Council OKs parcel sales to Downtown developer

This is a continual problem -- the abstaining vote. People are elected to go to meetings and make decisions. Show up. Be in the room when the vote happens. And, vote YES or vote NO. To abstain is to scream weakness. Being weak happens because the administration has NOT given the member of council enough information. Then a "NO" vote should happen. Or, a weak vote to abstain says, I'm easily moved and this time the buy-off is too light.

Members of council are NOT hired (elected) to be my voice. They are elected to insure that the voice of everyone is protected. Rights of 'free speech' need to be understood and preserved. So, these folks are not elected to 'be my voice.' However, they each are elected to vote upon matters for the people of the district. They get the pay-check -- and they make the votes.

If they vote to abstain -- then they should not get a paycheck that week.

If they vote to abstain more than three times a quarter -- they should be impeached.

What if the guys on public works abstain from putting out salt on a day like today? They would be hounded for not doing their jobs. By the way, the salt truck just went down the South Side side-street.

What if the enviro services crew was to abstain from picking up trash?

Council OKs parcel sales to Downtown developer Council's vote was 5-0, with Darlene Harris, Bruce Kraus and William Peduto abstaining, and Dan Deasy out of the room.

Some council members were concerned because the sale price is much lower than what the city's Urban Redevelopment Authority paid for the parcels.

The URA is selling off properties on the principle of buy high sell low. The URA uses taxpayer money. The URA often champions deals where taxpayers get less money. The URA is working for the wrong side. Go figure.

The URA should be liquidated.

The URA is in the market and the property downtown stays inflated. The old, old owners of the G.C. Murphy Co. store used to have a business. It went bust. They closed the store. But, the owners could squat on the property and not sell it for more than a decade. When did the G.C.Murphy store close its doors? The hopes of re-opening the store was not ever in the cards.

The property could stand vacant for years -- because of the URA. They all knew that government money was going to come along, some day, and buy them out. The URA was an enabler for things that hurt the city -- vacant downtown properties.

If the URA had not been around, the old owners of the G.C. Murphy store would have shut down the business and sold the property as they didn't want to pay taxes year after year. The property could have been purchased by anyone -- such as a Millcraft-like developer, from the old owners, on the cheap.

The taxpayers get screwed coming and going.

The property is put into mothballs. The sales price from the store owners to the URA is much higher than it should be. The taxes are not paid for many years. Then the sales price to the next developer is much lower than it should be. Furthermore, the longer the URA holds the property, the lower the sales price. They want to flip it after a huge delay so that the windfall can best be realized by the next developer -- not the taxpayers.

The exit for the bad situation is a bitter pill -- but -- the bad situation was made much worse by the URA from the outset.

The URA and the governmental weenies have made downtown "a boarded-up, depressing place."

If I'm in charge -- Pittsburgh would liquidate the URA. Urban redevelopment in Pittsburgh lags because of the URA.