This is what a once great city has been reduced to.  Federal community block grant funds of $16.5 million are being fought over by city council members with one member arguing that most of the money should go to the poorest communities. Let's review the situation. $16.5 million is about $53 per resident. Obviously, not enough money to make much of a difference in every Pittsburgher's life. 

 

But the real problem is that Pittsburgh's government and school district are soaking up so many taxpayer dollars that there is little left for community improvement. What's more, the economic development policies, high taxes and unfriendly business climate and terrible school performance smother the private sector growth necessary to produce real, lasting neighborhood improvements.

 

And haven't we seen massive amounts of money from many programs poured into communities over the years?  Have they gotten better as a result of that largesse?  In the environment of a super expensive tax city with little or no net job growth, getting better is a virtual impossibility.  Perhaps the councilman would like to reconsider what is really wrong with the city and its neighborhoods and then he might start to work for the kind of policies that will actually encourage and empower citizens to prosper rather than pandering to the mind set that discourages individual and community achievements.  But in Pittsburgh where the free market, individual responsibility ethos is so foreign, that would require an epiphany of a magnitude rarely encountered.

 

It never ceases to amaze how many supposedly intelligent people continually complain about the lack of adequate pre-kindergarten education.  Just recently a local physician weighed in with such a pronouncement in an opinion column in the Post-Gazette.  What is wrong with the argument? Consider this. How did the U.S. become the world's foremost economy and military power during a period when very few people went to public pre-school-there weren't any such schools-and many citizens never went to kindergarten?

 

Children who are raised in a loving, caring environment where they are encouraged at home to learn as they grow do not need pre-school. It is all well and good if parents want to send their children to private or church run pre-schools but those schools are certainly neither necessary nor sufficient for intellectual or emotional development.

 

Then too, what we know to be an incontrovertible fact is that the longer kids are in most urban public schools, including Pittsburgh, the worse their academic and intellectual development becomes. They tend to do relatively well in first through third, maybe okay through fifth grade,  then their development slows dramatically.  If they start out in first grade doing reasonably well with some hope they can move along satisfactorily and then stumble as they get older, obviously it is not the presence or absence of pre-school that is important. It is the failed school system and a lack of parental guidance and discipline that carries over into the schools that creates the problem.

 

If the good doctor wants to see kids get a better education, then he should support vouchers that would enable students to escape the failed public schools. Whining about the lack of spending on public pre-schools is simply an effort to excuse the school system for its shortcomings by claiming things would be better if pre-schools were funded and required for all three and four year olds. In some places that is known as cynical foolishness.

 

 

Central Falls, Rhode Island made national headlines when the school superintendent fired the entire staff at the high school. The principal, teachers and even guidance counselors, were all informed that at the end of the school year their employment would be terminated. The superintendent did this under provisions the No Child Left Behind law (NCLB) and in response to a poor graduation rate (52 percent) and poor standardized test scores (only 7 percent of 11^th graders were proficient in math and 33 percent in reading).  With its' own poorly performing high schools, will the Pittsburgh School District follow Central Falls example and institute mass firings at the poorly performing schools?

 

Given the power of the teachers' union, that seems like a stretch, but it may be a remedy for Pittsburgh's ailing schools.  Three of the District's high schools (Oliver, Peabody, and Westinghouse) have fewer than 21 percent of eleventh graders scoring proficient or better in math. This performance certainly rivals that of Central Falls. 

 

The superintendent of Central Falls was provided a list of choices under NCLB.  They included; converting the high school to a charter school, lengthening school days and making other changes, firing all of the teachers, and shutting the school down.  When the teachers' union balked at the first two, she was left with no choice.  But one option not considered is offering vouchers to the parents of students who wanted to learn.  By bringing in choice and competition years ago, Central Falls could have avoided this situation.  Maybe Pittsburgh needs to learn this lesson before its too late.

 

Is there a conservative urban agenda?  If so, what does it look like?  Even more to the point, are there any cities in Pennsylvania exhibiting the traits if such an agenda existed?

 A recent opinion piece in the Washington Examiner outlined "a conservative agenda for cities".  Most of the components of the urban agenda of the last half of the 20th century did not work, as the author argued, or "Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit would all be booming".

 The components of a new strategy would include:

• Crime-prevention oriented policing based on the New York City experience
• Reform of public sector pensions toward 401k type plans and away from defined benefit plans
• Private financing of infrastructure
• A continued push for competition in public education from charter schools

One could see that there might be pieces of this strategy in some cities around the Commonwealth, but there likely is not any one municipality that encompasses them all.  Of course, moving toward some of the reforms would have to come from Harrisburg, which could add revisions of binding arbitration and outlawing public sector strikes to help cultivate this agenda. 

 

Pittsburgh expects and laments that it will receive only a one-third Federal government reimbursement of the cost of snow removal incurred during the recent siege of winter weather.

 

One must ask. What is the purpose of municipal government? Keeping the streets open and usable for residents would certainly seem to be one of local government's core functions, whether performed by City employees or contracted out to private service providers.  But these days, it appears both the Feds and the local government have come to the belief that this function is partly the responsibility of the Federal government.

 

Not too surprising in view of the encroachment of the Federal government into every aspect of our existence. One would hope the Federal government would be as concerned about its core functions such as protecting and defending our borders from illegal immigration. But amazingly, that is now controversial. What is not shocking is that local officials are always willing to get in line for "free" money.

 

And that is the insidious part of the equation. When local and state officials begin to depend on Federal dollars to pay for increasing number of services and for reimbursement of unforeseen expenditures, it induces them to spend more than they otherwise would on items not yet subsidized. So a dangerous unintended consequence of Federal largesse is the diminution of fiscal responsibility in local governments.  This, in turn, leads to more dependence and more loss of local responsibility. Not what the Founders envisioned nor a path designed to maintaining the liberty most Americans say they want and expect.

 

 

News that the Rivers Casino enjoyed its best week of gross terminal revenues since it began operations is hardly worth celebrating.  The casino has not lived up to its hype and still faces a long struggle to earn the money to reach their revenue target. 

 

From February 15^th through 21^st, the casino had its second best week with $4.8 million in gross terminal revenues (GTR).  During its first full week of operation in early August, the casino earned $5.2 million in GTR.  Since opening, the casino is averaging a little more than $3.8 million in GTR.  At this pace the casino's first year will earn less than $200 million in GTR-not nearly enough to cover its costs and other obligations.  This projection will certainly fall well short of management's initial prediction of $427 million. 

 

While wagers did hit a record of nearly $61 million, beating the opening week of $60 million, how much did the casino pay in promotions to get people in the door?  They have been ramping up promotions and advertising to bring in gamblers, but that only raises costs and cuts into profits. 

 

Considering how poorly the casino has performed when compared to projections, any good news is welcome.  But they still have a long way to go to reach their hoped for revenue levels.

 

Regarding the tangled web of debt between the City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County, and the Harrisburg Authority over obligations on a trash incinerator and whether those obligations could lead Harrisburg into Act 47 distressed status or Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, the Governor of Pennsylvania offered this statement:

 

"There's no easy, pain free way out...there is no Santa Claus riding into the aid of the City".

 

Maybe not as harsh as the 1975 headline "Feds to New York: Drop Dead" but clearly a message that the Commonwealth won't advance funds or bailout Harrisburg over the debt.  Instead, a meeting between the Governor, the Mayor of Harrisburg, and other officials produced a consensus that technical advice from the state would be available, but the City should look to sell assets and increase disposal fees to County residents. 

 

The Mayor wants to avoid Act 47, and said that "bankruptcy would be the last option".  With some $17 million in debt coming due in four months, that last option might be approaching rapidly. 

 

Here is a summary of the recommendations of an advisory task force on the proposed parking lease:

 

• The prospective lease holder would not be constrained by rate caps, but would be guided by "market factors, industry standards, and regional inflation"

 

• A 50 year lease term

 

• The Parking Authority would continue to exist, but it might or might not be able to build new garages

 

• Authority employees would get jobs with the lessee, the Authority, the City and would not lose existing pay and benefits

 

Since all of these recommendations are non-binding, it is anyone's guess as to what would make it into an eventual executed lease.  It is encouraging that the task force did not advocate for rate caps-perhaps it was because it was not their place to say, perhaps they realize that maybe the parking market forces can work to allocate the resource of parking, or perhaps they did not want to keep that condition going forward in the lease, realizing that the more conditions up front will lessen the take from the lease.

 

The recommendations do raise the important question about the Parking Authority's place in the equation after a successful lease deal.  For one, will they have any role other than managing the lease?  Will they own other properties that will continue to operate as parking facilities? Or will they simply be monitoring the terms of the lease?

 

There is nothing in existing Commonwealth law that would prohibit the City from creating a new Parking Authority should the present one be dissolved (part of the up front lump sum is supposed to pay off the Authority's debt) and likely some type of clause would have to be added to the lease that prohibited publicly owned parking.  And if there are extensive and numerous lease details it is possible that the function could be moved to the City government proper. 

 

Lastly, there has to be a realization that if Authority employees land jobs with the lessee and pay and benefits remain intact that rates will rise in order for the lessee to achieve an adequate return. 

 

 

 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) rejected the plan to toll Interstate 80 because it did not meet the requirements set forth by federal law.  That is the revenues generated by the tolls were not to be used for the maintenance and upkeep of the road itself.  Instead legislators and the architects of 2007's Act 44 viewed the highway as a cash cow to be milked for the benefit of a select few. 

 

Obviously, there are those who wish to ignore federal law.  In a recent opinion piece, it is suggested that President Obama bully the FHA into allowing I-80 to be tolled.  They reason that Pennsylvania's transportation funding concerns warrant violating federal law and would "stimulate Pennsylvania's economy".  The only people who stand to get stimulated would be unionized construction workers who will get prevailing wage labor on any new construction projects.

 

And who else would benefit from tolling the highway?  Mass transit in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia would be the big winners.  They will once again receive outside money without having to reduce costs, privatize, or become efficient.  By extension, labor will then profit as these transit systems' unions will not have to accept any concessions to current or future wages or benefits.  They can keep asking for more knowing there is yet another revenue stream to underwrite their greed.  And finally the Turnpike Commission will benefit as they too will have extra money at their disposal and can continue their patronage ways as those new toll booths on I-80 can be staffed with friends of lawmakers. 

 

This will not stimulate Pennsylvania's economy, it will only benefit a few favored groups while adding more burden to Pennsylvania's citizens.

 

The PG's editorial board implored the Obama Administration to grant Pennsylvania its wish to place tolls on Interstate 80 and use the toll proceeds to subsidize other transportation needs (roads, bridges, and mass transit) around the state.  Recall that the application (tolling I-80 is the centerpiece of the Commonwealth's transportation strategy under Act 44) was rejected in September 2008. 

 

The reasons?  Simply put, tolling I-80 to use for general transportation spending would run afoul of the requirements of the Interstates Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Program by not using toll revenues for the maintenance of the road being tolled and there was no estimate of the economic impact on counties abutting the interstate. 

 

A new administration cannot circumvent this rationale unless the interstate tolling law is changed.  It is a lot more that "regional resistance" as the editorial put it.  And it goes further than concern over a shortfall in the Port Authority's budget (where are all the savings from the last contract negotiation?).  Pennsylvania is trying to get permission to place a user fee on a road and use the proceeds to fund other needs, much of which would be lost under the inefficient and bloated Turnpike Commission.  The last time they asked they were denied: now the PG feels that the "arguments for tolling are stronger"? How exactly?