Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Yinzer Admission Test: Parking Section

2. A Council supermajority voted to reject The Great InsolvenCity Parking Garage Sale because
    (1) Constituent messages were running 95-98 percent against the privateers (in a town in which 2-5 percent of the population was personally involved in angling for a cut of the privateering proceeds)
    (2) The proponents of the proposed lease engaged in remarkably little effort to persuade council members of the proposal's merits
    (3) The sole council member to vote for the mayor's plan forfeited his colleagues' benefit of the doubt long ago
    (4) The overwhelming sentiment among independent financial and legal professionals consulted by council members ranged from "no" to "hell, no"
    (5) Council members determined that a state takeover had been misleadingly demonized by privateers
    (6) All of the above
Extra credit for discussion of your answer.

Infinonytune: Funeral For A Friend/Love Lies Bleeding, Elton John


Anonymous said...

So is the meaning of #3 that the sole vote is dead wrong, or is it that we don't like him so we dismiss otherwise valid commentary as bullcrap?

Sounds like the complaints you lodge against your opposition, "They don't like us so they don't listen to anything we say..."

Not an altogether an enlightened approach to governing, but what the hell, we do live in Pittsburgh, or at least, I do.

And what's up with the word verifications? sometimes they're simple and sometimes, well, I'm sure you know too.

Anonymous said...


That's a generous curve, don't you think? Why, that's almost 15,000 people. That's an outrageous assertion.

If you count all the people who showed up for the public hearings, all of the people who will be affected by it combined you might still be high by a couple of thousand....


Infinonymous said...

Rev. Burgess deservedly lacks credibility among his colleagues.

In this circumstance, his arguments were so weak they failed to persuade even the council members who customarily are loyal to and rewarded by the mayor's administration.

Put those points together and the result is being alone among nine council members when the vote is conducted.

Infinonymous said...

That's a generous curve, don't you think? Why, that's almost 15,000 people. That's an outrageous assertion.

Good point. Exaggerated math withdrawn. There is no great need to explain the few percent who expressed support for the lease.

Bram Reichbaum said...

(1) This definitely. Though I wonder how many of those constituents left messages suggesting how to tackle the pension problem. Or how many are even aware of it, or aware it truly cannot be solved by, "Cut their benefits! Cut salaries! Cut waste!"

(2) This definitely.

(3) Well, I don't think that was a motivating factor, per se.

(4) I doubt it. Of course they probably seek advice in the same ideological and parochial circles as themselves.

(5) Maybe two thought that. Assuming Council's rejection withstands the coming actuarial reports and miscellaneous other hole cards, the next responsible option is probably the state takeover. WE'LL SEE how many Council members regard the neutering of the city's own vaunted pensions board as anything less than demonic.