InsolvenCity's council district 3 is a Girl Talk-level mashup. Sometimes within a single block, women who have lived on that block for seven decades (without requiring much English) produce pierogi using methods that have endured twice as long, while multicultural doctoral students conduct pioneering robotics research, building humanoids that play soccer and cars that drive themselves.
And all of them, when arriving for work in the morning, find the sidewalks splattered with urine and vomit and blood, courtesy of the South Side Intoxication District. Whether the sidewalks are cleaned often hinges on the day's level of political obligations perceived by InsolvenCity's Public Works Department, a strong player in Council District 3's politics.
Against that background, City Councilor Bruce Kraus (left) seeks re-election.
Like those of most of his colleagues, the resume Kraus brought to InsolvenCity's council -- recovering alcoholic, interior designer -- was an odd match with the responsibilities of representing a one-of-a-kind district in a teetering, crumbling city. Kraus has, however, become a forceful, insightful advocate for sound policy throughout the city and, in particular, for his district.
Kraus has overcome his limitations, at least in part, by seeking expert advice and consulting constituents. He was part of the unexpectedly solid coalition that capsized the Not-So-Great InsolvenCity Parking Garage Sale. Kraus has been particularly active, and is beginning to be surprisingly effective, in pursuing solutions to the deadly, demoralizing situation created by the clustered, out-of-control saloons along Carson Street.
These services to residents have placed him squarely within the crosshairs of the Ravenstahl administration, which desires to remove Kraus from council in the worst way possible. And, true to established form, that's just the way the Ravenstahlers are going about it.
In political science, the belief that the best way to defeat an incumbent involves a single challenger is labeled a theory. Much like gravity and evolution are theories. But Kraus' foes apparently missed class that day, because they have sent two opponents -- one eager, the other reluctant -- to split votes against Kraus.
Lawyer Gavin Robb (right) is the enthusiastic candidate -- he must be, if he proposes to climb the tall obstacles confronting him. Robb's Republican registration record should not be held against him by the Democrats who dominate the third district, but his Republican playmates -- Robb announced his candidacy at the home of a Republican, introduced and funded by Republicans -- should and probably will damn him in that context.
The most troubling aspect of Robb's candidacy, however, is not party -- it's partying. His political support is supplied by Carson Street's liquor business. Robb was introduced at his campaign opener by the landlord of the Hofbrauhaus, which, according to police, sold and served the three liters of beer that sent a 23-year-old motorist careening at 66 miles per hour (and three times the legal blood-alcohol limit) into the life -- and death -- of a young family recently. Also at Robb's side: The proprietor of the Carson Street club that reportedly fueled the drunken driver who killed Donna Bird's husband and the father of her three children.
In other words, Gavin Robb's campaign appears to constitute the single-minded pursuit of Charlie Sheen's endorsement.
Why would Robb jeopardize his -- and his law firm's -- municipal and school solicitor gigs by wading into the South Side's partisan thicket on behalf of those whose customers are repeatedly killing and maiming the innocent users of public streets? We can't understand it, either.
Kraus' second Ravenstahl-sent opponent is Jeff Koch, a former member of council who seems reluctant to return. Koch started late and has barely campaigned, reportedly because running wasn't his idea. A plausible story places Koch (left) in the race solely because, after departing council, he returned to the public works department by a route that did not involve union membership (and corresponding job protection). That point reportedly was pressed upon Koch when he expressed reservations concerning a race against Kraus. (This sequence of events was described, astoundingly, by someone who advanced it as evidence of the Ravenstahl camp's political acumen.)
A fourth candidate, Jason Phillips, is as flaky as Snowpocalypse (the public works response to which was choreographed by Koch). He is helping Kraus, an enemy, by further diffusing the vote and by bashing Robb.
There is no need to wonder how Kraus might fare against a single challenger, or a solid one. Kraus' real opponent will be the Ravenstahl administration, and it's no contest for the Infindorsement, seemingly little contest for the council term.
Infindorsement: Bruce Kraus
Infinonytune: I Don't Want To Go Home, Southside Johnny And The Asbury Jukes (with Bruce Springsteen)
This is Good-Bye - For Now
2 weeks ago
38 comments:
You live in the suburbs. I can tell.
You live in the suburbs. I can tell.
Dang it, my Secret Suburbanite Detector broke. Whatever your reasoning is, I'm not seeing it.
I live in the city, and this is what I would have written....if I was a 10x+ better writer, & had all the inside info
You live in the suburbs. I can tell.
Isn't it obvious? Infi is Pitt Girl. There are some red herrings to confuse people, but those a about side issues (e.g. treehouse, national politics). You can tell they are really the same person because they agree on the salient local political issues and because Zober, try as he might to prevent it, can’t stop himself from being a bit turned-on when he reads.
You live in the suburbs. I can tell.
What was the tip-off? Standard English?
That's even more support for my theory. There's only so many people who can spell things correctly nearly all of the time. As you can see above (where it should be "those are about side issues," I'm not one of those people.
'ey yinz guyz! Stop makin fun of city res- resid- people. We speaks good American an'nat!
Big surprise, this blog is for anyone against the mayor, too bad its City Committeemen, and City voters who decide. Koch will win, the people are behind him, not just in the flats. He is a good man, the people know it especially on the Committee. Kraus didn't care enough, by the way to put his people on the Committee so lets see how many votes he gets.
I will grant you Jason's a goofball
What credit of "sound policy throughout the city and, in particular, for his district" can be given to Mr. Kraus?
Sure, he votes with Mr. Peduto. But, that's it.
The City Parking mess was bad and there is still no "sound policy fix." The mayor's solution stunk. And, the one in play now stinks. Where is the sound policy there -- other than a vote against?
Do you give him credit for cleaning up South Side for the past 3+ years -- as described at the top of the post?
Nuff said. (Proof I do live in the city.)
Kraus' intelligent, multi-front effort to address the excesses along Carson Street would be enough to merit re-election. He is making progress while others stand and watch.
Effective opposition to the parking transaction was a nice bonus.
His work on other issues has been solid for years, too.
"Sidewalks splattered with urine and vomit and blood, courtesy of the South Side Intoxication District" is evidence that the multi-front address from Kraus is not working.
His work has been solid folly for years.
Progress is more than one paid-admission meeting at Station Square that has no outcome except a one line-item in the budget that got scratched.
Progress is more than pointing to white papers authored by others.
Progress is a female Prog.
Keep Ken and Amber out of City Hall!!!
Developing a good plan seems the proper first step.
There are reports Kraus is starting to show success in stopping the unimpeded flow of liquor licenses onto Carson Street, or at least some bar owners seem to think so. Seems like another good step.
Kraus is bringing outside experts into the situation. Also good.
Plus, he has to fight the administration every step of the way.
If people stop getting run over by drunk drivers on Carson Street, and the out-of-control behavior of bars and drunks is reduced, some of the credit will belong to Kraus.
That's easy to endorse.
Come on now. Look at this double talk.
"If people stop getting run over by drunk drivers on Carson Street,"
THAT is NEW to a LARGE DEGREE while it was on KRAUS' watch.
"...and the out-of-control behavior of bars and drunks is reduced, "
BIG "IF." It isn't the fact. What if things GOT WORSE, as is the case?
Credit in these examples are NEGATIVE for Kraus. (For shore -- still a city resident).
I am glad you made an easy endorsement. Fine.
Why are we at 'first step' status anyway? Clean and green was his talking points five years ago, not what we got, "sidewalks splattered with urine."
He has no good plan, other than to create an "improvement district" (additional shadow government without accountability) that should do the job of government that is already failed. I want to make what we got accountable.
I want to make what we got accountable.
So do I. But, an individual council member can't really change anything. In this election, the choice is between the mayor and a council majority. You can try to hold the mayor accountable for general failure or the parking lease or snow removal or whatnot. You can try to hold the council majority accountable for blocking the lease.
You can, of course, decide your vote on other issues. You’ll have to, if you aren’t in one of the districts where this is up for grabs. But voting any other way won't advance accountability one bit.
I suppose voting for somebody connected to neither the mayor or the council majority would also be a vote for accountability, but that is a long shot.
Mark
When you develop a legitimate plan, file a liquor license protest (let alone succeed with one), bring expert consultants to the situation, arrange saturation patrols and legislative hearings, etc., you will qualify for an Infindorsement and the gratitude of the relevant community.
Until then, we see low-grade, pointless and unbecoming carping, particularly until you can identify anyone who has made the effort and progress Kraus has.
I say "Amen" to Brother or Sister Infy's 3:03 PM post re MR (notwithstanding Br. or Sr. Infy's opposition to religion).
We're not opposed to religion.
With respect to organized religion, the half of the equation that gives people comfort, inclines them to be charitable, and the like should be respected or even admired.
The half that involves bigotry, ugly clannishness and even violence, disparagement of science, and the like is disgusting.
Overall, giving religion the benefit of the doubt, it's about a wash.
Be sure to understand my "fish."
Kraus is not guilty for his lack of effort. His progress IMNSHO amount to next to nothing.
This is one of the more asinine endorsements I've had displeasure of reading.
I assume your reference to the "landlord of the Hofbrauhaus" is a reference to the Sofers, who also lease to such scofflaws as REI, until recently JoBeth Bookstore, the Cheescake Factory, American Eagle, and countless others? And that makes Robb somehow complicit in drunk driving? Pretty weak.
And the sum and substance of his support is bar owners? You're basically lifting the talking points of someone you consider flaky - Robb's been president of the local Chamber, member of the Community Council, board member of the SSLDC. Do some research, you may actually suprise yourself.
As a South Sider, I can tell you that the drunken-idiot problem has gotten worse since Kraus has been elected. Why that has occurred is a complex issue, and not easily left at the door of either the Mayor or our current councilman. That said, nothing that Bruce Kraus has done has had a measurable impact on my quality of life. Nitpicking non-bar owners about the size of signs, outdoor seating, and other MINOR violations of municipal code is not leadership.
Reports that Kraus is impeding liquor licenses? Really? Other than embarrassing himself at zoning hearings with his complete lack of knowledge and professionalism, can you name a single bar that was turned away by his efforts?
As for his relations with the administration (which should shoulder some blame for conditions on the South Side, for sure), Kraus from DAY 1 aligned himself with the Peduto faction, opposing Ravenstahl on nearly every minute detail. Any wonder why he gets so little cooperation from the Mayor?
I say nearly every turn, because unlike that silly billboard controversy at the bus station, Kraus and the rest of council willfully abdicated any attempt to solve the pension issue to the Mayor by NOT seeking a solution on their own; somehow, after opposing time after time, Kraus trusted Ravenstahl's assertion that by NOT publicly searching for funding alternatives, that would somehow get MORE money from Morgan Stanley - that's right, fewer bidders (or alternatives) would encourage Wall Street to pay us more, not less. Basic economics tells you that's folly, and Bruce failed the 101 course.
It is true that Ravenstahl's plan should have been opposed - but Kraus has been on council for 4 years now, and this has been hanging over all of our heads the entire time. Why no plan, council? Why wait until Morgan Stanley came up with a bad proposal to begin contemplating a solution? Please.
This is one of the more asinine endorsements I've had displeasure of reading.
I assume your reference to the "landlord of the Hofbrauhaus" is a reference to the Sofers, who also lease to such scofflaws as REI, until recently JoBeth Bookstore, the Cheescake Factory, American Eagle, and countless others? And that makes Robb somehow complicit in drunk driving? Pretty weak.
And the sum and substance of his support is bar owners? You're basically lifting the talking points of someone you consider flaky - Robb's been president of the local Chamber, member of the Community Council, board member of the SSLDC. Do some research, you may actually suprise yourself.
As a South Sider, I can tell you that the drunken-idiot problem has gotten worse since Kraus has been elected. Why that has occurred is a complex issue, and not easily left at the door of either the Mayor or our current councilman. That said, nothing that Bruce Kraus has done has had a measurable impact on my quality of life. Nitpicking non-bar owners about the size of signs, outdoor seating, and other MINOR violations of municipal code is not leadership.
Reports that Kraus is impeding liquor licenses? Really? Other than embarrassing himself at zoning hearings with his complete lack of knowledge and professionalism, can you name a single bar that was turned away by his efforts?
As for his relations with the administration (which should shoulder some blame for conditions on the South Side, for sure), Kraus from DAY 1 aligned himself with the Peduto faction, opposing Ravenstahl on nearly every minute detail. Any wonder why he gets so little cooperation from the Mayor?
I say nearly every turn, because unlike that silly billboard controversy at the bus station, Kraus and the rest of council willfully abdicated any attempt to solve the pension issue to the Mayor by NOT seeking a solution on their own; somehow, after opposing time after time, Kraus trusted Ravenstahl's assertion that by NOT publicly searching for funding alternatives, that would somehow get MORE money from Morgan Stanley - that's right, fewer bidders (or alternatives) would encourage Wall Street to pay us more, not less. Basic economics tells you that's folly, and Bruce failed the 101 course.
It is true that Ravenstahl's plan should have been opposed - but Kraus has been on council for 4 years now, and this has been hanging over all of our heads the entire time. Why no plan, council? Why wait until Morgan Stanley came up with a bad proposal to begin contemplating a solution? Please.
You can say that again.
Great endorsement!
Kraus is the best man for District 3.
What has Jeff Koch done since he left political office? He will be nothing but a rubber stamp for boy Mayor.
Gavin is clearly the liquor ticket guy. You forgot to mention that he is also endorsed by Adam Desimone who owns Diesel nightclub. Adam also was at his kickoff event.
Jason Phillips is just an angry little person.
"Big surprise, this blog is for anyone against the mayor, too bad its City Committeemen, and City voters who decide. Koch will win, the people are behind him, not just in the flats. He is a good man, the people know it especially on the Committee. Kraus didn't care enough, by the way to put his people on the Committee so lets see how many votes he gets."
I'm glad that Kraus didn't spend time stacking the Committee. He actually spends time with his district and in the district. Koch is a Ward chair and left some vacancies in his own WARD! What an idiot!
Mark,
do you disagree that he has tried to clean up the South Side?
You live there, you should know this. You are just so anti Kraus. But yet where are you at community meetings? Where are your ideas?
"Progress is more than one paid-admission meeting at Station Square that has no outcome except a one line-item in the budget that got scratched."
Shows how little you know Mark. Where did it get scratched? The budget passed and it was in there. Look at the budget and you will see it. HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE PLAN MARK? What is your plan? And where is it?
can you name a single bar that was turned away by his efforts?
1900 block of Carson Street (people formerly with Elixir, who applied for a new liquor license but didn't get it after Kraus opposed their application)
Also, one of Robb's saloon supporters is complaining bitterly that Kraus is holding up another liquor license with a protest. 1600 block of Carson Street, apparently.
Robb was flanked at his coming-out party (and, we should expect to learn from finance reports, is being bankrolled) by people who have profited, directly or indirectly, from sale of liquor that led to drunken driving fatalities. Robb has echoed Joanna Doven's amoral, silly 'there's no crisis, don't get excited' line.
Draw your own conclusions from this evidence.
Hey SoSider
Did taunting Infy with "try doing some research" really seem like a good idea?
You asked for 1 example, Infy gave you 2.
I'd say advantage Infy
For Pete's sake, please re-read what I posted.
Bruce Kraus has TRIED. He is full of bluster. He is running around crazy like. He has his heart in the right place. But sadly, he is all folly.
I am anti-folly. Kraus is also anti-freedom as well, IMHO.
As for me being at community meetings, I've been there when I can, but my efforts these years is mostly in the evenings with the kids. Those 6 pm meetings are prime time for me.
My ideas have been and are presently out there, and I'm not seeking the D-party endorsement nor I's endorsement.
One idea I endorse, saving the civic arena, took it on the chin today, 6-0. Oh well.
http://earlyreturns.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2358:city-fop-still-tone-deaf-shrill&catid=53:post-gazette-staff&Itemid=34
Meltdown: Kraus is Public Safety Chair.
Mark: wake me up when you are done talking.
You got 52 votes when you ran on your platform for City Council.
Take away your vote and your wife's you had 50 people.
Ouch.
Good to know you are sleeping already. Snore away. May you rest "un-opposed."
Furtermore: Don't be so certain that my wife voted for me.
When I did get a tiny vote total, Kraus didn't win. That was "mission critical" at that juncture.
One day I got 7,166 votes IN THE CITY. http://www.alleghenycounty.us/elect/200711gen/el45.htm
Those vote totals out performs the reaches of numbers from within my party by factors that would blow your mind. But, on the other hand, it was done with money totals that you can fully grasp.
"[You] got magic and [you] got poetry at [your] fingertips."
You got smoked in that election as well. Your platform sucks.
"can you name a single bar that was turned away by his efforts?"
The one called Very Cherry.
Post a Comment