A former vice president of marketing, communications and customer experience at the Allegheny County Airport Authority has filed a federal lawsuit alleging racial discrimination and retaliation.
The Airport Authority denies the allegation. A court of law will decide the case.
But what caught our eye is this ancillary allegation, though somewhat cryptic, as reported by the Tribune-Review:
“At a meeting about British Airways in April 2022, the lawsuit said that [Charmaine] Easie-Samuels, who was born and raised in the United Kingdom, said the outline being discussed ‘didn’t make sense.’
“After the meeting, she said [Airport Authority CEO Christina] Cassotis called her into her office and reprimanded her.
“She was told that it was ‘not part of the culture’ to express feedback like that,’ the lawsuit said.”
We’re curious. What, specifically, didn’t make sense to Easie-Samuels?
Bribing a very successful airline to fly to Pittsburgh International Airport with $3.5 million in tax money, perhaps?
Or was it the Airport Authority’s incessant touting of an “economic impact” study that was rife with erroneous assumptions presented as facts?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Speaking of bribing “incentives,” an excellent commentary on the website of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) blows out of the water the much employed but quite taxpayer-abusive practice of government “economic development.”
The bottom line for Michael Munger, a professor of political science, economics and public policy at Duke University (and an AIER senior fellow) is this:
“Unfortunately, the problems don’t end with (1) misuse of taxpayer money (2) to “invest” in projects that would not attract private investment support, though those two problems are significant …
“[State] ‘incentive’ packages do more than pay companies the difference in costs. Politicians have every reason to pay up to, and beyond, the entire economic benefit to the state, because their calculus counts costs as benefits. ‘Extra’ jobs, unneeded roads and utilities hookups and large payments to politically connected consulting firms are all harms to taxpayers, but they help politicians get re-elected.
“The use of politically motivated ‘incentives’ as a means of attracting business to your state is a mook’s game. Taxpayers pay more than the company receives, because much of the cost comes from making unsuited areas ‘more competitive’ for development. And more than all of the benefit that the state does receive from the new manufacturing jobs is spent by politicians using taxpayer funds to buy votes. …
“There is simply no necessary connection between the total costs and the ‘benefits’ being sought by politicians bidding with other people’s money. Far better to leave the money with taxpayers, who have other things to do with the resources, and depend on capital markets for investment, since for private ventures there must be some chance of producing net value.”
Remember this the next time pols (or unelected and roughshod-running public authority heads) pick the public’s pockets in the name of “economic development” and “progress” that does one thing and one thing only – robs the public kitty to guild their lilies.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
