AntiRust

The Blog that Ate Pittsburgh

A local reporter interviewed me a few days ago for a story about blogs and how they impact the local political environment. I sort of downplayed said impact. But I did so mostly with regard to my own efforts, which amount to a hill of beans. A really small hill, actually. Of bad-tasting beans.

I had nothing like this in mind. My gosh. Jim McIntire is beating the crap out of city hall. [Update: I of course mean John McIntire. Thanks to the anonymous reader for pointing that out below.] Right now, I would say that the most important editorial writing in the city is going on at MacYapper.

I don't know him personally. In fact, I don't even have any real insight into his politics. Maybe you think he's a genius. Or an idiot. None of that matters nearly as much as the fact that he is making things happen.

Wow. Check it out.

Here's a write up in the Post-Gazette.

Secondhand Smoke: It's Worse than Smoking!

Anti-smoking activism in Pennsylvania has finally turned the corner. The inevitable one between exaggeration and nonsense.

Yep. State Representative Peter J. Daley now wants to ban smoking in cars when children are present. That's controversial enough. But check out WHY he wants to do that, in his words:

"We know that secondhand smoke is worse than firsthand smoke," said Daley. "The studies are all in, and we really want to protect the health of our children."

Got that? Secondhand smoke is so bad, IT'S EVEN WORSE THAN ACTUALLY SMOKING. Weird. Because the person sitting next to the smoker obviously inhales less smoke. You know, some of that nasty tar and nicotine gets stuck in the smoker's lungs. And some of it drifts off into the atmosphere. But stop thinking so much. Thinking kills kids. Why do you hate kids so much?

Daley's absolutely ridiculous position has grabbed the attention of Dr. Michael Siegel, an anti-tobacco activist who is beginning to worry that his compatriots in "public health" have abandoned honesty in favor of fear-mongering. His response demolishes Daley's claim. Check it out.

Luckily for us, we have One of America's Great Newspapers in our midst--the kind of journalistic behemoth that will cast a skeptical eye on any and all science being used to curtail individual freedoms. The kind of watchdog that will actually dive in and read the reports to see what they actually say...

Oh, wait. I forgot. What we really have is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board.

They write an awful lot about secondhand smoke. I eagerly await their take on Daley's position. And a broader report about how the public health science has been turned and spun to such a degree that an otherwise intelligent state representative could make such a fool of himself. I mean, how did things get exaggerated in this way? Is it possible that certain institutions are reporting these things uncritically? Are there respected outlets saying things like inhaling secondhand smoke amounts to "flirting with death?"

I am also still waiting for an indication of which Post-Gazette editors actually read the Surgeon General's recent report on SHS, and some direction on whether the report actually says what the executive summary says it says.

Ah, but that's all he-said-she-said. I don't expect any clarification anytime soon.

Go figure.

Fun Update: So the Post-Gazette is One of America's Great Newspapers. I wonder what that means for, say, the Washington Post? I'm not sure, but the latter paper did give a bit of column space to this guy, who has obviously been kissing the feet of Big Tobacco. I mean, he won't even admit that the science of secondhand smoke is settled, as the Post-Gazette has so often informed us. Take a look:

It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are.

By any sensible account, the anachronism of tobacco use should eventually vanish in an advancing civilization. Why must we promote this process under the tyranny of deception?

Presumably, we are grown-up people, with a civilized sense of fair play, and dedicated to disciplined and rational discourse. We are fortunate enough to live in a free country that is respectful of individual choices and rights, including the right to honest public policies. Still, while much is voiced about the merits of forceful advocacy, not enough is said about the fundamental requisite of advancing public health with sustainable evidence, rather than by dangerous, wanton conjectures.

Who is this degenerate, foot-kissing tobacco stooge? Here's his bio from the WaPo:

Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologists, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Gori's article "The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion" will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine.

But hey, what would he know? He's hardly One of America's Great Newspapers. And one of America's Great Newspapers tells us that the science is settled. That the case is "indisputable." That's right. "indisputable." The second of these includes a link to the surgeon general's "indisputable" report.

Does the Post-Gazette have a science reporter? Perhaps the editors could assign that reporter to read the report. And, you know, report on it.

Because, ahem, a lot of realy smart people are disputing it.

Regardless of what you think about the science, the Post-Gazette's repeated claims that people who disagree with them are kissing feet and forcing people to flirt with death amount to shabby, shabby journalism.

Bad writing. Bad reasoning. And bad journalism.

Downtown Living: Has Baltimore Turned the Corner? Can Pittsburgh?

This story would seem to indicate that downtown Baltimore has already become what downtown Pittsburgh is trying to be.

The center-city population has doubled to 10,000 in five years. And more than 37,000 people live within a one-mile radius of Pratt and Light streets, ranking downtown's core eighth in the nation for population density and number of households earning $75,000 a year or more, according to the report.

Even more important for urban enthusiasts, a new report indicates that the growth will continue:

In the next six years, downtown can absorb more than 7,400 new housing units and will pick up more than 17,000 jobs, thanks to hospital expansions, biopark development and the federal military-base restructuring, the partnership's Outlook 2012 estimates.

There are problems, to be sure. The report was commissioned by the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore. I am sure they are nice folks, but they fall into the category of public-private cheerleaders. So they have a vested interest in talking about progress and potential progress. And a few people are questioning the numbers.

Still, the reports raise questions about whether that degree of residential growth will actually happen - and how many new downtown residents would stay long term - because of concerns ranging from crime to pollution to high parking costs.

..."What this is saying is there are significant drivers from the major institutions expanding, so there will be a lot more jobs downtown and the potential then for continued strong downtown housing market," said John McIlwain, a senior resident fellow for housing at the Washington-based Urban Land Institute.

But McIlwain said he wouldn't anticipate a boom, "and 7,400 units would really be a boom."

"Baltimore's downtown is an attractive place to live," he said, "but there are still challenges ... and the strength will depend clearly on job growth but being able to manage crime and to link some of the neighborhoods that are growing together so they become one cohesive fabric."

Still, for me, the most interesting part of the article indicates that someone in Baltimore is bothering to look at who is moving downtown and from where.

New downtown residents are predominantly young, white and highly educated, with household incomes of $50,000 or more, the report found. Nearly three of every four come from out of state.

"The new residents are fairly different than what the Census shows for Baltimore City, but the downtown area is much different from other areas of Baltimore City," said Matthew Kachura, a research analyst for the Jacob France Institute at the University of Baltimore, which surveyed 470 new downtown residents.

Has anyone done this in Pittsburgh yet, so we can tell where all the new condo dwellers are coming from? Might be nice.

Last, note that the predicted boom in Baltimore is tied to a real explosion in downtown jobs: 17,000 of them in six years. That is, people might like the fancy new streetscapes and there might be a trend toward city living, but generally speaking, it's job growth fueling residential growth. Is anyone predicting a similar job explosion in Pittsburgh to help fill all of our new condos? I can see some of it. Bank of New York is predicting adding a few thousand jobs. Anyone have prediction for net growth over the next six years?

Moreover, there is a quote in the story about people moving downtown because they are tired of driving "two hours" to work. I know traffic in Pittsburgh can be gnarly. And that a few people live pretty far out in the weeds. But do many people face that kind of commute here? That is, the "cost" of suburban living in Pittsburgh--particularly affordable suburban living--seems less in terms of commuting time. Is that accurate?

Either way, interesting story.

Smoking Bans and the Death of Theater

Whoa boy! This story rocks.

Turns out many of the smoking bans going into effect around the world actually ban smoking on stage. That is, you can't smoke, even if you are portraying a smoker in a theatrical production. Imagine Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf without ciggies.

Or imagine Keith Richards playing without a cigarette. He recently flouted a ban and smoked illegally on stage. Local officials agreed to overlook the transgression. But why?

It seems that in NYC, you can apply for a waiver for your production. But again, why? Why should stage-hands be forced to "flirt with death"? As we all know, there is no safe level of secondhand smoke. What about theater-goers? Perhaps artists need to stop kissing the feet of Big Tobacco?

Here it comes, man. Here it comes. Think about how uppity people get when some municipal government bans Hair because of nudity. Now extrapolate that out to all the productions that will have to be banned because of concerns about "public health." If by public health you incorporate smoking, drugs and all the other things now being lumped in by the health nannies.

Here's a question: If obesity kills, which it surely does, should it be illegal for an actor to gain weight to play a part?

And if I recall, isn't workplace smoking illegal in California? Well, isn't a movie set a workplace?

Why not? Fair's fair.

Sweet.

What to Do with Casino Revenue?

I am tempted to say that this would be hilarious were it not so tragic. But you know what? I think it's hilarious anyway:

Seven years after New Jersey legalized gambling in 1977, state lawmakers created an agency called the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority to redirect some casino revenue to blighted areas in Atlantic City and across the state.

But the agency, contending that the gambling industry’s success is a critical component of the state’s economic health, has handed about $400 million back to the casinos themselves, a sum that accounts for more than 20 percent of the money it has committed since its inception.

Awesome.

More on the Death of Private Enterprise

The fix was never quite in for Forest City Enterprises and its plan for a casino in Station Square. But shed no tears for the company or honcho Bruce Ratner. He not only owns piddling little assets like the NBA's Nets franchise, he is also the driving force behind Atlantic Yards, a $4 billion development in Brooklyn that makes the Pittsburgh casino look like a couple of video poker machines at the local Elks Club. (The plans call for a new arena for the Nets, natch.)

NYC's Nurse Bloomberg, unbowed by controversy over what the project will mean for the existing neighborhood, calls it "the most exciting private development Brooklyn has ever seen."

Private development, eh? Here's what City Journal has to say about that:

Sure, a private-sector developer, Forest City/Ratner, conceived the plan to erect the stadium and an instant high-rise neighborhood of 6,430 apartments atop a 22-acre, seven-block “footprint” of central Brooklyn (railyards owned by the state’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority occupy about 40 percent of the area, but the rest of the “project site” is already a developed neighborhood).

But this private-sector veil doesn’t mean Atlantic Yards is anything other than a centrally planned, public-sector project. FC/Ratner could never pursue Atlantic Yards without a half billion dollars in public subsidies, the government’s power to condemn private property, and exemptions from city zoning rules.

Erie Depression: The Market is Dead

Check out this editorial in the Erie Times-News (Registration required.). I find it incredibly depressing. It deals with the recent closure of yet another manufacturing facility in Erie. Which is bad enough. But the newspaper's reaction is even worse.

After the understandable shock and anger at GAF Materials Corp.'s decision to close its bayfront plant, it's time for Erie regional leaders to step up. An aggressive community effort is now required to acquire GAF's valuable site. The region can't afford to sit back.

The Erie County Convention Center Authority, the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority, the Erie Area Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Erie Regional Chamber and Growth Partnership must act with all deliberate speed. They must work with GAF to find out what it will take to acquire its bayfront property.

Well, why? Why is it so obvious that a host of redevelopment officials have to have their say? The announcement of the closure is still echoing in the breeze, and already everyone just KNOWS that the only solution is for the government to interfere. Why can't the company put the property on the market and sell it to the highest bidder? Isn't it even REMOTELY possible that the highest bidder might have a good use in mind?

That answer would appear to be that the property is just too valuable. It's waterfront, don't you know! But now I am confused. I thought that the government had to intervene when properties were really crappy. Brownfields. Small parcels that no one can develop. Sites in horrible neighborhoods that need "redeveloped." Sites that no one wants.

Well, sure. Let's say the government does have to intervene in such cases. Snap up all the property and give it to a developer with a government approved plan. See Pittsburgh's Forbes-Fifth corridor for an example.

OK. So tell me. What kind of properties DON'T require government redevelopment "assistance" and guidance? Which properties are good candidates for sale on the open market? So far, really nice properties and really crappy properties require "community action." Anyone know of any kinds of property that don't require this kind of intervention?

But keep reading the editorial. It gets worse:

But there is no time to waste. Convention Center Authority officials have already indicated they might be interested in acquiring part of the property for potential convention center and hotel improvements.

Yes. The convention center. You know the one. It's going to save downtown Erie. Once it opens. Yeah, that's right. It isn't even open yet. So how does anyone know that it needs to be expanded? Because ALL convention centers need expanded. If they are working, a bigger one would work better. If they are failing, the only way to save them is to expand them. And build a hotel. So even before they open, there is only one thing to do: Start planning to expand.

Look. I am not asking for much. How about you just try to let GAF sell the property. Give them, I don't know... 10 minutes. Ten minutes without discussions of "regional plans" and "regional efforts" and "guided development."  Would it be OK for the place to be on the open market for that long?

Apparently not.

How Stadium Deals Get Done

The Washington Post's Colbert King offers a caustic piece on how stadium deals go down. It's ugly stuff.

Might be kind of fun to sit back and laugh at poor old Washington, DC, if the same thing wouldn't keep happening here.

Hooray for Bulldozers: Robert Moses and the Civic Arena Get a Makeover

This New York Observer article offers a fascinating glimpse into the history of urban planning. Or perhaps it's urban planning as history.

It focuses on a recent Columbia University effort to re-examine the legacy of Robert Moses, the uber-planner who bulldozed huge swaths of NYC in the name of progress. His efforts have been pretty roundly criticized, due at least in part to Robert Caro, the historian whose highly critical 1974 biography of Moses won the Pulitzer Prize. (How critical? It's titled The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. Ouch.)

But is Moses making a comeback? The article points out that Caro, long considered THE authority on the man and his plan, was not invited to submit a paper at the Columbia conference. He says no one even told him about it. There is also a museum exhibit, and no one asked him to speak at that until the last minute. Ouch.

Now today's New York Times offers "Rehabilitating Robert Moses." Hey, maybe the guy deserves another look. But some of this stuff is scary:

“Every generation writes its own history,” said Kenneth T. Jackson, a historian of New York City at Columbia who with Ms. Ballon edited “Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of New York” (W. W. Norton), the catalog accompanying the exhibitions. “It could be that ‘The Power Broker’ was a reflection of its time: New York was in trouble and had been in decline for 15 years. Now, for a whole host of reasons, New York is entering a new time, a time of optimism, growth and revival that hasn’t been seen in half a century. And that causes us to look at our infrastructure.”

“A lot of big projects are on the table again, and it kind of suggests a Moses era without Moses,” he added.

Big projects, eh? Terse apologies for the callous abuse of redevelopment-by-bulldozer, accompanied by enthusiasm for same? Does this sound familiar?

It ought to. Try this. Or even better, this.

Ouch.

Hockey in Pittsburgh: Now I'm Offended

I have been thinking about developments in the arena talks for a few days. I should stop. Because I think it is going to drive me insane.

Our man Mario recently made headlines by calling the government's arena offer "offensive." Offensive? I can see "disappointing." Or maybe "insufficient." Or "sucky compared to what governments elsewhere are offering." But offensive seems utterly, completely and irrevocably asinine. (Update: The actual quote uses the phrase "our people were offended and disappointed." Same deal.)

Mario has a business. And he wants the government here to give that business some money. If the government is not sufficiently generous, he is threatening to leave. Fine. So they offered him something. Take it or leave it. Look. I can dream up all sorts of businesses that I could claim will revitalize the city, or save it in some other fashion. If I present that plan to government officials and they offer me $120 million in subsidies instead of $140 million in subsidies, wouldn't I have to be kind of precious to be "offended"? (These numbers are used as examples. Exactly what they hash out to be in this case remains to be seen.)

But even worse is this report regarding Governor Rendell's take on the whole affair. He thinks it's absolutely natural for Ron Burkle, the billionaire owner of the Penguins, to drive a hard bargain:

The governor said yesterday state and local officials "can still tweak [Plan B] a little bit." He described his conversation with Mr. Burkle, a friend and supporter, as "friendly."

"Look, Mr. Burkle is a great businessman. You don't accumulate the type of resources that he accumulated without being a smart businessman. He's trying to get every advantage ... We want to make sure the resources we devote to this are appropriate, not too much and not too little," he said.

Look. I'm no ethics guru. But I would be a little less glib about the fact that Burkle is a friend and a supporter. And about the fact that this dude has accumulated such a vast array of "resources." Isn't it customary for people who come to the taxpayers with hat in hand to, you know, actually NEED some money? Or isn't it at least customary to ACT that way?

Forbes recently placed Burkle's net worth at $2.3 billion. That means he could build a $300 million arena on his own.  And still have exactly $2 billion left over. Or build four such arenas. And still have a billion left over. And he'll need those billions. Here's snippet of his profile in Forbes:

Recent transactions: invested $100 million in Sean (P. Diddy) Combs' Sean John clothing line... Longtime Democratic fundraiser a close friend of Bill Clinton; former President calls Burkle's 757 private jet "Ron Air."

I think it is ridiculous to give Air Ron a single penny to build his damn arena. Others might disagree. But isn't it going a little far to say that it's "offensive" if we don't give him exactly what he wants, when he wants it?

Absurd. Truly absurd.

A pox on this cursed arena.

Update Two: Sheesh. It's been a bad couple weeks for Mario's feel-bads. Here's what he had to say when that other dude backed away from his plans to buy the Pens:

"We were shocked and offended that Mr. Balsillie would back out of such an important deal at the last minute - and less than a week before a decision on the funding of a new arena that will have far-reaching implications on our franchise, our city and our region," Lemieux said in a statement. "As a result, we intend to retain Mr. Balsillie's deposit because we believe him to be in breach of our agreement."

Well, Mr. Lemieux, I am shocked and offended that you are shocked and offended. As a result, please mail me that deposit.