Rarely is the question asked, is our children mayor learning?

Well now, that didn't take long.

The good press garnered by the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh -- especially the "Eds and Meds" meme -- is being countered with this headline in today's USA Today:


The article notes that the Pittsburgh Council on Higher Education plans to challenge Lil Mayor Luke's 1% college tuition "privilege" tax in court.

Moreover, our Overlords will likely reject Ravenstahl's budget partially based on the probable unenforceability of this tax (seems that they've been getting some letters about this issue).

And, what does City Council think about the proposed tax? Here's one vote it won't get (from an email from City Councilor Bill Peduto):

Thank you for taking the time to email me regarding the proposed student tax. I apologize for not being able to personally reply to each message due to the overwhelming number of emails we have received. First and foremost, I am opposed to this tax. In Pennsylvania, no municipality can create new taxes without state authorization, therefore, I believe this proposal is illegal. Additionally, attempting to solve our budget problems by continuing to raise taxes will never work. We need structural changes or else we will continue to run a deficit.

This tax misses the mark. We should not be putting the burden of historic budget problems on the backs of students. There is something fundamentally wrong with a city that taxes students and closes libraries. That is a true sign of a city that sells the future to fund the present. This is simply a really bad idea. For all of these reasons, I am opposed and will vote no.

I don’t know if you realize this, but I am also a student. I am in school working on my Masters, so this proposed tax targets me as well.

I am asking you to make sure your voice is heard by the Mayor, who is pushing hard for the votes on City Council. Please take one minute and contact him at luke.ravenstahl@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

.

Watching the Mayor

I mean, like, right now. He's giving his 2010 Budget Address at Pittsburgh City Council Chambers. You can watch too on the City Channel.

Lil Mayor Luke apparently plans to balance the budget with a 1% college privilege tax on college kids.
.

I guess it wasn't a threat -- it was a promise

So let's see:

1) Pittsburgh City Councilor Bruce Kraus said that Lil Mayor Luke Ravenstahl threatened him (that Council's staff salaries would be cut if Council cut the number of take-home cars):

Councilman Bruce Kraus said the legislation to cut staff salaries mirrors threats made directly to him by Mr. Ravenstahl at a fundraising event last week. The mayor's office has opposed legislation to cut take-home cars, and Mr. Kraus said that was the context of the threat.

"His exact words to me were, 'We're coming after you,'" Mr. Kraus said. "I said, 'If you feel that best serves the interests of the people of Pittsburgh, to cripple city council, have at it.'"

Mr. Kraus added that the mayor specifically threatened to cut council staff salaries, and said, "'And there's more where that came from.'"

2) Councilor Jim Motznik denied that there was a threat:

Mr. Motznik, who hosted the fundraiser Mr. Kraus attended, said he heard the conversation. "The mayor simply said that Act 47 is a work in progress, and it's a financial road map," Mr. Motznik said. "He didn't threaten him."

3) Kraus challenged Motznik's recollection of the events:

"Jim Motznik was nowhere near that conversation," said Mr. Kraus. "That's a bold-faced lie."

4) Ravenstahl verified that he spoke to Kraus but denied there was a threat:

"The notion that a threat was made is ridiculous," said Mr. Ravenstahl. "I suggested that if council took the position that they saw Act 47 as an authorizing document, rather than a financial roadmap, that they should look at themselves.

"It certainly wasn't a threat, and to suggest that it was I think is unfortunate."

and:

"If they feel that Act 47 is a binding document, then they, themselves, should live by that. ... Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house, and that's what they've been doing."

5) Council did vote to approve Councilor Burgess' legislation to reduce take-home cars:

It calls on the mayor to reduce the number of employees with take-home cars from 59 to 29, a number drawn from the Act 47 recovery plan approved by council and then-mayor Tom Murphy in 2004.

6) And, then mayoral ally Motznik proposed legislation to cut Council's budget for their staff; and to strip $150,000 from what he termed a Council "slush fund" (assisted by Ravenstahl Finance Director Scott Kunka); and Councilor Dan Deasy proposed "an amendment to disallow mileage reimbursements for elected city officials, which includes the nine council members, the controller, and the mayor, who doesn't need the benefit because he is chauffeured in a city vehicle."

6) So, Lil Mayor Luke was right: it wasn't a threat. It was a promise. (And, this is one promise where Luke lived up to his word.)

Others in the Burghospere on this topic:

- http://burghreport.blogspot.com/2008/03/kraus-ravenstahl-threatened-me.html
- http://pghcomet.blogspot.com/2008/03/we-knew-it-would-come-to-this.html
- http://theburghblog.com/2008/03/25/war-what-is-it-good-for
- http://burghreport.blogspot.com/2008/03/ravenstahl-threatens-kraus-drama-ensues.html
- http://pistgazette.blogspot.com/2008/03/mayor-sends-hit-man-motznik-to-break.html
- http://macyapper.blogspot.com/2008/03/branding-asshole.html

**********************************************
On a side note:

During the flame war in Council Chambers yesterday, someone (Burgess? Kraus? Dowd?) mentioned that appointments by the Mayor to authority boards were handed out as rewards to Councilors who played ball with the Administration. I guess that's in perpetuity because lookie, lookie who's still on the board of Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority:

Len Bodack ( http://www.pgh2o.com/board.htm )

As an emailer wrote:

"Given that Len Bodack Jr. is no longer an elected official...and was appointed to the board as such, Bodack should have been stripped of his PWSA appointment when he left council.

151.10 APPOINTMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY BOARDS.
(a) Council members appointed by the Mayor to authority boards pursuant to Chapter 220 shall be deemed to serve ex officio, i.e. by virtue of their office.
(b) Upon termination of office by any Council member for whatever reason, the appointment to an authority board shall also be deemed terminated and the Council member shall take such steps as may be necessary to relinquish his or her seat on an authority board.
(Ord. 19-2002, § 1, eff. 6-4-02)

http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=13525&sid=38

What's up with that?"
.

Rich Lord on a Budget Problem

In today's P-G, Rich Lord has an article on one of the issues facing the city budget: the city's "Paynent in Lieu of Taxes" policy.

Figuring out how to pay for basic services while tax-exempt organizations control large blocks of land is a problem for cities nationwide.

Pittsburgh's solution has been to go hat-in-hand, asking nonprofit institutions to give the city whatever they can.

He then goes on to compare and contrast our city's policy with some other well known cities (New Haven, Cleveland, Philadelphia). The verdict?

That's a "unique" approach to a national problem, said Evelyn Brody, a professor of law at Chicago-Kent College of Law and author of the book "Property-Tax Exemption for Charities: Mapping the Battlefield." Pittsburgh is "relying on something voluntary," she said, when most cities "are looking for something more certain."

There was a deal in place between the city and a consortium called the Pittsburgh Public Service Fund. According to Lord, the group is made up of a little more than one hundred non-profits and had promised to make $13.25 million in donations to the city over three years.

Ending in 2007. And that's a problem.

But it's not the first time we've seen it.

Back in November, 2005 we saw a preliminary discussion of the city budget played out in the papers. And the gap between what the city could expect from the consortium was spelled out:

A consortium of nonprofit groups has said it doesn't plan to give the city money after 2007, but the city's plan counts on $5.7 million a year from such organizations through 2011.

Again, Rich Lord on the city budget beat.

To be clear, Lord's article isn't necessarily about the budget (and as proof, he doesn't reuse Councilman Peduto's oft-used phrase "phantom revenue"). It's more about how other cities have other solutions to the same problem. He does get some info from Peduto:

City Councilman William Peduto, a Democratic mayoral challenger, said the Connecticut model would be ideal, with the state paying a portion of the revenue cities lose to tax exemptions.

Barring state action, Mr. Peduto would like to see "a 20- to 40-year plan that focuses only on hospitals, universities and insurers." He would have them make payments based on the size of their payroll, just as for-profit businesses do.

Whatever the solution, it needs to be done right.