Pittsburgh Pist-Gazette

City For Sale

2008-07-14T10:31:00.004-04:00

FOR SALE: Wonderful northeastern city conveniently located within a few hours flying distance of 80% of the country’s major metropolitan areas. Many updates but still needs a little TLC. Sold in whole for the right price, but strong preference is for parcel-by-parcel conveyance.

OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDED: Land at a fraction of its market value, no-bid government contracts, permits issued anywhere for anything, preferential allocation of city services, job placement for felons and wife-beaters, tax breaks for qualified businesses (*), appointments to boards and authorities whereby you can create your own excellent business opportunities and much, much more.

TERMS: Cash contributions from 3rd parties preferred, but all other means of payment including in-kind, trade and barter will be seriously considered.

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
The Mayor’s Hot Line: 412-255-CITY
Email: luke.ravenstahl@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

(*) Businesses must show a strong balance sheet, a healthy operating margin, and otherwise be in a financial position whereby a tax break is not needed.

In My Opinion: Dowd And That Damn Sign

2008-07-09T14:14:00.003-04:00

Process and following the letter of the law are very important things. And ironically enough, they are at the very core of the maddening Lamar sign fiasco.

Respect for process and abiding our laws are pretty much the basis of keeping our civilization civilized. Process and laws do exist to maintain a semblance of order, but not just for a semblance of order. They also exist for the pursuit and attainment of justice.

Since life is often a complicated, messy affair, following the letter of the law does not always mean justice will be served. Lawyers and judges come upon this conundrum in their daily work because our world is not a computer program. It is complex and messy and human. If it were a computer program, we would have no need for the judgment our human judges, juries and legislators bring to the equation. And hence, we would have no need for them either. We would just feed the particular situation/infraction into the computer and the proper course of action would be spit out for us to implement.

What do human lawyers and judges do when they come upon such a conundrum? A situation whereby following the strict letter of the law allows for something unlawful to persist? Or worse, when an obvious injustice would be dealt? Do they break the law hoping to achieve a just end? Well, maybe they do so some of the time, and that is unfortunate. Because the end rarely, if ever, does justify the means.

But mostly these human beings get creative by referencing other laws which might serve as a modifying force to steer the end result closer to what everyone recognizes as rightful and just. Sometimes they even pass new laws so that a similar miscarriage of justice does not happen in the future.

And so this is exactly the juncture where I fault Dowd. Yes, he is and has been technically correct on all of his positions. Every computer would verify that. He is obviously bright and therefore must obviously know that exactly following correct process and the letter of the law in the Lamar sign case would lead to obvious injustice. First, the will of council was clear …… a majority of council wanted to hire McGough and file an appeal. Second, had Dowd’s technically correct method been followed, Lamar would have prevailed in their illegal activities.

Dowd needs to acknowledge that his role as a councilman and public servant should be something greater than a well-written computer program. He needs to interject some human judgment when he sees that A x B = Injustice. He needs to work with council to find a legal way whereby the clear will of council can be implemented and see the light of day. This is something that can be done, but something Dowd, for a variety of technical and esoteric reasons, refuses to do.

Dowd the “straw man” for Lamar? Dowd the “straw man” for the mayor? I’m not sure either is the case and I’m also not sure it matters. What does matter is Dowd has demonstrated he will stand on the letter of the law to the detriment of justice. He will choose recognition of his own technical correctness over stopping a clear, obvious, glaring, 1200 sq ft LED illegality. And worse yet, he will not lift a finger to help or collaborate with those who are trying to find a solution which is both legal and just and implements the clear will of the majority of council.

THAT is what troubles me with Councilman Dowd in this situation.

For The Love Of Chair

2008-06-27T17:30:00.009-04:00

The above council chair belongs to the Reverend Ricky Burgess. It remained empty through much of last Wednesday’s council session because Councilman Burgess was threatened with forfeiture of office if he spoke or participated in any way regarding the business at hand on that day. The same threat was leveled at three other councilmen, but only Ricky took it seriously enough to forego his legislative obligations and abandon his chair. The other three, Council President Doug Shields, Councilmen Bill Peduto and Bruce Kraus, decided they would not be bullied. They thought too much of their elected office, their own council chairs and the institutions those chairs represented. You might call this a very deep-seated Love of Chair.

Who threatened the good reverend? Was it the Mob? Did an angry group of atheists finally take umbrage to the pastor’s penchant for prayer during televised council sessions? Did one of the five known city Republicans attempt to wrest a single council seat for their near-extinct party? A party which has not held one elected city office in almost 100 years?

Nope, oddly enough the intimidation came from the city’s own law department!

You see, council got wind of a blatantly corrupt but kinda standard scheme involving the mayor, a few of the mayor’s top administrators, illegal signage permits for Lamar Advertising who regularly gave the mayor hefty “in-kind” campaign contributions, additional illegal sign permits to another advertising company who gave substantial cash contributions to the mayor, gifts of undisclosed amounts between various parties, awarding of no-bid contracts that turned out to be sweetheart deals at taxpayer expense, diversion of city decision-making powers to non-city officials who would help the scheme progress unimpeded. You know …. The normal kind of second-class corruption that regularly occurs in cities of the second class in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Well, council at first foolishly sought legal advice from City Solicitor George Specter on how best to null and void the latest illegal sign permit. This is the same George Specter who on March 20, 2008 told the legislative body that it was in fact illegal for them to legislate. But even after receiving and enduring that bizarre piece of legal advice along with scores of others equally as wacked out, many on council still felt obliged to involve their solicitor, impotent as he was. In the end, Specter would not or could not and ultimately did not provide council with any viable legal advice in this pressing matter. And with a time-sensitive clock running out, four councilmen including the Reverend Burgess, filed a last-minute appeal with the Zoning Board of Adjustments to try to stop Lamar Advertising in their tracks. The Four hired outside legal counsel Hugh McGough to represent them as Specter was useless. The Four then delivered McGough’s bill to the full council body for payment.

Dum-ta-dum-tum-taaaa! (Drum roll ‘cause the shit’s about to hit the fan)

For a legal department who took nine weeks to render an opinion as to whether or not a sign was in fact a sign, Specter and his minions blasted out an ominous and threatening opinion to The Four in a matter of days. The opinion stated that since four out of nine did not constitute a majority of council, their zoning appeal and accompanying attorney fees were of a private (not public) nature. Never mind that a fifth councilman, Patrick Dowd, did also file. Unfortunatly for The Four, Patrick filed as a private citizen, not as a councilman. And never mind that a sixth councilwoman, Darlene Harris, was advised of and gave her consent for the hiring of McGough even though she could not be physically present at the zoning counter to join in on the appeal. This situation provides an interesting glimpse into the world of governmental arithmetic where four plus one plus another one still only equals four.

Specter reasoned since the zoning appeal action was of a private nature, the accompanying legal bill would also be private. And since payment by the city of a private bill would constitute a personal gain, this personal gain would signal a conflict of interest. Specter warned that if any of The Four so much as spoke of the attorney bill, much less voted on its payment, they would be knee-deep in conflict of interest complicity. The penalty for such an illegal act? They all “SHALL immediately forfeit their office.”

Wow. Could this be true? Well …… not quite. Not quite that cut-and-dry. Specter immediately started his back-peddling upon grilling by Council President Doug Shields.

Shields: “Mr Specter, in your opinion it was alluded to or construed as generally by the members of the council and the public that somehow or another there was a self-executing removal and forfeiture of office at issue here. Is that so? Would you like to clarify that please?"

Specter: “Yes I would. We did note in our opinion that [forfeiture of office is] not self-executing and we did refer to the fact that additional processes would have been necessary. And that there is a constitutionally mandated impeachment process which would come into play and we did say that in our opinion. So it’s not as though you automatically are removed.”

Shields: “Where in your opinion did you address that?”

Specter: “On page 12 …. It reads 'not withstanding the clear mandate of the charter and the statute, it may be that the Pennsylvania constitution may require some process other than the self-executing nature of this penalty.'”

Shields: “May require. It is ‘may’ or ‘does’ it require?”

Specter: “It ‘does’ require.”

Shields: “Well, I think the [incorrect] inference, George, has caused a considerable amount of consternation. I don’t know of anything where there is a self-executing forfeiture provision anywhere, so why was that brought up? Why doesn’t the drafter of this [opinion], Ms. DeSimone, explain exactly what goes on in a forfeiture of office or removal of office?”

Specter: “I take full responsibility for this opinion. It’s not unusual for an opinion to be co-drafted by more than one member of the solicitor’s staff. But in the final analysis, I signed it, and I take full responsibility for it. To the extent that the word ‘may’ caused confusion or worse yet, consternation and fear, I apologize for that.”

Shields: “I’ve got an empty seat here. And the reason why I have an empty seat is Councilman Burgess’ interpretation of [your] opinion is that he can’t sit here but to risk his office. I’ll risk mine. That’s my choice. But what I’m really concerned about is the fact that the opinion is unclear and ambiguous on one of the most essential parts of the opinion. And the message to the council was ‘you vote or discuss this, the interpretation is that you’ll lose your seat. Automatically.’”

“So this is a very serious matter to me as president of this council. I find it very very troubling that we have a document here that is so ambiguous and so unclear. The state ‘may’ do something. The state ‘has to do something’. The state ‘shall’ do something. All would mean a whole different kettle of fish. I have an empty chair as a result of that. And you have, by the rendering of this opinion, caused a bit of a crisis here.”

Specter: ‘To the extent that that word ‘may’, and I now see that it could cause confusion, consternation, and at least in one case fear of removal of office …..To that extent I apologize for the use of that word."

Specter renders a legal opinion that says impeachment ‘may’ take the entire state legislature when in fact he knows it ‘does’?? Instead he alludes and threatens that the moment they open their mouth, if they open their mouths, they’ll be bounced from their council seat?? Right then and there?? And this is just a little, itty-bitty misspeak to which he apologizes??

No ….. This is the whole damn crux of this ugly ordeal. It is just the latest in a chilling pattern by the present administration to threaten, browbeat, silence and/or eliminate another branch of government which has proved to be too much of an inconvenient check-and-balance for them.

Kraus: “I just want to reiterate that the picture of this empty chair at this table and the precedent that we are sending here today. We had a conversation in your office, Mr Specter, and I told you this is not about the money [for the legal fees]. This can be paid. This is about the message that we set. We were the minority, having gone out to fight something that was blatantly illegal. It was found to be blatantly illegal. We did do the right thing. Bodies piled up in that hallway, people were fired and permits were pulled because we stood up and we did what was in the best interest of the people of the City of Pittsburgh. And because we did that, and because we are now voting to have our legal bills paid, Reverend Burgess is not in this seat because of the fear that was set. The message of fear that…. If you DO stand up and you DO try to do the right thing, not only will we hang the legal bills around YOUR NECK for having done it, but we may very well remove you from office for having stood up for the right thing. (Bolded caps mean raised voice) For what was PROVEN to be BLATANTLY AND GROSSLY ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR that WE FOUGHT. If you want to send a message to the people of the City of Pittsburgh that their elected officials are actually ETHICAL and STAND UP for what is right, that we will not only work toward but FIGHT to HANG THOSE LEGAL BILLS AROUND YOUR NECK and remove you from office. YOU send that message today. I challenge this body to send that message today.”

Peduto: “We saw something that was wrong. Something that was illegal activity that was going on and we blew the whistle on it. Throughout the entire process of doing so, we have been attacked, threatened and silenced: Questionable legal memos threatening removal of office just for speaking. Denial of expert legal advice in offering alternative viewpoints. Silencing of minority opinion."

"It’s not about this [legal] bill. It’s not even about the four members of council that decided to stand up. It’s about what effect it will have anytime in the future that a councilmember decides to try and stop something that is illegal and has a conflict that is perceived or real with the solicitor’s department."

"I think if there is any visual symbol of today that should be remembered for all of council it should be that empty seat for Reverend Burgess. And being threatened enough to not be able to carry out your job. I think that empty seat represents an injustice to democracy, to due process, and to the ability of those who believe that they should be able to fight the powerful. And to be able to do so with the tools that make them equal.”

Well, back on March 20th, Specter tried to tell council that they had no business trying to do all of that high-falutin’ legislation stuff. He tried to warn them back then but they just wouldn’t listen.

Ricky Burgess finally paid attention, vacated his seat and shut his mouth. One loudmouth, troublemaker downed by Specter and only three maybe four more to go. Amazing.

Peduto closed with some stern words about a lawsuit. I say it’s about time. Top of the list of discovery items? Pat Ford’s super-duper, super-secret, triple-locked briefcase. All of this done, of course, because of a very deep-seated Love of Chair.

The Boy’s Got Balls

2008-06-11T03:48:00.009-04:00

Trouble Is…..........They’re Not Really His

The mayor vetoed campaign finance reform in the City of Pittsburgh yesterday. He delivered a lengthy letter to City Council, making an impassioned case that his veto was the one true instrument of reform. And Council? Well, they were just hypocritical hucksters trying to pull a fast one on the good citizens of the Burgh.

Ravenstahl’s overall assessment was that council’s campaign finance reform bill was "fraught with problems" and he needed to stop it in its tracks. By contrast, a council majority thought it was the mayor himself who was fraught with problems … all sorts of problems. But the majority did not number six and so the mayor’s veto stood.

So who’s right and who’s wrong? Well, let’s take a look at Luke’s concerns and council’s rebuttals.

We’ll hear why large contributions to Councilman Bill Peduto are bad things but large contributions to the mayor are good. We’ll hear Tonya Payne lament that she’s unable to attract big buck donors, so limiting her opponent’s fundraising capabilities would just be another handicap she doesn’t want to bear. (Yes, I’m aware this makes no sense. But not much of what Tonya says ever does.)

We’ll hear Shields contradict Ravenstahl. We’ll hear Ravenstahl contradict Peduto. We’ll even hear Ravenstahl contradict himself! (Is that a surprise?)

Fraughtful Problem #1: Council’s bill provides an unfair advantage for the wealthy.

Luke: “Last year the bill’s sponsor (Peduto) received $50,000 contribution from a wealthy private citizen whose business specializes in outsourcing work to Asia. Assume for the moment the contributor instead decided to seek higher office, running on an anti-labor platform and self-financing the entire campaign. Under the current bill, the labor community, whose funds are raised at the small dollar level from working men and women and distributed through PACs, would be forced to find fifty PACs to contribute to the maximum levels prescribed by this bill to match the wealthy anti-labor candidate.”

Doug: “Simply balderdash. We’ve had wealthy run and lose. And we’ve had uneven playing fields. It really gets down to the content of the character of the candidate rather than how much is in your purse.”

Ms Pist Commentary: Well, here’s another fraughtful hypothetical to ponder. Let’s assume for the moment that two sign guys blow into town from Oregon and they give a candidate $25,000. The candidate then gives them permits for two Downtown signs even though signs are not permitted Downtown. But the Oregon sign guys turn around and sell the sign space to another sign company for $750,000, making a huge quick profit. Let’s further assume that the Oregon guys decide to move to Pittsburgh because the pickings are so good here. They could cut out the candidate middle-man and just run for office themselves. They could use the $750,000 profit to self-finance their own campaign, and then plaster signs everywhere all over Pittsburgh. Even a big one that says “UPMC” on top of the highest skyscraper Downtown. Just think of this hypothetical. It would be really horrible, wouldn’t it?

Fraughtful Problem #1A: Wealthy people could just buy the election with their own money.

Luke: “The most obvious problem is wealthy individuals could have the ability to circumvent the proposed rules by contributing unlimited amounts from their own coffers.

Doug: “That matter was dealt with 10 years ago in the Supreme Court of the United States. It’s the law of the land in this nation that if you want to donate as much of your money that is available to you personally…you can.

Kraus: “As you stated, that is the Supreme Court ruling. That is the law of the land, not just the City of Pittsburgh, but of the United States of America.”

Ms. Pist Commentary: Can you say ‘Hillary Clinton’?

Fraughtful Problem #2: It would have a chilling effect on the labor movement.

Luke: “A cap on the ability of labor organizations to promote candidates who share their vision is an incredible disadvantage for the labor movement and harmful to what Pittsburgh has worked so hard to achieve in an increasingly outsourced world.”

Doug: “The AFL-CIO, one of the largest labor organizations in the United States, has sponsored and promoted and fought for campaign finance reform in a shape very similar to the bill that has been presented to this council.”

Kraus: “The AFL-CIO web site says ‘Nothing is more important to our democracy than the integrity of our election system, that it be preserved, and that all Americans have full confidence that their vote and voice will be heard. These goals are threatened by a system of financing political campaigns that is widely believed to be corrupt and which unfairly rewards large contributors by amplifying their voice at the expense of ordinary citizens.’”

Fraughtful Problem #3: Challengers will be unable to mount successful campaigns against incumbents.

Luke: Went on a long diatribe about how three of the new councilmen who unseated incumbents were only able to do so because of the many “large” contributions they received. He said “One councilman got $5000, $5000 and $15,000. Another got $2500, $2500, $2500, $2600, $3000, $3200, $3500, $4375, $5000 and $5000. The third got $5500 and $12,500.”

Doug: “There is a pay-to-play world out there. To suggest that there is not is simply wrong. It goes on. It happens. It’s used to intimidate. It’s also used to keep people from running, period. And that happened last year when there was no money available for any other candidate to get in the race at all. So let’s not kid ourselves about that.

Ms. Pist Commentary: Maybe Doug was speaking of the mayor’s own race whereby he, as the incumbent, received these “large” contributions, which may have made it difficult for the challenger: $25,000, $12,500, $12,500, $10,000, $10,000, $10,000, $10,000, $10,000, $10,000, $10,000, $7000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $5000, $3950, $2750, $2500, $2500, $2500, $2500, $2500.

Fraughtful Problem #4: It’s unfair to have certain rules for city offices and other rules for state offices.

Luke: “Worthwhile campaign finance reform can only be achieved by creating a state-wide standard focused on leveling the playing field for all Pennsylvanians. [This bill] does not provide a level playing field between city, county and state office holders.” Luke went on to complain about the disadvantages of a city office-holder who might aspire to county or state office someday. While holding city office, that person would only be able to amass a puny “war chest” because of the proposed city campaign limits. His county or state incumbent opponent would be able to unfairly out-raise him.

Luke Contradicting Himself: “Quality legislation would treat each office differently. [City Council] is elected by citizens in districts 1/9th the size of the city. As such, it would follow that (good) campaign finance legislation would create contribution limitations that reflect this inherent difference between the offices of city council and those of the mayor and city controller. True reform would cap city council races at 1/9th of what may be contributed in races for citywide offices. This concept is not just logical it is also practical. Historically the victor in a city council race raises and spends no more than $100,000. Legitimate contenders in a race for citywide office often need to raise and spend 10 times that amount. The failure of this bill to address the inherent differences between candidates for city council and citywide offices hints that this bill is not about good government or even the sponsors stated intent to end a so-called pay-to-play system. Rather, this failure creates the appearance that this is simply designed to impact the rules for the race for mayor.”

Ms. Pist Commentary: The boy is just freakin’ paranoid, plain and simple.

Kraus: “This confuses me. It seems we sort of go back and forth between a level playing field and the fact that council and the two city-wide offices should be funded differently and at different amounts. Also, [this legislation was not] designed to impact the rules for the race for mayor. We dealt with that SPECIFICALLY early on so that this would not be enacted until 2010 to SPECIFICALLY take that misinformation off the table. This was not going to affect this next round of campaigns at all.”

Doug: “Candidates who are in the city who wish to run in the county or state can simply maintain two fundraising PACs. One for use statewide where they have an unlimited ability and get unlimited amounts of dollars out there.”

Tonya Contradicting Both Herself And Luke: “We just want to make sure [reform] is applied evenly across the board, across the Commonwealth, across all elected offices so that no one is basically left at a disadvantage. I didn’t feel comfortable with creating yet another handicap. It’s a different story when you’re a female in this business. And it’s a different story when you’re an African-American in this business. Those are two handicaps so why would I create another handicap? My biggest contribution ever was $2500. My contributions are never bigger than $1000. I can imagine that every man in this body here can out-raise me two-to-one or more. So why should I create anything that’s gonna handicap me. I already got enough handicaps.”

So did Luke have any helpful ideas for council as to what “quality” campaign finance reform legislation might look like? Yes, Luke said he would like to see 1) An open and transparent process. 2) Which donors are doing business with the city to end an “unfounded suspicion” of a pay-to-play culture. 3) Advocate for true reform on a statewide level with uniformity throughout both the county and the commonwealth. 4) Full disclosure of who is giving what to whom without a dollar amount attached must be at its core. (!!??!!)

Kraus: “Without a dollar amount attached? I do not understand. I thought that was the whole purpose of campaign finance law. Full disclosure of the amounts given, from whom, by whom, to whom was supposed to be a matter of public record.”

Things didn’t end as bleak as one might think. Tonya let everyone know she was voting ‘no’ because the Democratic Machine was not operating at its worst. Or something akin to that:

“This Saturday at the Democratic State Committee meeting a revolution (sic) was passed for campaign finance reform, asking that the state legislature take this issue up and that campaign finance reform become a matter of law throughout the Commonwealth. So I don’t see us saying ‘no’ to this as just the Democratic Party Machine at its worst. Because the Machine actually said to the legislature ‘move forward on this issue.’”

Doug Shields was easier on the ear: “For us to lose this opportunity is indeed unfortunate. But … we’ve had bills vetoed before. I’ve had legislation go down in flames. The great thing about politics and baseball is that there’s always tomorrow. We’ll keep working on this."

Patrick Dowd On The “Politics Of The Middle”

2008-05-26T21:38:00.011-04:00

By Bram and Char

We recently sat down with Councilman Patrick Dowd at a café in Point Breeze. The meeting was definitely something we (and possibly even Dowd) had looked forward to with anticipation.

Bloggers are normally a loud and opinionated group, very confident that they know what it is they think they know. After all the scrutiny and attention paid to freshman councilman Patrick Dowd, Pittsburgh’s blogosphere has been a bit unnerved at not being able to successfully label the guy. Who and what is Patrick Dowd and why does he do the things he does? Patrick seemed very eager to try to answer these and other questions.

Most of our conversation did center around the Not-A-Sign fiasco and all of its various incarnations. In fact, before we could get this interview “to press”, another chapter in the sign saga reared its ugly head. A spat over Penguin Stanley Cup banners erupted and Councilman Dowd was left holding the bag. (See “Bannergate” at end of post)

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves …..

BRAM starts the interview: “Someone reminded me of the question Barbara Walters always asks in her interviews, so …What’s the number one misperception people have about you?”

DOWD: “Hmmm. I’m not really sure how people perceive me, so I don’t know. I mean that’s an honest answer. I think there are a lot of people who think of me as an elitist and that I somehow thought that I was smarter than people. Which is really not true. I had a lot of trouble in school. I wasn’t the brightest kid. And, you know, I had trouble even reading aloud. My classmates would always be really excited when it was my turn to be reading because it was always very funny to see what I would read because it was never what was on the page. So, I got a lot of crap for that when I was a kid.”

“On the other hand, people apparently think that I’m tied up with the mayor. Which I find very funny. So I’m an elitist and I’m tied up with the mayor. I’m too tight with Peduto and Shields. But I’m too tight with Luke.”

“I’m the guy who’s just standing in the middle. And I’m standing in the middle on certain points that I think are really important.”

The chat continued about how the whole country is so very polarized, from the national level all the way down to the very local-yokel level.

DOWD: “Our strategy, and I think Obama’s strategy, really is the strategy to find a way to open up and find the space so we can bring in people. Not to see things always as one [way] or the other. To see them as for or against Luke. For or against Bill Peduto. For or against Patrick Dowd. We could go down the list. It’s not right. Because I’m not there for Luke, I’m not there for Doug, I’m not there for Bill, I’m not there for anybody. I’m there for the folks that elected me and for the constituents.”

As much as everyone in the blogosphere (including The Burgher) is sick to death of beating sign and banner horses to death, the whole tawdry situation does go to the heart of who Patrick Dowd is. So we asked Patrick why he was against an investigation into the Lamar permitting fiasco.

DOWD: “The Home Rule Charter says that we can do certain things. And it’s true, we can do an investigation. It’s true, we have that power. But we certainly do not have that capacity. We have no professional investigatory staff or arm that’s able to do that work. There’s a difference ... There’s a power and there’s a capability. And council doesn’t have the capability.”

“Second of all, and I think this is probably in some ways more important … If we were to conduct an investigation, because of the polarity in council and the politics involved with that question ….. I don’t think you could actually come to a real resolution. When this was first brought up I said, ‘Look, fellas, the way that that question is gonna be resolved is in a court of law.’”

According to Dowd, some of his colleagues were not too pleased with that position.

DOWD: “Some of my colleagues were furious with me. They thought that I was a wimp. They said, ‘Grow some balls. Take action.’ One of my colleagues told me that. I mean it was offensive to me and I was just completely shocked. I don’t think that we should be out investigating. We’re the legislative branch. Practically speaking, I could never see [council] coming to a resolution [on this matter] that was not somehow politically driven.”

“Another thing to think about …..I don’t want to be part of a body that’s conducting witch hunts. And I’m not saying that this would be a witch hunt. But you know what? Take the situation and mix it up a little bit and imagine it in a reverse scenario. Would I still want to be doing this? Say five members of council want to investigate another member of council. What are the criteria that we’re gonna establish for an investigation? In my opinion, they should be very serious. I’m not saying that [the Lamar sign], by the way, doesn’t rise to that level.”

“I haven’t voted against the [bill to investigate] yet. I voted to table it and I think that it’s important that it’s tabled. Some people might say, ‘Well that’s bullshit.’ But I think that it’s really important. I really believe that.”

Why did Dowd file the appeal alone, as a private citizen? Dowd explained he thought an appeal was the only way to get the issue before the courts. And since council as a body had not voted to file the appeal as a body, Patrick remained convinced the appeal had to be filed by a private citizen.

DOWD: “[By filing the zoning appeal], I put it in the courts. I got it there. I got it there. I mean that was essentially what I did.”

“All the time that I was saying [council shouldn’t investigate], I was out looking for folks that might be willing to file an appeal. But there were lots of people with lots of reasons not to get involved. And so thinking about it at the time, I really didn’t feel like I had a whole lot of choice. This thing had to get into the court and somebody had to take a stand first to get that thing over there. So that is partly why I filed the appeal but not as a councilmember.”

Others on council describe the chain of events a little differently. They claim the reason they did not move forward as an official body was because Dowd assured them he had a private citizen lined up to start the appeal process and council could stay out of it. When the private citizen who filed turned out to be Dowd, at least four on council worried that private citizen Dowd would not have legal standing in the case since he was not a Downtown resident. They say this is why they joined his appeal at the last minute as councilmen.

DOWD: “Now this is important. Let’s be clear. Those fellas (The Four) explicitly did not like the idea of an appeal. I was going down a path that was not a path of interest to them. So somehow things changed. I’m still not clear how suddenly my action became the action that everybody wanted to take. When I got to the point where I had to make a decision, I said to my attorneys ‘Look, I don’t want to use public funds. I don’t think it’s the right use of public funds.’”

CHAR: “So you met with your attorneys before you filed your appeal? Was the question of your standing as a private citizen discussed with your attorneys? And they felt that you would have had standing?”

DOWD: “Oh yes, absolutely. I told them what my problem was. I told them what I anticipated a good remedy to be. In my mind the remedy was revocation for the permit and a resubmission of the plan to go back to the beginning. A [council] investigation wouldn’t necessarily get us to that point. [My standing as a private citizen] wasn’t something we were worried about for a lot of different reasons.”

When asked if he was supportive of the letter The Four on council sent to the State Ethics Commission, Dowd said they were free to do that.

CHAR: “I know they’re free to do that. But in your opinion, was it a warranted and advisable thing to do in this circumstance?”

DOWD: “I’m not a party to the opinion although I did ask the question. So now Motznik gets triggered with asking the question and I find that very funny. But anyway, I asked the question. So if they want to get an opinion from the [State] Ethics Commission, that’s fine with me. In fact I’ll be looking forward to seeing what it says.”

BRAM: “[Regarding] concerns about The Four’s conflict of interest and the position that maybe they shouldn’t be voting … But you were allowed to vote. You did. You voted ‘no’. Blogosphere wants to know. Why vote ‘no’? Given that you’re vetting this, given that you have a choice … You can either say ‘Yea I think that was a good use’ or not. Why vote ‘no’?

DOWD: “I have bills. I have bills but I don’t bring them to the public to pay. I have an attorney’s bill. And we’ll see. Maybe it will be ruled that [The Four] were in fact officials, and that they were doing this in their official capacity. And that they have a right to ask for public money.”

CHAR: “Motznik keeps saying The Four should just pay it out of their own council budgets because that’s what he always does. If that’s the case, whether it gets paid from the general fund or out of their departmental budget, it’s still city money. It’s still not a personal bill and therefore it’s not a personal gain and therefore it has nothing to do with conflict of interest.”

DOWD: “I’m not sure that would be right either. So the question is ultimately … Did they have authority to file as council members and call this an official action of council and therefore ask for city money to pay for the action? The question ultimately rests … Is this a bill the council is obligated to pay because it’s a public city bill.”

Patrick pointed out that it takes more than just calling himself ‘Councilman Dowd’ to make a private act something more than a private act. If he invoked his title of ‘Councilman’ while mowing the lawn, for instance, it wouldn’t make it an action of council. Official acts of council only come about when there is a quorum of that body, when the quorum says ‘Present’, and then proceeds with a majority vote on a particular issue.

BRAM: “Do you doubt they were doing it in good faith? Seeing themselves as doing it in their official capacity?”

DOWD: “There’s no question that they were doing it in good faith. I have no doubt about that.”

Dowd went on to say he knew he was right to file as a private citizen. He didn’t want to be accused of using public funds in the wrong way. In his gut, he felt it was not right to use taxpayer money to litigate something against the city where he was a public official. So keeping a clear divide between public and private was paramount.

BRAM: “So the investigation didn’t happen. Which you view as a good thing. But are you glad that we had the post-agenda? Was that a good thing to do?”

DOWD: “Oh yea, sure. Post agendas are different from an investigation. But I mean it did feel a little prosecutorial.”

BRAM: “There was a polarity before you came to council. And you sorta got sucked into it, like you may now be one of the poles all of a sudden …”

DOWD: “No, I’m not a pole. I’m in the middle. Last week the people on this side saw me as a problem. This week it’s the people on that side. And that’s okay. Because that’s called being in the middle. That’s called the politics of the middle.”

BRAM: “[At the post-agenda], you delivered a little preamble in which you said ‘It feels like some of us have been acting like we’re television lawyers.’ Was that necessary? Was that appropriate?”

DOWD: “This is where I think this issue of my being an elitist comes in. My frustration with that meeting was that we weren’t on task. Doug Shields went into that meeting trying to establish a transcript, a record. So that, as he told me, when we get to the investigation and we have the prosecutors here, we have the record. That’s actually not how I saw the function of the meeting. We weren’t on any target other than ranting and raving about what we all thought was right or wrong. Myself included.”

BRAM: “I didn’t read it that way. I thought there were some digressions, I’ll grant you that.”

DOWD: “But when one of my colleagues throws a definition of a sign to someone across the table and says, ‘Point. Tell me what a sign is.’ That’s not how this works. That’s not how it should work.”

CHAR: “But it’s certainly not how it should work when city employees come in with a very unbelievable, hairsplitting [definition that] a sign is not a sign. At that point I wanted someone to throw something back at a lawyer who was not even remotely trying to provide a service to the councilmen he was supposed to represent.”

DOWD: “I don’t think that my job as a councilman is to adjudicate the definition of a sign. In fact I’m pretty darned sure that that’s not in the powers of council. I also don’t think it’s in the powers of council to adjudicate what is and is not permitted. It is our responsibility to write the laws, to hold the administration accountable. And you can argue this is a point of accountability …. I don’t deny that. But it was so obvious and clear that council thought, and I think that it still thinks, that what happened was wrong.”

“Quite honestly, I also worried about the image of the government to the public. Order is just as important in this case. If we’re going to be good leaders, we need to know how to resolve problems. Standing in a meeting, in a community meeting, or any kind of meeting, screaming and yelling is not how you resolve something. You take it to the right place, get it resolved. I think our responsibility is to take questions, to dispose of them as efficiently and effectively as possible and move on to the next one.”

CHAR: “Without emotion. Is that what you’re saying?”

DOWD: “Well, without drama at least. There’s gonna be emotion. After the last legislative meeting I actually sort of made a promise to myself about how I’m going to behave. I’m going to behave differently in total, completely. Because here’s the thing …. If we spend my whole first year on council doing this sign thing, I’m gonna quit.”

Dowd pointed to a host of critical issues facing the city: Shootings, school closings, crumbling infrastructure. These were all way more important than the sign.

CHAR: “But this not just about the sign. It may seem like a little pimple. But underneath is a huge iceberg of ugliness. It’s part of how and why development does get done in this town. Part of how and why we’re in debt. Part of why nothing ever goes the way it’s supposed to. Part of the reason Pat Ford told you ‘My money your money, what’s the difference?’”

DOWD: “I love that story. There’s a lot to say here. On the [Pat Ford URA] UDAG question, my bigger issue was it is city money. And there’s an unwritten behavior pattern that’s been going on for years that it just sits in the URA and they’ve been using the spin-off money and I think that’s a good thing. It’s sorta like a little trust fund and they’ve been using it for development in the city. I wouldn’t say that it’s been illegal … the way they use the money. But to transfer it over like it was about to be…. It was a problem. Although I think that when they looked at it, they found a different answer.”

“My concern is that we think about what we’re doing with our resources. Why would we take money that we’re using for economic development and use it to pave potholes?”

CHAR: “And why are we in essence bankrupt? We’re bankrupt because year after year, decade after decade, those with the juice and the grease get the big hunks of money. Like Lot 6 that’s gonna get sold to the Steelers for nothing. It’s part of the whole. Local government is not abiding by its own laws. Not just in one section, but rampantly. I think that is why the sign issue has elicited such extreme emotions in people.”

DOWD: “Let me be clear. I knew from the very beginning when I filed the appeal that something would come out of this. There certainly was some issue with the permit. I understood that. But again, my colleagues at the beginning, at least as far as I understood it, didn’t want anything to do with that process. And the only way these things can be adjudicated in the right way is when they end up in court. Because that’s where the people with the juice … the judge … makes a decision. And nobody, nobody crosses that line.”

Patrick was then asked his opinion of George Specter and if he thought council needed its own lawyer.

DOWD: “I think council should have a solicitor to the extent that the selection of that solicitor is clear and the rules of engagement for the use of that solicitor are clear. But it really should be on a need basis. To have no attorney is a problem, I agree with that.”

“When you have five bad pitchers, do you hire a sixth pitcher or do you fire one and put in another? Ultimately, the problems that you have with a solicitor that works for both the mayor and the council …Those same exact problems will emerge between the majority and minority of council. You have the same exact issues.”

We argued that there still seemed to be an inherent conflict of interest to have just one attorney representing two different branches of the government. Especially since they were supposed to act as a check and balance to each other.

DOWD: “I don’t think [sharing a lawyer] is a bad idea. There’s a tension there and I actually think that tension is good. The tension is generally good if it’s at a certain point. It can become too much and then you’ll have problems. And I think that’s where we are.”

“You now have a solicitor who serves the mayor and the council and there are problems. People basically feel that the solicitor is too close to the mayor’s side of the line. Okay, great. Can you imagine if we had a contracted solicitor who worked only for the council? Nine members. And there was no clarity about who got in line first and how business was dealt with? And then in addition we all called the solicitor? Can you imagine the bill?

“Now you have the solicitor in the middle and you have the majority and the minority. Do you see a different ball game [than the one now with the mayor]? No. by hiring [a council] solicitor, you’re just recreating the same problem only for the council. And you’re pitting council against council now. We’ve not solved the problem.”

Dowd said he had a couple of ideas on how to solve that problem, and further elaborated that if he were mayor, he’d whittle down the law department. He’d have a strong, solid group of “generalists”. When the need arose for legal advice on specifics (labor contracts, zoning, etc) he would outsource to specialists.

DOWD: “The real issue is the solicitor’s office. That’s where the issue is. Everybody has an issue with the solicitor … then let’s deal with that. Don’t create a whole new office.”

BRAM: “You have opened my eyes that there are other problems with a council solicitor. At the same time, the body of council needs to be able to assert its own …”

DOWD: “I’m clear. I’m with you. Got it. Totally agree with you. And I think we need legal advice.”

BRAM: “On a case by case basis? Does it need to be debated anew each time?

DOWD: “At least at this point. For the moment. I think that we need some professional advice perhaps. I’m willing to go down that road. But not until it’s exactly laid out how this is going to work. And not until we’re all comfortable with the rules of engagement.”

“In the meeting where we were discussing [McGough’s fees], I was very upset. I saw things in a way that was different from my colleagues. First of all, I wasn’t prepared. I was told that we were not going to be debating it …that it was not going to be discussed. I was very upset and I think that my tone was absolutely wrong. I wouldn’t use that tone in a classroom and I shouldn’t use that tone at the table. So I’m gonna change that.”

“That doesn’t mean I’m not going to hit hard. I am gonna hit hard. But there are different ways of doing that. You have a different tone and a different approach. But it was my deep frustration …my colleagues knew that I was opposed to [paying the bill]. Nobody had worked to try to find resolution, and I’ve said before, I have ideas about how we can lay out these different pieces. They want me to be an ally but they’re refusing to say, ‘You know what, we’re gonna try to work with you.’”

“The polarity is not disappearing. And I know that. But I’m not gonna be part of the polarity. That’s the point. I’m just going to continue to stand and take my stands. But I’m also going to change my tone.”

BRAM: “Had they brought it to you beforehand, would you have voted [to pay the bill]?

DOWD: “That’s an interesting question. I don’t know the answer to that. Because I still don’t know whether I should have filed the appeal. I know that somebody should have. And I know that it should have been a citizen. And I would have preferred it would have been a citizen, not me. But, what am I gonna do?”

BRAM: “Before we run out of time…The second act of the post agenda, after you said that people [were acting] like attorneys on television, you basically started asking Pat Ford where he was on the night of January 22nd. I tried to follow [where you were going with that] …Would you be willing to share?

DOWD: “Pat Ford sat at the table with a set of binder-clipped pieces of paper and briefcases behind him. These were his datebooks. And he handed out to us samples of what were in some of his datebooks. So it comes around to Darlene and she says, ‘Could you tell us what’s in these conversations?’ Ford says, ‘Before you do that, you might want to consult with your legal council.’ As if there were something in there that was damning. And it reminded me of Joe McCarthy.”

“And so I said [to myself], well if it’s that juicy and if he has names ..... When someone says to me I’ve got the names but you might want to talk to your attorney first…. Well of course, what am I gonna do? Like what the hell do I care? I’m gonna go teach if I get fired. So sure. Tell me. Let’s go down that road. That sounds like fun to me.”

“It also seemed to me that Pat Ford thought that there might be some issues. When somebody carries around a binder-clipped set of [records] …I mean you look like you’re ready to be indicted and in case you are, you’ve got defense.”

BRAM: “The URA. What’s the status report on how they’re behaving over the past month, 6 weeks or so? Did you get your budget? Do you understand it? Are you getting things from them?”

DOWD: “Yea, certainly Don Kortland and Connie Eades have been extremely, exceedingly forthright with me. They’ve given me all sorts of information that I’ve asked for. And we’re working on this question of the UDAG money. We are finding a way to deal with that question. And I think when things settle down we’ll bring it forward and deal with it. But I feel like they’re focused on doing the right thing.”

“Bigger question is about the URA and what’s its role in the city. I think that we need to do an analysis of the URA. Lets look at all the money that they’ve provided for businesses in the city and look at the return. What’s the rate of return per dollar invested and let’s see where they’re doing the good work and let’s see where they can do better. And I’m confident if we did a real analysis of that … hired somebody to do that … That it would be a good thing.”

CHAR: “The rumor, the urban legend if you will, is that there are certain people in the know, who have connections, and they’re gonna get the URA money, they’re gonna get the choice interest-free loans, they’re gonna get the TIFFs, they’re gonna get everything. So how do you ever get to the bottom of all that?”

DOWD: “I think maybe if you did a study …”

CHAR: “But doesn’t that have to be part of the equation? I believe that’s part of the problem here. It’s not just that we’re making unwise, foolish, financial decisions because we’re not financially astute enough to figure out which is the better development opportunity. It may unfortunately be that we’re just corrupt enough to where the answer is always … He gets the money, they get the money, they get the opportunity.”

DOWD: “There’s a way to get at this analysis. I think there is a lot of what you’re suggesting … I haven’t denied that. Part of my platform was very simple … We’re gonna move from patronage to performance. And I think that’s sort of what this is about. And the way that you do that is you very coldly analyze. You very coldly look at the data. Qualitative and quantitative data. You look at it as coldly and calculatedly as possible. And you make that analysis.”

“I don’t think … I’ll be honest …I don’t think that you have to look that hard.”

CHAR: “No you don’t. But how do you pass that point? It’s gonna be very easy for you to point and say we did wrong here, we did wrong there, we need to do better. And then the next year comes round and we still didn’t learn to do better because the real reason is they’re still in somebody’s pocket. The people who are making the decisions have to understand that the old days are over. And there has to be some kind of repercussions for them if they keep handing out the money to the same people.”

DOWD: “Well there it is. There’s an election coming up. People can make choices.”

CHAR: “I know but … People in this town don’t care about anything unless it’s sports related.”

DOWD: “I disagree. I totally disagree. I ran a campaign where people cared. And Obama did too. Lots of people have. And it matters. I think that people care. I actually think … I believe actually… that we’re at a tipping point.”

And so our time was up. Councilman Patrick Dowd, the man in the middle, got up from his middle seat at our table and rushed off to pick up his kids from school. Bram and Char privately speculated as to how long they thought Patrick would be able to retain his middle ground. As it turned out, Dowd’s resolve would be tested sooner than either of us anticipated.

Bannergate
In the next few days, Bannergate would break out. The mayor would first infer that dastardly councilmen Peduto and Shields were to blame for preventing the seven-story Stanley Cup banners from flying high and proud Downtown. Then blame shifted to Dowd as an email from the mayor’s chief-of-staff surfaced, hinting Patrick was the spoiler because he had “issues” with the banners.

So did a lone Councilman Dowd actually kill our Stanley Cup banners? Patrick says no.

According to Dowd, mayoral Chief-of-Staff Yarone Zober called him at home about 8 PM on Friday, May 16th. Yarone explained the whole last-minute effort to legalize temporary Reebok Penguins banners Downtown and asked for Dowd’s support. Dowd says this was the first he had heard anything at all about this “issue”.

Zober stated that the Administration would be introducing legislation for council’s approval on Tuesday morning. Dowd asked and was told that the city law department proclaimed the whole thing to be quite kosher. In fact, Zober assured him the law department’s legal opinion would be accompanying Tuesday’s legislation.

“Good,” said Dowd. If all was as Zober portrayed, Dowd would have no problem and told Zober as much. But not having anything in writing before him, Patrick let Zober know his only “issue” (there’s that word again) was to make sure this would not set an unintended precedent. Could Zober make sure the law department’s opinion addressed the “issue” of precedent? Zober said yes and all was well with the world.

Until Tuesday morning, that is. That’s when Zober shot off a surprising email informing everyone the Administration was pulling the plug on the banners. The mayor held a press conference the next day blaming council. Fingers started furiously pointing in every direction possible. The latest political hot-potato got bounced all over town, ironically and erroneously (according to Patrick) landing in the last place anyone suspected ….The middle ground of Councilman Patrick Dowd’s lap.

Well. So much for tipping points. At least as they pertain to the Ravenstahl administration in the near (and probably not-so-near) future. We therefore wish Councilman Dowd all the best and godspeed as he treads his middle ground. He's gonna need it.

How-To Tips From A Lying Dirt Bag

2008-05-22T12:05:00.009-04:00

Tip #2: Never lose an opportunity to fabricate a lie out of thin air.
Tip #3: Never ever answer any question with a direct answer.

Example:
Pittsburgh Penguins’ stellar season has earned them a trip to the Stanley Cup finals. The team and Reebok float a plan to hang 40 x 85 ft temporary banners on Downtown skyscrapers to celebrate the championship event. But alas, while the idea is a spectacular one … There’s not enough time to have the banners produced. The team therefore decides to abandon the idea.

The Accusation:
Since the temporary banners are not to code, ask City Council to rescind a sign moratorium they passed to stop construction of the last Downtown (Lamar) sign you illegally approved. Not that these things are remotely related .... They are not. But it is a great opportunity to pull something you want out of thin air. Something you were previously denied.

When Council instead suggests alternative legislation which solves the Penguin banner problem, agree to draft the legislation yourself, knowing you will never do so. When the team cancels the idea because of lack of production time, neglect to tell council. Also neglect to send them the previously agreed-upon resolution that you were never going to send them anyway. You can then lie to the media, blaming council for failure to pass legislation they never received. But most importantly, you can neglect to mention the whole thing was moot since the team had abandoned the idea BEFORE council even got a chance to vote on the legislation you never sent them.

The Proper Dirt-Bag Replies (Listen to audio interview here):
Media: The city solicitor said you couldn’t [hang the signs] because of the Reebok logo. Is that true? Is it against the law to do it because of the Reebok logo?
Luke: "There were concerns surrounding the Reebok logo."
(Note: Luke knows existing code makes the banners illegal because his own solicitor told him so. Yet he fails to say so. He also fails to tell interviewer Fred Honsberger that the whole issue was moot because the Penguins cancelled the idea BEFORE council’s session.)

Media: Would this have just taken a council resolution, just for these temporary signs?
Luke: "I will only tell you that based on the actions council took a couple of weeks ago by passing a (Lamar sign) moratorium, I was not comfortable as the mayor, unilaterally saying this is something that needs to be done …… We gave council the opportunity to lift the (Lamar sign) moratorium, to build unanimous consensus, which I believe by the way could have been done on Tuesday if all nine council members were on board. But unfortunately while some members are very supportive, and perhaps even the majority of the nine-member body, we couldn’t get all nine to sign on and say this is something they want to do."
(Note: Luke was asked about a draft resolution for the Penguin banners, but he instead answers by referring to a Lamar-inspired sign moratorium, tricking Honsberger into thinking these are one and the same pieces of legislation. He also fails to tell Honsberger that even if all nine members had voted unanimously TUESDAY, approving anything and everything the mayor wanted, the banners would still not fly because the Penguins had cancelled the plan on the previous SATURDAY)

Media: So you’re saying a simple resolution would have resolved this problem very expeditiously?
Luke: "I think it would have been very helpful."
(Note: Helpful to whom and for what? The Penguins and their banners which had already been cancelled by the team? No, helpful to lift the Lamar sign moratorium, which was the impetus for this whole embarrassment in the first place.)

Bonus Points Awarded:
Too many to count. As long as the media takes this kid on his word …. which he as proven time and again is worth absolutely nothing …. Luke will continue to easily rack up the bonus points.

Homework Assignment:
Successfully draft a legal opinion which will allow Luke to receive free Stanley Cup tickets for his entire family and 20 of his closest friends. Free hotel, air fare and meals should also be included. Additionally find some way to prohibit at least four members of council from appealing this opinion, citing conflicts of interest and forfeiture of office as the only sanction.

** Completed homework assignments should be sent to Pittsburgh City Solicitor George Specter c/o the Mayor’s Office.

What Hillary REALLY Meant To Say ....

2008-05-17T09:32:00.003-04:00

"Okay ….. You wanna know the bottom line here? I'm better than Barack because I'm white and he's black. Can't you people see this? It's so obvious! True, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without carrying the key state of West Virginia. But the most important historical trend here is that no person from any party has ever landed in the White House without being WHITE! Don't you people get it?"

A spokesperson from Hillary's campaign later explained that Mrs. Clinton misspoke due to extreme fatigue and the shock of losing to an unknown, skinny black guy with big ears.

A spokesperson for the spokesperson from Hillary's campaign later explained that the spokesperson misspoke due to extreme fatigue and the shock of losing to a black guy with a terrorist-sounding name and a wife so cold and pissy even Bill hasn't hit on her yet.

And The Feud Escalates

2008-05-14T08:14:00.003-04:00

Are things really so out-of-control here in Pittsburgh? Yea, Lamar Advertising erected a multi-million dollar, 1200 sq ft LED sign in broad daylight, in the middle of Downtown, without permits, without approvals. And true, when caught, Lamar completely disregarded a (belated) mayoral directive to cease construction, instead speeding up the assembly in a brazen push to “beat the clock.” And yes, they additionally sued five city councilmen who filed appeals with the zoning board in an attempt to get a handle on the run-away situation. But is all of this really so horrible? So unusual?

As it turns out … no. (Read More)

Why?

2008-04-30T02:19:00.017-04:00

Why, oh why?

The Reverend Wright is not a stupid man.
Being an ex-Marine, the man must be in complete control of himself ….his words, his emotions, his facial expressions. If he does a little dance behind the moderator which elicits laughs and snickers from the crowd …. It must be a premeditated action rather than some sort of involuntary muscular tic.

Being an African-American senior citizen, he undoubtedly has endured a brand of in-your-face racism most younger Blacks are not familiar with. He knows all the hot-buttons which raise hackles among the white racists still among us. Arrogant prancing and preening is one such “hot-button”. Wild tales of government-introduced HIV to exterminate its black citizens is another. Wright the performer and provocateur eagerly and gleefully used these and other constructs as he entertained the nation with his Press Club spectacle so as to purposefully stir all the ugly emotions he could.

Being a biblical scholar, the Reverend certainly knows who Judas was and how the ‘kiss of death’ can just as easily be delivered through the spoken word as a peck on the cheek in the Garden of Gethsemane. Telling the world on national television that Obama, like all politicians, will say whatever he has to say to get elected certainly qualifies as death kiss one. Offering his caricature-self up as a vice-presidential running mate was death kiss two. And unfortunately what followed was death kiss three, four, five ……

So …. Why? Why would a man who has spent the better part of his entire life seeking respect, equality and “liberation” for “his people” attempt to politically assassinate the first black American within spitting distance of the Presidency? Doesn’t he realize a ‘President Barack Obama’ would definitively and forever close a major chapter in the book of ugly race relations in this country? Not that it would herald a day where no racism existed at all. That day, unfortunately, will never come so long as humans are the imperfect beings that they are.

But doesn’t the good Reverend understand the immense, historic turning-point that is finally within reach?

God help us and God help poor, dear Barack Obama ….. because the good Reverend does understand. He understands, he sets out to destroy Obama anyway, so the answer is the good Reverend must not be ready for the present ugly chapter to close.

Whether white America has not atoned sufficiently enough for Wright’s personal satisfaction…… Or whether Wright fears a “liberated” flock will have less need for his prominent leadership…… Or whether he fears prominent finances attached to prominent leadership might dwindle as well …… Reverend Jeremiah Wright is plainly not ready for the present ugly chapter of racism in this country to close.

He’s not the first black man to find benefit in the continued suffering and subjugation of his black brothers and sisters. He won’t be the last. But silly me …. I didn’t think it would be Obama’s own pastor who’d be the one to do him in. I thought it would be one of us racist Whites instead.

Well, Mr. Obama still has my support. For whatever small good that will do.

Luke's Legacy

2008-04-25T15:45:00.008-04:00

The youngest, coolest, hippest, freshest mayor of Pittsburgh seems to be doing a bang-up job of crafting his legacy. “Luke the Unaware” keeps piling up a long list of that which has escaped his attention. Even a partial list of his "body of work" is quite impressive. In no particular order:

1) Unaware the Pirates were getting a sweetheart deal for a purchase of SA-owned riverside land.
2) Unaware the two Oregon sign advertisers having dinner with his Development Czar were the same two Oregon sign guys who got sign permits Downtown where signs were prohibited…..And were the same two Oregon sign guys who contributed $25,000 to his mayoral campaign.
3) Unaware his friend and Development Czar took gifts from another friend and sign company ad executive. Said sign company’s Downtown LED billboard was then approved without proper legal process.
4) Unaware his press secretary represented him to the world as “Pittsburgh’s Britney Spears.”
5) Unaware he should have attended a casino hearing when neighborhood invitations were sent out bearing his name. He went to a Red Sox game instead.
6) Unaware promoted city policemen had domestic abuse records.
7) Unaware his no-show status at a public hearing regarding the promoted domestic-abuse policemen might just piss people off tremendously. Especially women. He chose to go golfing instead.
8) Unaware that the tricked-out, black, police SUV he drove to a Toby Keith concert was in fact a Homeland Security vehicle that he was not supposed to be driving.
9) Unaware threatening city council members is a bad, if not stupid, if not illegal thing.
10) Unaware that city council is the legislative branch of our local government, and as such, has the charge of drafting legislation.
11) Unaware that government entities should have approved budgets in place before they start spending money.
12) Unaware the Pittsburgh Housing Authority was spending money on clothing, chocolates, lap top computers, concerts and other entertainment instead of housing basics.
13) Unaware that getting out of Act 47 Distressed City status before we are financially stable could be a very bad thing.
14) Unaware that promising free college to city students without having all the needed money in place to make good on that Promise might be a disappointing if not a very bad thing.
15) Unaware he is not able to promise tax breaks to UPMC in exchange for their contribution to the free-college fund above.
16) Unaware that accepting a $9000 golf-outing, courtesy of the same UPMC referenced above, might not look too good. Unaware that initially lying about it might look even worse.
17) Unaware he was making an embarrassing fool of himself by crashing a Tiger Woods golf outing after he had been officially not invited.
18) Unaware he’s likely to be “cuffed and detained” whenever he pushes and bad-mouths a cop at a Steeler game.
19) Unaware it might look really bad to jet off for an evening of partying in New York with the man who had just been handed $290 million in taxpayer money.
20) Unaware his drunken NYC party night (above) would cause him to miss his next-morning plane home, causing him to miss yet another neighborhood development meeting, would piss off yet another segment of the city who were beginning to fear he might not be too serious about his job of mayor.
21) Unaware that demoting a police commander after she blew the whistle on someone in his own administration might cause the city to be sued, having to pay hefty judgments and fines.
22) Unaware taking credit for ideas and accomplishments not his own might make him look like a lazy cheater.
23) Unaware so many of our city employees were felons and that background checks were not being done.
24) Unaware city workers were building a boat dock on the North Shore without proper permits or clearing the dock with the Army Corps of Engineers.
25) Unaware the city should immediately remove lead from a children's playground. Thought the city should wait until the warm weather play season was over so “they wouldn’t be out there tossing around the dirt while there were kids around.”
26) Unaware it's not cool for a staffer to hack into KDKA’s online poll, skewing poll results in the mayor’s favor.
27) Unaware that a “fair bidding process” is not one where you give companies only 3 weeks to respond, over the Christmas holiday, and then luckily pick a firm owned by the District Attorney’s uncle.

What Makes Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Is What Makes Pittsburgh Great

2008-04-19T11:05:00.006-04:00

Photo: Runners in Pittsburgh’s annual ‘Great Race’

I sell real estate for a living. I’m out there every day of the week, interacting with people from all walks of life, all ages, all races, all demographics. My stomping grounds are not confined to the city center. I’m all over the county on a regular basis and I even dip into neighboring counties from time to time.

When I deal with newcomers to Pittsburgh, I’m forced to look at our city anew through their eyes. Forced to realize that in this day and age all books are judged by their covers and ours sometimes doesn’t make the best first impression. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our highway system is nearly non-existent so commuting anywhere is a nightmare. There’s far too much litter on our streets and hillsides. But worst of all, we have an eerie fashion/trendiness time warp at play in our fair city. We’re a minimum of 10 years behind the times on any fad that’s gripped the rest of the nation and we’re wholly unapologetic for the lag.

So when newcomers inevitably ask me why I like it here so much ….. Why I continue to stay instead of moving to LA where I could “make a killing” on real estate … I’m sometimes hard pressed to adequately express, in three words or less, the real inner-beauty that makes Pittsburgh Pittsburgh. If they only have time for the three-word answer, my reply is “It’s the people.” If they can spare a little longer than that, I tell them the story of Mr. Science.

When I first met Mr. Science, he introduced himself as a scientist and artist. He was a 50-something white guy and the “artist” part was obvious …. His wonderful metal sculptures graced the inside and outside of his very modest, unassuming-isn’t-the-half-of-it, 2-bedroom Ross Township bungalow which was now up for sale. But as I started to peel back the layers of Mr. Science, the story just got better and better.

Yes, he was a PhD, held a patent for the determination of protein function, was published in the field of tissue engineering and had just started up a small bio-tech company in Harmar.

“Oh, so that’s why you’re selling,” I chimed in. “Are you planning to live closer to your new company? Fox Chapel maybe?” Fox Chapel is the borough right next to Harmar. Fox Chapel also has the highest median home price in the area, is a prestigious address filled with prestigious homes owned by prestigious people like Theresa Heinz Kerry.

“Oh … yea, living closer to work would be better,” Mr. Science replied. “And, yea, my new place is closer … But I’m not in Fox Chapel. I just bought a small foreclosure over on Chicago St. in Pittsburgh that I’m going to fix up.”

The foreclosure on Chicago St, right off of Mt. Pleasant Rd.???!!! (Hit me with a ton of bricks) I was coincidentally very familiar with this home as I had just been asked my opinion on its worth. It was in very bad condition and its location was far from prime. You see, access to Chicago St is difficult. To get there, one must travel through the Northview Heights public housing project which has gated entrances manned by armed security guards. Not what we in the real estate world would refer to as a “good selling point”.

Mr. Science knew how surprising this choice was. He’d probably already explained himself to a dozen or so family members and friends and so he automatically went about the tiresome task of explaining himself one more time to me.

“You see,” he continued, “I’ve been working with the kids over there at Northview for years now. Every time I show up they all run up to me. They call me ‘Mr. Science’ and they ask me lots of questions or they want me to help them fix their bikes. Stuff like that. They’re really a great bunch of kids and I’ve actually come to love them. I spend all of my off-time over there anyway …. So I figured why not just live there? The Chicago house is perfect because I’ll be right next door to all those kids and I can be with them all the time as a neighbor.”

I didn’t know what to say or even where to begin. I paused and finally said, “Thank you. On many, many levels …Thank you.”

I put out my hand in an attempt to shake his but he stepped back saying, “Oh, no. Please. Don’t thank me. I get more from those kids than I give. And besides, at my age you come to realize that you’ve got to give back or there is no point to living. If I can’t give something back, each and every day, then I just don’t want to be here anymore.”

So there it is, people. There is Pittsburgh. The embodiment of Pittsburgh as found in one Mr. Science. An unassuming 50-something artist/scientist who works hard every day, has not been seduced or sidetracked by wealth or power or the quest for it, does not wear or own the latest name-brand in anything but rather creates his own objets d’art, lives and breathes and thinks outside of the box and considers death to be the day he can no longer give back.

That’s my town. That’s my Pittsburgh. That’s why I stay.

Pat Ford Fights Back

2008-04-14T11:51:00.012-04:00

Photo: The mayor's right-hand-man, Yaronne Zober

KDKA’s Marty Griffin updated us this morning on the latest developments in the Lamar sign controversy. Marty spoke with supposedly-hibernating Development Czar Pat Ford who predictably lashed out saying:

o He is going to defend himself vigorously in the media. He’s already setting up many interviews with many outlets.

o He was forced out, he did not leave voluntarily. He did nothing wrong and wants his job back.

o He was SET UP (yes, that’s the phrase that was used) for this because he had gone to the District Attorney to spill the beans regarding abuses at the Housing Authority.

And this last point is my personal favorite:

o He says Yaronne Zober is “freezing him out.” Additionally, Ravenstahl won’t even return his calls.

No …. No matter how much any or all of the parties may want to put a lid on this thing right now ….. its going to continue to spread because Mr & Mrs Our Hero are apparently not going quietly.

UPDATE:

Post-Gazette: Pat Ford says he was smeared and threatened. Threatened by Bram of the Pittsburgh Comet? The Burgh Report says its a bunch of hooey.

Thank You

2008-04-12T08:26:00.003-04:00

One battle behind you, God knows how many more lie ahead. But together you can do it.

Yes, it would be nice if our mayor was competent and also wished to move our city out of the smoke-filled backrooms of the past. It would be such a blessing if he were something other than a Jersey barrier to our city’s success. But he isn’t and he doesn’t.

Unfortunately, in order for Pittsburgh to cross the finish line into the 21st Century, you’re going to have to drag Mayor Luke, kicking and screaming, across that finish line too. Sure, he’ll be there at every turn to claim ownership of the successes you forge. Or to defiantly pout ‘You can’t make me do it, you’re not the boss of me!’ as he does the very thing he says you can’t make him do.

But you’re going to have to ignore the infuriating antics of a self-indulgent child-mayor. You’re going to have to discount the threats hurled at you from his Yinzer posse. Instead, you must believe in the power of a mission grounded in decency. Always a thankless job, I know, but one it seems you all have eagerly taken on.

Many heartfelt thanks to each of you.

KDKA: http://kdka.com/video/?id=40172@kdka.dayport.com
PG: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08103/872691-53.stm
Trib: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_562029.html

Lamar Advertising to City Council: "Screw You"

2008-04-10T14:14:00.009-04:00

Photo: From right to left, soon-to-be-ex Development Czar Pat Ford and his wife and ex-Mayoral Press Secretary Alecia Sirk enjoying a night out with yet another Lamar Advertising friend Merry Skotnicki (standing next to Sirk) at the Pittsburgh Film Office’s “Blacktie Pittsburgh” event.

Lamar Advertising has refused to stop construction of a Downtown 1200 sq ft electronic billboard even though its permit for construction has been appealed by members of City Council. City code says an appeal “shall automatically stay all actions” but Lamar has in essence said ‘Too bad. Tough luck. We’ve bought and paid for our place in this city and we’re not giving it up.”

City Council contends that Lamar’s sign is illegal because Lamar completely circumvented the legal zoning process, including ignoring a requirement for city council’s approval. (Council found out about the sign by reading about it in the newspaper!)

Lamar contends they got permission from the Ravenstahl administration and that’s all they need. Did Mayor Ravenstahl’s Development Czar, Pat Ford, have the authority to just wave his zoning wand and permit the sign? The same Pat Ford who has accepted gifts from a top Lamar executive and has subsequently taken a leave of absence while an ethics investigation ensues? Apparently the Ravenstahl administration thinks so.

See, back in 2003 Pat Ford negotiated a “swap” deal with Lamar whereby they’d be “automatically” allowed one LED sign, wherever they wanted, for every six standard signs they removed. Pittsburgh’s city solicitor opined at the time that the swap scheme was illegal because it was not codified anywhere in city law. Pat Ford and then-Mayor Murphy decided to completely ignore the law and the city solicitor’s opinion and they gave Lamar the go-ahead to make some swaps anyway.

Now fast forward to 2008: The Swap Scheme has still not been codified by law. But Pat Ford and current Mayor Luke Ravenstahl reason that the illegal practices started in 2003 should now be considered as precedent setting. Yes, that’s right. The mayor, Ford and Lamar broke the law back in 2003, were never punished for breaking the law in 2003, so they now figure they’ve set precedent to “legally” break the law in 2008!

Wow. A very fresh, progressive Luke-like approach to governance. If you break a law and get away with it, especially if you break a law repeatedly and get away with it……you’ve now set precedent to make the illegal legal! Why waste time with all that legislative process and mumbo-jumbo? Just do it the quick and easy precedent-setting way!

Well, City Council has not taken kindly to this new, progressive approach to lawmaking which not only completely usurps council’s power and authority, but also their very reason for being. No, Pittsburgh City Council kinda thinks things should be done the old-fashioned way.

Unfortunately the helter-skelter runaway train called the Lamar-Ford-Ravenstahl Development Express has already left the station with a decent head start. If council wants to recover their rightful place in city governance…… according to Lamar attorney Jonathan Kamin “they’re going to have to go to the Court of Common Pleas and they’re going to have to post bond.”

Why so? Because Lamar says so, that’s why. And Lamar has already *paid* their dues in this town so they feel it is they who have the say-so.

Is this way beyond preposterous, council? Even for Pittsburgh, isn’t this way beyond the pale?

Let’s kick some ass, council. Let’s kick some ass and let’s enjoy ourselves in the process.

Motznik Tries to Scramble Back Off Ledge, Council Blocks His Way

2008-04-02T13:01:00.007-04:00

There was a quiet end to one of the latest skirmishes within city council today. Last week Councilman Jim Motznik proposed silly legislation clearly intended as payback to council for their passage of separate legislation which pissed off our Boy Mayor. Motznik, a staunch mayoral ally, introduced two punitive bills: One would gut council’s own administrative budgets, seriously jeopardizing their ability to operate. The other sought to confiscate a purported “slush fund” council maintains, redirecting that money to public safety. Both of these bills were specious at best.

Stunts like this one are commonplace in Jim Motznik’s world. He lives, he breathes, he alternates between stupid, loud, embarrassing outbursts and apologizing for the same. Mr. Hyde-Motznik launches rabid attacks against his political foes, clomps about in sewer boots, and lobbies for a dying man’s job even while the man lies dying. Dr. Jekyll-Motznik comes around afterward, making apologies, trying to mop up the mess so that there’s a nice clean slate for Hyde-Motznik’s next interlude. Unchanging, however, are both Motzniks' support of the Party Machine and its current Cog-in-Chief, Mayor Ravenstahl.

So it was no surprise to anyone when Dr. Jekyll-Motznik approached council today with a measured tone and a calm demeanor requesting that his own silly, payback legislation be tabled. Stunning, however, was that a council majority refused him his retreat. They voted 6-2 to force him to stand out on the ledge of his own making. When his stupid bill to gut council’s own budget came up for an official vote (he being the official sponsor), he was publically reprimanded by his peers, 6-2, as they voted it down.

Biggest shock of the day? Councilwoman Darlene Harris was one of the six majority ‘no’ votes. ( Burgess, Dowd, Harris, Kraus, Peduto, Shields voted ‘no.’ Deasy and Motznik voted ‘yes.’ Payne was MIA)

Harris has previously stood firm with Motznik and the mayor on most every occasion that the Pist-Gazette can recall. So her “defection” today to the “other” side, however temporary or issue-specific, could signal a political power shift of titanic proportions. True, the existing five-vote majority block is already a concern to the mayor. But adding another vote, for a total of six, is the Ravenstahl nightmare scenario as it takes six votes to override his veto.

(Wonder if Ravenstahl now plans to veto council's take-home car reduction legislation..... ??)

If the Pist-Gazette were forced to guess, we’d say Harris has not switched teams though we do believe she has cancelled her membership with Team Ravenstahl. Hopefully Harris has come to value the wisdom of standing by one’s own opinions, making one's own decisions formed by adherence to one’s own values and beliefs. Going out on our own ledge here and because Harris appears to be sane and honorable, we think this is exactly what she has decided to do.

And what of the vote on the second silly Motznik bill? The bill which would redirect a purported council slush fund? It came down exactly the same way with Harris being the sixth vote.

Tictoc, tictoc, tictoc. That's the sound of Ravenstahl's clock running out.

Council Prez Doug Shields Asks For Your Help

2008-04-01T11:45:00.012-04:00

** UPDATE FROM DOUG SHIELDS: Bill was voted down, 125 to 78. **

The Pist-Gazette is staunchly against any “feel-good” legislation by any governmental body on any topic. Enacting laws which cannot be enforced ….. or worse, enacting laws which, when enforced, do nothing to address the situation said laws were specifically drafted to address …..is an aggravating, weaselly practice.

Amendment A0617 to (House Bill) H.B. 1845 is NOT such a piece of weaselly legislation. Simply put, this bill addresses the issue of guns sold by straw men which get into the hands of criminals who should not have them.

The scheme occurs when someone without a record (straw man) legally (background checks done) buys guns from a bona-fide gun dealer. The straw man then turns around and illegally (no background checks, no license to sell) sells these guns to criminals who could not purchase the gun otherwise. If a crime is committed with one of these illegally sold guns, and the gun is traced back to the straw man, he simply claims he did not commit the crime and has no knowledge of the crime because the gun was “stolen”.

A0617 to H.B.1845 puts an end to this dangerous nonsense. It requires every gun owner to report stolen guns to the police within 3 days of the theft. Failure to report the theft will be a crime in and of itself. So, Mr. Straw Man’s choices will be drastically narrowed. He can either stop selling guns illegally, or he himself will start paying for the crimes committed with the guns he has illegally sold.

Pretty straight-forward and very common sense. Please read what Doug has to say and PLEASE contact the state representatives Doug lists below NOW. Time is short:

We need the blogging community’s help! The Council of the City of Pittsburgh believes mandatory reporting of lost or stolen handguns to the police is a common sense reform whose time has come in Pennsylvania.

Law enforcement and police across Pennsylvania strongly support a lost or stolen handgun reporting law as a key tool to help police crack down on straw buyers of illegal handguns.

The bill in question is an amendment to HB1845, and the amendment is sponsored by Rep. David Levdansky, D-Allegheny County. It simply, requires people who buy a handgun to report the handgun if lost or stolen to the police within three days of discovering the loss or theft. Violating this law brings penalties ranging from a summary offense for a first violation to a felony for repeat violators.

It will be voted on Monday,March 31, 2008 in the House.Opponents in the House, led by the NRA, are raising a host of procedural objections.

We need Allegheny County residents, to call their local state representatives and urge them to do the following when the House returns next week:
Vote YES on the Levdansky Amendment (A0617 to H.B. 1845) This amendment is the lost or stolen handgun reporting law at issue.

Phone calls to House members NOW can absolutely make a difference.

DEMOCRATS
** Rep. Sean Ramaley, Leaning yes. D-16th, Allegheny/Beaver. 724-266-7774.

** Don Walko, D-20th. Undecided. PLEASE CALL. 412-321-5523

** Lisa Bennington, D-21st. Leaning yes. Call anyway. 412-361-2040.

** Joe Preston, D-24th. Yes. Call anyway.

** Joe Markosek, D-25th. Allegheny/Westmoreland. Undecided. "Interested but noncommittal." 412-856-8284.

** Tom Petrone, D-27th. Leaning yes. Give a quick call. 412-928-9514

** Frank Dermody, D-33rd. Leaning No. PLEASE CALL. 724-274-4770.

** Marc Gergely, D-35th. Undecided/leaning No. 412-754-3500.

** Harry Readshaw, D-36th. Undecided/Leaning No. PLEASE CALL 412-881-4208

** Bill Kortz, D-38th. Leaning No. "Opposes gun control." 412-466-1940.

** Dave Levdansky, D-39th. Yes. Rep. Levdansky is the prime sponsor of the Amendment. Call him and thank him for his leadership on this important issue. 412-384-2258

** Matt Smith, D-42nd. Undecided. 412-571-2169.

** Nick Kotik, D-45th. Leaning Yes. Please call. 412-264-4260.

** Jesse White, D-46th. Alleghny/Beaver/Washington. Undecided. 724-746-3677

** John Pallone, D-54th. Allghny/Armstrong/Westmoreland. Undecided. 724-339-1990

REPUBLICANS
** Mike Turzai, R-28th. Undecided/Leaning No. PLEASE CALL 412-369-2230

** Randy Vulakovich, R-30th. Undecided. 412-487-6600

** John Maher, R-40th. Leaning Yes. CALL HIM. 412-831-8080

** Mark Mustio, R-44th. Undecided. 412-262-3780

Thank you,

Douglas Shields
City Council President, City of Pittsburgh

More “Not A” Legal Opinions From The City

2008-04-01T05:59:00.008-04:00

Drawing: Majestic Star Casino and garage

Ooooooh …….. So close, yet …

On Friday, the City and Don Barden filed a legal brief stating that the proposed Majestic Star Casino’s garage is not a “structure”, but rather it is a “use”.

Dang! And here Ms. Pist thought they’d take her suggestion and claim the garage was not a garage, but instead a “bridge of cutting-edge design” which diverts traffic from one end of the casino property to the other.

In other casino news ..... State legislators want to change PA slots laws so as to remove our "welcome mat" for organized crime.

In other on-going, scandal-related administration news ….. We’ve had political potholes, political plowing, and now we have political parking.

Marriage vs Civil Unions: Let’s Get Our Definitions Straight

2008-03-31T16:20:00.005-04:00

I’ve been dreading this blog post. Not because the topic is not important. Not because I lack the necessary passion. My dread is rooted in the fact that defending mind-numbingly obvious positions, year after year after year after year, is an extremely difficult thing to do.

How does one argue with fervor that the sky is blue? How does one enter into such an odd, silly debate not just once, but many times over many years, and not get sick-to-death over the stupidity of the situation?

These were the thoughts I pondered as I prepared to write today.

I forced myself to go back to the argument’s premise for the thousandth time: Gays should not be allowed to marry. To do so would destroy the institution of marriage, the family unit, and the decency and order of our society as a whole.

As I tried to look freshly at an assertion I believed to be infuriatingly stale not to mention downright ignorant …something did crystallize. Something that both the heteros and homos of our species may not want to hear:

Whether you’re straight or gay, marriage as an institution does not exist for you as an individual. It is not there as a societal value judgment of your worth or your lifestyle. It is not there as public congratulation/recognition of the soul mate you’ve found.

Why then does marriage exist? Contrary to the beliefs of the self-focused, self-centered, ever increasing self-conscious world we live in, the institution of marriage exists solely to protect the emotional, spiritual, financial and developmental welfare of the children of such unions. People who marry have promised to be worthy vanguards of all our futures by properly raising the children in their care together, until death do they part. This is the crux of their sacred vow whether they realize it or not. Together means no divorce for any reason short of life or limb, no “irreconcilable differences”, no “growing apart.”

I don’t mean to imply that two parents are always needed for successful childrearing. If a child has only known but one parent who is good and loving …. Odds are that child will thrive. But once a child has bonded with two parents of any gender, permanent emotional harm is done when one parent leaves. The child always thinks he has been abandoned no matter how often the missing parent “visits”, no matter how nice the new mommy/daddy turns out to be. Worse, the child comes to believe nothing is sacred and permanent …. not even family. So more often than not, the child will spend the rest of his life trying to make up for the perceived abandonment. He will endlessly seek reassurance, security and confirmation of his self-worth from others. His own marriage will likely end in divorce, perpetuating similar damage to any children he may have. And so it continues.

No, the sanctity of marriage and the protection of family does not depend on the gender of those who have promised to do so. Rather, it depends on our collective acknowledgement as to the scope of the promise, the realization of who is making the promise to whom, and whether or not the promise is kept.

For those of us who do not wish to share the awesome responsibility of raising children with another ….. There is single-parent adoption. A vocation just as admirable, just as worthy as the two-parent kind. Maybe even more so.

For those who don’t want children at all (and there is no crime in that) but who do wish the responsibility that comes with bonding their own lives, dreams, aspirations and finances to those of another adult, regardless of the gender of that adult ….. There are civil unions. Civil unions that can be civilly dissolved without harming society’s children, who as it turns out are society’s future.

These are the definitions and distinctions which I submit are logical and equitable, which strengthen our institutions and protects whatever goodness our society possesses. And for the 4 millionth time …… None of it has anything to do with black/white, gay/straight, Democrat/Republican, fat/skinny.

Oh how I wish this were the last time I’d ever have to utter these words.....

City Council Launches Multi-Pronged Attack, Mayor Takes Another Hit

2008-03-29T22:01:00.006-04:00

City Councilman Patrick Dowd will introduce legislation on Tuesday to give council and the city controller seats on the city’s pension fund board. And that’s just the start of things to come. Seems there are other boards with either no council representation or where a council member was chosen by the mayor instead of council’s president. Dowd thinks a change is in order.

“Historically, for some number of years, the powers of council have sort of atrophied. Council has not necessarily exercised its authority the way it should in order to maintain the proper checks and balances in the system,” said Mr. Dowd.

Boy, Mayor Lukie is going to be pissed. Who knows who he’ll threaten this time.

The all-out war which has erupted between council and the mayor came on quickly. In fact it was just Valentine’s Day when all parties came together, kissed and hugged, traded compliments and literally signed a peace pact. The document they signed was spearheaded by newly-elected Dowd who thought it might be a good idea to start off the new session with a written list of common goals and agendas, a pledge to work together and play nice.

I guess you can’t blame Dowd for trying, even though we in the blogosphere did so harshly and often. We told him his olive branch was a waste of time. We harped that the mayor and his cronies were a scourge upon the land, not to be trusted. But in retrospect, I suppose having the record show council did make an effort was not such a bad move after all.

As it turned out, the fragile truce was shorter-lived than even the cynical blogosphere prophesized. Its first crack appeared on Feb 15th, only one day after its signing. Heavy snows blanketed the area and Councilman Bruce Kraus found himself and his district to be the object of childish political payback. Kraus had just won his council seat from mayoral buddy Jeff Koch. The mayor had taken pity on jobless Koch and hired him as Super-Duper Street Cleaning & Snow Plowing Consultant Guy. When the big snow hit, Koch coincidentally redirected salt/plow trucks away from Kraus’ district and over to areas where his own friends lived.

Then, only 3 days later, council learned the mayor and URA Development Czar Pat Ford had silently approved a 1200 sq ft LED billboard for a Downtown garage, completely circumventing lawful zoning process, completely ignoring the public’s right to a hearing, just plowing ahead (no pun intended) without one word of any kind to council, the parking authority or anyone else.

On February 26th, another newly-elected councilman who ran on a reform platform, took his first shot at trimming excess from the city budget. Rev. Ricky Burgess thought he was doing his job and fulfilling promises to his constituents when he offered legislation to cut 30+ city take-home cars assigned to folks who really didn’t need them. Even though the mayor’s city vehicle was not on the cut list, many assigned to his political posse were. So the Lukester dispatched the city solicitor to inform council it would be illegal for them, as legislators, to legislate any car cuts. And just to be sure he had their undivided attention, the mayor then threatened to nuke council’s department budgets in case they hadn’t listened good enough.

Meanwhile, Councilman Dowd had been trying unsuccessfully to review copies of budgets from other departments and authorities. The Urban Redevelopment Authority’s budget, in particular, had eluded Dowd until mid-March when he found at that time they didn’t have an approved 2008 budget to give him.

Something did finally come from the URA and Dowd’s preliminary review found a number of troubling items…… not the least of which was a $2.8 million development loan repayment which should have been paid to the city but was diverted to the URA instead. “My money, your money ….. what’s the big deal?” was all URA Exec Director and Head Mayoral Henchman Pat Ford had to say of the brazen money grab.

As if council wasn’t freaked enough by Administration antics by this time, an organizational chart surfaced showing an illegal reporting structure among the mayor’s top directors. Followed by rumors of (more) bizarre behavior by the mayor on St. Patrick’s Day. Luke supposedly walked the parade route a second time because he didn’t get enough attention on the first go-round. And after the celebration, our Commander-In-Chief purportedly got into a bit of a tiff with police (not his first) who tried to ticket his illegally parked car in front of North Side bar.

So …….. It seems council has decided enough is enough. They gave peace a chance and it bombed. It’s now time for war.

Patrick Dowd will lead the charge to expose our woefully underfunded pension and our out-of-control, under-no-one’s-authority authorities to the light of day.

Ricky Burgess’ attack on take-home vehicles is just one small salvo lobbed at the tip of an ugly iceberg. Elimination of institutional nepotism, political patronage, disproportionate allocation of city resources and finances is the good reverend’s real calling.

Bruce Kraus is the point man on the battle over a sign that is not a sign. Which is really a battle to insure we are governed by the rule of law. Not by the changing whims of a Boy King. Or by the threats and coercions of mob-like forces among us.

As Finance & Law Committee Chair, and with his many years of experience dealing with the inner-workings of Pittsburgh’s dysfunctional government, Bill Peduto is well-positioned to serve as intelligence officer and tactician.

Scrappy Council President Doug Shields has toughened and grown into a formidable general. So far this year he’s made good calls on when to hold, when to fold, when to bluff and when to simply tell them all to go to hell.

These are some decent advances made by a new council majority, in just the first quarter of 2008, which is hopefully the next-to-the-last year we’ll have to endure Ravenstahl and Company.

Go Team!

How-To Tips From A Lying Dirt Bag

2008-03-26T01:16:00.004-04:00

Tip #1: When being accused of something and you’re caught with your pants down, ignore the accusation at hand and instead vehemently deny something else.

Example:
Councilman Bruce Kraus accuses Mayor Ravenstahl of threatening to gut council’s budget in retaliation for taking away the Administration’s pretty take-home cars.

The Accusation:
The threat to gut council’s budget, and cripple its ability to hire professional aides, Kraus said, was made in an attempt to stop members from voting to reduce the number of city take-home cars from 60 to 29, a move that passed yesterday on a 5-3 vote.

“The mayor came up to me, and his exact words to me were, ‘We’re coming after you,’” Kraus said of the incident.

The Proper Dirt Bag Reply:
“In no way did I physically threaten him, nor did I use the word threat,” Ravenstahl responded.

Analysis:
Notice the expert technique utilized by the mayor in this situation. He indignantly denied “physically threatening” the councilman and also denied even uttering the word “threat.” Both denials are brilliant as the mayor actually did not do either of these things. But (and here is the brilliant part) neither thing was part of the original accusation in the first place!

Bonus Points Awarded:
The words “threat” and “threatening” appear in both the accusation as well as the mayor’s successful denial leading the casual reader to think both parties were actually talking about the same thing.

Homework Assignment:
Successfully deny that a 20x60 sign, lit and powered by electricity, is in fact not an electronic sign.

** Completed homework assignments should be sent to Executive Director Pat Ford c/o the Urban Redevelopment Authority.

Mayor Sends Hit Man Motznik To Break Some Council Bones

2008-03-25T16:55:00.009-04:00

Photo: One down, two to go.

It’s official. By way of what Councilman Ricky Burgess characterized as “an instrument of brutality”, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl declared war on City Council today when he lobbed the first public salvo: Brutal instrument and weapon-of-mass-destruction missile Jim Motznik blasted council by introducing two last minute resolutions. Both were crafted to punish council for cutting take-home vehicle perks from many of the mayor’s top administrator buddies. Both would strip council of $149,000 of budgeted staff salaries and other administrative tools which appear to exceed what is prescribed by the city’s Act 47 long range plan.

Why is Motznik, of all people, suddenly obsessed with strict adherence to every blessed budget line in the Act 47 (Distressed City) Cooperation Agreement? Motznik who has been a rabid-dog opponent of our distressed city status from before day one?

Because council had justified their car-cutting legislation by referring to vehicle levels stated in the Act 47 plan. So to punish council for having the nerve to take away the mayor’s toys, Motznik and the mayor thought it would be ironic, clever and very tit-for-tat to use the very same Act 47 plan to blow up council’s toys. The good welfare and betterment of the City of Pittsburgh be damned.

Motznik must have felt very smug, pleased and honored to be able to deliver what he thought was the coup de grace. The retaliatory nuke which would forevermore prove his unrelenting loyalty to the Boy Mayor and the dark Machine he fronts.

Except …… they miscalculated. Rotznik and Machine robotically drafted battle plans for an enemy they were accustomed to fighting, using maneuvers from a playbook handed down by generations of Machineheads. They failed to consider they might be dealing with principled human beings who entered politics solely to serve the city they love. That their normal dirty tricks and dirty threats may not work against an adversary who’s primary directive was not one of self-serving, self-promotion and self-advancement. In short, they forgot to consider that the Good Guys on council might fight back. And maybe even win in the end.

God bless the Reverend (and Councilman) Ricky Burgess who fired the first retaliatory shot: “I’d like to apologize to council and its majority for the action I brought to take away perks from the highest-paid administrators which has resulted in a firestorm of retaliation and retribution to this body.” Ricky went on to say he was simultaneously proud, however, that he and other councilmen had not buckled to threats warning what they’d suffer if they dared cut the Administration’s perks.

“I’m a grown man,” Burgess continued. “If you want to punish me for taking the cars away …. I say bring it on. Punish me. But do not punish the rest of council, or our city clerk, or the people of my district. Punish me.”

“But you won’t,” Burgess said looking over at Motznik. “You are not man enough to punish me. That would take an act of masculinity. Shame on you.”

Motznik protested that his resolution was not an act of retaliation and that he had acted alone in drafting it. Then Jim made his fatal error, blustering on, overplaying his hand. Just like Senator Gary Hart of the famed Monkey Business of long ago who dared the press to catch him in an affair he knew he was having but adamantly denied ……. Motznik called out in the same taunting, reckless manner. He (Jim) was tired of hearing about unspecified threats coming from unnamed sources. If anyone had threatened Ricky, then Ricky should either name the name or shut up about it.

God bless Councilman Kraus who broke the most sacred rule of dirty politics: Thou shalt not name names, especially in public.

“All right. I can’t sit here quietly any longer,” Kraus declared as he sat right next to Motznik. “I am the person who was threatened that Councilman Burgess has been speaking about. I was threatened directly by the mayor that he would come after us if we cut the cars. From the mayor’s lips to my ears, he threatened this would happen.”

KABLAM!!! KAPOW!! CHECKMATE!! Motznik was frozen with his mouth open and his pants down.

Does it really matter what anyone said after that point? Or before that point? Or at any other point? Hadn’t the space-time continuum of Pittsburgh politics been sufficiently ripped so as to render all else irrelevant? At a bare minimum, a moment or two of silence was needed to pay sufficient respect to the neutrino bomb Kraus had just set off.

But after that respectful silence had passed, remembering some of the other quotes of the day only helped add texture and body to my recollection of what had just occurred.

“Jimmy cracked corn and I don’t care.”
Bill Peduto, on an early retaliation attempt by the Dark Forces which would exempt council from auto mileage reimbursement.

“I’m kinda awestruck. It’s clear to me it is not illegal despite what the city solicitor says.”
Patrick Dowd, on City Solicitor George Specter’s legal opinion that council’s car-cutting legislation was illegal because only the executive branch (the mayor) has the authority to legislate such things, not the legislative branch (city council).

“If you want to be the apologist for the mayor, go right ahead.”
Doug Shields, after he had been glaring at Motznik for the entire council session.

“Can I speak now?”
Tonya Payne, after being told multiple times that she was speaking out of order, out of turn and not on the topic at hand.

“This is all just child’s play.”
Darlene Harris, on the day’s events. Her mid-table seating position put her squarely in the middle of the food fight zone and may have heavily colored her perspective.

“You owe an apology to no one. I’m proud to stand by you, shoulder to shoulder. I also appreciate that Jim has finally come around to support Act 47. We need to get the Redd-Up crew where it can do some good …. On the 5th Floor.”
Bill Peduto to Ricky Burgess, on why he didn’t need to apologize for bringing on the mayor’s retaliation attack.

“Jim Motznik is an instrument of brutality.”
Ricky Burgess, simply stating a cosmic truth.

More gory details from the PG and the Trib.

Getting Ready to Metastasize

2008-03-24T02:20:00.004-04:00

Governor Ed Rendell likes to award a lot of no-bid contracts … More than $1 billion between 2003 & 2008 with $246.3 million so far this year. Even in a state where payback, pork and patronage run rampant, these numbers stand out.

A particularly flagrant instance is the $1.8 million contract awarded to Rendell’s former law firm, Ballard Spahr Anderson & Ingersoll. The firm was retained in May 2007 for work on Rendell’s effort to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike but state lawmakers didn’t find out until last week.

So was this award illegal? Unfortunately not. Pennsylvania law allows state officials to award contracts without competition when it’s “in the best interest of the commonwealth.”

Has Fast Eddie been any worse than governors before him? That’s an interesting question. One everyone would like to know. Unfortunately the state’s Department of General Services can’t find the previous spending records. They claim the records were lost when they switched to a computerized system. Or maybe past administrations never kept the information. Either way, we don’t know and it appears we never will.

What we do know, however, is that Ballard Spahr has contributed heavily and consistently to Rendell’s political campaigns. A search of that firm on Pennsylvania’s Campaign Finance Reporting web site reveals some interesting information. Between 2001 and 2007, contributions to Rendell in the name of the partnership totaled $269,250. Individual firm attorneys gave a whopping $476,025 and another $200,257 came in labeled as ‘in-kind’. That totals a hearty $945,532 over that 7-year period.

For some reason, Rendell’s campaign had cause to pay some of that money back to Ballard Spahr. The reporting web site shows payments for “personnel” and “administration” totaled $431,427. Then there were a few bucks ($30,399) for travel and catering. All totaled, the Rendell campaign paid Ballard Spahr $461,826 leaving Rendell with net contributions of $483,706 for the 2001 – 2007 period.

Let’s see …they give nearly a half-million dollars. Then they get a contract for $1.8 million. Not bad. Not bad at all. Especially since it can’t be the only thing they’ve gotten over the years.

Even though Fast Eddie won’t be in a position much longer to throw millions or billions of state dollars at his friends, who have coincidentally contributed heavily to his campaigns, and who coincidentally are “in the best interest of the commonwealth”….. We shouldn’t be too quick to breathe a collective sigh of relief because Rendell has hitched his star to Hillary Clinton’s presidential effort. Rumor has it he wants to be her Secretary of Transportation and one can only imagine what damage he could do from that position.

He’s received a lot of support from outdoor advertisers over the years. Maybe he’d be ready on day one to plant an LED billboard every 50 feet on our nation’s highways and byways. Maybe Ravenstahl's LEDs wouldn't look so bad by comparison.

Yet another good reason in a long list of good reasons not to vote for Ms. Hillary. We just can't let this stuff spread.

My Money, Your Money.....What’s The Big Deal?

2008-03-22T01:33:00.008-04:00

Photo: Development Czar Pat Ford

After five months of asking, after 20% of the budget year had passed, after City Council had already transferred $12 million dollars to the URA, Councilman Patrick Dowd finally got his first look at the authority’s 2008 Administrative budget and he didn’t like what he saw: A $2.8 million dollar, 37% increase in the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s Administrative budget. Among other things, Dowd wanted to know why the increase was so large and where the extra money was coming from. As usual, extracting these answers was a long, aggravating ordeal.

Why did their budget jump 37% in one year? Simple. New Executive Director Pat Ford was reorganizing and restructuring the authority. He had big plans, big visions and big things cost big money.

Where were they getting this extra money? Not so simple. Seems it all started long ago and far away in a project called Parkway Center Mall. Part of the money to build that mall came from a federal UDAG grant. (Urban Development Action Grant) The terms of that grant were such that Parkway Center Mall would eventually have to repay the loan to the City of Pittsburgh. A sizable repayment chunk was due for 2008.

“Then why are you [URA] getting this [repayment] money instead of the City of Pittsburgh?” Dowd asked URA Finance Director Constance Eads.

Eads explained that UDAGs were no longer around. After the UDAG grant program was discontinued, repayment monies were treated like CDGB monies.

“Even so, CDGB monies should still come to the city and not to the URA,” Dowd pressed.

Eads countered that since the URA has a cooperation agreement with the city, the URA has standing to TAKE THE FUNDS.

“What’s the big deal here? Our money …. Your money ….We’re all supposed to be on the same team. What’s the big deal here?” Pat Ford blustered.

Totally immersed in his District Attorney Jack McCoy groove, Dowd snapped back at Ford, “You can’t take the money without asking for the money! That is OUR authority.” (Pun presumably intended by Dowd)

Further Dowd grilling brought to light that the large budget increase would continue in 2009 and beyond. That UDAG repayments were not predictable, not re-occurring and not necessarily enough to cover the expanded administrative budget.

“Well, then how can this budget level be sustained?” Dowd asked Eads.

“Yes …Uh …. That will have to be addressed in 2009,” she answered.

“Precisely my point,” was Dowd’s comeback. “And you’re going to be asking us [City] for money then.”

What were Pat Ford’s overall thoughts, concerns and views on getting into yet another scuffle with City Council?

“How can I work with you [City Council] when you [Dowd] use words like ‘reckless’, ‘unethical’ and ‘irresponsible’ to describe [the URA] in the paper?” Ford was a furious shade of red. “I just want to make some great changes. We’ve been trying but we’ve never been given a chance to explain them. Why can’t we just settle this ‘mano y mano’… man to man …. instead of in the press? Council takes six hours to talk about a billboard but we’re not allowed even one minute to talk about our mission or our plans.”

Normally the epicenter of loud rants and occasional cursings, Councilman Jim Motznik was unusually quiet but did manage to get one important piece of information on the official record for the day.

“I want everyone to know that I take credit for bringing [Pat Ford] back from Florida,” Motznik proudly proclaimed.

Breaking News: City Solicitor Opinion Says It’s Illegal For Legislative Branch to Legislate

2008-03-20T01:55:00.004-04:00

“Sometimes I feel we are living in an upside-down world,” said Councilman Bill Peduto.

It was City Solicitor George Specter’s latest wacked-out legal opinion that prompted Peduto’s comment, which would surprisingly turn out to be one of the kindest offered during the day.

Not to be outdone by URA Director Pat Ford’s assertion of last month that a 20x60 foot sign was not really a sign, Specter raised the bar a number of notches when he proclaimed that it was illegal for the city’s legislative branch to legislate.

Under pointed, sustained and fierce questioning from Councilman Patrick Dowd, Specter stubbornly maintained that legislation pertaining to the day-to-day operations of the city would only be legal if it came from the mayor’s office (the executive branch) and not city council (the legislative branch).

“A point of Basic Government 101 clarification,” a stunned Peduto lectured the city solicitor. “All legislation comes from the legislative branch. NOT the executive branch. This was one of the basics of the American Revolution.”

This day’s scuffle was centered around a bill proposed by Councilman Ricky Burgess which would cut the number of take-home city vehicles from 59 to 29. The 30 high-ranking bureaucrats slated to lose their car perks were all cozy with the mayor and all now very unhappy. City Solicitor Specter hurriedly gave his unsolicited opinion to council warning that it had no legal authority to legislate the cuts.

“If the mayor were to bring forth this same bill …. word for word … would it be legal then?” an irate Dowd asked Specter. Specter shockingly said ‘yes.’

“It’s ILLEGAL if it comes from the legislative branch,” an incredulous Dowd repeated. “All we can do is wait for the executive branch to bring things forward to us? (Long pause) That’s amazing.”

Councilman Burgess picked up the ball from Dowd and ran with it further. “I asked you (Specter) a specific question at the post agenda meeting and you gave me a specific answer. You said only recommendations which followed Act 47 were legal. You said my bill included other administrative items which made it illegal. Do you remember your answer? Do I have to play it back for you? I can. Do you want me to play it back? I specifically asked you and you specifically answered back.”

Burgess could not be stopped. “I can play your words back to you if you wish. Do you want me to do that? Because I am certain of your words. We played your words back over and over and over again. We scripted this bill to abide by your words.”

Burgess was not done yet. “This saddens me. It’s sad for our solicitor to come here on the air, in public, to change his opinion. Why don’t we just go home? Why are we here? Why should we introduce bills?”

Still more from the Reverend Burgess. “You are saying ‘If we don’t like what you do … its illegal.’ I’m offended. I’m not stupid. I don’t like to be treated like I’m stupid. How do we run a city when, if we don’t like things, at any time, we just say, ‘Let’s change the rules.’”

And then the coup de grace. “I’m tired of my colleagues being threatened, my staff being threatened.” Burgess charged.

Dowd, still reeling from the insulting foolishness which had been cavalierly lobbed his way said once again, “I want everyone to know THIS is the decision we hear from the City Solicitor. I want to re-emphasize, I want to be sure we get your statements clear. You are telling us this legislation is illegal but for the point of origin …… This is entirely suspect.”

Dowd continued, “What bothers me now …. Forget the cars, forget the day-to-day management …. You say the only way Act 47 recommendations can be acted upon is if the mayor introduces the legislation … not us. That is absolutely backwards.”

Councilman Bruce Kraus had been patiently waiting his turn. “Do you now understand why [city council] wants our own solicitor? [Council] did not ask for your opinion on this matter yet we have received a TIMELY one from you. Without asking. But we still do not have an opinion from you on the billboard situation. Why is that?”

All of this piling-on would have probably intimidated a lesser man but not City Solicitor George Specter. No, he took it all quietly, waiting instead for a passive-aggressive opportunity to get in his own digs. George politely explained to council that he never meant to infer they had little or no power. To the contrary, just because they can’t legislate like they thought they could didn’t mean they couldn’t request things from the mayor.

“You (council) are certainly entitled to this kind of dialogue. And you can request anything you want. My guess is if you did request …. The mayor would look upon you with favor.”

LOOK UPON YOU WITH FAVOR???!!!

Isn’t that something a king does when he decides not to chop off the head of one of his subjects? Is that really a legitimate, acceptable dynamic between a mayor and a city council anywhere in the free world anytime after the Middle Ages?

It’s not an upside-down world which confounds you, Bill Peduto. It’s a parallel universe.

Obama: A Nice-Enough Negro Who’s Unfortunately In Hillary’s Way

2008-03-14T02:33:00.003-04:00

Some predators hunt alone. The Jurassic Velociraptor preferred to stalk its prey in pairs. The present day Clinton, however, is a team-player species that likes to take down its kill running in packs. It’s a socializing creature. A party animal that gets its dirty business done quickly, leaving plenty of time for a good cigar afterwards.

Even though the Clintons have been at this sport for many a year, they’re oddly off their game as of late. They’re busting the same groovy moves, singing the same progressive tunes. Except for some reason, this time around the shtick is not working. Not only is their prey not dead yet, he’s not even close.

So poof! The gloves have come off, the masks have come down, the drawers have been dropped and we have been treated to a rare view of these goons in all their bare-butt glory. It’s not been pretty.

Each member of the Clinton tag team has been re-dispatched, their efforts redoubled. Bill has been squinting his sanctimonious little eyes, wagging his crooked Monica index finger, warning all the peeps that Obama’s got no more going for him than that other light-weight black guy who ran for president and got nowhere. Sure, a black guy could be president. Someday. But not this black guy and not this day.

Bill’s message is aimed at the educated, supposedly-enlightened white who’d normally have no problem voting for a black. Bill’s gotta reassure these people that their inclinations are right, that their hearts are good, but that there’s also no shame in withholding their vote until the right black guy comes along. And Obama is just not the right black guy.

Attack Dog Ferraro was let loose to “lift up” and give hope to all the militant feminists who were feeling panicked that a man ….. a black man no less …..might rob them of their destiny. It’s their time, by god. (small ‘g’ intentional here) They’ve been burning their bras since the 60’s and that’s long enough. They must prevail. They must be given the respect they are due.

Governor Ed Rendell completes the demographic flanking maneuver. “Fast Eddie” has been dispatched to give Bill Clinton’s message to the working-class schlub because Fast Eddie speaks their language. In a kindly voice he tells Pennsylvania’s serfs that they are not alone. He knows there are a lot of hard-working, God-fearing (capitalization intentional here), good-hearted, blue-collared individuals out there who are just not ready to vote for a black guy. This does not make them bad people. This does not make them racists. They’re just not ready, and that’s not a bad thing. Besides, they can comfort their conscience by voting for another kind of minority, a safer kind of minority, one they’re ready for……A white woman named Hillary who was against NAFTA before she was for it.

So is all of this nonsense going to work? The Pist-Gazette has some predictions. Let’s see how many pan out:

Pennsylvania will swallow the Clinton bullshit but the rest of the country won’t. Hillary will steal the nomination from Obama in a flawed Florida redo. A redo so stinky and contested it will tear the party apart. African-Americans will sever their blind allegiance to the Dems and moderate whites will be forced to re-evaluate the entire political landscape. This will translate to a McCain victory in November and the Clintons won’t have a shred of remorse for anything but their own loss. After a very short period of depression, down-time and possibly attempts to kill each other …. The Clintons will rear their heads up once again, gather a new and more fearsome posse, and start on a plan to take back the White House in 2012.

Bodies: Rep Fleck Wants Them Respected

2008-03-11T11:19:00.007-04:00

**UPDATE 3/11/08: 49 total co-sponsors to date. See new additions at bottom.

On Friday, PA State Rep Mike Fleck of Huntingdon & Mifflin Counties introduced HB2299 which would regulate the use of human remains in for-profit exhibitions like the one currently running at the Carnegie Science Center.

“Bodies: The Exhibition” and its counterpart “Bodyworlds” have caused controversy and outrage as they have moved across the country. The displayed cadavers in these exhibits are deceased Chinese individuals who many fear are executed political prisoners. The remains have passed through U.S. Customs under the questionable classification of “plastic models” and bodies at the Carnegie have no paperwork showing the deceased have given their permission to be sliced, diced and displayed for profit. The Science Center and other exhibitors only have the Chinese government’s “word” on the matter, and for many this is not nearly good enough.

Fleck’s bill seeks to interject a bit of sanity into this shockingly barbaric situation. As written, it 1) Seeks to regulate the public display of human remains so as to “protect individual bodily integrity as well as the social and cultural values of the Commonwealth.” 2) Requires that exhibitors provide evidence of informed consent from the deceased individual being displayed. 3) Requires county permitting for such exhibitions.

Fleck’s bill has been co-sponsored by representatives:
Matthew Baker (Bradford/Tioga Counties)
Robert Belfanti (Columbia/Montour/Northumberland Counties)
Kerry Benninghoff (Centre/Mifflin Counties)
Karen Beyer (Lehigh/Northampton Counties)
Karen Boback (Columbia/Luzerne/Wyoming Counties)
Scott Boyd (Lancaster County)
Joseph Brennan (Lehigh/Northampton Counties)
Martin Causer (Cameron/McKean/Potter Counties)
Paul Clymer (Bucks County)
Craig Dally (Northampton County)
Dan Frankel (Allegheny County)
Jaret Gibbons (Beaver/Butler/Lawrence Counties)
Robert Godshall (Montgomery County)
Neal Goodman (Schuylkill County)
Glen Grell (Cumberland County)
Tim Hennessey (Chester County)
John Hornaman (Erie County)
Rob Kauffman (Cumberland/Franklin Counties)
William Kortz (Allegheny County)
Daylin Leach (Montgomery County)
Tim Mahoney (Fayette County)
Barbara McIlvaine Smith (Chester County)
Daryl Metcalfe (Butler County)
Thomas Murt (Montgomery/Philadelphia Counties)
Bernie O’Neill (Bucks County)
Eddie Pashinski (Luzerne County)
Michael Peifer (Monroe/Pike/Wayne Counties)
Tina Pickett (Bradford/Sullivan/Susquehanna Counties)
Marguerite Quinn (Bucks County)
Kathy Rapp (Forest/McKean/Warren Counties)
Brad Roae (Crawford County)
Sam Rohrer (Berks County)
Stan Saylor (York County)
Mario Scavello (Monroe County)
Curt Schroder (Chester County)
John Siptroth (Monroe/Pike Counties)
Samuel Smith (Armstrong/Indiana/Jefferson Counties
Jerry Stern (Blair County)
Richard Stevenson (Butler/Mercer Counties)
RoseMarie Swanger (Lebanon County
Katie True (Lancaster County)
Randy Vulakovich (Allegheny County)
Katherine Watson (Bucks County)

This controversy grows by the day, but the Carnegie Science Center still stands by their exhibit. They will shut it down only if they have to.

“We have hosted this exhibition absolutely in line with existing state and federal guidelines. If that landscape changes, we'll continue to evaluate the situation and act accordingly," Science Center Director Joanna Haas said. "We certainly believe it's the Pennsylvania Legislature's right to legislate the use of human bodies and to create structures for such exhibits. We would certainly intend to comply with any legislative parameters that may be put into place."

Okay, so let’s change the landscape and put these bodies to rest. Contact your local representative and tell him/her to support this bill. A listing of representatives by district number and their contact info can be found here.

************** UPDATE 3/11/08 *************

The following representatives have added their support to the bill:
Michele Brooks (Crawford/Lawrence/Mercer Counties)
Mauree Gingrich (Lebanon County)
Sandra Major (Susquehanna/Wayne/Wyoming Counties)
Bob Mensch (Montgomery County)
Rosita Youngblood (Philadelphia County)

Co-sponsors to date: 49

NAFTA-gate: Was The Wrong Name Leaked?

2008-03-06T06:21:00.004-05:00

Bag of Health and Politics dug up an interesting article in Canada’s Globe and Mail which says it was actually a Hillary aide who gave NAFTA the wink-wink-nod-nod. One way or another, seems like Harper’s gonna get to the bottom of the leak.

Kraus Moves To Hold Sign Resolution For One Week

2008-03-04T13:32:00.011-05:00

“My own goal for bringing this resolution forward was to make sure the people and process are protected. I believe in principles before personalities.”

The resolution Kraus spoke of in his above statement was one whereby Council would ask the Mayor to direct City Zoning to rescind the permit they issued to Lamar Advertising for a 1200 sq ft LED sign on the new Transportation Center. The Kraus resolution additionally asked that the Exec Director of the Pittsburgh Parking Authority rescind the lease agreement between that body and Lamar.

After issuing his opening statement, Bruce Kraus said he would be willing to hold the resolution for one week, giving Lamar Advertising time to voluntarily pull the permits they were issued. Kraus and the majority of council believe the permits were issued in error because due process was entirely ignored.

As usual, Jim Motznik and Tonya Payne were the two members who clearly voiced their support of the administration, whatever the administration does, and therefore their displeasure with the resolution before them. As usual, Motznik and Payne put forth a host of arguments. And as usual, none of them were germane to the issue at hand. The Pist-Gazette believes this is a calculating, oft-used tactic Motznik purposefully employs to muddy the waters, hoping to pull victory out of mayhem. We believe Payne, on the other hand, comes by her confusion honestly. She never seems to grasp the meat of the point in front of her.

Motznik argued that Lamar was a “good neighbor” and only followed “a process they were given.” He handed out pictures of many unsightly billboards Lamar had “voluntarily” removed and had replaced with the more visually-pleasing LED variety. Payne kept harping on the fact that Neighbors in the Strip, a citizens' group in her district, was in favor of the large LED.

Bruce Kraus, Ricky Burgess and Bill Peduto all had to once again remind Motznik and Payne that the issue before council was not one of judging the merits of the sign, or lack thereof.

Kraus: “The decision here is not about merits of the sign. My sole concern is the voice of the people in this process.”

Burgess: “My concern is not about the merits of the sign. That’s a discussion for another day.”

Peduto: “My issue today is not about the billboard. My issue is whether we have the same set of rules for everyone. It’s about fair and equal application of the law for everyone. We have a responsibility to not only write the law, but to also make sure it is carried out.”

Once again, Patrick Dowd took an oddly impassioned stance in favor of doing nothing one way or another. "At the present time." So impassioned was his non-committal, Patrick admitted he had heated words with Peduto prior to the start of Council’s session.

“I’m still not clear that it’s appropriate for us to be speaking on this matter. I have questions as to our role on Council. As individuals, we can certainly speak as to how we feel on this matter. But as a body, there is a different point. I’m not sure of the point where our authority begins and where it ends. For now, I’m not going to voice my opinion on the sign or the process. I will at the appropriate moment, but we’re not there yet.”

It was a point in time, however, for Payne to again became unclear as to what day it was, what planet she was on, or what she had just heard. “I hear the majority of you in favor of this resolution say that the process was flawed. Since we are all so worried about process (her fingers motioning quotes around the word process), maybe we should just change the process.”

Using the most patient, kindly voice he could muster considering Council had just recently endured a 6-hr session on whether or not a sign was in fact a sign….. And speaking as slowly as he could choosing small, simple words so that Payne would be certain to understand ….. Kraus leaned over and said, “The process is not flawed. The process was not followed.”

Doug Shields had the last word: “URA Executive Director Pat Ford said in our 6-hour session the other day that ‘We must agree to disagree.’” Well, that cannot be the outcome. There must be a resolution. I believe the code is clear. But at the end of the day it is a simple matter. A judge will wind up making a finding of fact. And that is how it should be.”

A Body By Any Other Name

2008-03-02T19:32:00.008-05:00

Pictured above is a Lamar Advertising sign which may not be a sign, advertising “real human bodies” which may not be real human bodies. (There is starting to be a certain cosmic symmetry to all of this, now isn’t there?)

The Bodies being advertised and displayed are those of deceased Chinese persons who may or may not have been executed prisoners, may or may not have been “unclaimed”, may or may not have given permission to be part of the titillating, traveling exhibit.

Yesterday afternoon, KDKA radio personality Chris Moore spoke to Dr. Todd Olson, chair of the Anatomical Committee of the Associated Medical Schools of New York. Dr. Olson is squarely in the camp of those who think the exhibits should be shut down.

“In our view, [the Bodies exhibits] are here illegally,” Olson charged.

Putting aside moral and ethical considerations for the moment, Olson explained that there are practical and legal reasons the exhibits should not be here.

“They are brought into this country under false pretenses. Their customs declaration says they are plastic models, not human bodies. If they had been listed as preserved human remains, they would have had to have been accompanied by proper documentation. Documentation we require for any body for burial. They do not have that documentation.”

Dr. Olson continued that since these bodies are not classified as “real human bodies” for customs, they do not come under the jurisdiction of our health department. “This is why there are laws regarding bodies. The law tells us who may have a dead body and who may not. It tells us where bodies can be displayed and where such a display would be improper or pose a health risk.”

Olson was referring to the growing number of patently exploitative, obviously-not-educational locations where the Bodies are put on view: *At the Tropicana Hotel in Las Vegas where you can gawk at dead bodies at one end of the hotel and then catch live burlesque bodies at the other end. *At Union Station where you can shop, eat at a restaurant and then take in a dead body or two after dessert.

“That is the loophole they are exploiting.”

Now once the bodies get past customs, their status changes dramatically. Suddenly, to the likes of the Carnegie Science Center and other purveyors of art and science, they become “Real Human Bodies” because the general public is not going to plunk down $20 - $40 just to gape at “Real Plastic Models.”

What can we do? What should we do?

“Call your congressman,” says Olson. “Call your local health department. These [bodies] are individuals in the prime of their lives. This is not Grampa Charlie. This is not the type of body any anatomist ever sees in the U.S. This is suspicious.”

How does KDKA host Chris Moore feel about the Bodies? Chris, who is a Vietnam vet and who has seen more than his fair share of dead bodies in his lifetime?

“These people are Chinese,” said Moore. “I wonder …. If in Iraq, one of our soldiers had been killed, and then preserved, and then posed kicking a softball … How would we feel about that? Wouldn’t we feel horrified and outraged?”

Ms. Pist is not Chinese. Ms. Pist is not Iraqi. But Ms. Pist is pist and horrified and outraged nonetheless.

Call your health department. Call your congressman. In Pennsylvania, Rep. Michael Fleck is trying to return some sanity if not some ethics to our state. We all need to do whatever we can to stop this horror.

A Sign By Any Other Name

2008-03-02T14:13:00.004-05:00

PITTSBURGH, Pa, Probably sometime in the future -- URA Executive Director Pat Ford recently beat allegations that he improperly approved an LED billboard for an advertiser's use by arguing that the billboard was not an electronic sign, it was instead a "glowing device for public enjoyment".

"There are no city codes regulating the usage of glowing devices," said Ford. "So in no way did I do anything that was improper."

The Carnegie Science Center and casino-owner Don Barden jumped right on this stroke-of-genius reclassification strategy to solve controversies plaguing their own organizations.

The Science Center filed court papers asking that plastinated bodies in their "Bodies" exhibit be re-classified as "bio-system containers." Barden followed suit claiming that the proposed 20-story garage for his casino was not a garage at all.

"It's a bridge of cutting-edge design which diverts traffic from one end of my property to the other," Barden explained. "There are no height limitations for bridges that I'm aware of. So construction of my casino bridge must therefore proceed immediately as any further delays will seriously jeopardize my bottom line."

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said all three parties seem to have a point. "Whatever needs to be done, we'll do it of course. But it's kinda hard to argue with such sound logic."

Let The Games Begin .....

2008-02-29T18:21:00.007-05:00

FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY
CONTACT: COUNCILMAN BRUCE A. KRAUS, 412-255-2130
SUBJECT: GRANT STREET TRANSPORTATION CENTER SIGNAGE

COUNCILMAN BRUCE A. KRAUS ASKS MAYOR TO RESCIND APPROVAL

Voices Concerns About Process and Absence of Public Scrutiny

Pittsburgh, February 29, 2008….City Councilman Bruce A. Kraus announced today that he will introduce a resolution on Tuesday, March 4, 2008, asking Mayor Luke Ravenstahl to rescind the LED sign zoning approval granted to Lamar Advertising for the Grant Street Transportation Center. The approval was granted without being brought before the Planning Commission, the Zoning Board, or City Council.

The no-bid agreement was the subject of a lengthy special meeting this week during which Council Members questioned Planning Director Noor Ismail, Zoning Administrator Susan Tymoczko, City Solicitor George Specter, URA Director Pat Ford, and Pittsburgh Parking Authority head David Onorato.

“Though Council had the opportunity to engage in an extensive review of the events leading up to the deal with Lamar, there are just too many significant questions that remain unanswered,” said Kraus. “Council needs to understand whether the intent of the law was followed and how the absence of proper process excluded any possibility of public input or scrutiny.”

The Councilman is also asking David Onorato, Executive Director of the Pittsburgh Parking Authority, to rescind or invalidate the lease agreement. “A lease agreement has the potential to provide significant revenue to the city,” said Kraus. “However, just like the zoning matter, the lease did not receive Board Action.”

Kraus notes that City Council recently joined in signing a pledge with the Mayor and Controller’s Office that is to improve governance in Pittsburgh. “It is critical that we adhere to that pledge,” said Kraus. “Whenever public property and public funds are involved, it is incumbent upon elected officials to assure our citizens that their government is working in their best interest.”

(Will Of Council Below)

********************************************

WHEREAS, following a recent fact finding meeting held by City Council on the issue of an LED Sign for the new Transportation Center, City Council believes the Zoning Department, in consultation with the Urban Redevelopment Authority, acted in error regarding its interpretation of the language and regulations contained in the Pittsburgh Code; and

WHEREAS, while language is often subject to legal interpretation, it is clear that the authors of the Home Rule Charter and the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances clearly intended to ensure that the right of the people to participate in major decisions, particularly land use matters, was the foundation for the very existence of the Regulations; and

WHEREAS, given the current controversy over the zoning process, and the fact that the Mayor and all Members of City Council recently signed a formal pledge that prioritized “excellence in service, increased access to and confidence in all City services by ensuring equity for all Pittsburghers;” and also committed to “improve the quality of life for future generations by identifying current land use opportunities and challenges facing the City” and “ensure the ethical operation of the offices,” it is only appropriate that the matter of the LED Sign be rescinded at this juncture.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Pittsburgh hereby requests that the Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh direct the City Zoning Administrator to take the necessary steps to rescind the current permit issued to Lamar Advertising for approval of an LED Sign on the Transportation Center, and direct that a new application be filed and processed under the guidelines of a Conditional Use Application as outlined in the City Code; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Pittsburgh also requests that the Executive Director of the Pittsburgh Parking Authority rescind the Lease Agreement between Lamar Advertising and the Pittsburgh Parking Authority.

SPONSORED BY COUNCILMAN BRUCE A. KRAUS

And The Cheese Stands Alone .....

2008-02-29T02:41:00.009-05:00

WQED’s “On Q” hosted a special edition town hall meeting on the controversy surrounding “Bodies: The Exhibition”. Moderated by Chris Moore, the show’s expert panel included Director Joanna Haas from the Carnegie Science Center (host of the exhibit) as well as other area leaders in the fields of religion, science and ethics.

The evening provided not one, not two, but actually three surprises. The initial surprise was that the Carnegie Science Center agreed to appear in such an unscripted, public forum. I wrongly surmised that there must be a fair amount of support for the Center among the other panelists or the Center would not have braved the event in the first place. But I was wrong. The only panelist and maybe the only person in the entire studio to communicate any meaningful support for the exhibit was Dr. Karl Williams, the Allegheny County Medical examiner. Every other expert guest expressed varying degrees of moral and ethical concern. Every audience comment, whether on camera or off, was not a happy one. Groans and heavy sighs were commonplace.

The final surprise of the evening was the weakness and often downright silliness of the arguments put forth by the Science Center. Every flawed statement uttered by Ms. Haas was immediately put down by multiple parties. I would have felt sorry for her had the subject matter not been so very gruesome.

Ms. Haas opened by saying the decision to host the exhibit was a strategic one. The exhibit would provide the general public with a view of the human body previously only afforded the medical profession. Since their mission was to promote science education to the masses, they reasoned this unique opportunity was one they could not pass up.

Dr. Alan Meisel, Director of the University of Pittsburgh Center for Bioethics and Health Law agreed there was obvious educational benefit to the exhibit. He cautioned that there was just something inherently wrong with this display, however. “In 50 years we will look back at this like it was a circus side-show. There are other ways to educate the public. Even now, frog dissections have been abolished in high school. Out of respect for the frog, we do the dissections by computer. Shouldn’t we respect a human as much as we respect a frog?”

Dr. Meisel went on to say that sometimes the best educational method may actually be the most undesirable choice. “I would imagine that the best way to teach Sex Ed would be to provide paid-for sex partners. But I can’t imagine anyone would think this approach would be appropriate no matter how successful the results were.”

Dr. Scott Miller, Chief of Medical Ethics at Allegheny General Hospital agreed with Dr. Meisel. He said the exhibit provided some educational value, but the same end results could be achieved in a different manner. He was troubled by the controversy of how the bodies had been obtained.

Ms. Haas tried to convince the crowd that all possible “due diligence” had been done. “Even 20/20 ended their show saying there was no conclusive evidence one way or another. We have belief in our documentation. These are unclaimed bodies or people who have given their consent.”

Bad move on Ms. Haas’ part. The crowd took off their gloves at this point.

“Do we really need absolute proof,” chimed Dr. Miller, “or is reasonable doubt good enough with something this important?”

Dr. Meisel agreed that the due diligence standard in this instance should be extremely high but opined that the standards applied by the Science Center “were not high enough for me.”

Father Jim Wehner from the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh said that moral framework was extremely important and that the end never justified the means. “The church was initially provided with information [from the Science Center] which said a good faith effort had been made to authenticate the bodies. But was there really enough investigation?”

Rabbi Daniel Schiff of the Agency for Jewish Learning pulled no punches. “This is no way to treat our dead. We have a responsibility to treat an unclaimed body with the same respect that we’d give a relative. And the question of consent is not even part of the issue. At issue is what moral standards do we wish for our society and culture? If I were to give consent to offer my body as food, for example….. If I agreed to have my body cut, packaged and sold at the grocer’s ….. Would our culture agree and abide with my wishes? Of course not. I am condemning this exhibit. We’re not importing cheese here. These are human beings we are talking about.”

Ms. Haas said their intent was the best. She reminded the panel that the Center had engaged many of them prior to contracting the exhibit as part of their “due diligence” on community perceptions and concerns. The Science Center was a prestigious organization after all and would never engage in anything untoward. Besides, the body exhibits had been touring the country for a few years by now. Pittsburgh and the Science Center were not the first to host the bodies. Other cities had concerns but had already worked through them. Ms. Haas was sure we would work through our concerns as well.

Another bad move.

Dr. Meisel lit into her. “I hate to have to remind you that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You can’t just say, ‘Oh well, everyone else is doing it.’ And, ‘We’re prestigious and we’re making a lot of money.’ These are not good excuses.”

“Sure, you consulted with us at first,” the Rabbi said to Haas. “But you already had your mind made up. You were going to believe Premier no matter what we said and we knew it.”

Dr. Jim Weber, Professor of Business Ethics at Duquesne University sort of came to Ms Haas’ defense. “Just because something is profitable does not make it unethical. However we need to be very careful as to where these bodies come from. There is a pattern with China that raises questions. I have my concerns. I think we need greater certainty.”

You would think Haas would decide to just shut up and smile at this point. But no. She embarked upon the silly segment of her justification. She proudly proclaimed that the exhibit had prompted patrons to adopt a healthier and more responsible lifestyle. She anecdotally recounted how many people said they would quit smoking after seeing the diseased lung. And a surprising number of people had filled out organ donor cards, she chirped.

Groans were audible at this point.

“If this is such a fantastic way to get people to quit smoking …… then why are you charging a fee for this exhibit? Don’t you wish poor people to be healthy too? If this is in fact the case, the government should just take our cigarette tax money and pay for these exhibits to come to every school in every city instead of you charging admission to a few.”

Commander Maurita Bryant, Head of Pittsburgh Homicide, simply said she had not seen the exhibit and didn’t have plans to go. “I see too many dead bodies in my work every day. The hard part is trying to comfort the family of someone who’s been murdered. But there are always strangers who also gather around just to look and laugh and make jokes. Its hard to see this too. I wouldn’t want to go to the exhibit and have to see people pointing and laughing at those bodies there.” Commander Bryant went on to say she was currently an organ donor, but was now reconsidering that decision.

Everyone but Haas laughed. She had no more arguments. She finally decided it was time to just shut up and smile.

The Sign That Is Not A Sign

2008-02-28T07:48:00.015-05:00

From left to right: Ravenstahl’s bodyguard, Ravenstahl’s father, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, “Development Czar” Pat Ford

A copy of yesterday’s televised marathon City Council post-agenda on zoning irregularities must be saved for posterity. As every history buff knows, there are specific points in time which denote the exact moment something passes from one state to another. The turning point of a war, for example. Or something liquid passing into a gaseous state. Or the moment of conception, the moment cancer metastasizes, the moment irreconcilably-different words come out of one’s mouth and you can never take them back.

These defining moments have happened a billion times a day since the beginning of time. But rare is the occurrence when such a moment is captured on film. This, my dear readers, is what happened yesterday. We televised what a civilization looks like just prior to the moment it looses its capacity for language, logical thought, hierarchical structure and commonplace functionality.

At issue was a Lamar Advertising LED billboard for the Grant Street Transportation Center which was approved without City Council or public discourse. City Council contended that such a structure requires “conditional usage” approval from the Zoning Department and Council. Having received neither, Council argued the billboard was not legal. Planning Director Noor Ismail, URA Executive Director Pat Ford and Zoning Administrator Susan Tymoczko all agreed that the 20x60 ft object which would be lit using electricity and would display advertising, messages and images…..was NOT a sign, “electronic” or otherwise. In fact, all three agreed the object in question had yet to be defined, did not exist yet in our governmental or human lexicon, and therefore no codes or regulations applied to it.

When asked for his opinion on such a preposterous assertion, City Solicitor George Specter said he would have to think about it, he’d have to study the matter, and it would take him at least two weeks to come to a final decision.

Ergo, our city was caught on tape at the exact moment before being thrust into our very own chapter of the next Dark Ages.

The details ……

Noor Ismail
Even though she is the Director of City Planning and Susan Tymoczko (below) reports to her, she only heard of or knew of the not-a-sign “in passing.” She never officially spoke to the mayor, the URA or the city law department about the matter. In fact, she was only made aware of Susan Tymoczko’s decision “after the fact.”

Susan Tymoczko
Using the vast knowledge she has acquired in her long city planning career, Tymoczko 1) Decided this LED billboard was not a sign 2) Said something powered by electricity was not “electronic” 3) Concluded the not-a-sign was not a “new or changed structure” 4) Concluded it was not a “change to the building’s exterior” even though the not-a-sign-certainly-not-an-electronic-sign was being built as part of the building’s exterior and was a change to the building’s originally approved form. 5) Was not aware that Zoning had previously denied a permit for this very same not-a-sign on this very same building. 6) Did not seek legal counsel from the city even though the only legal opinion made part of the application was that of the applicant’s own attorneys. And said attorneys of course advised Tymoczko as to all the reasons why the sign-that-is-not-a-sign should be allowed. 7) Notarized the not-a-sign application herself even though a notary is not supposed to notarize any document relating to any transaction where they themselves play a part. Tymoczko played an integral part in the application process as she was approving it. 7) Did consult on this matter with URA Director Pat Ford (below) who is not in her chain of command, is not even a city employee and therefore has no decision-making powers in such city matters. 8) Failed to consult with her official direct supervisor, Noor Ismail (above).

Pat Ford
The most awesome Super City Planner ever to roam the earth. Mr. Ford keeps copious notes of every conversation he has ever had with anyone in his life and indexes them for date, time and probably other super-secret designations that he would rather kill for than divulge. Ford testified 1) He’s a court-designated zoning expert and that this not-a-sign was the most debated, studied and researched not-a-sign in his 20 yrs of super-duper experience. 2) He thinks it would be unfair to deny city employees his vast reservoir of knowledge just because he has been promoted so quickly and so many times and now has no direct supervisory role with regards to said city employees. 3) He personally counseled O’Connor and Ravenstahl on this deal and “takes full responsibility” for it. 4) The not-a-sign approval was not based in code because there is no code for objects which are not signs and this object is clearly not a sign. 5) Approval was based upon action taken in 2003 whereby Lamar was allowed one new LED not-a-sign for every six regular signs they took down. The 2003 deal was struck because that was when the city discovered they had no laws regulating objects that looked like signs but were not. So instead of enacting zoning regulations for these overlooked objects, the city chose to “set a precedent” allowing them to do whatever they wanted to do at that moment. 6) Ford chose to continue with the 2003 precedent rather than clear up the “loophole/gray area” because QUOTE: “I liked the technology, [Ravenstahl] liked the technology, we had received no complaints, so I went ahead with it.”

Anne Marie Lubaneau (Correction thanks to ADB)
Ms. Lubaneau is the Executive Director of the Community Design Center of Pgh and member of the Planning Dept Design Committee. Ms. Lubaneau was on the Design Committee in 2004 when the LED sign was first proposed for the Grant Street garage and was DENIED. Lubaneau was also the ONLY person who testified yesterday that the LED object in question was in fact a real sign and should be regulated per existing zoning codes pertaining to signs.

Other troubling discoveries from yesterday’s testimony:
o An organizational chart exists which shows that City Planning reports to the URA even though this is an illegal arrangement because the URA is not a city entity and therefore has no legal jurisdiction or administrative oversight of any city functions. URA Director Pat Ford extrapolated his sign-is-not-a-sign logic to conclude that the organizational chart was not really an organizational chart …. It was an “Informational Hierarchy.”

o The city has already turned over $12 million to the URA in 2008, but the URA has no approved budget for 2008.

o Ford and Ravenstahl are planning a consolidation of City Planning and the URA (even though one is a city entity and the other is state) and they have not shared these plans with City Council nor have they asked Council to participate in the process.

o Councilman Patrick Dowd seemed more perturbed at the meeting's length than the blatent illegalites and incompetencies before him. Dowd also seemed unconvinced that his responsibility is to not only enact laws, but to also make sure they are executed as written.

o It will take City Solicitor George Specter two weeks to decide if a sign is in fact a sign.

Bottom line? Council President Doug Shields says he’s troubled that no one can give him the definition for a sign. “It unfortunately looks like we are headed to court.” Shields bemoaned. Unless, of course, the city can no longer define what a court is by that time.

Bodies Reminder

2008-02-27T07:03:00.005-05:00

Pictured Above: ABC’s 20/20 hidden camera photographs workers preparing “Bodies” at China’s garbage-strewn “Dalian Medical University Plastination Laboratory”

WQED is holding a special town hall edition of “On Q” to discuss the controversial “Bodies” exhibit presently running at the Carnegie Science Center. There has been such unprecedented interest in this production, WQED will air the live discussion tomorrow as planned from 7:30 to 8pm, but will continue a live feed until 9pm on WQED Neighborhood Channel (13.3 digital), on WQED-HD and will be streamed live on WQED Interactive at http://www.wqed.org/.

If you wish to attend, it may be best to arrive early to get a seat:

What: Town Hall Meeting on the ethics and issues surrounding “Bodies … The exhibition” at Carnegie Science Center
When: Thursday, February 27th, broadcast begins at 7:30pm
Where: WQED, 4802 Fifth Ave in Oakland, Studio A
Panelists:
- Joanna E. Haas, Director, Carnegie Science Center
- Dr. Karl Williams, Allegheny County Medical Examiner
- Dr. Alan Meisel, Founder and Director of the University of Pittsburgh Center for Bioethics and Health Law
- Commander Maurita Bryant, City of Pittsburgh Police, Head of Homicide
- Dr. Scott Miller, MD, MA, Chief of Medical Ethics, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences, Allegheny General Hospital
- Dr. Jim Weber, Professor of Business Ethics and Management and Director of the Beard center for Leadership and Ethics at Duquesne University
- Rabbi Dan Schiff, Agency for Jewish Learning
- Father Chris Stubna, Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh

Interest in this program has not been limited to just the local level. Harry Wu, noted Chinese human rights activist wanted to lend his voice to the panel, but inquired too late to be included. Instead, On Q host Chris Moore offered Harry an hour on Chris’ KDKA Sunday talk show. Mr. Wu spent 19 years in Chinese labor camps so he will undoubtedly have invaluable first-hand information to share.

The Check Is In The Mail, I’ll Call You In The Morning, And The “Bodies” Gave Their Consent

2008-02-26T09:45:00.005-05:00

After China has produced ....
- Children's toys coated with lead
- Children's toys coated with the 'Date Rape" drug
- Exploding cell phone batteries
- Exploding tires
- Tainted antibiotics
- Poisoned pet food
- Unstable fireworks
- Fake birth control pills and HIV drugs
- Tainted leukemia drugs causing paralysis
- Candy, pickles, crackers and seafood laced with formaldehyde
- Bogus rabies vaccinations
- Baby formula containing only 6% of nutrients needed to sustain a baby
- Toothpaste & cough medicine laced with antifreeze
- Fish loaded with antibiotics
- Dried apples preserved with carcinogens
- "Farm raised" scallops & sardines coated with putrefying bacteria (from feces)
- Mushrooms laced with illegal pesticides
- Prunes tinted with unsafe chemical dyes
- Fruit, juice & bean curd found by the FDA to be "filthy"
- Poisonous swordfish, eel
- Deadly Puffer Fish "mislabeled" as Monkfish
- Moth larva in chocolates
- Pesticide tainted dumplings
- Defective space heaters causing fires
- Pork from pigs fattened with force-fed wastewater
- Lard made from sewage
- Dairy cows given so many antibiotics, yogurt cannot be made from their milk
- Hairdryers with electrocution hazards
- Unsafe electric extension cords
- Overheating Boomboxes prone to catching fire
- Flammable baby clothes
- Collapsing recliner chairs
- Etc., etc., etc., etc .........

Are we really going to take them AT THEIR WORD that the "Bodies" being peddled over at the Carnegie Science Center are actually those of people who have "died of natural causes"? Or gave their permission to be skinned and posed shooting hoops so millions could be "educated" and a few could make millions? Even though many in the medical field say the corpses look like people who were without disease and in the prime of their life? Even though the Chinese government either has not or cannot provide any consent papers? Even though China's crimes against humanity are well-documented and on-going? We are going to take them at their word NOW?????

PA Rep Michael Fleck is sponsoring a bill that would regulate traveling exhibits of human corpses. "I'm ashamed to say this needed to be done long ago, but at least we're working on it now," Mr. Fleck said. "If we regulate taxidermy and funeral directors, we should regulate this."

The legislation has 20 co-sponsors so far, but NONE from our area. Come on, guys. This one is a no-brainer. China is a modern-day monster for all they routinely butcher and torture. The only thing worse than a monstrous butcher is the enlightened "educator and purveyor of fine art" who profits from this abomination.

The biggest surprise of all? That it’s the venerated Carnegie Science Center that turns out to be the profit-mongering body-merchant in the Pittsburgh segment of this grisly horror flick.

Contact our area state representatives to let them know we are repulsed:

Dan Frankel-23 <dfrankel@pahouse.com>

John Maher-40 <jmaher@pahousegop.com>

Thomas Petrone-27 <tpetrone@pahouse.com>

Mark Mustio-44 <mmustio@pahousegop.com>

Mike Turzai-28 <mturzai@pahousegop.com>

Harry Readshaw-36 <hreadshaw@pahouse.com>

Sean Ramaley-16 <sramaley@pahouse.com>

Frank Dermody-33 <fdermody@pahouse.com>

Anthony DeLuca-32 <tdeluca@pahouse.net>

David Levdansky-39 <dlevdansky@pahouse.com>

Chelsa Wagner-22 <cwagner@pahouse.com>

Marc Gergely-35 <mgergely@pahouse.com>

Joe Preston-24 <jpreston@pahouse.com>

Paul Costa-34 <pcosta@pahouse.com>

Don Walko-20 <dwalko@pahouse.com>

Joseph Markosek-25 <jmarkosek@pahouse.com>

Randy Vulakovish-30 <rvulakov@pahousegop.com>

Jake Wheatley-19 <jwheatley@pahouse.com>

Nick Kotik-45 <nkotik@pahouse.com>

William Kortz-38 <bkortz@pahouse.net>

Lisa Bennington-21 <lbennington@pahouse.com>

Jessie White-46 <jwhite@pahouse.com>

Matthew Smith-42 <msmith@pahouse.com>

Bodies: Even a Guinea Pig Knows Better

2008-02-24T16:21:00.009-05:00

Pictured Above: Premier Exhibition CEO Arnie Geller and the “Dalian University Plastination Laboratory” where exhibition bodies are procured and prepared.

By this time many Pittsburghers have undoubtedly been thrilled and enlightened by the sliced and diced cadavers on display at the Carnegie Science Center courtesy of Premier Exhibitions. “Bodies: The Exhibition” has created tidal waves of controversy as it has toured this country and the globe. Locally, the controversy took the form of one very brave, principled woman, Elaine Catz. Elaine was the Science Center’s education coordinator for 11 years prior to her resignation in protest of the exhibit. Catz warned the Science Center that the “plastinated” bodies on display were those of Chinese prisoners. She offered evidence that the Chinese government routinely executed prisoners IN ORDER TO harvest their bodies and body parts, IN ORDER TO keep their lucrative black market organ and body industry flush with new “inventory.” Instead, the Carnegie Science Center closed their eyes, ignored the grisly facts before them and chose the mega-profits associated with hosting an exploitative freak-show that reads like an artistic collaboration between the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer and Josef Mengele.

Nationally, the controversy prompted ABC’s 20/20 to look into the matter, sending investigative reporter Brian Ross to China to gather the facts. Those facts were quite sobering:

* Premier CEO Arnie Geller insists that all the bodies in his exhibition were legitimately acquired from a respected source ……China’s Dalian Medical University. But when asked, the university’s president flatly denied that they supply bodies to Geller or any other body merchant.

* Geller says the bodies are “prepared” at the Dalian University Plastination Laboratory. But 20/20 found there is no such lab on the university campus. Thirty miles away, however, there is a garbage-strewn property (pictured above) that uses the university’s name but has no present legal connection to it. This ramshackle location, which looks more like a Silence-of-the-Lambs workshop than a bona-fide laboratory, is where human and animal cadavers are skinned, filleted, plastinated and transformed into the “educational works of art” that Premier peddles.

* 20/20 pressed Dalian’s president and found the medical university DID own a 70% share of this “offsite” lab, but ended the collaboration when the world press started hounding them and when China made the exportation of human bodies or body parts illegal in 2006. The “university lab” is now a private company, but is still run by a professor from Dalian Medical University.

* Where does the lab get its bodies? Are they unclaimed indigents as Geller claims? Do some have papers showing the deceased gave their permission to be sliced, diced and displayed for the enormous benefit and profit of Mr. Geller? Caught on hidden camera, the lab manager told 20/20 he has no idea where the bodies come from. They just “arrive.”

* Chinese plastinated bodies can now be purchased online from a company called Corcoran Laboratories, Inc. Now isn't that special?

* The Chinese bodies come to the U.S. through the Port of Los Angeles. In order to circumvent U.S. laws regarding human remains, the bodies are listed as “plastic models” on the bill of lading. When asked about this transport description, CEO Geller says the bodies are so full of plastic that they can no longer be considered human bodies. They are basically just plastic models at this point. However, when advertising the exhibit and to attract the largest horde of gawking customers possible, Geller and all participating venues prominently advertise that people will get to see “real human bodies” when they plunk down their side-show admission fee.

Maybe this nightmare horror flick has finally had enough exposure to be outed as the abomination it actually is. Chinese-American Assemblywoman Fiona Ma from San Francisco has introduced legislation (AB 1519) which would require body importers to show proof that the corpses were legally donated. Without hard proof that the deceased agreed to become a titillating commodity, the corpse would be denied entry into this country. Says Ma: “We’ve made it a criminal offence to mutilate or violently or sexually abuse a corpse. And now in the 21st Century we have exhibits that have turned into multi-million dollar industries at the expense of someone’s son, father, daughter or unborn who do not wish to be there. This is more than dead body trafficking. This is grave robbing and abuse.” (You Tube Video)

But we as a society have become so sophisticated and enlightened, not much fazes us anymore. As one enthusiastic exhibit-goer put it: “It doesn’t bother me. I’m of the opinion that after we’re dead, we’re meat.”

But Rabbi Louis Feldstein of Atlanta feels differently: “I see a society that has turned death into entertainment. And thus what was once filled with hope and love and meaning and caring…..Another human being is now just this thing an audience can be entertained with.”

Unfortunately I think Rabbi Feldstein is speaking to a generation no longer with us. The generation who had to sift through the remains of Hitler’s death camps. The generation who was horrified that Jews had been slaughtered and that their skins were made into lampshades, their body fat made into soap.

Like Mr. “We’re Just Meat” above, today’s generation doesn’t blink at the sight of a human skin lampshade. Or a dead body skinned and posed running with a briefcase in one hand, grasping his own skin in his other hand. Skin which has been tossed casually over his own shoulder like an overcoat. No, today’s generation just proclaims these sights as “educational” and “art” and then quickly rushes to eBay or Corcoran Laboratory’s web site to purchase some of this extraordinary fine art for their own personal enjoyment.

I had the unfortunate experience of walking into an apartment yesterday where the owner had apparently “forgotten” and left two guinea pigs in a cage without food or water. One of the guineas was dead, the other was in an hysterical state. The live guinea sat on the highest perch possible, getting as far away from his dead friend as he could. He sat there screeching non-stop, making a noise I didn’t know was possible for a guinea pig. The poor little guy was thoroughly traumatized.

Yes, he wanted food and yes, he wanted water and yes, I gave him both. But most of all, the little guy wanted out of the cage where his dead friend lay soft, decaying and in a frighteningly flattened oozing form. Even Mr. Guinea Pig, with his little pea-sized brain, had the instinct (if not the intellect) to perceive the obvious difference between a dead comrade and just a piece of meat.

Postscript: Rep Christopher Smith of New Jersey is calling for a moratorium on all Bodies exhibits and asking the U.S. attorney general to investigate. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has started a probe on the exhibits in that state. And locally, WQED is holding a special televised town hall meeting edition of “On Q” on Thursday, Feb 28th at 7:30 PM. “On Q” panelists will range from the director of the Carnegie Science Center to the Allegheny County medical examiner to various religious and medical ethics leaders. If we’re lucky, this town hall session might renew and restore our human sensitivities to the level of those displayed yesterday by Mr. Guinea Pig. At least that is my hope.

Forgive My Prolonged Silence .... I've Been Down With The Flu

2008-02-24T16:18:00.001-05:00

???

2008-02-05T12:01:00.001-05:00

I Don’t Understand. At Least I Hope I Don’t Understand.

Because of public outrage over the senseless “collateral damage” killing of a 12-yr-old girl, our local and not-so-local authorities have blitzed area gang-infested neighborhoods with a serious show of force. This show of force must have hit a mark because according to the Trib:

[Ex-Philly gang member Richard Garland] said many of the gang members said they were afraid when they heard that city, county state and federal authorities were saturating the North Side in an attempt to stop the shootings and round up known gang members. “They got worried when they saw that law enforcement is bringing all they have to the table right now,” Garland said.

Richard Garland who runs a street intervention program called One Vision One Life brokered a meeting between District Attorney Stephen Zappala and “leaders” from eight of the gangs who roam the North Side. Garland added that, “[The gang members] recognize that when a child got shot, a major line was crossed.”

The meeting produced a cease-fire agreement between the gangs in attendance. Garland hopes similar cease-fire “agreements” are arranged between the remaining 70 or so gangs who operate in the Pittsburgh area. Zappala praised the gang members who did show up for the meeting saying, “They recognize the seriousness of this situation and realize that no more children can die as part of this feud.”

???: Have they recognized that no more PEOPLE of any age should die as part of their “feud”?

???: What “serious situation” do they speak of? Is it the fact that they are murderous, drug-addicted criminals? Or that the authorities are finally breathing down their necks?

Zappala said authorities would continue to investigate active gang members but would encourage a peace agreement.

??? Does this mean authorities will back off from the blitz a bit? Now that The Surge is working, are we going to pull back our efforts to round up these miscreants? If they enter into mutual “peace agreements”? Because tough police work is just too tough to sustain in the long run?

???: Does this mean if they quit shooting each other or innocent bystanders, that we'll lay off the drug trafficking and other "lesser" criminal activity?

???: Is this Gaza or is this Pittsburgh?

I don’t understand. At least I hope I don’t understand.

The Good News About Jolesa's Murder

2008-02-03T07:34:00.000-05:00

“I can imagine that [there is] the perception that [gang violence is on the rise] …. Because you have two incidents that are relatively close together that involve young kids,” said Sgt. Mona Wallace. “As far as I can tell, there’s not a real upsurge.”

Hmmm. Seems like a lot of good “surge” news lately. The Surge in Iraq is working. And there doesn’t seem to be an Upsurge here.

Well, whether it is gang-related or not, it appears to my eye at least that violent, senseless crime is on the increase here in Pittsburgh. Our own Mayor Ravenstahl would disagree with that statement, however. In his Dec 20 inaugural address, Luke said 2007 has been “the safest year for our citizens in more than 40 years.”

Tell that to the family, friends and loved ones of Ernest Tolliver, 15 and Jolesa Barber, 12 pictured above. Jolesa was killed by a spray of bullets which pummeled the home of a relative she was visiting. And Ernest was shot, in front of his mother and sister, as they waited in a fast food drive-thru lane.

How and why does Luke think things are so rosy? Because Luke is making strides at mastering Governor Rendell’s “Law of Selectivity”. Simply stated, the Law of Selectivity says if you don’t like that which stands before you ….. Simply parse, cherry-pick, re-arrange, blend or fabricate until you come upon something that is pleasing enough to the taste and will be eventually swallowed by enough voters to be re-elected.

Luke declared our city to be the safest in 40 years by first looking at raw crime numbers which are down. True, our city’s total population is half of what it was 40 years ago, so it would be logical to expect that with half the people, you’d have half the crime. But the beauty of the Law of Selectivity is that it allows us to laud the dramatic decrease in crime numbers without considering that half the city has moved away.

Ravenstahl fabricated further good news. He told us the combined number of homicides, robberies, rapes, arsons, aggravated assaults, thefts, motor vehicle thefts and burglaries are down from previous years. True, but if you look at the number of violent crimes all by themselves ….not lumped together with car thefts …. We have a definite “surge” of violent crime.

Jolesa and Ernest were cut down before they had a chance at anything. Cut down just sitting around doing normal, boring everyday things like visiting friends or waiting for their food. Are we at all comforted by the fact that these two lives were snuffed out at the hands of gang members but that gang crime is down this year? Would we be more comforted yet if they had been killed by a crackhead flying solo, with no affiliation to any gang or group? Maybe even a crackhead from out-of-state? Are crimes committed by crackheads from out-of-state included in any of Ravenstahl’s stats or would those just selectively be placed in some other category?

Whoever did what belonging to whatever affiliation … two kids are dead. It is an ugly horrible thing. Let’s quit trying to find the best spin and put our efforts into making it go away. This isn’t Baghdad …. This is Pittsburgh.

A Plain Ole Grocery Store Not Good Enough For The Hill

2008-01-30T13:28:00.001-05:00

The Hill has been screaming for a grocery store for years now. Years and years. Its been top on the “Community Development” list they are trying to negotiate with the city and the Penguins. This process has been a wild ride of highs and lows. One riddled with ridiculous and bizarre behavior by all parties. The Pittsburgh Comet, by the way, has done an excellent job of staying on top of this situation.

Now enter Save-A-Lot. This major grocery store chain has recently expressed interest in putting a store on the Hill. Understand they weren’t dragged to the area and forced at gunpoint to make this announcement. Surprisingly, their interest comes from an old-fashioned place: Save-A-Lot seems to think there may be a viable market for them in the Hill. Not only that …… Save-A-Lot has offered to staff the store by hiring 25 – 30 Hill District residents for full and part-time jobs.

Wow. How fortuitous! How wonderful! Time for rejoicing and merriment in the streets! A first step in making the Hill a “livable neighborhood.”

No?

Oh … that’s right. A plain old grocery store is not good enough for the downtrodden but deserving who live on the Hill. Good food at reasonable prices right in the neighborhood is not acceptable to these folks who’ve had nothing and who’ve suffered without for so long. It’s just not good enough. The Hill insists when we “give them a grocery store” it must be one with a pharmacy included. And a bakery.

Additionally, the Hill doesn’t just want a store they can patronize. They want one they can partly own. Yep, that’s right. When they said they wanted someone to “give them a grocery store” ….. I guess they were speaking literally and we just didn’t realize it. They want to eat the bread AND the butter, the cake AND the icing, and they want a piece of the pie as well!

Well, why stop here? Why not demand a grocery store with a coffee bar and laundry inside? Maybe also a bank? How about complimentary child-care while the adults shop? How about free delivery services? Double-coupons every day of the week? Triple-coupons?

It’s stuff like this that makes people turn their backs on the plight of the Hill. It’s stuff like this which makes the Pist-Gazette want to say “let them just eat cake.” And if they have to ride the bus for an hour-and-a-half to get the cake ….. so be it. They brought it on themselves.

Property Tax Relief For Low-Income Seniors

2008-01-30T09:51:00.001-05:00

I need your help right now! This is what we’ve been waiting for! Here’s our opportunity to create change in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians.

In what’s being called a “dramatic turn,” the state House just last night voted 159-36 to eliminate school property taxes for low income seniors.

Remember, the House was supposed to discuss raising sales and income tax. House members dropped that idea and finally followed the will of the people!

Folks – this is a big deal! But here’s the catch: It needs another favorable vote before it moves to the Senate.

This is what we want: TAX CUTS, not TAX INCREASES!

We all need to call our state representatives TODAY! Call ten times if necessary! Tell them you support the tax cut plan.

If you don’t know who your state rep is, ask someone! Look in the phone book! But do it!

Folks, you know our elected leaders respond to phone calls. They respond to pressure. Please take five minutes out of your day and call or e-mail them. Beg them to follow through!

Please do me a favor and forward this-email to ten of your friends. Then listen to The Inside Story with Marty Griffin 9 am-noon on NewsRadio 1020 KDKA. Let’s make our leaders listen!

We can make a difference and we can create change. We MUST do it together.

Remember one voice is a whisper, but our voice is a roar!

Thanks again …..

Marty Griffin

*********

Below are email addresses of Allegheny County State Reps and those in control of this legislation. Ask them to pass HB1600 with the Perzel amendment intact. FYI, Bennington, Clymer, Dermody, DeWeese, Schroeder, Wagner(!) & White are opposed to this legislation:

Lisa Bennington: lbennington@pahouse.com
Paul Clymer: pclymer@pahousegop.com
Paul Costa: pcosta@pahouse.com
Anthony DeLuca: tdeluca@pahouse.net
Frank Dermody: fdermody@pahouse.com
Bill DeWeese: wdeweese@pahouse.com
Dan Frankel-23: dfrankel@pahouse.com
Marc Gergely: mgergely@pahouse.com
William Kortz: bkortz@pahouse.net
Nick Kotik: nkotik@pahouse.com
David Levdansky: dlevdansky@pahouse.com
John Maher: jmaher@pahousegop.com
Joseph Markosek: jmarkosek@pahouse.com
Mark Mustio: mmustio@pahousegop.com
Thomas Petrone: tpetrone@pahouse.com
Joe Preston: jpreston@pahouse.com
Sean Ramaley: sramaley@pahouse.com
Harry Readshaw: hreadshaw@pahouse.com
Curt Schroder: cschrode@pahousegop.com
Matthew Smith: msmith@pahouse.com
Mike Turzai: mturzai@pahousegop.com
Randy Vulakovish: rvulakov@pahousegop.com
Chelsa Wagner: cwagner@pahouse.com
Don Walko: dwalko@pahouse.com
Jake Wheatley: jwheatley@pahouse.com
Jesse White: jwhite@pahouse.com

For more details: Post Gazette, Post Gazette, Tribune-Review

And The Media Says Nothing

2008-01-24T23:28:00.001-05:00

Photo: Rendell instructs Ravenstahl in the fine art of splitting hairs.

Did I Slip Into A Parallel Universe Or Something?

On Tuesday, Gov. Ed Rendell “popped in” to Marty Griffin’s morning talk show on KDKA and dropped a virtual bomb shell. Rendell calmly and matter-of-factly stated Philadelphia has “selective enforcement” of their drink tax. (Like, doesn’t everybody operate this way?)

Now investigative reporters such as Marty spend their whole lives perfecting and honing their craft. Each reporter probably has a different method for wringing what they want out of people. Getting people to trip up, spill the beans, inadvertently say that one stupid word they wish they could just suck back into their mouths. So just imagine Marty’s dumbfound condition as Rendell coolly plops a public admission in his lap that Philadelphia illegally enforces their drink tax. (Like, doesn’t everybody operate this way?)

Not trusting his own ears, Griffin asked Rendell to elaborate and Fast Eddie was quick to comply. Rendell explained there was something in the Pennsylvania constitution called the “uniformity clause.” As it applies to taxes, this clause basically says that for a tax to be legal, it must be applied uniformly. Rendell lamented that when Chicago enacted their drink tax, they only applied it to those bars and restaurants along the (Downtown) Loop. Rendell and Philly would have preferred to do the same, but unlike Chicago, our constitution’s uniformity clause mandates that everyone must be taxed equally, fairly and “uniformly”. (Bummer)

So to get around things and to continue doing whatever they damn well pleased, our pesky state constitution not withstanding, clever Rendell/Philly decided they would “selectively enforce” their “uniform” tax. They would check up, audit and hound the establishments they wanted to hammer. Whereas they would just “look the other way” (a Rendell quote) with the taverns they wanted to cut some slack. (Possibly the ones who were campaign contributers? Friends? Relatives?) They reasoned they had done their constitutional duty by *placing* a “uniform” tax on the books. Collecting the tax was another matter, however. One they reasoned was not regulated by the uniformity clause. (Like, doesn’t everybody operate this way?)

So I’m dumbfounded. I can’t believe my ears. Talk radio has been non-stop all over this for the past two days. The Rendell interview has been blasted from one end of the state to the other. Calls are being made for an investigation by the Attorney General. Lawyers for the Restaurant Association (Philly and Pgh) are in hyper-mode. Dan Onorato was hunted down for his reaction, interrupting his Excellent European Vacation, as it’s now quite clear to all this tax is DOA in Allegheny County. Leaving Dan holding the bag without a pot to piss in. Quite clear that Rendell has just blown Dan’s ass clear out of the water for who-knows-what reason. There’s even speculation that Philly’s drink tax will now spontaneously combust under the weight of all the lawsuits yet to be filed.

But…… Not a word in the print press. Not a syllable on the evening news.

Have I slipped into a parallel universe or something?

Couldn't We Just Trade Places For A While?

2008-01-23T10:06:00.000-05:00

Just Think. We Could Have Had A Real Mayor.

Mayor Lukie was one of the dignitaries who attended the inauguration of Philadelphia’s new mayor, Michael Nutter. Luke was there to hear Nutter’s inaugural speech. Who knows if he listened. Probably not. As ususal, Luke probably thought long and hard about clever sound bites he might dish out to the press who hovered nearby. Or where he’d like to kick off his partying after all the boring stuff ended.

But if he did listen, he might have realized there were untold opportunities here! Gobs of great ideas floating about just itching to have a ‘Ravenstahl’ sticker slapped on them.

Mayor Nutter’s speech just rubs in the sad fact that every other city seems to have a real mayor while we are stuck with Ravenstahl. Nutter says:

- Nutter is challenging the citizens of Philly to join him in taking their city back from the criminals.

- Police need to walk beats again. Have an active part in the community they police. People need to respect, protect and help the police in a shared effort to make the city safe.

- Government must lead by example. And that means ethics and transparency.

- Crime rate can be reduced by providing jobs for ex-offenders. Government can help businesses create those much needed jobs by making it easier for companies to function. Philly’s zoning code needs to be reformed, taxes must be reduced and the tax code must be simplified.

- A thriving business environment requires an educated workforce. Soaring high-school drop-out rates and a lack of college degrees are negative indicators which must be turned around.

- Philly must control their costs, stabilize their pension fund and come to grips with health care cost increases. Wages for public employees must be fair and reasonable, but also fair and reasonable to the taxpayer who picks up the tab.

Jane Orie: Another Straw (Wo)man To Knock Down

2008-01-21T11:40:00.000-05:00

There’s a thread over at the Burgh Report where Jane Orie’s name has been taking some hits. Once again the complaint about Orie seems to be that she “doesn’t have the city’s best interests in mind”. Translated: “Jane Orie is not in favor of taxing suburbanites (commuter tax) to pay for the city’s bloat, mismanagement and ensuing debt.”

By that definition, the Pist-Gazette also does not have Pittsburgh’s best interest in mind because the Pist-Gazette is vehemently against a commuter tax. Instead, we believe a permanent consolidation of services/functions and/or an honest-to-goodness merger of the region’s municipalities (and school districts) is the only way to go. Any “solution” short of this measure will just allow Pittsburgh’s mismanagement enough breathing room to continue on. New suburbanite tax dollars in the hands of the city’s old, failed guard will just buy the city $200,000 firefighters instead of $100,000 firefighters. PNC, the Rooneys and the “normal players” will just get twice the TIFs, twice the gifts. The result? Citizens (taxpayers) in “the region” will continue to move yet farther out to another “region” where government has not yet been so badly corrupted. And then we’re back where we started, only in larger proportions.

First of all, just from a “fairness” standpoint, two, three or even eleven wrongs do not make a right. You cannot tax suburbanites without allowing them a vote on the issues that gave rise to the need for the additional taxes. Anyone remember what “no taxation without representation” means? Last time we checked, this is not something you do in the democratic republic we call the United States of America.

Yes, apparently Philly is not part of the democratic republic we call the United States of America. But have their “taxation without representation” schemes solved their problems? No. So why must we continue to jump off a cliff just because Philly gets to?

Secondly, if given a vote, our suburbanite neighbors would not put up with the waste and corruption we’ve come to think of as normal. If some of that chicanery got past them, they certainly wouldn't re-elect the crooks who pocketed/diverted/mismanaged the money in the first place. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, celebrates these type of people as “true Pittsburghers”. And venerates their failed “policies” as admirable attempts to sustain the city’s “quality of life”.

Whether it is her intention or not, Jane Orie is already acting in Pittsburgh’s best interest by smacking down Ravenstahl/Shields/Motznik every time they try to wiggle out of the “spending constraints” of Act 47. Go Jane! as she also guards the county by calling Onorato on the carpet for his outlandish Port Authority ponzi game.

Come to think of it …. Former City Councilman now County Executive Dan Onorato is an excellent example of the Failed Pittsburgh Governance Model unfortunately spreading to the county instead of being quarantined and exterminated within city limits.

We in Pittsburgh need to first clean out our own house. Then we can worry about getting enough respect from the likes of Jane Orie.

Teacher’s Union Not Happy With Proficiency Testing

2008-01-19T11:57:00.001-05:00

Never Have, Never Will

Can someone please show me an instance where the Pennsylvania State Education Association has ever gotten its knickers in a knot because enough of our kids are not learning enough? There MUST be such an occurrence, no matter how long ago it was, but I can’t find it.

All that comes to mind are strong-arm tactics, striking, wailing and moaning about increasing teacher salaries and decreasing teacher workload. High on their list of concerns as of late is making sure kids get ushered out of high school whether or not they’ve learned even the basics of reading and writing. And to make sure no one knows exactly how many of our kids graduate without the skills needed to operate a cash register at McDonalds. Hence, their latest fight: Pennsylvania is considering mandatory proficiency testing as a requirement for high school graduation and PSEA (surprise, surprise) is not in accord with this plan.

Yesterday the lament was a concern for how unfair such testing would be to those kids who have “test anxiety.” Is that a new, clinical disorder/syndrome that I somehow missed? I mean we all get nervous when taking any kind of test, even a driver’s exam. That’s kinda normal, isn’t it? Are these “opponents of the graduation requirement” talking about something much more debilitating than what everyone experiences intermittently throughout their entire lives? Is it worse than the pressure of getting the food order correct at a crowded late-night diner after you’ve been on your feet for 8 hours and a belligerent customer is yelling in your face? That’s the likely fate (or worse) that these sensitive kids will face if they’re rolled off the assembly line unprepared and unschooled for more “meaningful” jobs.

Today PSEA’s concern is all about costs: "PSEA believes it is irresponsible to proceed with this until the question of actual cost of the graduation exams -- how much and who will pay for it -- has been addressed," Wythe Keever, PSEA spokesman, said in an e-mail.

Who will pay for this???? The taxpayer of course. The same taxpayer who pays for Pennsylvania’s generous teacher salary and benefit packages. The same taxpayer who will now have to pay more to re-teach kids who have not learned enough from teachers with generous salary and benefit packages.

Here are some novel ideas for PSEA to consider:

o Proficiency test the kids at the end of EACH grade. If they pass, they move on. If they fail, they repeat the grade. If this causes teachers to “teach to the test”, then …. Hooray! At least the kids will have learned that which is on each year’s test. At least the kids will have learned to read in order to take each year’s test. That would be more than they appear to be learning right now.

o Give the teachers and schools more authority to deal with disruptive/unruly/violent students. Remove these kids from the classroom after the 2nd, 3rd or 4th offense. Do not let them stay forever and poison the learning environment for everyone. Send the persistently disruptive to “special schools” with drill-sergeant-like teachers. And yes, pay THOSE teachers handsomely.

o Require parent conferences each time a child has been removed from the classroom for disruptive behavior. The conference agenda should be to develop a JOINT PLAN to turn the kid around. Fine parents if they do not show for the conference. Multiple fines/no-shows and the kid goes directly to the “special school.”

o Tie teacher raises to their performance. i.e. The percent of their class who moves on to the next grade.

If our teachers and their union care so bloody much about the success and well-being of the kids in their charge, they will use their muscle, political clout and STRIKE abilities to change the school work/learning environment to that which is suggested above. Or something similar to that which is suggested above. So that ALL our kids have a chance for a decent education. Which means a chance for a decent life.

But they won’t. Their concern is not with the kids or getting to the root of the problem. Their concern is with their pocketbook. Which at last count was in the top five fattest in the nation.

Leaving Town Just In Time

2008-01-17T12:39:00.000-05:00

Photo: Onorato getting practice handing out cardboard checks

Dan “Read My Lips” Onorato is to be congratulated for standing by his promise not to increase property taxes. Its clear Dan believes keeping this promise is key to becoming Pennsylvania’s next governor. Dan is bright and capable and his assessment of the situation is probably correct. Too bad Dan’s desire to hold the line on property taxes isn’t rooted in a concern for the betterment and success of the county he governs. Too bad Onorato apparently views Allegheny County as a handy vehicle he can ride to Harrisburg and nothing more. One he hopes won’t run out of gas until he gets there.

The gas gauge on the Harrisburg Express recently dipped perilously and unexpectedly close to “Empty”. But Dan, being the enterprising guy that he is, made a quick stop at Get Go, picking up just enough gas to maybe complete the trip.

Had Dan (who is a CPA) focused on running the county instead of running his campaign, he may have discovered the Port Authority’s cancerous bloat before it became terminal. Or the looming shortfall in the county’s operating budget.

Instead, Dan used his creative accounting skills and standard shell game maneuvers to combine and confuse the two “unexpected” problems. In short, he taxed bar and tavern owners to the tune of $30 million or so to cover a $1 million Port Authority shortfall projected for 2008. The remainder of this $30 million would neatly cover the county’s 2008 operating deficit. An operating deficit Dan didn’t want to be made public. An operating deficit which should rightfully be a problem (tax increase) for ALL county residents, not just bar and tavern owners.

But a tax increase to all county residents in essence would mean a property tax increase. Dan “Read My Lips” Onorato was not about to stall the Harrisburg Express by reneging on his “no property tax increase” promise. He would just raise other taxes on a smaller group of people whose votes were not necessary to his gubernatorial aspirations. And of course budget cuts were not even a consideration to Dan because budget cuts are never considered by most any of our elected officials. It’s just so much easier to raise taxes. Especially if you can find little pockets of taxpayers who don’t have much clout and you then just stick it to them.

Being a tidy and competent CPA, Dan made sure he cleaned up all loose ends. Allegheny County was slated to run a slight (under $20 million) deficit in 2007, but at the last possible minute (Dec 31st) quick-thinking Dan intercepted $19.9 million in state gaming revenues. Those monies were slated to reduce debt service at Pittsburgh International Airport, but instead Dan diverted them into the county’s general fund so as to end the year “in the black”.

Yet another Onorato success.

Now that all the immediate fires have been put out, have we been left with any long-term shortfalls anywhere? Have bar and tavern owners been taxed so heavily that their businesses will be harmed? Will the tavern owners be successful in repealing the new drink tax? What about the airport debt? After all the shuffling stops, is our county budget truly balanced? Are there additional operating efficiencies and/or merger of city/county functions which have been overlooked and could provide relief to both the city and county budgets?

As with all successful shell-game maneuvers, the real bottom line always takes time to discern. This maneuver is no different.

How much time? Well, at least a year or so I’d imagine. Plenty enough time for the Harrisburg Express to have arrived safely at the governor’s mansion. Looks like Dan picked up just enough gas at the Get Go after all.

Sirk According to TWM

2008-01-06T12:44:00.001-05:00

As usual, Chad says it better than anyone else can. Be sure to savor the last sentence.

Maybe We Need To Drag This One Out Once A Month

2007-12-31T11:53:00.000-05:00

View Video

Kalamazoo Results: Can Pittsburgh Expect Same?

2007-12-26T23:45:00.000-05:00

Local Wage Tax Might Be Achilles’ Heel

The Kalamazoo Promise was announced just about two years ago. The program is in its infancy and data regarding its performance is just starting to be compiled. Some say the early data shows mixed results. Others are delighted with indicators they say are far more positive than expected. But good, bad or mediocre, most everyone in Pittsburgh is looking to Kalamazoo as a barometer of what we can expect here. As usual, our expectations are high.

At first glance both cities and their Promise programs look similar enough to anticipate similar results. Unfortunately, it turns out there are a couple of itty-bitty differences between the two that might not bode well for Pittsburgh.

Specifically, Kalamazoo’s Deputy Treasurer, Wayne Nelson, confirmed to the Pist-Gazette that neither Kalamazoo nor any of its surrounding municipalities has a local wage tax. More important than whether a wage tax exists is the fact that there is not a wage tax differential between Kalamazoo and its neighbors. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has a wage tax of 3% and is surrounded by townships who tax at a rate of only 1%. This 2% difference will immediately diminish the monetary incentive put forth by Pittsburgh’s Promise.

Mr. Nelson went on to say that the sales tax rate is uniform throughout Michigan and (very important) “the Kalamazoo Public School District encompasses an area substantially beyond the boundaries of the City of Kalamazoo, so a significant part of the district lies in a developing suburban area west and southwest of the city.”

Well that’s an eye-opener. Kalamazoo suburbanites do not have to move to city center to take advantage of their Promise because their Promise applies to schools in the suburbs! Additionally, any person or business relocating to Kalamazoo from outside the area to take advantage of The Promise can either move within the city limits or out in the “developing suburban area west and southwest of the city” that Mr. Nelson speaks of.

Mayor Luke “Big Picture” Ravenstahl cites Kalamazoo’s success as he stumps the city in support of tax credits for UPMC. The health care giant presently pays $1.5 million per year to the city and it now wishes to re-direct those monies to The Promise. Ravenstahl is steadfastly unconcerned by the budget hole this diversion will leave because he says new taxes from new people moving to the city because of The Promise will offset the $1.5 million loss in the short run. And in the long run? Well, he believes this may just be the economic catalyst this city needs to turn itself around.

Wow. Could this possibly be? Has Kalamazoo done that well?

Bob Jorth, executive director of the Kalamazoo Promise says, “Kalamazoo has welcomed 400 new families because of the Promise.” Even though his comment does not make it clear, and even though he was probably talking about the gain realized by the entire Promise area, let’s assume Mr. Jorth is speaking of a gain to the city of Kalamazoo alone. Let’s also further assume this gain was realized in just one year, not the two their Promise has been active.

Would 400 new families to Pittsburgh make up the “short term” loss of UPMC’s $1.5 million? Well, a little basic arithmetic tells us we’d need 1000 NEW families earning $50,000 per year paying 3% wage tax to make up for the UPMC loss. In other words, we'd need 1000 new families just to bring us back to where we were before UPMC diverted their monies. Family 1001 would be the start of our economic revitalization.

Can Pittsburgh lure over 1000 new families to Kalamazoo’s 400 when we’re handicapped by higher wage taxes than our surrounding neighbors? Handicapped by a school district which stops at our city limits instead of reaching into a “developing suburban area west and southwest of the city” like Kalamazoo enjoys? Has Luke or anyone in his administration run numbers such as these? Does Luke or anyone in his administration have a game plan or does he just defer these types of decisions to his campaign contributors?

From the onset, the Pittsburgh Promise debate has been framed in terms of adages. Rather than fight the trend, I’ll embrace the format as I conclude my thoughts.

This may not just be a case of looking a gift horse in the mouth. Or not appreciating who butters which side of what bread. It’s not even a matter of deriding a half-full glass for its half-empty portion. It may instead all come down to our ability to not only lead that gift horse to water, but also force him to drink as well. In the meantime, we’re going to have to cook the books so well done that apples and oranges will appear to be one and the same. As for Peter and Paul? Neither will know if they’ve been robbed, neither will know if they’ve been paid. Hopefully a few kids will actually get a college education out of the whole confusing mess. I'm no longer certain, but I think that’s what inspired the $100 million "gift" in the first place.

Promises

2007-12-23T15:22:00.000-05:00

Since recent strings were found attached to UMPC’s Pittsburgh Promise gift, I decided to give a closer look to the program itself. No, I’m not looking a “gift horse in the mouth”. But having heard how the Pittsburgh Promise was modeled upon the Kalamazoo Promise, and how the Kalamazoo Promise has virtually turned that ailing city around, I thought it might be interesting to compare and contrast the two. Especially since things in Pittsburgh have a funny way of not being exactly like they first appear to be. And especially, especially since we’ve come to hope that the Pittsburgh Promise will be the magic seed that, when planted, will attract all the suburbanites back to the city, bringing their much-needed tax dollars with them.

My bottom-line conclusion is that if The Promise does not deliver on its promise, it will be because of the program’s complexity. Because with complexity comes a certain level of uncertainty.

Kalamazoo's Promise is so very simple and straight-forward: “If you live here and you send your kids to our public schools, then we GUARANTEE we will pay ALL their college tuition, no matter how much it costs, so long as they maintain a modest GPA.” Period. This GUARANTEED, easy-to-understand, easy-to-acquire, easy-to-calculate-the-financial-benefits scholarship has proved to be an irresistible enticement for folks to relocate to Kalamazoo.

The Pittsburgh Promise, on the other hand, is a scholarship “of last resort” which is not guaranteed at this point and has caps which may or may not provide enough “last monies” to cover tuition costs 100%. In addition, because the amount of Promise monies awarded to a student depends on what the student needs AFTER receiving their Federal Student Aid (FSA) ….. And because they cannot apply for their FSA or know what they’ll be getting from The Promise until its time to go to college……And because the student will have had to have been a Pittsburgh Public School student since Kindergarten in order to have a chance (because of FSA) to receive the maximum $10,000 per year Promised…. How can a suburbanite calculate if a move to the city NOW will be worth the financial payout 13 years from now? If The Promise is still in existence at that time?

Let’s take a look at a hypothetical family where both parents are working and their combined annual income is presently $60,000. Assuming they get cost of living increases or raises of 3% per year, over the course of 13 years (K-12) Mr. & Mrs. Suburbanite will pay $18,741 more in wage taxes to the City of Pittsburgh than they would have paid to the suburban community where they presently live. IF The Promise is still alive in 13 years and IF the gap between FSA and college tuition is large enough at that time, Mr. & Mrs. Suburbanite’s child could receive the maximum total Promise scholarship of $40,000. This is a net benefit to the parents of $21,259. (They got $40,000 but had to pay $18,741 in city wage taxes to get it) Which is not bad, not bad at all. About a dollar-for-dollar match toward their child’s college education.

But is this enough? With all the IF’s involved …. is this enough to entice the suburbanite out of his safe, clean, pot-hole-free neighborhood, where the schools are also safe and clean and test scores are good? I don’t know. In fact, I think maybe not.

By the way, the break-even point for Mr. & Mrs. Suburbanite above is $128,000. Meaning anyone in the suburbs now making a combined income of $128,000 or more a year will pay as much in additional city wage taxes over the course of the next 13 years as they will get back from The Promise for college tuition.

Of course, it’s not just as straight-forward as Mr. & Mrs. Transplanted Suburbanite handing the city extra wage taxes and 13 years later the city hands it back. No, at this time Pittsburgh Promise money actually comes from the pockets of UPMC (and others?). Unless, of course, UPMC (and others?) gets the tax credit they’re angling for. In that case, the “gifted” Promise money would come from UPMC, but the city would then “pay UPMC back” by way of granting them a tax credit in the same amount. A tax credit the city could afford to give because of the extra wage taxes paid by Mr. & Mrs. Transplanted Suburbanite.

So yes, bottom line is if annual income is $128,000, Mr. & Mrs. Transplanted Suburbanite will in essence gift themselves their own tuition grant. But as with most things Pittsburgh, you can't just go directly from point A to point B. No, money around here has to loop around in circles so many times that “at the end of the day” no one can remember where it came from, where it was going and why it started circulating in the first place.

The comparison details between Kalamazoo and Pittsburgh are below. Read and see how successful you think our Promise will be.

Who is eligible?
Kalamazoo: All students who graduate from the city’s public schools, are residing in the district, and have been a city public school student for 4 years or more. Enrollment and residency must be continuous.
Pittsburgh: The above requirements apply plus: 1) Graduates of the Class of 2008 must have a minimum 2.0 GPA. 2) Graduates of the Class of 2009 must have a minimum 2.5 GPA and have 85% attendance in high school. 3) Graduates of the Class of 2010 and later must have a minimum 2.5 GPA and have 90% attendance in high school.

How much scholarship money is given to each student?
Kalamazoo: Tuition benefit is on a sliding scale with a 100% payment for any post-secondary school the student attends if the student has attended city public schools continuously since Kindergarten. The bottom of the sliding scale is a 65% payment if the student has only attended city schools since 9th grade. 10th grade and higher receive no tuition benefit.
Pittsburgh: Starting with the Class of 2008, the maximum Promise monies an eligible graduate can receive is $5,000 for each year of post-secondary school attended. This maximum amount jumps to $10,000 in 2012 if the student passes a graduation exam which the state will implement starting that year. Actual Promise monies paid, however, will be calculated by first considering monies available to the student through FAFSA (Federal Student Aid). An eligible student’s yearly Promise Scholarship will be equal to their yearly tuition needs, less their FAFSA grant monies, up to the maximum $5,000/$10,000 referenced above. The Promise Scholarship will be further decreased on a sliding scale percentage based upon the number of continuous years the student has lived and gone to school in Pittsburgh. 100% of the Promise Scholarship will be paid if the student has continuously lived in Pittsburgh and gone to Pittsburgh Public Schools since Kindergarten. The percentage decreases to 75% for those who have lived/been schooled in Pittsburgh since 9th Grade. Nothing is paid to those students residing/schooled in Pittsburgh since 10th Grade or higher.

What are the grant terms?
Kalamazoo: Kalamazoo will provide up to 4 years of tuition and mandatory fees for post-secondary education. 4 years is defined as receipt of a bachelors degree or 130 credits towards a degree, whichever comes first. Students must be full-time, maintain a 2.0 GPA and take a minimum of 12 credit hours per semester. If GPA drops below 2.0, a student may be reinstated once the GPA is brought back to 2.0. Post-secondary education must be completed within 10 years of high school graduation with exceptions made for military service. Funds are paid directly to the educational institution and not to the student.
Pittsburgh: Will provide up to 4 years of Promise Scholarship monies. Students have up to 5 years to avail themselves of the Promise monies. School enrollment does not have to be continuous, but eligibility expires after 5 years of high school graduation. The 5-year time limit can be deferred for students entering military service, however. Students must maintain a minimum 2.0 GPA while making “adequate progress” toward a bachelor, associate or equivalent two-year degree. Students must submit a FAFSA every school year so that the Promise scholarship can be recalculated each year. Promise monies are paid directly to the educational institution and not to the student.

Which schools are eligible?
Kalamazoo: Any public State of Michigan university or community college.
Pittsburgh: All Pennsylvania state-funded schools, community colleges and most private schools in Allegheny County that offer two or four year degree programs, including many trade schools.

In Praise of Bill Peduto

2007-12-21T18:28:00.000-05:00

So, can we all take a breather from our torturous circumstance and admit that it is not Bill Peduto’s fault we’re saddled with a lying, narcissistic, idiot of a mayor? Can we be adults about this whole thing and admit it is our own fault?

Peduto was derided and scorned for dropping out of the race after his pollsters discerned even Jesus Christ could not beat Luke the Visionary. Those pollsters were proved dead-on correct as we subsequently forgave and elected that little SOB, scandals/disgraces/outrages not withstanding. And this is Peduto’s fault?

Bill went on to RETURN unused campaign contributions saying he could not
bring himself to ask people for money

when he knew he didn't have a snowball's chance of winning. Nor could he bring himself to keep the money he had in hand after he called it quits. Instead of bulking up his campaign war chest for future elections, HE RETURNED THE MONEY. Has anyone heard of any politician doing anything remotely similar? Did we give him even a modest pat on the back for this rare show of honor and integrity? Nope, we instead hurled insults at a good man who was already down.

Bill always has and always will fight for this dysfunctional city of ours. Whether it is domestic violence, Act 47, budget overruns, zoning disputes, civil liberties or even small stuff like animal control …. Bill is the one everyone runs to because Bill is the one who is sane, honorable and capable. Can we all agree on at least that much?

Last night Luke basked in the glow of the city’s love and admiration as he was duly sworn in as mayor of Pittsburgh. He grinned, partied and puffed out his visionary chest as the Pittsburgh Tax Credit Promise unraveled in the background. Outside of the camera’s glare, it was AGAIN Bill Peduto who worked tirelessly and thanklessly, mopping up the mayor’s latest mess. Hammering out a sane, legal deal with UPMC. Peduto again trying to salvage our sorry, nearly-bankrupt asses.

If we don’t have it in us to thank this man for all it is he does do ….. Can we at least not saddle him with the responsibility for the existence of “Mayor Luke Ravenstahl”? We, the citizens of Pittsburgh, created that particular monster, not Bill. We, the citizens of Pittsburgh, freely voted for Luke in landslide proportions, not Bill. And guess what? We’re now getting exactly what we asked for. Surprise, surprise.

Come on, people. Let’s get real. A good start would be to thank Councilman Bill Peduto for everything he has done and continues to do.

I for one am very happy to say, "Thank you, Bill Peduto!"

Open Letter To City Council

2007-12-19T11:09:00.000-05:00

The Pittsburgh Partial Promise, With Strings Attached

I hate to laugh, but I just can't help it. But before I indulge myself in a bevy of "I told you so's", let me offer you a suggestion: YOU GUYS turn the "Pittsburgh Promise" into the "Pittsburgh Guarantee". UPMC has $10 million a year to spare for the next 10 years with $1.5 million either going to the city or going toward the Promise? Fine. In fact, that is very generous of them. So tell them and that wonderful mayor of ours to re-do the photo-op press conference but this time they need to celebrate the WHOLE truth. This time conduct themselves as honorable men doing a good thing for Pittsburgh instead of shell-game hucksters trying to reap $100 million dollars worth of political capital without having to actually pay that $100 million.

YOU TELL THEM thank you for their "gift" to the Promise of $85 million over 10 years. Because that is what it is. And then at the same time YOU TELL THEM you'd like to firm up their payments in lieu of taxes for a longer period since they appear to have $1.5 million in spare change for the next ten years. Pittsburgh's operating budget would benefit greatly by a 10-yr guarantee instead of having to go begging to them every couple of years. That brings their 10-yr "Guarantee" to $85 million for the Promise and $15 million to the city.

Period. End of story. End of drama.

My laughter? It's due to Luke sticking it to you again. Luke who was one of you and who howled when "the administration" was absent when HE wanted to question them during the Act 47 fracas. Luke who wailed further each time "the administration" shoved last minute legislation in your faces, expecting you guys to just give it the rubber stamp. Now that he's "the administration", he operates in exactly the same way. All the while proclaiming to be "fresh government". Now THAT is funny.

How does it feel having "one of your own" treat you worse than hired help? He is being heralded as the $100 Million Dollar Hero and has set you guys up as fall guys if you don't jeopardize the city's finances to pay for HIS coup. So now it's your fault if the city goes into the red and it's also your fault if the poor kids don't get to go to college. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. And very, very funny also.

Tonya, word on the street and the blogs is you are supporting Luke because he's promised to wrest the council presidency from Doug and put the fix in for you. And apparently Luke's repeated disrespectful and shameful treatment of the folks on the Hill, YOUR CONSTITUENTS, is fine by you just as long as you get to be Council Prez. Besides, the woman Luke walked out on, MID-SENTENCE with cameras rolling, is one of your political adversaries. So no harm done, right? But is it okay that he's now scammed you by setting you up to be the fall guy here? Think he won't scam you over and over again if and when you are Prez?

Darlene, you okay with all of this? I don't know if Luke has promised you anything to buy your loyalty. If he has, I'd think twice. Luke has a tendency of picking the pockets of those he owes to pay them what he has promised. He'll pick your pocket for budget monies, political capital, or both. So get ready to give, give often and give a lot.

Doug …… You already know everything I am about to say. Do I really have to say it? You, who have "given" the most for Luke's benefit and not-so-coincidentally have been burned the most by him and the Party. Aside from Peduto, of course. Peduto who doesn't count for anything because he doesn't drink The Party Kool-Aid that's passed around and therefore is not really "one of the gang" anyway.

But Doug, have you forgotten? Luke & Motznik couldn't even wait for O'Connor to actually die before they roamed the halls lobbying for power. Luke ripped the O'Connor mantle right off your shoulders, not even leaving you enough to win your controller bid. He needlessly butted heads with you over invoice review thresholds during the Carlisle debacle. Why? Who knows. Maybe just to let you know who was in charge.

Now he's robbing Peter (city coffers) to pay Paul (his political image/capital), unconcerned with any budget divots he's left behind on the golf course. All the while standing shoulder to shoulder with the unions, grinning ear to ear, calling for an end to Act 47.

And you accommodate this "man", Doug? You continue to play his game on "his team"?

Oops, I've rambled too long. I started out laughing but the laughs are now gone. I should have quit before the point of remembering how pathetic our local government is. How the quest for individual political power trumps everything. How backroom deals and scams are the standard faire of the day. How spin and the relentless pursuit of political capital can even sour an $85 million "gift".

Maybe as you guys recess for Christmas each of you can quietly contemplate your own contribution to our local state of affairs. If you ponder the wisdom of not "looking a gift horse in the mouth", maybe you can also find time to consider just when, if ever, the end does justify the means.

Jeff Foxworthy Sends Complimentary Copy of New Book to Luke Ravenstahl & Doug Shields

2007-12-11T10:39:00.001-05:00

Dan Onorato On His "Wait & See" List.

You might be a financially distressed city if …

1) Your government employees outnumber your taxpayers.
2) Truckloads of illegal aliens blow past you on their way to Buffalo.
3) You award "Historic" designations to your oldest potholes.
4) Pension Fund diversification means splitting your investments between Powerball tickets and The Daily Number.
5) Your economic development plan centers around garbage pickup in Wilkinsburg.
6) You build a new Fort Pitt before the mortgage is paid off on the old one.
7) Your airport relocates to another city.
8) Your "Cost Cutting Task Force" is headed up by local unions.

Interesting

2007-12-03T12:43:00.000-05:00

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Ravenstahl will not be using campaign funds to pay for his Carnegie Music Hall inauguration soiree. Instead, a “nonprofit” organization is being formed to foot the bill.

I presume this means anyone can contribute any amount, bypassing all campaign contribution laws since they are not contributing to a campaign. Additionally, the public will never know who contributed what since “nonprofit” contributor lists do not have to be published.

Quid pro quo? We’ll never know.

Transparency in government? You bet. From day one this administration has been very transparent as to who they are and what they are all about.

Is this legal? Oh, it would have to be. Myself, I don't believe the Ravenstahl administration would ever intend to do anything that was illegal. Or unethical. Or immature.

Candid Conversation With An Assistant Principal

2007-12-03T12:11:00.000-05:00

I had a very interesting conversation with an assistant principal who shall remain nameless but who does work at one of our Pittsburgh schools. I asked this person what in the heck was going on? What was being done about the increased violence? The decreasing test scores? The K-6, K-8, Middle combined with High School flip flops?

This person acknowledged that discipline was the biggest problem in our schools. Unruly/delinquent kids have no desire to learn, their disruptions keep others from learning, they obstruct teachers from teaching, and more often than not they have parent(s) who don’t give a flip. This person went on to say the “reorganizations” we’ve seen in the last few years are nothing more than the district trying to buy some time.

No Child Left Behind says non-performing schools will be closed at some point unless they show improvement OR unless there is a reorganization plan. The assistant principal said certain Pittsburgh schools did not improve enough and were in danger of being closed. So the district reorganized, trying the K-8 model. So far, He/She said, middle school scores look worse under this configuration than they did when middle schools stood alone. So, to again ward off possible closures, the district is planning to reorganize once more, this time placing middle school kids with the big boys in high school.

Did He/She really think scores would improve with this configuration? Did He/She really think discipline would improve by exposing 6th graders to 12th graders? So they could either be picked on or more quickly learn bad behavior from the big dogs? He/She answered “no” and “no.” He/She fully expects test scores to further decline, but the district will have bought themselves some time, which is what they are primarily after.

Nice, very nice.

Why couldn’t we do what was done when Ms. Pist was young? At that time in ancient history “bad kids” got sent to “bad kid schools.” These unruly delinquents were heavily disciplined in “special schools.” They were made to behave and as a consequence sometimes they actually learned. If their behavior improved, they could rejoin the mainstream schools. If not, then at least their disruptive (sometimes criminal) actions would not deprive other kids of a decent education.

“We already have such a school” the assistant principal answered. “The problem is Conroy is already full and we don’t have another.”

He/She was speaking of Conroy School on the North Side. It was news to me to hear that kids in this school spend their entire day in their own classroom. They eat lunch in their classroom and each classroom has its own bathroom, so there are no hall passes to abuse. The kids are heavily supervised all day long.

My vote? Provide each child with the best *opportunity* for learning which is possible. If a student is disruptive, on drugs, assaulting others, intimidating others, a disciplinary plan should be formulated with the parent(s). If the parent(s) do not care, do not show up, do not cooperate, the student should be transferred to Conroy. Or Conroy II, III, IV, or however many Conroys are necessary to get a handle on this problem.

Is this just “leaving these problem kids behind?” Absolutely not. The problem kid has some sort of chance at Conroy. If left where he is, the problem kid is likely to become a dropout statistic. Or if he does accidently graduate, it’s not likely he’ll even be able to read. He’s then doomed for sure. To a life of poverty and worse. And this is after he’s robbed everyone around him of their own best chance at a good education.

So why don’t we just do the sensible thing instead of the politically correct thing? Aren’t we all sick to death of politically correct? Why not worry about what kids learn rather than which building they learn it in? Bringing everyone down to the lowest possible denominator is not “fairness for all.” Instead, Ms. Pist believes this is fairness to no one.

WDVE’s Randy “The Man” Bauman Asks Us To Help New Orleans

2007-11-27T11:58:00.000-05:00

(Concert Details)

Monsters Among Us

2007-11-19T10:59:00.000-05:00

It’s hard to fathom a monster, masquerading as a 30-yr-old human being, who would bite and rape a 10 month old baby.

Except for cases of self defense and to protect others from imminent harm or death themselves, Ms. Pist does not believe any of us has the right to kill another. This includes a mother taking the life of her baby inside, outside, or almost outside of the womb. This includes the state punishing monsters such as Clinton Smith who will be charged with raping Daniyah Jackson to death.

Daniyah (pictured above) died from multiple organ failure when she was penetrated by someone 10 times her size. And while Ms. Pist’s emotional side cries out for her attacker to be killed in exactly the same manner, Ms. Pist still believes “life without parole” should be the sentence for the most worthless pieces of excrement among us. “Without parole” should mean just that. No chance whatsoever to leave their cell no matter how many times the monster has “found Jesus.” The monster should stay in his cell, 24/7, with only brief excursions to eat and take a shower. No TV. No computer. No My Space Friends. No conjugal visits. A complete and total removal from the world he raped to death. This should be the “life” of Clinton Smith.

A final word to our young ladies: Understand there are monsters among us and that you must live your life with this reality in mind. DO NOT create life unless you are able to provide and care for that life. DO NOT bond with another to create life until you know that person inside and out for a long, long, long time. DO NOT bond with another to create life unless that other person has legally committed (marriage) to caring and providing for that newly created life. If you are a single parent, DO NOT expose your children to any “love interest” until you have known them, inside and out, for a long, long, long, time.

Fair or not, convenient or not, this is the reality of the world we live in.

Bankruptcy Watch: Shields Wants End To Oversight

2007-11-17T06:41:00.001-05:00

Council President Doug Shields wants council to pass a resolution telling the Act 47 overseers to go away. He says we’re in fine enough shape. (He must be talking to Jim Rohr)

“The city has, in large measure, met the requirements of the recovery plan and the conditions that led to the distressed status are no longer present,” Shields opined.

Hmmm. What a difference one month makes. It was just October 17th when Mr. Shields noted that city finances were on track largely due to empty positions going unfilled. He warned the city must fill those posts and also cautioned that several union contracts will open up in the next two years. These circumstances alone could change the current rosy picture.

What could have happened to change Doug’s outlook? After all, did he not see Joey King and Luke Ravenstahl standing shoulder to shoulder, grinning from ear to ear, just a day after the mayor’s election, both anxiously calling for an end to state oversight? Doesn’t he know Ravenstahl will wind up giving Joey King whatever Joey wants if state oversight is removed? Doesn’t he realize a return to outrageously bloated union contracts will send us straight into a tailspin of bankruptcy?

Of course he does! Doug Shields is no dummy! Doug must have come to the same conclusion as the Pist-Gazette who feels bankruptcy is not only inevitable, it is actually the only way out of our mess. And Doug, bless his heart, is obviously doing everything he possibly can to get us to the bottom, get us there quick, so we are able to rise from the ashes and start once again.

Doug! You are the man!

PA Dept of Agriculture: Ignorance Is Better Than Confusion

2007-11-11T21:22:00.001-05:00

Pennsylvania’s Department of Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff has come to the rescue of we Pennsylvanians who are too stupid to understand labels printed on our dairy products. Mr. Wolff, appointed to his post in May of 2003 by Gov. Ed Rendell, has issued an edict banning “absence labeling” on milk effective January 1. Wolff feels labels such as “hormone free”, “contains no artificial hormones” and the especially dreaded “rBGH-free milk” are misleading to consumers. His ban also applies to “pesticide free” and “antibiotic free”. Basically any label which informs the consumer that a particular product is free of unnatural substances will now be banned in the forward-thinking Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

According to the New York Times, Wolff is a “former” dairy farmer but his bio on the state’s web site says he currently owns a 400-head dairy farm called Pen-Col Farms. Not that Wolff’s status as a present or past dairy farmer would have anything at all to do with his decree. Of course not. Also of no consequence are the complaints he received from PA dairy farmers who use hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and rBGH in their milk. These substances increase a cow’s milk production by a gallon or so a day….. a margin the dairy farmers are not willing to give up. No, his ruling was borne solely from his humanitarian concern for his fellow Pennsylvanians who he feels would be better off uninformed than confused.

“It confuses [the public],” Wolff said. “[The labels] seem to imply there is a safe, nonsafe dimension.”

He elaborated further saying “no-rBGH” labels can’t be verified by scientific testing. Additionally, the labels incorrectly “infer” that there is a difference between milk from hormone treated cows and cows free from such substances because no study has ever proven there is a difference much less a harmful difference. Besides, “hormone free” is a very misleading statement, Wolff reasons, when you consider that cows produce hormones naturally.

Dean Foods, the nation’s largest milk bottler, has told suppliers it’s time to dump the hormones. Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) remains illegal in many countries around the world including our northern neighbor Canada. The general public has grown increasingly skittish about the flood of chemicals and genetically engineered substances which proliferate in the food supply. Even so, the federal government maintains rBGH is perfectly safe and Mr. Wolff appears to agree.

Nonetheless and in response to public concern, certain dairies have told farmers they will no longer buy milk from cows treated with the suspect hormones. This didn’t sit well with Pennsylvania farmers using the hormone. Sure, they could sell to other dairies that weren’t as picky. But if this silly anti-hormone sentiment was left to grow unchecked throughout the consumer world, their profits would surely take a hit at some future date. Market forces could dictate they discontinue the hormone use, which would put an end to their extra gallon of milk per cow per day and whatever extra profit came with that gallon. Couldn’t something be done to help them out? Couldn’t these hyper-sensitive consumers be reigned in before it was too late?

Yes, something could be done and something was done. PA dairy farmers ran to their friend and former(?) dairy farmer, Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff. Wolff listened, Wolff deliberated, Wolff gave the matter the full measure of his unbiased consideration. Wolff decided Pennsylvania consumers are not sophisticated enough to appreciate the non-difference between natural foods and those containing pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. He spared the consumer the angst of choosing between products they thought were different, but were really the same, except for a few additives. He’s done all this by making sure the labels on both products are the same. No mention of any differences. After all, what we don’t know never ever hurts us.

Winners, Losers, And A Few Honorable Mentions

2007-11-09T23:55:00.000-05:00

Much, much sadness in having to acknowledge you live in a city where 70% of the population joyously elects a total moron for mayor. Not an “alleged” moron, mind you. But a tried and true, tested and certified moron for mayor of Pittsburgh.

Other melancholy stats jump out as one browses the carnage. A few notables:

Worst Voter Turnout
The 1st Ward (parts of Downtown & Uptown) had the smallest voter turnout in the city. Only 7% of those registered to vote actually did. The award for the “Worst Voter Turnout in a District” goes to Ward 5 (Upper Hill), District 8, where 443 were registered to vote but only 1 (that’s right … ONE) did cast his vote. The other 442 must be fine with the concept of disenfranchisement.

Highest Voter Turnout
44% of the registered voters in Ward 31 (Hays/Lincoln Place) came out to cast their ballots. Many of our police and firefighters live in this area. A lot of them have a lot at stake. (Like the rest of us don’t? So why don't we vote?)

Highest Percentage of Non-Thinking Voters
Again, Ward 5 (Upper Hill) tops the charts once more. 67% of the votes cast in this ward were straight party votes. 67% treated the voting machine much like a slot machine. They walked in without much forethought, pulled one lever, walked out, and then hoped for the best.

Strongest Showing For Ravenstahl
No … It wasn’t his own neighborhood (Ward 26 – Perrysville/Riverview) where Ravenstahl received “only” 75% of the vote. There were actually five wards where Luke’s support was 80% or better: Ward 3, Lower Hill, 83%; Ward 5, Upper Hill, 82%; Ward 12, East Liberty, 84%; Ward 13, Homewood, 86%; Ward 21, Manchester, 80%. All of these wards are predominantly black. Maybe there is some kind of “abusive boyfriend, low self-esteem girlfriend” syndrome at work here. You know, that’s where the worse he treats her, the more she wants him.

Strongest Showing for DeSantis.
Yes ….The only wards DeSantis carried were Ward 7 (Shadyside) and Ward 14 (Point Breeze/Squirrel Hill). Both wards are predominantly white, educated and affluent. More telling is the fact that the little “pockets” he carried in other wards were exactly the same demographic: Dist 2 in the Strip (Ward 2) has the upscale warehouse loft conversions. Dist 7, 10, 12 & 13 in Oakland (Ward 4) encompasses historic Schenley Farms and the “mid-rise” condos of the northeast sector. Dist 7, 8 & 11 in Bloomfield (Ward 8) are in fact “Friendship” where folks are flocking to reclaim old mansions previously cut up into rentals. Dist 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 in Highland Park (Ward 11) are those areas closest to the park with the largest homes. Dist 3, 4, 6 & 28 in Ward 19 are the sections of Mt Washington which have the view or Chatham Village. Dist 2 (Mexican War Streets) in Ward 22 (North Side) is where many of those “uncivil” unions reside.

So what does all this say? In two words ….We’re doomed.

I’m seriously toying with the idea of becoming a “Bankruptcy Advocate”. That’s where I actively support folks like Ravenstahl, Motznik, Bodak or any of their relatives for any office with the hopes of bringing this city to its knees as quickly as possible. That’s where we're headed anyway. Might as well get there quickly, get it over with, and get on with the business of rising from the ashes.

Man On The Street Poll: Bloomfield

2007-11-02T21:57:00.000-04:00

DeSantis Tops At Tessaros

Two waitresses and sixteen patrons were polled at Tessaros on Liberty Ave in Bloomfield. The owner was also asked about his preference, but he deftly deferred saying no matter which way he went, he would alienate one segment of his customer base. So, he was going to steadfastly remain without an opinion.

Of the 18 polled, 3 were going for Ravenstahl (17%), 12 supported DeSantis (67%), 1 was undecided (6%), and 2 were not registered to vote (11%).

I had the Gourmet Burger with Provolone and a tall Guinness. That's what I have every time I go to Tessaros. It may be the best burger on the planet.

The details:

Ravenstahl Supporters:
- Female 1: 20-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Having a young mayor is a good way to try to draw young people back in to the city.”
- Female 2: 30-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I like his youth and his enthusiasm.”
- Male 1: 30-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “There was a landslide in my backyard. Ravenstahl showed up in person to give us support. He did that with the flood victims too. I like his straight-forward manner. I think he’s being torn apart just because he’s young.”

DeSantis Supporters:
- Male 2: 60-ish, Independent. Reason for vote: “The Democrats have done a lot of damage to this city. It’s time for a change.”
- Female 3: 40-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I want you to know I am not only a Democrat, I’m a far left Democrat. I will be voting for DeSantis because there is no comparison between what he would bring to office and what Luke does not have. It’s almost like Luke is running for Student Council President or something.”
- Female 4: 40-ish, Independent. Reason for vote: “Its time to get the Machine out.”
- Male 3: 40-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke does not have the judgement necessary to be mayor. My vote for DeSantis will be a vote against 70 years of one-party rule.”
- Female 5: 40-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke is too young. DeSantis has a great education. I think it’s time to mix things up.”
- Male 4: 60-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I’m voting for DeSantis! The young guy is just a disaster.”
- Female 6: 60-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I was for him at first. But now, I don’t think he’s ready to be mayor.”
- Male 5: 60-ish, Republican. Reason for vote: “This city needs a change. The time is now.”
- Wife of Male 5: 60-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I have to agree with my husband. It's time for a change.”
- Male 6: 70-ish, Republican. Reason for vote: “This city has been run by Democrats for 70 years. 70 years of corruption. Patronage beyond belief. We need to get rid of all the brother-in laws, all of the sister-in laws. We need to get every relative of every politician off the payroll. We need to have the best and the capable, not the connected.”
- Female 7: 60-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I am voting for DeSantis because it’s our chance for integrity.”
- Male 7: 70-ish, Republican. Reason for vote: “DeSantis is very educated. Luke has the same old people around. He didn’t clean house and we need to clean house.”

Undecided:
- Female 8: 60-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I am a very liberal Democrat. I don’t like George Bush. I think Luke has tried to do a good job. But I just don’t know. I’m undecided.”

Will Not Vote:
- 2 Waitresses: Both not registered to vote, both will not be voting.

I shared my results with Tessaros owner before I left. He was very, very surprised

Man On The Street Poll: Allegheny East

2007-11-02T01:04:00.000-04:00

Ravenstahl Reigns At Max’s Allegheny Tavern

One waitress and ten patrons were polled at Max’s Allegheny Tavern on Suismon St in Allegheny East. Of the 11, 5 were voting for Ravenstahl (45%), 1 was voting for DeSantis (9%), 3 were undecided (27%), and 2 were not voting at all (18%).

I had some kind of German thingie. It was bland and German. Thank God for Guinness.

The details:

Ravenstahl Supporters:
- Male 1: 60-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke’s done a good job. He’s young, but he’s learning. We don’t need another Republican in office. Just look what Bush has done.”
- Wife of Male 1: 60-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: She agreed with everything her husband said.
- Male 2: 40-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I don’t want cops out of the neighborhoods. And I don’t want City/County merger either. Luke is the lesser of two evils.”
- Male 3: 60-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “My union has backed Luke.”
- Wife of Male 3: 60-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “He has great ideas to revive Pittsburgh.”

DeSantis Supporters:
- Male 4: 40-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “We haven’t learned yet that a one-party system is real bad. We need to know that now. I met Ravenstahl a few years ago when he was running for Council. I asked him at that time what he planned to do about revitalizing our economy. He started telling me about this big idea he had about Pittsburgh picking up the trash for the surrounding municipalities. I was not impressed with him or his answer. And now look what’s happened. He’s mayor, and what happens? By God, he’s still on that trash thing ….. picking up Wilkinsburg’s trash like that’s the answer to anything.”

Undecided:
- Waitress: 20-ish, Democrat. Hasn’t paid attention at all but will before election day.
- Male 5: 50-ish, Democrat. Hasn’t decided yet who he will vote for. He has no problem with Luke. But he hasn’t decided for sure.
- Male 6: 20-ish, Democrat. Not given it any thought at all.

Will Not Vote:
- Friend of Male 2: 40-ish, Democrat. Thinks system is corrupt. Thinks people pick on Luke because he hasn’t worked his way up through the ranks.
- Friend of Male 6: 20-ish, Democrat. “I’m not registered to vote, but if I were, I’d be voting for Ravenstahl just to spite a friend of mine who is presently the right-hand-man of a certain City Councilman who doesn’t get along with Ravenstahl. And also because I was never invited to the Masquerade Ball.”

Pittsburgh: America's Most Livable City (Not!)

2007-11-01T08:24:00.001-04:00

"Almanac" Publisher Says Its Not Just The City

Pittsburgh: America’s Most Livable City.

Have you ever wondered how we ever got that designation? Even with all of our problems and idiosyncrasies, I do love this city. But I am a realist. We are bankrupt, we’re near or at the bottom of most every economic indicator one can think of, our bridges are failing, our water mains explode monthly, our fish have turned androgynous, and we have a mayor whose grand plan for economic revitalization centers around garbage pick-up for Wilkinsburg. So how in the world did we ever make it to the top, winning the coveted title of “Most Livable”?

Well, my curiosity got the better of me. I decided to contact David Savageau, author/publisher of Places Rated Almanac, whose tabulations placed Pittsburgh at the top of America’s most desirable places to live. Did David use stats and indicators JUST from the City of Pittsburgh, or did he include, as I suspected, the neighboring suburbs as well?

Turns out it’s even worse than that. Per Mr. Savageau’s reply:

Thanks for writing.

Pittsburgh is one of 370 officially-defined metro areas in the United States. When we use “Pittsburgh” in PLACES RATED ALMANAC, we’re talking about the metro area surrounded by 7 counties, containing 441 cities and towns in NW Pennsylvania, and named after the largest city in the area.

Regards,

David Savageau
Publisher
Places Rated Books LLC
Washington, DC

So ….. What is the big deal here you might ask? What is my point?

My point is our esteemed government leaders should not be hiding behind the “Most Livable” banner. When we cry out about the miserable conditions which surround us and the miserable choices they have made, they continue to deflect responsibility and culpability by saying, “We can’t be doing so bad …. After all, we’ve been named Most Livable!” Additionally, many citizens continue to look to this ranking as vindication that our weaknesses must in fact be strengths, and "strenghts" are things we should not try to change.

Well, WE have NOT been named Most Livable. It is the REGION which has been named Most Livable. The REGION filled with evil Republicans and suburbanites. The REGION Mr. Ravenstahl wants no part of except to usurp its title.

Man On The Street Poll: Troy Hill

2007-10-31T00:08:00.001-04:00

Billy’s Troy Hill Bistro Likes Luke

One waitress and eleven patrons were polled at Billy’s Bistro on Lowrie St in Troy Hill. Only eight of the twelve were city residents, however. The four non-city patrons lived in nearby Reserve Township. Of the 8 Troy Hill residents, 3 were voting for Ravenstahl (38%), 2 for DeSantis (25%), 2 were undecided (25%), and 1 never votes for anyone and plans to not vote for anyone this time around also (13%).

Of the 4 who lived in Reserve, 3 would have voted for Ravenstahl if they could have (75%), 1 was firmly in the DeSantis camp (25%).

I had the house specialty, by the way. The Black Diamond Steak was very tasty and I’d recommend it to anyone who finds themselves in the neighborhood.

The details:

Ravenstahl Supporters:
- Female 1: 30-ish, Republican. Reason for vote: “I just like Luke. He’s young and I like the changes he’s made. I had the opportunity to meet him and I liked what I saw. He has fresh ideas and I’d like for him to continue the changes he’s started.”
- Male Friend of Female 1: 40-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I want him to be able to continue doing what he’s doing now.”
- Fairly Drunk Male: 60-ish, Independent. Reason for vote: “Let me tell you … I hate Democrats. And I also hate Luke’s dad. Be sure to say that I really hate Luke’s dad. But I’m going to be voting for Luke. I think we need to give this boy a chance. Let’s see what he can do. Make sure you remember that I hate Democrats. I really do. Besides, I think DeSantis might be gay. He’s not married, you know.”

DeSantis Supporters:
- Man Sitting Next To Fairly Drunk Male. 50-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I think a little bit of intellect would be nice for a change.” Fairly Drunk Male warned that a DeSantis victory would be a catastrophe; it would turn things upside-down. “Maybe that’s what we need,” said Man Sitting Next To FDM. “Maybe we need things turned upside-down.”
- Friend Of Man Sitting Next To Fairly Drunk Male. 50-ish, Democrat. Reason for vote: “DeSantis is the smarter man. That would be nice for a change.”

Undecided:
- Couple. Both 30-ish, Both Democrats. Both had not made up their minds yet.

Will Not Vote:
- Waitress. 30-ish, Not Registered Anything. Reason for non-vote: “I never pay attention to politics and I never vote for anyone. But I tell you this, if I were voting this time, I would not vote for Luke. He comes in here from time to time and he always leaves a horrible tip. He was in here the other day with some people from the city and some girls. They drank and ate and the bill came to $88 but he only left a $4 tip. No, if I were voting this time, it wouldn’t be for him.”

Man On The Street Poll: East Liberty Soup Kitchen

2007-10-29T15:09:00.000-04:00

Alphabet Soup Jumbled, Ds and Rs Swap Places

Twelve volunteer workers were polled at an East Liberty Presbyterian Church soup kitchen this morning. Of the 12 polled, 9 Democrats were voting for DeSantis (75%) and 3 Republicans were voting for Ravenstahl (25%). Which begs the question: Who is the real ‘Lil Bush’ anyway?

The details:

Ravenstahl Supporters
- Volunteer 1: 60-ish Female, Republican. Reason for vote: “I think Bush is a very intelligent man and Luke is intelligent also.”
- Volunteer 2: 20-ish Female, Republican. Reason for vote: “Luke is very intelligent. He got good grades in college.”
- Volunteer 3: 20-ish Female, Republican. Reason for vote: “Luke is young and will take us in a good direction.”

DeSantis Supporters:
- Volunteer 4: 50-ish Male, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke is just plain stupid. That boy is going down!”
- Volunteer 5: 50-ish Female, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke is immature and too young.”
- Volunteer 6: 40-ish Male, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I agree. Luke is too young.”
- Volunteer 7: 20-ish Female, Democrat. Reason for vote: “[Luke’s] stupid!”
- Volunteer 8: 30-ish Female, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke is dishonest. He lied about the SUV and that was the final blow for me.”
- Volunteer 9: 30-ish Female, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke would ruin Pittsburgh.”
- Volunteer 10: 40-ish Male, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I hate [Luke]!”
- Volunteer 11: 50-ish Female, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke is a horse’s ass!”
- Volunteer 12: 30-ish Male, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke is a f*cker.”

First Pist-Gazette Unscientific “Man On The Street” Poll Just In

2007-10-28T23:51:00.000-04:00

Brookline: Going for DeSantis?

The Pist-Gazette decided to venture deep into Ravenstahl-Motznik country this evening. An occasion to dine at the Moonlight Café (and Bar) in Brookline turned into the perfect opportunity to spot sample opinions and views from the locals regarding the Nov. 6 mayoral election.

I must say, I’m stunned. Practically stupefied. I expected near universal support for our Boy Mayor in this hotbed of public works, firefighters and Motz Man constituents.

Instead, out of 13 people “polled”, 5 said they were voting for Ravenstahl, 6 (!!!) were voting for DeSantis, and 2 said they were so disgusted they were staying home. Luke gets 5 out of 13! That's a whopping 38% for Luke IN BROOKLINE!!!

(Ms. Pist needs a moment to compose herself before she is able to move on to the details)

Okay, the details …..

Ravenstahl Supporters
- Busboy: Young, 20’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: "Because [Ravenstahl] is young and has that fresh look.”
- Man at Bar: Young, 20’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: Ravenstahl is a personal friend.
- Man at Bar’s Friend: Young, 20’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I like [Ravenstahl’s] views better. Except I don’t know too much about DeSantis.”
- 3rd Man at Bar: Young, 20’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke is a good mayor. He gets around a lot. I was just at a party last night where he was at.” (These are honest-to-goodness quotes.)
- 4th Man at Bar: Young, 20’s, Democrat, Marine 3 times in Iraq. Reason for vote: “I want a Democrat no matter what.”

DeSantis Supporters
- Waitress: Older, 50’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Because I haven’t liked the last couple of things he’s done. The car was the last straw.”
- Man at Bar: Older, 50’s, Democrat, has a son in Iraq. Reason for vote: Democrats need change, the city is being run into the ground, we need a sensible man to take charge, golf, golf, SUV.
- Female Friend of Man at Bar: Older, 50’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: She agreed with everything Man at Bar said, but eagerly added she couldn’t wait to vote for DeSantis.
- 2nd Man at Bar: Young, 20’s, Democrat, wearing a Roethlisberger jersey. Reason for vote: “Luke is an idiot.”
- Cousin of 2nd Man at Bar: Young, 20’s, Democrat, just back from Iraq. Reason for vote: "I can't think of one reason to vote for Ravenstahl. I will have to vote for DeSantis.”
- Woman at Bar: Early 30’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke can’t tell the truth. If you're going to do something, then just do it. But don’t lie about it. And when you go to a concert, you should take your own car.”

Those Staying Home
- Young Couple at Bar: Both 20’s, Democrats. Reason for not voting: "We're done voting for politicians. No matter who it is, they’re all on the take. It’s all just a scam.”

My God, this is Brookline? I hate to say it. I hate to mouth the words so as to maybe jinx a miracle in the making. But maybe Luke is deeper in his own shit than any of us ever thought.

Ms. Pist will be “polling” at other locales throughout the city before election day. It would be enlightening and maybe even entertaining if other bloggers did the same.

What Does It Take To Bring Left And Right Together? The Horrifying Possibility Of Mayor Luke Ravenstahl

2007-10-28T11:44:00.001-04:00

Both Endorse Republican Challenger Mark DeSantis

Has the world come to an end? Has hell frozen over? No, not exactly, but close to it. Both the Democratic-leaning Post-Gazette (link) and the Republican-inclined Trib-Review (link) have endorsed Republican underdog Mark DeSantis for mayor of Pittsburgh.

Prior to 9/11, many used to wonder what it would take to unify our country. Voices for the Left and Right had moved so far away from each other, it seemed they could no longer agree whether or not the sky was blue, whether or not the Earth was round. Then came 9/11 and with it a stark albeit brief realization that worse people exist in the world than the opposite party they had vowed to destroy.

Councilman Luke Ravenstahl’s ascendance to the mayoral throne was Pittsburgh’s very own 9/11. Both our major newspapers get it. Both stand united in realizing the horrific implications of an out-of-control Frat Boy running the city as it circles the event horizon of a black hole called ‘bankruptcy’.

The question is, will Mr.& Mrs. Average Pittsburgher get it? Will the myopic government worker who doesn’t understand his very job depends on tax dollars from the private sector get it? Will the mindless voter who gets ‘handed the slate’ be able to muster the wits to rebel against his own DNA corrupted by generations of same-party inbreeding? Will the unions finally understand that there is not one drop of blood left in any Pittsburgh turnips? Even if there was, will they finally admit the turnip-blood will never come from a boy speeding around town in his Batmobile, chasing after celebrities whilst admiring his own reflection?

Unfortunately, the answer to all of the above is probably ‘no’. Ms. Pist believes we Pittsburghers are for the most part hopeless, hapless and clueless. Ms. Pist believes Ravenstahl will win the election and Pittsburgh will continue on the path to its own demise. I guess it’s just what Darwin referred to as 'the process of natural selection’.

Huge thanks to the Post-Gazette and the Trib for standing up and doing what’s right. Mega-Super-Kudos especially to the Post-Gazette who has risked paying subscriptions from the mindless and the myopic. They have instead chosen to retain their journalistic and editorial sanity and integrity, and for this they will have my eternal respect.

“Gumball” Malloy Responds To Charges. Again.

2007-10-24T10:43:00.000-04:00

Interviewed By KDKA “Yellow Journalists”. Again.

(Read More)

More Spin From The Lukester

2007-10-21T11:13:00.000-04:00

Luke seen here trying to astral project during his waking hours.

Pittsburgh’s 27-Year-Old Mayor Says The Election Focus Should Be On His Record, Not The Controversies In Which He’s Found Himself

(Read More)

FOP Deals Ravenstahl One-Two Punch

2007-10-19T17:54:00.000-04:00

News Flash!

Kapow! The FOP endorsed Republican Mark DeSantis this afternoon in his bid for mayor of Pittsburgh.

Kablam! They rubbed salt into the wound by comparing *DeSantis* to the much-loved, late Mayor Bob O’Connor:

"We see a lot of the same things in him that we saw in (late Mayor) Bob O'Connor,” said Union Secretary Chuck Hanlon.

Maybe, just maybe the stupor-villian Frat Boy will be run out of Gotham City after all!

Bodies: The Exploitation

2007-10-15T22:37:00.001-04:00

Carnegie Science Center Enters World of 21st Century Circus Sideshows

“It’s art!” “It’s science!” “It’s wonderful!”

Really?

Let’s take a quick pop quiz. Which of the following qualifies as art and/or science?

A. The nearly complete skin of a human being, sliced open and laid flat on a table with the face attached. Much like a Blow-up Judy Doll that has been deflated.

B. A skeleton and a fully de-boned person left with only his muscles, both holding hands, leaning backwards frozen in a kind of do-si-do square dance pose.

C. A “Plastinated Petting Zoo” of sorts. Various plastinated organs on display for visitors to handle and touch.

D. A skinned, flayed dead person, posed sitting a la “The Thinker”, skull cracked open and brain popping out. (No doubt the result of all that hard thinking.)

If you’ve answered “Art”, congratulations! You are in the company of that esteemed artist and mass-murderer, Jeffrey Dahmer who temporarily housed skulls, genitalia and other fine objects d’art in his freezer.

If you’ve answered “Science”, you have a keen mind like Josef Mengele and other famed Nazi anatomists.

If you’ve answered “Neither”, then you agree with Ms. Pist who believes cadaver experimentation by medical students and researchers is genuine and valuable science. Throngs of morbidly curious freak-show patrons paying plenty to gawk at dead bodies posed doing things no respectable dead person would be caught dead doing ….. that is not science.

Art? Auguste Rodin’s “Le Penseur” (The Thinker) is an unquestionably superb, world-renown piece of bronze and marble sculpture. Propping up a dead guy in a similar pose with a cracked skull and exposed brain …… that is not art. It’s either desecration of the dead or, at a minimum, some violation of intellectual copyright laws.

Much has been made of the questionable sources of these “Bodies” including this blog. But on the subject of honor and respect for the humanity of the dead and what it says about a civilization when this civilized principle is abandoned ……. No more poignant words have been written on the abomination called “Bodies” than those of Rabbi Daniel Schiff.

Rabbi Daniel Schiff of Temple B’nai Isreal in White Oak is also the community scholar at the Agency for Jewish Learning in Squirrel Hill and a member of the City of Pittsburgh’s Ethics Board.

NY Times Corrections

2007-10-15T19:02:00.001-04:00

Of all the many inaccuracies contained in the New York Times article about pitiful Luke being “hounded” by the press ….. The Times has admitted to making two. Sort of. One they blame on “misstatements” Ravenstahl made himself.

Well, two out of fifty or so isn’t so swell, but it’s a start.

Mustio To Legislature: “Put Up or Shut Up”

2007-10-15T01:52:00.001-04:00

Bill To Reduce Legislature Stalled

The Post-Gazette’s Brian O’Neill reminds us that Rep. Mark Mustio (Moon) will hold a press conference today hoping to shame his fellow legislators to “put up or shut up.”

In response to the public outrage over the “Midnight Pay Raises”, many state senators and representatives have touted various government reform initiatives in an attempt to convince their constituents that they have seen the light. Shrinking the size of the state legislature has topped the public’s wish list, forcing the General Assembly to at least pretend they’d address this important reform soon. In that regard, a bill was introduced to shrink the House from 203 to 161 members and trim the Senate from 50 to 40. But considering much of the Assembly’s newfound zeal for reform is anything but earnest, the bill was shuttled over to the state government committee where it has been sitting “on ice” since January. The Assembly no doubt has been hoping it would languish there until hell freezes over or until the public’s ire passes, whichever comes first.

Mustio needs 102 House members to pass a “discharge resolution” which would free the government reduction bill from its current suspended animation status. Does that mean it would then come up for a vote? Not really. There would undoubtedly be other roadblocks for this bill which no one wants but everyone is too afraid to admit. Mustio is not deterred, however. He plans on taking the roadblocks on one at a time.

“I got elected to get some stuff done,” Mr. Mustio said, “not to make friends.”

With that, Mustio hopes to build public and media pressure by reading the names of the bill’s 33 co-sponsors, the names of the 50 freshman legislators who were elected primarily on the promise of reform, and the names of every other lawmaker who has ever claimed to support a smaller legislature. To date, only freshman Rep. Matt Smith of Mt. Lebanon has signed on to the discharge resolution.

By the way, Pennsylvania spends more per capita on their legislature than all other states with the exception of Alaska and Rhode Island. In 2005 our legislature cost each Pennsylvanian $23.86. In that same year, similar-sized states such as Ohio and Illinois spent $3.69 and $5.83 respectively.

If you have strong feelings one way or another about this issue ….. today might be a good time to let your state representatives know how you feel. Legislator look-ups with phone, fax and email contact information can be found here.

A Sign Of The Changing Times

2007-10-13T08:39:00.000-04:00

I was awakened by the doorbell at 7 AM this Saturday morning. It was someone wanting to know if I had a dollar to spare. They said they needed to put gas in their car.

I guess I’m lucky it wasn’t a home invasion.

Open Letter To City Council President Doug Shields

2007-10-12T13:44:00.001-04:00

Doug,

I am one of the nerds in Pittsburgh who follows the cablecast City Council meetings religiously. Consistent viewing gives me a good understanding of what is going on in the city and, just as importantly, I get an invaluable insight as to just who you councilmen are and where your priorities and loyalties lie.

In this way I’ve come to view you as a smart and generally good guy. You are articulate (too much so?), you generally put the city’s best interest above your own and no one can dispute that you are one of the best "numbers” guys around. Which is why I am speechlessly flabbergasted about your participation in the Motznik Parking Tax Plan.

I know the city is between a rock and a hard spot. To be more precise, we have made all the obvious cuts we can and we have maximized all the revenues we can. While we may be above water now ....no matter what Luke Ravenstahl says, we won't be for long.

However, the operative word in the above paragraph is “obvious.” Yes, we have eagerly grasped on to every piece of low-hanging fruit in sight. Unfortunately our efforts seem to have ended there. None of our local leaders appear to possess the stomach or desire to tackle the really difficult items which MUST be confronted if the city is to survive.

Examples? City/County merger of departments, functions, etc. has supposedly been in the works for a couple of years now. There are millions of dollars in savings here but we’ve only scratched the surface because no one wants to let go of their personal turf and power base. It just never goes anywhere because there is simply no will for it.

The very profitable "non-profits" must pony up more. What they now pay is pitiful. I'm not talking about real non-profits like the Boy Scouts, etc. Do I believe, like DeSantis has implied, that UPMC et al would be more generous if they had more trust in the fiscal prudence of the city. DeSantis appears to have paved the way for greater non-profit contribution if those monies are put in a “lock box” to pay down our debt and/or shore up our under-funded pension plan. Why not be adults and forget about D vs R and just talk to the non-profits as DeSantis has done? Why not implement the DeSantis plan now because it is the right and NECESSARY thing to do?

Various people (I think basically you) talk about joining with the state in their pension/medical plan to save big money. Is there any progress in that direction or just more talk?

Oh yes, and there's a small thing like the firefighter contract that needs to be re-opened. I’m aware there’s a snowball’s chance of that happening. But looking at this from a purely non-political and adult perspective, why not? Doug, this is again something that HAS to happen. Someone is going to have to suck up their gut, roll up their sleeves and start swinging at this and other fruit that does not hang so low.

I know everything mentioned above is very difficult to achieve partly because one lone cowboy can't just pull out his six-shooter and do it by himself. Solutions to the problems above will entail huge sums of trust, cooperation, hard work and goodwill by MANY people. Many people will have to put the good of the city above shielding (no pun intended) their own turf. That is the difficulty level in a nutshell and the difficulty level is why no one wages the battle.

There is one last thing that I haven't mentioned because it’s the wall people keep banging their heads against. It’s the wall that doesn't give. It’s called “Harrisburg”. Going to "talk to", "confer with", "have a dialogue with" or just plain "beg" Harrisburg has not, is not, will not do any good. What good comes of whining about how Harrisburg “neglects us” all the while just banging our heads on that wall again and again? What good comes from putting the cart before the horse by flipping them the Motznik Tax Plan bird right before we go begging again?

I know none of this is a revelation to you, Doug. As I said at the onset, you are a bright guy. This is your world, your life and I'm just a blogging back-seat driver. But you know, Doug, all the political backstabbing and turf wars, WITHIN THE SAME PARTY NO LESS, has got to stop. You guys ..... all of you including the mayor who makes my blood boil daily ..... You all have to attack the big, hard, monstrous mountains together because the low-hanging fruit has been picked clean. You have to do this in concert, driven by what's best for the city and not what's best for the protection of the turf each person now has or the turf they aspire to in the future.

Sincerely,

Ms. Pist