Comments for Reform Pittsburgh Now

Comment on Contact City Hall by ACTION ALERT: Clean Air Act | Reform Pittsburgh Now

ACTION ALERT: Clean Air Act | Reform Pittsburgh Now — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:18:39 +0000

[...] the sake of Pittsburgh’s air, please contact City Hall now (click here) and let them know that the time has come to pass this much needed legislation. Let them know you [...]

Comment on Finally, Illegal Billboard to be Removed by September 1st by Citizen

Citizen — Thu, 05 May 2011 18:20:12 +0000

This is absolutely ridiculous. This is what we’re making a stand about? Why not lease the billboard space to pay for things the city needs? We can’t get streets plowed, lights put up at dangerous intersections, or repair bridges, but we’re going to stifle a community business? Go through the process correctly, issue the permits, and let life go on.

Comment on A Letter to the Mayor by Jack Ochs

Jack Ochs — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 14:52:07 +0000

The pension fund needs a dedicated, long term source of revenues. This is true, regardless of whether the City continues to operate the fund, or whether its administration is taken over by the State. Indeed, there are no advantages to city taxpayers to having the pension funds administered by the City.

The Mayor was clearly willing to see increased parking rates on property controlled by the City and the Parking Authority used to fund pension obligations. So, he should not object to Council’s plan to dedicate monies from increased parking rates to meet these same obligations.

Council was wise in rejecting the Mayor’s plan. That plan would provide a lump sum injection of monies into the pension fund. But it would also divert a portion of the lease receipts to other, unspecified purposes. This would leave the city with a large unfunded obligation and no dedicated source for funding it. The City’s past history with one time injections of monies into its pension fund has shown that this is not a long-term solution. In 1996 and 1998 the City issued $269 million in bonds in order to partially fund its pension liabilities. Yet, the percentage of unfunded obligations continually fell subsequent to this injection of funds because the City’s elected officials continued to find it politically more expedient to ignore these obligations and spend available monies elsewhere. If the Mayor didn’t want to follow a similar, politically expedient, but short-sighted path, his plan would have committed all monies raised by the intended lease to the pension fund. That he did not do so is a red flag.

Higher, market-based parking rates make sense. Much of the demand for city public services comes from the presence of non-residents who are employed within the city limits. They pay no earned income tax to the city. Increasingly, they work for non-profits which pay no property taxes. Higher parking rates in places like Downtown, Oakland and the Northside may well cause owners of commercial real estate to lower their rental rates in order to maintain occupancy levels. But, they are major beneficiaries of police, fire and other services provided by the city and should be bearing a larger portion of the burden of paying for these services than they do under the current system of taxation.

Comment on The Huffington Post Takes on Parking Privatization in Pittsburgh by Chicagoans Will Pay Morgan Stanley 11 Billion in Parking Fees | Reform Pittsburgh Now

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:39:30 +0000

[...] one might expect sources like Matt Taibbi and The Huffington Post to take note of Wall Street profiting from the financial hardships of American cities, even [...]

Comment on Secretary of PMRS James B. Allen’s Statement to Pittsburgh City Council by Robert Bailie

Robert Bailie — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:36:29 +0000

Mr. Peduto, thanks for posting the PMRS presentation. I learned quite a bit about this crisis from it. Do I understand correctly that unless 200-300 million dollars is added to the plans that they will assume responsibility for the plans ? I may be missing something, but what is the down side or is there one ? I’m not a banker but isn’t the most important thing to stop the bleeding, that is to change the plans for new hires ? I really don’t know your position on this, but it will never go away until that happens. Again, thanks for taking the time to post the presentation.
Hutch

Comment on Why a State Administered Plan Is Needed for Pittsburgh by squiz

squiz — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 02:42:03 +0000

So, from where would we get the money that we need to pay into the plan yearly? Also, how would we change the system for new hires?

Comment on Why a State Administered Plan Is Needed for Pittsburgh by PITJRW

PITJRW — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:15:18 +0000

“…the PA State Constitution prohibits any municipality from changing pension benefits to municipal employees. Many of you were interested in changing future plans to a “defined contribution” plan from our present “defined benefit” plan. Again, state law prohibits any municipality in PA from offering a defined contribution plan — even to future employees.”

Another reason -as if more were needed see the Grand Jury report from last spring - why PA desperately needs a constitutional convention.

Comment on FAQs About Pensions by PITTSBURGH’S MOMENT OF TRUTH | Bill Peduto for Pittsburgh

PITTSBURGH’S MOMENT OF TRUTH | Bill Peduto for Pittsburgh — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:14:41 +0000

[...] Many of you had questions regarding the city’s pension plan and many of your questions were the same. Let me try to address the major questions. Many of you wanted to know why the city is not trying to change the pension plan for present workers. First, I don’t believe you should break a promise and we have promised our present and past employees certain benefits. Secondly, the PA State Constitution prohibits any municipality from changing pension benefits to municipal employees. (You can read the rest of this article here.) [...]

Comment on Why a State Administered Plan Is Needed for Pittsburgh by PITTSBURGH’S MOMENT OF TRUTH | Bill Peduto for Pittsburgh

PITTSBURGH’S MOMENT OF TRUTH | Bill Peduto for Pittsburgh — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:01:20 +0000

[...] So where do we go from here? The plan to lease our assets for 50 years did not resolve our pension crisis. Like a bucket with a hole in the bottom, the only thing it would have done was to buy us more time. But, with a system that bleeds over $30 million a year, it would only be about a dozen years before we would have spent all the money JP Morgan was offering. We would have been back to where we are now and would have the highest meter rates in the country. (You can read the rest of this article here.) [...]

Comment on A New Snow Removal System for Pittsburgh by Paul McCarthy

Paul McCarthy — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:51:30 +0000

Snow emergency routes and on street snow storage spots need to be researched and sinage must be posted (ie. place piles of snow in the sun to hasten melting without blocking views at intersections. The intersection of 17th St. & Sidney St. in the South Side had huge piles of plowed snow which blocked the view for people drivng on either street.)

Fire Hydrants and catch basins were covered with snow. Seems PW employees should be briefed as to locations and when an extreme
snow storms are predictated a plan should be in place.

Some municipalities place thin markers(similar to CB antennas)onto each safety devices like hydradants and marked with reflective tape.