A taxing issue

The intentions are good, but is the Regional Renaissance an excuse to ask people for more money?

Published 10/30/97

Well, after months of debate, the vote on the Regional Renaissance Initiative is less than a week away, and each side is still giving their take of the argument on whether or not Uncle Sam should dig deeper into our pockets to help fund region-saving projects like ball parks and roadways.

But sadly, after precious time and money that has gone by the wayside, I can still say my vote will be in the "ney" come Nov. 4, pending some startling revelation that has yet to take place.

It's not that I disagree with the idea of developing the Pittsburgh region and its surrounding counties, but was a half-percent sales tax the best, and only, action our civic leaders could come up with?

I'm not angry at the fact this tax would cost me about $30 a year, heck, at least it would have a straightforward mission and not contain some moronic name like, say, "Occupational Privilege Tax." But seriously, aren't there other ways of finding money? One big question I have had during this whole debate is where the money from the RAD tax, which was implemented in 1994 and has created over $350 million in revenue, at?

I personally know of one "development" project that this money has gone to. Along McKnight road in the North Hills area there is a flowerbed with a sign planted in the middle of the space that says this development is paid for by the Regional Assets Development board. Instead of infrastructure improvement or investment in (gasp!) new stadiums or convention centers, our money is going to plant flowers that are usually blocked by campaign signs during election season.

Although there are other areas that the RAD money has gone to, such as regional parks and libraries, are these projects more important than industrial parks and tourism sites, which is what some of the money the proposed half cent tax is going towards? Even if a local library that nobody goes to is more important to a community than these projects proposed by the Renaissance partnership, couldn't it be resourceful enough to find other means of funding for several years?

Even with all the in-depth information recently provided by the local media, I am still voting no on the referendum due to the pitiful campaign this initiative was carried out in nearly all the the print ads and broadcast commercials in the last several weeks.

If more local examples of what the tax money would have been used for were given by the Regional Renaissance Partnership long ago, perhaps hinging voters would be swayed, including me. Instead, I've seen nothing but our-region-is-at-a-crossroads rhetoric, not specifically stating what the money would be used for. The only other time I saw a campaign so anemic and horribly planned was last year when I pulled the lever for presidential candidate Robert Dole.

Another example of an instance where more effective communication could have been used was when it was announced that this tax was going to produce 30,000 new jobs. What are these new jobs? With two new stadiums and a renovated convention center there will be a great demand for a hot dog and beer venders now, wouldn't there?

Don't think for a minute I'm anti-new stadium this or anti-Forbes field II that. In fact, I have seen firsthand of what the benefits a new ball park can bring to a region. For example, early last summer while in Baltimore for a weekend, I saw clear water, numerous shops along a bustling harbor and enough people to rival our Regatta on a cloudy day.

And what was at the center of all this development? Cameden Yards, the new home of the Baltimore Orioles. Used as a cornerstone or stepping block, a new stadium or some other major infrastructure could be a precursor of future success to come.

And another thing while on the subject of new stadiums. I'm sick of those signs that say "No Stadium Tax" or the "My-money-isn't-going-to-a-playground-for-million-dollar-crybabies" rhetoric that's going around opposing the referendum. In fact, the Pirates and Steelers, if most people haven't noticed, are some of the most frugal franchises you'll ever find.

The Pirates, and their $9 million dollar payroll, lowest in major league baseball, is less than the annual salary of Chicago White Sox outfielder Albert Belle. Also, before the salary cap days in the NFL, the Steelers were always at the bottom of league payrolls.

If you don't believe that the Steelers are the tightwads of the NFL, talk to Franco Harris or Gary Anderson about the Rooney's penny-pinching methods.

In a way I feel bad for Kevin McClatchy and Dan Rooney. Even after this referendum fails, which it is predicted to do, other methods of revenue collecting will still be decried as robbing "the little people."

Can you imagine the senior citizen backlash if either McClatchy or Rooney should try to create a lottery to help fund their respected projects? (which, by the way, was how Cameden Yards was partially funded) I can see it now. The local news stations will be tackling each other in order to get the best shot of a local AARP protest where somebody's dear old grandma will be shown in tears talking about how these evil capitalists want to take their lottery funds so they can't get a free bus pass to Tuesday night Bingo down at the local fire hall.

Another person who has received a bum rap on this initiative is Senator Rick Santorum. Because of his spendthrift reputation in Washington D.C. (if that's ever a contradiction), some think he's two-faced for supporting a tax increase. This line of thinking is unfair.

Opposing federal grants for the study of turnips and the examination of gas emissions from cow flatulence is one thing but trying to collect money for local means is an entirely different story.

If anything positive came out of this whole ordeal, it could possibly be the new friendships formed while rallying against the initiative. Who would have thought Lynn Cullen, Mike Pintek, The Allegheny Institute and Councilman Bob O'Connor would all be agreeing on the same issue.

On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which never saw a tax it didn't like, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned by Allegheny Institute founder Richard Scaife, are on opposite sides of the debate.

I agree with the overall purpose of the Renaissance initiative, I also smell a stink with the whole ordeal as well. I'm not the only one who shares these sentiments. Many people I talk to feel the same way I do: They want the region to improve but distrust the people who say a tax is the only viable solution. If better communication was used in pitching this tax increase, then perhaps thousands of newspaper pages and hours of talk-radio discussion time could have been put to other uses.

Click here to return to opinion index.