Paul Sentner's statements about No WEHAV make sense -- and are technical

Paul S makes some great points about the saga of WeHav and how the city has operated. The gist of the matter, from my perspective, is that the people on City Council (in the past) have not been great watchdogs. We need great watchdogs because the Mayor has been so bad. We needed a counter force to be strong and reasoned. We have had city council members who have let things slide. And, we've had council members who have been fine to turn their backs on other sections of the city because this isn't their responsibility.

The seat is up for election now. Dan D is now there with a mini-term for the rest of the year as there is a four-year election set for November. Dan D has been able to move the matter along to resolution. But, this has been a citizen action above all else and Dan needed to do this or else he would have lost all hopes of being on council. So, Dan gets some credit, but he doesn't yet get a lot of earned respect for being a champoin of the people. Time will tell.

It seems as if I always bash the mayor, and for good reason. Here is another time when we need to show how the corruption has worked. Paul makes a good point of saying that this matter is resolving but the money for the fix must be flowing from some other account. The WeHav failures cost us all. The failure's ringleaders are still on the loose.

pjs' no_wehav home page: "I Note a few things:
- Mayor Murphy did not sign the Resolution.
- There has been no mention that I know of regarding requiring a public disclosure of the West Pittsburgh Partnership's WE-HAV bookkeeping, nor any investigation thereof.
(the 'Partnership was involved in John Peth's lawsuit when it permitted the spending of approximately $15,000 of the illegitimately-collected WE-HAV tax funds.)

- There has been no mention that I know of regarding holding accountable for re-imbursement, the persons and entities responsible for the short-fall of the tax funds,

--instead, other public funds are apparently being used to make up the difference
(this seems to me like using public money to repay someone who has been swindled, while letting the swindlers off the hook.)

What kind of message does this send to those who are looking to pull a fast one on the public? try, try again?
- No City Council member that I�m aware of has ever publicly spoken to
-- the matter of the passing of Bill No.5-2002,
in defiance of the NID Act procedures, in July 2002;
-- the matter of the blatant unanimous persistence of Council through May 2005, blindly(?) following Mr. Hertzberg's lead, desires, and stubbornness in ignoring the details of the State NID Act, the opposition of the unquestionable majority of the targeted District 2 residential property owners, and outright trampling of the due process rights of those owners.

- No one that I�m aware of has ever publicly questioned the motives behind the irresponsible and reckless hell-bent-for-leather attempt by the Mayor, Mr. Hertzberg, and Council to perpetuate the exposed illegitimate WE-HAV scheme through 2002-2004.

Does the mentality of trying to get away with whatever gets past the people continue as usual until “next time”?

It is only the dense grassroots opposition of most of those District 2 owners that protected the rest of the neighborhoods of the entire City of Pittsburgh from their own WE-HAV schemes.