Christ, Not this Shit Again! - Spring 2007 Primary Edition

The ink is not even dried on the forged ballots from 2006, and already the Post-Gazette is talking about the Spring Primary race for Pittsburgh Mayor.

On the P-G's list are the following potential candidates for Mayor:

Luke Ravenstahl: Incumbent-ish

David Caliguiri: Son of Former Mayor

Mike Dawida: Ex-County Commissioner

Rich Fitzgerald: County Council President

Dan Frankel: State Representative

Michael Lamb: Prothonotary

Bill Peduto: City Councilman

Harry Readshaw: State Representative

In my opinion, the P-G isn't really thinking outside the box. There are dozens, nay, hundreds of potential candidates for the office of Mayor of Pittsburgh. Here are a smattering of potential candidates that they overlooked*:

JIM RODDEY
OK, the former chief executive no longer lives in the City and he's a Republican, but those things can be remedied with a quick trip to the Board of Elections. He's a known commodity and he didn't lose to that dope Cyril Wecht. Speaking of which...

CYRIL WECHT
Cyril Wecht is still, as of the writing of this post, under indictment. Normally, this would be a drawback, but in a city where a viable candidate for the County Political Committee can be an ex-con, Cyril would be a step up. Plus, he'd be great entertainment.

BOB O'CONNOR
Death isn't the handicap it used to be in politics. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft lost his Senate seat to a dead Mel Carnahan and Republican Glenda Dawson ran for a Texas State Legislator seat even though she was stiffer than Bob Dole's member. Bob has the added bonus of being more charismatic than any of the other candidates that the P-G listed.

TOM MURPHY
Well, political death is terminal.

HARVEY
Harvey is a 6 ft. talking rabbit that lives in Jimmy Stewart's head. Unfortunately, he's running on the Constitution Party Ticket, but otherwise he's the perfect candidate.

So, get used to it folks, we have another 5 1/2 months of this bullshit.

I have my space in the political fallout shelter reserved; first come, first served.

---
Sorry, Woy I'm not running for mayor; I have some scruples, dude. Although, I will run for Supreme Overlord of Western Pennsylvania... again. [Damn Green Party!]

Labor Day Parade Observations

I'm not really big on parades, but for some reason I found myself standing on the Boulevard of the Allies at 10:30 AM this morning. So, some observations:

1. The best place to sit during the Labor Day parade if you want candy is up on Sixth Avenue. By the time that the parade gets to the Boulevard, everyone's out.
   
2. The parade was headed by a large black banner "In memory of Mayor Bob O'Connor"; banner holders of note included Judy O'Connor, Bishop Bradley, Ed Rendell, Luke Ravenstahl, and Bob Casey. Conspicuously absent was Jim Ferlo, who followed a bit behind in his own car.
   
3. Jim Motznik walked with the Boilermakers; Bill Peduto walked on his own.
   
4. Michael Lamb walked, unsurprisingly, alone. I always feel bad for him when I see him alone. We need to get him an intern just so he doesn't look so lonely in public.
   
5. The respectful pauses and silence in front of the City County Building where the late Mayor was lying in state was appropriate, although the few marching bands that were in the parade were robbed of some of the best accoustics on the route.
6. The SEIU seemed to be the only union that was enjoying itself.
   
7. I don't know what it means when there are more people IN the parade than WATCHING the parade. It's either that the strength of the unions in the City of Pittsburgh is so great that there's no one left to watch, or no one cares.
   
8. I seem to oddly drawn to the bagpipers in parades, but keep in mind I am also drawn towards sticking my tongue into fans.
   
9. I noticed that you couldn't turn around without not seeing a Santorum sign. Can't imagine why that might be...

And the fall campaign season is off to a roaring start! This should be fun.

My Final Word on the 2005 Pittsburgh Mayoral Primary (Part 1)

Alright, after this, no more posts about the 2005 Pittsburgh Mayoral Primary.

I promise.

Until Part II.

Michael Madison from Pittsblog and Maria from 2politicaljunkies are pushing me to get to my friggin' point. I personally thought my point was to take a look at the pretty colors on the map and see if my image-hosting provider was worth a damn. I feel that I was wildly successful on those accounts, but unfortunately had the audacity to interject my own, apparently incorrect, interpretation of the data.

For shame!

I will endeavor never to have an individual thought of my own from here on in and gladly and blindly follow the ways of my betters who think that the egg needs to be broken at the big end, not the small, toast should eaten be butter side up, not down, and that the donut-hotdog stand hats should be blue, not red. Because it matters.

Or not.

Anyway enough of the scorn, back on topic: let’s complicate Primary Election matters further and look at some head-to-head and head-to-head-to-head races within the primary. According to the County Elections Results...

In 207 Districts, Peduto beats Lamb
In 197 Districts, Lamb beats (or ties) Peduto
In 331 Districts, O'Connor beats Peduto
In 73 Districts, Peduto beats (or ties) O'Connor
In 361 Districts, O'Connor beats Lamb
In 43 Districts, Lamb beats (or ties) O'Connor

AND...

In 307 Districts, O'Connor beats Peduto AND Lamb
In 66 Districts Peduto beats Lamb AND O'Connor
In 28 Districts Lamb beats O'Connor AND Peduto
(3 ties)

AND THEREFORE, according to my math...

In 54 Districts, O'Connor beats Lamb, but not Peduto
In 141 Districts Peduto beats Lamb, but not O'Connor
In 15 Districts, Lamb beats O'Connor but not Peduto

So O’Connor trounces Peduto at about 5:1 and Lamb at about 9:1. Peduto and Lamb are roughly neck and neck. But who, pray tell, is siphoning votes away from who? Is Lamb a spoiler for Peduto? Is Peduto for Lamb? Would an O’Connor voter vote for Lamb over Peduto or the other way around? Well, what does this all mean?

I have a couple theories given what I’m seeing from the data:

I see five different undercurrents in the Pittsburgh Democratic structure: the Old Guard, the Revolutionaries, the New-Old Guard, the Black Caucus, and the Leftovers. Let's start last to first:

The Leftovers are the ones that voted for Henderson, Repovz, and Ludwig. These guys had some good spotty showings, but overall were barely a blip on the electoral map. I'm surmising that the people that voted for these candidates were either (1) Democrats disaffected with everything or (2) the candidates' families. As in any political system, there are going to be some fringe elements that draw some of these votes away from the more major candidates.

The Black Caucus represent the ones that voted for Kendrick, and is more indicative of some lingering, but very real, racial issues that the City of Pittsburgh faces. I found it interesting from the very beginning that Kendrick managed to pull out second place showings in several of the Voting Districts, and even a first place showing in one or two. These Districts were almost all (if not all) African American communities. While Bob O'Connor placed first almost always, it seemed interesting to me that Kendrick, who had fewer resources than nearly anyone other candidate, still managed to pull out a 2nd place showing. I believe that this means one of two things: (1) the African-American population of the City of Pittsburgh feels that the official Democratic party machine enfranchises them (which explains their turn out in support of O’Connor) and (2) the other, non slate, major candidates did not sufficiently represent their views. Of course, it could be both.

The New-Old Guard lies within the structure of the Old Guard. They are the ones who are looking to tame the beast that is the Democratic Machine so they can ride it. These are people that have been successful within the old system, but are generally wary of the direction the city is going. They are not necessarily interested in overthrowing the old system, but rather using the old system to their advantage as they make incremental reforms. They talk more about bond repayment and lien collection funds than anything interesting. They are trashed by the Old-Guard as being traitors and by the Revolutionaries as being apparatchiks of the system. They are dull and boring and dull and probably voted for Mr. Bucket-head himself, Michael Lamb.

The Revolutionaries seek to overthrow the system as it currently stands. They aren't looking to tame the beast or ride the beast, but kill the beast...and probably dance upon its grave singing "Hallelujah." They assume the posture of outsiders, although, given where their candidate Mr. Peduto did well, they represent a class of educated Bourgeoise-Bohemians ("BoBos" from now on, as I can't type "Bourgeoisie" over and over) who genuinely see Pittsburgh, or at least parts thereof, as a potential shining city-on-a-hill. While I have heard lofty goals and commendable ideals, the nuts and bolts of policy seem a bit spotty to me and, in the worst instances, elitist.

The Old Guard could have run this election in 1952, and probably did, although with less efficiency. It says a lot about the evolving Pittsburgh electorate when the Democratic Machine can only bring in 48% of the vote for their candidate. More specifically, this is the tell tale proof of my assertion that the hold of the Democratic Party is not as monolithic as it once was or even appears to be. Still, the Old Guard, in this election seems to be subdivided into "The-Powers-That-Be," "Those that Vote for The-Powers-That-Be," and "Those That Still F'ing Hate Tom Murphy." The Old Guard doesn't want change or trouble, and idealizes a city without troubles like the one it so fondly remembers from its childhood. These guys are comfortable with a Mayor who doesn't concern himself with big ideas, but a guy who can schmooze it up with fundraisers. It means stability; it means consistency; it means money. And it probably means they still get their damned early-bird discount.

But let's move away from the analysis of who I think the major factions are and do a little thought experiment:

WARNING: COUNTERFACTUALS AHEAD THAT INCLUDE THE LIBERAL USE OF A FICHUS TREE. THOSE WHO SEE REALITY AS BLACK/WHITE, GOOD/EVIL, WITH US/HATE AMERICA, SHOULD BEWARE.

Let us suppose that on the eve of the Allegheny County Democratic Committee meeting for endorsements, someone kidnaps Bob O'Connor's beloved fichus tree. The ransom note demands that Bob immediately drop out of the race, withdraw his name from consideration, ensure that no other Democrats enter the race, and keep his mouth shut about the race until November. Only then will his beloved fichus tree be returned safely. We are now left with six candidates to chose from.

So the question is: who wins the mayoral primary?

Given the factional structure above, I believe that Lamb would have gotten the blessing and endorsement of the ACDC as he is the "safe" choice. He lacks Bob's charisma and he's probably too close to the current administration, but he minimizes the risk of a complete undermining of their power.

Now, does this matter? Peduto's own victory in Council District 8 shows that you don't necessarily need the endorsement to win. I think we can agree, however, that the endorsement doesn't hurt you.

What about the money? Bob had a ton of it and won. Bill had less than Mike and came in second. Kendrick had nothing and still eked out a fourth place showing. Does money matter in this case? If Bob is out of the picture, where does this money flow to, if it flows at all? Does the ACDC endorsement affect any of that flow, or is Bob supporting certain policy positions that lend themselves to contributions by certain donors. Are Mike or Bill willing to whore themselves out to highway contractors for the chance of large contributions? What about the Soffer Organization? The Firefighters Union?

My reaction is that the big amounts of money are going to flow towards the "safe" choice, i.e., someone who has the least chance of rocking the boat and furthers policies in the interests of the contributors. The less safe candidate still has a chance, however, in that not all of the money will flow; the chances to tap into this money are much better than against the Bob O'Connor powerhouse.

But will the money make a difference? The runner-up candidates all suffer from a similar problem: they are very strong in their base, but weak across the city. Additional money would allow these candidates to spread their message a bit further outside of their base. But will a Revolutionary message resonate in Brookline? A Traditionalist message in the Southside? A Black message in Point Breeze? Can money help get people to like you and your message, or just get your name out there?

I'm pretty sure that there are some messages that aren't going to play well across factions. Zero-line budgeting probably infuriates those of the Old Guard that are dependant on their consistent budget line item. Similarly, a property lien back-back program means absolutely nothing to people that are more concerned about police or safety. But messages can be broadened and money can drive those messages home.

So we can run whatever scenarios we want: without the Old Guard in the race, do the Revolutionaries take on Old Guard votes and money or do the New-Old Guard? Are the Old Guard more likely to vote for The Revolutionaries or the New Old Guard? Who does the Black Caucus lean towards? What will the Old Guard voters do?

Those are just some things to think about and clog up my inbox about. I have no answers as I open the egg from the little end, eat my toast butter-side-down, and wear the red donut-hotdog hats.

Gary W. Henderson Challenging Results; Promises "Death or Victory"

Gary W. Henderson has challenges the results of yesterday's primary election, promising "Blood on the Street until Death or Victory." Daniel F. Repovz has joined this fight, proclaiming that he is on a hunger strike until the "Skulls of the infidels are crushed." Thousands have taken to the streets protesting this election insanity from two of the minor candidates. At this hour, portions of Fairywood and Fineview are in flames...

No, not really... but it would have been more exciting.

And so Bob O'Connor won. No big shock there. The tension was so thick last night you could cut it with a knife... a dull knife... made of rubber... and imaginary. Bob's victory seemed so certain, that he could have proclaimed himself Omnipotent King of the Wicker People, and he still would have coasted to victory.

So much for public participation. On to the analysis from the County Elections Homepage

I'm not quite sure what constitutes a "landside," as Lord knows a "mandate" means around 50%. Bob only managed to rake in 48.4% of the vote... or 28,344, which is appalling for a city of 300K. He managed to pick up 27 out of 32 wards, losing Ward 7 (Shadyside), 8 (Bloomfield/Friendship), 11 (East Liberty/Highland Park), and 14 (Squirrel Hill/Regent Square) to Bill Peduto and 19 (Beechview/Brookline) to Michael Lamb.

Bob only managed to squeeze out a slim percentage of victory over Peduto in the 17th (Southside) and 22nd (Allegheny West) Wards. Peduto, in turn, slid by Bob in Wards 11 and 14. Lamb's victory in Ward 19 was similarly close.

What actually tells the story of Pittsburgh, however, are the second place finishes.

Louis "Hop" Kendrick placed 2nd in Ward 5 (Middle Hill District), 12 (Lincoln-Lemmington), and 13 (Homewood). While he got trounced by Bob in terms of absolute numbers, I believe this shows an inability of the Lamb and Peduto campaigns to effectively address the concerns of the African-American populations of the city.

With the exception of the Southside, Lamb either won or came in second South of the Rivers. Lamb also came in second place in Wards 5, 15, 24, and 27 (Lower Hill/Crawford-Roberts, Greenfield/Hazelwood, Troy Hill/East Allegheny, and Brighton Heights/Marshall Shadeland, respectively). These are all the "forgettable" neighborhoods, without universities, or extensive mainstreets. As I postulated before, I doubted that Peduto would make much headway in these types of neighborhoods.

Peduto's second place finishes are no shock either. Typically he won in areas that have had Bourgeoisie-Bohemian appeal: Oakland, Downtown, Lawrenceville, the Strip, Southside, Central Northside, etc. These areas represent some of his core constituencies: young, elite, artistic, literati.

OK, that's enough for now; I need a better look at the data before I say much more.

All hail Bob.

Can we call it now...?

11:16 PM...

BOB O'CONNOR 26126
WILLIAM PEDUTO 13301
MICHAEL E LAMB 12330
LOUIS KENDRICK 1816
LESTER LUDWIG 691
GARY W HENDERSON 459
DANIEL F REPOVZ 365

Can I go to bed now?

First Results....

First results for Mayor of Pittsburgh: 19 OF 404 district reporting (4.7 %)

DEMOCRATS:
BOB O'CONNOR 1200 46.7%
WILLIAM PEDUTO 603 23.5%
MICHAEL E LAMB 438 17.0%
LOUIS KENDRICK 159 6.2%
LESTER LUDWIG 76 3.0%
GARY W HENDERSON 49 1.9%
DANIEL F REPOVZ 45 1.8%

REPUBLICANS
JOSEPH WEINROTH 105 100.0%

Light Turnout So Far...

Deputy Angry Drunk Bureaucrats have been scouring the City this afternoon, and we seem to have a light turn-out so far.

What does this mean for Bob O'Connor? Will Bill Peduto snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? Will Michael Lamb rekindle his romance with Tonya Payne, even though his love child is with Jean A. Milko? Will Dwayne Woodruff's evil half brother wreak revenge on the fair city?

Stay tuned!

Get Aht 'N Vote

So far this morning nothing much to report. Early, and albeit brief, indications show a normal turnout this morning, certainly nothing like November's flood of voting humanity.

Weather looks good today, so there's no excuse for not voting.

I'm still standing by my prediction that Bob O'Connor will win by a large margin, so the race for the #2 slot is far more interesting. I've gotten the sense that Peduto has not played well outside his East End base, and I'm getting the sense that Michael Lamb has played well in the South Hills. From a purely unscientific sense of the neighborhoods, it seems that those in the other parts of the neighborhoods are leaning towards O'Connor (especially Hazelwood and Greenfield). If Peduto's base can hold, I think he might pull off a squeaker for #2, with Lamb slightly behind. "Hop" will probably pull off the 4th spot, with Ludwig, Repovz, and Henderson pulling up the rear.

Again, this is unscientific. All I can say for certain is that the winner will be largely dependent on the number of votes cast.

We'll try to update you on how things look on the ground as the day goes on.

So remember: People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing. -Walter H. Judd

Vote Dammit!

Final Thoughts on Pittsburgh's Mayoral Race (Pt. I)

I only have a handful of posts until the mayoral election, and I want to get my final thoughts in before my final thoughts become irrelevant (if they haven't become so already). I've given some thought to the race... as well as some thoughts to work and the new Star Wars movie and the environmental impact of cluster based economic development from a historical perspective. You may call it ADD; I call it multitasking.

All the candidates have pluses and minuses associated with them (some more minuses than pluses), and I hope to crystallize my feelings on each of them as succinctly as possible.

And... we're off:

Gary W. Henderson
Why you should vote for him:
Gary has done this twice before and has lost both times. That puts him one behind Bob O'Connor, whom the Post-Gazette endorsed for similar reasons. I figure that Gary deserves at least equal consideration.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
Gary doesn't really seem to (a) have any real interest in being mayor, as evidenced by his poor attendance at the public debates, and (b) doesn't seem to have much in the way of ideas out there. Frankly, he has not made any impression on me, positive or negative... which is actually a negative attribute.

Daniel F. Repovz
Why you should vote for him:
Daniel is young. Very young, but not youngest to run for mayor. It would be nice, for a change, to have someone in the office without a fond memory for the glory days of big steel.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
Just because he's young doesn't mean that he's qualified. "New" does not equal "Good" any more than "Old" equals "Bad" or "Politician" equals "Pervert." [Maybe I'm off on the last one.] Daniel seems to have gotten into the habit of parroting some of the better ideas from the other candidates. He's more likely to agree with his opponents than to take a critical tack against them and prove he has some intellectual acumen. This leads me to the opinion that Daniel was set up by his frat brothers, and, to their surprise, suddenly decided to take the candidacy seriously.

Louis "Hop" centrist
Why you should vote for him:
"Hop" is the most original out of all of the candidates: unvarnished, unabashed, and outspoken. In a perfect world, his honesty and forthrightness would clinch the nomination for him. "Hop" is quick to point out the failures of the current administration, but also their successes. He's well aware that there are severe economic and racial disparities in the City, and he's willing to confront them head on.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
"Hop" seems to lack the economic sense that is necessary for the management of a major city. And yes, that includes Pittsburgh. He appears much more ready to propose solutions that appeal to emotion than rationality, which makes him further appear as a loose canon, rather than a mayor.

Lester Ludwig
Why you should vote for him:
"Do more with less" perfectly encapsulates the dilemma of the next mayor. The next mayor is going to face increasing funding problems at the local, state, and federal levels. A measure of self-sufficiency and reprioritization is inevitable. Les seems willing to embrace unique funding opportunities in order to solve this problem.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
"Do more with Les" doesn't quite work. His ideas, which appear to focus on "selling out" the City to corporate interests just seems wrong. I doubt many people will go for it.

William Peduto
Why you should vote for him:
Bill, again, is one of those people who is willing to take non-traditional approaches to running the City. He's also been a big supporter of the retension of young people, which, I've been told, is vital to the continuing...erm... vitality of our Region.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
Personally, I think Bill's platform is smoke & mirrors. While I appreciate his support for the arts, the young people, and technology... I fail to see a direct causation between promoting those items and the growth of the City. Unfortunately, his platform appeals to a lot of the technorati of the East End and is, by its very nature, beneficial only to a small segment of the larger population of Pittsburgh. As I've said before, Bill's council district is probably the easiest to manage out of all nine of the council districts. I doubt that he would have had much luck, or would have even considered a mayoral run, if he had been Councilman from, say, Sheraden.

Michael E. Lamb
Why you should vote for him:
Mike appeals to my little bureaucratic heart when he talks about minutiae like bond financing. It seems like he has a very good grasp of the intricacies of the mechanics of government and would do a good job with managing processes and promoting efficiency.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
One word: Prothonatory. Mike has no real qualifications for this office, except that he's from a political family. In this sense, he's no better than President Dubya, riding his father's coattails to a higher office.

Bob O'Connor
Why you should vote for him:
Bob will tell you that his biggest asset is his ability with interpersonal relationships. Given the City's troubles with the legislature, with a few kind, well placed words, Mayor O'Connor may be able to give us a few years of breathing room so that we can get our stuff together.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
This point has been raised time and time again: Bob isn't an outsider. He's an insider and complicit in the City's current crisis. There's no reason to believe that he would act any differently as Mayor than he did on Council. Just because he ran and lost three times does not mean that he's the most qualified candidate for the office.

Final Thoughts?
Now that I've muddled my way through this posting, what does this all mean? It means stay tuned for Part II.

Mayoral Debate on Neighborhood Development (Part III)

A LONG TIME AGO IN A THEATER IN EAST LIBERTY: Part III of the Mayoral Debate on Neighborhood Redevelopment. For those of you that like pain and suffering: Part I is here and Part II is here

Question 5: Lightning Round.

Repovz:
Question: Why should voters of any age vote for you?
Answer: Trust me, I’m uncorrupted.

O'Connor:
Question: With your contacts to certain powerful developers, how do you assure CDCs that their interests will be represented?
Answer: Look at my record. Otherwise, give me a call.

Kendrick:
Question: How do you tackle the debt problem?
Answer: If you vote for a black mayor, the Republicans will gladly support me.

Ludwig:
Question: How much money can you expect to raise from corporate sponsorship and how do you do it without selling out?
Answer: Public art must be of high quality. [Later added "$20 Million"]

Lamb:
Question: Given your land acquisition plan, how do you ensure that properties are sold to respectable owners?
Answer: First participants in this program will be CDCs or adjacent property owners for sideyard purposes.

Peduto:
Question: Given the City’s financial crisis, how can you justify your City funded Blackberry Account?
Answer: Uncircumcised Microphone… I have a record of living below my budget means, but in any case, the Blackberry makes City Officials more productive.

Kendrick: (0) – Very entertaining, but logically ridiculous.
Ludwig: (-) – Logically incomprehensible.
Lamb: (+) – Well thought out response; again, he’s being coached well.
Peduto: (?) – Seriously, Uncircumcised Microphone. Good answer on the Blackberry, though.
Repovz: (-) – Why should we trust someone we don’t know?
O'Connor: (+) – Bob lays the smackdown.


Closing Statements: Describe Overall Approach to Neighborhood Development. [I’ve shortened it to a few words, for brevity’s sake.]

O'Connor: Provide Leadership & management, addressing quality of life issues, and professionalizing City services. (+)

Kendrick: Addressing Societal ills as a first step. (+)

Ludwig: City needs tolerance above all else. Then Les goes on to beat up on the other candidates, in violation of the rules of the debate. Penalty flag. Fifteen yards and loss of time. (Disqualification)

Lamb: Innovation & New Technologies; City/County Cooperation and Consolidation. (+)

Peduto: Structural Changes; Changes in Budget Process. (0)

Repovz: Lower the Crime Rate by providing more police and social services. (0)

Analysis Those of you that weren’t there missed Les Ludwig lean into Lamb by charging that if the position of elected Prothonatory is eliminated, Mike will still keep his job as appointed Prothonatory and his salary will go up by $30K. Les then went on to start accusing Peduto of hypocrisy, I believe, for opposing TIFs, except for the much touted Baum-Centre Corridor. Les was shut down by the moderators for that.

Peduto’s low score on this one is largely due to the amount of time that he spent on his zero-lined budget proposal, rather than talking about Neighborhood Development. While this approach to budgeting is interesting, it seemed very out of place.

Hop and Repovz talked about the need to reduce crime. Unfortunately for Repovz, Hop went first and said that social services are the answer, not more police. It was one of the more genuine moments in the debate where Hop related his philosophy of “poor being a state of mind.” Unfortunately, Dan Repovz had to follow that sentiment by saying that we need more police… and social services, almost as an after thought.

O’Connor and Lamb both stuck to their script.

Commentary and Final Ranking :

Generally, I was impressed by Michael Lamb; he seemed to have been well briefed by his campaign. I am still under the impression that he’s getting some damned good advice from someone at a CDC. Bill Peduto sounded pretty flakey, without a real nuts & bolts plan of action, and seemed to rely on a nebulous “holistic” approach to neighborhood development, short on specifics. Bob O’Connor stuck to his guns, passing himself off as the chief advocate of the City, hoping to capitalize on his personal relationships with the various funders in the region. The others seemed out of their league, confused, on drugs, or all three.

More specifically, however, 50% of my concerns relayed here were discussed in some fashion, with the exception of Storm/Sewer Separation, Parking Tax, and Asbestos Remediation.

The view on taxes seemed to be a bit simplistic all around, focusing not on the tax rate, but on the mechanics of tax collection. The point was raised that the County Treasurer collections 90% of his taxes, while the City does a substantially worse job. Not mentioned, however, is that County taxes are 43% of the City Taxes (4.690 mills versus 10.80 mills), and would be easier to pay.

CDBG funding was discussed, and Bob is right: begging and pleading is going to be the way to solve this problem.

In general, Construction Costs vs. Prevailing Market Prices was discussed, but always in the background. Questions were more tailored towards how to get money in order to alleviate this problem.

As a Bureaucrat, I was dismayed by the lack of understanding the candidates had with the intricacies of City government and its Authorities and Agencies. I would have hoped that they were more familiar with the City that they were expecting to lead.

Nothing Earth shattering, though. Mostly, this was an appeal to some powerful interests on the ground who can help through some votes around in the waning days of the campaign. It was clear from the smirks and the chuckles around me which groups were supporting which candidate. It was further clear that there are some significant fissures in the Economic Development Community in the City of Pittsburgh, and at least three of the Candidates were attempting to rally their base.

Final Ranking :

1st Place: Michael Lamb
2nd Place: Bob O’Connor
3rd Place: Louis “Hop” Kendrick and Bill Peduto [Tie]
5th Place: Dan Repovz
Disqualified: Les Ludwig [Red Card, 93rd minute]

Mayoral Debate on Neighborhood Development (Part I)

Here's Part I of the more substantial review of yesterday's Mayoral Debate on Neighborhood Development sponsored by the Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group (PCRG) and the Community Technical Assistance Center (CTAC). The recap in the Post-Gazette missed a few of the subtle nuances, including Bill Peduto's use of the phrase "circumcised microphone" and Louis "Hop" Kendrick's promise of a 30% white cabinet.

PCRG invited a slew of people to this forum. Most of the ones that I recognized were from the established CDCs funded through PCRG. Few of the class "B" community organizations were represented, it seems. I did catch a glimpse of a couple of people from the current administration as well as a few people from the URA, who twitched nervously as the first question was read:

Question 1: Regarding the Proposed Merger of the URA with the County Department of Economic Development.

Kendrick: “Hop” supports merging the City & the County, generally, but not in support of merging the URA and the CDED. He seemed to support the common management of both departments, as was previously done under Mulu Birru. A “Hop” administration would institute a city-wide committee on development priorities.

Ludwig: Les was not in support of merging the URA and the CDED, but supported common purchasing between the City and the County. He proposed bulk buying of products by the CDCs from Home Depot.

Lamb: Mike touted his credentials on consolidation and pushed for more regional land use planning coordination, but was not in support of merging the URA and CDED. Expressed concern that merging would mediocritize the URA expertise. He favored selling URA "expertise" to the County and encouraged more interaction between the two organizations.

Peduto:Bill opened with his zinger from Michael Madison's Pittsblog about the URA being at the forefront of Economic Development... in 1946. [Even included the dramatic pause.] He supported a "change of model" away from Grant Street and to Main Street and pushed for smart growth policies and cluster development. Peduto did not indicate support of merging URA and CDED, but instead supported merging URA and City Planning.

Repovz:For some reason, Dan supported Local "Flavor" of the City and supported ending the URA, not merging, in favor of Regionalized Planning.

O'Connor:Not in support of merger. Bob wants to refocus mission to the redevelopment of the neighborhoods and reforging partnerships between the URA and the CDCs.

Analysis: The PG made a big deal about how no candidate supported merging the URA and the CDED. This glosses over, however, some key distinctions between the candidates. There was a general sense that the URA needed to refocus its mission back in the neighborhoods, but no common consensus as to how this would be accomplished, or what that actually meant. Repovz and Ludwig seemed particularly bland and uninformed as to what constitutes "development"; I'm not sure if Ludwig thought that CDCs actually go out and physically build structures with their own hands, or not. It certainly seemed to be the former, which is an incorrect assumption. O'Connor and Lamb were the only two to speak somewhat kindly of the URA, talking about previous neighborhood developments and the expertise of the organization, respectively. Kendrick did not seem to have a coherent argument, probably because he forgot his notes, and he rambled extensively about his city-wide committee to select projects. Peduto probably would have done better if he had forgotten his notes, at least he'd have an excuse for his vague nebulous concepts. I'm not sure what the legal implications or rational justifications of the merger of URA and City Planning are; I would have thought that you would want to keep the redevelopment functions of the URA separate from the administrative functions of City Planning.

In terms of actionable plans, O'Connor and Lamb both were the most reasonable, promoting incremental reform rather than radical overhaul. All the candidates were definitely trying to set themselves apart from the current administration's policies, which, according to the debate, seem to be limited to "major projects," "Downtown," or "South Side," take your pick. It was difficult, however, to determine whether or not the candidates were familiar with what the current administration's policies actually were, or what the URA and the CDED do, and how they are different.

In all, the first question went to Lamb and O'Connor, who both seemed to more clearly understand the role of the URA, its interaction with Neighborhood Groups, and the consequences of an actual merger. This makes sense as O'Connor seems to have support from Developers and Contractors and Lamb seems to have support from some URA-friendly community organizations; both of these groups have evidently coached these candidates on the need to keep the URA separate. The other candidates are evidently outsiders and know little about Economic Development in the City or the County, or are being supported by people that perceive themselves to be outsiders from the existing neighborhood power structures. Specifically, my instincts tell me that Peduto is being supported by some disaffected CDCs, who were spurned by the current Administration, and are looking to move their pet projects into the forefront. More on that below.

Score:
Kendrick: (-)
Ludwig: (-)
Lamb: (+)
Peduto: (-)
Repovz: (-)
O'Connor: (+)

Question 2: Regarding the Restoration of Funding to Community Organizations.

Ludwig: Supported using non-tax sources to fund projects that are currently using CDBG dollars, where they probably shouldn't. Supported selling advertising space on City property.

Lamb: Supported a more responsive government and promised quarterly Mayoral meetings with the CDCs. Promised to fight the CDBG cuts at the Federal level.

Peduto: Proposed reprioritizing mission and using other incentives (LERTA, KOZ, Main Street, ACCBO) to fund the operations gaps.

Repovz: Demanded that CDCs show positive returns on city investment. Proposed one-stop neighborhood "incubators" for development. Promised to lower the tax rate.

O'Connor: Promised to be an advocate for the City at the national level. Supported using existing programs for filling gaps, but also promised to help find matching money from the private sector.

Kendrick: Redirected the question to increasing minority participation in city projects so that the economic value of the communities could be increased.

Analysis: This is a big deal for the CDCs. Recently, they have been hit by two major cuts in operational funding, only one of those has been by the local government. CDCs are anxious to get some of that money back. Ludwig's proposal amounts to selling out the City to corporation advertising, although he later said that it would have to be art of high quality. While some Community Organizations may be unnecessary and need elimination, Repovz is delusional if he thinks that CDCs can run in the black without massive operational support from the City. Kendrick took an interesting turn on the funding question, almost as if he was trying to cover up his lack of knowledge on the subject, and clearly missed the point. The responses to these questions belied the relative inexperience of these minor candidates.

While the use of non-CDBG programs and policies makes sense to me, Peduto's response again backs up my suspicion that he's being backed by disaffected CDCs. Specifically his mention of Main Street and ACCBO funding, the control of which was a major point of contention between the current Administration and the CDCs, hints at knowledge of behind-the-scenes drama. I am personally concerned by the control of large chunks of federal/state money being controlled by CDCs, who are usually a group of self-selected individuals, with no real oversight by any public body. At least if the City (in any of its various incarnations) is controlling the money, it is ultimately responsible to Public Opinion. Peduto remains elusive on specifics of funding.

Lamb and O'Connor were on pretty much the same page, although O'Connor seemed to have the advantage on the advocacy end. Bob knows that his biggest strength is his interpersonal relationship skills. Lamb also told the CDCs what they wanted to hear: you get face time with the Mayor, not his Deputy. From a policy standpoint, I believe that these two items are the only real policies that any mayor is going to be able to enact anyway. Good job guys for setting the bar so low. Lamb's promise for a "more responsive government" is vague, and so is O'Connor's promise to "build bridges."

Second question, again, went to O'Connor and Lamb with Peduto performing better. The other candidates seem to be unfamiliar with the intricacies of City politics.

Score:
Kendrick: (-)
Ludwig: (-)
Lamb: (+)
Peduto: (0)
Repovz: (-)
O'Connor: (+)

That's Part I. Parts II & III coming soon.

Insta-Commentary on Tonight's Mayoral Debate

Here's my insta, or at leat near-insta,-take on tonight's mayoral debate:

(1) Louis "Hop" Kendrick should have brought his notes.
(2) Lester Ludwig should not have brought his big bag of crazy.
(3) Daniel F. Repovz should have done his homework.
(4) Bill Peduto should not have used the words "circumsized microphone."
(5) Michael Lamb should not have stared blankly out into space.
(6) Bob O'Connor should limit himself to one trite Dale Carnegie Management phrase per breath.
(7) Gary W. Henderson should have shown up.
(8) All the candidates should learn what the URA, HACP, and the other Authorities actually do.
(9) I should have spent my time in bed.
(10) Joe Weinroth... meh.

Here I Am (Rock You Like a Hurricane)

I apologize for my lack of a posting yesterday. I had a really good one lined up when Blogger decided to eat it.

So I waited until after work, tried to write it from memory, and post it again...

Only this time IE decided that it was tired of life, went postal, and took my machine and several innocent passerbys with it.

So I went home and, after my nightly ritual of Simpsons & Daily Show reruns and a shot or two of Scotch, I went to try and post for a third time... only this time my evil cable ISP went to Mars or Des Moines or something, shutting me out entirely.

I finally came to the realization that that post was never meant to be and it will never see the glowing electronic light of the Internet. 'Tis a shame as it assigned the stunning visual imagery of a brick encased Walnut, a robotic duck from the US Postal Service, and a pack of lemurs all named "Phil" to Bill Peduto, Michael Lamb, and Bob O'Connor... although not necessarily in that order.

Speaking of which, did anyone else who received Bobby's new campaign mailing notice that the picture of him "Hard at Work" on the inside has the "work" sideways? You can clearly tell that the words are not reading from left to right (or even right to left if he was reading Hebrew). Oops! The picture suggests that Bobby doesn't know and isn't paying attention to what he's doing... which, if this was a cynical blog, could be used as a metaphor to describe his campaign.

But this is not a cynical blog.

Those of you interested in Design, Community, & Quality of Life and the Pittsburgh Mayor's Race will be interested in the Mayoral Forum being held by The Pittsburgh Civic Design Coalition on Wednesday, April 20, 2005, @ 6 PM in the Convention Center. RSVP to (412) 471-9548 or email info[at]aiapgh.org. This is Peduto's "New Pittsburgh" crowd, so expect him to do well in front of these guys. Expect Lamb to try to make in roads and explain what a prothonotary knows about design. Expect O'Connor to pretend to know what he's talking about, but be generally affable. Expect everyone else not to be invited.

OK Blogger... eat this!

Hunting Down and Killing Bad Bureaucrats

Minor, specific, targeted rant.

99% of bureaucrats give the other 1% a bad name... or something like that. As I've tried to say, there are a good contingent of us pencil pushers out there who are committed to, if not upholding the law, avoiding being captured on camera violating the law [which is, of course, Rule #2]. There are also a lot of bad bureaucrats who are at it for the petty power mongering, the secured pensions, or because they can't be employed somewhere else. Those of us in the 1% who are actually trying to give a damn get pretty frustrated with the other 99% sometimes.

Fortunately, at THE BUREAUCRACY we are proud to say that we are staffed with over 80% of the 1%.... which means that somewhere in Western Pennsylvania there's a bureaucracy with a dearth of good bureaucrats.

My limited reasearch indicates that it is a certain Public Authority X in Pittsburgh.

I got into a conversation with a contractor friend the other day about a job he was doing in the City of Pittsburgh, where he went to get a necessary permit from Authority X to do construction, only to be turned down. Authority X said that Contractor needed to go do Ludicrous Process Y in order to get the permit done. Contractor got his lawyer and politely camped out at Authority X's office demanding to see where in their regulations Ludicrous Process Y was required. Authority X couldn't find anything written down in their Great Big Book of Bureaucratic Rules. Contractor went back down to resume camping and demanded that Authority X provide a written letter confirming that Ludicrous Process Y was not required. Grudgingly, and apparently under threat of lawsuit, they acquiesced.

And I only relay this story because those of you that have paid attention will remember that I've had a similar problem with Authority X before. So I'm a bit...erm, how do you say... angry at them. The stories that I hear from other similarly angry parties lead me to believe that there is a systemic problem going on at Authority X. [Notice that I'm not violating Rule #5, people.]

So, whoever is selected as Mayor (Bob O'Connor, Michael Lamb, Bill Peduto, Louis Kendrick, Les Ludwig, Daniel F. Repovz, Gary W. Henderson, and Joe Weinroth THIS MEANS YOU!), should undertake an Engineering Audit of Authority X to make sure that their rules and regulations are WRITTEN DOWN and ON THE BOOKS. That would be most helpful and appreciative to those who are trying to do construction in your City.

And when you have these regs written down... please provide me a copy so I know what the rules are. I can't STAND it when people violate Rule #1... it makes me all cranky and hungry.

---
Follow up from Yesterday: So... Jeff Habay's attorney is Jim Ecker, huh? Jim gets a lot of tough clients, it seems.

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...

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...

Victim #3

I'm hoping that more candidates enter Pittsburgh's Mayoral Race as I've effectively run out of people to mock. I'm hoping that this series will inspire more people to open themselves up to public ridicule, that is, without having to run on the Constitution Party Ticket. If Les Ludwig and/or Joe Weinroth set up campaign sites, I will also thoroughly mock them... I mean their sites.

The previous victims are found here and here. But now Victim #3 :

Michael Lamb

MAIN PAGE:
By the looks of his photo, Michael Lamb seems to be angling for the semi-influential block of voters with heads shaped vaguely like buckets. Not nearly as creepy as good Bobby O's "Dirty Shop Teacher" photo, but still unsettling. Makes you wonder what the rejected photos look like; I'm guessing they made him look more like Gumby.

And look, Mike's left a little note for us. I've decided to write back to him, as is common courtesy:

Dear Mikey,

I'm a smarmy blogger and welcome to my online mocking of your webpage. Please indulge me as I pick at the little foibles of your site and the inanity of your political ideals by comparing them to various bodily excrements and 80s sci-fi movies.

I am looking forward to this opportunity to add nothing to this conversation with you and to share my thoughts and visions about the future of hard-core man on goat porn. This web site is a central point for inane commentary on nothing in particular.

Please visit my website as I continue to ramble mindlessly. In addition, thank you for opening yourself up to public scorn and ridicule. If it weren't for people like you, I wouldn't have anything in particular to write about.

Hugs and Squishy Kisses,

The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat

P.S. If you are finished with the hairdryer, could you please pop it in the mail?

I hope Mike writes me back. We've grown so distant as of late.

ABOUT PAGE:
Michael Lamb, 42, is an attorney admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; very few lawyers actually admit to practicing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He has received his JD from the University of Pittsburgh, his MPM from Carnegie Mellon, his BA from Penn State, his TQM from DED, POS, QED, LMNOP. Etc.

Mikey is currently the Prothonotary of Allegheny County.

In the words of Harry S Truman: "What the Hell is a Prothonotary?"

Well, according to Dictionary.com, a prothonotary is one of a college of 12 ecclesiastics charged with the registry of important pontifical proceedings. Why Pittsburgh is the repository for Papal documents is beyond me, but if His Holiness is involved, it's got to be OK. We should give Il Papa a call about the City of Pittsburgh budget crisis. I hear his accountants are infallible.

Mike also enjoys long walks on the beach, real strawberries on ice cream, sad songs at midnight, filing things under the letter "Q," and photos that make him look dopey.

His turnoffs include people that leave the toilet seat up, wicker, and Bob O'Connor.

NEWS PAGE:
[It's at this point, that "O" is going to go for more Bourbon. This page is painful.]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
[Deep Breath]

If you've never had Maker's Mark Bourbon, you must try it some time. It's both Oaky and Smooth... and it'll help you get through Mike Lamb's News Page.

The Left Side of the Page are various news items/editorials. I'm going to ignore them as I... I... I really don't care enough to read them all, especially having read the Right side of the page..

The Right Side of the Page are the Press Releases.

Ugh. [Big Gulp of Bourbon] Here goes a brief overview:

Strong Showing for Lamb
Mikey explains that by losing by nearly 2:1 to Bobby O in the endorsement race, he's actually won. Now, the City of Pittsburgh can move forward, not backwards, and not slouch in the corner, pretending to be interested in the CD collection so that someone might try and strike up a conversation with us.

Lamb Plan for Pittsburgh: First Address City Finances
Platitude, Pandering, Pandering, Crap, Crap, Cliches, More Crap, Meaningless Jargon, Idea 1 (outsource tax collection), Uninformed Idea, Non-Solution, Uninformed Idea, Meaningless Cliche, half-assed pledge, Idea 2 (City-County COG... an idea that may be unworkable), Crap, Crap, Filler, Filler, Filler.

OK, two real ideas out of 625 words, not bad... unfortunately only one of those is unique to Mikey (tax outsourcing). Although, I must say, I don't trust either the County or the Commonwealth anymore than I would trust the City. Just because they can hide their mess doesn't mean that they are in any better shape.

Most of the other "Ideas" he has are things that the city is doing anyway, albeit slowly.

Moving on...

"Where's the Beef, Bob?"
Mikey turns to a senior citizen and asks him "What's your problem?".

Lamb Blasts O'Connor for Ducking Responsibility
Mikey tells said senior citizen to step outside if he has a problem.

Michael Lamb: Let's Give Voters a Clear Choice
Mikey shoves a broken bottle in senior citizen's face and shouts "Stitch that Bobby!"

Geez, I will gladly vote for Mikey for the position of "Angry, Fightin' Bureaucrat." I want to party with this cowboy, but I have a feeling that he's the kind of mayor that would hork in the back seat of your Geo Metro after a long night of Bureaucratic debauchery (prepared in triplicate). Dude is evidently pissed about something and if he had as much Bourbon as I've had, we could both go requisition, say, Du Bois.

Pizzburgh Bureaucratz 4 Life (as per USC 42 Chapter 68(I) § 5122 (2), biatches)!

EVENTS PAGE:
On that note, Mikey likes drinking... and Irish Bands. Awesome.

He also likes long walks at 10 AM on Saturdays and 11 AM on Sundays.

LINKS PAGE:
Zzzzzzzzz....

Wha? Did someone say Prothonotary?

Zzzzzzzzz.....

BIG let down after the bureaucratic rave that was the EVENTS PAGE.

VOLUNTEER PAGE:

Let's see, I volunteered Bob O'Connor to place a yard sign at his house. I hope that wasn't a conflict of interest.

CONTACT PAGE:
If you're interested in more information...

I'm not

DONATE PAGE:

I tried to donate a pint of B- at this page, but it didn't let me. Ungrateful bitches.

I also tried to send a Czech, but Vaclav wouldn't fit in the envelope.

Final scores:
CONTENT
(1) Eye Roll: Strong Showing for Lamb
Mikey, Denile ain't just a River in Egypt.
(2) Yeah...and...: Lamb Plan for Pittsburgh: First Address City Finances
Good try, but a lot of ideas that don't go anywhere, like this little gem:

In addition, large tracts of land where public housing communities once stood lie vacant and unused. This property must become productive once more, and Lamb pledged that his administration will make that happen.

Yeah...and...?
(3) Buzzword:
Well, I didn't knock Billy-boy for his overuse of "Leadership," and I only gave a minor slap on the wrist to Bobby for his trite cliches. Mikey's punishment is to FIX THE MAIN PICTURE SO HE DOESN'T LOOK SO DAMNED GOOFY!!!

Sheesh.

STYLE
Nice balance between text and the word "LAMB"... but why is there is a big black spot in the middle of the "A"? Is that the vortex to some parallel dimension where giant hair and flashing webpages cause little children to cry? Can we use it to hunt down and kill Sarah Connor?

SUMMARY:
Michael Lamb is a goofy looking, but pissed off prothonotary....whatever a prothonotary is.