Rule #8

Haven't posted a new rule in a few days, so here goes:

There's a reason; there's ALWAYS a reason.

The "Reason Rule" is one of the most baffling rules to anyone outside of Bureaucracy. If you're not in the Bureaucratic superstructure, you can barely fathom why people would act so irrational when it comes to basic decisions. But there is, of course, a reason.

Bureaucracy acts as the memory of government; there's a reason why we don't do things a certain way... and usually the answer is either (1) Someone sued us, (2) Someone got fined, or (3) Someone went to jail. That's why if you read the fine print of these rules, there are all kinds of caveats that bar the bureaucracy from doing what it is you want it to do. That's why Lifelong Bureaucrats can serve a valuable function by acting as a Canary in the project mineshaft. [Remember Rule #2...Avoid being chased by Mike Wallace at all costs.] It's not that us Bureaucrats are irrational, we're just keeping people out of jail.

Thus, one of the interesting dichotomies between Politics and Government: the desire to do "good" vs. the desire to do what is permitted. To paraphrase RFK:

There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? Politicians dream of things that never were, and ask why not? Bureacrats respond because it contravenes Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.A. § §  5301—5320).

Thursday Mayoral Discussion

I'm going to pause from my Federalist screeds for awhile and offer my opinion on the Pittsburgh Mayoral Race. (Democratic primary only. Sorry Joe.)

There is one mayoral candidate that holds full sway over the race. He has crystallized the issues and he has set himself up as the standard against which the other candidates are to be judged. His opinions are well known and, while many disagree with him, he has shown an ability to push his agenda. He has offered a broad vision for the City of Pittsburgh which the other candidates have reacted against. His specter dominates the other candidates.

He is Tom Murphy. He is the man the other candidates are trying to beat in this election, and here's why:

This campaign season quickly descended into two major themes. The first is the "Whatever we've been doing, we've been doing it wrong and I, the other candidate, can do it better" theme. For example, look at the words that they've chosen: "New Leadership," "Wrong Track," "New Pittsburgh," etc. Major criticisms have been leveled against certain mayoral pet projects and certain policy decisions, some, all or none of which may be warranted, given the situation. All the candidates have chosen to say that the current mayor is wrong in his choices and that, as Mayor, they would have chosen differently. The result is a comical round of shadow boxing, with the shadow determining the course of the fight.

The other theme, a closely related corollary to the first, is summarized as "Hey, I'm 'hip'. I'm 'cool'." (with the implication that the current mayor is neither). The most evident example of this is the out doing of O'Connor's Trolleys by Lamb's Trains. 'Cool' is supposed to be equated with 'progressive' which is supposed to attract 'young people' which is itself supposed to be 'good'. Everyone is trying to be cool, 'cept Peduto who honestly believes himself to be the epitome of coolness in Pittsburgh Politics... which is kinda like being the top kickboxer in Belgium.

But I digress.

'Cool' is supposed to be the antipode to the Murphy policies.

In any event, the formulation is clear:

Tom Murphy was wrong; Tom Murphy was uncool.

Candidate X opposes Tom Murphy; Candidate X is cool.
Candidate X is more opposed to Tom Murphy and more cool than Candidate Y.

Therefore, vote for Candidate X over Candidate Y.

The irony, of course, is that here Murphy has pretty much set the agenda for his potential successors and their campaigns. They are rhetorically chained to opposing his previous string of decisions and the winner will be chained to the political and governmental realities that Murphy created.

Real progress in solving the problems facing Pittsburgh is going to come from neither Anti-Murphy nor reductio ad cool systems of policies. The real pressing problems facing Pittsburgh (population decline, eroding of tax base, continual loss of employment, increase of crime, decrease of educational quality, environmental degradation, etc.) cannot be solved by the Mayor of Pittsburgh alone. A combination of local, regional, state, and national strategies, both public and private, are needed to truly remedy the City of Pittsburgh. The next mayor, whoever that may be, is going to find himself able to control only a small chunk of the strategy and will have to beg, borrow, and steal in order to get what he wants from the other players.

The City has been in trouble for a long time, longer than this mayor or his predecessor or her predecessor can take full responsibility for. I would wager that if Murphy had done exactly the opposite of what he did do, the City would still be in trouble... only different trouble... and the current candidates would still be running against his policies.

Bob O'Connor, Michael Lamb, Bill Peduto, Louis Kendrick, Les Ludwig, Daniel F. Repovz and Gary W. Henderson are all still running for Mayor. Tom Murphy is not.

But in 4 years we'll be hearing the same thing against the new guy...

Political Philosophy Minute

Federalist Paper #10 is a good read:

When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government... enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.

Federalist Paper #51 is pretty good too, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," "If men were angels no government would be necessary," "If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure...."

And so on.

These points seem particularly relevant for increasingly evident reasons ...

A Few Things No One Talks About

This post is slated to be exceptionally boring, but I just wanted to raise a few issues that have caused some real headaches for mes amies in the Pittsburgh Economic Development arena. These aren't the sensationalized stories about "how much property the City owns" or "how the City is stymying development downtown". These are much more technical concerns about the health of the City and its ability to grow.

(1) Tax Delinquency. Tax a good look at a map of the tax delinquency around the city of Pittsburgh. Certain neighborhoods are approaching 50% property tax delinquency, which is damn scary. Once you hit 50%, the neighborhood is on a near irreversible slide toward decline. If the City cannot collect on the revenues, the City doesn't have the money it needs to operate.

(2) Water & Sewer. This going to be a bigger problem soon. Western PA will have to dump close to $3 BILLION in order to comply with an EPA decree to separate water & sewer lines. PWSA has begun to mandate some of this separation, but at about $10,000/unit, the costs are difficult to subsume in a project budgets. Consequently, a lot of the affordable housing that could get built, doesn't.

(3) Construction Cost vs. Market Prices. Pittsburgh is an inexpensive City to live in, but not to construct in. Prevailing wages, unfortunately bumped up in the short run by the construction of two stadiums, push construction costs up significantly higher than the overall sales prices. The result is that more and more community groups and developers go hat-in-hand looking for development grants in order to get their construction projects done. Unfortunately, City resources are stretches so thin than development grants are few and far between.

(4) Federal Reduction of CDBG Allocations. Big time problem for the City who is scheduled to receive only about $19M in CDBG funds, down from around $20M in 2004 and 2003. To give you perspective, before the fiscal meltdown, URA only received $7.96M of those CDBG dollars. Following the fiscal crisis (or rather, currently), the City has reallocated that money to pay for non-ED uses. The Bush administration will only cut the CDBG allocation further. Less gap financing to the City means fewer projects can get pushed through to development.

(5) High Parking Tax. While this was a hot-button issue awhile back, it has since faded into the background. Still, it remains one of the major deterrents to downtown development.

(6) Asbestos. It is incredibly costly to do an environmentally sound demolition of a building containing asbestos. It's not pretty. We're not even talking about remediation of a building for future occupants; we're talking about actual demolition. While this is a necessary process, there is little if any additional money out there to alleviate those costs

So those are some issues that a few people are talking about; they aren't big, but they are a nuisance.

I'm open to additional insights.

Monday Comentary-ette

Public policy should almost never be based on a single, emotional case.

>>>>>FOLLOW UP<<<<<

An Editorial from Ian Duncan-Smith (Conservative MP) in today's New York Times, slightly taken out of context, but still germane:

It has always been appropriate for parliaments to have the power to stop hasty legislation. And this democratic responsibility is even more important in today's electronic age. A dangerous combination of frenzied news coverage and trigger-happy legislators has put many bad laws onto statute books across the world. As the old saying goes, providence moves slowly but the devil always hurries. Bicameral legislatures, powers of filibuster, and the need for supermajorities on issues of vital importance are useful blocks on devilish legislation.

Assessment Solutions

OK, in my last posting, we talked about how the assessment cap is basically illegal. Let's assume, for a moment, that there is a "problem" to be solved and that government action is required to "solve" this "problem". I argue that the problem is not with the assessment, per se, but rather the taxes that are derived from that assessment. So, how do you solve the tax problem, given the uniformity and equity issues involved? Couple ideas:

(1) Reduce the assessment basis from 100% of value. Back in the day, the assessment was about 25% of value and the tax rate was high; today, the county is at 100%, but the rate is low. If the County thinks that the assessments are too high, it can reduce the assessment basis down a few points, covering uniformly all Allegheny County taxpayers. The segmentation of property owners into classes of 1,2,3,4 or 0% property caps does not meet this uniformity requirement and should be abandoned.

(2) Lean on the municipalities to reduce their tax rates. If Allison Park has such a problem with being reassessed too high, let Allison Park reduce their taxes so that they confirm with windfall laws. County intrusion by instituting a cap is unnecessary.

(3) Reassess, reassess, reassess every year. While the citizenry make not like the outcome, it will give them a larger sample set in order to base any appeals.

(4) Assess the assessments. A large problem here is that we don't have a good standard to measure the accuracy of the assessments. Onorato says that the assessments are inaccurate; the assessor's office begs to differ. The County needs an independent verification of not only the accuracy but also the disparities of the assessments.

(5) Leave politics out of the assessments as per Rule #6. The assessments are supposed to be apolitical; taxes are political. If assessments are high, the politicians should reduce tax rates or value bases, not tinker with calculations. Would you let the Federal Highway Administration adjust your car so that you are forced to go 55 mph, or would you prefer they just readjust speed limits?

(6) Hell, put politics back in it and repeal the equitable assessment provisions of the State Constitution. While you're at it, repeal any pesky Civil Rights Laws at the Federal level. If the law is bothering you, get rid of the law.

(7) Burn down the county and start again with the assessments. If this option is chosen, please start either with Mount Oliver or Robinson.

Just some thoughts, I'm open to more. Even ones that don't involve arson. Of course, this is, again, assuming that there is actually a "problem" that must be "solved"... just like the "problem" with Social Security and the "solution" of individual retirement accounts... but, hey, I digress.

Mad Capped Assessments

Perennial local government gadfly Robert Strauss has posted his Tuesday remarks to Allegheny County Council with regards to the 2006 property cap assessment.

While I don't always agree with Dr. Strauss (he's often prone to paranoia in violation of Rule #5), when it comes to the economic mechanics and legality of policy decisions, he's usually dead on. He may not make any political friends, but his warnings are to be taken seriously.

I'll paraphrase his objections to the cap:
(1) It's illegal.
(2) We tried this before, and it was illegal then too. Ici:

In ending the assessment freeze enacted by former county Commissioners Larry Dunn and Bob Cranmer in 1996, Wettick decreed that it was illegal for the commissioners to oversee the assessment department, as they had done for many years.

Wettick said that under the Second Class County Assessment law, which governs Allegheny County, the assessment board was responsible for maintaining, revising and equalizing the assessment system -- county government was not.

Weiss and Harlan Stone, the lawyer who brought the lawsuit resulting in Wettick's ruling, believe Roddey would need a change in that state law in order to enact his plan.

The Trib is speculating when the lawsuits will arrive.

District Deux

In a move that surprised no one; from the PG:

Pittsburgh City Councilman Alan Hertzberg announced today that he will resign effective tomorrow night.

Hertzberg was confirmed by the state Senate Monday to fill a vacancy on Allegheny County court.

He said he wanted to resign as soon as possible so that his council district race could get on the May primary ballot. He also said he wanted to avoid the cost of a special election, which he said could cost $60,000 or more.

This probably means that there will be two elections, one as a by-election for the balance of the term and one for the primary, for the November elections.

Here are the candidates for District 2, if anyone cares:
Paul F. Renne, D
Erin C. Molchany, D
Melissa Rossiter, D
Paul R. Mastandrea, D
Daniel J. Deasy Jr., D (Endorsed)
William S. Urbanic, D
Sam Berninger, R

Some details on these candidates can be found here.

Having lived for some time in this area as a youngin', I can say, without fear of contradiction that the majority of the 2nd Council District can be characterized by three words: "Bat-Shit Insane."

Voici des candidates:

Don't know how Bill Urbanic is allowed to run if he's employed by the City; I thought there were laws against that. Although Dan Deasy seems to have no problem with it either. So there you go. Kudos to the bureaucrats.

Paul Renne is a former CFO of Heinz and your District # 2 excuse to reuse all those Heinz pins from the 2004 Presidential Election without looking like a bitter, bitter Democrat.

What's the difference between Planned Parenthood and CORO? One provides a good reasons why you should be allowed to abort children, the other is Planned Parenthood. Erin C. Molchany is from both. And she's supported by P-Man.

Melissa Rossiter needs to get rid of her Senior Class picture on her website, which itself looks like it was done by Howard Hanna.

Paul R. Mastandrea bills himself as a "legitimate businessman"... and has threatened to break both my legs for writing this.

Sam Berninger is the VP of State Affairs of the Young Conservatives of PA, which, frankly, gives me the heeby-jeebies. [Whoa! There they go again!]

So this concludes the extent of ANY coverage of the 2nd District in ANY media outlet; no need to mention any issues, as there are none...much like running for Student Council in High School.

Activate the Way-Back Machine

From this article:

They say they've seen [Bob O'Connor] challenge Murphy's initiatives without offering any sense that he has a broad agenda of his own, or wonder if he can make tough decisions that risk alienating some people for the greater good. Some council [members] wonder if he's too cozy with the public safety unions, whom a mayor might have to face down at contract time, and they've sensed him waffling on difficult issues like stadium financing.

"He has to stand for something beyond not being Tom Murphy, and it's not clear to me what that is," said Councilman Sala Udin, who views O'Connor as a shrewd pragmatist lacking in firm ideology to stand on.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Bob O'Connor has a good word for everyone. But does he have what it takes to be mayor of Pittsburgh?", Sunday, April 29, 2001

Interesting reading.

Makes you wonder how much Bobby O has changed in 4 years, if he has at all, and if that's bad or not. Also makes you wonder if being a "good guy" makes you qualified to be Mayor, or not, and if it matters.

Planes, Trains, and Lambs

I've already savaged Michael Lamb's quest for Mayor here, but Mikey keeps churning out ideas, so I have to keep making up witty retorts.

This is a follow-up to Friday's critique of his high speed rail plans; Mikey has more transit/transportation ideas here. You don't have time to read them all, so I will summarize, leaving out all of Lamb's generous, but colorful, expletives.

The Overview:

Transit Funding/Dedicated Funding Source (Mike's For it.)
>Identified Problem: "The absence of a dedicated funding source puts the City and Allegheny County at a competitive disadvantage in the competition for “New Start Funding” from the Federal Transit Administration."
>Proposed Solution: Advocacy for Funding.
>Analysis: The Mayor of Pittsburgh has no power here. Be gone, before someone drops a house on you!

High Speed Rail (Mike's For it.)
>Identified Problem: "Landing [the MagLev] industry in Pittsburgh would mean tens of thousands of jobs and exciting new technology in the areas of precision manufacturing and advanced transportation."
>Proposed Solution: Advocacy for Funding.
>Analysis: "Begging" is a reoccuring campaign theme here.

North Shore Connector (Mike's For it.)
>Identified Problem: Light Rail serves to compliment proposed and existing development, but does not go far enough.
>Proposed Solution: Support for funding.
>Analysis: This will cut into Mike's support for our troops.

Commuter Rail/Hazelwood to Downtown (Mike's For it.)
>Identified Problem: "A transit link from downtown to Oakland has been discussed in Pittsburgh for years. The Oakland area is the third largest center of economic activity in the state of Pennsylvania and linking it to downtown could be a huge benefit to the City."
>Proposed Solution: Mike commits to planning.
>Analysis: Let's all go get liquored up and have a committee. Interesting historical fact: this is actually how the Pittsburgh Public School Board orignally started.

Mon-Fayette Toll Road (Mike's Mostly Against it.)
>Identified Problem: Numerous. "This hugely expensive and controversial proposal would be one of the largest public works projects in Pennsylvania history...it would be financed by taxes on all Pennsylvania residents rather than from tolls collected on the road...devastation of communities like Hazelwood and adverse effects on areas like Nine Mile Run and Duck Hollow." Etc.
>Proposed Solution: Mike supports building to Monroeville, not through Hazelwood.
>Analysis: Michael Lamb vs. Mosites, P.J. Dick, et al. Never mess around with contractors who want jobs and have bulldozers and concrete at their disposal.

Route 28 Reconstruction/Troy Hill (Mike's For it.)
>Identified Problem: "Route 28 in the vicinity of the 31st Street Bridge is a traffic nightmare."
>Proposed Solution: Mike commits to reach goals and to seek funding.
>Analysis: Nothing to see here... move along.

South Side/Quiet Zone (Mike's For it.)
>Identified Problem: "[The Railroad] whistles which are sounded at 10th and 18th Streets railroad street crossings while essential are a nuisance.
>Proposed Solution: Work with FRA and CSX to establish "Quiet Zones".
>Analysis: Quiet Zones don't exist yet; municipalities have little control over the Railroads. ["I think I can... I think I can... I think I can..."]

Traffic Signals (Mike's For it.)
>Identified Problem: Traffic signals are not syncronized.
>Proposed Solution: City should complete its traffic management plan.
>Analysis: City Planning fired the traffic planner as per Act 47. Whoops!

Regional Transportation Planning; Pittsburgh’s Role (Mike's For it.)
>Identified Problem: "Federal law requires that metropolitan regions like Pittsburgh have in place a 'metropolitan planning organization' or 'MPO' which establishes the transportation priorities for the region and determines the allocation of transportation funds, federal and state. "
>Proposed Solution: As Mayor, Mike will be personally involved as an active, participating member of the Commission.
>Analysis: Way to follow the law there Mike.

Water Transportation (Mike's For it.)
>Identified Problem: "We are experiencing a change of focus and an expansion of our use of the rivers."
>Proposed Solution: "We need to find the best means of making this water transportation a welcoming and cost-effective reality."
>Analysis: I long for the day where I can travel from the Southside to Shadyside via Water Taxi. Water transportation will only be efficient once there's a critical mass of stuff to do on the water front.

---
Mike is trying really hard in all these areas to offer policy items that are practical, fresh, and/or interesting. Unfortunately, so little of what he's proposing is actually within the pervue of the Office of Mayor. Mike might as well promise to bring in Luck Dragons to sing us all lullabyes.

I appretiate the ideas that Mike is trying espouse here, but they are little more than vague promises, with not much in terms of... say... substance.

Out of all the ideas he puts forward, only one (the Traffic coordination) is really within his [potential] power. It would be better if Mike stuck to promising to salt the streets, pave the potholes, and make sure that the 31st Street Bridge doesn't go crashing into the Allegheny. At least those are some reasonable, attainable objectives, as banal as they are. Promising high speed rail is like promising health care for the city's lower-income children.

Wait a sec...