AntiRust

It's a Wonder He's Still Alive

A writer named Richard Peterson has a "First Person" essay in today's Post Gazette. It recounts the horrors of growing up around all that poisonous second-hand smoke in the early post-war era. It talks about clouds of toxic smoke in bars. In cars. At the breakfast table. Here, there, everywhere. One lung, two lung, red lung, black lung.

But doesn't Peterson's account basically destroy the public-health case for the smoking bans? The Post-Gazette has fretted that working a shift as a waitress in a smoky bar amounts to "flirting with death." Certainly Peterson's constant "flirtation" would have sealed his fate. The Post-Gazette says there is no such thing as a safe level of second-hand smoke. If that is the case, wouldn't constant, chronic exposure from birth to adulthood amount to a sure death sentence? This does not escape Peterson, who writes:

Looking back on it all, I still believe I had a wonderful time growing up in Pittsburgh, but it's a wonder anyone from my generation is still alive. We weren't the greatest generation, but we were certainly the smokiest.

Well, Mr. Peterson, how do you explain that? How do you explain that not only you survived the flirtation with death, but so have millions upon million upon millions of other people from your generation? Perhaps the notion that brief exposure to second-hand smoke amounts to flirting with death is an exaggeration?

But don't worry. I think Peterson touches on the real reason for the ban here:

These days it's reassuring to know that today's generation is living in a city that's always contributed greatly to American history but now is also beautiful and healthy.

Beauty. Hmmm... A strange justification for invasive government policing. Especially when the "ugliness" is going on inside, in a place where no one is forced to go see it. But let's be honest, that's what this is really about. Aesthetic and cultural preferences--taste--disguised as hard science. By people who, in many cases, know exactly what they are doing. They don't like smoke. And they don't like other people smoking. So they are banning it.

In the meantime, Mr. Peterson, I congratulate you on surviving your terrible trial. And I urge you to think about your own question: Why DID you survive? And what does that say about this as a larger policy question? Is it really the health data driving your support?

Urban Renewal: Please, God, Make it Stop

Check out this astonishing (and depressing) story  about the New Haven Coliseum in the New York Times:

Saturday morning at 7:30 a.m., the New Haven Veterans Memorial Coliseum — host to Van Halen, Bob Hope, monster truck shows, wrestling matches and countless minor-league hockey games — is scheduled to be put to rest.

From the time it was built in 1972, the Coliseum towered over the city with high hopes of downtown renewal. But for the last 10 years, it has run a deficit as big-name acts skipped over New Haven to play in Connecticut’s casinos or other, newer venues.

Wow. So we are on to something new? Sounds like it:

The decision to destroy the Coliseum reflects a shift in philosophy on urban planning, with Mayor John DeStefano Jr. choosing to focus on arts, education and small retail buildings rather than on large-scale public spaces.

“I think we are taking an approach that is smarter about what works in building a city,” Mr. DeStefano said. Some people still like the idea of big projects, he said, “but successful urban life gets woven from lots of small things, not one grand gesture.”

But don't worry. There is still plenty of love out there for the Big Bang approach to redevelopment:

Now, after decades of debate over its potential as a tool for urban renewal, the crumbling giant will come tumbling down, even as other midsize cities nearby, such as Yonkers and Bridgeport, are banking on similar stadiums to revive their own downtowns. ...

While New Haven is scrapping its stadium, Yonkers is taking the opposite approach, planning to be the host of a minor league baseball team at a 6,500-seat stadium that city officials envision as the centerpiece of a $150 million development that will likely include several big-box stores. The mayor of Yonkers, Philip A. Amicone, said he hoped the plan, designed for a vacant parking lot in the center of downtown, would bring much needed revenue to his struggling city.

Bridgeport built its 10,000-seat stadium in 2001. While performers like James Taylor and Andrea Bocelli have drawn large crowds, there is little evidence that the stadium has boosted other downtown business.

James Taylor and Andrea Bocelli? Great Crimeny! Maybe a new hockey   multi-purpose arena will save the day in Pittsburgh after all!

Oy.

For the record, I did my part to save New Haven. I bought something on the order of 28,000 kegs at Chapel Wines and Liquor. And I did, in fact, attend a monster truck and tractor pull at the New Haven Coliseum freshman year. Or so I am told. I bought a ticket because the screaming guy who does those sweet monster truck commercials busted out my favorite marketing line of all time: WE'LL SELL YOU THE WHOLE SEAT, BUT YOU'LL ONLY NEED............ THE EDGE.

Awesome.

Farewell, New Haven Coliseum. And thanks for all the redevelopment. OK. SO maybe there wasn't much of that. But thanks for your lax carding policies!

I Hope the Penguins Leave

I like hockey. I really do. And I like the Penguins. I watch games when I can. I think Mario is a swell guy. Blah blah blah blah blah.

But if these are the conditions for a new arena, I hope the plan falls through and the team goes to Kansas City. Or wherever:

Gov. Ed Rendell said today that public officials have offered the Penguins the best deal any National Hockey League team has received to build an arena in recent years.

The governor, who participated in a meeting between public officials and team executives late last night, elaborated on the discussions to keep the team in Pittsburgh as he emerged from the Sheraton Hotel in Station Square this morning.

He said that, under terms discussed last night, the Penguins would be expected to contribute a fraction of what the Pirates, Steelers and three Philadelphia teams -- the Eagles, Flyers and Phillies -- put into their new facilities in recent years.

Now, I am much more a Steelers fan. Always have been. Born and raised. Weaned on Lambert and Bradshaw and Stallworth, etc. But if the Rooney's had demanded this, I would have told them to leave. In fact, I would have told them to leave when they demanded what they ended up getting.

They would have left eventually, too. And I would have been booted out of office immediately. But it would have been worth it. This is all a terrible, terrible sham. A farce. And a shameful testimony to our view of what we think government is for.

Sigh.

And just to be clear, I think the Pens are staying. And that Mario will get whatever he wants.

But a final question: As far as I can tell, Kansas City already has an arena built and will not charge the team anything for it. Right? But still, Rendell says this:

"I believe the offer we put before the Penguins is the best of any offer that's been made to any NHL team for a new stadium in recent times."

So how can Rendell's offer be better than "the Penguins pay nothing"? I might well be misinterpreting the deal in KC. But this has me worried. Is the governor actually going to PAY the Penguins to stay?

UPDATE: Today's Post-Gazette has some more info that starts clearing thigs up a bit. It's bad. That is, while you might quibble with the language, I think the answer is, yes, we are trying to pay the Penguins to stay in town:

Despite the objections by the Penguins, Mr. Rendell believes Plan B is still better than what Kansas City is offering because the team would have to share building revenues there. In Pittsburgh, they would get virtually all such revenues from hockey and non-hockey events, excluding the parking.

Well, maybe excluding the parking:

Asked about the sharing of parking revenues, Mr. Rendell replied, "Parking is on the table for discussion."

So... This is a "multi-purpose" public arena that will generate all sorts of revenue for the city and state. We HAVE TO build it. It's economic development, stupid!

And what, exactly, will we do with all the parking and rental revenue that the multipurpose arena generates?

We'll give it to the hockey team!

See? This is not public money for hockey. This is a public economic development investment, the revenues from which are for hockey.

Right. What's the highest bridge in Pittsburgh? I have some jumping to do.

The Post-Gazette Editorial Board: Kissing the Feet of Big Ayatollah?

An extremely astute and helpful reader has pointed me towards the Atlantic Monthly's fantastic brief history of smoking bans.

You have to take a look. Please do.

Then go back to this editorial in the Post-Gazette, in which the editors charge that people opposed to a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants need to stop "kissing the feet" of Big Tobacco.

So let me get this straight. If you support a position, it's only because you are "kissing the feet" of wealthy and powerful people who share that position. It is impossible to come to your own conclusions. You are only a pawn. Well, OK. I assume that the Post-Gazette editorial board is subject to the same limitations. As such, it is interesting to view a list of wealthy and powerful people who have shared the editors' anti-tobacco passion.

So please, Post-Gazette:

Stop kissing the feet of Big Russian Czars Who Skewer People's Noses with Their Own Pipes

Stop kissing the feet of Big Sultans Who Execute Up to Eighteen People a Day for Smoking

Stop kissing the feet of Big Iranian Ayatollahs

And my own personal favorite: Please, please, please stop kissing the feet of Big Adolf Hitler.

Wait a minute. What's that you say? Tired of arguments calling people the "new Hitler" or smearing opponents by comparing them to Nazis? To be honest, I am, too.

So I hereby offer my heartfelt apology for insinuating that the Post-Gazette's editors only support the smoking ban because they are kissing the feet of Big Hitler.

Hmm... I wonder if there is any chance the editors will publicly apologize for implying that scores of Pennsylvania legislators oppose the ban only because they worship at the altar of Big Tobacco? And, oh, I don't know... maybe try to consider a few reasonable objections to their position and perhaps try to counter them in a calm, coherent way?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No. Of course not. They are writing for One of America's Great Newspapers. They don't have the time.

If we build it they will come. Really. If we build it, they will really, really come. Seriously. Promise this time.

Here is a fascinating take on the vacancy rate for office space in downtown Pittsburgh. Seems that there are more empty offices today than there were a year ago. Which is troublesome. But fear not:

But things could be improving Downtown, said Grubb & Ellis spokeswoman Pamela Lowery. "There are some large users looking."

One of those is the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which has expressed an interest in taking 200,000 square feet or more of Downtown space for administrative operations. Such a move could by itself shave a full percentage point from Downtown's vacancy rate.

OK. That is probably a good thing. But not obviously so. Does this amount to 200,000 extra square feet for UPMC? Or are they moving downtown from elsewhere in the city? If it is the latter, who cares? The only benefit might be some illusory boom in terms of "downtown vitality" that would seem to be counteracted by the lack of vitality in whichever neighborhood loses UPMC as a tenant. Of course, given UPMC's growth, I can see it being space for new offices. Or at least offices brought in from outside the city. The article doesn't say.

But here's the really interesting part:

Then there is the redevelopment of the Fifth-Forbes corridor, finally receiving a kickstart with the construction of PNC Financial Group's massive office/residential complex now under way. Together with Millcraft Industries' reworking of the former Lazarus and G.C. Murphy stores into mixed-use complexes, it could spark a Downtown resurgence that would make a 20 percent vacancy a thing of the past.

Umm... I hate to point out the obvious, but...

The construction of a "massive" office complex in a city that is currently hemorrhaging (or at least bleeding) office tenants might indeed "make a 20 percent vacancy a thing of the past." Unfortunately, it might do so by making a 22 percent vacancy a thing of the present.

Or pick your own number. Either way, is it completely clear to everyone that the answer to an office glut is to subsidize the construction of more office space? I guess so, if you think that the new space is going to create "buzz," which will in turn draw in tenants who have refused to put their offices in downtown Pittsburgh lo these many years. Which of course sounds a lot like... sing along with me now...

If you build it...

They will come.

I don't know. That sounds so 1990 to me. (And 1980. And 1970. And 1960. And 1950.)

And guess what? They still haven't come.

Perhaps if we elect Kevin Costner as mayor. He can bring in James Earl Jones to head the URA, Ray Liotta to be head of planning.

What could go wrong? We already have the stadiums.

Pittsburgh Condos: Timing the Real Estate Market

Looks like government planners picked a great time to start subsidizing the condo market. What could go wrong?

Sidney Crosby as Redevelopment: Redux

Wow. What the Post-Gazette editorial board lacks in good sense it certainly makes up for in timing. Scroll down one post to my snarky bit on using Sidney Crosby and the Penguins as a redevelopment strategy. A few hours later the PG posted this editorial, headlined "Sid's stats: Another reason to keep the Pens in Pittsburgh":

Although Mario Lemieux, who built a Hall-of-Fame career while on the team, is making headlines these days for talks on numbers that may lead to a new Penguins commitment to Pittsburgh, it's young Crosby's stats that are the essence of hockey. The goals, the assists, the points have always mattered more to the fans than lease terms, revenue and profit margins.

Unfortunately, the business of sport cannot produce one without the other. That's why it's essential that the mayor, the county executive and the governor reach a quick and fair deal with Mr. Lemieux on a new Downtown arena.

Huh. Remember a few years ago when the Pirates were demanding a new stadium? One of the reasons supporters cited in that case was that the Pirates sucked. And that the sucking was a direct result of a crappy stadium. And that the new stadium would result in less sucking. (It didn't.) Now we seem to have a complete reversal. The public has to pay for the Penguin's arena because the team doesn't suck.

So I wonder. Is there some magical historical or current winning percentage that make supporting a team with government money a bad idea? Say, a .635 average? Maybe something between .5432453 and .5432457?

Honestly, is "Sid the Kid" REALLY the reason the Post-Gazette supports public funding of an arena? Did the editors change their mind about that just a few short months ago when Crosby started playing for the Pens? Or have they supported tax dollars for the Steelers and the Pens and the Pirates for years, regardless of winning percentage?

Sidney Crosby is a Great Hockey Player. But He Sucks as a Redevelopment Strategy.

Do you think we need to keep the Penguins in town because the team has a hugely positive economic impact on the region? Disabuse yourself of that notion over at Pittsblog.

I would try to add something substantial, but the fact that otherwise uncrazy people still believe in urban salvation through publicly financed professional sports makes my soul ache.

Ouch.

By the way, Pittsblog has been fighting the good fight for a long time.

Scary: Instantaneous Eminent Domain

Holy cow. Check out this article about a controversy brewing in Baltimore--a city seen as a redevelopment "model" after a generation of Inner Harbors, Convention Centers, Camden Yards, etc. It's ugly stuff.

Baltimore defended its favored property seizure technique before Maryland's highest court yesterday in a case that could force the city to rethink its long-established strategy for neighborhood revitalization.

City attorneys argued that without a near-instantaneous version of eminent domain called "quick take," Baltimore's urban renewal efforts would wither on the vine. But attorneys for a Charles North bar owner challenged the constitutionality of a process that grants officials immediate ownership of property without having to prove why they need it so urgently or for what specific purpose.

The pointed questions and comments of two Court of Appeals judges conveyed strong skepticism of Baltimore's redevelopment policy, particularly the wisdom in taking someone's land first, then figuring out what to do with it later - because the legality of eminent domain centers on taking property only for the public good.

"When the city filed the quick take, it had no clue as to what it intended to do with this piece of property?" Judge Alan M. Wilner asked Baltimore's attorney, adding later: "You don't see a constitutional issue here?"

I might add that these vaunted "neighborhood revitalization" strategies have been going on in downtown Baltimore for decades. And continue. Because downtown is not vital enough yet. But no matter. According to city officials, they need power. And normal eminent domain will not do:

If Maryland's highest court upholds the Circuit Court decision and casts doubt on the legality of the quick take, Baltimore - a city famous for its heavy reliance on eminent domain - would almost definitely have to change its ways.

[City Attorney Elva] Tillman told the court that such a result could be disastrous for the city.

"Making Baltimore City use regular eminent domain," she said, "would in fact set us back so dramatically."

Cry me a river, Ms. Tillman.

Adventures in Redevelopment: What to Do With the Civic Arena?

OK. It seems pretty clear that we are going to get a new hockey arena. Even if the Penguins leave, I am guessing we will do what Kansas City did and build one just in case. But let's just say this new arena gets built somewhere other than where the Civic Arena stands today. If that happens, what should we do with the current structure?

Here's an entirely original idea: I say we let it sit empty for more than a decade, then spend about $40 million in public money trying to attract a fishing store to fill the void.

But wait! That's not an original idea at all. That's what Buffalo is doing.

I'm not kidding. That's what Buffalo is doing. Or at least trying to do. (Not sure how long the link will be active. Get it while it lasts. And by all means, search around the paper's site a bit. There is a lot there about the plan, which is on its last legs.)

By the way, Buffalo recently had a big hullabaloo about a casino. And waterfront development. And condos. Weird.