Maybe more than any part of Pittsburgh, City Council District 7 contains both relics of the region’s industrial past and signposts for its future. Lawrenceville’s steel-era sheds have been given over to robotic engineers, while Bloomfield’s historic “Little Italy” bristles with non-Italian restaurants. The Strip District, long Pittsburgh’s open-air market, faces a potentially huge development project, while even bedroom communities like Highland Park and Morningside are perking up.
No surprise, then, that the special election to replace Patrick Dowd has also become a dizzying blend of old and new. Much has changed since Dowd first won office in 2007 — and even since he resigned to head a new nonprofit, Allies for Children, in June.
Six years ago, Bill Peduto was striving to dismantle a “Democratic machine”; today, he is poised to become the city’s next mayor. What’s more, Peduto’s choice to replace Dowd, Highland Park consultant Deb Gross, has what neither Peduto nor Dowd ever got: the Democratic Party endorsement. And suddenly, it’s Lawrenceville’s Tony Ceoffe who claims to be taking on the political machine — even though Ceoffe had the party’s endorsement when he challenged Dowd in 2011.
“I’m not just fighting Team Deb,” says Ceoffe. “I’m fighting an entire army.”
***
Gross and Ceoffe aren’t the only candidates in the running. The five-person field also includes:
• Tom Fallon, a former staffer for former City Councilor and state Sen. Jim Ferlo. Fallon now runs a business rehabilitating blighted homes, while remaining active in local civic groups. Fallon, of Lawrenceville, notes that because this is a special election, the winner will take office this year: “We will have to go in and judge [the city’s proposed 2014] budget right away.” The only candidate with government experience, Fallon also touts a willingness to work with Peduto.
• Dave Powell, of Morningside, a Libertarian who supports a land-value tax, which would be levied against the value of the parcel of property, rather than the structures built upon it. (Such a tax, he contends, will discourage land speculation and encourage investment.) Powell also pledges not to vote for any ordinance that would further the “war on drugs.”
• Jim Wudarczyk, a Lawrenceville neighborhood historian who works for a packaging company, bills himself as business-minded and socially conservative. Alone among the candidates, he expressed a strong preference for hiring the city’s next police chief from within the current bureau’s ranks; while other candidates supported a nationwide search, “We don’t need to spend a fortune in taxpayers’ money,” Wudarczyk said at a Sept. 26 forum.
But Gross, a Highland Park consultant with a background in the arts, is the Democratic nominee and the frontrunner. And Ceoffe has been her sharpest critic.
Oddly, when Gross and Ceoffe talk about any issue except each other, it can be difficult to discern a difference between them. Both boast of years of civic involvement: Gross has been especially active in the arts scene and in historic preservation, while Ceoffe has been active in Lawrenceville, where his father once headed the community group Lawrenceville United. Both take a hard line on health-care giant UPMC, backing a lawsuit challenging its tax-exempt status. Both also support a ban on drilling for natural gas within city limits.
And with Lawrenceville on the come-up — and fears of becoming “the next South Side” on the rise — both espouse a grassroots approach to addressing community needs and concerns. Both say, for example, that like Dowd, they would support neighborhood groups trying to alter the expansion plans of the Thunderbird, Café, a Butler Street bar and music venue.
On the district’s highest-profile development — the Buncher Company’s controversial plan to develop 55 acres adjacent to the Strip District — Gross describes herself in “listening mode.” Preservationists have expressed special concern about the fate of the Produce Terminal, a low-slung landmark that Buncher intends to partially demolish. Ceoffe says that while “I don’t want to see the terminal come down,” he’s skeptical about what other uses might be found for it. “I’m sure Wholey’s doesn’t want to see another fish dealer there.”
There are some policy differences. Ceoffe, for one, supports ending the state’s Act 47 financial oversight of city finances. (That could give unions more maneuvering room in contract talks, though Ceoffe contends Act 47 allows local officials to avoid being held accountable for decisions.) Gross, by contrast, agrees with Peduto that while “we’ve come a long way” under Act 47, “I don’t think we should be overconfident in our ability to balance the budget. … I don’t see a reason for rushing out of it.”
But in this race, the major flashpoint has been the race itself, and who represents the real challenge to politics as usual.
***
Gross narrowly won the Democratic Party’s endorsement this summer, arguably with the help of a handful of appointments to fill vacant committee spots — appointments suggested to County Democratic Chair Nancy Patton Mills, weeks before the endorsement, by a Peduto ally. Ceoffe filed suit to overturn the endorsement, but lost. Forced to run as an independent, he observes that “District 7 has lost an independent voice” — one he is best positioned to restore.
Gross has made numerous public appearances with Peduto and his ally, Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald. And Peduto confirms that when his campaign volunteers door-knock and phone-bank in the district, they tout Gross as well. “Democratic nominees support Democratic nominees,” Peduto says, and Gross has been a longtime ally. “If I were to abandon her at the time she needs my help, then [Ceoffe] would be right, and I’d have sold out.”
While neither Peduto nor Fitzgerald “needs someone on council who says they are gunning for them,” Gross says, “I’m a grown-up with my own beliefs and my own supporters. No one has ever accused me of being a pushover.”
“How can you expect someone to be independent when she’s getting that kind of help?” Ceoffe counters. “If she wins, it’s going to be a pure rubber stamp on council.” Ceoffe, by contrast, promises to be a “check” on Peduto, and to promote “government transparency.”
If it seems odd to hear the independent-minded Peduto praise party loyalty, skeptics may be surprised to hear Ceoffe complaining about it and calling for government transparency. Ceoffe was also a ward chair in the Allegheny County Democratic Committee until he stepped down to run as an independent this year; his day job, which he also gave up to campaign, was in placement services for the city Housing Authority.
“A lot of people may chuckle when I say I’m against the nepotistic form of government,” he says. But, he says, “You can’t say that just because you’re a ward chair, you aren’t qualified” for a government job.
Ceoffe’s brother, Justin, was hired in early September as a fiscal auditor by City Controller Michael Lamb, who ran against Peduto earlier this year before calling off his own mayoral bid. “We went through the regular process; he was on the Civil Service Commission list” of eligible hires, says Lamb spokesman Doug Anderson, who denies political ties played any role. Ceoffe says his brother is “well educated and well qualified” for the post but adds, “My brother is not a candidate, and [his hiring] has nothing to do with the campaign.”
Concerns about Ceoffe’s political ties seem increasingly moot. Earlier this month, the county committee ousted Justin Ceoffe for signing his brother’s election petition: Party bylaws require commiteepeople to support the nominee. Party officials also ousted three members of the Turpin family, a prominent bloc in Bloomfield’s 8th ward who supported Ceoffe with yard signs.
Ceoffe calls it “unfortunate” that the party is “trying to take away people’s choices.” He adds, “There are committee members who were handing out Romney/Ryan stickers in 2012.”
The Turpins ascribe their ouster to Peduto and Fitzgerald’s efforts to remake the party in their own image. “Bill Peduto does not have the moral stature to be mayor,” Mike Turpin says.
Peduto bristles at the notion that there is anything wrong with backing an ally. “If we don’t build and organize, then we lose,” he says. In any event, he says, the candidates’ merits stand on their own. Voters in District 7, he says “have a candidate who has supported a progressive, versus a candidate who has stood against all that. Tony Ceoffe can’t point to me and say, ‘It’s all Bill Peduto’s fault.'”
This article appears in Oct 16-22, 2013.
It seems like Bill Peduto is trying to consolidate his support in a new Democratic machine. I was unable to be at the one District 7 debate that Gross attended, but I’ve read all her campaign literature and attended a campaign event (to which she showed up an hour late, at which point I had to leave before I could hear her speak). I have yet to hear one reason to vote for her other than the fact that Peduto and the party apparatus have decided she should be appointed to counril.
It’s really a shame that he spent so long fighting this kind of back-room dealing only to support it so wholeheartedly now that it works for him.
“Bill Peduto does not have the moral stature to be mayor,” Mike Turpin says.
This sounds like Tea Party rhetoric. Broad pronouncements on someones character with nothing to support it Mr. Peduto can not begin dismantling the “old boy” machine fast enough.
Why is it that the article and people involved seem to be more interested in upholding the favor-based system of the political machine and less on the actual candidates? Deb Gross and Tony Ceoffe may be good candidates but all I get here is that they have old school political backing and not any insight into their ideas and goals. Tom Fallon, for instance, has political staffing experience with Ferlo, but he isn’t focusing on that connection to get him into office. He is using the fact that he is an incredible leader, community connector and truly devoted to service to show his potential as a city leader. I guarantee he would come shake your hand personally instead of waiting for a handshake from a fellow politician that can throw funding behind his campaign. Vote Tom Fallon!
Tom Fallon is a great guy, but he just doesn’t have the volume of support to win this race. Not a chance. Any poll I’ve seen, although certainly not fully representative of the entire voting population, has shown it is clearly a race between Gross and Ceoffe. And, as for previous comments here about political power, Gross is the only candidate with any political backing. She has the full support of the politicians who would like to see her in that seat as a means to push through legislation without a fuss. She has a fully functioning, staffed headquarters at her disposal, while Ceoffe’s campaign runs from his dining room table with 100% volunteer support, aside from a minimally compensated webmaster. No paid staffers. And, Ceoffe *definitely* has talked almost exclusively about his abilities as a community advocate and prior experience out in the neighborhoods. He is very open about his visions and plans. I’ve been to or watched on video all of the forums thus far, and I have not once heard Ceoffe drop a name of a political ally or reference any connections he has. Not once. The only machine here is the one being created by Peduto and his allies, from which Gross is most certainly benefiting. And I totally get Peduto’s motivation for doing this, after years of strained relations at the council table. But, Ceoffe has made it very clear that he supports Bill and a majority of his ideas, and did reach out to him before anyone had even heard of Deb Gross.
I’d like to point out a few of my positions:
The primary point that I would make with my candidacy, is that we MUST reform the pension system, or we WILL follow Detroit down the path of bankruptcy via a vicious spiral of less service, higher tax, suburban flight, reduced tax base, more debt -> repeat. Anything less is just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
At the *very least* we need to move new hires on to a 401k style defined contribution system…at least those will be fully funded. It would be better for the city’s finances if we could pro-rate the existing pensions as well, but I understand that this could be legally/ethically very challenging.
Ideally, we would fund what .gov functions we need via fees-for-service, but in the meantime shifting to a Land Value Tax, in addition to spurring development, would allow the city to get a fair and predictable income stream from the giant non-profits, as well as allow the non-profits to have a predictable budget line item (instead of the near-extortion we have now). I also advocate reducing the Income and Payroll taxes to the same amount as surrounding areas – this should help with suburban flight of residents and businesses.
A Land Value Tax would also be a fix for the screwed up and unfair property reassessment fiasco…neighbors should pay within a few percent of each other, not double in tax.
I generally oppose TIF’s, as they are too easy for connected and monied interests to abuse. In my opinion, there is a place for TIF funding such as compensating for a developer to take on the extra costs associated with a polluted brownfield, or perhaps to retain a historic building/facade. In this sense, I cautiously support the Buncher development…we’re lucky they can save any of the building. However, I would of course insist that local concerns be fully addressed (ie: no ‘gated’ communities).
I also oppose the militarization of local police forces – I would never vote to accept surplus military hardware.
I oppose criminalization of non-violent drug possession – let’s save the SWAT teams and jail for real, violent criminals. Having said that, I do support more officers on the beat – we must rewrite the contract to move all desk officers onto the streets, and hire civilians to fulfill desk jobs.
I am very concerned about privacy as well. The PG’s article on the Parking Authority making their database of license plates open for 30 days (while commendable that they take Right To Know laws seriously) is a very bad idea. They should not retain this information at all, and if the local police think they need it, it should be kept secured and accessible only via a warrant or court order. What happens with the PAT bus RFID card information, or the parking self-serve kiosk data? If elected, I’d move to make sure our privacy is secure.
My promise to the citizens of Pittsburgh:
I will never vote to increase net debt.
I will never vote to increase net taxes.
I will never vote to violate your privacy.
I will never vote to expand the failed Drug War.
I will never vote to take away your Freedom or Liberty.
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 think that there is an argument of “moral stature” and ideology here, and it doesn’t necessarily belong in the discussion. Building a group of supportive (and challenging) council members isn’t an issue of ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but rather, productivity. Sure, Peduto has a vision, and this ‘coalition’ he’s building is to achieve that vision. He’s a progressive, and welcomes a forum of ideas that will challenge him and serve as a catalyst for growth. Does that mean that Gross will be a yes-man (or woman, forgive my sociological trappings)? No, it doesn’t. Of course democrats and progressives will support other liberals…they have similar (but not necessarily identical) goals! But that doesn’t mean that if a democrat supports a democrat, there is some sort of unspoken adherence to an identical and cohesive agenda. There is not a Ravenstahl-esque expectation of a payout here…there is merely an expectation of healthy and productive communication. Unlike Ceoffe, who has clearly utilized political connection for a distinct payout (supporting family, advancing himself rather quickly), Peduto’s goals are not so selfish. Peduto’s lack of endorsement may be because of Ceoffe’s reliance on the vestigial remnants of the old school ‘Burgh political machine. Furthermore, to claim (without any sort of evidential support), that Deb’s success is dependent upon Peduto is shortsighted. What I can offer (which is more than this article gives), is personal experience. She is extremely good at maintaining and building relationships. I was a volunteer, and she remembered me quite well (after only meeting me once). That sort of relationship-building is a valuable skill, and her political prowess can be attributed to it.
In 2011 Ceoffe was in Ravenstahl’s pocket. He received the endorsement and was more than happy to be his rubber stamp on council. He was willing to do this because he was (and is) a product of the ward system. He grew up embedded in the system and has used it his whole life. His support of Ravenstahl wasn’t about policy, it was about politics. If you need proof of that simply look at how his policy today compares to that of 2011. Remember in 2011 how he was talking about “unity” with the administration. About harnessing “partnerships”. Now today he treats those ideas like they are toxic. He has abandoned most of his campaign ideas from that race and replaced them with ideas so fluffy no one in their right mind could disagree with them. Open Data is a prime example. It is something Peduto has supported for years and so has anyone else not directly involved in the administration. It has absolutely no negative blowback. The only stance Ceoffe has taken has been in regards to Act 47 and that had to ripped out of him at debate after debate and in my opinion he is taking the wrong stance.
The difference between this new machine and the old machine that everyone is referring to is that the new machine is built and run on ideas. By both of their own admission Bill and Deb have known each other for years. They worked together all the way through the Ravenstahl years both fighting for greater inclusion of arts and community input. There was no incentive back then to work with Peduto as at that time he was incredibly limited in power. In fact his allies were routinely punished by the Ravenstahl administration. They worked together because of the ideas. The belief that what they were doing was the right way and that in the end it would help the community and the city. Now that Peduto is getting ready to step into the mayor’s office there are many reasons to want to work with him (Which is why you see Ceoffe suddenly agreeing with him).
In the Ravenstahl days people joined with him to get power, to get favors. It was a completely policy free decision. People didn’t back Ravenstahl because they believed that TIFs should be an essential part of all development in the city. They backed him because they knew he would do things for them in return. Today the people Bill are supporting are being supported because he knows they share his vision of the city and want to work with him to achieve it. The fact that he knows Deb believes these things is no doubt a large reason why he decided to back her. He knows she is on his and the community’s side because she was there when that wasn’t the popular or convenient thing to do. Where was Ceoffe at that time? Right he was clinging to Ravenstahl with everything he had.
Supporting those who share your vision is not patronage, it’s not corruption. It is just a part of fighting to make your vision reality. Peduto should back those who want to see the city move forward. Deb will not support Bill’s ideas because Bill helped her get elected, Deb will support his ideas because she has the same ideas as Bill. She had those ideas long before there was any incentive to.
Peduto is not a strong force to lead this city. He is here by default because no one wants to be the Mayor of a city in the middle of a messy political clean up. He will last 1 term. In those years he will help & hire friends and family with jobs and other perks of being mayor. That is the nature of the political beast. If he feels he can stay clean of political perks that come with being a politician then he is only fooling himself. Deb Gross is his yes sir gal, she will be the only 1 saying that in this city of champions. We are a strong opinionated city and need a thick skinned leader. He will get tossed by the press, political cartoonist, social media and in the streets. That’s just the way it goes. If he keeps enough yes people by his side, they can step in front of him and take the blows. There is a strong political minded person that will emerge in the years to come and will tie up all the loose ends Bill leaves behind. Just not yet.
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.