Mayor Declares PENSIONS SHOWDOWN


Lots to discuss (and probably more shrapnel yet to fly) and little time to help get you started, but essentially Mayor Ravenstahl is proposing that everybody just have it out already this coming Monday.

COVERAGE: P-G, Rich Lord; Trib, Jeremy Boren; WDUQ, Larkin Page-Jacobs; KDKA-TV, Harold Hayes.

GUT INSTINCT: Yes! Time is a factor, the mayor is fundamentally not comfortable with the new hottness, let’s do this.

25 thoughts on “Mayor Declares PENSIONS SHOWDOWN

  1. Anonymous

    “but who's counting?” certainly not the member of council who made the derogatory remarks about mathematics.

    Reply
  2. Bram Reichbaum

    Anon 5:02- Yup, it was Monk. The first time for obscenity and for double-spacing, the second time for double-spacing and for simply appealing the 1st decision WHILE ON PROBATION. Which is a shame, 'cause his first comment was really good and would have added a lot to the conversation (minus the frequent obscenities).

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    Fact IS…

    Smiles, and noogies.

    Rank and Foul,

    Given finacial reality, we…know!

    “New Debt, is not SOLUTION to Old Debt….”

    Anyone voting for Lamb/Council Solution….Pension?

    ..is out of touch with reality of common man.

    Every F'n Burgher knows truth…

    You don't Vote Onarato and sinkhole of “Debt”. Tunnel Vision…

    …nor do you borrow money to subsidize suburbun perk, Cheap Parking!

    Council, Litmus Test?

    Stupidity, tested positive!

    Cheap Parking @ City Taxpayer Expenses…is Racial Discrimination.

    Poor blacks, shunned by suburbinites…

    Burgess, is right to insist!

    monk

    Reply
  4. MH

    Fact IS…
    Completing sentences make it easier for others to follow.

    Smiles, and noogies.
    That's what got me my job and the coffee shop and what cost me my job.

    Rank and Foul,
    Toil and Trouble.

    Given finacial reality, we…know!
    How to spell financial?

    “New Debt, is not SOLUTION to Old Debt….”
    This is a cogent argument that one can agree or disagree with. Go Monk.

    Anyone voting for Lamb/Council Solution….Pension?
    ..is out of touch with reality of common man.

    If these go together, they make another cogent argument.

    Every F'n Burgher knows truth…
    Self-censorship. Go Monk.

    I got tired and skipped the rest.

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    Funny, when I meet The Secratary Of The Navy…

    He knew, Recipeient.

    Grrrrr,

    Nooggie.

    His Name, was Middendorff…

    Nuck, nuck, nuck…

    “Where Ya From…?” He asked…

    I replied, 'a place where kids loaf while fathers stand in unemployment line'…A Place where in the future, educated brats, demean honest work.

    …a place where a keyboard Kills…

    MH,

    …you can't learn, class: MH!

    monk

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    I haven't been following the blog for very long, so apologies if I just missed it, but is there a post somewhere explaining how the pension fund wound up so impressively underfunded?

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    Clearly, Ravenstahl (and Bram) want to sell city assets dahna river to JP Morgan.

    Question for you Rev. Reichbloom – If Counsel went with the Ravenstahl plan – How is the city going to meet the increased pension obligations when we fall below 50% funding and we no longer have the parking assets as source of revenue?

    Do you really want organizations like the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority controlling a critical revenue streams and development rights for the next 50 years?

    Reply
  8. Bram Reichbaum

    In re Monk 5:51 – It's true that subsidizing parking Downtown and in our most heavily trafficked business corridors is a policy preference which advantages the affluent and also the suburban — that is just cold true — and from there it's easy to argue that it relatively disadvantages many less affluent, city-dwelling taxpayers.

    But to describe that situation as “racial” “discrimination” however I believe is rather helmet-to-helmet, unnecessarily rough and maybe a late hit besides.

    Anon 7:54 – OH MY GOODNESS, I know I wrote a great “Penshunz for Beginners”-style post like a year ago or more, but I'm not finding it. Suffice to say: we used to be a bigger city population-wise, with twice as many taxpayers, and we had a lot more employees. Those employees retired or got laid off with pensions, and now we have less taxpayers paying in to a system to support those very fairly generous pensions to folks with whom we signed a contract (so no givesies-backsies). If anyone knows of some good material out there which provides better concise background, please let me know and I'll highlight it.

    Reply
  9. Bram Reichbaum

    Anon 8:34 – While it's true it's a leaky bucket, the lease I'd expect to last us a good bit longer than the bond, inasmuch as $350 million > $230 million even before the increased paring tax revenues. As to the leakiness of the bucket I see *nothing* that fixes that outside of a PMRS takeover. I hope whichever way we go we start really looking at that, or if we do nothing at all well then we're already there.

    I'm not afraid of Abu-Dhabi (didn't they use almost this exact thing against Hillary Clinton at one point? The “Dubai Ports Deal”!) and the degree of “control” the foreign investors will have to smash economic development in Pgh and do crazy stuff outside the lease agreement, I think you're exaggerating.

    Reply
  10. Bram Reichbaum

    I mean, I haven't heard about the ADIA and if that's news then, kewl, but isn't that why we hosted the G-20? To bring foreign investment to Pittsburgh? Don't all investors like to make money, and wouldn't this give the UAE a continuing stake in seeing our town thrive?

    Reply
  11. Bram Reichbaum

    Because the State is worse than useless. How that plays out in this instance is, a majority of the Legislature (certainly its Senate) benefits from Act 205 the way it is — and would gladly see Pittsburgh and its ilk drown in a bathtub or choke on our own wickedness.

    In theory you could try voting for Dan Onorato, but even if he gets in he'll really have to overachieve to make the Leg budge on 205. Remember even most of Pittsburgh's own House reps also rep for some surrounding municipalities — they'd have to tell those constituents “Sorry, your share of funding is going to decrease 'cuz Pittsburgh and some other sizable post-industrial cities are more structurally in need. Hello? I said their problem is 'structural'! What are you planning to do with that hot poker?”

    Reply
  12. Anonymous

    A comment from Infy's blog:

    Be clear what happened here. Lukey tried to wash his hands of this and then the money boys around him who have commissions riding on the deal told him he had to try to revive the lease and he complied.

    Sounds pretty accurate to me Bram. Thoughts?

    Reply
  13. Bram Reichbaum

    Anon 4:50 – In my best estimation, contrary to whatever signals some seek to fish for and defragment, the lease is dead. Council voted it down 1-7-1. It ain't comin' back.

    Monday is about the state takeover and the viability of the Harris-Dowd-Rudiak legislation, all numbers for which were released on Tuesday afternoon this week. Apparently the Mayor has something to say about them he wants everyone to hear.

    Reply
  14. Anonymous

    Why do so many so called progressives keep using the fear of the “Arab” to defeat the lease plan? Huh?????

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.