PCTV21 viewers can also catch the inaugural effort of "Finding Our Voices" this month - this is the pilot project for a soon to be formalized non-profit corporation. The first episode features Joe Weinroth, Republican Candidate for Mayor of Pittsburgh. Mr. Weinroth is saddled with a 5 to 1 Democratic disadvantage in terms of registered voters in his quest for the mayoral office. Hopefully, that fact alone helps explain the concept behind "Finding Our Voices".
Air dates/times are as follows:
Thursday 10/06/05 12:00 PM
Wednesday 10/12/05 1:00 PM
Friday 10/14/05 3:00 PM
Tuesday 10/18/05 7:00 PM
Friday 10/21/05 11:00 AM
Monday 10/24/05 4:00 PM
Friday 10/28/05 7:00 PM
Friday 11/04/05 7:00 PM
Monday, October 24, 2005
PCTV show from Bruce Krane that features Joe Weinroth
The show schedule for PCTV21 (community access TV). I'd love to get a full transcript of this long interview show.
Great word finally mentioned: "Stewardship"
I love that word: Pay raise adds to benefits - PittsburghLIVE.com 'When you see the private sector struggling every day to renegotiate and make modifications to plans, this raises questions in my mind about stewardship,' Dreyfuss said.
Crossing guard in Chengdu, China.
Crossing guard in Chengdu, China.
Colaizzi and Baker get ink in school board race -- that covers South Side
I know each of these two. I'm not sure what is going to happen. And, for now, I'm not going to say much else. Election 2005: Colaizzi has challenger for District 5 school board seat
Your feedback is welcomed.
Your feedback is welcomed.
Candidate not giving up yet - PittsburghLIVE.com
Candidate not giving up yet - PittsburghLIVE.com ... he wore a black necktie blotched with white stains.
Say what?
Say what?
O'Connor, Weinroth debate - PittsburghLIVE.com
When we had a poor mayor, we needed good councilmembers to do administrative duties. Otherwise, nothing would have happened. Now, next to nothing happens. But, in an ideal world, we'll have a strong and good mayor. Hence, those on council should be legislatures. They'll write the laws (ordinances). But, it is up to the mayor and the administration to carry out the policies.
We've had mission creep on Grant Street for a long time. That is why we have two oversight boards.
Furthermore, the budget is set by city council -- but the mayor has been able to ignore it. Council says 'hire rat control experts and spend $x.' But no. The mayor does what he wants.
Bob is aware of how things work now. But, he's not aware of how things should operate in the future.
Bob wants to go out an 'inspect' matters in the city's neighborhoods. Well then he does not need to have nine councilmembers as his eyes and ears. What is it Bob?
O'Connor, Weinroth debate - PittsburghLIVE.com: O'Connor wants to keep nine council members, saying neighborhood residents and businesses rely on the representation to handle local issues such as rundown streets and safety concerns. Still, O'Connor said council could cut its costs by 20 percent.
'They're the eyes and ears of the community,' he said. 'A lot of neighborhoods have been neglected. They want basic services. That councilman is on top of it.'
We've had mission creep on Grant Street for a long time. That is why we have two oversight boards.
Furthermore, the budget is set by city council -- but the mayor has been able to ignore it. Council says 'hire rat control experts and spend $x.' But no. The mayor does what he wants.
Bob is aware of how things work now. But, he's not aware of how things should operate in the future.
Bob wants to go out an 'inspect' matters in the city's neighborhoods. Well then he does not need to have nine councilmembers as his eyes and ears. What is it Bob?
Sunday, October 23, 2005
PCNC Hosted Mayoral Debate
How do you think Bob O'Connor and Joe Weinroth did in the debate today. I think I would have loved to debate David Johnson.
Weinroth gets extra points for mentions that he wants to get votes from Libertarians! That was part of his closing statement.
I've never seen a debate that allowed one extra question AFTER the closing statements. Clock managment in the last segment was weak on both candidate's part.
I don't like hearing Joe Weinroth speaking of himself in the third person. Joe said something like, "If you want the status quo, vote for Bob. If you want to change Pittsburgh, vote for Joe Weinroth." The examples that were distinctions were fine -- but Weinroth should have said 'vote for me.'
Bob said that this is a healthy debate -- and Joe replied that he wished that there were more of them. I'd say it wasn't healthy to leave candidate out. It could have been healthy to have more voices on the debate stage so as to have some real drama and new, diverse ideas.
Tom (a blog buddie) called the other candidates, the whack pack. Good name. But, I'm not sure they'll even have the footing to whack without injury to oneself. It could be a mighty push into thin air and splat. We'll see Tuesday, I hope.
Is it an asset or a liability to say, "I've lived all my life in Pittsburgh." ??? I think that presents a limited vision. They both said it.
Good to hear Joe Weinroth speak against Eminent Domain in the debate. It only got a super quick mention, but it was heard by the techie listeners (all six of us). The "I'm against it by the way" mention of eminent domain isn't going to present a package that is going to win any votes. Joe could spend two-minutes on eminent domain in the next debate, perhaps as an opening or closing statement. He needs to open that can of worms, put it on the podium, and let O'Connor shrink, if not melt. Bob won't have anything to say on the issue. Joe should lean upon his legal background, law school experience, understanding of courts and real estate.
Bob said, after I'm elected, you'll see big changes in the first 100 days. Joe should have said, after I'm elected, you'll see bigger changes in the first 100 minutes. And, these minutes will start to tick as the 11:00 News reports on our election night victory. We won't have to wait 100 days after January 3 to send a message of change -- like a new pea in the same pod. Not with me. Pittsburgh, we can dance in the streets on the night of November 8, 2005. My election day victory becomes a front-page headline in the USA Today and Wall Street Journal and Cleveland Plain Dealer. The whole world isn't going to be looking at us at the All-Star Game. They'll be packing up and moving in by then. We'll have a new-resident block parties in all 88 neighborhoods on All Star Weekend, if I'm elected. And I expect us to welcome -- and INSPECT -- 5,000 new Pittsburgh residents. This will make a mid-summer classic to remember.
The biggest opening in the second half of the debate was when Bob O'Connor talked about the wrong forumla for downtown's revitalization. He said that you have to have the customers first, and then retail will follow. Without the people, i.e., shoppers, the stores are going to not have the sales. Mayor Murphy was building retail thinking that would keep the people here. Bob O'Connor, who helped with most of Murphy's punishing actions, said he had a different forumla.
Yeah, right.
Bob is going to flip-flop the process from (Retail + Residents) to (Residents + Retail).
Joe Weinroth should have stepped in -- after Bob's set up -- and said something like this: "Bob's calculated formula of customers and retail is but a small element of the bigger solution to our city and region. A few new dorms might work to beach a thousand college students within downtown, but that tactic isn't going to bring back prosperity and opportunities to city residents. People vote with their feet. People choose freedom. People are not going to go anywhere if they feel unsafe and if justice is a hit-or-miss factor. Pittsburgh is not going to thrive again with retail, nor with housing -- until citizens have insurances concerning the most important factors, freedom and justice for all."
I think Pittsburgh needs mature, adult solutions and not some hipster coolaid, rebranding bunk. Bob's been a part of that lifestyle, funky approach that has sent us farther in a back-slide. I want no part of their approach. Their formulas are going to result in more failures.
The right track for Bob is a loft apartment and glorified dorm with a bike rack. Then you build the expresso bar and follow it with retail. All these people in Bob's vision are going to stay downtown and stay in our city -- IF they are wearing a ball and chain. If we continue to run a city that crushes people, day-in and day-out, as we've done for the past decades, nobody in their right mind is going to want to shop here, live here nor work here. We'll continue the downward spiral until we change our approaches to justice, freedoms and earn trust with saavy citizens, from here and afar.
We know what's going on. Now we have a chance to vote to end the same-old, same-old.
Toss in some examples... cars being towed, senseless killings in the streets, police brutality at protests, corporate welfare, etc., etc.
I feel that Bob painted himself into a corner with the consumer and retail formula. Joe should have exploited it with a hard-hitting big picture observation. Bob's formula would have been reduced to 1 (consumers / residents) + 1 (retail) = negative 300,000 in the past decades. Thanks Bob for being a big part of the reason the city is half of its former self.
As to this 'right track' stuff -- give us a break. Any road will take us there if you don't know where you want to go. We need to be realistic with where we are. We need to have stong vision of how to fix our systematic governmental implosion. And, most of all, we need ask those who have made the mess to leave the scene because the one's who make the mess are the least qualified at clean-up.
Then there is the O'Connor them of bringing people together and that mega cooperative ring-leader. We have been bending over and have been cooperative with the two oversight boards and with the governor. These new found helpers match the bailout from Harrisburg -- pittyful. People are not going to rush to Pittsburgh and fix our problems. The past two years, coupled with the past decade, have proven this. We're on our own. We're going to need to pull ourselves up with all our might -- from within. We know best. Those that want to run to saviors from afar are only going to foil the progress that we need to strive for first.
When city council goes to Harrisburg, they have no idea what to say, what to beg for, how to threaten, nor why they are fruitless. City council members have not been able to think it through. And, neither have you.
Finally, Pittsburgh did change the tax structure in serious ways in the year 2000. And, this was with a push from Bob and a quick nod from Tom. They worked to toss out our legacy of affordable housing in the city. They let the county muck up the assessment process back in the Sabre Systems day. And, we're still paying for the sins of the past -- big time. And, Bob is clueless as to the ramifications, his role in the decline, and how to resolve these issues.
The deed transfer tax is sky high. That should be the first tax to cut. How about a deed transfer tax holliday for the next three years? Joe Weinroth, the attorney who works in real estate, should have nailed Bob O'Connor on this issue.
WPXI.com - News - PCNC To Host Mayoral Debate: "PITTSBURGH -- With the November election just a few weeks away, former City Council president Bob O'Connor and Republican mayoral hopeful Joe Weinroth will debate on the Pittsburgh Cable News Channel Sunday, October 23.
Channel 11 News anchor David Johnson will moderate the live debate between the two major candidates.
The hour long debate will begin in the WPXI-TV studio at 11:30 am."
Weinroth gets extra points for mentions that he wants to get votes from Libertarians! That was part of his closing statement.
I've never seen a debate that allowed one extra question AFTER the closing statements. Clock managment in the last segment was weak on both candidate's part.
I don't like hearing Joe Weinroth speaking of himself in the third person. Joe said something like, "If you want the status quo, vote for Bob. If you want to change Pittsburgh, vote for Joe Weinroth." The examples that were distinctions were fine -- but Weinroth should have said 'vote for me.'
Bob said that this is a healthy debate -- and Joe replied that he wished that there were more of them. I'd say it wasn't healthy to leave candidate out. It could have been healthy to have more voices on the debate stage so as to have some real drama and new, diverse ideas.
Tom (a blog buddie) called the other candidates, the whack pack. Good name. But, I'm not sure they'll even have the footing to whack without injury to oneself. It could be a mighty push into thin air and splat. We'll see Tuesday, I hope.
Is it an asset or a liability to say, "I've lived all my life in Pittsburgh." ??? I think that presents a limited vision. They both said it.
Good to hear Joe Weinroth speak against Eminent Domain in the debate. It only got a super quick mention, but it was heard by the techie listeners (all six of us). The "I'm against it by the way" mention of eminent domain isn't going to present a package that is going to win any votes. Joe could spend two-minutes on eminent domain in the next debate, perhaps as an opening or closing statement. He needs to open that can of worms, put it on the podium, and let O'Connor shrink, if not melt. Bob won't have anything to say on the issue. Joe should lean upon his legal background, law school experience, understanding of courts and real estate.
Bob said, after I'm elected, you'll see big changes in the first 100 days. Joe should have said, after I'm elected, you'll see bigger changes in the first 100 minutes. And, these minutes will start to tick as the 11:00 News reports on our election night victory. We won't have to wait 100 days after January 3 to send a message of change -- like a new pea in the same pod. Not with me. Pittsburgh, we can dance in the streets on the night of November 8, 2005. My election day victory becomes a front-page headline in the USA Today and Wall Street Journal and Cleveland Plain Dealer. The whole world isn't going to be looking at us at the All-Star Game. They'll be packing up and moving in by then. We'll have a new-resident block parties in all 88 neighborhoods on All Star Weekend, if I'm elected. And I expect us to welcome -- and INSPECT -- 5,000 new Pittsburgh residents. This will make a mid-summer classic to remember.
The biggest opening in the second half of the debate was when Bob O'Connor talked about the wrong forumla for downtown's revitalization. He said that you have to have the customers first, and then retail will follow. Without the people, i.e., shoppers, the stores are going to not have the sales. Mayor Murphy was building retail thinking that would keep the people here. Bob O'Connor, who helped with most of Murphy's punishing actions, said he had a different forumla.
Yeah, right.
Bob is going to flip-flop the process from (Retail + Residents) to (Residents + Retail).
Joe Weinroth should have stepped in -- after Bob's set up -- and said something like this: "Bob's calculated formula of customers and retail is but a small element of the bigger solution to our city and region. A few new dorms might work to beach a thousand college students within downtown, but that tactic isn't going to bring back prosperity and opportunities to city residents. People vote with their feet. People choose freedom. People are not going to go anywhere if they feel unsafe and if justice is a hit-or-miss factor. Pittsburgh is not going to thrive again with retail, nor with housing -- until citizens have insurances concerning the most important factors, freedom and justice for all."
I think Pittsburgh needs mature, adult solutions and not some hipster coolaid, rebranding bunk. Bob's been a part of that lifestyle, funky approach that has sent us farther in a back-slide. I want no part of their approach. Their formulas are going to result in more failures.
The right track for Bob is a loft apartment and glorified dorm with a bike rack. Then you build the expresso bar and follow it with retail. All these people in Bob's vision are going to stay downtown and stay in our city -- IF they are wearing a ball and chain. If we continue to run a city that crushes people, day-in and day-out, as we've done for the past decades, nobody in their right mind is going to want to shop here, live here nor work here. We'll continue the downward spiral until we change our approaches to justice, freedoms and earn trust with saavy citizens, from here and afar.
We know what's going on. Now we have a chance to vote to end the same-old, same-old.
Toss in some examples... cars being towed, senseless killings in the streets, police brutality at protests, corporate welfare, etc., etc.
I feel that Bob painted himself into a corner with the consumer and retail formula. Joe should have exploited it with a hard-hitting big picture observation. Bob's formula would have been reduced to 1 (consumers / residents) + 1 (retail) = negative 300,000 in the past decades. Thanks Bob for being a big part of the reason the city is half of its former self.
As to this 'right track' stuff -- give us a break. Any road will take us there if you don't know where you want to go. We need to be realistic with where we are. We need to have stong vision of how to fix our systematic governmental implosion. And, most of all, we need ask those who have made the mess to leave the scene because the one's who make the mess are the least qualified at clean-up.
Then there is the O'Connor them of bringing people together and that mega cooperative ring-leader. We have been bending over and have been cooperative with the two oversight boards and with the governor. These new found helpers match the bailout from Harrisburg -- pittyful. People are not going to rush to Pittsburgh and fix our problems. The past two years, coupled with the past decade, have proven this. We're on our own. We're going to need to pull ourselves up with all our might -- from within. We know best. Those that want to run to saviors from afar are only going to foil the progress that we need to strive for first.
When city council goes to Harrisburg, they have no idea what to say, what to beg for, how to threaten, nor why they are fruitless. City council members have not been able to think it through. And, neither have you.
Finally, Pittsburgh did change the tax structure in serious ways in the year 2000. And, this was with a push from Bob and a quick nod from Tom. They worked to toss out our legacy of affordable housing in the city. They let the county muck up the assessment process back in the Sabre Systems day. And, we're still paying for the sins of the past -- big time. And, Bob is clueless as to the ramifications, his role in the decline, and how to resolve these issues.
The deed transfer tax is sky high. That should be the first tax to cut. How about a deed transfer tax holliday for the next three years? Joe Weinroth, the attorney who works in real estate, should have nailed Bob O'Connor on this issue.
Urban hike goes into a scavenger hunt on the South Side
We'll be busy with the kids, and sadly, can't play this game. But, perhaps some of you might like to give it a whirl.
As a teaser question, can you explain what is going on with the photo below? Click the image to see a larger version showing better details. If you know or want to place a guess, put it into the comments. Or, look for the answer there in a day or so.
Take a guess. What do you see?
Join Urban Hike for its annual scavenger hunt this Saturday!
So you think you know the South Side, super sleuth? Then meet us at Caribou Coffee in the South Side Works (2729 East Carson Street) at noon, Saturday, October 29th. You’ll have three hours to track down the hidden gems we’ve found in the neighborhood.
Come with a team of four people or on your own. We’ll match people up where needed. If you have one, please bring your digital camera and the cord that allows it to connect to a computer. Some of the clues will require photographs, and we’ll all look at them after the hike concludes.
All teams must be at Taco Loco (2700 Jane Street) by 3 pm in order to compete for valuable prizes and exciting merchandise. Click comments for directions.
Questions? E-mail info@urbanhike.org.
As a teaser question, can you explain what is going on with the photo below? Click the image to see a larger version showing better details. If you know or want to place a guess, put it into the comments. Or, look for the answer there in a day or so.
Take a guess. What do you see?
Signs still stink. Click for a bigger view of some recent sign sightings.
Click on the image and see a larger version of the same photo, as is the case with most of the photos in this blog.
Please do not spit. Sign posted in Hong Kong at Ocean Park. Perhaps it should be posted in suburban Pittsburgh for school board members to read.
Please do not cross in front of bus.
Thought that the transit advocates would get a kick out of this sign. If there isn't anyone working on transit, perhaps there won't be any bus to walk in front of -- in the months to come.
Please do not spit. Sign posted in Hong Kong at Ocean Park. Perhaps it should be posted in suburban Pittsburgh for school board members to read.Election law charges draw police attention ... Signs were erected that read 'Esterly = Higher Taxes.' A worm was crawling out of the red apple.
Mrs. Esterly is not nearly as concerned about the rotten apple implication as she is about the sign's fine print that read, 'Paid for by the candidate.'
'Obviously, I did not pay for that sign,' Mrs. Esterly said.
Please do not cross in front of bus.Thought that the transit advocates would get a kick out of this sign. If there isn't anyone working on transit, perhaps there won't be any bus to walk in front of -- in the months to come.
Controller's race, should he win, would not occur until 2007
The City of Pittsburgh is going to elect a new controller in 2007, so it seems.
Tom Flaherty, Dem, Pgh's Controller, is running for judge on Nov 8 -- election day. If Tom wins the judge seat, (OMG) he'll resign from his elected, multi-term office as controller.
I assumed and expected that there would be a special election for that post -- along with the special election I'm to enter for the city council (District 3). However, I've talked with Bill Robinson, Dem, County Councilman. Robinson and I have talked at the gala/auction hosted by WPSD (Western PA School for the Deaf).
Bill Robinson is interested in the race of city controller for himself, by the way. So, he looked into this. Robinson thinks that there will NOT be a special election. Should Flaherty move to another office (judge), then the next in line to be the controller is the assistant contoller, Tony P. The assistant will serve as controller until the term expires. So, the next election for controller in the city will be as scheduled -- in this case in 2007.
I had given some bad advice and was starting to talk to a few possible candidates for the city controller race in 2006. Well, the timing is wrong. A run for city controller's job could make a good exercise for a political rookie so as to gear up for a race for PA House the next year. Perhaps it is good to start thinking about a run for controller in 2007 anyway. Flaherty has said he doesn't want the job he's in now, as he is running for another office.
Unless I hear otherwise with other news -- say from the election office directly -- there won't be a race in 2006 for a special election for controller.
Tom Flaherty, Dem, Pgh's Controller, is running for judge on Nov 8 -- election day. If Tom wins the judge seat, (OMG) he'll resign from his elected, multi-term office as controller.
I assumed and expected that there would be a special election for that post -- along with the special election I'm to enter for the city council (District 3). However, I've talked with Bill Robinson, Dem, County Councilman. Robinson and I have talked at the gala/auction hosted by WPSD (Western PA School for the Deaf).
Bill Robinson is interested in the race of city controller for himself, by the way. So, he looked into this. Robinson thinks that there will NOT be a special election. Should Flaherty move to another office (judge), then the next in line to be the controller is the assistant contoller, Tony P. The assistant will serve as controller until the term expires. So, the next election for controller in the city will be as scheduled -- in this case in 2007.
I had given some bad advice and was starting to talk to a few possible candidates for the city controller race in 2006. Well, the timing is wrong. A run for city controller's job could make a good exercise for a political rookie so as to gear up for a race for PA House the next year. Perhaps it is good to start thinking about a run for controller in 2007 anyway. Flaherty has said he doesn't want the job he's in now, as he is running for another office.
Unless I hear otherwise with other news -- say from the election office directly -- there won't be a race in 2006 for a special election for controller.
Insanity's example -- THINK AGAIN slogan might be best as "think at all!" Land isn't able to be hidden.
This is nuts. On one hand we have an elected official who says the answer is 40. On the other hand we have some of the most powerful institutions in the region saying the right answer is 14 percent.
What gives between 40 and 14?
It would be great is someone did the necessary homework so we know where we are. You can't get to where you want to go if you don't know your present location and course. Hey, we can't get on the right track even -- to use Bob O'Connor's pea-brained slogan -- if we can't find the rail yard.
The rail yard was taken out and replaced with a jail that is over filled.
Seems like the region is behind bars now -- too dumb to know better.
How much land is occupied and owned by nonprofits?
How much land is occupied and owned by the city?
How much land is owned by the URA?
Playground, school, apartments. Figure out the space of each is just a matter of math.
We need to know. I've called for those audits in the past. They need to be done.
And, what about the watchdogs? How about if the Trib does some homework too. Put up the chart and research. Do some more investigative reporting.
As a citizen I can make some educated assumptions. I think that half of the 'nonprofit land' is owned by the city and the URA. That's way to much. I think that the city's URA owns more than 7,000 parcels of land. The URA should liquidate that land, even selling some of it on eBay.
I also have called for a moratorium on land expansion by the nonprofits.
Finally, we need to know the trends. How much land was in the ownership of the nonprofits in the past, year by year, for the past 50 years. And, where is it going in the future.
The Salvation Army wants to purchase a 34 acre park in Brighton Heights for $100. I don't know if it is wise to give up so much land for so little when the nut of getting past this year's budget is so hard to crack. The city expected $5-million from the nonprofits and much less is to arrive. And, we're at November and little or nothing has come in so far.
Criminals generally rob from the poor. The city is poor. Lock the doors as the next wave of institutional thieves are arriving.
I don't want my city to be desperate.
I don't want my city to be dumb.
I'm not going to raise my family in a dumb, desperate landscape. So, I'll do my best to fix the situations. Let's 'think again.'
What gives between 40 and 14?
Just who owns that doggie in the limo? - PittsburghLIVE.com Doug Shields criticized Mayor Tom Murphy for saying 40 percent of the city's land is controlled by nonprofits. The nonprofits contend that figure is much lower, perhaps 14 percent.
It would be great is someone did the necessary homework so we know where we are. You can't get to where you want to go if you don't know your present location and course. Hey, we can't get on the right track even -- to use Bob O'Connor's pea-brained slogan -- if we can't find the rail yard.
The rail yard was taken out and replaced with a jail that is over filled.
Seems like the region is behind bars now -- too dumb to know better.
How much land is occupied and owned by nonprofits?
How much land is occupied and owned by the city?
How much land is owned by the URA?
Playground, school, apartments. Figure out the space of each is just a matter of math.We need to know. I've called for those audits in the past. They need to be done.
And, what about the watchdogs? How about if the Trib does some homework too. Put up the chart and research. Do some more investigative reporting.
As a citizen I can make some educated assumptions. I think that half of the 'nonprofit land' is owned by the city and the URA. That's way to much. I think that the city's URA owns more than 7,000 parcels of land. The URA should liquidate that land, even selling some of it on eBay.
I also have called for a moratorium on land expansion by the nonprofits.
Finally, we need to know the trends. How much land was in the ownership of the nonprofits in the past, year by year, for the past 50 years. And, where is it going in the future.
The Salvation Army wants to purchase a 34 acre park in Brighton Heights for $100. I don't know if it is wise to give up so much land for so little when the nut of getting past this year's budget is so hard to crack. The city expected $5-million from the nonprofits and much less is to arrive. And, we're at November and little or nothing has come in so far.
Criminals generally rob from the poor. The city is poor. Lock the doors as the next wave of institutional thieves are arriving.
I don't want my city to be desperate.
I don't want my city to be dumb.
I'm not going to raise my family in a dumb, desperate landscape. So, I'll do my best to fix the situations. Let's 'think again.'
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Radio recap with AE's Ron Morris and Mr. Soffer
High rise and mass transit too! Imagine that. Urban density is craved.
As a caller to a favorite radio show, Ron Morris, American Entrepreneur, I was able to ask a few questions to Mr. Soffer, a big-time developer who has been building out the South Side Works on the South Side.
Ron makes his shows available on tape. This is one I'll need to obtain as the conversation is a perfect illustration of what is good but still not good enough for my tastes. And, its not good enough for the long-term future of Pittsburgh. Our opportunities to floursh in the decades to come are being minimalized.
My first question went to the South Side Works' massive new parking lot. It is a surface lot that was created at the insistance of REI. And, Mr. Soffer said it is a temporary solution.
The long-term solution includes a parking garage.
The parking garage funding is going to include some type of cash outlay from the governement. Save Our Transit advocates worry that we're spending a lot of money on new parking structures and NOTHING on mass transit nor in park-and-ride.
More to come.... but for now....
Bottom line from the conversation: This is a lifestyle development and it isn't about keeping people here in the city. The condos and apartments are fine for youngsters. But the best solution the developer could offer is move to the suburbs once you have children.
So, we'll subsidize buildings and surface parking lots that will one day be parking structures -- taking away from the kids that are in the city now -- (that's what a TIF does) -- only to get outward migration.
The sustainability in terms of life's cycles isn't a factor here.
The plans are flawed in my opinion. The plans need to grow up. Think again. Think it through. We must do better.
More news on Queen for a Day pagent
This is junk politics. This is junk leadership. This is typical bunk from Democrats who don't like real democracy.O'Connor pledges boards on women, youth Democratic mayoral nominee Bob O'Connor said this week that he plans to establish new city commissions on women and youth issues.
Pittsburgh does not need another blasted commission, authority, oversight body, nor class or royalty.
Pittsburgh needs real democracy.
Queen of Hearts -- Disney style. Would you want to get in line to be "queen for a day?"
Women don't want to be "queen for a day" and rotated onto and off of boards just to feel good. Rather, have nobody in the elite -- and we'll all win. Get good elections, get better exposure for all candidates, get rid of the other layers and just stick to fixing our problems with clear thinking people who interact and listen to everyone.
Pittsburgh does not need another blasted commission, authority, oversight body, nor class or royalty.
Pittsburgh needs real democracy.
Queen of Hearts -- Disney style. Would you want to get in line to be "queen for a day?"
Women don't want to be "queen for a day" and rotated onto and off of boards just to feel good. Rather, have nobody in the elite -- and we'll all win. Get good elections, get better exposure for all candidates, get rid of the other layers and just stick to fixing our problems with clear thinking people who interact and listen to everyone.
Mindy's album release -- Live from Pittsburgh -- is on hold while Wilma takes aim on Mindy's hood
Hold onto your hat, dear friends of Southwestern Florida. Photo shows us together after she played a gig in 2003 at the Green Tree Swim Pool.
Mindy Simmons is about to release a new album, recorded while she performed in Pittsburgh. But first things first. Wilma is taking aim -- right at them.
American Eagle Outfitters
Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances - PittsburghLIVE.com On the 'Watch List' II: The American Eagle move. The big clothes retailer, now based in Marshall, plans to relocate its headquarters and hundreds of workers to Pittsburgh's SouthSide Works. It's great news for the new development; details are expected today. That said, a critical question is how much, if anything, this will cost the public? If taxpayers are being asked to help pay to move a company from one part of Allegheny County to another, it might not be the great deal that everyone is touting it to be."Good to watch this now -- when it is too late. How about we watch a little sooner on the uptake.
The river park that is being talked about over near the AEO and REI is worthy of some serious considerations -- NOW.
RCAC hosts breakfast with Team 88's leader -- Swann -- on Monday
RCAC: "Eggs and Issues
An Event sponsored by Jan Rea
Featured Speaker: Lynn Swann
Monday, October 24th, 8am
The Rivers Club, One Oxford Centre
Cost is $35 for RCAC Members/$50 for all others.
To reserve a seat, please call RCAC at 412-281-9748 or email info@rcac.net"
An Event sponsored by Jan Rea
Featured Speaker: Lynn Swann
Monday, October 24th, 8am
The Rivers Club, One Oxford Centre
Cost is $35 for RCAC Members/$50 for all others.
To reserve a seat, please call RCAC at 412-281-9748 or email info@rcac.net"
County Candidates
Mark Purcell, Democrat
We used to have county assessers. But, they became, how should we say, shady -- from time to time. We really should have been better at protections for whistle-blowers and keeping the county assessment department above reproach. They were good, so I've come to understand. But, they needed to be excellent. And, the three county commissioners had a way of fussing with property values.
I would be in favor of county employees as assessors.
We could also make a change in the county charter to allow for an elected assessor. We don't need a register of wills to be elected. We could use an elected assessor. If the assessments are not square -- then the people toss the person out of office.
Matt Drozd, Republican.
Yes, let's not make tax increases. We are already taxed enough.
However, I'm not too sure what he means about the county needing to put a greater focus on job creation. The private sector makes jobs. Government has a poor record with job creation. No thanks. Perhaps I'll visit his web site to see what he means by that short statement.
Edward J. Kress, Republican.
However, I wonder what is up with the econimic opportunity efforts. Does he want to create more TIFs for young people that are not here? Or, does he want to help in the sponsoring of a YOUTH TECHNOLOGY SUMMIT as an annual event at the Convention Center so our kids, academics, parents, foundations, schools and volunteers can mingle with businesses?
James R. Burn, Republican
Great to hear that someone is against the current trend of freezes on assessments. We used to freeze property assessments and that leads to trouble.
Yes, we need financial stability, and yes, we need economic growth -- but how and where?
Michael J. Finnerty, Democrat -- no web site. Welcome to 2005. Sounds like an old fart.
Doug Price, Republican. It breaks my heart to find out that Doug does not have a web site. But, at least he has a record to stand upon. He's been on council and you know what you're getting.
I've always liked Doug's approach to reform. I hope he keeps his seat.
Geneva McKee, Republican -- no web site, sadly.
Charles Martoni, Democrat -- no web site.
His web site is free of rancor -- and void of ideas. I don't mind a little rancor from time to time as democracy is messy. Martoni is no saint either. How we should develop brownfields is not understood. To put in big-box developers at tax-payers' expense isn't okay. Martoni has approved tiffs.
Your comments are welcomed too.
Wants to take politics out of property assessments by putting county controller in charge of valuations. Favors adding assessors in the field to improve accuracy.We should take politics out of valuations of property. The best way to do that is to only tax the land. Then formulas on square foot of land can be applied to the various land footprints.
We used to have county assessers. But, they became, how should we say, shady -- from time to time. We really should have been better at protections for whistle-blowers and keeping the county assessment department above reproach. They were good, so I've come to understand. But, they needed to be excellent. And, the three county commissioners had a way of fussing with property values.
I would be in favor of county employees as assessors.
We could also make a change in the county charter to allow for an elected assessor. We don't need a register of wills to be elected. We could use an elected assessor. If the assessments are not square -- then the people toss the person out of office.
Matt Drozd, Republican.
Vows to vote against any tax increase. Wants to institute voter referendums for all tax increases and major spending items. Says county needs greater focus on job creation.Yes, let's start to have some real democracy. Let's put more voter referendums into the landscape and vote if we should give American Eagle Outfitters more than $5-million.
Yes, let's not make tax increases. We are already taxed enough.
However, I'm not too sure what he means about the county needing to put a greater focus on job creation. The private sector makes jobs. Government has a poor record with job creation. No thanks. Perhaps I'll visit his web site to see what he means by that short statement.
Edward J. Kress, Republican.
Wants to create economic opportunity to reverse tide of young people leaving Allegheny County. Favors finding alternate sources of county government revenue by selling naming rights to parks, other county facilities.The "alternative funding" efforts are fine, as per Les Ludwig's ideas. Bring them on. We should have never sold the naming rights to the Civic Arena to the Penguins. The Pens want to tear down the Civic Arena now.
However, I wonder what is up with the econimic opportunity efforts. Does he want to create more TIFs for young people that are not here? Or, does he want to help in the sponsoring of a YOUTH TECHNOLOGY SUMMIT as an annual event at the Convention Center so our kids, academics, parents, foundations, schools and volunteers can mingle with businesses?
James R. Burn, Republican
Favors assessment plan adopted by Allegheny County Council, but says county must work toward annual assessments to gain accuracy. Says he will bring financial stability and economic growth.
Great to hear that someone is against the current trend of freezes on assessments. We used to freeze property assessments and that leads to trouble.
Yes, we need financial stability, and yes, we need economic growth -- but how and where?
Michael J. Finnerty, Democrat -- no web site. Welcome to 2005. Sounds like an old fart.
Wants to create jobs and economic development. Favors incentives for building and development, especially in area near Pittsburgh International Airport. Seeks more consolidation of services such as purchasing with city, but would go slow with mergers of major offices.I'd like to work against this type of thinking. I don't want to create jobs and econimic development by the airport and kill the city. If people want to buy that land -- let them do it on their own. We have an urban decay that needs more attention than development on greenfields by an airport that has few flights.
Doug Price, Republican. It breaks my heart to find out that Doug does not have a web site. But, at least he has a record to stand upon. He's been on council and you know what you're getting.
Seeks continued reform of county government by transforming treasurer and sheriff from elected to appointed positions. Favors developing the airport corridor by funding a new water treatment plant to serve two major development sites there.Okay, I'm okay with a water treatment plant by the airport. That is a public infrastructure investment. That's great. We could do some 'green' development with better treatment of water sources, etc.
I've always liked Doug's approach to reform. I hope he keeps his seat.
Geneva McKee, Republican -- no web site, sadly.
Says assessments need to be made more fair so lower-priced properties do not subsidize underassessed properties. Favors cutting taxes overall to try to create jobs and keep people in the region.
Charles Martoni, Democrat -- no web site.
Favors economic development to keep young people in the area. Wants to develop brownfields. Favors government free of partisan rancor.
His web site is free of rancor -- and void of ideas. I don't mind a little rancor from time to time as democracy is messy. Martoni is no saint either. How we should develop brownfields is not understood. To put in big-box developers at tax-payers' expense isn't okay. Martoni has approved tiffs.
Your comments are welcomed too.
The other Pittsburgh mayoral candidates protest
Bob and Joe don't have a monopoly on the good ideas for fixing Pittsburgh.
A show-down will occur on Sunday morning at the TV studios as some other candidates will appear and expect to be put onto the telivision for the debates.
Furthmore, Bob O'Connor has said that he won't debate unless all the candidates are invited. Bob O'Connor knows that 100% of the people, with the lone exception of a few television executives who must not live in the city, want to see all the candidates on the debate stage. Bob knows he'll loose massive volumes of respect if he is going to debate without inclusion.
Bob wants to get a new group of people together to talk about equal opportunities for women and minorities and youth. Humm. He better walk the talk and go out of his way to appear on the public airways (TV stations get airway rights from public-controlled spectum) and be inclusive.
Furthermore, Bob O'Connor is going to get beat by Joe Weinroth in a head-to-head debate. Bob isn't good in one-on-one debates. This is why Bob wasn't mayor in 2001. Bob went on the air in 1-on-1 debates to Tom Murphy and lost the election.
Bob O'Connor would have won all the debates by a landslide in 2001 -- and would have been elected as the Democratic nominee in 2001's mayor race -- if Bob would have only insisted upon going into the five debates along with Leroy Hodge and Josh Pollock.
Bob fumbled them. We'll know in a few hours what Bob does in 2005.
A show-down will occur on Sunday morning at the TV studios as some other candidates will appear and expect to be put onto the telivision for the debates.
Furthmore, Bob O'Connor has said that he won't debate unless all the candidates are invited. Bob O'Connor knows that 100% of the people, with the lone exception of a few television executives who must not live in the city, want to see all the candidates on the debate stage. Bob knows he'll loose massive volumes of respect if he is going to debate without inclusion.
Bob wants to get a new group of people together to talk about equal opportunities for women and minorities and youth. Humm. He better walk the talk and go out of his way to appear on the public airways (TV stations get airway rights from public-controlled spectum) and be inclusive.
Furthermore, Bob O'Connor is going to get beat by Joe Weinroth in a head-to-head debate. Bob isn't good in one-on-one debates. This is why Bob wasn't mayor in 2001. Bob went on the air in 1-on-1 debates to Tom Murphy and lost the election.
Bob O'Connor would have won all the debates by a landslide in 2001 -- and would have been elected as the Democratic nominee in 2001's mayor race -- if Bob would have only insisted upon going into the five debates along with Leroy Hodge and Josh Pollock.
Bob fumbled them. We'll know in a few hours what Bob does in 2005.
2 Pittsburgh mayoral candidates protest Two candidates for Pittsburgh mayor protested their exclusion from televised debates yesterday.
Independent David Tessitor and Green Party candidate Titus North said they were not invited to debates to be taped tomorrow by PCNC and Nov. 4 by WTAE-TV. Only Democrat Bob O'Connor and Republican Joe Weinroth were invited.
Mr. Tessitor said the exclusion of candidates that are on the ballot amounts to 'silencing alternative points of view' and a 'breach of trust by the media.'
Mr. North said the media's view that small-party candidates can't win is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
All five candidates on the ballot have been invited to a debate to be taped by PCTV Channel 21 on Wednesday and untelevised forums on Tuesday and Nov. 3.
The other mayoral candidate on the Nov. 8 ballot is Jay M. Ressler of the Socialist Workers Party."
Mom goes to college swim meet and cheers for two sons -- at different teams
CollegeSwimming.com Barbara Farnham's alternate screams of 'Go, Daniel!' and 'Go, Adam!' at tomorrow's swim meet against the University of Tennessee are certain to echo in the ears of nearby fans.
Farnham is the mother of the All-American UK senior Daniel Farnham and UT sophomore Adam Farnham - two brothers, two rival swim teams.
Maryland editorial about PA politics and access to ballot
editorial
Pennsy shouldn't make third-party runs so tough
It's no surprise that America's two main political parties don't want to make it easy for a third or even a fourth party to muscle in on their turf.
But should it be impossible for third-party candidates to get on the ballot?
We say no, especially in the state of Pennsylvania, which some would argue was the cradle of the American political system.
Well, unless you're a Republican or a Democrat, the Keystone State's laws make it mighty difficult for any political movement in its infancy to survive.
The Associated Press reported that when Ken Krawchuk ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for governor in 2002, he needed to collect about 32,000 signatures from registered voters to get on the ballot.
About 21,000 of those were required by law, but the Krawchuk campaign obtained 11,000 more to ensure that the campaign wouldn't go bust if a significant number of signatures were challenged.
There is a good reason to be careful. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review this week reported that Pennsylvania's 1995 motor-voter law, which allows people to register when they renew a driver's license, has caused problems. It's a good idea in theory, but in practice election officials say it makes it difficult to purge from the rolls voters who have left the state.
But the state's difficulties in keeping track of who is registered and who isn't shouldn't have any bearing on how difficult it is to for third-party candidates to get on the ballot.
For example, the aforementioned Krawchuk, who said he might try a U.S. Senate bid in 2006, would need to gather 100,000 signatures to ensure himself a spot on the ballot.
The required number of signatures is 67,000. The rest would cover the campaign in case many signatures are successfully challenged.
How was the 67,000 figure arrived at? Pennsylvania law says that candidates need 2 percent of the number of votes cast for the highest vote getter in the last statewide election.
It's Krawchuk's bad luck that in the 2004 election, Robert P. Casey Jr. amassed a total of 3.4 million votes in his race for state treasurer.
Does it make sense that circumstances beyond a candidate's control should dictate the number of signatures, or that Krawchuk be required to obtain four times as many names as third-party candidates in 2004?
No, this law does not make any sense. It should be changed so that prospective candidates would need to gather signatures from a certain fixed percentage of the state's registered voters.
If that total is difficult to ascertain, election officials have to go with their best estimates, remembering that it is they - and not the candidates - who are charged with keeping track of such things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
