This is absolutely shameless. Or shameful.
The Post-Gazette editorial board is so intent on justifying its insatiable lust for enormous publicly-funded development projects that it insists on employing the city's Steeler fever towards that end. Despite the fact that the editorial openly admits that it is not really possible to connect the construction of Heinz Field with the Steelers' recent success. I mean, if it were, would it not also be possible to BLAME PNC park for the fact that the Pirates kind of suck?
This is disingenuous. The people arguing against public funding were not necessarily arguing against a new stadium. They simply had different ideas about who should pay for it.
And they were right. Because the stadium--even if it COULD be seen as responsible for the Steelers' Super Bowl run--has not delivered what it promised: redevelopment downtown. How do we know that? Because the Post-Gazette is still arguing for gazillions of public money to redevelop downtown.
The stadium did not deliver. PNC park did not deliver. A new arena for the Penguins will not deliver. A new skyscraper for PNC will not deliver. As much as the Post-Gazette want to believe it--in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary--they did not "redevelop" downtown in meaningful ways.
And let's get this straight: They did not get the Steelers to the Super Bowl. AT ALL. The Drive for Five was notable as an incredible series of wins on the road, for heaven's sake. And the editorial talks about the turf at Three Rivers. Note to editorial board: I am no landscape engineer, but I bet it would have been possible to put in better grass without blowing up the stadium. Maybe you can put a reporter on that. Ask a few questions.
So use numbers to support your craptacular development disasters. Exaggerate. Lie. But don't, under any circumstances, try to glom onto the Steelers--especially when the editorial admits...
Ah, to hell with it. It doesn't seem like the editorial board is all that interested in good or fair arguments anyway.
Comments