Position paper -- or pink paper

Position Paper, Version 1.0

More Pink than White

A position paper is the expected outcome of this process. To call this position paper a "White Paper" is presumptuous. Perhaps "Pink Paper" fits, as some might see red.

Virtual Reading

The Position Paper, Version 1.0, is to live on the internet. Of course, the document can be printed, bound in a three-ring binder and delivered to those off-line. To peek at this document without on-line access, attend a scheduled meetings. Otherwise, call Mark Rauterkus, 412-481-2540 (daylight).

1. Paper and printing resources are scares in this volunteer effort.
2. News outlets and organizations can not be expected to quickly generate printed versions of this document without significant costs.
3. Bandwidth is available and offers the highest levels of interactivity.

Pending Coalition Meetings where a copy of the draft position paper is to appear:
1. Thursday, February 18, 8:30 pm, Mark et House, 12th Street, South Side
2. Monday, February 22 at 8:30 pm, Mark et House
3. A South Side Planning Forum meeting is slated for Wednesday, February 24, 5:30 pm at the Brasher Association. * Don't expect the Position Paper Draft there.

Getting A Grip

Hundreds of issued are raised here. A series of multi-threaded conversations are necessary. One aim of this position paper is to supplement the discussions by charting a new courses with better discussion tools.

Public meeting do serve as fertile grounds in some instances, and public meetings should be leveraged here again. Nonetheless, with this scope of concern and its myriad of players, a diet limited to public meeting and closed-door deal-making is destined for long-term failure. Public meetings have a tendancy to be unweilding, ego-laden, and repetitive.

Another grandstand review presentation in a public forum that bolsters by-gone days in the overall planning process has been in the past is not going to serve our desires for finding creditable solutions for the future. Let's document the past triumphs, not dwell upon them, and move to the issues at hand today. Radio call-in talk shows seem to be unweilding, ego-laden, and repetitive too. Wild opinions can run their course in this position paper and then be tempered by experts before the microphones, challenged with follow-up questions. Points, counter-points and even pointers to other sets of points and counter-points are most welcomed here.

Case in point: The South Side Neighborhood Plan approved by the South Side Forum in 1998 mentions that the Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL) practice at Nevile Ice Rink --- wrong.

Drilling Deep

Hundreds of issues are presented within these discussions. All the issues relate, in one way or another, to the overall quagmire. Expect book-like depth and grit, not gloss. Below the surface, things are more often shades of gray rather than black or white. The media can polorize issues with sound bites and missconceptions. So too can elected leaders perhaps.

Here, let's look at the good, the bad and the ugly in a frank manner. Case in point, the UPMC Sports Performance compound sounds like a great idea, and it is at certain levels. But at other levels, this compound is awful. Let's take the time to communicate and insure that we obtain physical structures that meet the "highest and best use" goals as stated. This world does not need another atrocious indoor football practice facility like that built by the University of Pittsburgh in the 90s know as the Cost Center.

Case in point: The LTV Site Plan cost more than $70,000. That document looks swell (see it at the South Side Branch of the Carnegie Library by asking a libarian). The document painted a vision of the future by using large brush strokes. However, UPMC folks chastise the notion of "flex-office space" put forth by that plan. A UPMC person would have us understand that flex-office space is neither desired nor feasible. Debunking flex-office space for football practice fields and highest grade office/medical space, while creating 40 new jobs on nearly as many acres is at gross odds to the creditability of the past planning efforts. What gives, why and how and what comes next are all addressed in their many shades of grey in the litany that follows.

Stay tuned and help to discover why and how we can proceed. If necessary, let's not be afraid to turn back the tides of past failures. Let's fight about the truth and the positions that they stake out for the region, not fighting over the personalities.

Feedback Schedule: As Soon As Possible

Please do NOT wait for the printed version to arrive before you make your input know to the editors of this document. Input your ideas concerning what is presented here as well as what is not here.

Time is a factor. Your insights are needed now. The graders are on the grounds, at the direction of UPMC with the good graces from the URA now. They are moving earth for roads and with other preperation efforts as football players are hoped for in August, so the UPMC dream unfolds.

Is It Soup Yet?

The version number in the title of the document reminds us that this is a work in progress. As opionions are put forth, further investigation and input can recycle. This document live and be more of a process, such is life.

Tone

This position paper takes positions! Bold stands, claims of reasoning, offering benchmarks of accountability are necessary. Plans need to go beyond demographic overviews. One problem stems from the plans while another problem stems from a failing planning process.

Failed Planning Process
	leads to
		Failed Plans
			leads to
				Failed Futures

Righting Wrongs

The URA operates as it sees fit and says otherwise. In November 1998, the news of the UPMC Sports Performance compound hit the first light of day along with a 90-day open discussion period. Ha!

Getting an audience with people at the URA is a major feat. The URA folks can pass the referal along and say, "Hey, we are working with community groups. Go take your beef to them." The URA wants to send citizens and their concerns to community groups that rubber stamp its agenda, delay input for three months and wallop behind the cloak of concensus building.

The South Side Forum operates under the burden of a consensus. The South Side Planning Forum can't champion cutting-edge ideas. The South Side Planning Forum can't do anything that would tip the boat in the slightest. If the forum can't draw upon the support of a every single member, it goes nowhere. A single "nay vote" defeats actions.

An old slogan says that a camel is an example of a horse built by committee. A stubborn donkey must be the beast of burden of choice for those who dwel in the shaddows of consensus-built tents.