FW: Massachusetts Physicians For A National Health Program: The fundamental flaws in the Massachusetts (and ACA) model

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Molly Rush

The fundamental flaws in the Massachusetts (and ACA) model

Mass-Care

Massachusetts Physicians for a National Health Program

October 2011

The Massachusetts Model of Health Reform in Practice

The reform has not addressed the health care crisis that most Massachusetts residents face, and that renders our entire health care system increasingly unaffordable. Health care costs – which are straining employer and household budgets, edging out all other spending priorities by the state and municipalities – have increased at even more rapid rates following reform. Administrative waste in the system has grown as a consequence of introducing new payers into an already bureaucratic health care system. Cost shifting under employer-sponsored insurance, particularly for small business employees, has accelerated. Reform has not achieved universal coverage, despite the mandate, largely because the state has been unable to ensure that truly affordable plans are available. Reform has not reduced the burden of medical bills or medical bankruptcy on Massachusetts' families. The demand for safety net services by the uninsured and underinsured has remained high, and has begun to grow, while reform and subsequent state policy has created a financial crisis for safety net providers serving low-income and minority communities in the state. Reform has not been able to significantly slow the rising use of emergency departments for care.

Most concerning, the modest gains achieved by the reform have come at a high cost – even after the state has successfully shifted many of these costs on to federal taxpayers. The costs of the reform are widely acknowledged to be unsustainable and the state has been forced to restrict benefits and shift costs to residents, employers, and federal taxpayers as a consequence. This may help explain the declining support for reform noted in recent years. Moreover, the costs of the reform have not been born equitably, with low and middle income individuals bearing a disproportionate share of the costs.

The Massachusetts reform has not addressed the fundamental deficiencies in the health care system. The reform contained no proven or robust cost-control measures and thus the state has had to struggle to afford expanded coverage in the face of unsustainable cost increases. The Massachusetts reform introduced new programs and rules to an already complex blend of public and private insurers, leaving the state with increasing administrative complexity – and increasing costs.

There is every reason to believe that the recently passed national reform law based on the Massachusetts reform (The Affordable Care Act) will result in similar mixed outcomes. Our hope is for an equitably financed health care system that serves all Americans in a cost-effective way, without requiring cost-sharing that prohibits needed care. A Massachusetts-style reform will not achieve these goals.

http://masscare.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/masshealthreforminpracticefinal.pdf

Comment:   The Massachusetts plan has been successful only in nominally increasing the numbers of individuals insured, but at a trade-off of making almost everything else worse, including the insurance coverage itself. The federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) used the Massachusetts model, and experience with the implementation to date indicates that we can expect the same or similar fundamental deficiencies, making unaffordable under-insurance the new national standard.

In a PNHP press release, Dr. Rachel Nardin, assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and co-author of this study, stated, "The Massachusetts reform built on a complex blend of public and private insurers, adding to the administrative complexity and cost of the system. To achieve cost-effective, high-quality and truly universal care, we need a single-payer system."

To better understand why the Massachusetts/ACA model can't work, it would be worthwhile to read the full 46 page report, accessible at the link above.

--

--

Ta.

 

 

Mark Rauterkus       Mark.Rauterkus@gmail.com      http://Rauterkus.blogspot.com

http://FixPA.wikia.com

http://CLOH.wikia.com

412 298 3432 = cell

Statement to Pittsburgh Public Schools Board and Administration from Mark Rauterkus, October 24, 2011

Statement to Pittsburgh Public Schools Board and Administration from Mark Rauterkus, October 24, 2011 *

Hello Board members, Superintendent and staff. My name is Mark Rauterkus. I live in the South Side and have two children that attend Pittsburgh Public Schools.

Later in your agenda you will see a personell matter. I am very happy and excited to say that I've accepted the swim coaching position for the high school boys swimming coach at Pittsburgh Obama. I am really thrilled. It is going to be exciting to work with the kids and such. I won't let the students or you down.

One person emailed me and said the whole burden of PPS Athletic Reform Task Force, something that I was working on prior, is now falling on my shoulders. This is something that I'm willing to accept. If I have enough access and good support, and I think that will come, we will do some amazing things and hopefully we can be that model.

A lot of sports, and I don't want to get all Knute Rockne on you, is about playing well with one another. I think we need to use sports as best we can to keep the kids good goals.

It is alarming that the Schenley building is for sale for $2-million and it is a loss of a swim pool, something I care about most, but also the gym.

My suggestion to you is, if you must, sell the school building but do not sell the athletic facilities. Perhaps you can put a rider on the sale of some sort.

When the schools with grades 6 to 12 were created, you have to remember you have a middle school facility with their own middle school teams. They need to be practicing after school. Then these schools also must serve high school teams as well. They all need to be practicing after school.

Let's hold onto those athletic facilities and use them.

Even right now, with the closed Peabody facility, we have to use that, all the time. That is another access thing. It is sitting idle and we should be using it for our swim season, swim lessons, water polo, fitness.

In September I took a team of high school boys to Columbus, Ohio, for a water polo tournament. We played in the JV brackets as Pittsburgh Combined in Worthington. In the last game, at Worthington, we won in a game over Upper Arlington. I want to thank Dr. Lane for putting that news into the Superintendent's report and our players were very happy to hear her congratulations on their play. Two weeks ago I gathered 17 players from the city and a few from Shaler, and we played two games on a Saturday evening against North Allegheny's Club Teams. The kids did great. Everyone was proud, as they should be. Then they figured, "Boy, if we had practices and a legit schedule, we'd be really, really good."

Speaking of access, I'm expecting we'll work out access to Westinghouse High School so we can do afterschool programs there and build up some aquatics programs there.

Speaking of Westinghouse, it appears to me that the name, Westinghouse, the colors and the mascot is important to them. It would be best to keep the name Westinghouse as well as the colors and the mascott.

Houses in the Schenley Farms neighborhood sell for more than $2-million dollars. This is a giant building and it has a swim pool and gym. If you must, sell the school, but get a fair price. And by all means, do NOT sell the school on the cheap and then have the new owners expect to get a tax break or tax abatement into the future. I'd say "No way to that." I have always been against TIFs and tax-breaks that take money from today's students. Different people, like homeowners, need to carry more of the tax burden. Plus, a tax break for some amounts to a bribe. That is never healthy.

We could use that swim pool and gym that is within Schenley. It is new. It is of great size for a high school programs. A condition of sale could be for the new owners to occupy the school and the district to retain the sports facilities.

We have talked about this before with the creation of the schools that span from grades 6 to 12. These schools need to have VARSITY, JV, FRESHMEN and MIDDLE SCHOOL teams. The Sci-Tech and U-Prep schools were built for middle school teams. Use the sub-standard gyms and pools in those schools for sports play for middle school students and then give access to the high school students of both U-Prep and Sci Tech, an easily walk, to Schenley for their JV and Varsity teams practices and games.

Intramurals present another area where PPS needs great expansion. We need to have the space available in the evenings to do those programs. Some can be done on a city-wide basis at Pittsburgh Schenley.

It is with sports where be learn how to best play well with one another. We have heard plenty from the factions at Oliver High School and Perry High School. We need more common ground. We need sports facilities so we can have better coaching opportunities, better school spirit, better fitness and a district that is going to retain its students and families.

Our kids need high goals. So don't take away these goals, the physical hoops in the gyms, by selling the facility that is necessary for our schools to thrive.

And when the time is right, I would like to work to put in swimming and water polo programs at either Perry or Oliver High School as well.

* These were not my exact words.

Arita Gilliam Rue to PPS Board in October 2011

Arita Gilliam Rue to PPS Board in October 2011 in Google Document

Family at a famous water fountain. Can you name this spot?

Grant outside the Navy Academy Swim Pool

Statement to the PPS School board from A.W.

Annette S. Werner PURE Reform

I'm here to talk about the proposed sale of the Schenley building.

The Schenley athletic addition - pool and gym- are asbestos free.

Again, the pool and gym added to Schenley in 1987 do not have asbestos plaster.

That is important information, because pools and gyms are of course very expensive. The district said the cost of just a new gym for Miller is $8M- and that would be a K-8 gym. The Schenley addition, which cost over $9M, would cost $18M in today's dollars.

It is bad enough to sell an $18M plus asset for 2M. Soon, however, we will be talking about money the district will need to spend to purchase what it just sold. The athletic facilities at U Prep are not suitable for a high school and not comparable to those enjoyed by other high school students in the district. Eventually it will become necessary to remedy the situation by adding new sports facilities, at great expense.

With the current state of the budget it will be difficult to roll in a wasteful expense unnoticed. There will be consequences in terms of higher taxes, more crowded classrooms, or both, and then repercussions in terms of enrollment and decisions people make about whether to live and locate businesses in the city. There are plenty of examples of urban school districts that ignored these considerations and have never recovered. Pittsburgh is not immune to these problems.

Now is the time to look ahead and prevent these unpleasant consequences. Put a padlock on the classroom portion of the Schenley building and preserve the very valuable sports facilities for PPS students. Maintenance costs of retaining the building can most likely be offset by fees for making the building available to other schools and organizations.

Looking beyond just this one building, insist on a realistic calculation of renovation costs when schools are closed or consolidated, and open those calculations to public scrutiny. Consider also the loss of options for the future when schools and plans don't turn out as expected. At some point we are going to have to take a good honest look at how the experiments of the last 6 years have turned out and one way or another, changes will need to be made; the only question is how much it will cost us.

Hopefuls line up for city school board

Hopefuls line up for city school board

Good luck!

Statement from Mark Rauterkus to PPS Board on Oct 24, 2011

All Blacks --> All the way!

http://www.rugbyworldcupnews.com/mail/display.php?M=533164&C=9872a387828d192362b024e7ab7b4e5b&S=848&L=6&N=431

 

--

Third letter on this blog about the sell off of PPS school assets

October 20, 2011

Dear General Wagner,

I am writing you today as a citizen, and former Pittsburgh Public Schools Board Member, to express my great concern about the sale of a public asset. I am writing about the proposed sale of the former Florence Reizenstein Middle School to the development company Walnut Capital. I believe that this sale would constitute an irresponsible stewardship of public assets by the Pittsburgh School Board and Administration. And that it should be stopped for the following reasons:

1)      According to Allegheny County Assessment Office the Building and Land is worth $22,920,500.00

2)      Sole Bidder bid $5,700,000.00

3)      Bidder announced plans for $119,000,000.00

4)      Bidder has history of seeking tax exemptions, thereby reducing or eliminating tax revenues to City, State, and School District.

5)      There was only ONE Bidder

6)      Bidding process was "fast-tracked". A shorter bidding process from other buildings for sale.

7)      Property is within an area (East Liberty) that has seen great economic investment in the last 10 years(A Target store opened 3 months ago)

8)      Board did not properly (only locally) advertise this property for sale.

9)      Bidder developed property across the street from school.

10)   Property not appraised by a least 3 appraisers.

11)   School building only 30 years old.

12)   School building is used for many community activities.

13)   Building is modern facility with large gymnasium, pool, and air conditioning.

 

I believe that this property should remain a school. There is currently one proposed charter school for East End of Pittsburgh with of others likely. I believe the property's continued use as a school is highly possible and, most likely in the future, necessary.

 

Furthermore, the Reizenstein building is a valuable asset to the East End of Pittsburgh community. This building, because of its central location and access to public transportation is a natural meeting place. Its gymnasium and pool are used by many groups and organizations. It even housed the Pittsburgh Public Schools"Summer Dreamers" education program for hundreds of students.

The taxpayers of the city have invested tens of millions of dollars in this building and property. They should have every right to expect the property to be put to the best use for students and, if this property is to be sold, to receive the maximum amount possible. This sale should be halted for the purpose of determining if this has occurred.

Looking back over the years, I also believe the handling of this property to be a prima facie case(s) of, not only wasting precious tax dollars, but of NO fiscal planning by the Pittsburgh Public Schools.

I placed before the Pittsburgh School Board in April 2008 a resolution to cancel the planned move of students from the closed Schenley High School to the Reizenstein Building. $10 million dollars was slated to be spent to make the facility more appropriate for High Schools students. However, the Board knew at that time the move would be temporary because Business Affairs Director stated "that to make building permanent home for High School students would cost $40 million in upgrades". I asked Board to move those students to an existing High School. The Pittsburgh School Board voted my resolution down. In May of this year, the Pittsburgh School Board voted to send Reizenstein students to that very same existing High School. Yet, it does not end there.

The East End of Pittsburgh is an area that is experiencing great commercial and residential development (Coincidentally, the bidders for Reizenstein are proposing a $119 million dollar residential development). The communities of Garfield, East Liberty, and Highland Park are all doing significant building of new homes. Even the struggling communities of Larimer and Homewood have plans and funding   and are beginning long overdue community re- development. We are already seeing many new families moving into the East End of Pittsburgh, and I believe many, many more will follow. What if the School District of Pittsburgh finds, in a few short years, that there is a need to build a new school for the new families? A new school will cost at minimum $40 million dollars. The East End also has many schools that are over 90 years old. How long will it be before it becomes cost prohibitive to maintain and upgrade these buildings? How long will it be before these buildings are obsolete?  The Reizenstein property would provide a large parcel of flat land in an attractive location. If a new building is ever constructed the existing sports facilities might well be incorporated at significant savings. The lack of planning may cost the taxpayers of the city and state tens of millions of dollars.

 

I am writing to ask your office to intervene and investigate the sale of this building. I believe that tens of millions of public dollars are at stake. Yet, most importantly we are facing the loss of a building that has helped to enrich the educational experience of thousands of students. I believe that a building with excellent amenities make for a well-rounded education.  Pittsburgh has long believed that well maintained facilities are important to a child's education. We have long believed in the importance of pools for our children to learn to swim and large gyms and fields for them to play and grow strong. This current Pittsburgh School Board has forgotten this. My hope is that you will us here in Pittsburgh to remind them.

 

Sincerely,

 

Randall Taylor

Former Pittsburgh School Board Director, District #1

(412) 867-8170

Duquesne school district to close the end of the school year

Wow.

Duquesne school district to close the end of the school year: Duquesne school district to close the end of the school year.

Perhaps we can say too little and too late.

This is big news. And, it is a big impact to everyone in the region.

Allegheny County and the overall region is just too small to have such a failure in such epic amounts. Those kids are neighbors. Those students are getting screwed and have been put in jeopardy for decades.

The drag of Duquesne City's School District is an anchor that we all must lift and correct.

Back in the day I spoke at a PPS public hearing to the PPS board and took some heat from a person in the audience who was another citizen. She told me in no uncertain terms in a private conversation that she didn't want to hear me, a guy from the South Side who was seeking public office in the city, talking about Duquesne Schools. To her, that was out of bounds. She wanted me to rant about things within our neighborhood, our district.

I felt I had an important message to deliver and it was spot on for PPS to worry about. For a while, PPS had a consulting or management contract with the Duquesne School District for something. That didn't seem to pan out, I guess.

But my worry then and at the microphone that night was about the closing of schools in the 'right size plan' that were in Hazelwood and to the far east and south of the city. That is the part of the city that needed capacity because the Duquesne students might come flocking into the city some day as that district crumbles.

Well, it has happened. My prediction has come true, sadly.

And, the PPS is without the school buildings and without the capacity in the system to do something positive there.

It is a stretch, but not impossible, to get the kids from Duquesne into the city for school, even in the K-8 stages.

Oh well.

What would Churchill say to Gandi about the race for US President?

Kathy Fine makes a statement about the selling of PPS school facilities

From Kathy Fine, a Pittsburgh citizen who helps with the education blog, Pure Reform.

Enough is enough.

Four years ago, the PPS administration proposed closing Schenley High School based on deceptions and out and out lies.

• They lied when they said that that would keep Schenley open after the community outcry.
·
• They lied about the level of danger due to asbestos and the urgency of removing students from the facility.
• They lied about forming a stakeholder committee to discuss possible reuses for the building.
• They lied about the cost for renovations.

And now their lies are public knowledge. The district let Schenley sit unused while they spent tens of millions of dollars on renovations on inferior buildings and instituted controversial reform experiments that we new would fail (and sadly, we have been proven right). Now they are proposing selling this historic building on invaluable city property for $2M dollars to a developer that will convert the old school into apartments for a cost of $35M dollars. That’s right, $35M dollars to gut the entire facility, remediate the asbestos, replace electrical and HVAC systems and build separate apartments. 5 years ago, the PPS administration told us that just updating the mechanicals and remediation would cost up to $81M!

The students at University Prep are worse off than they were at Schenley. They are faring no better academically, but now they are housed in an inadequate middle school facility and their sports and other extracurriculars have been decimated.

The closing of Schenley has resulted in the resegregation of our high schools and separate but unequal facilities and programming for the minority students in the East End of our city. While the predominantly white high schools like Brashear, Carrick and Alderdice have remained untouched, with beautiful buildings and sports facilities, the predominantly minority high schools like Obama (the new IB school), University Prep and Sci-Tech are squeezed into middle school facilities or facilities with no windows or natural light and have been forced to give up any real sports programming.

And the proposed Reizenstein sale also raises concerns. The county has assessed this property at over $22M, but the bidder the district is putting forward is offering only $5.4M Moreover, this flat, conveniently located property with some of the best PPS parking in the East End is the go to spot for district wide meetings. It is also the site of a popular pre-school program. DeJong, the facility consultant, recommended keeping the property, reportedly so that it would be available at a future time when the district wishes to build a new modern facility.

PLEASE, come to the public hearing at 6PM on Monday, 10/24 and tell our school board that we cannot see our district dismantled piece by piece. Call 412-622-3600 and sign up to speak by 12N on Monday. Or just come to lend support! Some talking points:

• End the separate but unequal treatment of the minority students in the East End.
• The lack of accountability regarding the deception about the true cost of renovation
• The failures of the reforms that took place at the cost of Schenley High School
• University Prep is a failed experiment
• Sci-Tech’s building is too small to accommodate all of the students that want to attend
• Sharing sports facilities between middle and high school has resulted in tremendous scheduling difficulties, with some students having to wait until evening for practice.

The Schenley building and sports facilities are worth much more than $2M. There has been talk of building a gymnasium for University Prep at a cost of $8M. We could use the Schenley sports facilities for University Prep, Obama and Sci Tech and save $6M, while providing these three schools with a centralized location for their sports programming.

Stop the fire sale of Reizenstein and Schenley.

The TIME IS NOW to stop this charade of “reform” and put a halt to the sale of our precious public school resources for a pittance.

Kathy Fine
Pure Reform

TJ needs a swim coach

Hello My name is Barb Hill and I am part of the booster club for the Thomas Jefferson High School swimming and diving team. Our high school swim team is desperately searching for a high school swim coach for this 2011-2012 swim season. I found your name on the website for USMS Allegheny Mountain Masters. I was wondering if you might know of anyone that has coaching experience that would be interested in coaching a high school team. Thomas Jefferson High School is located in Jefferson Hills, PA and is part of the West Jefferson Hills School District. This is a paying position. We have about 25-30 high swimmers that are anxious to get started. If you are interested or know anyone that may be interested please have them contact myself or William Cherpak the athletic director at the high school at 412-655-8610. Thank You Barb

Fw: cc letter waste/ mismanagement

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

---

From: Asw122@aol.com

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:59:15 -0400 (EDT)

To: <mark.rauterkus@gmail.com>

Subject: cc letter waste/ mismanagement

October 19, 2011

 

Mr. Ron Tomalis, Secretary of Education

Pennsylvania Department of Education

333 Market Street

Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333

 

Dear Mr. Tomalis:

 

I am writing with a concern about possible waste and mismanagement of Pittsburgh Public School assets.

 

As you may know, in June 2008 the PPS Board voted 5-4, despite strong opposition, to close Schenley High School.  The reason given was the presence of asbestos plaster, although it was later shown that other functioning Pittsburgh public schools had similar if not identical plaster issues.  The Board mandated that a committee be formed to consider re-use of the building, including possible re-use as a school.  Over the next three years parents, community members and some Board members requested formation of this committee.  Suddenly last summer, without committee input, the district announced that the property was for sale and that the bid deadline was December 31, 2011 (a date that was recently moved up to October 13, 2011).   A bid for $2M, which the district appears likely to accept very soon, was revealed this week.

 

HOWEVER, the Schenley athletic addition (including gym and pool) does not have asbestos plaster problems.   It was added in 1987 at a cost of $9.4M (about $18M in current dollars).  Similar recent projects in neighboring districts have cost $20M - $25M.  Even looking at just the athletic facilities, PPS will be handing off an extremely valuable asset for a pittance.  Minimal marketing took place, and it is quite likely that other potential purchasers did not know the building was for sale or that the gymnasium and pool do not have plaster problems.

 

More importantly, our Pittsburgh public school students could benefit greatly from this athletic facility.  Schenley was replaced by three 6-12 schools which in some cases lack facilitiesappropriate for a high school, such as regulation sized pools.   In addition, the high school level students must wait to use facilities until the middle school day is over, and then must work practices and meets around middle school practices and meets.  Because schools are small, joint teams are necessary and students  must travel between locations.  The Schenley athletic facilities are in a central location (Oakland) and would 1) greatly alleviate the overscheduling and inequity created by the 6-12 configuration and 2) provide a single location for the joint teams (which include charter school students) to practice and play.  And, because other Oakland organizations are in need of pool and gym time, there are real revenue opportunities that could well offset the cost of maintaining the building, even if the classroom portion just sat in reserve.  

 

An additional concern is that the district put the cost of making Schenley available for continued use as a school at $81M, while the bidder for the property indicates that it will manage to convert it to an entirely new use (residential) for only $35M.  I urge the Pennsylvania Department of Education without delay to investigate this discrepancy as well as the issues surrounding the athletic facilities and to ensure that our properties are being handled in a manner that is  fiscally responsible and equitable to all students.

 

Annette S. Werner (asw122@aol.com)

 

cc:  Auditor General Jack Wagner

Fwd: Closing Statement BLACKED OUT

From: Ron Paul <ron_paul@ronpaul2012.com>

Bakery Square expansion proposed; three school sites for bid

No deal.

Do not sell the Schenley High School for $2-million. Sell it for $20 or $30 million, not $2-million.

Do not give a tax credit to the new owners of Schenley High School. If they want it at a seal, then don't let them seal us into the future as well. Sell it at a fair price, and expect them to make an investment, without the price of a tax credit.

The Reizenstein property was to fetch $30 or $40 million dollars, not $5 or $6 million.

No deal. We (citizens, taxpayers, parents of school children) are getting robbed.

Bakery Square expansion proposed; three school sites for bid: Developers propose carrying housing, retail, office space across Penn Avenue to site of shuttered Reizenstein school

Economic Plan from Doctor Paul

New Book Includes Buhl Planetarium History

From: Glenn A. Walsh

A history of Pittsburgh's original Buhl Planetarium and Institute of Popular Science, including its rather unique 10-inch Siderostat-type Refractor Telescope Observatory, is included in a new book published by the University of Pittsburgh Press titled Palace of Culture, Andrew Carnegie's Museums and Library in Pittsburgh. The author of this book is Robert J. Gangewere, former adjunct professor of English at Carnegie Mellon University and former editor of CARNEGIE magazine for three decades.

The Buhl Planetarium and Institute of Popular Science (a.k.a. Buhl Science Center) merged with Carnegie Institute in 1987, thus the reason Buhl's history is included in this book. Mr. Gangewere interviewed me, regarding Buhl's history, for this book.

Mr. Gangewere will conduct a free-of-charge lecture on the new book, and a book signing this TUESDAY AFTERNOON, OCTOBER 18, 2011, from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. (EDT) at the Carnegie Museum of Art Theater in the Oakland section of Pittsburgh.

Here is more information about the book --

Link to information from the University of Pittsburgh Press web site:

http://www.upress.pitt.edu/BookDetails.aspx?bookId=36260

Here is a book description from the CARNEGIE Magazine web site:

Palace of Culture

Told through the eyes of a longtime insider and gifted storyteller, the far-reaching history of Andrew Carnegie's lasting gifts to the Steel City and their worldwide influence comes to life in Palace of Culture, Andrew Carnegie's Museums and Library in Pittsburgh.

Published by University of Pittsburgh Press and written by Robert J. Gangewere, former adjunct professor of English at Carnegie Mellon University and former editor of CARNEGIE magazine for three decades, Palace of Culture is a thorough look at the life and times of Andrew Carnegie's Carnegie Institute, which today comprises four distinctive museums and a separately operated system of libraries.

"It makes for a fascinating account that not only is a tribute to Andrew Carnegie's vision but also demonstrates that libraries, museums, and concert halls can have a powerful, even transformative impact on cities," says Petra Chu, professor of art history at Seton Hall University.

In his 2004 farewell note in CARNEGIE magazine, Gangewere promised to tackle this important project by sharing unforgettable stories—like when Carnegie, sitting on a log in Cresson, Pennsylvania, first told minister William Holland that he wanted to do something special for Pittsburgh, like build a library. "It's a very American story with no simple parallel in the larger world of museums," Gangewere wrote. "I can't wait to tell it." After scores of interviews and unprecedented research, Gangewere has accomplished his goal.

Join Gangewere for one of his scheduled talks about his book: October 18 from 3-5 p.m. in the Carnegie Museum of Art Theater; November 9 from 7-9 p.m. at Ligonier Public Library; and January 14, 2012, from 2-4 p.m. at Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh in Oakland.


--

Sports stadium reading

For a great overview of why mayors keep throwing cash at sports teams without getting any demonstrated benefit in return, check out The Nation “Why do mayors love sports stadiums?”  (The Pittsburgh Penguins are briefly mentioned.) http://www.thenation.com/article/162400/why-do-mayors-love-sports-stadiums:   Ruth Ann Dailey’s latest Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Opinion piece from September 19 is a humorous look at the absurdity of the whole Civic Arena political process and current situation with the former St. Nicholas Church http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11262/1175777-152-0.stm