tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post2370609375455679238..comments2023-12-24T05:26:48.861-05:00Comments on The Pittsburgh Comet: Thursday: Squaring the CircleBram Reichbaumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05620172942925293407noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-24887844362561562672010-12-20T10:25:44.681-05:002010-12-20T10:25:44.681-05:00I'll just say I am glad I took a break from th...I'll just say I am glad I took a break from the back-and-forth in this thread, because it got a lot more entertaining without me.BrianTHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-32928784248098763572010-12-18T14:16:23.385-05:002010-12-18T14:16:23.385-05:00Matt Damon.Matt Damon.Matt Damonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-62265852573366058502010-12-18T12:28:11.507-05:002010-12-18T12:28:11.507-05:00Idk, I think the bad guys vs. good guys thing is j...Idk, I think the bad guys vs. good guys thing is just good political messaging. I don't think you should begrudge someone for playing smart politics. Here is what i don't get, if there is state takeover, and after state take over, the city finds away to inject a major cash infusion into the pension fund (lets say PMRS oks the original lease deal, or momentum for such a deal builds, there are 5 years until a significant jump in PMRS contributions are required, if i remember right) why is that worse than doing the lease deal now, besides the fact that the money can grow by market rates. I just dont see how a >50% under PMRS is a worse option than a >50% not under PMRS, or under voluntary PMRS supervision.gradstudent1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-39753244293855570492010-12-18T11:27:37.465-05:002010-12-18T11:27:37.465-05:00William, your breath reeks of cigars.William, your breath reeks of cigars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-69229769908567626162010-12-18T08:50:34.859-05:002010-12-18T08:50:34.859-05:00Guys, guys, you just don't get it. Bram is a ...Guys, guys, you just don't get it. Bram is a bad guy. And Luke is a bad guy. And Lazowski is a bad guy. We've got to listen to the good guys. Because they're protecting us from the bad guys. It's as simple as that: white hats, John Wayne, apple pie (organic, of course), versus mean old men in repp ties chomping cigars with a boot on the face of the people. Forever. <br /><br />To see more about the good guys philosophy, see our official statement, here:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chp2u2ln8_EWilliam the Goodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-35987900376224162752010-12-17T23:05:57.970-05:002010-12-17T23:05:57.970-05:00Whoa, Rex -- I can't cosign the notion that Co...Whoa, Rex -- I can't cosign the notion that Corbett's fixing to snatch Frick Park and frack it. Yes our water infrastructure might be on the table, but man. Serious points for creativity.Bram Reichbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05620172942925293407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-50511504894446753262010-12-17T22:52:22.818-05:002010-12-17T22:52:22.818-05:00BrianTH is correct -- we need to utilize our parki...<i>BrianTH is correct -- we need to utilize our parking assets in a manner which generates the most cash</i><br /><br />As long as the keep the 61c half-assed running, I agree with that.MHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-77622439280057787352010-12-17T22:50:42.163-05:002010-12-17T22:50:42.163-05:00the PENNSYLVANIA state legislature
Only in compar...<i>the PENNSYLVANIA state legislature</i><br /><br />Only in comparison. Unless they actual do make it easier or cheaper to buy liquor.<br /><br /><i>"Drive home the suck and let it wash over the electorate", was likely to work, Act 47 would have accomplished it... </i><br /><br />It was hardly a cure all, but the Act 47 suck did drive out Murphy. Didn't help much in the end, but life happens outside of voting. It also drove out Udin. The replacement didn't exactly help good government, but she made the newspaper more interesting for a while.MHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-42810916005143704442010-12-17T22:41:31.091-05:002010-12-17T22:41:31.091-05:00"don't you imagine that Corbett, Smith &a..."don't you imagine that Corbett, Smith & Scarnatti have their own informal network of lawyers and financiers lusting after the opportunity to "transact" Pittsburgh's assets?"<br /><br />Bram - <br /><br />I'm convinced that if the state moves to solve this problem for us it will involve the subjugation or disposal of our assets, but if we examine your statement, my concerns shift from park-ing to park-s.<br /><br />Riverview Park straddles Woods Run, Schenley Park straddles Four Mile Run, Frick Park straddles Nine Mile Run and Highland Park straddles Heths Run.<br /><br />Hundreds of acres of land with ready access to wastewater removal devices (sewage pipes), and the Governor-elect's network seems to include, instead of financiers seeking to extract profits from our assets, to extract the natural resources that lie beneath them. Didn't the Governor-elect's transition team announce that the state's next economic development czar was a "coal baron" and didn't that same Governor-elect pledge to make the state more accessible to natural gas extractors?<br /><br />Were I of that mind, I might be more likely to sell the City's parks and perhaps the wastewater authority that drains not only the City but the wastewater of 82 other municipalities in Allegheny County than some run-down parking lots and some outdated meters.<br /><br />Since it is exceeding likely that the Legislature will likely pre-empt all municipal safeguards to shale gas extraction, why not couple that with the water resources necessary both to facilitate extraction and subsequent disposal of the wastewater?<br /><br />And since you mentioned America's largest, most expensive full-time state legislature, didn't I read somewhere that a grand jury described it as utterly incapable of change, evolution, growth or reform? Not trying to echo those sentiments, as I disagree but if we're waiting on an organization with $5 billion in debt of its own and 11.7 million other residents to think of who just kicked billions upon billions of its' own pension obligations 15 years down the road, why would anyone take from that series of actions that the Legislature has any plans on addressing the situation anytime soon?<br /><br />BrianTH is correct -- we need to utilize our parking assets in a manner which generates the most cash, both now and in the years to come in a way that best resembles sound policy and solves as many problems as is possible.Rexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-72414962996330165032010-12-17T20:32:55.496-05:002010-12-17T20:32:55.496-05:00Wow, so much to enjoy.
MH wrote, "Letting th...Wow, so much to enjoy.<br /><br />MH wrote, "<i>Letting the state takeover is Step 1 of a plan. Step 2 is letting the "Our officials suck so hard the state had to take the wheel" wave wash over the electorate. Step 3 is planning a fix with real numbers.</i>"<br /><br />I know history gives us little reason to feel wildly optimistic about Pittsburgh's leadership (though I do think its slowly coming along), but are you really suggesting the state legislature -- the <i>PENNSYLVANIA</i> state legislature -- is likely to be superior? Who do you think teaches us how to dispose of bodies? I can understand believing PMRS's fund management to be more professional in as much as that matters on its own, but in terms of crafting structural solutions and exposing malfeasance, I seem to recall reading something somewhere about PA government that leads me to believe that isn't going to work.<br /><br />If your step 2, "Drive home the suck and let it wash over the electorate", was likely to work, Act 47 would have accomplished it by now because that was pretty embarrassing. Of course we could try ceding more control over to the state, and then "consolidate" (dissolve) into Allegheny County, opting for no self-governance to speak of. THAT will motivate reform.<br /><br />Alright, enough unnecessary sarcasm. But I'll leave you with this -- don't you imagine that Corbett, Smith & Scarnatti have their own informal network of lawyers and financiers lusting after the opportunity to "transact" Pittsburgh's assets? Do you think they will have to worry about endlessly negotiating rates, operations and durations with verkakta city councilors and community groups?Bram Reichbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05620172942925293407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-52523350125753513362010-12-17T19:35:25.459-05:002010-12-17T19:35:25.459-05:00That's probably a better analogy because UPMC ...That's probably a better analogy because UPMC makes more money from that type of stuff than a they do from a stabbing and UPMC making money is a given.MHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-70954604608800044332010-12-17T17:45:36.183-05:002010-12-17T17:45:36.183-05:00BrianTH:
LOL, first of all.....
I actually appre...BrianTH:<br /><br />LOL, first of all.....<br /><br />I actually appreciated your knife-wielder analogy, even though the knife-wielder (the Legislature) would probably say the following:<br /><br />1. We gave you a 14-month moratorium in the pending stabbing incident just so you would figure out a way to avoid strolling your dumb-asses down "Jack-the-Ripper Way" after midnight on January 1, 2011.<br /><br />2. We (the Republicans in the state Senate who are diametrically opposed to raising taxes for any reason) gave Pittsburgh the authority to increase the very parking tax we previously forced (at the threat of a drive-by shooting) it to lower BOTH as an incentive to EITHER sell OR lease the parking assets AND to prevent the City from finding itself ON "Jack-the-Ripper Way" at 12:01 AM on 1 January 2011 WHILE providing yet more revenue to deal with that ridiculously underfunded pension the City keeps crying about AND that we won't tolerate any longer because, well, we the State have our own mega-billion dollar problems to resolve which will require the wholesale liquidation (not leasing) of OUR assets to diminish...<br /><br />3. Some of us here in Harrisburg actually won bets on whether you idiots in Pittsburgh could actually fix this before the stroke of midnight and made out like bandits, because, we knew that shit wouldn't happen and of course, this shit would fall back in our laps come 2011, which is of course, okay, because we, the Republican-in-its-entirety-controlled-State government have vast experience in reigning in belligerent Democrat-controlled urban municipalities and we have zero intention of letting a bunch of Democrats sink a pension system, responsible for the pensions of 901 other municipalities which would actually require us to write a check, so of course, we'll handle this, but you absolutely won't like it.<br /><br />4. But, if you idiots think we care MORE about YOUR problems than we do about not IMMEDIATELY breaking the promise to the state's electorate NOT to raise taxes to solve any problem the state's drug problem must be worse than even WE thought because that crack YOU'RE smoking must be the BOMB!!!!!!<br /><br />Hell, we have two OTHER pensions (not PMRS, which was fine except for having to adopt YOU) that are billions of dollars underfunded and we just kicked THAT can 15 years down the road, so that should be a CLEAR indication of our interest in pension reform for ANYONE.<br /><br />Having said that, the analogy I think may be more appropriate for Pittsburgh is having one toe on your foot inflicted with gangreen, and the doctor telling you, "If I don't take this toe, sooner or later, much sooner I think, we'll have to take the whole foot, calf, thigh, you get it, I'll eventually have to amputate to the pelvic bone" and the patient saying, "that's okay, doctor, I'll just wait"Rexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-79709019037730119792010-12-17T17:44:10.611-05:002010-12-17T17:44:10.611-05:00I think I mention personalities far less than any ...I think I mention personalities far less than any frequent commentator on Pittsburgh politics. Also, with rare exceptions, I've rarely gone for ad hominem insults like teabaggery, you nut-licking goat.MHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-21762156691301665742010-12-17T17:15:39.382-05:002010-12-17T17:15:39.382-05:00Step 2 is letting the "Our officials suck so ...<i>Step 2 is letting the "Our officials suck so hard the state had to take the wheel" wave wash over the electorate. Step 3 is planning a fix with real numbers.</i><br /><br />And this is precisely what makes no sense.<br /><br />Any fix has to come from the state. So translating a bit, you have:<br /><br />Step 2: The City's stakeholders suffer and punish local office holders at the next election.<br /><br />Step 3: The state decides to fix problem.<br /><br />The precise problem with your logic is that Step 2 doesn't lead to Step 3. If anything, it leads away from Step 3, because local officials, and not state officials, are being blamed for everything in Step 2, so why should state officials do anything to help?<br /><br /><i>You don't explain why you expect that the state wouldn't "stab" us more if we do the lease.</i><br /><br />Why would they do that?<br /><br />My consistent point is that the state's actions with respect to pension reform have nothing to do with the lease. Refusing to do the lease won't force them to enact pension reform, and I see no reason to believe doing the lease would stop them from enacting pension reform, or push them to make the pension laws worse for Pittsburgh.<br /><br />That is because pension reform isn't a Pittsburgh issue alone--it is a statewide issue. And as far as how Pittsburgh organizes its internal finances is concerned, I see no reason to believe the state particularly cares.<br /><br />So we should do the lease if it is a good idea, not because it is part of some masterful political gambit at the state level. There is no such gambit available, at least not judging from the options people have come up with.<br /><br /><i>Who tries that hard to keep the closet door shut if there isn't a corpse among the sweaters?</i><br /><br />That is typical teabaggery. Who cares about silly numbers, policy arguments, and such? Let's talk about personalities! Let's talk about conspiracies! Good guys versus bad guys is all you need to know!<br /><br />Sheesh. Trivializing issues like that is how politicians can get away with avoiding hard choices.BrianTHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-30564897788255099542010-12-17T16:23:35.382-05:002010-12-17T16:23:35.382-05:00Again, that claim would make a lot more sense if y...<i>Again, that claim would make a lot more sense if you had any sort of real plan for achieving that.</i><br /><br />Letting the state takeover is Step 1 of a plan. Step 2 is letting the "Our officials suck so hard the state had to take the wheel" wave wash over the electorate. Step 3 is planning a fix with real numbers. <br /><br /><i>Instead, you are just offering them up to the knife-wielding maniac, promising that the worse they get stabbed, the more likely it is their attacker will show mercy.</i><br />You've been going on about that for quite some time. You don't explain why you expect that the state wouldn't "stab" us more if we do the lease. If they really are out to get us that badly, they could just say that pension funds have to be 65% funded or be taken over. They could take the $60 (or whatever) emergency services fee. They could arm McKeesport with a Letter of Marque and a fleet of tow trucks with cannon. <br /><br />Also, the harder people push against the state take over (say, filing lawsuits or shouting about deadlines that are always urgent yet always re-set when they get past), the more I want the state to takeover. Who tries that hard to keep the closet door shut if there isn't a corpse among the sweaters?MHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-53594730874838311252010-12-17T16:08:24.433-05:002010-12-17T16:08:24.433-05:00I make sure they have dropped the knife before I w...<i>I make sure they have dropped the knife before I worry about the bleeding.</i><br /><br />Again, that claim would make a lot more sense if you had any sort of real plan for achieving that.<br /><br />To adopt your metaphor, the person holding the knife is the state, and your plan is to actively help the state stab you harder and more often, in the hope that the sheer absurd inhumanity of it all finally gets them to stop stabbing.<br /><br /><i>this issue clearly pits taxpayers against tax-getters</i><br /><br />Balderdash. Again, that might be true if you were somehow offering a way out to taxpayers. Instead, you are just offering them up to the knife-wielding maniac, promising that the worse they get stabbed, the more likely it is their attacker will show mercy.<br /><br /><i>I thought the City was "leasing", not "selling" the assets. I think Council's majority has gotten away with this argument by framing this as a "sale" and not "we're keeping ownership of the asset, but 'letting' someone else use the asset and paying us for it."</i><br /><br />Fair point. On the other hand, some critics also claim the lease is just like a debt issue, which is incorrect because in a debt issue the City retains the revenue risk.BrianTHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-84796016608502812882010-12-17T14:40:25.103-05:002010-12-17T14:40:25.103-05:00The problem with Brian's analogy, aside from t...The problem with Brian's analogy, aside from the fact analogies are usually pointless, is that he's arguing for "Pittsburgh" as a whole and thus ignoring the various groups, unions, individuals, potholes, and, crumbling bridges that make-up the city. People studying political and economic organizations often have to make such an assumption to render a topic compressible. But in this situation, that tactic hides far more than it illuminates because this issue clearly pits taxpayers against tax-getters (and will, before it is over, likely split public sector retirees and current/future public sector workers). Tax-getters have their own financial security as a first priority (understandably). Those who pay taxes, equally understandably, want to know what the bill is going to come to before they pay it. And, they realize they have no leverage to get such an accounting if the crisis is buried for another five years or so.MHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-77080408109012694502010-12-17T14:36:17.585-05:002010-12-17T14:36:17.585-05:00BrianTH:
I thought the City was "leasing&quo...BrianTH:<br /><br />I thought the City was "leasing", not "selling" the assets. I think Council's majority has gotten away with this argument by framing this as a "sale" and not "we're keeping ownership of the asset, but 'letting' someone else use the asset and paying us for it."<br /><br />LOLRexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-60089305037438487842010-12-17T14:20:19.855-05:002010-12-17T14:20:19.855-05:00MH:
I don't think BrianTH necessarily disagre...MH:<br /><br />I don't think BrianTH necessarily disagrees with you but I do think he is saying that in an emergency situation, the rules of triage apply:<br /><br />1. By all means, STOP the bleeding; <br /><br />2. Figure out what the hell went wrong and fix it; <br /><br />3. Make better choices.<br /><br />But numbers 2 & 3 won't really matter much if you exsanguinate first.Rexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-26777190877365693972010-12-17T14:16:41.700-05:002010-12-17T14:16:41.700-05:00In other words, you cut yourself seriously with a ...<i>In other words, you cut yourself seriously with a knife and are bleeding. Do you:</i><br /><br />I didn't cut myself. Somebody cut me. I make sure they have dropped the knife before I worry about the bleeding.MHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-49356552278895079012010-12-17T13:56:44.548-05:002010-12-17T13:56:44.548-05:00More to the point of why I want to make sure nobod...<i>More to the point of why I want to make sure nobody can make a hole this big before we figure how to fill the current hole.</i><br /><br />It would be nice if you had more of a plan to that effect than "let's make this problem as bad as possible for the City and hope that forces the state to take mercy upon us!"<br /><br />In other words, you cut yourself seriously with a knife and are bleeding. Do you:<br /><br />(A) Bandage yourself with the nearby clean towel to slow the bleeding;<br /><br />(B) Refuse to bandage yourself until someone notices and sends you an ambulance; or<br /><br />(C) Refuse to bandage yourself and also use your knife to open up a major artery, on the theory that more blood will attract more attention.<br /><br />But hey--as you bleed out waiting for an ambulance that may never come, at least you'll have the comfort of knowing you still have your nice clean towel!BrianTHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-39480882325603385832010-12-17T13:27:47.312-05:002010-12-17T13:27:47.312-05:00What's so wrong with LAZ paying for needed str...What's so wrong with LAZ paying for needed structural improvements? They aren't getting done otherwise.<br /><br />Under the proposed revenue-sharing agreement, the more LAZ makes, the more the City makes and can put towards the Fund. <br /><br />No wonder Harris is against this, it will shift dollars away from her personal block improvement program and towards the Pension Fund deficit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-24272368642881832672010-12-17T12:37:23.956-05:002010-12-17T12:37:23.956-05:00No matter how you look at this it doesn't get ...<i>No matter how you look at this it doesn't get pretty when we go down this road.</i><br /><br />More to the point of why I want to make sure nobody can make a hole this big before we figure how to fill the current hole.MHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-45211146260100226112010-12-17T09:09:27.329-05:002010-12-17T09:09:27.329-05:00MH:
There's no need to gamble on what your 20...MH:<br /><br />There's no need to gamble on what your 2015 property taxes will be, I can tell you.<br /><br />Fresh for 2012, you will be taxed based on the first new assessment in a decade. The average property owner will find the new assessed value at or around DOUBLE the 2001 assessment, minus 25%.<br /><br />Of course, the City is barred by state law from benefitting by more than 5% from a reassessment, so after $7 million or so in new real estate tax revenue, the City will of course have to reduce the 10.8 millage rate.<br /><br />To come up with the $60 extra million for PMRS, we will have to increase the new millage rate by 40% to get there. There is always this talk about wage taxes, but they are unreliable, as suburban municipalities can always raise theirs to capture it and the Legislature swapped our wage taxes with the school district's in 2004 the last time they bailed out the City.<br /><br />Of course, the state might have mercy on us, sell our parking assets FOR us, and then taxes would only have to be increased 25% to cover the then $30 million shortfall to PMRS.<br /><br />No matter how you look at this it doesn't get pretty when we go down this road.<br /><br />But these are the discussions we have to start having because it is the will of a majority of Council that we begin these discussions in earnest.Rexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-14109160553004897802010-12-17T07:24:25.095-05:002010-12-17T07:24:25.095-05:00Yes, when people are willing to pay money to buy s...Yes, when people are willing to pay money to buy something, that generally means that they see some value in that thing. That doesn't mean every transaction is a bad deal for the seller--if it wasn't possible for transactions to benefit both buyers and sellers, we'd all still be living in caves, jealously guarding our collection of pointy sticks.<br /><br />So, for example, if you find yourself in the possession of an asset and it turns out that in order to maximize its value you would need to invest a lot of new capital in that asset and then operate it with a lot of expertise, and you have neither the capital nor the expertise, it very likely makes financial sense to sell that asset to someone with that capital and expertise. This is particularly true if by doing so you can offload some diversifiable risk. Of course you can then use the proceeds in some financially beneficial way, say by cancelling some liabilities, investing in other assets, and so on. Again, it shouldn't be surprising that sometimes it makes sense for an entity to sell an asset in order to cancel liabilities or buy other assets--entities do this all the time to their financial benefit. <br /><br />So the question in such a case is not whether the buyer will benefit. The question is rather whether the seller is getting a fair price or better for the asset. To achieve that end, you might carefully construct a multi-round auction to maximize the price paid. You might also commission an independent valuation of the thing being sold. And so forth.<br /><br />So can we stop pretending this is about what makes financial sense? Because in truth that issue was settled long ago, in favor of the deal, but apparently that wasn't the issue after all.BrianTHnoreply@blogger.com