Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
We should have known.
We should have realized that it wasn’t going to be this easy to pass a prevailing wage bill.
We should have known Luke Ravenstahl would pull something like this.
In case you’re joining us late and/or hungover … late yesterday, Ravenstahl vetoed a measure to require prevailing wages be paid to workers at projects financed with city tax subsidies.
That measure passed 9-0 — a rare moment of council unanimity. The vote was not entirely without rancor: Councilor Patrick Dowd raised a series of process-related objections — but he too supported it in the end.
In retrospect, Ravenstahl’s response to this bill was odd. When union activists demonstrated in favor of prevailing wage legislation this summer, the administration responded by padlocking the doors to the mayor’s office. But once a measure was actually written and submitted to council, Ravenstahl’s response was muted: He did not “anticipate being a strong advocate against it,” he said.
But then came the veto. Council convened an emergency meeting to try to override it, but couldn’t get the six votes needed. That’s partly because two of the bill’s original supporters — Tonya Payne and Jim Motznik — had left office by that point. And it’s partly because Dowd and councilor Ricky Burgess refused to vote to save a measure they’d previously supported. But the vote would have been moot anyway: An emergency meeting requires 24 hours notice under state law, and the override would certainly have been challenged in court. Ravenstahl had already won the battle by stabbing the legislation in the back.
If there is any justice in this city — and maybe there isn’t, at least if you’re a service worker — here’s what will happen next. City Council will realize how badly it has been used. They will see this for what it is: a craven end-run around them, an insult not just to the city’s legislature, but to the entire idea of a legislative process.
And on Monday, they will choose Bill Peduto as their next council president.
Really, what other choice is there if council wants to be taken seriously? Ricky Burgess, Peduto’s only real rival, launched his council presidency on the premise that council and the mayor’s office should negotiate in good faith. But Ravenstahl’s machinations have made it clear that the adminstration can’t be trusted to do that. Burgess and Dowd, the only people to oppose a veto override, are teaming up on Burgess’ presidential bid. Supporting Burgess’ candidacy now amounts to approving of Ravenstahl’s underhanded tactics.
But I have a feeling I know what’s coming next. Ravenstahl apologists will start echoing Dowd’s complaints about process. They will try to say council started it. If council wanted a full debate over the issue, they will say, it should have rolled out this legislation earlier. Instead, the measure got its final vote in December, when two of the nine people supporting it were lame ducks, just days away from leaving office.
For Dowd, such complaints will at least be consistent: He raised them when the prevailing wage bill was first submitted. And prior to the final vote, Dowd loudly complained that he was “silenced” in trying to raise objections to it. So perhaps he’ll see this as some sort of comeuppence for the rest of council.
It’s not. Even if you granted all of Dowd’s points about a flawed process, it would be no excuse for what Ravenstahl did yesterday — which degraded the process even more. Even if you oppose this bill on principle, it’s no excuse for Ravenstahl’s total lack of principle in waiting until the last minute before vetoing it.
I hope that Dowd realizes that too. The rap on Dowd is that he focuses on questions of process so he can have it both ways on matters of substance. That way, the theory goes, Dowd has the option of catering to a regressive mayor while still voicing a progressive position on “transparency.” But I’ll say this for Dowd: He broadcast his position on this bill from the outset. That’s more than can be said for the mayor. And if Dowd wants to object to his fellow councilors’ tactics in pushing the bill, he should also stridently oppose Ravenstahl’s tactics in vetoing it. Ravenstahl, after all, has violated both the process and the substance. He not only opposed a measure that would help workers — he did it in the most cowardly way possible.
How Dowd responds to that will tell us everything we need to know about him.
Bill Peduto should get unanimous support for his presidency: If Dowd or anyone else on council can’t stomach that — if they want to argue that Ravenstahl’s vote is a symptom of a plague on both houses — then they should abstain. But to cast a vote for anyone except Peduto is to say, essentially, that council is content being Luke Ravenstahl’s bitch.
Burgess’ rhetoric about a more constructive dialogue with the mayor’s office is admirable. I wish I thought we had a mayor worthy of Burgess’ aspirations. But because of this veto, it’s impossible to believe we do. The working people of Pittsburgh have just been insulted grievously by this mayor. But they aren’t alone. Council was willing to stand up for those workers. The question now is, will they be willing to stand up for themselves?
This article appears in Dec 31, 2009 – Jan 6, 2010.
Since you’re in a declarative mood, do you have anything to say about the substance of Ravenstahl’s stated objections to the bill: vague terms, needing broader input, potential to “hurt Pittsburgh” through being anti-competitive?
Bram R, Li’l Boy Luke should have raised those objections before yesterday. Whether or not one agrees with the prevailing wage legislation, to wait until the 11th hour to veto it is playing dirty politics. This is a boy who wants to be taken seriously, yet acts like the child he is when he doesn’t get his way. Potter got it right on, and Pittsburgh deserves better.
Sure, Bram … although I’m gonna argue that, based on the historical record, some of the mayor’s objections don’t really deserve to be taken seriously. But let’s see.
“Needing broader input”? There was a public hearing on this bill that lasted all day. There was also a special council meeting called just to discuss this bill, in addition to discussion that took place during regular meetings. This measure was introduced in mid-November … about one week after Ravenstahl proposed his illustrious tuition tax. If Ravenstahl thought that less than two months was enough to broach his tuition tax proposal — a measure that has never been tried anywhere else in the United States — I fail to see why it wasn’t good enough for this bill, which at least has historic precedent.
And let’s remember: The idea behind this legislation ain’t new. There was, just for starters, the aforementioned demonstration that took place — right outside the mayor’s door — in the middle of summer. (And obviously, that isn’t the first time someone brought the matter up with him.) The mayor now claims that he really does want to work with council on a prevailing-wage measure next year. One wonders what took him so long. Ravenstahl himself could have proposed legislation after that protest — or before it. He could have submitted it to council and set his OWN time table. Instead, administration officials engaged in a campaign to drum up opposition to the bill from developers. As far as I can tell, that’s ALL the administration did until council proposed its own bill three months later. And he wants to blame THEM for not doing enough to sponsor dialogue?
What else? “Vague terms”? Really? This legislation includes the following definition of the phrase “food service employee”
——-
“Food service employee” shall mean a person performing work in connection with the preparation and service of food and beverages, including but not limited server, cashier, catering worker, dining attendant, dishwasher, food or merchandise vendor, pantry worker, waiter, and waitress, but shall exclude employees directly employed by independently-owned restaurants other than cafeterias.”
——-
And then there’s THIS definition of the projects to which these requirements apply:
——-
“Project” for purposes of Section I(B) shall mean any of the following: (1) a commercial office building of at least one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet, or a commercial office complex totaling at least one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet; (2) a residential building of at least fifty (50) units; (3) a building of at least one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet containing commercial office space and residential units; (4) a hotel or motel of at least one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet; (5) a building of at least one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet containing hotel or motel units and residential units; (6) a building of at least one hundred (100,000) square feet containing hotel or motel units and commercial office space; (7) a store having grocery sales floor area (selling items which are commonly found in a grocery store)of at least twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet; (8) a shopping mall of at least one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet; and (9) a sports stadium. The determination of the minimum square footage and minimum units shall be updated to reflect any expansion of the Project, including any additional phase in a multi-phase Project. “Complex” shall mean two or more buildings that are commonly owned managed or operated and either (a) in close physical proximity; or (b) developed pursuant to a common development plan or financed pursuant to a common plan of financing. All affiliates, controlled entities, controlling entities, agents, successors, and assigns shall be considered to be a single entity for the purposes of determining common ownership, management, or operation.
——-
You know, what part of that isn’t specific enough?
As for the potential to “hurt Pittsburgh” … that’s at least a substantive argument, one that deserves to be taken seriously, and on which people can reasonably disagree. And as much as I appreciate Northside’s comment below, the mayor HAS consistently voiced that concern. And developers did raise the concern during those public hearings — the ones that supposedly lacked sufficiently broad input.
The argument is that this puts projects, and developers, at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis other projects. But let’s remember the spirit behind this legislation: If city money is used to subsidize jobs at hotels, grocery stores, etc. — and if those jobs pay less than the prevailing wage — then you are putting current WORKERS at a competitive disadvantage. And you are using their tax dollars to do so — beggaring them twice over. I’d argue THAT hurts Pittsburgh as well.