last week, the PG reported, "City police set rates, system for moonlighting officers". The Trib reported, "City police detail rules for off-duty work".

We learn that the new system centralizes the process and sets up specific steps employers must take to request officers and that the bureau must follow in assigning them. From the PG:

Under the old system, officers were scheduled for off-duty security details either through the bureau or police-run private security networks set up by officers who acted as schedulers. That will continue, but now the bureau will use a computerized system to keep track of all details and which officers are working. Previously, supervisors didn't know which officers were working details or where.

The new system requires businesses to sign an application agreement and allows them to schedule officers through the bureau's Office of Special Events or to continue to use police schedulers they had before. Chief McDonald said 345 businesses have signed up to request officers through the special events office and pay them through the bureau's payroll system. The other 150 will continue to designate one active, full-time officer who will schedule other officers in exchange for a cut of their pay. Employers will have to pay the $3.85 surcharge for the time the schedulers spend in setting up the details.

The bureau will track all off-duty assignments and collect the fee for all of them.

From the Trib:

In the past, the police bureau has tracked about one-third of off-duty jobs. It will now track and charge a fee for all of them, McDonald said.

"We have a responsibility to know what our officers are doing," she said.

The scheduling officers must pay the $3.85 fee as well, she said. Only active, full-time officers are permitted to serve as schedulers for off-duty details, McDonald said. Before the rules took affect April 9, retired officers were allowed to do that.

Based on the 7,760 off-duty hours worked in October, McDonald said the city could make $29,876 a month from the $3.85 fee, or $358,512 a year.

Perhaps I'm missing something but there does not seem to be a mechanism to ensure that ALL assignments go through the computerized system and are assessed the $3.85 surcharge. Why isn't the new system to require ALL businesses to schedule through the Office of Special Events and be scheduled through the bureau? Why can businesses continue to use police schedulers they had before? Of course, all of the off-duty assignments that make it into the system will be assessed the surcharge. But will all of the assignments from 150 businesses scheduled by a designated officer get entered into the database? The new process seems unnecessarily complicated.. Remember that because of this system the city lost revenue in the past. This does seem to be an improved plan towards accountability but what guarantee do we have in the fidelity of this system and scheduling officers? I may be missing something here and I'm all ears if that is the case.

Another interesting statement in Boren's article:

The fee will feed the police union's legal defense fund and cover medical liability costs if an officer is hurt while working off duty.

What percentage of the fee will "feed" the police union's legal defense fund n@? That money does not go directly to the city. Furthermore, if it is collecting a fee why doesn't the police union, then, bear the burden of paying out in the event of a lawsuit, as in the Eggleton case?

If you missed it and are interested in reading The Admiral's extensive work on this topic, with many relevant links from around the burghosphere, it is presented in parts:

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV

Pensions and Political Craft: Reform

2007-04-12T18:01:00.000-05:00

For some, fishing is an art. The object is to present an artificial lure to the fish one is trying to catch as naturally as possible so as to induce the fish to bite. Rich Lord reports on Mayor Ravenstahl's attempt to address the staggering pension debt that the city faces. Ten Pennsylvania mayors will attempt to address their city's pension problems by creating an action plan (a statewide pension fund so that municipalities can opt into sos they don't have to each manage one or more pension funds, according to Lord). Briem gives us quite a perspective on the daunting challenge. Like the mayor said, "it's not going to happen overnight".

"Our goal is to figure out an action plan, moving forward, and try to make, slowly but surely, changes to the pension system that will affect positively Pittsburgh and cities throughout the commonwealth"

I'll overlook the need for the mayor to enroll in a grammar course (is that really English?) and I'll sip on a cold one for Pittgirl's "Moving Forward Drinking Game". My thoughts focus on what the mayor 'could' do with the political capital he now has within the city to seriously challenge city unions and reform the political landscape. He failed to do so with the FOP and the moonlighting police surcharge (yes, I am aware he improved on his stance but there are a number of shortcomings, namely, assurances that ALL assignments go through the city's contracting software - the racket itself has not been eliminated). He also has avoided renegotiating the firefighters contract. And how about no-bid contracts? City unions were all behind Ravenstahl in his campaign and I do not believe that he will make a concerted effort to challenge municipal unions. Therefore, the only option he has is to pursue a statewide pension program. I am not informed enough to comment on the merits (though I see this as positive) of such an approach. My point is that he has enough political capital as a leader to push forth with politically unpopular agendas (such as renegotiating the firefighters contract) in the best interest of the city.

William Ascher wrote a book in 1985 entitled "Scheming for the Poor: The Politics of Redistribution in Latin America". We obviously aren't in Latin America and it isn't the 1980's but the navigational processes used by political leaders to pursue unpopular agendas is relevant to the issue at hand. A review by Jeff Frieden in Political Science Quarterly captures the main points in the book as follows:

Ascher concludes, not surprisingly, that "the choice of strategy and tactics makes a difference" (p. 305). Governments committed to redistribution should cultivate allies among the non-poor, use appropriate instruments with competence and an eye to proper timing, avoid presenting maximalist programs, and avoid mobilizing mass support in such a way as to inflame entrenched opposition. Ascher believes that cautious gradualism has been most successful, that "the masters of redistribution prove to be the tacticians rather than the warriors. The best records of redistribution are held by the pragmatic politicians whose familiarity with the policy process enables them to manipulate the political atmosphere to lull, disarm, or intimidate the potential opposition . . . " (p. 18).

Ascher noticed that leaders who didn't explicitly campaign on moving unpopular agendas and who approached those agendas with a certain degree of political "craft" were successful in achieving their desired policies. With Ravenstahl's unwarranted popularity, he could, not easily but probably successfully, strike upon a number of needed changes within city politics; pension reform, city contracting policies, real and profitable city-county mergering, creative ways to bolster city finances from large non-profits, and the list goes on. He could get those with deeply embedded interests in the city's political landscape to buy-in to doing what's best for Pittsburgh's long-term health. These interest group coalitions (include the likes of no-bid contracting a la Zappala) that prevent these kinds of reforms could be lured to bite without raising all kinds of hell.

But it takes political will and political craft to accomplish such feats, qualities that are not necessarily developed in a young politician. You've got to fail in life and the mayor is now learning on the job. He hasn't gained the wisdom from working in a number of different capacities to grow as an individual, let alone as a politician. He was, what, an office clerk for a while before becoming a city council member? But he 'could' push for reforming the the political landscape and, if anyone could do it, he 'could' be successful. Well, we'll see what kind of an angler he is as the remainder of this term unfolds.

Arena Construction and Hill District Community Benefits

2007-04-10T17:03:00.000-05:00

Yeah, yeah....sure, sure. Been gone for a week but not long enough to miss a sham in the arena deal. According to many reports, Hill District leaders and clergy (now, let's not conclude that these folks do or do not represent the Hill) have demanded:

$10 million in local development funding
Guaranteed jobs for minorities
Other community benefits

I will ignore the important issue that was raised in several discussions in the burghosphere about the dangerous precedent that this development funding request may set. Indeed, while the Hill deserves the lion's share of such a fund, the city and region, as a whole, forewent the opportunity to use gambling revenue for infrastructure (transit, for instance) and neighborhood improvements and got the shaft on the deal anyway. Now, if the Hill gets this development funding, other neighborhoods in need (Knoxville, for instance) might see an opportunity, and rightfully so, to lobby for development funding as well. While all neighborhoods deserve to benefit, figuring out who gets what will become a big mess for Jesus (Ravenstahl) and the Holy Ghost (Onorato) while God, the Father (Rendell) stays out of it.

The point I will take issue with in this post is that of 'guaranteed jobs for minorities'. It is sad that this even had to be stated explicitly but it perhaps needs to be stated much louder. Together, construction of Heinz Field, PNC Park, and expansion to the David L. Lawrence Center reached almost 1 Billion dollars. The United States Commission on Civil Rights put out a very concise article entitled, "Barriers Facing Minority- and Woman-Owned Businesses in Pennsylvania" so pertinent to this discussion that I think its discussion of large public works projects in Pittsburgh warrants posting in full.

Large-Scale Construction in Pittsburgh

Large-scale projects create expectations of economic revitalization. As in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh has seen its share of projects that drew considerable attention to M/WBE utilization and development. Three projects in particular—PNC Park (the new Pittsburgh Pirates baseball stadium), Heinz Field (the new Pittsburgh Steelers football stadium), and expansion of the David L. Lawrence Convention Center—drew the most. Conceived in the late 1990s, they are easily the largest public works projects in city history, reaching almost $1 billion in combined costs.[16]

As these projects proceeded, M/WBE owners, state legislators, and Pittsburgh City Council members raised concerns about M/WBE utilization and sought assurances for minority contractors and employees.[17] Project managers and city officials committed to 25 percent MBE and 10 percent WBE participation goals for contractors and subcontractors on the sites.[18]

Beginning in 1999, events began to unfold attracting the Committee’s attention. The Pittsburgh City Council passed resolutions establishing a city goal of 25 percent minority and 10 percent female participation on city contracts over $250,000.[19] In July 1999, members of the African American Workers Union picketed the Pirates stadium site, claiming the group was blocked from participating in opportunities for construction of PNC Park.[20] Nine union members were arrested after having prevented access to a construction site.[21] That same year, a common pleas court ruled that a contract for work on PNC Park was improperly awarded to a firm that was not the lowest responsive bidder as specified under state law. This was an indication of problems to come. In early 2000, a women-owned steel fabricating firm, Industrial Fabricating Systems Inc., filed state and federal lawsuits against the Sports & Exhibition Authority and two steel companies, alleging that it was asked to accept “pass-through” payments from providers for steel for the stadium in exchange for not working on the project.[22]

Soon after, in June 2000, a three-month Pittsburgh Post-Gazette investigation uncovered allegations of wrongdoing on an even larger scale, namely that at least one-third of the $117 million in contracts purportedly going to M/WBEs actually went to firms owned by whites or to firms that no longer qualified as disadvantaged.[23] The Post-Gazette reported that minority- and women-owned contractors were asked to accept token payments for construction work on stadium construction jobs and “pass through” this work to majority-owned contractors.[24] After the story was published, the paper reported that the Allegheny county executive asked the FBI to investigate the awarding of project contracts as well as the county agency that certifies M/WBEs. The Pittsburgh City Council held hearings in June 2000 on problems with the city’s certification process. M/WBE owners, NAACP representatives, and other groups described difficulties in the bidding process for the stadiums, confusing certification procedures, and illegal business agreements.[25]

In late June 2000, the City Council passed an ordinance radically changing the city’s review and approval process for city contracts.[26] The prior ordinance mandated that all development proposals and all bids on city construction contracts over $250,000 include a plan for participation of minorities and women, and M/WBEs as contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. All plans were reviewed and approved by the city’s Minority Business Enterprise Review Committee. The new ordinance created an Equal Opportunity Review Commission (EORC) to review and approve all construction contracts over $200,000 as well as contractors’ compliance with M/WBE policies.[27] The ordinance requires that 35 percent of all work performed on these contracts be performed by city residents and sets up mechanisms for contractors to report their compliance to the EORC. It also allows the EORC to impose monetary damages for noncompliance.

In September 2000, the Allegheny County controller released an audit of the certification and monitoring procedures of the county’s Minority, Women and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Department. The audit reviewed outreach efforts to include M/WBEs on construction of the stadiums and convention center renovations. In his review, the controller found that (1) monitoring procedures failed to ensure that county departments and contractors were making good faith efforts to meet the county’s M/WBE goals, (2) the department did not follow-up with contractors that failed to meet the county’s 13 percent MBE and 2 percent WBE participation goals, (3) incomplete project information resulted in eligible firms being overlooked during the bid notification process, and (4) over $900,000 was spent by other government agencies to provide similar M/WBE certification and monitoring functions.[28]

A couple of things to note. (1) Dan Onorato was the controller during this fiasco and performed the audit of the county's Department of Minority, Women and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise office. He should be well seasoned by now. As I asked in a previous post, what has Onorato done to prevent this from REcurring? Enlighten me if you know. What controller candidate will take up this issue of enforcing the guidelines set for contracting minority-owned businesses?(2) What the Hill District leaders/clergy are asking for is already in place. The city and county are required to ensure that minority-owned businesses contract on these projects. The problem is oversight/enforcement. Back in 2000, Sala Udin said, "There is no really strong political will for [the Sports & Exhibition Authority] to be strident in their enforcement of the guidelines because the goal is to get these projects moving". Judging by today's press and the demolition of the site, it seems as though this is the case. There doesn't seem to be the political will to enforce the guidelines, especially when traveling to NYC is more important than to meet with Hill District leaders on the arena issue. What follows is that history will, again, repeat itself in all likelihood. (3) It's interesting that Payne and Robinson are now speaking up when Milliones' group had already done so (even though the Trib article Bram posted somewhere identified Millione's as Jake Wheatley's girlfriend). Seems like we oughta establish a consortium of community development groups, such as Hill House, who have a long track record of caring for the community rather than turn to politicos and opportunists.

Then again, we have a patronage system of politics here in western PA. Why wouldn't we see a corporatist arrangement on public works projects (think city energy consulting and Zappala here)? Who cares about ordinances and established guidelines? There's a history of not giving a shit. Would Lamb, as controller, enforce the guidelines?

April 12, 2007 UPDATE

Christian Morrow of The New Pittsburgh Courier does some careful journalism in his article, "Demolition clears way for development". Morrow writes that Clarence Curry, MWDBE coordinator for the SEA, said participation goals for the demolition phase of new arena project are already being met.

“We have $98,000 in (Minority-owned Business Enterprise) contracts and $82,000 in (Women-owned Business Enterprise) contracts out of $926,419,” said Curry. “That’s 11 percent and nine percent, respectively.”

“The demolition of the (former St. Francis Central) hospital and its parking garage is a separate contract and we’re looking at about 26 percent MBE and 12 percent WBE on that job,” he said. “The demolition design study is still going on though, so we won’t be getting started on that for a couple months.”

Curry said A & A Consultants, an MBE has 15 percent of the design study work, and Fullard Environmental and Sterling Contracting are slated to get 27 percent of the $1.48 million hazardous abatement work once demolition begins.

This article was a follow up to an earlier article on M/WBE contracting. The last paragraph is telling.

Thank you Mr. Morrow. At least there are some folks in the MSM paying attention to such an important issue.

Suckers in the Allegheny

2007-04-02T16:42:00.000-05:00

Most people who catch suckerfish, like the Redhorse Sucker pictured above, throw them back into the Allegheny River. That's one of the reasons why the Allegheny River and County is full of suckers. Suckers for wanting a boy mayor to learn-on-the-job, for pursuing low yielding resource-consuming investments (see "Money Talks" in today's PG letters, for example) and for electing officials who shy away from the essential functions of their office.

Today, the PG reports:

Allegheny County Controller Mark Flaherty will audit the Port Authority's ledgers and help provide oversight of spending and other financial matters at the troubled county entity.

It's believed to be the first time that the controller will be so actively involved in the agency, which has operating and capital outlays approximating $400 million a year, including $25 million of county funds.
-----------

"We've invited the elected, independent controller to look at the problems we've discovered and changes we think need to be made," Mr. Onorato said. "We think this will be a helpful tool" in view of the crisis facing the Port Authority. The agency last week approved a 15 percent service cutback.

This is the first time that the controller will be actively involved in the agency? An authority to which the county turns over $25 million annually? Mr. Onorato thinks that inviting the elected, independent controller will be a helpful tool. Onorato said the fiscal 'crisis' has been years in the making. Why didn't he assign Flaherty to oversee the budget when he stepped into office 3yrs ago. Why didn't Flaherty assert his rightful authority to oversee the Port Authority's budget so as to ensure the sustainability of such an important piece of the region's economic infrastructure? Why is this the first time the controller will be actively involved in the Port Authority?

From the Trib:

The audit appears to be the first by the controller's office of Port Authority, which has "resisted" previous interest by the county's elected auditor, said county Chief Executive Dan Onorato.

"It's going to be this administration that's going to fix the problem," Onorato said during a morning press conference in his office.
--------
The authority requested Flaherty's involvement. Onorato called Flaherty on the authority's behalf Friday afternoon after the transit agency's board approved cutting routes and scaling back management benefits to cut costs.

The controller's office generally has not been welcome to audit financial records of many authorities, including Port Authority, Onorato said. The county contributes $25 million a year to Port Authority's budget.

So, what Onorato is saying is that only when he thinks it is important to keep the political heat off himself will he call the controller on the Port Authority's behalf to audit its budget. That doesn't seem to be an acceptable policy for fiscal responsibility. In fact that seems to be part of the process that got us into this mess and motivation for his challenger Rick Swartz to call for opening up the process of governing. Reframing this issue, it seems that Onorato's administration has been 'weak' on overseeing the management of public monies for public transit.

The Port Authority "resisted", the controller's office "not welcome"? Does that mean an armed resistance? Does that mean they basically told the county to "screw off" when it asked questions about the $25 million it hands over each year? Does that mean the county controller and executive respond by saying, "duh, ok" and turn around to walk home when the Port Authority doesn't want to turn over its books to be audited? Any other organization that receives $.50 from the county would have to jump through all kinds of hoops to account for their spending of county money. No, the controller IS mandated to audit all county expenditures and failed to be responsible to the taxpayers. From the controller's office:

The Controller is the chief elected fiscal officer of Allegheny County and provides general supervision and control of the County's fiscal activities.

The Controller has the responsibility to prescribe and maintain the accounting systems of the County and the authority to conduct audits of all County expenditures and offices. The Controller is the final, independent check on the fiscal activities of the executive and legislative branches of County government, as well as the independently elected row offices.

Even better, the Audit Services Division of the office:

To examine and inspect books, records, files, papers, documents and information relating to all financial affairs of County offices and departments, political subdivisions and organizations which receive appropriations from the County.
To review both the administrative control and internal control systems as established by row officers and department heads, and to determine that such control systems are adequate and effective in reaching their goals.
To hold County officials accountable in their use of public funds and other resources at their disposal. This includes examination of financial statements and the legality and prudence of expenditures; the efficient use of resources including the elimination of wasteful practices; and the satisfactory implementation of programs.
To determine whether County programs are achieving their desired objectives.
To issue Audits & Reports resulting from post-audits of County departments and agencies detailing findings.

What happens in the future? What will Onorato put in place so that these kinds of crises are prevented? What are the controller candidates going to do about auditing the county funds used by the Port Authority? Onorato says it's going to be 'this' administration that's going to fix the problem but it seems as though 'this' administration was part of the problem in overlooking the financial management of the Port Authority. Controller candidates certainly have an opportunity before them. I don't wanna be a sucker.

Bush-speak in the Burgh?

2007-03-30T15:08:00.000-05:00

WTAE and the Post-Gazette clearly do not see eye to eye on matters of a disaster preparedness plan.

WTAE's article yesterday, Downtown Disaster Evacuation Plan Topic of Concern, left the reader thinking that there is some work to do:

"We have some very crude and preliminary ideas about evacuation," said Public Safety Director Michael Huss. "But there is not a Downtown evacuation plan, per se."

Yet, a PG article today, City disaster preparedness praised, tells us that the head of emergency and disaster response operations for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Glenn Cannon, was in town yesterday praising Pittsburgh for its, "outstanding level of preparedness for disasters".

"Pittsburgh's level of preparedness is outstanding," he said. "It is a model and a best practices model recognized by the Homeland Security Department."

Is this another case of, "Good Job, Brownie"?

McNeilly Case: How Regan Muscled Chief Costa

2007-03-29T18:11:00.000-05:00

The process that Former Police Chief Costa described in an interview about how Denny Regan forced his hand to promote Officer Rende gives you a close look at greasy Pittsburgh politics in action. The section of the interview I post below captures what Judge Ambrose means in her ruling.

From Judge Ambrose's preliminary injunction ruling, a poignant quote excerpted by The Burgh Report:

"Furthermore, let me make something very clear. Contrary to how some may perceive this case, this case is not about corruption in the Police Department. It is about allegations of wrongdoing and improper and undue influence by officials within the Mayor's office in Police Department matters."

Former Police Chief Dominic Costa interview conducted by Office of Municipal Investigations Adminstrator Kathy Kraus on behalf of Acting City Solicitor George Specter:

Q: Do you believe – or do you – were you ordered to make Frank Rende a detective or did he ask you?

A: No, it was an order. He said – as a matter of fact, I said that -- he knew that my feelings that Frank wasn’t working, and I told him that about stats and things like that before, and Frank still wasn’t working, and then when he was there, it was definitely, when I said, well, I can look at it and he said, I want him moved, and I want them moved --- I want them graded detectives. And he says and I want it done now.

Q: So you didn’t feel you had any option not to do it?

A: Oh, no, it was an order. It was no question, it was an order to do it. Because if it wasn’t – had it been a request, I wouldn’t have done it because two of the officers’ stats weren’t up to – what I believe was defective quality.

Q: Did – did Dennis Regan ever ask you to change any other officer’s assignments?

A: No.

Earlier in the interview there is more detail on how Regan forced Costa's hand, the disciplinary action report on Rende and how he wasn't 'counseled' within 120 days, and earlier complaints from Rende (pushed by Regan) that he wasn't getting enough off-duty assignments. Well, that's because the assignments are akin to a taxpayer subsidized under-the-table racket. And it has been proven untrue that Rende didn't get a fair share of assignments. It's also strange that Rende needs to be explicitly counseled about why calling off of work sick and working side jobs isn't OK. Then again, if it isn't documented it didn't happen, right? Ugh, bureaucracy. You can also see how little Regan was aware of police policy and 'graded' detective status. In any case, the interview (linked above) is not too long and worth a read.

And Doug Shields is going to cover-up Mayor Ravenstahl's error and prevent a council discussion on this issue? For real?

Grant St. vs Main St.

2007-03-27T16:23:00.000-05:00

First the paddlefish and now this story about the mayor suing the owner of a property in Larimer and threatening to seize it because it is a nuisance property. The problem is that some neighbors "went to bat" for the house and didn't want the little candy and pop store that operated out of the abandoned house to be bothered. The issue that this story raises to me is about who defines nuisance properties and who defines "development".

The mayor's 311 line was set up to handle just this sort of complaint about a nuisance property. Was the mayor responding to calls on the 311 line? It isn't clear.

Lord's article suggests that neighbors don't seem to mind the property.

Several neighbors had no complaints about the house. They said no one lives there, but someone operates a candy and soda shop inside.

"People, they just be chillin' there," said Omari Thompson, an 18-year-old security guard who lives nearby. "A cop drives by, sees them outside, and then they go inside, and [the police] think something's wrong."

This young guy lives nearby and doesn't seem to think there's a problem. He suggests that police suspicion is the nuisance because the little store is serving some function in their corner of Larimer.
Twanda Carlisle thinks:

"I can name 100 [properties] in council District 9 that should be on the most-wanted list and are in areas that are slated for development," said Councilwoman Twanda Carlisle, who represents the neighborhood.

Well, we'll dismiss that on grounds that she isn't a credible source.
Another:

Larimer community activist and council candidate Ora Lee Carroll, though, said there's "more than candy going out of there. ... I view that property as blatantly blighted and it needs to be [demolished]."

Now that seems like another credible source for the neighborhood.

The issue is who decides on what is a nuisance property. We'd like to think this occurs on Main St., by the members of a particular community or residents who live near the property in question. That way members of a particular community are actively addressing needs in their community and contacting the city to do something about it; maybe through the 311 line. In this case, it appears to be Grant St. making the decisions. In this way, community members are passive onlookers of what is happening in their neighborhood. And, when you look at the photo from the PG above, a bunch of white folks from city hall are coming in to Larimer to say what can and can't happen. Where some stakeholders feel that this abandoned house is serving a neighborhood function, others see it as a nuisance and an obstacle to development.

If you want to learn more about what "development" around East Liberty (near Larimer) or 'Eastside' means to folks in that neighborhood I'd recommend watching the excellent documentary from Chris Ivey, "East of Liberty". Interesting perspectives on Carlisle, Ferlo, and East Liberty Development Corporation.

UPDATE: A press release from the mayor's office:

“We will insist that all of these properties are shut down, boarded up and torn down, if need be. They are blight to our neighborhoods and our way of life. If the owners won’t correct the situation, on behalf of all law abiding citizens and property owners, we will.”

I take issue with the mayor feeling that he has the right to liberally state "our way of life". What does he know about life in Larimer on Shetland St.? I think my point about "doing for" instead of "doing with" is pretty clear after reading this statement.

I think the look on this woman's face, whoever she is, captures the skepticism about the mayor's intentions I tried to explain in the paragraphs above.

Ferlo and Doyle

2007-03-27T09:47:00.000-05:00

Or should I have titled this post Hook, Line and Sinker? Before a any challenger to Ravenstahl was announced, both Ferlo and Doyle were publicly backing Ravenstahl. Why? I suspect it is for reasons of a vacuum of leadership in the mayor's office. While reading yesterday's PG article on the mayoral race I thought about Sen. Ferlo's comments. When characterizing Peduto's withdrawal from the race, Rich Lord states that:

Some say that's bad for democracy and will allow issues to fester, while others argue that it gives a city shaken by turbulence a chance for some smooth flying.

The latter of these characterizations is championed by Sen. Ferlo. He was quoted in the article as saying, "I just thought we needed to take a collective breath and enjoy some stability". And, I mean, how can you not respect Ferlo. He came to the political scene from a background in community organizing, always advocating for progressive social issues, and staunchly antiwar. That's why it's so difficulty to digest why he was such an early and strong supporter of Ravenstahl on this election, 'the' guy who argued against the bubble zone ordinance as city councilman and for eliminating the shade tree fund. In November, Ferlo stated:

Mr. Ravenstahl "has quickly won me over as a convert and I will be working to support his election with all the resources I can muster."

Convert? I'm not sure. Opportunistic choice? I'd agree. Ravenstahl's chief of staff, Yarone Zober, was previously an aide to Ferlo. Yarone is board chair of the URA. Ferlo sits as a board member. Ferlo can pick up the phone and directly influence any issue in the city. For any future plans in his political career, Ravenstahl remaining in office is his choice to consolidate a wider base of voters for any future political moves he might make. Any change in the mayor's office would entail a potential threat to his and Zober's position in the URA and also his influence in the city. Ravenstahl's social values reflect a conservative Catholic position and not the progressive humanistic Catholic values embodied in Thomas Merton or the Berrigans. You think Ravenstahl's personal values are what appeal to Ferlo? No, I think a vacuum of leadership and an opportunity to influence the Pittsburgh political landscape are much more likely reasons for his support.

And Doyle, another representative from this region who any progressive would have to admit, at least for the most part, reflects their views on his voting in congress. Back in Dec. he said:

"We have seen the consequences when we have somebody who can't work with the state and federal delegation," said Mr. Doyle, D-Forest Hills, in an obvious reference to Mayor Tom Murphy, who criticized legislators. "I don't see any reason to break up a great team."

I guess the unprofessionalism in taking that late night trip to NYC, $285,000 paid out of city revenues (with another couple hundred thousand to come for McNeilly's lawyer's fees) to clean up corruption regarding the mayor's wisdom in choosing appointees, lying, and co-opting other's ideas are good enough reasons to back this young man. For Doyle, the argument is slightly harder to make on opportunism but the motivating factor has got to be for future political aspirations. I'd welcome any perpective on this one because I've been struggling to figure it out.

What is clear is that Ravenstahl, Ferlo, and Doyle are hook, line and sinker. Ravenstahl's smile pretty, "move Pittsburgh fahrd" and Ferlo's and Doyle's supporters forced to question what these guys see in Ravenstahl culminated in a mayor's race that was less about issues and more about shooting fish in a barrel.

Mayor Doing Nothing in Pittsburgh for Past 10 days?

2007-03-23T12:51:00.000-05:00

Well, the rivers have been dangerously swollen this week, flooding the Mon Wharf parking lot and making the fishing terribly slow. Hooked into a nasty Allegheny Whitefish on Tuesday and many of the fish were turned off on Wednesday but I had a suspicion they were still there. I was wondering about these lame conditions and searched for some information that would help me choose the right lure out of the tacklebox.

I went to the mayor's page on the city website to see what the heck was going on. For much of the mayor's time in office, Dick Skrinjar hasn't missed a beat and hasn't gone more than 5-6 days without telling us all the important things that the mayor has been doing. The last important thing Mayor Ravenstahl has done according to these press releases was praising Irish spirit on March 13. As of today, that was 10 days ago.

For a mayor who was providing press releases about every 5-6 days and who is responsible for the city that seems odd. After snubbing Hill District leaders and needing to work out a number issues concerning city residents and the arena one would think we would be kept abreast of the 'progress' on this issue. One might think that a press release is in order for sharing details on the mayor's tax-abatement plan which was promised to the public back in February. Of course, that plan was never a tool for curb appeal in a mayoral campaign to begin with. One might think we would learn about how Pittsburgh is "moving forward". But no, we haven't heard about anything the mayor has been doing for 10 days.

Looking a bit more carefully, press releases were released about every 2 days (sometimes 2-3 a day) on the city website once Peduto formerly announced his bid for mayor. So, every 5-6 days since he took office and every 1-2 days since he was a candidate. Hmmm. I wonder if Skrinjar has been too busy training Ravenstahl to tell-the-truth-ese or if Ravenstahl has been too busy learning on the job to get anything done.

Pittsburgh Isn’t Ready for Peduto

2007-03-22T16:40:00.000-05:00

It’s not a sprint race. It’s a marathon.

After reviewing many of the articles and comments in the Burghosphere since Peduto’s withdrawal, I am compelled to offer my perspective. I really respect and understand the let down among those bloggers who’s political hopes Peduto represented in the campaign. How many faults have we found with the Ravenstahl administration and with Ravenstahl himself? And now he may go uncontested and in power until at least 2009? Ugh! When all the sophisticated techniques of campaigning tell you that the town doesn’t want to hear about issues and wants to “give the kid a chance” we learn that Pittsburgh isn’t ready for Peduto. Whether or not we need a Peduto is another question entirely.

But real political change has never come abruptly. Look at the shift in public opinion on the Iraq War in this country. In a town that doesn’t like change this process may take even longer. I say this as an outsider. I’m originally from a place that’s sunny and warm but have come to love Pittsburgh. Though I’ve been in town for quite some time, to a degree, I’ll always feel like an outsider because I wasn’t raised here. Yet the old world political patronage system, Ravenstahl epitomizing its dangers, makes a fisherman who wants to stay in town consider leaving.

Cojones or Brains? Sure, Peduto could have stayed in the race and taken Ravenstahl to task, even going negative. But what happens when you go negative, having your issues defined as tools for political curb appeal, and it backfires? What happens to those issues in the public’s perception when they are raised again by future candidate?

Peduto was asked (by Rick Earle?) during the press conference something about, “don’t the voters deserve an alternative to Ravenstahl”. Peduto replied that he learned that the voters were not interested in Ravenstahl’s positions, they wanted to ‘give the kid a chance’. In the press conference, Peduto must have been referring to internal polling and learned that voters were, in fact, concerned with issues such as public safety, neighborhood revitalization and economic development. But when voters were asked why they were supporting Ravenstahl they replied, ‘give the kid a chance’. Peduto noted the logical disconnect but that red herring still holds up as a belief that drives voter behavior. What do you do with this knowledge? Three options are possible:

Run an honest, issue-based campaign and go ahead with the exercise in futility? The result still remains that Pittsburgh isn’t ready at this time for Peduto.
Run a negative campaign? Risk the issues you care about and appear as a political opportunist with no guarantee that this strategy will result in victory?
Drop out of the primary and reassess strategy on how to push these progressive reform issues into city government? Risk temporarily or permanently alienating some of your base while retaining the option to run again in the future without having the issues you care about dismissed in a race that is not about the issues.

Sure, you can criticize the Peduto campaign. Not having position papers available on its website was one I’ve read. Who was paying attention to the issues, the 20 or so concerned bloggers? It certainly wasn’t the public, the press, or the Ravenstahl campaign. The Burgh Report did a good job of criticizing the PG's role in preventing an issues based campaign.

So we’ll have to wait to see what happens. The issues still remain on the table and bloggers will still hold Ravestahl's feet to the fire. “The battle is not about me, it’s not even about this campaign…it’s about reforming the city”, Peduto said. Since Ravenstahl has a habit of stealing Peduto’s ideas, who knows where this will all go? What is clear for now is that Pittsburgh, for whatever the many reasons, is not ready for Peduto. And how can you blame the guy for recognizing that?

Luke Comes Clean About NYC Trip

2007-03-21T09:12:00.000-05:00

Ravenstahl Swimming with Sharks

2007-03-20T18:27:00.000-05:00

After all the hoopla regarding Ravenstahl's cozying-up to Penguins owner, billionaire Ron Burkle, the interim mayor has a number of questions to answer about his campaign finances. Less apparent is why the heck Ed Rendell's deputy director for Western PA, Kevin Kinross, and Ravenstahl are chumming around with Burkle.

The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy released a policy brief on Friday with a number of criticisms upon examinination of the Pens' deal. Granted, the Allegheny Institute is a rather conservative organization oriented on market-friendly solutions to public policy, its criticisms raise a number of concerns. Major points made in the document are as follows:

The first concern is that the Sports and Exhibition Authority (SEA) will pay the team $8.5 million for the former St. Francis Hospital site. The team bought the site in anticipation of a new arena and it was to count as their up-front contribution to the project. Now they will receive its value in cash.
The source for the likely $10 million in overrun costs for which the public is responsible has still not yet been determined.
The state has agreed to fund marketing expenses incurred by the Penguins in promoting the team, amounting to a gift of $2 million.
The Penguins have development rights to the entire Mellon Arena site and the SEA will compensate them with $15 million in what is called a redevelopment credit. This means the team will get the first $15 million worth of prime Pittsburgh real estate for free and if the team doesn't use it within 10 years, the team receives the balance in cash from the SEA.

Why wouldn't Burkle invite these two charming lads on his private jet and pick up the tab for dinner and drinks in Manhattan? A few thousand bucks for the trip is a small investment for the return he gets from these public officials for his team.

Why did it appear to the public that the city, county, and state were in conflict with the Penguins during the negotiations when the Pens were already fairly confident they would get a good deal (see point 1 above)? If there were some conflicts in the details, and, indeed, it is likely that there were, it is obvious they never escalated to the point where it would have prevented Rendell's representative, the mayor of Pittsburgh, and the owner of the team from fraternizing. And they weren't having beers and a NY slice at Gramercy Park Hotel - it ain't exactly a working-class joint.

Only two premises are possible. One is that Luke is competent in his role as mayor. If this is the case, and he contributed substantially to the negotiations of the deal, then he is helping to feed the taxpayers to the sharks. He believes that flaunting his new relationship with Burkle is OK and would accept a campaign contribution from him. He was aware of the disappearing line between his public role as a mayor (whose time on the clock is paid for by taxpayers) and his role as candidate but went along with the trip anyhow. He was aware of the historically significant and sincere concerns of Hill District residents and community leaders but decided it was sufficient to send Zober instead.

The other is that Luke is not competent in his role as mayor. If this is the case, then he is being fed upon by the sharks. Being wined and dined in an upscale Manhattan institution has to be exciting for a 27 year old and he was overcome with the excitement. This suggests that he is, in fact, immature for the position and risks being swayed on issues where, as a representative of city residents, he should take a stand (even an unpopular one with the Pens' owner if necessary) on behalf of his constituents. Being so impressionable is dangerous for the city. He wasn't aware of the disappearing line between his role (and finances) as mayor and candidate. He wasn't aware of the historical significance between arena and the lower Hill and can be excused for being too hung over (excuse me, "unable" because of inadequate flight schedules) to make the meeting.

In either case, Luke is swimming with sharks and the water is dangerous.

And, finally, the mayor had time for an overnight trip to NY but didn't have the time to debate his opponent before the public?

Mayor Ravenstahl Snubs Paddlefish

2007-03-20T07:25:00.000-05:00

You may recall the brief history about the Paddlefish community of the Lower Hill District in a previous post. Today, Jeremy Boren reports that the mayor initially lied to the Trib about traveling to New York on a billionaire Ron Burkle's plane to be treated to a late dinner and drinks at a posh Manhattan hotel.

After last Tuesday's announcement, Ravenstahl attended the Penguins game against the Buffalo Sabres at Mellon Arena with team co-owner Ron Burkle, who invited him onto his private jet and treated the mayor to a meal at the Gramercy Park Hotel in Manhattan.

Ravenstahl initially told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Monday morning that he did not travel to New York, but he changed his story in the afternoon after the Trib confronted him with more details about the overnight trip.

Well, the story has confirmed Skip's suspicions that:

Ravenstahl isn't aware of the important and delicate issue about the arena and the Hill.
Ravenstahl feels that a meeting with Ron Burkle outweighs the opportunity to meet with Hill District community leaders.
Ravenstahl lies.
Ravenstahl is NOT in charge.

To point #4 above, Ravenstahl admits:

"Unfortunately, I wasn't in town at the time," he said. "Yarone was there. He handled everything on our side."

Well, that's not exactly true. His passive voice, "I wasn't there" actually doesn't express that he made a decision, he chose, to not be at the meeting. Danny O met with community leaders and he's the boss, right? Yarone was there? and handled everything? Board chair of the URA who cares for community driven development, right?

The men arrived in New York City about midnight. Ravenstahl and Kinross [friend of Ravenstahl and deputy director of Rendell's Western PA office] had dinner and drinks with Burkle and some of his friends. Burkle picked up the tab, Ravenstahl said.
When asked about the evening, Ravenstahl said he did not know where he ate.
Ravenstahl and Kinross went to the home of a friend of Kinross to stay for the night.
The mayor said he did not remember what part of town he spent the night.

Didn't remember where he ate or what part of town he spent the night? Is that because "we were fuckin' drinking Miller Lites n'shit all night dude - we were fuckin' fucked up!" or is it because no one told him where he ate or where he slept? I mean, he doesn't know anything unless someone tells him so, first. Smile pretty, "move Pittsburgh fahrd". Apparently Mr. Boren knew these little details because he simply asked Kinross.

To point #3 above, Mr. Boren points out another lie Ravenstahl told the press and public.

On Jan. 18, after denying it for months, he acknowledged that police handcuffed and detained him before a 2005 Steelers game at Heinz Field. He never was charged.

We could add that there is no police report to document that incident. And that he's lied on a number of other occasions, at the 14th Ward candidate's night for instance.

Finally, we get a picture of how politicos and business owners fraternize and form the good ol' boy network that runs much of our, and every other, government (and I refrain from saying democracy).

Ravenstahl said he would report last week's free plane ride and dinner on his campaign finance forms and is considering whether to reimburse Burkle for the cost of the flight.
"Quite honestly, it's not common for me to speak with the media about my campaign activity because it is something that, you know, is strategic and it's not something that I necessarily wanted to share," Ravenstahl said.

So, this is what campaign activity looks like. Riding in billionaire's private jets, living the good life in Manhattan, and talking politics. You think Burkle just likes Luke and wants to share his wisdom? You don't think he wanted the ear of this young impressionable but powerful head of the city that hosts the hockey team he owns? And what does this political consultation cost - in dollars and to the taxpayers?

Paddlefish community- I'm sorry. I'm sorry we have a mayor who isn't concerned about showing you he wants to prevent yet another colossal injury to your community. I'm sorry that your anger isn't represented in the local media - that Rev. Johnnie Monroe thinks it's OK that your mayor chooses to not attend your meeting. I'm disgusted. Hopefully you'll be heard.

Another Old Tire: Still in Use

2007-03-19T11:01:00.000-05:00

Yup, that's right. An old tire that should have been discarded long long ago is still being used for something. Today, the Trib reports that the Public Works and the Police Dept has been working together to remove graffiti from public property and businesses. The paper reminds us that the police bureau has set up a graffiti task force and that Frank Rende is one of their detectives. For those not familiar with Detective Rende, he's the police officer who called in sick so that he could work side jobs. He's the officer who responds to a domestic call on from a depressed and drunk woman on the South Side, finishes his shift, changes clothes, then returns to the home of that call and engages in a 'sex act' with the woman who originally called the police dept. He's the brother of Marlene Cassidy, Executive Secretary to Mayor Ravenstahl, and live-in partner of Dennis Regan. Regan is the former Director of Operations, appointed by Mayor Ravenstahl, who overturned the disciplining (firing) of Officer Rende. Senior police Commander Catherine McNeilly blew the whistle on Regan's meddling in police affairs and was demoted. She was demoted by Mayor Ravenstahl for pointing all of this out but eventually won her case and was reinstated to Commander. "Giving the kid (Mayor Ravenstahl) a chance" will likely cost city taxpayers upwards of $100,000. And Rende is now detective on the graffiti taskforce. Great that he won't be responding to many domestic calls. Like the old tire, this scandal goes round and round the mayor's office.

Old Tires in River Mud

2007-03-18T15:02:00.000-05:00

The Ravenstahl administration has touted its continued leadership on the Redd Up campaign, initiated by the O'Connor administration. Ravenstahl once told Skip that while the Redd Up program was a good idea it was by no means a cheap program; think of all the equipment and labor that is required of DPW to remove debris, demolish unsafe buildings, and board up abandoned houses. While the administration can spend about $30,000 towards a targeted mailer for the campaign about the, already widely known, 311 line, it hasn't bothered spend the 30 seconds needed to update the contact information for the Redd Up campaign. It may be a simple oversight. It may be an expression of neglect for a citywide program that doesn't yield any new exposure for the incumbent candidate.

Way Upstream on the Mon

2007-03-16T06:15:00.000-05:00

Years ago, before I took to fishin' like it was my job, I used to work in McKeesport. The commute from Pittsburgh that defied traffic at rush hour gave me the chance to listen to some news on the radio and take in the scenery. Most of that scenery was depressing to me only because the Mon Valley has struggled to renew itself after the fleeing steel mills. The great views of the hills in N.Versailles and the pocket below the Westinghouse bridge which was the thriving community of Turtle Creek lie to you from afar. Up close they serve as reminders of the downsides of globablization.

Well, wasn't much fishin' on the Mon with all the rain 'n sleet n'at, so I stopped in town for a cup of coffee to find a little gem of a blog, The Tube City Almanac. It's main author, Jason Togyer, can be applauded for creating the cartoon above. I just thought it really captures a dimension of the greasiness of the Ravenstahl campaign. While it's hard to qualify this one, breaking campaign financing laws by trying to blur the line between public office and private campaigning is not, but it's greasy business I tell ya.

Paddlefish and Penguins

2007-03-14T10:48:00.000-05:00

I decided to throw some top water baits today to see how the relatively warm weather has contributed to fish activity. Casting near the riverbank, I was surprised to hook into a beautiful paddlefish. Realising what a precious fish was on my line, I gently released it back into the water. A Paddlefish community once thrived in the lower Hill District, immortalized in the documentary Wylie Avenue Days, but was destroyed because of the loss of community habitat. As ecologist Mindy Fullilove writes in Rootshock,

The Urban Renewal Act of 1949 set in motion urban renewal projects in cities across the United States. Urban renewal, especially at the outset, was a program designed to clear large areas of “slum” housing to make way for modern develop-ments. In general, the cleared land was sold to private developers for use in new developments designed to extend the central business district or to attract middle income residents. In either case, the former residents of the area were relocated outside the renewal district.........
In 1961, for example, African Americans were 10% of the US population, but 66% of residents of areas slated for urban renewal. A particular hardship of Urban Renewal was that it strengthened segregation. African Americans were forced out of the renewal areas, but only were able to move to other ghetto areas.

One of the case studies for her book was the construction of The Civic Arena and she examines the lingering traumatic stress reactions to the destruction of one's emotional ecosystem. Many lower Hill District residents were forcibly dislocated to other areas in Pittsburgh, and we can now see that contribution to segregation among Pittsburgh's otherwise lovely neighborhoods.

OK, so I'll sharpen my hook here. WTAE publishes a story this morning entitled Businesses Around Pens' Arena Site Excited. The article finds that Paul Newmaster, general manager of Marriott City Center, is excited that the Pens are staying in town. However, Evan Frazier, President of Hill House Association states that, "The community needs to be engaged as talks continue about development of the lower Hill". Very right, Mr. Frazier. Hill District residents were not invited to participate in the 'development' of The 'Civic' Arena the first time around.

Do we have a city leader who embraces community and grassroots organizations and both understands and emphasizes Pittsburgh history? Well, it seems as though suspicions of Luke's lack of leadership on the Pens issue, and always include symbolic leadership under this category, were vindicated today in a PG editorial. Credit apparantly goes to Ed Rendell, who led the delegation of public officials crafting the deal, according to the editorial. And what was Luke's role in the negotiations? Oh, just like his leadership in saving public transit, it's obviously to smile pretty and "move Pittsburgh fahrd".

UPDATE: Gee, after I wrote and posted this morning I find Ann Belser publishing, "Onorato talks with Hill residents about arena" in the PG around midday. Now tell me, case in point, who's the Boss? Why isn't Luke talking with Hill residents about the arena?

WTAE published an updated story this afternoon reporting that Onorato said he "wants the Hill District's community leaders to have early input and involvement during that approval process, so that there's consensus on any plan." Great Dan but I ask again, WHERE'S LUKE???

Tribune-Review Columnist Eric Heyl answered my question on what Luke's role was in negotiating the deal. He writes, "I heard he brought the Cheetos and dip to last week's pivotal negotiating session."

Allegheny Whitefish Report

2007-03-13T15:16:00.000-05:00

Howdy there fellow anglers. After reading such insightful analysis on other burgh blogs, Ol' Skip just had to chime in.

Since the weather was so inviting, it was a perfect day to get out on the rivers. I set up with some heavy weight to fish the bottom to see if the catfish are bitin' and boy did I get a hold of a big one this afternoon. Unfortunately, it wasn't a catfish. An Allegheny Whitefish that got flushed down on Grant Street made its way to the bottom of the river and onto my hook.

After reading the Admiral's post on the mayor's overdue tax abatement plan I decided to call up Bernie Lynch (Director of Grants and Development, a top cabinet member in the mayor's office) to ask if there was a formal release date for the mayor's plan. Someone answered Bernie's line with "Kim Graziani's office". I confusingly asked if it this number was Bernie Lynch's office, the number I called. The woman stated that Bernie no longer works for the mayor. I asked if there was a formal release date for the tax abatement plan and she was not aware of one.

I was a bit shocked to hear that Bernie was no longer working for the mayor's office (read 'fired' here) but recalled the shenanigans over the summer when Mayor O'Connor was sick and there was a dirty power struggle in the mayor's office. Staff who were suspected to be 'disloyal' to Mayor O'Connor were fired and, in former county chief executive Roddey's words, "we've replaced the professionals with political hacks." The article reminds us that this is when O'Connor appointed loyalist Dennis Regan as Chief of (hack) Staff who, in turn, appointed parasite Yaronne Zober as the city's director of general services (a department the administration was planning to eliminate). Following this logic, Bernie Lynch must have been loyal enough to O'Connor to not have been fired last summer. But was she disloyal to Flip Flop (flipflop fish aren't keepers) Ravenstahl? Why would a veteran cabinet member who has past experience in property development in the mayor's office get fired? What did Dick Skrinjar, who worked closely with her in the last administration, have to do with or say about it? Any theories fellow anglers?

Well, that's the fishing report for today. Hopefully, we catch some fish next time and not more of the garbage that makes its way into the rivers.