The One Hill CBA

So, this Saturday, the One Hill CBA Coalition is going to vote on Saturday to pass the tentative CBA Agreement "up or down". Despite reports that Chair, Carl Redwood, is quoted as saying that "the majority" of the members must vote in order for it to pass, the reality (confirmed last Monday and the Monday prior) is that only twenty (20) of the 98 supposed members of One Hill need to vote in order to meet "quorum" and only a majority (as opposed to the consensus touted by Tom Hoffman at the beginning of this situation) is required to pass.

So, at bare minimum, only eleven (11) people need to vote "yes" in order to pass the One Hill CBA. It's so sad, it's amusing, especially considering that the negotiation team is nine (9) persons and the strategy team is a total of twelve (12) persons, which includes the negotiation team. So, quite frankly, the strategy team can vote the entire CBA "up" with very little effort (or approval) from the community.

Unfortunately, I'm not confident that many of the organizational representatives or their members really know what's in the CBA and what they're voting for. There were over 50 persons in attendance two weeks ago; but there was so much confusion over what was actually in the CBA (including the most recent inclusion of the value / reinvestment amount of the 28-acre site) that some of the members asked for another week to ask questions, get answers, etc. And, unfortunately, it seems the next meeting (this past Monday) was not advertised because approximately 15 persons (total) showed up. Evan Frazier was well-meaning in attempting to answer the questions posed but he did not know many of the answers and it was clear that any revisions offered from the week prior either weren't considered or just weren't taken seriously---and certainly not included.

Carl Redwood announced that the CBA will not be changed at all this week and that members needed to vote the present CBA up or down. I later found out after the meeting that the CBA is still being worked upon every single day and that the Pens have even attempted to provide a further clause. This sort of back-and-forth between the lawyers was presented as the reason for which the detailed CBA was not passed out three (3) weeks ago.

It's pretty amazing how this is all going down.

In its present form, I would not vote for the CBA and here's why:

1. The last-minute inclusion of the 28-acre site WITHOUT proper reinvestment is a sham, plain and simple. Sure, there is job inclusion and work on the Masterplan but the Pens are trying to get away with not providing ONE DIME of reinvestment based on the 28-acre site.

2. The Neighborhood Partnership Program that is proposed offers $500,00 per year for six years with a POSSIBILITY to renew for another six years, which is not enough.

The problem? The Pens aren't paying one dime into this fund either. They are going to help "in good faith" find corporate partners. Gimme a break. (For the record, the NPP was suggested by Jake Wheatley as a START 1.5 years ago).

3. The Pens spent a year and a half telling everyone within an eye or ear's reach that the Arena is not built with public subsidy, therefore they should not have to provide reinvestment relative to the CBA. Now, they have allowed for language regarding the 28-acre site but with little to no PROPER reinvestment (i.e. not one dime based on the huge amount of public subsidy and profit to come from this site). For those who might have forgotten the gargantuan amount of public subsidy the Pens received, click here. This is unacceptable.

4. The City and the County robbed the Hill District community of Don Barden's $350 million dollars of spurred development in the Lower Hill with a focus upon sweeping that development up through the Centre Ave. corridor and above Crawford Street. They chose to give it to the Pens but are not forcing them to provide PROPER reinvestment for the arena and the 28-acre site.

5. The BEST part of the CBA has the LEAST amount of proper investment --- the One Hill First Source Hiring Center (patterned after the Milwaukee Big Step Program), which is set to be funded at $90,000 per year for two (2) years, subject to the availability of funds and with the hope that the Falk and Heinz Foundations will supplement this gap. But this is not their responsibility, the funding should come from the PENS.

The Hill Faith and Justice Alliance has been repeatedly maligned in this process because we insist on much more and, you know, a novel idea that---we live, work and play here.

And now for the amazing One Hill double standard:

1. In April 2007, the Hill Faith and Justice alliance demanded, among other things, $10 million dollars in reinvestment funds for development.

Now, One Hill's negotiating for $3 million dollars in reinvestment funds for development with the possibility of $3 million more if the NPP program is renewed for another six years. Add the $1 million for the grocery store and we're at $7 million total.

We were considered elitist, extortionists, greedy, crazy, the whole nine.

2. We were kicked out of One Hill, supposedly, for negotiating separately for the CBA when we are the ones who secured a commitment for the CBA to begin with. The truth is, we were kicked out because of the agreement between three entities because we were considered too radical and demanding too much---supposedly without the community. This was entirely untrue, it was all about control but at the end of the day, preventing the history from ever being known to One Hill members, as a whole, in addition to relentless attacks from various parties inside of the organization only served to maintain the division, no matter how many times we reached out. Carl's response: "just join One Hill", which is hilarious.

Hypocritical much?

I could go on but I'll have to get into it later. Just thinking about this makes me sleepy and I have set new limits of what I can tolerate for myself.

All that I ask at this point is that Ron Porter not be allowed to return to the Hill House Association Board to help advise or otherwise manage monies flowing through the Hill House Association after he "temporarily resigned" from the Board to take a Senior Consultant position with the Pittsburgh Penguins to negotiate a substandard CBA and talk smack on the community the entire time.

Shady much?

See ya.

Why Many Northside United's Points Are Valid

Believe it or not, I do not just sit back and criticize. In private, I have offered many a point of strategy, assistance, philosophizing and the like, mostly to One Hill leadership* and rarely to Pittsburgh UNITED, mostly because they take their cues (erroneously) from One Hill leadership.

*And, for the record, when I say One Hill leadership, I am always excluding Bomani Howze, whom I believe is the only honest person with integrity on the Executive Committee.

I explained in an earlier post that I could not believe it when I heard Mark Fatla explain the contract they signed with Don Barden's Majestic Star Casino, which stated that there would be "no negative impact" from the casino industry being on the Northside and that Barden would pay for any negative impact proven to be caused by his casino.

Bruce Barron, President of "No Dice" wrote a rather stellar Op-Ed, that I must respond to, piece-by-piece. Barron writes:

Our nation's increasing propensity to pretend the dark side of gambling doesn't exist was on dramatic display at the North Side's New Hazlett Theater the other night.

The one-act play was billed as a North Side Leadership Conference forum on the social and economic impacts of the casino Don Barden plans to build some day soon between the Carnegie Science Center and the West End Bridge. The performance -- at least the scripted part of it -- was selective, to say the least. Of 36 slides in the conference's PowerPoint outline, 11 started with the word "Jobs!" and none mentioned problem gambling or its social consequences.

Wow, they must all take their cues from the same playbook. This is painfully familiar to what "Pittsburgh First" (the Pittsburgh Penguins, Isle of Capri Casino, Nationwide Realty and 'the community' - Tonya Payne's people, an organization which I chose to call "Hill District Last") kept dangling in front of the Hill District community on a near-constant basis. And they always come with semi-flashy powerpoints or DVD's.

Since Mr. Barden has offered the conference $1 million a year in "community benefits" donations -- or about one-tenth of what North Side residents can be expected to gamble away at the casino -- it seemed likely that this rosy view of gambling was a tacit part of the agreement. But the question period became surprisingly candid.

For the record, while it is extremely important to recognize that the demand for proper reinvestment is nothing new, it is only fair to Pittsburgh UNITED and the entire Community Benefits Agreement Movement that Mark Falta stop pretending as if this is a CBA. I think he has co-opted this language for convenience-purposes and to slight PU / Northside United; but there is supposed to be a distinct process and partnership with what we now call a "CBA" and it's more than a bit disingenuous on his part to refer to the NSLC agreement in this manner.

Executive Director Mark Fatla noted that, when the conference sought input from the 14 neighborhood organizations that comprise its constituency, the message was clear and consistent: The neighborhood groups didn't want a casino in their community and they didn't want the conference to endorse Mr. Barden's proposal no matter what he offered.

Well, that was smart. It's certainly nothing personal to Don Barden, who appears to be a stellar businessman with a lot of integrity and character (despite his chosen field of work), in the same way that it wasn't personal towards the Isle of Capri Casino company.

Unable to dangle the endorsement carrot, the conference nevertheless negotiated a monetary agreement with Mr. Barden and offered friendly testimony on its dealings with him to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board.

This is far more than what Pittsburgh First (Hill District Last) was offering. But, I won't begrudge the Northside Leadership Conference for seeking reinvestment because the Northside did not pass Act 71 and allow gaming into the State. Like many cities, we have all had to deal with this, particularly in light of our city's then-pending bankruptcy and the state's poor financial status.

But when it sought a contribution to offset increased public safety and addiction counseling costs, said conference board Chair Joe Lawrence, Mr. Barden's response was cool: "I already pay for those things at the tax office."

I have to say that, in many ways, Barden is correct. Pennsylvania has the highest level of taxes against the casino industry and it is up to the people (especially those who don't own property but will suffer from the negative effects of gambling) to petition their government to set aside funds to address the negative impact. It is not just the responsibility of the casino industry because people have free choice. Northside United must create a CBA with the City and County around these issues, in particular.

According to Mr. Fatla, the conference asked what it should do about these negative impacts on its community and Mr. Barden denied that his casinos cause any negative impacts.

I'm not so sure what would be so special about Don Barden's Majestic Star that there would be no negative impact. I just don't believe this because the casino industry, overall, negatively impacts the environment.

So the conference added to the agreement a paragraph stating that it could pursue compensation from the casino for any documentable negative impacts its presence should cause.

That paragraph might just prove historic should the conference's current lovefest with Mr. Barden ever turn sour, because many analysts foresee a day when the casino industry becomes as vulnerable to civil lawsuits as the tobacco industry. (So far only a few lawsuits worldwide by addicted gamblers have succeeded in court, but one activist state attorney general could change all that.)

I guess someone should have mentioned to the NSLC that it is very hard to prove that a casino caused direct harm to someone or a situation.

Barron is right about this. More and more people are suffering and the casino industry does not have many (or enough) regulations upon it. I do believe it will go the way of the tobacco industry and we'll see a ton of "truth" commercials in about ten years. Until that time, the nationwide honeymoon phase will continue; and I am unwilling to blame Don Barden for this national and international obsession. Human beings enjoy being self-destructive, don't we?

It thus behooves the conference to obtain solid baseline data on existing levels of problem gambling on the North Side, because gambling addiction typically doubles in the immediate vicinity of a new casino. With the social cost of each addicted gambler estimated at about $13,000, that's a $5 million- to $10 million-a-year tab the conference might be able to stick to Mr. Barden.

So true. But before and during that time, this is also very much the responsibility of the City and the State.

Ironically, had the conference taken its cue from the neighborhood groups and opposed Mr. Barden's proposal rather than cozying up to him, it might not have a casino to deal with at all.

I'm not sure about that, Bruce. The people in Philadelphia (CasinoFree Philly) are still fighting a very tough battle that is quite honorable but is still ongoing; and they have actual paid organizers and staff members at their disposal. If this same battle would have taken this long in Pittsburgh, the Isle of Capri's temporary casino on the Melody Lot site would have been opened for close to six months now. The fact of the matter is that for some reason, people are thoroughly enjoying giving their hard-earned money away. So, what do you do?

Instead, it laid down passively while vociferous Hill District opposition to Isle of Capri helped to make Mr. Barden's Majestic Star a winner.

As the organizer of such "vociferous Hill District opposition" (otherwise known as the Raise Your Hand! No Casino on the Hill Campaign), I will effectively take my bow with the entire community of folks here and across the nation who assisted us. However, I must remind everyone that the Hill's win is the City's win because the "Pittsburgh First" plan was the only one to place its Casino right within the street grid of our neighborhood and in our front yard. I am now pushing a request to make sure there is no casino in anyone's residential community from this point forward.

And let's be honest here: 99.9% of Pittsburgh never believed that Don Barden, an African American, had half of a chance to win the Category 2 slots license for the City of Pittsburgh. So, while Northsiders should have been more proactive, it was plain ole shortsightedness, lack of proper leadership, apathy and a healthy serving of racism that is the source of what is happening now.

Now the conference is dutifully holding casino job fairs to present Mr. Barden with a ready-made work force.

While enjoying its honeymoon with the casino, the conference has been fighting a rearguard action against a competing community organization seeking a place at the bargaining table. Twice the other night the conference forum moderator pleaded for civil discourse, asking speakers to "be a model for our children."

The raw emotions expressed at the "casino design" meeting are honest expressions of disgust, disenfranchisement and anger. I do hope, however, that Pittsburgh UNITED is not unfairly manipulating or exploiting the mostly Black, working-class and/or working-poor persons so upset at this point in time. For example, is it the most advantageous, at this point in time, to create a totally adversarial relationship with either Barden or the NSLC?

And on the flip side, one must wonder . . . how many Black people were in the room when this deal with the Northside Leadership Conference was made? And if there were any, how many of them represented the Black, working-class and/or working-poor from the Northside?

We must ask . . .

While Barron concludes:

Perhaps, at a time when gambling -- especially youth gambling -- is America's fastest-growing addiction, the conference should consider what message it sends to our children by overlooking gambling's well-documented social impacts and by portraying casinos as an honorable partner to be patronized.

Mmph. Strong words. Bruce Barron is president of No Dice, a Pittsburgh-area organization that opposes the expansion of legalized gambling in Pennsylvania (nodicepa@aol.com). And he's right that adolescent gambling is America's hidden epidemic.

America's gambling explosion and the passing of Act 71 has put us all in a very awkward position. I am not willing to lay this entire burden upon the shoulders of Don Barden; and, at the same time, it's very important for all of us to understand the negative impact of the casino industry, as well as the responsibilities of the City and State.

What I did in "Dr. Goddess Goes to Jail" was to introduce a character named "Betty" who, after being tossed in jail for observing civil disobedience (a criminal act I created in my play), shared a poem that moved her cellmates as well as the multitudes of folks in the audience who came to see our ensemble production. The poem was called "Confessions of a Slots Queen" and I'll share more on that later. It is, however, one of the most popular pieces in the entire production.