 |
| From texture - foods |
There are lies, and then there are bigger lies. This is a big MSM lie, thanks to the Trib.
The two men battling for Pittsburgh's top job have little in common beyond their allegiance to the Democratic Party.Stark my ass.
Councilman Bill Peduto, 42, of Point Breeze, is a bachelor with a dozen years of experience in city government. He's challenging Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, 26, who has been married since 2004, spent most of his life in the North Side and has worked three years for the city.
An analysis of their votes when the two served together on City Council reveals stark political and philosophical differences.
Just as Bob O'Connor and Tom Murphy where two peas in the same pod, so it is with Luke and Bill. Today's peas are a different crop. But, the similar methods and global understandings are far more of the same than otherwise.
 |
| From texture - foods |
Neither are proactive. Neither are bold leaders. Neither are the type to rock the boat. Neither are open. Neither are against wasteful, big-ticket spending such as the twin tunnels under the Allegheny River to serve the stadiums. Neither are prudent. Neither are interested in growing the region. Neither advance freedom. Neither are really independent. Neither are parents nor with any morsel of concern for young people. Neither are adverse to going to court to solve problems. Neither are strong supporters of the democratic process. Neither want to offend friends in high places. Neither are scholars, researchers nor understand public education in the city. Neither have stood up to tax breaks for the special. Neither respect the market place.
Neither are against tax breaks for the rich for downtown housing with additional tax breaks for the cars of the rich.
Peduto's no vote on the TIF to PNC was based on the lack of standards for decorative lighting on the building or some other tidbit of lost power for city hall -- not on the principle of rejection corporate welfare. Peduto has been PRO-TIF throughout his career. He even pushed for TIFs at Lunar Square and in Shandyside.
 |
| From texture - foods |
Peduto's bubble bill was a good example of how the two are different, yet very much the same. In the end, the bubble bill went pop. In the end, it didn't matter. In the end, they both were useless. Nothing changed. Sure, Peduto was quick to be against free speech. Ravenstahl was against freedom to choose. Neither worried about the big issue -- women's health. This was sidewalk politics only as big as a sign can be. Both were very happy to be in a cloud of dust that saw no net gain in any front -- except more enemies for the city and increased frustrations.
Neither worry about enforcement. Neither made strides with the citizen police review board. Neither made strides with the ethics commission. Neither made strides with the tear down of a house in Hazelwood that then caused additional damage after a fire. Oakland is a pit, has been a pit, and now that there is an election -- will become a pit stop for false promises. Neither give a rats ass about enforcement -- speaking of rodent control.
Neither have returned radios, yet alone cell phones, to the crossing guards.
Neither have worked to re-open the closed indoor ice rink.
Neither have pledged in this campiagn to debate 88 times, once in each neighborhood, and face all candidates each appearance.
Twanda Carlisle's questionable spending practices is proof enough that they both are not proactive. Neither objected to the $1-million slush fund that each member of council had been given by Tom Murphy as a pay-off for support. Both kissed up to Mayor Murphy in the past. Neither watched spending with a keen sense of urgency.
 |
| From texture - foods |
Ravenstahl spokesman Dick Skrinjar said "the single most important vote" of the candidates' shared time on City Council was Jan. 3, 2006, when Ravenstahl was unanimously elected council president -- a job that positioned him to become mayor if O'Connor could not serve out his term. O'Connor was diagnosed with brain cancer six months later and died Sept. 1, 2006.If anyone had confidence in Dick Skrinjar before he said that -- then consider how Skrinjar thinks. Skrinjar's most important value is the man. Skrinjar is about the personality and the power. Skrinjar would fit well with royalty and the court and the expression, "Long Live The King."
"Remember, they both voted for the same guy, and that's why we're here today," Skrinjar said.
Hey Dick, it isn't really all about you, Luke nor Bill.
I'm here today because I haven't walked away. Some of us have not departed, and some are still standing firm -- because we know it is about bigger concepts. For some, life and government is about the greater good, the values of being an American, being free, being with liberty.
 |
| From texture - foods |
Skrinjar points to the zenith -- a vote for a person. That's because there isn't a single vote in their history where either Luke nor Bill made a vote for freedom. The Grant Street gang cares about celebrity and personality -- not Pittsburgh.
Neither Ravenstahl nor Peduto nor Skrinjar care about the big picture, such as the consititution, rights, freedom and JUSTICE FOR ALL. Their worries are special interests. Some are more special than others, so they seem to think.
When an honest evaluation occurs, Bill Peduto and Luke Ravnestahl are much like two peas in the same pod, while a big frost settles on the landscape.
 |
| From texture - foods |
Posts
3 comments:
By Jeremy Boren
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, January 29, 2007
The two men battling for Pittsburgh's top job have little in common beyond their allegiance to the Democratic Party.
Councilman Bill Peduto, 42, of Point Breeze, is a bachelor with a dozen years of experience in city government. He's challenging Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, 26, who has been married since 2004, spent most of his life in the North Side and has worked three years for the city.
An analysis of their votes when the two served together on City Council reveals stark political and philosophical differences.
Although most City Council votes are unanimous, Ravenstahl and Peduto clashed on several key issues from 2004 to 2006, including how to best manage the city's financial recovery and how to rein in wasteful spending by their colleagues.
"There are some very stark differences between the candidates," said David Y. Miller, a University of Pittsburgh public policy professor who served as former Mayor Tom Murphy's budget director. "It's going to be an interesting primary in the sense that they're both seen as the new Pittsburgh and the young generation taking over."
Peduto announced last week he would run against Ravenstahl in a campaign that could cost each candidate about $1 million. Whoever wins the May 15 primary likely will win the general election in November, because Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 5 to 1 in Pittsburgh.
The biggest contrast might be the candidates' opposing views on Pittsburgh's state-guided financial recovery -- Ravenstahl voted against it and Peduto voted for it in June 2004.
The plan, which passed 5-4 despite fiery labor union protests, called for $33 million in cuts to the city's $380 million 2004 budget and increases to the city's payroll and occupational privilege taxes.
"I think Peduto's vote was the better choice," said Jake Haulk, president of the Allegheny Institute, a Castle Shannon think tank. "He sensed that this was the best thing for the city."
Since state oversight began, the city has seen its bond rating upgraded from "junk" status, turned a budget deficit into a $57 million surplus this year, and pared 700 employees from the public payroll.
There are other differences.
Peduto voted against giving an $18 million tax-increment financing package, or TIF, in 2006 to PNC Financial Services Group for a $170 million tower Downtown. Ravenstahl supported it.
"That vote tells us a lot about how they want to see the city grow," Haulk said. "In the Ravenstahl camp you think these TIFs are doing some good when the evidence says they haven't done any good."
On another vote, Ravenstahl opposed a buffer zone around abortion clinics to keep protesters away from clients while Peduto voted for it.
"I think on the critical issues regarding the city's financial stability and on providing a progressive agenda, we have disagreed," Peduto said. "My voting record is one of fiscal responsibility, government reform and social tolerance."
Ravenstahl said: "I've made some tough votes, but I've been consistent in favor of growing jobs and our economy, making our streets safer and cleaner, and making sure we are on solid financial ground."
Perhaps the biggest fight between Ravenstahl and Peduto came amid the investigation into Councilwoman Twanda Carlisle's questionable spending practices.
The inquiry began after records showed she paid a family friend $28,500 to prepare a health study that relied largely on previously published reports.
Ravenstahl's June 2006 legislation put limits on how much taxpayer money council members could spend without council approval; Peduto's would have eliminated council's so-called "walking around money." Ravenstahl's version prevailed.
Louis "Hop" Kendrick, a mayoral candidate in 2005 and a former Allegheny County councilman, said the candidates' voting records count with voters in this race because neither has the overwhelming popularity that gave Mayor Bob O'Connor an easy victory in 2005.
"Whichever candidate says things that are the most consistent with how they voted will carry the day," Kendrick said. "O'Connor was an aberration. He was everyone's guy. People are going to look more closely at (Peduto and Ravenstahl)."
Ravenstahl spokesman Dick Skrinjar said "the single most important vote" of the candidates' shared time on City Council was Jan. 3, 2006, when Ravenstahl was unanimously elected council president -- a job that positioned him to become mayor if O'Connor could not serve out his term. O'Connor was diagnosed with brain cancer six months later and died Sept. 1.
"Remember, they both voted for the same guy, and that's why we're here today," Skrinjar said.
Jeremy Boren can be reached at jboren@tribweb.com or (412) 765-2312.
I have a bit of a problem with this statement:
"Neither are parents nor with any morsel of concern for young people."
I take offense at the notion that parents are somehow more qualified to be elected officials than those without children. Yes, a parent has insights into the needs of children and young people that non-parents don't (or, they have insights into the needs of their own children that others don't, to be more precise), but that doesn't necessarily translate into better public policy. I'd even put forth the proposition that policies that might be good for children might not always be good for the community at large. (Some children may have suffered when pools and rec centers were closed. That didn't mean that the city couldn't stand to close a few.) Nor do I accept the logic that because they don't have children, the candidates don't have concern for young people. If they have done things in office that you think have hurt children, then cite those issues; just don't imply that because someone, either by choice or otherwise, has not reproduced makes them less able than the rest of us to be good community stewards.
J.P. They guys are NOT parents. That's a fact. That isn't a VALUE JUDGEMENT. I didn't put any subjective weight into that fact. You did. The non-parenthood mention goes to the longer list of the guys being of the same pod.
The second part of the statement is something I stand by: Neither have any morsel of concern for young people.
In some circles -- that's a liability. In others, it is a blessing.
Luke hasn't done squat for kids.
Bill hasn't done squat for kids.
And, I have said on the record that some of the swim pools needed to be closed. I wouldn't have my kids work as a lifeguard when bricks were flying at the guards -- in certain places.
So, keeping every pool open -- as is -- was NOT a wise option either.
The swim pools need an overhaul -- and mainly on the software side, not the hardware side. Programming at the pools is unthinkable.
I don't defend the concept that being a parent makes one more qualified to be an elected official. Both not being a parent makes the two more qualified to reside in the same pea pod however.
Post a Comment