A New Revised Amended Approved Act 47 Plan: Not An Answer In Sight, But Plenty Of Questions

A few questions in the wake of yesterday's 6-3 Pittsburgh city council vote approving another Act 47 plan:

(1) What is this plan designed to accomplish (other than kicking a rusty, dented, empty can aimlessly along a haphazardly paved street for a few more years)?

(2) What could incline anyone to believe that state legislators representing non-city residents would authorize the City of Pittsburgh to increase taxes on non-residents, some of whom pay higher property taxes for responsible governments, to bail out an irresponsible city?

(3) If a suburbs-via-Harrisburg bailout does not materialize, how would the city fund the new plan?

(4) Can anyone identify the planet Tonya Payne ('if we vote against the plan, the state will beg us for a plan we would approve') inhabits . . or, at least, believes she inhabits?

(5) Can anyone identify the sane and sober pension expert who has determined that a $10 million-per-year boost in contributions, even if it were to occur, would solve a Pittsburgh pension problem approaching a billion dollars? (If not, see item 1).

(6) Whom was Mayor Ravenstahl expecting to comfort with the asssertion that his personal relationships with Jim Motznik and Tonya Payne enabled council to assemble the necessary votes?

(7) Is there one chance in 100 that this plan could enable the city to become solvent and emerge from receivership . . . or is there no chance?

(8) What factors placed Bruce Kraus, Theresa Smith and Tony Payne among the three-person group that represented council members in after-hours negotiations with the Act 47 coordinators and other state officials?

(9) Does anyone believe the Act 47 coordinators would have proposed this plan were they working for a contingent fee (payment contingent on city solvency)?