The Best Endorsement To Never Get
We, the citizens of Pittsburgh, are expected to be all-a-tizzy that the police union endorsed Mark DeSantis over Mayor Ravenstahl. Now, many unions have done great things for America and American workers, but as far as the Pittsburgh municipal unions go… who exactly do these guys think they’re fooling? We’re talking about practically the same people who convinced Tom Murphy to bankrupt the city for a few hundred votes.
I have not always agreed with the Mayor’s decisions, and I think he’s made some PR mistakes in the recent past, but as far as I’m concerned, the lack of endorsement is a reason to vote *for* him. We need a Mayor who’s able to stand up to the special interests of Grant Street, even if it’s over something as small as a residency requirement. (I’m not sure I agree with him about the residency requirement, but it’s an interesting concept.) Congratulations to Mr. Ravenstahl for giving us some evidence that he’s got a spine.
Related posts:
DeSantis argued against residency rules for public employees many months before the endorsement, so I wouldn’t leap to the conclusion that the endorsement evinces spinelessness in the face of union pressure. Also, I may be in the minority on this, but I am entirely unconvinced the union didn’t snub Luke for personal reasons, that are much closer to the ones they offered by way of explanation: maturity and the such.
Right, I’m aware of that. The question is: did he argue against those requirements because he truly believes that, or because if Luke is for the requirements, he has to be against them? In short, is he just doing whatever he can to get any kind of voting bloc behind him, then worrying about sorting it all out on the off chance he’s elected? I haven’t had the chance to meet him, and quite possibly won’t before the election, so it’s very hard for me to judge. All I know is that this kind of endorsement has often implied trouble in the past.
Ravenstahl’s maturity is a tougher question. I *have* met him, and he didn’t strike me as immature as much as less-than-seasoned; he’s just not quite understood yet that when you’re in that kind of a job, you have to toe a tighter ethical line than is technically “fair”.
“Like another erstwhile Burgh blogger, I was appointed a month or two ago as a member of the Mayor’s Propel Pittsburgh Commission.”
Hey Bram, looks like we found ourselves another Matt H in this Alik guy. The author is implying that Ravenstahl is the candidate who will stand up to special interests while the mayor himself is a proponent of the “Lazarus” style of economic development in which he supports tax breaks for the big downtown developers.
Alik - DeSantis doesn’t want to force people to live in the city - but he wants to make the city great again so that people want to live in the city. Crime, blight, and poor public schools are why people move out of the city to the suburbs. Fixing those problems is what will get the city back on track - forcing city employees to live in the city limits is irrelevant. Does that make sense?
He stated back in July or August that he cared more about city workers getting the job done than where they lived. I don’t think DeSantis had any idea he would have a shot at the FOP endorsement back when he made that statement, and since I know him to be a straight shooter, I am confident that his position on this is sincere.
So, I think you’ll understand if I consider comments from a semi-official Democrats For DeSantis spokesperson to be just a wee bit biased…
At any rate: I agree with you that these are things that need fixed. I’m not sure these are relevant to whether city officials should live in the city. To me, it’s basic “eat your own dogfood” policy — city employees need to live where they are directly affected by the decisions they make.
Otherwise, you’ve got more of the same old problem — people who don’t live in Pittsburgh dictating what Pittsburghers can and can’t do.
“To me, it’s basic “eat your own dogfood” policy — city employees need to live where they are directly affected by the decisions they make.”
See, I’m just not feeling that argument. When a cop who lives in Spring Garden goes to patrol Homewood or the Hill District, does he or she actually feel an overwhelming connection and solidarity with that community? Probably not. Should we expect a cop who happens to live in Fox Chapel would feel any differently? Probably not. They’re there to do a job, and my impression is the ethos and importance of the job is motivation enough.
I’m trying not to let my more serious reservations about Ravenstahl color my judgement on this, but I just don’t see how residency is an important issue. If the cops want to live a few miles up the road, that’s fine by me.
Let me flip that question around on you, then: shouldn’t we be trying to hire cops who *do* feel a deep connection and solidarity with the communities they patrol? And just as importantly, shouldn’t we choose cops whose own families will face the tax burden if their union pushes for new equipment/stations/etc?
Trying to? Okay, sure, we should be trying to. What if the good cops decide they’d later like to move, then? Does that mean we can expect them to become worse cops? Very few other municipalities have this rule, by the way, and they don’t seem much worse for wear.
Also, to pose Schultzy’s suspicions differently:
“Congratulations to Mr. Ravenstahl for clearly demonstrating that he’s got a spine.”
CLEARLY demonstrating? That’s all it takes? That doesn’t strike you as a little over the top?
If you (or some other reader) has the time, I’d like to see some stats (if they exist) about how many cops do/don’t live in their jurisdiction of policing. I’d suspect that most do, for convenience if for nothing else. But anyway, to address the point, “very few” other municipalities having something doesn’t imply that it’s bad. We pretty much *have* to go into unconventional areas to get out of our current mess.
Your point per the use of the word “clearly” is well taken; I’m going to go edit the entry if I can figure out how.
If you work here you should have to live here.
The residency requirement argument is a red herring - sound and fury, signifying nothing. As Jim Motznik(!) confirmed, the residency requirement is controlled by state law. We all know how closely the state legislature listens to Pittsburgh Mayors. It’s like the Mayor saying *he* will get our troops out of Iraq.
Neither the proponents or opponents have produced studies or data. At least DeSantis has basic economic theory behind him: all things being equal, a larger potential pool of applicants means a better pool of applicants. Except DeSantis is calling for a hiring freeze. So I’ll admit there is little point to asking the state legislature to do the cops a favor.