Isn't there a very clear, deliberative process laid out for making adjustments to a building designated historic -- like partial demolitions -- when other factors such as economic development come into play? I'm having a hard time understanding why City councilors don't want to cover their butts and see that process engaged to handle these complications. The historic review and planning commission both recommended the designation; that's enough political cover right there, and partial demolition through the Historic Review code means councilors wouldn't have to play architect by drafting retrofits and sufficient protections at the table.
I've heard it floated around that "They granted St. Nick's Church historic designation, and look at what a mess that turned out to be!!" but it's too easy to pick out the single most complicated instance in the City (no matter how irrelevant to this case) and malign the entire process.
There are a lot of numbers in this report already, but wrt affordable housing, the community is seeking 30% affordable meaning at a split of 30% and 50% of AMI (roughly, "market rate") and the Penguins are seeking 20% set aside at 80% of AMI. So that's a very wide chasm.
It would be useful to look at 2 bedrooms and imagine children. I've been wondering if they should address housing affordability needs not just with subsidies, but with zoning for higher residential density. It's public land, we can more or less paint a canvass, but maybe we can just amend the Pens' plans into shape.
M.L. Volker, we're going to have to deduct points for your cutting-and-pasting an identical comment on two different websites.
Briefly in response here, your fatalist approach ("they're all the same") is depressing and disempowering. Bill ran on a lot of progressive ideas as an enthusiastic urbanist intellectual. Let's wait for him to actually DO something wrong before consigning him and everyone who helped elect him into the recycle bin.
Has anybody endorsed Ceoffe? Politician, labor union, advocacy group? Editorial board?
I know it's easier for Gross to pick up endorsements as the Democratic nominee who is supported by an ascendant Mayor-Presumptive, and that her opponents are bound to try to turn that into a negative ("We're endorsed by the people! Not the powerful! We're too busy doorknicking to seek endorsements!"). But even during those years when Peduto and his merry band of Progressives were the underdogs left out in the rain, they always picked up SOME organizational support. It was typically the way one could tell they were "progressives" in the first place.
If Ceoffe is having trouble defining himself as something other than the candidate kind-of-probably-against-Peduto-from-way-back, that lack of vouchsafing is probably why.
I wouldn't overlook that fact that the bylaws cite a 30-day no-appointments rule before an "endorsement" in one breath and a different prohibition before a "special election" in the very next. This isn't a primary endorsement, it's a nomination for a special election. Murky I'll grant you. I wouldn't be surprised if they look to precedent. That could be some fun trips down memory lane.
Forget days, these campaigns have over three months to get people "to come out to vote" and "decide the future of this district". And it's done brilliantly without the party nod all the time. But I understand how Committee folk wouldn't feel that way.
Under what rules that exist, seems like the chair was justified in placing the endorsement within that brief permitted window. The remedy if anyone has a problem would be electing a different chair. I believe that is conducted via one of those alpha bull walrus sumo fights.
Aren't these candidates pursuing this nod known well to these committee insiders already?
Anvil, I can't raise lions on my own property, because that presents a hazard to everybody. Just to respond to your point.
Is anybody going to critique anything in the movie without simply characterizing it broadly as bad and villainizing the guy who made it? Although FrackNation is also a documentary worth weighing as part of the discussion, it's not "unbiased" - the whole thing is a reaction to Gasland and a way to mock its creator.
Is it your contention for example that cement casings don't fail, that none of the sealed legal settlements offered by the gas industry have been because of real water contamination, and all the regular people in the movie complaining of nosebleeds, lung problems and property value collapse were liars?
All Comments »
Pittsburgh City Paper
Website powered by Foundation
National Advertising by VMG Advertising