On November 4, 1997, over 600,000 citizens cast their vote in opposition to the Regional
Renaissance Initiative. This ballot referendum was billed as an economic development
initiative, and was labeled as a "Stadium Tax" by opponents of the plan.
Plan "B" was developed behind closed doors with
the architects of Mayor Tom Murphy, and Commissioners Bob Cranmer & Mike Dawida..
The promises of economic development in the original plan are conspicuously absent
from Plan "B".
In the "Pittsburgh Pirates" link,
you will see the Auditorium Authority's resolution with the Pirates. This acts as a
preliminary agreement to the ballpark development. As of November 14, 1998, there is
no signed lease for the stadium(s) while properties are being aquired and the structures
being razed for site preparation.
Do take the time to look over the Authority's resolution,
as you will see how the taxpayers receive nothing while the Pirates will get the funds for
the "Naming RIghts" which will be used as their contribution for stadium
development.
The Pittsburgh Steelers link, is a copy of
the Auditorium Authority's resolution that outlines the details of the funding streams and
financial obligations of the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Auditorium Authority,
er uh the taxpayers.
The Allegheny Institute link, contains a class-action lawsuit filed on
October 30, 1998, against the members of the Allegheny Regional Asset District (RAD)
Board.
The lawsuit addresses the actions of the removal of Board Member, Fred Baker which would
have provided the second "no" vote that would have scuttled Plan "B"
funding.
Additionally, it challenges the validity of two Board
Members and their votes as well as a provision in
RAD Law (see section:16 P.S. § 6114-B (c) ) that
prohibits contracts longer than 10 years. The stadium proposals have 30 year
contracts.
In Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the Pittsburgh Penguins,
filed suit against the City of Pittsburgh on November 4, 1998, as Councilman Jim Ferlo had
made statements that the City was prepared to padlock the Civic Arena for unpaid amusement
taxes.
The Penguins originally believed that the taxes would fall
under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court, and the City would be in line with the rest
of the creditors to collect the debt.
Contrary to the Penguins position, the City believed
that the Penguins are a "trustee" to collect the amusement tax, and was not
extended credit. At the time this web page was developed, the Penguins and the City have
been negotiating payment arrangements and the lawsuit was to be dropped.
For those not familiar with the RAD
tax, it provided a program of tax relief which cut the amusement tax in half from 10 to 5%
back in 1994. This tax reduction did not reduce the ticket price, rather it became a $1 to
$1.5 million dollar windfall to each of the sports teams. Yes, the Penguin's unpaid
amusement tax is a double-dip cone, adding one more source of welfare to our home sports
teams.
Three RIvers Stadium, is scheduled for demolition in two years when the
two new stadiums are completed. On August 6, 1998, an application was filed with the
Pennsylvania Historic Landmark and Museum Commission to preserve the Stadium as a
"Historic Landmark".
The application was reviewed by the "Commission"
which is made up of appointments from the Governor Tom Ridge. Governor Ridge's
public policy position is well known, as he favors state funding of up to 1/3 the cost of
stadium development.
WIth the appointed Board members serving at the Governor's
pleasure, it was a foregone conclusion that the application would be rejected.
The "Historic Landmark" link
contains the application and its merits. An online article written by Harrisburg
correspondent, "Dennis
Barbagello" of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is also available.
During the campaign season of 1998, Governor Tom Ridge was
handing out more checks than a hockey game. While on the campaign trail, Governor Ridge
was very generous with our state surplus of over $500+ million. This came during the
time our fees/taxes for automobile registration and gasoline were increased.
Campaigning on the state surplus is unconscionable. Raising taxes while having a state
surplus is lunacy and should be returned to the taxpayers. We should ask; Why then should
the taxpayers endure the burden of raising the state's debt ceiling when there is a State
Surplus?
Email the Pennsylvania Legislators and ask to put the issue
to rest once and for all. Draft a binding statewide ballot question for next year's
primary that reads:
"Do you favor using our state tax dollars by
raising the state's debt ceiling to fund four (4) new stadiums in Allegheny and
Philadelphia Counties?"
This is not a matter of stadiums, rather an issue that goes
to the very core, eroding the roots of democracy.
As always, I want to thank you for your feedback and
especially those that support our efforts.
Sincerely,
Gary J. English
