Colin McNickle At Large

Strolling out a nebulous OnePGH

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto says his OnePGH initiative will formally bow sometime this year. That’s the mayor’s $3.5 billion plan — heavy on rhetoric but light on specifics — to be, he says, primarily funded by the region’s corporations, institutions and foundations.

There are nearly 50 projects designed to, as the Tribune-Review reported it, “meet the critical needs of the neediest.” Money also would come from taxpayers and national foundations, Peduto says.

The Trib says the mayor believes OnePGH is a way to generate far more revenue for city projects than the payments in lieu of taxes agreements with nonprofits. Tax-exempt properties – those of nonprofits and government – control nearly half of the city’s real estate, the city’s largest revenue source, the Trib reminds.

From the OnePGH website:

“OnePGH is the strategy for Pittsburgh to thrive in the 21st century as a city of engaged, empowered and coordinated neighbors. Pittsburgh will be resilient when our city is livable for all residents. OnePGH establishes a bold vision for the city, building on recent successes and a wealth of community assets, while directly confronting the complex challenges that we all continue to face.”

The word “gobbledygook” comes to mind. So does the phrase non sequitur.

What “recent successes”? The near collapse of the water and sewer system? Pledges to never privatize the same kind of systems that, under private control and continued state oversight, thrive elsewhere?

Or perhaps it’s a reference to attempting to pass laws for which the city has no purview? Or maybe it’s a public-school system not even rising to mediocrity?

Among OnePGH’s projects would be universal preschool, affordable housing, clean air and water and public art.

Those four alone raise more than a few questions, of course, given how “progressives” have operated in Pittsburgh over the last few decades. To wit:

Will “universal preschool” be anything more than a glorified babysitting service? If it’s modeled after Head Start, how are the planners prepared to overcome the primary rap against it — that its long-term cognitive benefits for children are de minimis?

Then there’s “affordable housing.” Will this effort make housing “affordable” for some by making it less affordable for others? That’s what raising the city’s real estate transfer tax did in 2018. Perhaps we need more of that?

Of course, clean air and water are great things. And Pittsburgh has made great strides in both areas. Despite both likely being the cleanest they’ve ever been, further efforts have been deemed necessary by some.

But at what cost? And at what benefit? And will truth be the first casualty (as it is annually from the folks at the American Lung Association when steadfastly misrepresenting Pittsburgh’s air quality)?

Public art? Indeed, art is a wonderful thing and, too often, as once was written, “hath an enemy called ignorance.” But, certainly, Pittsburgh has more pressing needs, does it not? Have the Carnegie Museums closed? Are we really in need of more Dippy the Dinosaurs?

Again, from the OnePGH website:

“Pittsburgh will empower all residents to contribute to thriving and supportive communities by ensuring that basic needs are met.”

What, are we to be a commune? Are we going to open more government grocery stores? Propose ever higher, arbitrary wage floors that do more harm than good? How about allowing the marketplace to work and, in the process, promote not only value but independence over dependence?

“We will be an inclusive city of innovation that celebrates our diversity, and all residents will have equal access to resources and opportunity.”

Pittsburgh being, as the old WIIC-TV Christmas promo went, “a whole world of people,” long has embraced its diversity. Do we now need a public-private partnership to continue?

“Pittsburgh will use land to benefit all residents; to increase social cohesion, connectivity, public and ecological health; and to protect against current and future risks.”

More gobbledygook. Why does the phrase “central plan” come to mind after reading such jargon? Will the “benefits” come in the shape of a cudgel?

“I don’t want to give a time frame,” the mayor said of when things might get strolling, “because it’s more important to me what is the result in 12 years than what is the date we start.” Or, for that matter, much detail.

Perhaps the ends justify the means, no matter how nebulous the effort is?

But, of course, an “administrative council” must first be formed to iron out the details, Peduto says of what will be yet another unelected bureaucracy, long the bane of sound public policy.

Who knows, perhaps there even will be a circus. Send in the clowns?

Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Colin McNickle
Colin McNickle

Colin received his B.G.S. from Ohio University. The 40-year journalism veteran joined the Institute in October 2016. That followed a 22-year career with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 18 as director of editorial pages for Trib Total Media. Prior that, Colin had a long and varied career in media — from radio, newspapers and magazines, to United Press International and The Associated Press.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Weekly insights on the markets and financial planning.

Recent Posts