The chair of the Planning Commission itself lacerated the mayor’s Gaming Task Force for not having provided a single, comprehensive report of the progress it was charged with facilitating, and for providing no representative to the hearing.
City transportation planner Sidney Kaikai fumbled through a long synopsis of sixteen traffic-related conditions the casino must meet for approval, and avowed repeatedly to much progress already made, and the nearness of agreement. However, this rosy assessment was repeatedly and emphatically contradicted by all stakeholders concerned.
David Hillenbrand, president of Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh, said the casino development project posed an “existential” threat to the Carnegie Science Center. Other science center officials testified that PITG Gaming had not been remotely cooperative, and in fact the few new modifications over the past month will make things even worse.
Steelers representatives also testified to zero progress, and described a pattern of PITG promising cooperation, accomplishing nothing, and taking advantage of deadline pressure to get what they desire.
The Pirates also objected to approval, and disagreed with the Planning Commission’s legal definition of “shall.” In their view, to say roads “shall be provided for” means the plans must be concrete and the roads yet-to-be-finished; not the plans themselves yet-to-be-envisaged.
The Commission itself seemed chronically unaware of its own procedures, precedents, and especially of its powers to enforce the conditions. At one point, a science center official interrupted to tell them they absolutely did have the power of enforcement, and that they should consult their solicitor.
For its part, a PITG official seated behind us kept muttering that giving the commission powers of enforcement would be “opening Pandora’s box,” and that all the stakeholders could “just line up.” In public comments, the PITG rep accused their neighbors as being unreasonably all-or-nothing and too quick to resort to bashing the casino’s intentions, and of shutting them out of negotiations.
After the comment period, during the brief “deliberations,” one commission member lamented that no one had come forward to argue on behalf of taxpayers, who must be impatient to start realizing casino revenues. He said that the commission “should not be seen to hold things up,” seeming to beg the question of whether something ought to be held up for good reason.
They wasted little time getting to a vote, and although ironically it was the casino that tried to object at the last minute to a condition involving a gradation, the master plan, with the city’s sixteen conditions, won unanimous approval. The Comet gauges the likelihood of legal action at the state Supreme Court as high-to-definite.
It may or may not be instructive to note what a mid-size birdie just told us: that two Democratic committee members (one a ward chair) were appointed to seats on this Planning Commission by Mayor Ravenstahl in the week just prior to committee endorsements.