Friday, December 10, 2010

TOCK...

Posted by at

51 comments:

  1. AnonymousDecember 10, 2010 at 8:07 PM

    Do your shoulders hurt from carrying Luke's water for him?

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousDecember 10, 2010 at 8:23 PM

    hahaha

    so true

    ReplyDelete
  3. JP MorganstahlDecember 10, 2010 at 8:47 PM

    link

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bram ReichbaumDecember 10, 2010 at 9:08 PM

    I only carry water for the good men, women and children of the city of Pittsburgh.

    Who deserve, among other things, a net $4 billion break over the next 50 years to help pave their streets, promote their general safety and welfare, and satisfy their communal obligations to their workers and creditors. Even at the cost of your government-run parking fiefdom or your all-consuming political jihad.

    EVERYONE should be standing down and be working on a realistic political compromise. That's what you do. We're beginning to look really queer for apparently not having evolved that far.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MHDecember 10, 2010 at 9:20 PM

    If you carry water, can I buy insurance in case you break?

    ReplyDelete
  6. FUDecember 11, 2010 at 2:04 AM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RexDecember 11, 2010 at 9:13 AM

    MH:

    If you haven't opted out, you're already being billed for the Bram-backer insurance!

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bram ReichbaumDecember 11, 2010 at 12:18 PM

    2:04 AM - Language!

    ReplyDelete
  9. MonkDecember 11, 2010 at 2:41 PM

    Dear Bloggers,

    I am pleased to inform, that an additional $150.00 will be sent to...

    Susan Kerr MSW.

    Director of Residential Programs
    Community Human Resorces Corp.
    374 Lawn Street
    Pittsburgh, PA 15213

    (On Bram's behalf)



    monk

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bram ReichbaumDecember 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM

    Monk, I'm told your previous generosity has been received by CHS with enormous appreciation (though it takes a while for them to roll through the paperwork, especially now as there are events to prepare for). I don't think there's time to execute your Challenge but there's always next year. No need to send anything "on my behalf", even if I am presently carrying water for your retirement security. ;) ;) ;) Merry Christmas.

    Ps. If you do, my name is spelled b-r-a-M as in Mary.

    ReplyDelete
  11. MonkDecember 11, 2010 at 3:33 PM

    B-r-a-m,

    Just having fun...

    Have some Moosehead Ale (with lime) in freezer!

    In 1974, I worked as a Camp 'confident': Easter Seals...

    Never forgot what I recieved in compensation.

    Joined Navy, never forgot what I recieved in compensation.

    Got married, 3 daughters, never forgot what I recieved in compensation.

    Employed by the City of Pittsburgh, never forgot what I recieved in compensation...

    Today, all monies recieved in overtime pay is donated to:


    Susan Kerr MSW.

    Director of Residential Programs
    Community Human Resorces Corp.
    374 Lawn Street
    Pittsburgh, PA 15213


    Monk

    "never forgot what I recieved in compensation..."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Navy Monk!December 11, 2010 at 4:07 PM

    NAVY 23 ARMY 7!

    PAT ? GOOD!

    NAVY 24 ARMY 7....

    Monk

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousDecember 11, 2010 at 5:05 PM

    Navy 24, Army 10.

    As I watch this game, I can not help rub nose, busted on football field known as Carney Field, Napels Italy 'NATO Base".(Volcanic Crater)

    Broke sniffer on first play, rang a ringer...

    Cha-Ching! Doc, set nose, pint of beer, loving pat on ass...

    Not gay, not that, that's wrong

    ...so, was sent assasian.

    Don't, punk the...

    monk

    ReplyDelete
  14. BrianTHDecember 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM

    This has been a year of politics dominated by snark and magical thinking at every level. Why not locally too?

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousDecember 11, 2010 at 5:54 PM

    Red Gold Ketchup $1.00.

    Blogger, talk!

    Mmmm!

    ReplyDelete
  16. monkDecember 11, 2010 at 6:16 PM

    Brian,

    Did Andrew Carnegie or Huey P. Long...

    That is to say, voice of the people, was spoken?

    By, whom....

    Andy? Huey?

    Bill of goods, "populace" or libraries?


    I'll embrace Andy, spit on Huey...

    Andrew Carnegie by 'David Nasaw".

    Kingfish 'The Reign of Huey P. Long", by Richard D. White, Jr.

    I back, as I believe... informed, Mayorial Proposal, Pension and parking...

    monk

    ReplyDelete
  17. C. BriemDecember 11, 2010 at 8:12 PM

    Mr. Monk.. how much time did you spend applying red lead primer to asbestos-insulated piping back in the day?

    ReplyDelete
  18. MHDecember 11, 2010 at 10:26 PM

    I though you were ok if you didn't eat the paint chips.

    ReplyDelete
  19. AnonymousDecember 12, 2010 at 9:10 AM

    Can someone who is in this whole Pittsburgh blog scene explain who Monk is and why he writes like Rorschach from Watchmen? He makes the comment threads on this here site absolutely unreadable. It's like Borat or Ann Coulter took a couple James Harrison tackles and then inserted themselves in a cocktail party in the East End.

    Speaking of the East End, I still haven't heard a persuasive defense of Bill Peduto as a public servant. His performance over the last couple of months has been atrocious, bordering on disgusting. Perhaps he knows that to the extent services are cut in the future, the bulk of those cuts will fall on shoulders not adorned in the cable-knit sweaters and hipster t-shirts of his district, but rather the more unseemly, coffee-shop-less areas of the city he deigns never to visit.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bram ReichbaumDecember 12, 2010 at 9:41 AM

    "Can someone who is in this whole Pittsburgh blog scene explain who Monk is and why he writes like Rorschach from Watchmen?"

    He was an elected union rep on the City of Pittsburgh Municipal Employees Pension Fund board in the late 90's.

    "the more unseemly, coffee-shop-less areas of the city [Peduto] deigns never to visit."

    That's not true! I'm given to understand he's very involved throughout East Liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  21. AnonymousDecember 12, 2010 at 11:07 AM

    Bram,

    I still don't understand why he chooses to take a rusty cleaver to the English language.

    And, re: Peduto, I suppose that the unfortunate proximity of East Liberty to the Grad School Oasis sort of forces his hand. So be it. But nevertheless, my criticism stands. There is a significant cadre of voters in Pittsburgh that, in many other jurisdictions, would fit the description of "young progressives"--professional/artistic, generally affluent, vaguely leftist. And while in other areas of the country these movements congeal around technocrats, policy wonks, and pragmatists (see Fenty Admin, RIP; Patrick, Deval; Obama, Barack), in Pittsburgh, Bill Peduto gets heralded as the vaunted savior of the bohemians, fighting the forces of evil, when its clear that he has ZERO actual policy positions and is actively disdainful of making the compromises necessary to government's proper operation. He gets all of this cred because people don't really care if he's got true well-burnished policy chops, so long as he hangs out at Kelly's and launches missives at Ravenstahl and ambiguous ghosts collectively terms "the man" or "big box developers." Thrift store populism.

    This parking deal is the latest manifestation -- I'd admire him if his goal had been to force a more equitable deal from the privatization (ignoring that the first deal was objectively judged a pretty good one), but, er, LAZ has proposed TWO more equitable deals than the first, only to have Peduto play premature coroner to both. And all of this sets aside that his only policy justification -- ignoring for a moment his demagoguing of JP Morgan -- is that low priced parking is a GOOD thing for urban areas, a position that makes Professor Pigou spin in his grave and the fine folks of San Francisco more smug in their knowledge that Pittsburgh truly is still a backwater steel town. Not to mention the fact that, as I intimated above, he's secure in the fact that Shadyside et al won't suffer from the cuts like Homewood and the North Side will.

    And what's crazy is, for pointing this out, I'll be slighted as a shill for Ravenstahl when the only local political donation I've ever made is to someone running against him. And you take these ridiculous potshots from people accusing you of the same. Listen, folks, good policy is good policy, and it doesn't matter where it comes from. Quit fighting class warfare and start solving problems.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bram ReichbaumDecember 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM

    Now that's a serious comment.

    To the extent that there is a problem, I think it's a function of it being too unchallenging for Peduto to be retaining his lock on progressive hearts. I'm all for what you call "class warfare" in justifiable doses -- artistic affluence and cable-knit sweaters may not be your cup of tea, but I think Marx had it right that these people are at the vanguard of most revolutions. The problem is making sure there's a guard-guard marching with them, and that problem is selecting (and to an extent crafting) boutique ideas wedded solidly with the needs and aspirations an underserved majority. And as I say, I think he's had it too easy within the vanguard to have really honed that skill.

    The solution I would say is to add more prog voices that are fresh and challenging. Dowd might be doing this better but I think he may more than Bill lack a certain chummy appeal -- plus he really alienated himself with his political handling of the billboard crisis of 2008 in a way that's surprisingly lasting. Lamb holds a tough office for making waves, and besides it's hard for progs to determine how inextricable he is from Pgh's classic labor edifice (all kind of a Jack Wagner problem). The rest seem to value solidarity over nitpicking or rocking the boat, which is understandable considering what they view themselves as up against. It'd be wonderful to find a strong prog representing a poor district; that chemical can exist but seems to be an unstable isotope.

    Try this: coming from Peduto, the Girl Talk proclamation elicited a good-natured eye-roll. If a Dowd or a Lamb would start pandering like that more often, they might get somewhere?

    Plus let's give Peduto his due. He's the only one out there who from the beginning, trumpeted the benefits of PMRS management / state takeover, and there is another side to that scale with some (less lately) weight on it. It's hard not to respect courage, even if it's fanatical.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bram ReichbaumDecember 12, 2010 at 12:32 PM

    And while in other areas of the country these movements congeal around technocrats, policy wonks, and pragmatists (see Fenty Admin, RIP; Patrick, Deval; Obama, Barack), in Pittsburgh...

    I could write at equal length about just that quote ... lengthy because I feel it's only somewhere between 40% and 90% valid / relevant. Interesting notion.

    ReplyDelete
  24. MHDecember 12, 2010 at 8:07 PM

    Making fun of cable-knit sweaters and scrambled English. Commie.

    ReplyDelete
  25. BrianTHDecember 13, 2010 at 8:14 AM

    Technocratic pragmatists like Obama are taking constant flak from the professional-protest commentariat represented by the likes of FireDogLake. The tactics and sentiments in question are close enough to the Tea Party movement that I think it is fair to call these folks Firebaggers.

    Fortunately, the polls indicate the Firebaggers are rare in the real world, even though they achieve high volume on the Internet (with the active support of the mass-market media, which loves a good "Far Left versus the Centrists" story when it comes to Democrats).

    But it seems to me that one way of summing up the tactics of the Pedutos of the world is that they are playing to the Firebagger crowd. I'm not sure that is good politics, however--again, in the real world, their representation even in the latte-sipping liberal classes may be overstated, and in any event mindless outrage can be a tough tiger for a politician to keep riding indefinitely (just ask several sitting Republicans who recently got primaried out of their jobs).

    ReplyDelete
  26. AnonymousDecember 13, 2010 at 9:09 AM

    Bram,

    What Grant Street needs is a grown-up who can build consensus and the only one you mention is the controler. Dowd and Peduto are both strong in their districts but can't win across the city. Lamb plays well in the east end and the south hills and he's progressive enough. I hate to see him leave city hall to run for county exec.

    ReplyDelete
  27. MHDecember 13, 2010 at 9:52 AM

    Technocratic pragmatists like Obama are taking constant flak from the professional-protest commentariat represented by the likes of FireDogLake.

    Did you just implicitly compare Ravenstahl to Obama? As for technocratic pragmatists, let me know when you see one in office.

    ReplyDelete
  28. AnonymousDecember 13, 2010 at 10:11 AM

    Let's see...did Peduto lose me when he bowed out of the primary race? Or when he tweet-bragged about finally reaching Cappy's on the eve of Snowmageddon, when other councilfolk were already out trying to reach their constituents that might be in need of medical care? Or now when - faced with the nightmares of pension takeover and PAT cuts - he is in Schenley Park talking to trees and park benches via The Cloud? Perhaps these stances serve him well (i.e. get him free drinks) in his Shadyside district...but can he possibly be recognized as a voice for the city, even by the most charitably progressive observers?

    ReplyDelete
  29. MHDecember 13, 2010 at 10:32 AM

    when other councilfolk were already out trying to reach their constituents that might be in need of medical care?

    Doug Shields had a team of sled dogs that he borrowed from Todd Palin.

    ReplyDelete
  30. BrianTHDecember 13, 2010 at 12:19 PM

    My intention was to compare the local pitchfork crowd to firebaggers/teabaggers. I had no particular comparison between Ravenstahl and Obama in mind. I do think the lease deal should, at least in broad outline, appeal to technocratic/pragmatic types, but you wouldn't necessarily have to be that type of person to find the deal appealing.

    ReplyDelete
  31. MHDecember 13, 2010 at 12:34 PM

    I do think the lease deal should, at least in broad outline, appeal to technocratic/pragmatic types...

    I don't see why that should be the case. The situation is easy enough to read in terms of constituent interest. The lease deal (and anything related that involves a loan secured by a revenue stream) improves the position of current and retired city employees relative to net taxpayers and younger people across the board.

    Peduto represents (on average) younger people and net taxpayers. Any deal that doesn't fix the pensions going forward has a great potential to hurt them and if the lease goes through, there is no more leverage for a big fix until the pension plan is broke again in a 2015 or whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bram ReichbaumDecember 13, 2010 at 2:17 PM

    I don't think there is a pensions fix "going forward" outside of improving future contracts, which requires changes in state law. Of course it still doesn't seem the revenue-sharing aspect is getting enough respect -- that's a lot of money through the out-years that makes this not a "one-time infusion".

    Anon 9:09 - Is Lamb running for county executive, is what you're saying? I agree he would make for the strongest mayoral challenger, at least in a 2-way race (and those seem to be entirely theoretical). Of course there would be a bevy of candidates for county as well.

    ReplyDelete
  33. BrianTHDecember 13, 2010 at 2:24 PM

    The idea that if we refuse to make hard choices, then a great solution that will require no pain just MUST present itself in the future, is indeed a popular meme among firebaggers/teabaggers. But I wouldn't call that sort of wishful thinking "pragmatism".

    Here is what actually could happen, and I would argue is more likely to happen if nothing is done: the state forces the City to fulfill its pension obligations anyway by raising taxes and/or cutting services. In this scenario, it turns out that the state doesn't see the City deliberately underfunding its pension as providing the City with "leverage for a big fix". And the state doesn't see it that way because the state understands that it can ultimately dictate terms to the City anyway.

    Meanwhile, the parking system remains underfunded and oversubsidized, leading to suboptimal parking policy that leads to suboptimal land-use and transportation policy.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Bram ReichbaumDecember 13, 2010 at 2:28 PM

    Actually Bri, if the state gets antsy about our ability to pay it could also MAKE us give up our parking assets (in more of a firesale). Ditto water.

    ReplyDelete
  35. MHDecember 13, 2010 at 2:29 PM

    You speak of avoiding hard choices, but miss the biggest dodge ever: Letting local officials pull the expected return on investment out of whatever orifice says what they want. Switching to the state system closes this loophole and means that if we are underpaying the pensions of new hires, at least this is public information. You can’t even start with the hard choices when the information is hidden.

    ReplyDelete
  36. MHDecember 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM

    The state certainly can dictate policy to Pittsburgh, but that happens regardless. However, the Democrats need Pittsburgh votes to win a state race and the Republicans hate the public sector unions. For this reason, it strikes me as unlikely that we'll be forced into huge service cuts without having some change to pension rules to lower liabilities for future hires. The worst case is we'll get one or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  37. BrianTHDecember 13, 2010 at 2:45 PM

    Bram is right, of course--I should have included "selling assets" on my list of things the state could simply force the City to do in order to fulfill its pension obligations.

    Switching the fund over to state management definitely has some possible advantages--far, far short of the previously-claimed "big fix" for the City's future taxpayers and stakeholders, but it could be worth considering.

    However, whether or not to allow a state takeover is largely orthogonal to whether or not to do the parking lease. I suspect you could work out a deal on a state takeover in advance (e.g., the City might ask for a delayed makeup schedule in return for a voluntary takeover), but if necessary the City could place the lease proceeds in the bank then contribute them after a state takeover.

    ReplyDelete
  38. BrianTHDecember 13, 2010 at 2:52 PM

    Incidentally, if it was true that state Democrats loved City of Pittsburgh taxpayers and state Republicans hated fire and police unions, then there would have been a "big fix" already. Of course those assumptions are both wrong (basically, both state Democrats and state Republicans care more about fire and police unions than they care about Pittsburgh taxpayers).

    So again we are into serious 'bagger/wishful-thinking territory. Somehow the same political dynamic that already led to this sorry state of affairs will turn around and fix it, as long as we just do nothing and let things get even worse.

    ReplyDelete
  39. MHDecember 13, 2010 at 2:55 PM

    Wishful thinking compared to what? Selling what is likely our only valuable asset to pay for work done in 1985?

    ReplyDelete
  40. BrianTHDecember 13, 2010 at 4:16 PM

    Again, you are arguing as if the lease deal triggers the now and future pension obligations, or conversely that refusing to do the deal will somehow void those obligations. Back in the real world, whether or not the City does the lease deal likely will have no impact on its pension obligations. That will instead require state-level reform.

    Personally, I don't have much hope of state-level pension reform in the near term. I do hope that in a few years (where few could mean a lot), as Pennsylvania continues to urbanize, the economy recovers, and so forth, it will be possible for a comprehensive solution to the legacy cost problem to arise at the state level. But in the meantime, the City has to do what it can to deal with the situation as it stands.

    All that said--as I have mentioned many times before, I'd be in favor of the lease deal whether or not the pension issue even existed. The City shouldn't be subsidizing parking, and once you accept that principle, there is no particular reason why it should own and operate parking assets either.

    So as long as it can get a reasonable price for the sale/lease of its existing parking assets--and there is every indication that this deal was well-priced--that is a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  41. MHDecember 13, 2010 at 4:23 PM

    Again, you are arguing as if the lease deal triggers the now and future pension obligations, or conversely that refusing to do the deal will somehow void those obligations.

    I am arguing that way because the city is involvent and I expect it to go bankrupt in some way or another. I think the city as a whole gets a better deal if public sector unions are forced to push for Pittsburgh instead of them being able to say, "We got ours" and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  42. BrianTHDecember 13, 2010 at 4:37 PM

    Again, the state could simply force the City to raise taxes, reduce services, and/or sell assets, thereby curing any "insolvency" problem, all on terms dictated by the state. The state could also reduce the City's pension obligations, but it could do that even if the pension was better funded.

    So I just don't understand why you think that if the City refuses to lease the parking assets, that will make it more likely that the state will reduce the pension obligations, as opposed to the state simply forcing the City to pay up.

    ReplyDelete
  43. MHDecember 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM

    The parking leasing is taking money that doesn’t really exist yet. It is what some guy who isn't even born yet will pay when he parks to watch the Pirates get mathematically eliminated from contention in the 2060 pennant race. You know, to a reasonably high level of probability that this money will exist, but it is much harder to grab. The state could force a lease or a sale, but it will be much harder. If not much harder for the state, much harder for the local elected officials to survive the next election. This lets them hide the failure by borrowing from the future. To my mind, that is only reasonable if you have some hope of actually making long term progress.

    ReplyDelete
  44. MinutemanDecember 13, 2010 at 5:12 PM

    Leasing the parking assets is a good thing because a lessee would make more money from them than the city does or ever will be able to alone - and not only from rate increases (but from advertising revenue sharing, etc.). The Authority does not currently manage the assets efficiently...they need the help. Also LAZ has talked of pumping $90m into structural upgrades. The city will never be able to do that, and some of the assets are in awful shape.

    Let a company step in and run things better, share revenue with the city, and modernize the assets themselves...and let them help us get on track with the pension fund.

    ReplyDelete
  45. BrianTHDecember 14, 2010 at 11:04 AM

    Actually, I'd say there are substantial revenue risks when you start talking 40-50 years out, and maybe less. For example, Zipcar plus Google's driverless cars could end parking as we know it long before then.

    In any event, I don't think it would be all that hard for the state to mandate a firesale of City assets, but suppose that claim is true, and all the state can do is force the City to increase taxes and cut services. Local elected officials are then thrown out of office by the pitchfork crowd--but how does this get us the fix we needed at the state level?

    More generally, scenarios in which local elected officials end up being blamed for the City having to pay for the pensions lead us away, not toward, a "big fix". Local elected officials simply have no ability to deliver a "big fix", but if they are the ones being blamed anyway, then the parties who could fix the problem--official at the state level--have no incentive to do so.

    So what else have you got? I have to say this is looking an awful lot like the underpants gnome problem:

    Step 1: Don't do lease deal.
    Step 2: ?
    Step 3: Pension problem is fixed!

    ReplyDelete
  46. MHDecember 14, 2010 at 11:26 AM

    It only looks like an underpants gnome problem if you are assuming "Do the lease deal" solves the pension problem. Which it does, if the Mayans are right about the world ending in 2012.

    Otherwise, we'll have the same pension hole and we'll have already spent the next 45 years of parking revenue on making it through to 2015. Filling a bucket only makes sense if you plug the hole in the bucket first.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Bram ReichbaumDecember 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM

    $350M from future revenue sharing plus $6M per year in additional parking taxes, anyone?

    Again, it's not structural, paradigmatic, contractual and legal change, but sure sounds like it'll keep us ahead of the tidal wave.

    ReplyDelete
  48. MHDecember 14, 2010 at 12:29 PM

    I saw that. When the ship gets capsized, I think you should stay by Ernest Borgnine and follow his lead.

    ReplyDelete
  49. BrianTHDecember 15, 2010 at 1:16 PM

    The difference is that I have never claimed the parking lease would solve the pensions problem.

    As I have frequently noted, I like the parking lease primarily for reasons that have nothing to do with the pensions problem. I'd like to see parking rates in the City get closer to market rates. I'd like to see outside capital invested in improving and updating the parking assets. The parking lease would help achieve those things.

    So if we agree that doing the parking deal OR not doing the pensions deal has nothing in particular to do with fixing the pensions problem, then fine--we an evaluate the deal on its own merits and see if it makes sense (I think it does). But you keep seeming to argue that refusing to do the pension deal will somehow lead to a fix of the pensions problem. I just don't see that, bit I'm not arguing the opposite either.

    By the way, your bucket metaphor is pretty misleading. If the bucket is fixed in the future, this water will still be available--it isn't somehow all going to leak out in the meantime. And if the bucket isn't fixed, as we discussed above, the state has the power to force the City to put its water in the bucket anyway.

    So you are again trying to sneak in the notion that if the City doesn't put this water into the bucket, it won't have to put any water in the bucket at all. In other words, you are trying to sneak in the idea that refusing to do the deal fixes the pension problem for the City, without ever having come up with a realistic scenario to support that claim.

    In other words, the water is going in the bucket whether or not the bucket is fixed, and whether or not the deal is done. The deal is just about one possible place that water could come from.

    ReplyDelete
  50. MHDecember 15, 2010 at 9:52 PM

    I may be missing a point or two, but I think I have a very clear understanding that the order in which different interests get paid or billed is very important to the political calculus, especially when you're dealing with the broke. $220 million in a dedicated account is not the same as getting to that amount over six or ten years.

    And the election after the city has pulled $60 million out of services (if that does happen) is very different than the election that happens after it cost an extra five bucks to park on Liberty. At the very least, the taxpayers shouldn't put another dime in there until there is an honest accounting of how much public services are costing.

    Let the state takeover, then see if a lease makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  51. BrianTHDecember 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM

    The unfunded pension liabilities are largely going to be paid out in the future. At issue is the schedule of payments the City will need to put into the fund prior to those liabilities being paid out. So if in the future you can cut those liabilities, any lump sum payment you put in now will still be available . . . the City will just have to put less into the fund in the future.

    As for City elections after the state forces it to raise tax and/or cut services and/or sell assets--again, assuming that is a bloodbath for the City's officials, how does that help? To cut the future pension liabilities will take state action, and all you are doing is forcing a situation in which the City's taxpayers and stakeholders will have the opportunity to lash out at City officials for something the state actually controls.

    Oh well, we are just going in circles now. The bottomline is your theory boils down to the notion that if things are made as bad as possible for the City, somehow the state just MUST fix the problem. I think you are dead wrong, and that is a terrible risk to take even if there is some slim chance you are right.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)