tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post3472444789032501657..comments2023-12-24T05:26:48.861-05:00Comments on The Pittsburgh Comet: A Play On Words.Bram Reichbaumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05620172942925293407noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-12975226506072693452013-05-03T14:20:20.151-04:002013-05-03T14:20:20.151-04:00We do not wish to take that risk engendered in you...We do not wish to take that risk engendered in your last sentence, Anonymous 9:17!flybylighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18435937236829741806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-36244920485530545912013-05-03T09:17:47.527-04:002013-05-03T09:17:47.527-04:00Fly - can't agree with your assessment of Bill...Fly - can't agree with your assessment of Bill Peduto. I have had many dealings with council and he, while always polite, was one of the most self-centered persons on council that I have ever run into.<br /><br />Agree with you whole heartily on cleaning out the political hacks in the mayor's office. First cleaning should not be McKrell, it should be Zober.<br /><br />And I do share your concerns about Ferlo supporting Wagner. I think that Wagner has the maturity to not be unduly influenced by people like Ferlo. <br /><br />The first tell on this will be if he gets rid of Zober, McKrell and Mazefsky. If he does not get rid of these three, you and the rest of the folks supporting Bill Peduto will be proven right. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-54842550217691347512013-05-02T22:37:30.324-04:002013-05-02T22:37:30.324-04:00On the contrary, I have not met another councilper...On the contrary, I have not met another councilperson nor another candidate with more open ears, with such a delight in new ideas, with such enthusiasm for taking best practices to new levels than Bill Peduto.<br /><br />We can eliminate the days when "streets don't get plowed because of the Councilperson" as was in the Post-Gazette letters to the editor today. What baloney! The Councilperson does not have a plow, and the Mayor should not be assigning street plowing by which Councilperson he feels plays whatever game right.<br /><br />We can eliminate all the subterfuge, all the favoritism, all the cronyism that currently exists. There is a reason all those currently with power conveyed by Ravenstahl are sidling up to Wagner: they want to keep their power and influence.<br /><br />Whoever is the next Mayor, I hope he does fire the selfish power-mongers in the Mayor's Office now, he can start with McKrell. Why would that be a bad thing?<br /><br />Meanwhile, and to your allusions, I have not ever seen Bill Peduto vote against something because of hating a Councilperson. I have not seen him or his staff unwilling to discuss any legislation - in fact his door is always open, through the years his staff has discussed most issues eagerly. Improvement or change has always been an option to Peduto.<br /><br />Anonymous 8:18, you have no basis at all for what you say. You should apply it directly to the current Mayor and leave it there.flybylighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18435937236829741806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-11258522963147204592013-05-02T22:24:41.334-04:002013-05-02T22:24:41.334-04:00A DV policy covering every City employee was enact...A DV policy covering every City employee <b>was</b> enacted a few years ago. It even came with a board of oversight.<br /><br />It's all already there! But note that police must be held to a higher standard, because (a) they are the ones responding to DV calls and the public must trust them, and (b) when they are committing DV they have the ability to stalk better, to hide from the law better, to avoid arrest better, etc. And that puts the victims at greater risk and it puts our City at greater risk, too.<br /><br />Loosening the Police DV policy is not an option. In a state that the Solicitor's office <b>says</b> permits municipalities to hold police to a higher standard, why is that an issue? <br /><br />The arbitrators, of course, must be "approved" by the Fraternal Order of Police, though. <br /><br />I truly do not know what the arbitrator thought was missing, but the solicitor's office should have stricken that idea down right from the start. The City cannot afford anything less than zero tolerance for police committing DV.flybylighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18435937236829741806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-6358051837484093292013-05-02T20:18:27.846-04:002013-05-02T20:18:27.846-04:00the reality is that Bill votes against projects no...the reality is that Bill votes against projects not because he hates any group of people, he votes against projects because he hates the council person supporting the project. bill is the absolute worst at the very things he accuses others of doing. Just wait, if he wins there will be a witch hunt to seek and destroy anyone who supposed Luke or Jack or anyone else bill doesn't like. He will oppose your project, your bill, your supporters and everyone else just to prove a point and "get back" at people. He has no interest in mind except his own. I can guarantee he will fill jobs and boards with supporters and try and crush everyone else. If you support Bill and have even one fleeting moment of belief that such actions are justified, then you get what you deserve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-48190667663758655402013-05-02T13:50:02.607-04:002013-05-02T13:50:02.607-04:00Ken,
http://www.pghcitypaper.com/Blogh/archives/...Ken, <br /><br />http://www.pghcitypaper.com/Blogh/archives/2013/05/02/peduto-backers-denounce-swiftboat-ad-but-dont-contest-key-premiseShawn Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02199246577083781115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-49108226644626967212013-05-02T13:48:18.218-04:002013-05-02T13:48:18.218-04:00Actually, the Citywide Stimulus Bill DID pass. An...Actually, the Citywide Stimulus Bill DID pass. And was later extended from 2014 to 2017.<br /><br />So the true economic impacts (or cost to the taxpayers to the benefit of developers) of the tax break we won't know until 2020.Shawn Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02199246577083781115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-65824965129974639372013-05-02T12:09:08.144-04:002013-05-02T12:09:08.144-04:00Fly --- what do you have against expanding the DV ...Fly --- what do you have against expanding the DV policy to every City employee?<br /><br />If the arbitrators are saying they can't support it because it does not apply to all employees --- solve the problem by applying to all. You thereby take the arbitrators' argument away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-65704883744747007362013-05-02T10:07:20.435-04:002013-05-02T10:07:20.435-04:00Shawn, you are overstating the problem, understati...Shawn, you are overstating the problem, understating the failure of the city lawyers to defend the case, and you are forgetting that the arbitrators are ones approved by the FOP.<br /><br />The Deputy Solicitor said - on tv in council - that Pennsylvania permits holding police officers to a higher standard. So maybe (and I mean <i>maybe</i>) our law holds the officers to a higher standard than other employees. The lawyer defending the case says, "Gee, Mr. Arbitrator, the Commonwealth permits us to hold police to a higher standard, as they are the ones responding to the calls when citizens and especially their own are committing domestic violence."<br /><br />Their inability to defend the case was only half the excuse that the Solicitor's Office put forth. The other half was something that is a given - that women do not want to testify. <br /><br />Changing the law will not change that women do not testify. But weakening the law will not make the women any safer. The goal is not to weaken the law, and allow the women to stay in the abusive situation. That leaves the women and our City at risk. The goal is to either deter the perpetrating officer from abusing his /her family and friends, or provide secure redress from superior officers for the victim.<br /><br />Not legislating the policy means that the Chief of Police could have changed it the next day. Mandating that the policy stay in force and be worded as it is was fully intentional and is not up for question. <br /><br />The Chief of Police is under all sorts of influences (don't we know?), and so one day should the FOP say it wants the policy gone, were it not legislated it could then be gone.<br /><br />Your taking that supercilious attitude - which matches what your boss did in the Council meeting yesterday - is offensive. <br /><br />I know only too well how and why things work in government, and I have committed a goodly portion of my life to changing them. flybylighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18435937236829741806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-53146913391158221612013-05-02T07:32:25.591-04:002013-05-02T07:32:25.591-04:00Bram, I suggest you and Shawn get a room.Bram, I suggest you and Shawn get a room.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-89275840997878539572013-05-01T16:31:00.902-04:002013-05-01T16:31:00.902-04:00flybylight -
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...flybylight - <br /><br />http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/politics-local/debate-over-changes-in-police-response-to-domestic-violence-sours-in-pittsburgh-city-council-685776/<br /><br />You need to learn how and why things work in government if you're going to continue to question my statements.<br /><br />The legislation that brought you such acclaim ACTUALLY forces us to KEEP the offending police officers ON THE PAYROLL.<br /><br />They screw up. We fire them. Arbitrator or judge forces us to give them their job back.<br /><br />Why? Because the Ordinance only applies to police officers and not the rest of the City's workforce.<br /><br />And, as usual, the so-called progressives go nuts whenever anyone has the temerity to tell them they're wrong or that they made a mistake, even with the best of intentions.<br /><br />Gotta work on that.Shawn Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02199246577083781115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-86060639450488892982013-05-01T14:48:14.759-04:002013-05-01T14:48:14.759-04:00Shawn, anyone reading what you have just written a...Shawn, anyone reading what you have just written above can clearly see what I am writing about.<br /><br />Numerous times, as Chief of Staff to the Council President, I urged you to send a representative to ACCBO meetings. Your office did not ever once send a representative to any ACCBO meeting during that time.<br /><br />Yet your boss felt it important for you to horn in on a small working group meeting to which you were not invited, and you proceeded to dominate it, wasting all our time for no good reason.<br /><br />That domination was you, not your boss. You may not hide under his hems, so to speak.<br /><br />What I am speaking about here is an attitude. The way you write above - "I told you so" and "I warned you" and "I admonished you" - shows your tone in general.<br /><br />We were colleagues on Council staff. It was not yours to do any warning or admonishing, even if you were privy to the secret gyrations the Mayor was planning to subterfuge the entire North Side. It would have behooved you to be open and honest with all your colleagues and come to the table in our meeting room and discuss the matter, before it became an issue, and before the Members had to deal with it. <br /><br />Council still does not work that way, sadly, and your office then (and maybe still) was always one of those that was most closed to discussion, or absent from the hallway. And frankly, your boss is rather demeaning to staff members, in that he won't speak with us - he commands us not to speak directly with him, even when we are there to get his signature on a noncontroversial piece of paper.<br /><br />Furthermore, the behavior of the Mayor's office and your office during that ACCBO debacle was something I got to experience firsthand. Therefore, I may speak freely about it. There is no hearsay, no allusion. I could mention other incidents, but with these I need go no further than myself.<br /><br />And the punishing that Bram speaks about at 12:48 is exactly to the point.<br /><br />Today your boss tried to dunk in an amendment to delete the Police/Domestic Violence legislation that was passed in 2007. We were acclaimed across the country for that legislation! Now subsequent to a hold on the bills there will be a meeting of the "working group" - which apparently was convened by either the Mayor or your boss, and from which many of us who worked on the original bill have been excluded - to discuss the further amending to emasculate the legislation.<br /><br />Will this working group be a "public meeting"? All Council offices are invited, so it must be a public meeting, by your definition. <br /><br />Therefore, we women may be testing your true colors in the near future... because this is an issue - Police and Domestic Violence - on which there is only one correct side in our view: Police may not commit DV, the City will not tolerate police who commit DV, the response will be swift and sure and top-down, and the City therefore will not incur liability of lawsuits such as the one Tacoma, Washington, endured.<br /><br />Your and your boss' attitudes can be so divisive. And it would be so easy to be inclusive instead. Let me cite as an example the way we discussed the original Police/DV legislation: all sides of the issue to the table, anyone who wished to join was welcome. We brought in national experts on the topic. (Remember Dave Thomas of Johns Hopkins?) And we hammered out something designed to protect everyone.<br /><br />Read your post above again. Very divisive. Unnecessarily so.flybylighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18435937236829741806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-22749704401677860242013-05-01T14:08:16.182-04:002013-05-01T14:08:16.182-04:00BTW Shawn, the 14th Ward is comin' a' gitc...BTW Shawn, the 14th Ward is comin' a' gitch ya. Word!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-77193383418109612472013-05-01T14:06:03.103-04:002013-05-01T14:06:03.103-04:00Yes, his musings would be easier to avoid that way...Yes, his musings would be easier to avoid that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-80719811129584739302013-05-01T12:48:20.762-04:002013-05-01T12:48:20.762-04:00Shawn, I don't have an issue with your charact...Shawn, I don't have an issue with your characterization of the ACCBO episode here. But I'm more interested the decision the Mayor made to suspend (as is his right!) the practice of using the recommendations of the ACCBO board to distribute these funds, which had been going along smoothly and easing conflict for some time, chiefly in order to punish Darlene Harris (and her constituents) for having sided with Bill Peduto for a couple of years, on things like billboards and the parking lease, and for her letting Peduto be Finance Chair.<br /><br />I trust Shawn you're cool with how the post turned out? Considering the cluster of liberties you took involving unscheduled publishing and language? I do hate to tread between your authorship, really I do, but you invited the resolution. I feel the Comet has again provided the infotainment and discourse we thirst after...Bram Reichbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05620172942925293407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-61511856968589031412013-05-01T11:09:27.633-04:002013-05-01T11:09:27.633-04:00flybylight:
You seem determined to repeatedly inv...flybylight:<br /><br />You seem determined to repeatedly invoke the ACCBO debacle of 2011.<br /><br />I specifically told you at that time that despite the fact that you were right that your position on that issue would ultimately fall victim to the Mayor's veto pen, from which there were an insufficient number of votes to override.<br /><br />I also remember strongly urging you to not pursue that route because I already knew that the bill would pass 5-4, and then be vetoed.<br /><br />I also told you that I told Paul McKrell that what he said to you in that meeting was wrong and disrespectful.<br /><br />As for why I showed up at that meeting, the one that I was "not invited" to, I was instructed to, by my employer to serve as his agent.<br /><br />The reason your motion to remove me from the meeting couldn't get a second should have been obvious: The majority of the people in that room either worked for the Mayor, or other Council offices.<br /><br />Even had the motion been seconded, I had more votes on my side than you did.<br /><br />It's all mechanics.<br /><br />After that debacle went down PRECISELY as I said it would, then there was the Billboard Legislation.<br /><br />The one Doug Shields had to fix so that it was legal and defensible. And he did the right thing, even if I disagreed with HIM at the time, the Commonwealth Court, just yesterday, vindicated his work on that legislation.<br /><br />I don't take things out of context, but more likely I remember them better than you might.Shawn Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02199246577083781115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-68887350740511902982013-05-01T10:20:46.212-04:002013-05-01T10:20:46.212-04:00flybylight...
This is exactly what I'm talkin...flybylight...<br /><br />This is exactly what I'm talking about. The bill YOU refer to is PREVAILING WAGE.<br /><br />Nice try using the term "Living Wage" to describe "Prevailing Wage"<br /><br />No one voted against the Prevailing Wage legislation in 2009 or 2010.<br /><br />You might try re-reading the Peduto Campaign's press release in response to the ad they complain of.<br /><br />City Council, in 2001, passed a Living Wage Ordinance. It was set to go into effect in April 2002. <br /><br />Try this bill number:<br /><br />#2002-0287 <br /><br />This legislation STOPPED the Living Wage Ordinance from going into effect.<br /><br />It was introduced March 19, 2002. Council waived the rules so that it would go on the agenda the NEXT day. It received an affirmative recommendation and passed, Tuesday, April 26, with a 5-4 vote.<br /><br />And, yes, Councilman Bill Peduto was the FIFTH vote.<br /><br />I'm really the wrong guy to play Legistar with...<br /><br />But, since you want to go there...<br /><br />Go ask Councilman Peduto what part of what I just said is untrue.Shawn Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02199246577083781115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-55099694105086557572013-05-01T10:20:30.850-04:002013-05-01T10:20:30.850-04:00See Ken at 7:58 yesterday. He seems to bring some...See Ken at 7:58 yesterday. He seems to bring some common sense into the discussion.<br /><br />"Untrue" is not a word I used.<br /><br />You and your boss often take things out of context, and annoyingly present them as "fact." Life really is not a court of law in which you get to be the prosecutor and try to trip people up, with or without merit. <br /><br />Let me use my personal example, in the possibly vain belief that I am not the only target ever.<br /><br />You went uninvited to a meeting of a small special committee formed to draft a letter, the only task with which we'd been tasked, at the only time we could carve out among us. You imposed yourself into a conversation of your own device not pertinent to that letter, and proceeded to inquisition the members of that committee. We entertained you for 45 minutes, at which time I made a motion that we excuse you and get on with the letter writing. No one was brave enough to second the motion, and you stayed and further distracted us, typing notes into your phone, apparently so that you would have quotes to use later. <br /><br />Later, in a Council meeting, <b>Councilman Burgess accused Council President Harris' staff (me) of trying to get his staff thrown out of a meeting</b>. He impugned other Councilpersons and their staffs in the same breath, if I recall correctly, for political purpose. I am certain we could look up the meeting, it was probably around October or November 2011. If that is not "out of context," I don't know what is!<br /><br />I suggest that folks watch the Council meetings, and draw their own conclusions. I have posted a couple links; the others are easy enough to find.flybylighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18435937236829741806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-39251968392305566162013-05-01T10:01:19.587-04:002013-05-01T10:01:19.587-04:00The Living Wage bill is 2010-0005. It was in comm...The Living Wage bill is 2010-0005. It was in committee being discussed on January 20, 2010, in the Finance & Law Committee; the video is <a href="http://pittsburgh.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=30" rel="nofollow">here</a>. After discussion, the bill was held for a public hearing, Monday, January 25th. <br /><br />It returned to Committee after the hearing for discussion on January 27th, video posted <a href="http://pittsburgh.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=49" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Jump to about 41 minutes in. (Clicking on the bill outline will jump you there, too.) Council debated amendments being presented by Councilwoman Rudiak.<br /><br />At around 43 minutes in, Councilman Burgess put a chip on his shoulder.<br /><br /><b>This meeting is well worth watching. It is very informative on all the Councilpersons.</b><br /><br />The bill was ultimately “Affirmatively Recommended as Amended,” at 1:48:07 That means that it passed out of committee with a positive recommendation. (Each Councilperson chairs a committee, and all Councilpersons sit on all committees, so they have the committee meetings all at one sitting.)<br /><br />The bill came back to the Regular Council Meeting on February 2, 2010, and the “Matter was Passed Finally on the Consent Agenda.” For some reason the video of that meeting is not watchable on line.<br />flybylighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18435937236829741806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-49066898155847304932013-05-01T09:19:20.959-04:002013-05-01T09:19:20.959-04:00Alright, flybylight, let's get into this...
I...Alright, flybylight, let's get into this...<br /><br />I've taken nothing "out of context."<br /><br />Every single comment I made in response to the press release I read online is accurate, if uncomfortable to say or uncomfortable to read.<br /><br />Just tell me which part of what I said is untrue, and I'd be more than happy to discuss it AT LENGTH as well point you in the direction of definitive sources to re-confirm what I've said.Shawn Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02199246577083781115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-30966729665677648132013-05-01T08:55:18.716-04:002013-05-01T08:55:18.716-04:00City Council's meetings are posted on line. E...City Council's meetings are posted on line. Everyone can sit and watch entire sections of the meetings as they occurred. We can all hear exactly what was said and in what context. <br /><br />Most of what Shawn has written has been taken out of context. (I was there in Council at the time.) <br /><br />(Shawn and Councilman Burgess have done that to what I have said at times, too. Shawn can be a nice guy. But he's also one of those who will overhear a conversation in which someone says, "There are blue dogs in the commercial barking at the red cat," and he'll later quote that person as saying "There are blue dogs," and use it as a question of that person's integrity or sanity.)<br /><br />The <a href="www.pittsburghpa.gov/lic/" rel="nofollow"> Legislative Information Center on the City's website</a> will apparently not let me link the specific pages here because it's search-specific, but one can easily search the referenced legislation, find the Council meetings, and watch the appropriate minutes.<br /><br />Listen to what the Councilpersons say. Listen for integrity, listen for how well they understand the issues. (Would that other candidates' histories were posted as patently on line!)<br /><br />Shawn Carter has old friends in the Mayor's office. <br /><br />There is nothing wrong with having friends - my mother probably has friends in the Mayor's office, too - but as I just posted on the Post-Gazette's site, Ravenstahl wants his team happy for the next seven months. His team wants to keep their jobs and more specifically their power after the election. <br /><br />Those in the administration know Bill Peduto won't keep slippery power-mongers. So to keep his cohorts happy, Ravenstahl keeps slamming Peduto's integrity. <br /><br />Doesn't that tell you anything? <i>Ravenstahl</i> slams <i>Peduto's</i> integrity? And now so does Shawn Carter.flybylighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18435937236829741806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-27978758329207568422013-05-01T08:26:39.283-04:002013-05-01T08:26:39.283-04:00The President of City Council is responsible for s...The President of City Council is responsible for scheduling and timing. The City Clerk's office keeps track of timing; the Council President directs what happens. (She is the head of the Hearings Committee, too, where that point applies.) I was her chief of staff at that time. Therefore, blame it on me. Any timing problem was my fault, not Bill Peduto's. There, done. flybylighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18435937236829741806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-12321080145002863722013-04-30T23:52:03.608-04:002013-04-30T23:52:03.608-04:00Language! But I agree Carter deserves his own blog...Language! But I agree Carter deserves his own blog.Bram Reichbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05620172942925293407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-23626126548809047702013-04-30T23:21:42.802-04:002013-04-30T23:21:42.802-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.The Dudenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1588280325775325323.post-78187543535610328062013-04-30T20:55:52.111-04:002013-04-30T20:55:52.111-04:00This is all crap - both ways. The irony though is...This is all crap - both ways. The irony though is that most of the liberals in the East End use the "he hates blacks and poor people" all the time to get what they want. Now, when the shoe is on the other foot they scream bloody. The Homewood senior housing raises a different issue. NO project should be decided by who gets more people to turn out. That is a terrible way to govern on any issue. Seriously, that is why we elect people - to make quality decisions on our behalf. We don't make decisions based on who is able to rally more people on a particular day. That shouldn't even be in the equation for either side. Show some leadership.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com