With Roddey on Jerry Bowyer's radio show

Fax sent to the WPTT station: ON-Air HOST:

Hi Mr. Roddey,

Talk of the next Pittsburgh Mayor SHOULD include both:
---> None of the above, and
---> a Republican.

Furthermore, on a personal note, I think it makes sense for YOU to mention me as a candidate as well. You rejected the opportunity to sign my petition to get me onto the ballot for that office in 2001. I've been busy in our community since then. I have written that I am the FRONT-RUNNER in the GOP side for that office.

If I call today, I'd ask you about your role as an Oversight Board Member and your postions on PARKs and RECREATION. I called for the creation of a NEW Pittsburgh Park District in a postion paper released in May. Did you read it? Can you react to some of those ideas?

Tom's on-air question was very well put and generated an interesting reply from Mr. Roddey. When Roddey talks only about the status quo -- he is talking only about sustaining the same old same old. It would have been easy to name the names and then offer none-of-the-above. But, he is NOT interested in a real power shift around here. J.T.'s none of the above mention was great!

The idea of a sell off or removal of PARKs from the realm of the city -- and the county -- and the schools -- allows a "down to the basics" with those governmental agencies. The city is diverted with PARKS. If the city didn't need to worry about parks -- then -- it would do the things mentioned (... police and fire protection...keeping streets plowed in the winter, pick up garbage) to a much better degree. These folks can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Forever Gambling Sell Off

So, the $50-million slots license sale is "forever."

Right?

Gambling isn't my cup of tea. But, if those in Harrisburg are intent on getting drunk on the new incomes, just sell the rights for one generation. Allow our children and our children's children do the same.

Simple solution: Sell the $50-million licenses / rights for 10, 15 or 20 years. Not forever. Make those license expire. Sunset them. Then, a future auction can occur.

Senator Costa's email to me on July 20:

Thank you for contacting me to express your belief that the licenses authorizing the operation of slot machines in Pennsylvania should be issued for a limited period rather than an indefinite period. I appreciate your interest in this legislation and I understand your contention that the Commonwealth could generate additional revenue if licenses were issued for a definite period.

As you may be aware, the legislation that enacts the gambling expansion does not explicitly limit the term of a slots license. The license will be issued to the groups deemed most appropriate by the Gaming Control Board, and those groups will be obligated to pay the $50 million license fee. The licenses are subject to annual review, and the Board may revoke the license issued if there is cause to do so. If the license is successfully renewed, however, there is no additional fee for the renewal. If the license is revoked, however, it would presumably return to the Board who could re-assign it and the new licensee would again be assessed a $50 million fee. I realize that this proposal may not generate as much revenue as is possible, but it allows the Commonwealth to evaluate the applicants based on their merits rather than the amount that they can pay. I am confident that this legislation provides a sound licensing system that will allow the Commonwealth to create an honest and well-run gambling industry.

The press watchdogs have ask those questions of the represenatives and
senators. Tom Barnes wrote offline: "We've already asked such questions, mark, and legislative leaders have rejected the idea; it's a onetime $50 mil fee."

Citizens ... the time to put a bug into the ears of those in the State House and State Senate has passed. Some tried. A "historic bill" would be less of a historic give-a-way had there been a term limit. A license in Illinois sold for more than $500-million. Ours, at $50-million and forever, are selling for much less than is prudent.