Reform Pittsburgh Now

Campaign Finance Reform – Last Call!

admin — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:33:49 +0000

OK, folks – this is it. Because of your e-mails, phone calls and letters, Pittsburgh City Council is poised to approve Campaign Finance Reform. Please be certain, we still need one final push to thank those Council members who gave it preliminary support and ask those who did not to reconsider their position. The tally sheet is:

In Favor:

Rev. Ricky Burgess
Patrick Dowd
Bruce Kraus
Bill Peduto
Doug Shields

Opposed:

Jim Motznik

Unknown / Undecided

Dan Deasy
Darlene Harris
Tonya Payne

Please use the one-click button below to e-mail all of City Council and Mayor Ravenstahl and ask them to support good government in Pittsburgh. To read the amended bill click here. If you need more information about the issue click here.

An Interesting Conflict of Interest Conflict

Trying to figure out just what the heck is going on in City Council over the Lamar sign issue and the payment of attorney fees? So am I! Well you don’t need to use the Vulcan mind meld in order to get to the bottom of both sides. Here at RPN, we provide you with the documents to draw your own conclusions. To read the Solicitor’s opinion on why certain Council members should not vote on the issue or possibly face removal from office, click here. To read the concerns those Council members brought to the State Ethics Commission regarding this opinion click here. Lather, Rinse, Repeat, Enjoy.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
mayorcompl@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

City Controller Michael Lamb
michael.lamb@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 1, Darlene Harris
darlene.harris@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 2, Dan Deasy
dan.deasy@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 3, Bruce Kraus
bruce.kraus@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 4, Jim Motznik
james.motznik@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 5, Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 6, Tonya Payne
tonya.payne@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 7, Patrick Dowd
patrick.dowd@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 8, Bill Peduto
bill.peduto@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 9, Rev. Ricky Burgess
reverend.burgess@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

Let There Be Light

admin — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:18:18 +0000

Last month, Pittsburgh joined the ranks of North American cities that have opted to test the installation of LED street lights. A two-block corridor of Walnut Street, from Aiken to Bellefonte, in Shadyside, was fitted with new LED light panels. Immediately, pedestrians and motorists were able to tell the difference in the clean, white light emitted by the LED bulbs. What they could not see was the savings in energy and tax dollars these new lights provided to the city.

In Pittsburgh, we spend over $250,000 per month for electricity to pay for our street lights. That equals over $3 million per year, just for street lights. By implementing an LED street light system, we could cut that bill in half. The lights we procured for Walnut Street (they were donated by friends from Leotek Corporation in San Diego, CA) are rated at 150 watts, but use only 100 watts of energy. Compare that to the dull orange lights we have throughout Pittsburgh that use 200 watts. Also, LED lights are guaranteed to last 5 years without replacement and on average last about ten years. Our present system requires maintenance every two years.

Ann Arbor, Michigan is leading the revolution toward LED street lights in the United States. By the end of the year, they will have become the first city to utilize a 100% system. Our neighbors to the North are close behind. Toronto is aggressively establishing itself as a true, green city and is also working to implement a 100% program. Pittsburgh has an opportunity to be a leader in this new field and I have begun a program to use our test program in Shadyside as a launching ground. If you get a chance, take a walk down Walnut Street one night this summer and notice the change that soon will be coming to your neighborhood.

The Stanley Cup

As a Pittsburgher, a 38-year fan of the Penguins, someone who has played hockey for 35 years and continues to play on two different teams, a season ticket holder and a past season ticket holder for parts of four decades, I could not – I would not – let this post end without wishing our Pens the best of luck in the rest of the series and thanking them for everything they brought to Pittsburgh this past season. Let’s Go Pens!

Giving Power Back to the People

admin — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:40:05 +0000

On Thursday, April 24, 2008 Council will vote on campaign finance legislation. These are the basic points, which we are open to amending:

Limits the amount any individual can donate to a candidate to $2,500 per year
Limits the amount any Political Action Committee can donate to a candidate to $5,000 per year
Does not limit how much of their own money candidates may spend their campaigns. However, if a candidate spends more than $250,000 of his/her own money, the contribution limit for all other candidates doubles.
Limits the amount a candidate can raise in non-election years. A mayoral candidate can raise no more than $250,000, a controller candidate $100,000, and a council candidate $75,000.
Prohibits any individual or business that contributes the maximum to a candidate from receiving any no-bid contracts from the City.
Calls on the City Controller to place all campaign finance reports online
Requires the Ethics Board to advertise the contribution limits and other aspects of the campaign finance regulations
Includes the option of taking violators to court for an injunction
Gives the Ethics Board the right to punish for violations

As seen in the two charts below, Pittsburgh’s proposed reforms are in line with those adopted by scores of cities across the nation.

Our contribution limits are often HIGHER than those of significantly larger cities. Even though campaigns in big cities are more
expensive, (costlier media markets, many more voters for campaigns to reach via mail and phone calls), these municipalities saw fit to impose lower dollar limits on their candidates.

Many cities go beyond just setting contribution limits. Little Rock, AK, (pop. 176,000), not only limits the time span during which
candidates can collect contributions, it also requires candidates to either return remaining funds to contributors or donate them to a non profit, after the election.

‘Conflict of Interest’ limits in Westminster, CO, (pop. 74,623), require that city councilors abstain from debating or voting on any
issues that directly affect any contributors who gave their campaigns more than $100.

Each city’s experience with Campaign Reform tells a powerful, positive story. Campaign finance reform in Tucson, (pop. 520,000), has caused an overall reduction in candidates’ reliance on TV advertising and fostered a more grassroots campaign culture. Chapel Hill, NC pioneered local campaign finance reform in 1995. Full disclosure of campaign contributions became a big issue in the elections, increasing local media’s coverage of both contributors and campaigns’ overallspending. The reform measures are a successful organizing tool for involving and educating citizens.

Size doesn’t matter: The voters in tiny Alta, Utah, (pop. 397), concerned by the influence of large developers in their community,
passed local campaign finance laws in 1997.

New Yorkers note their reform legislation, passed between the city’s 1996 and 2000 elections, increased both the number of candidates running, from 21 to 102 and the number of $250-and-under contributions, from 10,500 to 30,000.

The citizens of Fort Collins, CO, (pop. 100,000), boast the lowest contribution limit, $50. They are happy to report that, since its
passage in 1986 there have been no complaints about the law, or reports of candidates breaking the limits, nor has any candidate or citizen challenged the $50 limit.

PENNSYLVANIANS GET IT. We want Campaign Finance Reform. In 2005 Issues PA and the Pew Foundation polled Pennsylvanians on their attitudes towards campaign finance reform.

83% said that they suspect that some large campaign contributors are trying to buy influence.

73% favor new laws to restrict the amount of money individuals and political committees can give to candidates

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMS DO NOT:

INFRINGE ON 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
US Supreme Court: Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
“Significantly, the Act’s contribution limitations in themselves do not undermine to any material degree the potential for robust and
effective discussion of candidates and campaign issues by individual citizens, associations, the institutional press, candidates, and
political parties. We find that, under the rigorous standard of review established by our prior decisions, the weighty interests served by restricting the size of financial contributions to political candidates are sufficient to justify the limited effect upon First
Amendment freedoms caused by the $1,000 contribution ceiling.”

PUT MUNICIPAL CANDIDATES AT A DISADVANTAGE
City office holders and residents seeking election to a county, state or federal seat, may establish a separate campaign committee for the position sought. This separate committee would not be regulated by the city’s campaign finance law, but rather by the laws governing the position being sought.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS

A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE
Nationally renowned civil rights advocate, Fannie Lou Hamer, believed reforming campaign finance laws is a civil rights issue. Her work continues via the nonprofit Fannie Lou Hamer Project.

The Project’s Director, says, “People are ’sick and tired of being sick and tired’ of this pay-to-play system. The current campaign
finance system restricts civic and political participation based on socioeconomic status. Therefore it has a disparate impact on
communities of color and the nonwealthy.”

A MEANS TO BUILD TRUST AND RE-ENGAGE CITIZENS AT THE GRASSROOTS, LOCAL LEVEL

“The National Civic League has always believed that all major social and political reform movements begin at the grassroots level, build momentum, and are eventually codified at the national level,” says National Civic League President Christopher T. Gates.

“There’s definitely a strong movement [for campaign finance reform] at the city level,” Carl Castillo, National Civic League. Castillo
estimates at least 90 cities have adopted contribution limits, spending limits or other reforms.

“Most people engage in public life at the local level and political reform must begin where people live,” Mark Schmitt, the Open Society Institute’s Director for Governance and Public Policy.

“Limiting campaign contributions requires candidates to extend their reach into the communities they seek to represent, exposing candidates to the broadest perspective of constituent views,” Tim Potts, Democracy Rising.

“The public sees that grassroots campaigns mean something, the financial and volunteer support ordinary people give means something,” Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter

Before Council’s vote on Thursday, April 24, please take a few minutes to contact Council Members to let them know you support Campaign Finance Reform and urge that they vote for this legislation. It’s simple, just click on their email below:

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
mayorcompl@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

City Controller Michael Lamb
michael.lamb@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 1, Darlene Harris
darlene.harris@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 2, Dan Deasy
dan.deasy@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 3, Bruce Kraus
bruce.kraus@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 4, Jim Motznik
james.motznik@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 5, Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 6, Tonya Payne
tonya.payne@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 7, Patrick Dowd
patrick.dowd@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 8, Bill Peduto
bill.peduto@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 9, Rev. Ricky Burgess
reverend.burgess@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

The Heart of Our City

admin — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:11:56 +0000

This week will be busy, and it will help to define what type of city Pittsburgh will be. Is Pittsburgh a reform-minded city that supports an efficient government? Does it want to be a leader in progressive policies that could help redefine it as a green city? Is it a city where there are special rights for none and equal rights for all? Can we provide “Lean, Clean and Green” government? This week will help provide some answers.

Lean Government

In providing a “Lean Government” we must do all that we can to avoid the mistakes of the past. A recent bill that would cut the number of take-home vehicles to the Act 47 mandated number narrowly passed City Council. Under the conditions of the five-year plan the city was required to cut the number of vehicles from 81 to 29. From 2004 to January, 2006 the city cut the fleet in half (from 81 to 42). But since then, we have gone the other way and actually increased the number of take-home cars to 60. Council must now vote to override a Mayoral veto to guarantee this ordinance is followed.

Also, On Tuesday evening there will be a special Public Hearing with the Act 47 staff and the Secretary of DCED to hear testimony whether or not Pittsburgh is ready to leave Act 47 status. As this graph shows, we are in the “eye of the hurricane”. Although we have been able to establish a reserve fund these past few years - that was one of the goals of the five-year plan. The future has us back in deficit spending and no plan to avoid it. We cannot make the same mistakes twice. We cannot leave Act 47 status – it would be foolish and dangerous to our city and the region.

Clean Government

Everyone believes in a government of equal rights for all. The true test comes at times when it appears that the process may have been compromised and leadership is needed to restore the public’s trust. On Thursday an Appeal Hearing will be held before the Zoning Board of Adjustment regarding the apparent lack of process in rewarding a 1200 square foot electronic billboard on the publicly owned parking garage at the corner of Liberty and Grant. The objectors are Patrick Dowd as a private citizen and Councilmembers Burgess, Kraus, Peduto and Shields. Much has been written about the provisions of the code that may have been broken.

Also, the Blog to the right contains new information that was presented to Council at Monday’s special meeting about Campaign Finance Reform.

Green Government

On Tuesday, the Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on legislation that I wrote that would require all new public buildings and all publicly financed buildings to be built in a sustainable way. In particular, it would require the city or the developer to meet the silver status of LEED certification.

The best way to change the “smoky city” image of Pittsburgh is to embrace a green agenda that includes advocacy, conservation, eco-efficiency and sustainability into all of our policies. We must further branch out and create an aggressive economic development plan that focuses in on the vast potential of the emerging green building economy. Pittsburgh and western PA are poised to be world leaders in this emerging field; we just need the leadership to prioritize it.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
mayorcompl@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

City Controller Michael Lamb
michael.lamb@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 1, Darlene Harris
darlene.harris@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 2, Dan Deasy
dan.deasy@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 3, Bruce Kraus
bruce.kraus@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 4, Jim Motznik
james.motznik@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 5, Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 6, Tonya Payne
tonya.payne@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 7, Patrick Dowd
patrick.dowd@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 8, Bill Peduto
bill.peduto@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 9, Rev. Ricky Burgess
reverend.burgess@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

Mad Cash Disease

admin — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:17:09 +0000

Today, April 7, Council will hold a Post Agenda meeting on my Campaign Finance Reform (CFR) legislation. Experts Barry Kauffman, of Common Cause and Tim Potts of Democracy Rising, will be on hand to relay their experience with cities that have implemented CFR.

Philly to Pittsburgh: We Dare You.

Last year our friends across the state enacted CFR and transformed the nature of their mayoral campaign. Contribution limits required campaigns to significantly decrease the number of their TV ads, compelling candidates to get the word out the old fashioned way, by knocking on doors and attending many small neighborhood forums. In the end, the long shot, new Mayor Michael Nutter, the candidate with the most grassroots support, won over a millionaire who financed his own campaign and several other candidates with deep pocketed friends.

One hundred municipalities, from New York City to Alta, Utah, (population 397!), have enacted CFR. A newly energized and engaged citizenry has resulted. In New York City the difference between pre & post CFR in municipal races says it all:

1996 race had 21 candidates and 10, 518 contributions of $250 or less
2000 race had 102 candidates and 30,011contributions of $250 or less

Let’s cure Mad Cash Disease

Following the Post Agenda I will work with Council members to fine tune the legislation so that it best serves you, the citizens of Pittsburgh.

As many of you noticed there is a new spirit on Council, a determination to shed light, ask tough questions and make change. You play a major role in Council’s direction. I need your help, this week please take a few minutes to email Council members, let them know you support CFR.

WHAT: Post Agenda Meeting on Council Bill 2008-0026 - Campaign Financing
WHEN: Monday, April 7, 2008 at 1:30 p.m.
WHERE: Council Chambers, 5th Floor, City County Building, 414 Grant Street.
CABLECAST: live at 1:30 p.m. and rebroadcast at 7:00 p.m. Monday night and on Saturday, April 12, after the 10 a.m., Council meeting.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
mayorcompl@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

City Controller Michael Lamb
michael.lamb@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 1, Darlene Harris
darlene.harris@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 2, Dan Deasy
dan.deasy@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 3, Bruce Kraus
bruce.kraus@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 4, Jim Motznik
james.motznik@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 5, Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 6, Tonya Payne
tonya.payne@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 7, Patrick Dowd
patrick.dowd@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 8, Bill Peduto
bill.peduto@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 9, Rev. Ricky Burgess
reverend.burgess@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

Badges? We Ain’t Got No Badges!

admin — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:21:30 +0000

Denying the Public Their Voice – We Don’t Need No Badges!

(h/t The Burgher)

Within the past week we have learned of the parking Authority’s decision to install a large electronic billboard on the new garage at Liberty Avenue and Grant Street. Recent articles have been critical of the apparent lack of legal process and required public participation in this matter. To be certain, there has been a trend regarding the limited role of the public in recent city actions. The end result has been lawsuits, both high profile like in the case of the casino and the new arena to smaller neighborhood cases where due process has been disregarded. There has been a dramatic shift away from community input and toward a weakening or complete disregard of the law.

In the case of the Parking Garage’s mega-electronic billboard, it is clear that all public forums have been ignored. In order to gain approval and the necessary permits to construct this sign, the applicant needs the approval of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Planning Commission and City Council. In addition, when leasing or selling public property for commercial purposes, it is required that a request for proposals be advertised to all interested vendors. No elected or appointed official can chose one interested party of their choice and simply give them a contract. In all, three Public Hearings and required approvals from three public bodies were ignored as well as a fair and transparent competitive bid process for the contract.

Those of us who grew up in the 1970s remember this video. It taught us how a bill becomes a law. It taught us about due process. Somewhere along the line, the City has forgotten these lessons about basic democracy. Somewhere along the line, the interests of developers have overtaken the interests of the community, large corporations have found ways to have illegal tax credits written for their own purposes, and the separation of power–which serves as a critical check and balance in government–has been challenged by imposing restrictions on free speech between city employees and Members of City Council. In order to regain the democratic principles that are waning in our city government, I have introduced this Resolution before Council:

RESOLUTION

Authorizing an investigation by the Council of the City of Pittsburgh of the granting of a 1,200 square foot LED advertising billboard owned by Lamar Advertising to be placed on the new Grant Street Transportation Center to determine if the approval was granted without proper process or legal authority as provided for in the Pittsburgh City Code of Ordinances.

The Council of the City of Pittsburgh is hereby authorized to conduct an investigation, in accordance with all provision of Section 312 of the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter, concerning the granting of a 1,200 square foot LED advertising billboard owned by Lamar Advertising to be placed on the new Grant Street Transportation Center to determine if the approval was granted without proper process or legal authority as provided for in the Pittsburgh City Code of Ordinances.

Section 1. WHEREAS, the Department of City Planning recently approved a 1,200 square foot LED advertising billboard owned by Lamar Advertising to be placed on the new Grant Street Transportation Center; and

WHEREAS, the approval was made by Zoning Administrator Susan Tymoczko and Urban Redevelopment Authority Director Pat Ford without any hearings before the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, or City Council; and

WHEREAS, Section 921.02.A.1 of the City Code states that, “a nonconforming use may not be enlarged, expanded or extended to occupy parts of another structure or portions of a site that it did not occupy on the date that it became nonconforming, unless approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment as a special exception.” A special exception by the Zoning Board of Adjustment requires public participation through a hearing; and

WHEREAS, Section 921.02.A.3 of the City Code states that, “a structure containing a nonconforming use shall not be moved unless the use and structure will comply with all of the regulations that apply in the new location. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may authorize as a special exception a structure containing a nonconforming use to be moved to another location on the same lot only if the Zoning Board of Adjustment determines that such a move will not have the effect of increasing the degree of nonconformity.” In the case that a sign already existed on this parcel, public participation through a hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment would still be required; and

WHEREAS, Section 919.02.N of the City Code states that, Nonconforming Advertising Signs, “Shall not be moved to a different location,”; and

WHEREAS, Section 910.01.C.1 of the City Code states that projects in the Golden Triangle District involving exterior alterations in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), “are subject to Project Development Plan review and approval.” Project Development Plans are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing; and

WHEREAS, Section 910.01.D.2 of the City Code states that, “Electronic Sign Messages shall be permitted as a Conditional Use in the GT-A and GT-B.” Conditional Use applications must be approved by City Council after a public hearing before City Council; and

WHEREAS, the approval for an advertising sign on a publicly owned building or land is subject to a competitive bidding process and proper notification for a Request for Proposal from all interested parties.

Section 2. Council shall begin an inquiry at a special meeting to determine if there has been a violation of the Code and require the presence of the Mayor, Director of City Planning, Zoning Administrator, Director of the Pittsburgh Parking Authority, and City Solicitor at the hearing.

Section 3. Council shall have the ability to obtain its own legal counsel if necessary for this investigation.

We must all learn from the actions that have been taken with the new parking garage. It is critical that we mark this as our opportunity (and responsibility) for a fair and transparent government. No one elected official or bureaucrat is above the law. If you want to change the laws to limit public participation, you must do so in the light of day and amend the City Code before City Council. The law is there to protect the common person and if anyone should need a lesson in how to amend the law, here is another helpful video.

Through the Looking Glass

admin — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:57:42 +0000

The Return of the M-F Toll Road and the So. B.

Much has been said on this blog about creating a transportation system that is suited for the land use, and economic development of our region for the 21st Century. The idea that we need to implement a “fix it first” philosophy toward our infrastructure and create a world-class transit system throughout our region are ideas accepted by almost everyone. However, it will be impossible to accomplish these two necessities as long as we continue to push highway concepts from the old economy as our region’s priorities.

Recently there has been a call from state officials, local elected leaders and our regional planning organization to support the funding of the Mon-Fayette Toll Road and the Southern Beltway. This should raise several warning signals from residents throughout western PA. The longer we continue to listen to contractors and developers and ignore the hard truths about a region that is losing population second only to New Orleans, the faster we will continue to spiral downward.

Lately, our regional planning organization, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission was recognized nationally for their community-driven plan called Project Region. Last month, the Commission decided to ignore the call for brownfield redevelopment and the need for improvements to our badly crumbling infrastructure and instead set for our greatest priority the construction of the most expensive highway being proposed in the United States. The Commission ignored the fact that Allegheny County is already out of compliance with air quality standards and that national studies have proven that additional roadway construction contributes more air pollution, not less. This is not a good way to promote a County to outsiders and has the potential to limit federal dollars for future road projects. Likewise, the Southern Beltway project does not open brownfield sites to redevelop but provides open access to greenfields for more Wal-marts, Petsmarts and other national big box developers. For a region that is losing population, this only adds to our public infrastructure and the taxes needed to pay for it.

Also, it was interesting to learn that the Turnpike Commission plans to use the funds from Act 44 to finance both of these projects. You may remember Act 44 as the initiative Harrisburg took last year to fix our broken bridges and roads and save our transit systems. Tolls are to increase 25% on the Turnpike and I-80 is to begin tolling. If you are like me, you probably don’t remember anyone saying anything about these funds being used to pay for the Mon-Fayette or Southern Beltway – that is because they didn’t. With these funds now being diverted and the real possibility that Congress will block any attempt to toll I-80, how are we going to fix the massive backlog of crumbling roads and bridges and assure that public transit is sustainable? More taxes? That is the only option after these funds are used on these two projects. Curiouser and curiouser…

Around the Burghosphere – Blogging in from Afar

A Diverse Society – or something like that, dude.

Lately there has been a great deal of discussion on local blogs regarding city versus suburbs, high culture versus pop culture and similar differences. The discussion was not quite the same of the ancient Greeks and their philosophies of citi-states and the role of government. Nor did the discussion carry the same dialogue as Thomas Jefferson’s opines on the need to be an agrarian based society. But the conversation did hold certain truths and although the same discussion has been happening for thousands of years, I couldn’t help but be reminded of 1983. We are all the same, fer sure.

Won’t You Pour Me a Cuban Breeze, Gretchen.

Another interesting conversation on several local political blogs including 2 Political Junkies, The Burgh Report, and The Pittsburgh Comet focused on the recent policy proposal from the Ravenstahl Administration directing all Councilmembers to formally request meetings with city employees through the Mayor’s office. I personally met with the Mayor’s Chief Operations Officer, Mr. Art Victor and let him know that I would continue to copy him on correspondences of importance and issues that may be controversial within my district, as a courtesy. I believe in instituting an efficient, transparent government that tracks all complaints and assures that every department is meeting or exceeding their goals. However, I also believe in the city’s Home Rule Charter, which separates powers and creates an independent City Council. I believe in the U.S. Constitution, which through the First Amendment guarantees the right of any individual (Councilmembers and city employees included) to freely speak with one another. And I believe in the Democratic experiment that was created by our Founding Fathers in which the different branches of government act as checks and balances on each other.

All that said, I was reminded of another 1980s favorite – this one from Donald Fagen (1982) – enjoy! “The rules have changed, it’s not the same. It’s all new players in a whole new ballgame.”

Update: The above video has had embedding disabled, but you can view it directly here.

3 Public Meetings — 3 Chances to be Heard

admin — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:58:29 +0000

Three Public Hearings

Three Chances to be Heard

During the month of February, City Council will be holding Public Hearings on three important issues. This is your opportunity to have your voice heard. To be scheduled to speak at any of these Hearings, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 412-255-2139. You may also show-up at the day of the Hearing – although you will address Council after all the registered speakers and you may be given less time, at the discretion of the Chair. If you cannot attend the Hearings, you can always use Reform Pittsburgh Now’s One Stop Action Button at the bottom of this page and contact all City elected officials by e-mail. Either way, take a moment and let your voice be heard on these important issues.

Designating August Wilson’s Childhood Home as an Historic Structure

On Monday, February 18, 2008 at 1:00 PM in City Council Chambers, a Public Hearing will be held to consider designating the childhood home of August Wilson as an historic structure in the City of Pittsburgh. Wilson is recognized around the world as one of the greatest American Playwrights of the 20th Century. An affirmative vote from City Council would begin the process of creating an artist’s retreat at his childhood home in the Hill District.

Creating a Community Process for our Tree Maintenance Program

Much controversy has plagued the recent tree maintenance program to prune and remove our urban forest’s priority 2 trees. Priority 2 trees are those trees that do not pose an immediate public safety hazard, but are recognized as a potential liability due to their physical condition. This Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 1:30 PM in City Council Chambers to discuss ways that city government can better communicate with the public, offer a program for residents who wish to appeal the city’s decision and implement a tree replacement program that creates a priority for any resident who has had their tree removed under this program.

Campaign Finance Reform

The “Mother of All Reform” – Campaign Finance Reform gets to the roots of why local government serves many as a “pay-to-play” system. Presently, Pennsylvania is one of only a handful of states that do not have any rules or limits on the amount a person or Political Action Committee can contribute to a candidate’s campaign. Philadelphia decided not to wait for Harrisburg to lead the reform and instituted their own rules on the amount any one person or group could contribute. Their model was based on a Federal standard that has withstood challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court. To be certain, Philadelphia also faced legal challenges and in December 2007, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled their reform measures guaranteed the rights of the PA Constitution. On Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 2:00 PM in City Council Chambers, you will have the chance to speak on this important issue.

When you choose not to participate, you do not choose to remain neutral, you choose to have someone else decide what is best for you. Be heard!

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
mayorcompl@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

City Controller Michael Lamb
michael.lamb@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 1, Darlene Harris
darlene.harris@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 2, Dan Deasy
dan.deasy@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 3, Bruce Kraus
bruce.kraus@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 4, Jim Motznik
james.motznik@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 5, Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 6, Tonya Payne
tonya.payne@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 7, Patrick Dowd
patrick.dowd@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 8, Bill Peduto
bill.peduto@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 9, Rev. Ricky Burgess
reverend.burgess@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

MLK

admin — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:23:29 +0000

Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech
December 10, 1964, Oslo, Norway:

I accept the Nobel Prize for Peace at a moment when twenty-two million Negroes of the United States of America are engaged in a creative battle to end the long night of racial injustice. I accept this award in behalf of a civil rights movement which is moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice.

I am mindful that only yesterday in Birmingham, Alabama, our children, crying out for brotherhood, were answered with fire hoses, snarling dogs and even death. I am mindful that only yesterday in Philadelphia, Mississippi, young people seeing to secure the right to vote were brutalized and murdered. And only yesterday more than 40 houses of worship in the State of Mississippi alone were bombed or burned because they offered a sanctuary to those who would not accept segregation.

I am mindful that debilitating and grinding poverty afflicts my people and chains them to the lowest rung of the economic ladder.

Therefore, I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleaguered and committed to unrelenting struggle; to a movement which has not won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize.

After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time — the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.

Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood.

If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love. The tortuous road which has led from Montgomery, Alabama, to Oslo bears witness to this truth. This is a road over which millions of Negroes are traveling to find a new sense of dignity.

This same road has opened for all Americans a new ear of progress and hope. It has led to a new Civil Rights bill, and it will, I am convinced, be widened and lengthened into a superhighway of justice as Negro and white men in increasing numbers create alliances to overcome their common problems.

I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “isness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts him.

I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsom in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.

I believe that even amid today’s motor bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men.

I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.

“And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid.”

I still believe that we shall overcome.

This faith can give us courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born.

Today I come to Oslo as a trustee, inspired and with renewed dedication to humanity. I accept this prize on behalf of all men who love peace and brotherhood. I say I come as a trustee, for in the depths of my heart I am aware that this prize is much more than an honor to me personally.

Every time I take a flight I am always mindful of the man people who make a successful journey possible — the known pilots and the unknown ground crew.

So you honor the dedicated pilots of our struggle who have sat at the controls as the freedom movement soared into orbit. You honor, once again, Chief (Albert) Luthuli of South Africa, whose struggles with and for his people, are still met with the most brutal expression of man’s inhumanity to man.

You honor the ground crew without whose labor and sacrifices the jet flights to freedom could never have left the earth.

Most of these people will never make the headlines and their names will not appear in Who’s Who. Yet when years have rolled past and when the blazing light of truth is focused on this marvelous age in which we live — men and women will know and children will be taught that we have a finer land, a better people, a more noble civilization — because these humble children of God were willing to suffer for righteousness’ sake.

I think Alfred Nobel would know what I mean when I say that I accept this award in the spirit of a curator of some precious heirloom which he holds in trust for its true owners — all those to whom beauty is truth and truth beauty — and in whose eyes the beauty of genuine brotherhood and peace is more precious than diamonds or silver or gold.

Local Campaign Finance Reform

admin — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:12:12 +0000

Today, I will introduce legislation to limit campaign contributions in an attempt to end the “pay to play” system. My legislation will limit the amount any individual can donate to a candidate to $2,500 per year, and any Political Action Committee donations to $5,000 per year. In accordance with Supreme Court rulings on First Amendment rights, my legislation does not limit the amount of their own money a candidate can spend on their election. However, if a candidate spends more than $250,000 of their own money, the contribution limits for all other candidates double (to $5,000 and $10,000).

Additionally, to prevent incumbents from building war chests that are so large that they deter opponents from entering a race, my legislation limits the amount a candidate can raise in non-election years. A mayoral candidate can raise no more than $250,000, a controller candidate $100,000, and a council candidate $75,000.

The legislation also prohibits any individual or business that contributes the maximum to a candidate from receiving any no-bid contracts from the City.

Lastly, in order to improve transparency in the process, the legislation calls on the City Controller to place all campaign finance reports online for the public to view. It also requires the Ethics Board to advertise the contribution limits and other aspects of the campaign finance regulations every six months.

This legislation will be introduced today and then held for a public hearing.

Click here to read the legislation. If you are interested in learning more about the legislation and Philadelphia’s legislation click here, here, and here.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
mayorcompl@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

City Controller Michael Lamb
michael.lamb@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 1, Darlene Harris
darlene.harris@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 2, Dan Deasy
dan.deasy@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 3, Bruce Kraus
bruce.kraus@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 4, Jim Motznik
james.motznik@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 5, Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 6, Tonya Payne
tonya.payne@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 7, Patrick Dowd
patrick.dowd@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 8, Bill Peduto
bill.peduto@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 9, Rev. Ricky Burgess
ricky.burgess@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

Planning our Fiscal Future

admin — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:12:06 +0000

And……We’re Back!

Happy 2008 to all our RPNers. As the new City Council meets this morning, the opportunity to address the fiscal uncertainity of our city’s budget will become a primary issue. As Chair of the City’s Finance Committee, my goal for the year is to create a new five year plan - one that will assure us of financial stability and one that will create a sustainable budget by 2014.

First, some history. Back in June 2004, City Council narrowly adopted the Act 47 Recovery Plan. That year the city was facing a $90 million deficit. The Recovery Plan included changes to revenues and expenditures that would gaurantee the city a safe harbor for 5 years. We Have seen the outcomes of that important vote in the balanced budgets of 2005, 2006, 2007 and this years budget. However, after 2009, there are serious questions whether we will be able to have enough money to pay the bills.

In the chart above, it is clear that the revenues projected in the five year plan have fallen short. Most noticeable is that revenues were expected to increase in each year, when in fact they have mostly flat-lined. The increases were expected mainly from real estate taxes (which the County froze) and new gambling revenue (which the chart shows a bump starting in 2009). Yet, even with the anticipated gambling revenue, revenues are predicted to flat line once again by 2010 and several sources of revenue are not gauranteed.

In order to make up for the shortfall in revenue, the city has had to find approximately 5% savings by being adaptable in spending. It is important to note that the savings in years past 2009 are not gauranteed and that important contracts, including Fire and Police, need to be renegotiated in 2009. By 2010, it is very likely that the city will once again be spending more than it is collecting in present taxes. The probability is very high unless we begin to enact changes now.

So what are these changes? How will it affect you? What is required by the city, the county, the state? In the next few weeks I look forward to giving you the information to make informed decisions and share with you some ideas on how we can solve this problem. As Chair of the Finance Committee, I look forward to incorporating your ideas and suggestions into a new, viable five year plan and taking that plan to Council, the Mayor, the Act 47 Coordinators and the Oversight Board. This issue will no just go away, it will require reforming our budget - NOW!

Governing by Law

admin — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:47:44 +0000

Governing by Laws

The recent debate in City Council over UPMC’s generous gift to contribute to the Pittsburgh Promise wasn’t about UPMC or the Pittsburgh Promise. It is a debate over the powers of local government. Namely, does local government have the authority to grant certain individuals or organizations charitable tax credits to specific charities?

History

Everyone agrees that the Pittsburgh Promise will be beneficial in retaining families and providing opportunities to students of Pittsburgh Public Schools. Also, everyone understands that the program will only succeed with the large voluntary contribution being made by UPMC. However, legislation that was delivered to City Council would require the City of Pittsburgh to provide a “dollar for dollar tax credit” to UPMC in the event that the State would someday amend Act 55 – the provision that excludes non-profits from paying taxes to local government. This legislation fails on two critical points – the authority of any local government to provide tax credits and the requirement of uniformity in tax policy. It is important to remember that the Pittsburgh Promise is NOT a department of local government, but instead has been created as a charitable organization.

Uniformity in Taxation

Article VIII of the Pennsylvania Constitution creates the laws regarding taxation and finance. Section 1 requires that all taxes be uniform. The idea is simple - the concept is profound. Government shall create no laws that would benefit one person, group or organization. The following Sections enumerate conditions that special provisions can be applied. However, no Section addresses the concerns of tax credits for charitable organizations or the ability of a local government to apply special rules to only one organization or to only one charitable organization. The legislation before City Council and the School Board did both. In Section 5 of Article VIII the state answers what would happen if a local government decided to create its own rules. “All laws exempting property from taxation, other than the property above enumerated, shall be void.” If Council wanted to create tax credits for charitable contributions, it would have to do so for everyone.

The Theory Behind Tax Credits for Charitable Contributions

Congress has proposed federal legislation to create tax credits to encourage private donations to organizations that serve the poor and fight poverty. The Bush Administration has made this a staple of their urban agenda. To date, only four states (Arizona, Colorado, Michigan and North Carolina) have adopted state charity tax credits. In each of these states, strict guidelines were adopted that set limits on the amount of tax credits and defined which charitable organizations would be eligible for contributions. In 1998, a bill was drafted in Pennsylvania, but it is difficult to determine where the Legislation (or the Legislature) stands today. In all cases, uniformity was critical. In no case was authority given to a local governing body to institute a charitable tax credit policy, and certainly, no one has proposed creating one for the sole purpose of one organization and/or one charity. In order to create a tax credit policy for UPMC to donate to the Pittsburgh Promise, the state – not the city or the school board – would have to draft legislation and that legislation would be required to adhere to the tax uniformity law.

Changing the Law

In order for the state to allow the City of Pittsburgh or the Pittsburgh Public School District to create a special provision of tax credits for the Pittsburgh Promise, the Pennsylvania Constitution would need to be amended. This could only be done through votes on an amendment by the two Houses of the General Assembly in two separate sessions. This means if the state House and Senate would approve such a measure they would have to meet again next year, under new leadership, and vote again on the amendment. Although, a different legal argument could be argued to work around present law, this process is the only way to stay true to the intent of the Constitution all elected officials are sworn to protect.

Common Sense Solutions

No one wants to see UPMC walk away from the gift they have made to the Pittsburgh Promise, and everyone wants to see the Promise become a guarantee. In the next few weeks we have an obligation to make both happen. UPMC can negotiate directly with the Pittsburgh Promise without any agreements with City Council or the School Board. Contingencies can be created to protect their investment and allow the Promise to continue. Also, in the event that UPMC is ever required to pay local taxes, through action by the state, City Council and the School Board could create a trust fund. Taxes received by UPMC would be deposited into the fund and on a yearly basis; Council and the School Board could decide whether those funds should go to the Pittsburgh Promise. This would follow the legal budget process and would include public participation and accountability of elected officials. Despite the rancor over the process and the intention of the legislation debated last week, everyone is working together to find a solution. In the end a better solution will be found and the generous gift made by UPMC will make a significant impact on Pittsburgh.

December 14, 2007

Creating an Identity for the Ethics Board

On Monday, City Council will vote on an amendment to the budget to allocate $10,000 to the Ethics Board. The funds will be used to provide minimal administrative functions and independent legal counsel. In 2006, I had the pleasure to work with Mayor O’Connor on reactivating the long dormant Board. Earlier this year, I offered assistance to help them research best practices from other cities and gain the necessary independence to carry out their mission.

On Wednesday, I allocated $900 from my office staff salary account to the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. These funds will be used at the direction of the Ethics Board in order to study policy, administration and procedure from Ethics Boards around the country. The report will recommend changes to our Ethics Code that will be presented to City Council in 2008.

Both of these allocations are necessary to create a more independent and effective Ethics Board. Our present system just doesn’t work. If you care about good government, please take 30 seconds to contact city elected officials by clicking on the button below and ask them to approve the funding for the Ethics Board.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
mayorcompl@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

City Controller Tony Pokora
tony.pokora@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 1, Darlene Harris
darlene.harris@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 2, Dan Deasy
dan.deasy@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 3, Jeff Koch
jeffrey.koch@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 4, Jim Motznik
james.motznik@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 5, Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 6, Tonya Payne
tonya.payne@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 7, Len Bodack
len.bodack@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 8, Bill Peduto
bill.peduto@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 9, Council President Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

Creating an Identity for the Ethics Board

admin — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:38:39 +0000

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
mayorcompl@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

City Controller Tony Pokora
tony.pokora@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 1, Darlene Harris
darlene.harris@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 2, Dan Deasy
dan.deasy@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 3, Jeff Koch
jeffrey.koch@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 4, Jim Motznik
james.motznik@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 5, Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 6, Tonya Payne
tonya.payne@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 7, Len Bodack
len.bodack@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 8, Bill Peduto
bill.peduto@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 9, Council President Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

Regional Equity ‘08 Summit Buzz and Brochure

admin — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:58:36 +0000

Regional Equity ‘08: The Third National Summit on Equitable Development, Social Justice, and Smart Growth is less than four months away and our roster of inspiring and influential speakers keeps growing.

Meet and mingle with Tavis Smiley, whose book The Covenant in Action, was cited in Giving, by Bill Clinton, as “the most comprehensive American model for citizen service”
Discuss issues ranging from urban poverty and community development to celebrity and digital media with Salon editor-in-chief Joan Walsh
Explore God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It with Jim Wallis, founder and editor of Sojourners Magazine and political activist

And there’ll be ample opportunity to sharpen your skills in our workshops, network with over 1,000 visionaries and activists, and jazz it up during our receptions.

Download (PDF) the Regional Equity ‘08 Brochure

UPDATE: I am honored to have been invited to attend the conference as a panelist.

Tree Vitalize

admin — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:51:11 +0000

On Tuesday, the Administration will send legislation to Council to authorize the Mayor to submit a grant application to the state’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources in order to create an aggressive tree planting program in Pittsburgh. The Tree Vitalize program follows nearly a decade of environmental activism in protecting our City’s urban forest. In the 1990s the City created the Shade Tree Commission and funded it through an advertising agreement for bus shelters. Legislation was later drafted to use some of those funds in order to create an inventory and seven-year action plan to maintain our urban forest. For the past three years, the City and the Shade Tree Commission have tackled the difficult duty of proper pruning and removing of priority one and priority two trees (those that cause a public safety hazard).

Through those early efforts, the city earned the title of “Tree City” by the Arbor Day Foundation. However, the need for replacement of trees was not possible under the current financial realities. In 2005, I hosted a meeting of the Shade Tree Commission and the Heinz Endowments to find a way to be proactive in fixing a problem that continued to get worse with every passing year. Through their efforts, a working group was assembled later that year with members of the environmental community, the foundation community and local government. In January 2006, a meeting was held with the Secretary of DCNR to create a program similar to a successful model used in Philadelphia.

From these efforts, The Friends of the Urban Forest was born and local organizations spent over a year working with the Administration to create a workable plan. Only through a combined effort of local foundations, environmental and conservation groups, the state government and city hall could a successful solution be found. The decade of work in creating the Shade Tree Commission, protecting it through tough budget years, creating a detailed tree inventory and a realistic seven-year plan, lobbying foundations and local organizations and partnering with the state will finally pay off on Tuesday with the introduction of this request. The Administration and all the groups that got behind this concept need to be thanked. It’s a long time coming, but it will help to guarantee that the beautiful and critical health of our urban forest will be an asset that we can pass down to the next generation.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
mayorcompl@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

City Controller Tony Pokora
tony.pokora@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 1, Darlene Harris
darlene.harris@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 2, Dan Deasy
dan.deasy@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 3, Jeff Koch
jeffrey.koch@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 4, Jim Motznik
james.motznik@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 5, Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 6, Tonya Payne
tonya.payne@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 7, Len Bodack
len.bodack@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 8, Bill Peduto
bill.peduto@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 9, Council President Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us