Progress Pittsburgh

Likely mayoral candidate and City Council President Doug Shields has publicly stated that he will not pursue the highest position in Pittsburgh. The City Paper, Post-Gazette, and Trib report this turn of events, quoting from his press release:

With the encouragement and support of many people, I have seriously considered running for Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh. At this time, the right choice for me, for this Council, and for the people of Pittsburgh is to continue to serve as Council President.

The question remains as to whether any other Democrat will enter the race to challenge incumbent Luke Ravenstahl who, despite extremely good polling during his last race in 2007, has been seen to frequently falter and lose popularity among his consistuents in the last year or so.

Who SHOULD run against Luke? Can anyone WIN?

The Tribune-Review today gives a brief mention to the fact that our city’s redevelopment authority is under investigation by a federal grand jury:

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s office announced the probe. And that’s a hoot, considering there was no love lost between the mayor’s office and the URA during Pat Ford’s tenure at the latter. City Controller Michael Lamb previously said the URA gave mortgages to a developer on properties at double their assessed value. This could get interesting.

Thanks to the URA’s (and others’) mortgages to the aforementioned developer (read speculator), the Beechview neighborhood has massive vacancy in the heart of its business district. The politics of development in this city need to be brought into check and if it takes a federal investigation to do so, let’s go.

An article in yesterday’s Tribune-Review states that Raventahl expects a challenge from City Council President Doug Shields in the 2009 mayor’s race. When Shields denied the claim, Ravenstahl seems to use that denial as a way to discredit the councilman. Additionally, another potential motivation for the mayor’s announcement is the hope of a crowded field. Ravenstahl knows that more than one opponent will likely assure his victory.

In less that a year Pittsburgh will have the opportunity to vote for a new mayor.  I have been thinking about the mayors race since I read Brian O’Neill’s article “Mayor’s Race, 2009: What’s the Obama Effect.“  In this article O’Neill compares the results of the 2007 mayors race with the results of the 2008 Presidential Primary results in the city of Pittsburgh.

But as the city’s political junkies look toward yet another mayoral race in the spring of 2009, this map has intriguing brush strokes. Consider:

• Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s home turf, the North Side, did not go for his favored candidate, Mrs. Clinton. About 62 percent of North Side voters went for Mr. Obama, slightly greater than his 59 percent slice in the city as a whole.

• In the November 2007 mayoral election, Mr. Ravenstahl’s greatest support came in largely black wards. Those places had little interest in Republican challenger Mark DeSantis, but those same wards lined up Tuesday with the prosperous East End, about the only area Mr. DeSantis carried last fall.

• It seems every prominent mayoral critic and/or potential challenger is an Obama supporter: Councilmen Bill Peduto, Doug Shields, Ricky Burgess and Patrick Dowd and City Controller Michael Lamb, to name a few. Being on Mr. Obama’s side this year may be helpful in the city’s black wards during next year’s Democratic primary.

The Burgher asks the same question in his blog post today.  In at least the past 2 mayoral elections, it has none be successful to start campaigning 3 months before the election day.

• 2005 Primary – Bob O’Connor have been campaigning for almost 10 years, Lamb got into the race in January and Peduto didn’t get serious about running until the end of February
• 2007 Primary – Ravenstahl had the upperhand by being the incumbent, Peduto didn’t start his campaign until January
• 2007 General – DeSantis didn’t kick into high gear until September

So if we are going to have a serious competition in 2009 – who is going to run and when are they going to get started?  Do you think anyone will be able to mount a serious campaign for mayor in 2009?  Who should run?  What should they be doing now?  Should someone run as an independent and challenge the democratic nominee in the general election.

There’s trouble in paradise. Pat Ford and Alecia Sirk have both stepped away from their positions in city government due to questions of unethical practice. Sirk has resigned as the mayor’s communications person and Ford is on leave as the director of the URA. See the articles below for more details.

Ad exec’s gifts to officials spur Pennsylvania ethics probe; A husband-wife team leaves city hall amid a controversy over gifts they received from Lamar Advertising
Thursday, April 10, 2008
By Rich Lord, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08101/872040-85.stm#

URA boss accepted gifts from billboard company
By Jeremy Boren
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_561373.html

Feds: City development guru Ford must resign housing authority
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
By Rich Lord, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08100/871781-100.stm

Mayor’s spokeswoman resigns; URA head placed on leave
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
By Rich Lord, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08100/871911-100.stm

Why would Bill Peduto write a letter on Tawanda Carlisle’s behalf?

Tribune-Review: Ex-councilwoman Carlisle ordered to serve 1-2 years

Zottola imposed the tougher sentence despite pleas for leniency from eight supporters, including M. Gayle Moss, president of the NAACP’s Pittsburgh chapter. Zottola received 34 letters of support, many touting Carlisle’s good deeds in the community.

Among those writing letters on Carlisle’s behalf: City Councilman Bill Peduto, former city Solicitor Jacqueline Morrow, former City Councilman Sala Udin and two Philadelphia-area lawmakers, state Rep. Harold James and state Sen. LeAnna Washington.

Carlisle’s scheme was beyond understandable.  When elected officials break the law it is a violation of the law and the public trust. Carlisle seemed to have little remorse for her actions – this was not one small error – it was many violations of the law and she didn’t seem to thing she was doing anything wrong.

Assistant District Attorney Lawrence Claus pointed to Carlisle’s council resignation letter as a sign of her lack of remorse. In that letter, Carlisle said she could no longer afford to “volunteer” her time.

So why would Bill Peduto write a letter on her behalf?

Well it looks like the Regional Chamber Alliance’s email and meeting were successful because this was title of the article in the Trib:

Onorato take lead for the county leg of the Mon-Fayette road

“The Mon-Fayette will provide linkages and open up old industrial sites to jobs and commerce in the south, and its Squirrel Hill bypass will provide important traffic congestion relief to Pittsburgh’s eastern suburbs.”

So it is one thing for the Chamber Alliance to support this sort of backward thinking on economic development, it is another for the Allegheny County executive to support the idea that building super highways is the best way to stimulate the economy.

I am really disappointed that this is Dan Onorato’s stand on the MonFayette  – for someone that is supposed to be creative and forward thinking about improving the region – this is the complete opposite of forward thinking.  Super highways are as old-school as it gets.  Haven’t we learned anything in the past 50 years – big roads don’t work.  Super highways don’t easy traffic, they create traffic.  Why aren’t we thinking about other modes of transportation.

If Dan Onorato wants to run for PA Governor he needs to show the rest of the state that he has creative ideas, that work for economic development – not supporting an old idea that is tooo expensive and has no funding source.   I don’t think that supporting bad ideas like the MonFayette is going to help Dan Onorato gain support around the state.

In an article in Tuesday’s paper, the decentralization of Housing Court is being painted as a solution to building inspection issues. The efficiencies of a centralized system allow for more inspections to occur. The theory is that the neighborhood system will benefit neighborhoods because active neighbors know the District Magistrates and are therefore more likely to get convictions but the inverse is true in that landlords could know the District Magistrates and be more likely to go unpunished.

Tuesday’s article is also interesting in that it discussed potential City legislation to put more responsibility on landlords. Overall, it’s a great concept but there are some serious challenges to be considered with increasing evictions, like where do those people go? Pushing people around, like what has happened with the demolition and net decrease of public housing units, doesn’t solve social problems (like crime or drug use). This is evident in the problems that people associate with Section 8 housing, which would fall under the City proposal, because the program has picked up people formerly in public housing.

So, we need social programs to go with our housing ones and a regional approach to problems so that one place doesn’t suffer because of another place’s policy. What’s new?

articles at the top of both the post-gazette and tribune-review today reflect the sentiment of the many people who turned out to oppose the closing of schenley high school by the pittsburgh public schools. this is the second time that the school district has threatened to close the school under the administration of superintendent mark roosevelt. students and parents past and present are fighting for the preservation of the diversity of programs housed under one roof at schenley. some community members want to see the building preserved and not turned over to a use with less community benefit, like offices for upmc. check back here for more updates on this developing situation.

Today was the long awaited City Council Hearing on domestic abuse.  Click here to see previous blog posts about the hearings.

No surprise, Luke Ravenstahl was not at the hearings.  City Council was there although Tawanda Carlisle left the room mid afternoon.  The room was almost full, very few seats left.  Luke’s opponent in the upcoming election, Mark DeSantis, was in the audience. Also attending today’s hearing were many local bloggers so keep an eye out for more summaries of today’s hearings.  The Tribune Review has a round-up here.
Not Seen: Luke Ravenstahl

Seen: Mark DeSantis, Police Chief Nate Harper

Well, that is a title I never thought I would ever write. Do I think the mayor of Pittsburgh should have a spokesperson? No. Do I think Luke should have kept his spokesperson? Yes.

After reading yet another report where Luke can’t seem to get his story straight I find myself asking why Luke would have dumped his skilled spokesperson.

If you have been on vacation, here is what is going on:

• Luke skipped the hearing on promoting the police officers.
• Luke would not say where he was when he skipped the meeting.
• From Trib: No one from the Mayor’s Office attended. Saladna said Ravenstahl was “in other meetings” outside City Hall.
• Luke tells KDKA he was in Harrisburg during the hearings (via The Burgh Report)
• Luke claimed that mayors don’t attend hearings.

In a written statement Wednesday, Ravenstahl defended his decision to go on the golf outing, saying it was a charity fundraiser for cancer and neonatal research.

The statement said the mayor is a target of unfair criticism which “smacks of crass politics and yellow journalism and disappoints me greatly.”

Mayors normally don’t attend council hearings, but the issues are still of critical importance to him, he said.

“I didn’t feel that my presence there would have been advantageous to the cause. It could have potentially become a political situation, which I didn’t want it to be,” Ravenstahl said on June 29.

• Pittsburgh Media did some investigative reporting (finally) – Luke was at the Mario Lemieux celebrity golf tournament.
• More media investigation reveals…

WTAE Channel 4 Action News reporter Bob Mayo dug through the archives and found that Ravenstahl attacked former mayor Tom Murphy for missing a council session in 2004.

“These are troubling times for the city of Pittsburgh, and for the mayor of the city or somebody to represent his administration not to come to the table on such serious issues is regrettable, shameful,” Ravenstahl said in 2004.

So, the story continues and Luke’s “confusion” over his schedule and time spent celebrity hunting doesn’t look so good for Pittsburgh. So since the city leader can’t seem to keep his story straight, I guess I wish he had the sense to keep his spokesperson who could at least help him tell a better story.

I thought it was very interesting that last week Luke offered to debate his opponent in the upcoming election. This is the same guy that avoided all debates in the primary.
From the Trib:

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl challenged his Republican opponent Mark DeSantis to at least two debates in the run-up to the November general election.

In a letter to DeSantis that Ravenstahl’s campaign released Wednesday, the mayor wrote that “it is important to participate in debate forums so that the voters have an opportunity to learn more about the candidates for mayor and our respective positions on the issues.”

In the same article…

Danika Wukich, Ravenstahl’s campaign spokeswoman, said she hasn’t received a reply from DeSantis. The letter was sent June 20.

She said Ravenstahl’s main focus is to “provide good government” to the people of Pittsburgh as mayor, but that he would make time to debate.

Could it be that Luke has matured enough and realizes that public discussion over the future of the city might be a good thing for Pittsburgh. Sounds too good to be true. Well it probably is. Yesterday the Trib reports that Luke is so busy running the city (and traveling to NYC and chasing Tiger Woods)that he may not be able to schedule these debates.

Although Ravenstahl agreed in principle to two debates, he wrote, “I have made a firm commitment to dedicate myself in total to my responsibilities as mayor. It is my first and foremost responsibility, and its scheduling requirements are enormous.”

Some Grant Street observers believe those sentences lay the groundwork for Ravenstahl backing out of one or both of the debates to which he has committed.

I guess time will tell if Luke will actually debate.

What do you think?

 Loading ...

All are invited, welcome and should attend the City Council Hearing on the promotion of 3 police officers that have had run-ins with the law over domestic issues.
City Council Hearing
Thursday, June 28 1:30pm

(Image from 2PoliticalJunkies)

What Happened:
Last week Police Chief Nate Harper promoted 3 officers that have had documented run-ins with the law. (PG article here)

Ravenstahl’s Response – “not going to talk about it”
(via 2PoliticalJunkies, TheConversation, Trib)

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, who approved the promotions, could not be reached for comment. His spokeswoman, Joanna Doven, said the mayor would not discuss the promotions or their effects on women.

“He’s not going to talk about that,” Doven said.

Pittsburghers are not that clueless:
Some women spoke up and Doug Shields help to set up a hearing.

Luke Gets Bad Press and Starts Talking:
From the PG:

Ravenstahl said today that the promotions last week of three police officers with domestic issues were “unacceptable” and that the procedures for approving upgrades in rank are “obsolete and unacceptable.”

2PoliticalJunkies has a summary of the blog & medial response to Luke’s change of position here.

What Can You Do:
Attend the hearing to remind our mayor that this type of leadership is not ok.

in a recent article for reason magazine, tribune-review columnist bill steigerwald denounced pittsburgh’s recent ranking by the places rated almanac as this country’s most livable city.

now, i am not going to go through his article disputing it point by point because that’s just tedious for me and boring for you. i’m sure the guy even has some valid points in there. what upsets me is his perspective that pittsburgh is a dying city. what a bad attitude!

i mean, if i believed that then my career would be over. i’ve dedicated myself to working for sustainable community development in this city. in what i’ve seen doing that, nothing leads me to believe that the city is dying. there is a lot of potential and progress in the current state of things. two things will promote further revitalization of this city: investment [time and money] and vision.

if we believe what steigerwald says, then we might as well just give up and start packing. death is not a vision. as pittsburghers we have to believe that our city have value, which we often struggle to do. we have to see the potential of what it can be and recognize the progress that has been made [since steel left and took half the city with it]. we have to build on our success in strategic ways [see my last post] and dedicate ourselves to being the best pittsburgh [not new york, dc or even cleveland] we can be. this is all a bit hokey but, as the saying goes, if we don’t believe in ourselves then who will?

perhaps the first step toward seeing pittsburgh rise again is to throw steigerwald overboard because he’s just bringing us down.

There is quite a bit of rumbling on the internet this morning about Pittsburgh’s “young people” and Pittsburgh’s young mayor. The Trib gave Luke a lance for forming yet another commission on youth.

Lance: To Luke Ravenstahl. Another mayor, another nonsensical commission. The Pittsburgh mayor has formed the “Propel Pittsburgh Commission,” a 35-member panel designed to make sure that the city, long plagued by population losses, “remains competitive to attract and retain young people.” How many commissions does it take for our elected leaders to understand that the problem is too much government promulgating too many onerous restrictions while levying too high taxes. Stop talking and start acting.

Luke has the perfect opportunity to start acting. He could attend the Pittsburgh Youth Cuty Issues Forum on Monday (check out the new calendar for more info) that the League of Young Voters is hosting. But apparently Luke had to cancel on this event and won’t reschedule.

Also check out this post over on the Pittsburgh Metroblog that addresses the often overlooked question – “Which Young People?” Who is already part of this Propel Pittsburgh commission? Who is being excluded? What are other bloggers saying about Propel Pittsburgh?