Bruce Kraus: Settled In

We asked the councilman what he thinks about the war.

"The war? What war?" he asked, innocently. We explained it.

"Yeah, that's what I want to do is fight the mayor for four years," he answered, dryly.

"Where I'm sitting from, there is no war. It's about principles. It's always about principles, it's never about personality. I'm interested in good government. I'm interested in..."

##

The day we spoke, City Council had just passed the six-month moratorium on new billboards proposed by Mr. Kraus by a 9-0 vote, after altering some language.

The changes were made after a meeting between himself, Council president Doug Shields, and City solicitor George Specter. Shields for a while resisted the idea of holding some sort of executive session with Specter on the matter. Kraus describes that as more of an initial reaction.

"It wasn't an executive session," Kraus clarified, because it was just the three of them. The bill as written turned out to be "overlanguaged," and in a way that may have been construed to forbid what are in fact permitted uses.

That would have been illegal, Kraus now concedes. The new language says that you can replace vinyl-for-vinyl, and make other normally permitted upgrades -- but nothing new, no enlargements, and no vinyl-for-electronic.

We asked if the new language was open to any other interpretations, based on precedent perhaps, that might negate the purpose of the moratorium.

The councilman brandished the document. "What this is saying is, no."

##

We tried to get a sense from Mr. Kraus relating to other hot-button issues in the pipeline -- cuts to council's staff budget, for example, and eliminating the...

"Oh, the 'slush fund'," he said, making quotation marks with his hands. "I'll talk about that when we talk about it tomorrow."

Of course, we agreed. Important first to consult with one's colleagues on council, right?

He held our gaze for a second. "Oh, I know how I'm going to vote."

We asked about recent initiatives by Councilman Dowd -- legislation to change the way the city pensions board is appointed, for example.

"You know, honestly, I haven't had a chance to take a look at that yet," Kraus said. We asked whether it was on the agenda for a vote tomorrow.

"No, I don't think so, unless ... did they waive Rule 8 on that?" Rule 8 demands that legislation introduced on a Tuesday cannot be acted upon until the following Wednesday. It can be, and frequently is, "waived" by a majority vote of council itself.

"That's another thing. What's this [redacted] of waiving Rule 8?" Kraus would prefer to take the time to research new legislation, and ponder it. "So it sits for a week, and it gets up to speed."

##

Kraus made sure to make us aware of a Will of Council resolution calling on the Postal Service to offer the Adopt-A-Mailbox program in Pittsburgh. This dovetails with the councilman's crusade against graffiti -- a major priority of his term in office.

Graffiti vandals like to tag mailboxes, Kraus explains -- but the Post Office does little to maintain them.

Bruce Kraus gets truly wound up on the subject of graffiti. It's costly and time-consuming to clean up, it's bad for businesses, it makes a neighborhood appear dangerous. He wants to crack down on graffiti vandals in any way that he can.

We admitted that in some cases there are some graffiti artists that we have some sympathy for -- the really talented ones, or the ones that climb to outlandish, out-of-the-way places.

The Councilman would not give an inch. "If you vandalize my home, if you vandalize my business, if you vandalize my neighborhood, you should be made to pay for it."

Constituents are concerned about vandalism just as they are about violent crime, about crack houses and guns on the street. These all together you could call his number one issue: crime and public safety.

We asked what a City Councilman can do about such problems as crack houses and guns on the street.

"Well, first, you have to be aware of it."

Kraus joined Shields on a lobbying trip to Harrisburg in support of mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms. He believes this can have an impact on straw purchasing of handguns.

One gets the impression talking to Kraus that a million small things need to be done in order to make progress on any of his major issues -- another good reason that ongoing pitched battles among branches of city government are undesirable.

##

We referred back to the Bruce Kraus's comment about not wanting to spend "four years" fighting the mayor -- and asked if that meant he was definitely ruling out a run for mayor in 2009.

"I'm so happy to be here," Kraus began. He took the suggestion with good humor, made his explanations as to how much work there is before him on council, and concluded in a mumble, "It's not something that I'm at all considering at this time."

Oh my goodness, we asked. Does that mean he won't rule it out?

"Well, don't ask me to -- oh, do you mean in 2009?" He thought we were talking about some future year. "Oh, that I can rule out. No."

Please Stand By...

The Marriage Amendment: Kill It

There are so many reasons to deny this amendment's passage to the floor of the legislature and to the voters of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it's pathetic.

We would not have expected the 13th Amendment to figure in.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Is the denial of living with loved ones as one pleases a form of slavery? Slavery is the forcible compulsion of a people to act against their will, for some perceived benefit by the master.

This is called the "Marriage Protection" amendment instead of the "No Gay Marriage" amendment presumably because the institution of marriage is of value to the people, and it should therefore be strengthened and held in high esteem. How can we justify subjecting another people to live without this good, so that it can be enhanced for others?

Have we appropriated their freedom? Are we compelling them to live against their will, for someone else's gain? To assimilate or perish?

##

Yes yes yes. Homosexuality is different. Homosexuality is a scourge upon civilizations and a cancer to be eradicated.

This is where the 1st Amendment comes in.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Free exercise. Every one of us can to choose to believe your gobbledygook, or choose not to.

Your formal religion may be your evidence -- but you may also hold your beliefs because of your culture, experiences, inclinations or intuitions. That also is a religion, a belief system -- and you are welcome to it, and welcome to share it.

You shall make no law establishing it. If you want to ban homosexuality because it's dangerous, you had better show exactly how it is a public health issue or a national security issue.

That is when you are at your most amusing.

##

Amending constitutions is serious business. We generally do so only when we have problems that the present government can not deal with. Almost always, we do it to expand our rights, not to crack down.

In this case, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania already has outlawed gay marriage. It is illegal. If you don't like gay marriage, you should be happy.

However, times may be changing slowly, and the people may be on the way to petitioning their government to change the status quo. At that time we will have a lovely debate, wherein we will utilize this good government that has been handed down to us, and we will come to an answer.

We are now being asked to add an amendment to the Constitution simply to prevent people in the future from making their own decisions? What is the reason? Where is the crisis? What is really going on?

##

Obviously, there are three strong motivations underlying the push for this legislation:

1. Drive a wedge among Democrats
2. Whip up the Republican base.
3. Lash out at homosexuals.

The PA Marriage Protection Amendment is, at its very best, a cynical ploy to further the politics and policies of a certain portion of today's ideological spectrum.

At its worst, it is a raw and very useless statement of loathing, expressed only for its own sake. It would besmirch the rest of the PA Constitution around it.

Have none of it. Don't touch it.

Monday: Why Won't You Wear the Ribbon?

The war rages on. (P-G, Rich Lord)

Pittsburgh Councilman Patrick Dowd plans to introduce legislation Tuesday to give council and the controller some say in the management of the city's challenged pension fund.

Dowd also authored a letter to URA director Pat Ford requesting that the URA refrain from spending UDAG money until it receives approval from the City of Pittsburgh, as is required.

Contrary to popular belief, these requests are in keeping with the Valentine's Day proclamation, in which government officials agreed to work together to improve such things as transparency and accountability.

Brian O'Neill wrote a tremendous column about the Battle of the Take-Home Cars, and the various pros and cons spinning out of it for the public at large.

Unfortunately, he neglects to illustrate the bigger picture by summing it all up like so:

It's very loud, occasionally entertaining, but is more about turf battles than with making Pittsburgh a better place to live.

Cut the mayor's cars. Cap past years' budget leftovers. Leave the rest. Move on.

Move on indeed.

What O'Neill failed to consider is, "turf battles" of any sort have not been waged by the august body of council since the institution of the Home Rule Charter. City Council has taken instead to routinely ceding power to the mayoralty, at an ever-increasing speeds, under ever-more aggressive persuasion.

This habit might be having a distinct effect on our mayors, and thereupon the direction of our city -- even under mayors as seemingly dissimilar as Mayor Murphy and Mayor Ravenstahl.

(All of which is a long way of saying, Go Patrick Dowd!)

##

Today is BLOG FOR EQUALITY day, brought to you by Sue Kerr of Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents and by the budding Pittsburgh Bloggers Guild.

Today is the day we all write about the proposed state Marriage Protection Amendment (tm) making its way through Harrisburg. Feel free to join in and use the attached image. The Comet will chime in later, the better to leech off of our colleagues' ideas. If there was some confusion as to who should have been invited to participate in BLOG FOR EQUALITY day, the answer is Everybody Everybody.

Summon your muses and let them muse. If you would like to learn more about the Pittsburgh Bloggers Guild, register your interest here.

##

The inaugural edition of the Conversation at the Post-Gazette was pretty good. The black lettering The Conversation floating over Maria's head was a bit of a distraction, as was the Michel Lambesque pantone chosen -- a neutral backdrop full of Post-Gazette logos might have lent the production a more professional air.

Favorite moment: Dayvoe: "Full disclosure: Maria and I are on opposite sides of this."

Comet Suggestion: Make these vodcasts embeddable to the blogs. Yes, we know what you're shrieking to yourself: But then they won't visit our site, and we won't get hits! Pish posh.

There is a natural hesitation among readers toward surfing over to a different page -- especially when one may not feel like watching "now," but would like it to be at our fingertips in a day or two. Bear in mind that a publisher can always put commercials directly onto these things! We the bloggers can be your distributors, and we would do it for free so long as we enjoy the content.

Free the information, plunk yourselves out onto the shelf, and everybody wins.

The music was actually really good.

This Man Should Have A Major Ambassadorship

Words can't describe how good this guy is.

Our only major quibble is the "clearness" of the Clinton economic plan (see Swampland for an extended analysis) -- along with the short shrift given to the full implications of Obama's superior political ability (the better to move legislation from the bully pulpit.)

Charlie does throw down with the Governor about 8:20, after listening to a little too much media bashing.

Friday: NewsTracker 2750

Buon Giorno upsets its neighbors (P-G, Mark Belko)

But Mr. Gargani said he has no plans to build a stairway from the courtyard. He pointed out that he has all required city approvals, including that of the Historic Review Commission, for the deck.

If the deck really does cut in front of other businesses and encroach upon neighbors' mojo -- then that is something. Possibly a miss by the old Planning commission.

"The concept of a deck and people being able to interface with Market Square from two levels, I think, is a neat idea," he said. "I think it will really activate that corner, absolutely."

Needless to say, that is the voice of the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership, a major underwriter of the improvements. C'est la vie.

The LED story goes stealthy (P-G, Team Effort)

Pittsburgh City Council has canceled a closed-door meeting with Solicitor George Specter on a resolution that would direct Mayor Luke Ravenstahl to put a six-month moratorium on the processing of sign applications.

The Comet is guessing -- guessing -- that council keen to avoid contributing toward any possible broaches of conduct involving conflicts of interest attorney-client privilege.

Curiouser: the P-G Edit Board whips out its editorial approval already.

Somewhat Related: Pierre 4 Pittsburgh.

Area mayor to marry some dudes (P-G, Anya Sostek)

The ceremony, which has no legal or religious significance, will take about three minutes to perform, but has been generating controversy for more than a month.

Mayor Welch is saying, "Bring it On." Problem is, will this bring a sense of urgency to the wily purveyors of the state marriage amendment?

The Obama has landed. The Obama has landed. (Trib, Team Effort)

Obama will travel to Hempfield after an 11 a.m. campaign event at Soldiers and Sailors Hall in Pittsburgh's Oakland neighborhood. Doors open at 9 a.m.

They're probably lining up right now. How will he possibly live up to his advance hype?

Special Note:

Ed Rendell was on Charlie Rose last night. We will not embed it to the blog nor link to it, because frankly, he's too good.

One thing among many he wanted to impress upon us was his version of the expectations game. A 20-point win for Hillary, he said, would be colossal, inconceivable, of historic proportions, fuhgetaboutit. Hillary will be seen to have dealt a resounding blow if she wins by 10 points.

Ten points. That is 45-55. Adjusting for the malarkey factor from our Governor, whom we are guessing in this would want to get away with the biggest, boldest possible bite, the Comet is presenting a rational spread of 16 points.

42/58. That's not the game, that's gospel.

In other words, if Clinton gets up into the 60's, then Obama is in some actual, legitimate trouble -- but if Obama claws his way above 45 (bearing in mind the Pennsylvania terrain), then Hillary's situation in the whole race becomes completely untenable.

Thursday: Bingo Bango Bongo

1. Northside United would like you all to be aware of a major meeting tonight at 6 PM at Northside Common Ministries, 1600 Brighton Road.

2. Excellent column by the P-G's Brian O'Neill on the energy we put into remedying "the grand mistakes of the past", and a plea to restore the street grid ... in Allegheny Center. Killin' me!

3. Absolutely exquisite article by the C-P's Chris Young, representing not only a great opportunity to catch up, but to wake up and smell Paul Coffey. (See, Mark Belko, you're not the only one who can lead with hockey puns!)