ACKLIN CAMPAIGN FACT-CHECKS KDKA MAYORAL DEBATE
|
|
|
|
Friday, October 16, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, October 16, 2009
CONTACT:
Andy Gastmeyer, Press Secretary
412.327.6951 | 412.481.3150
ACKLIN CAMPAIGN FACT-CHECKS CLAIMS MADE IN KDKA’S MAYORAL DEBATE
PITTSBURGH - Candidates for Mayor of Pittsburgh joined Kevin Acklin today in a debate about the important issues facing our city. Candidates answered questions from KDKA Anchor Ken Rice and KDKA Political Editor Jon Delano, but some of the answers weren't entirely truthful. The Acklin Campaign has fact-checked some of the answers provided by Luke Ravenstahl and Dok Harris, and provided the verdict below:
Claim: Luke Ravenstahl says 90% of URA funds are invested in the neighborhoods.
Verdict: FALSE
The language used by the mayor is a little slick in this instance, since every portion of the city is technically a "neighborhood." Kevin Acklin has proposed to re-focus the URA on the city's primarily residential areas, and specifically on the city's residential business districts -- the small strips of locally owned shops that make our neighborhoods attractive destinations for young families.
A map of current URA development zones, attached to this email, shows a very clear discrimination between the downtown and the rest of the city.
With the exception of Beechview (where the URA is struggling to clean up the mess it created with Bernardo Katz), there are no developments in the South Hills. There is only one development in the West End. There are only three developments in the North Side, one of which is the casino. There are only four developments in the East End. The remainder of the URA's development funds are invested in or very near the City's downtown.
These are the wrong priorities for Pittsburgh, and when Kevin Acklin is Mayor, he will re-focus the URA on our neighborhoods.
Claim: Both Mr. Ravenstahl and Mr. Harris claimed that Kevin Acklin proposes spending he can't pay for.
Verdict: FALSE
In a press conference on October 6th, Kevin Acklin laid out a budget plan to pay for all of his proposals. The plan has been publicly available on his website since that date.
The Acklin Budget Plan calls for identifying $10 million in annual cost-savings from energy efficiency, voiding wasteful privatization contracts, and cutting government waste, then investing that money in the City's fund balance. The interest from that money would be invested in the City's libraries, while the City would draw down the additional surplus to increase the size of the police bureau by 200 officers. Any additional investment in the neighborhoods would be made by re-focusing the URA away from providing corporate welfare to developers and toward our neighborhood business districts.
The Acklin Budget Plan is deficit-neutral, and it is a responsible blue print for bringing prosperity to our city.
Claim: After Kevin Acklin noted that Mr. Harris has not always abided by his self-imposed campaign finance limits, Mr. Harris replied that “maybe one check” exceeded the limits.
Verdict: FALSE
On the header of his campaign web site, Mr. Harris clearly states: I will voluntarily adhere to strict campaign contribution limits. I will limit an individual’s total contributions to $2,400, and I will limit a household’s total to $4,800.
A quick look at his 30-Day Post-Primary Campaign Finance Report proves that Mr. Harris has, indeed, failed to abide by his own rules:
• 1 donor from New Jersey gave $5,000, which is more than twice his self-imposed limit.
• 5 donors each gave $4,800, which is twice his self-imposed limit.
• 2 of those donors, Raymond and Roseann Park of 93 Spanish Gate Drive in Las Vegas, Nevada, gave $4,800 each. Each of their donations is twice Mr. Harris’ self-imposed limit for individuals; their combined donations are twice Mr. Harris’ self-imposed limit for a single household.
• 2 more of those donors, Dan and Elaine Park of 3 Way Hollow Road in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, gave $4,800 each. Each of their donations is twice Mr. Harris’ self-imposed limit for individuals; their combined donations are twice Mr. Harris’ self-imposed limit for a household.
As of June 8th, Mr. Harris had already accepted a total of $14,600 over his self-imposed individual limits, and a total of $9,600 over his self-imposed household limits, for a total of $24,200 in campaign contributions that exceed his self-imposed limits.
# # #
A map of current URA development zones, attached to this email, shows a very clear discrimination between the downtown and the rest of the city.
With the exception of Beechview (where the URA is struggling to clean up the mess it created with Bernardo Katz), there are no developments in the South Hills. There is only one development in the West End. There are only three developments in the North Side, one of which is the casino. There are only four developments in the East End. The remainder of the URA's development funds are invested in or very near the City's downtown.
These are the wrong priorities for Pittsburgh, and when Kevin Acklin is Mayor, he will re-focus the URA on our neighborhoods.
Claim: Both Mr. Ravenstahl and Mr. Harris claimed that Kevin Acklin proposes spending he can't pay for.
Verdict: FALSE
In a press conference on October 6th, Kevin Acklin laid out a budget plan to pay for all of his proposals. The plan has been publicly available on his website since that date.
The Acklin Budget Plan calls for identifying $10 million in annual cost-savings from energy efficiency, voiding wasteful privatization contracts, and cutting government waste, then investing that money in the City's fund balance. The interest from that money would be invested in the City's libraries, while the City would draw down the additional surplus to increase the size of the police bureau by 200 officers. Any additional investment in the neighborhoods would be made by re-focusing the URA away from providing corporate welfare to developers and toward our neighborhood business districts.
The Acklin Budget Plan is deficit-neutral, and it is a responsible blue print for bringing prosperity to our city.
Claim: After Kevin Acklin noted that Mr. Harris has not always abided by his self-imposed campaign finance limits, Mr. Harris replied that “maybe one check” exceeded the limits.
Verdict: FALSE
On the header of his campaign web site, Mr. Harris clearly states: I will voluntarily adhere to strict campaign contribution limits. I will limit an individual’s total contributions to $2,400, and I will limit a household’s total to $4,800.
A quick look at his 30-Day Post-Primary Campaign Finance Report proves that Mr. Harris has, indeed, failed to abide by his own rules:
• 1 donor from New Jersey gave $5,000, which is more than twice his self-imposed limit.
• 5 donors each gave $4,800, which is twice his self-imposed limit.
• 2 of those donors, Raymond and Roseann Park of 93 Spanish Gate Drive in Las Vegas, Nevada, gave $4,800 each. Each of their donations is twice Mr. Harris’ self-imposed limit for individuals; their combined donations are twice Mr. Harris’ self-imposed limit for a single household.
• 2 more of those donors, Dan and Elaine Park of 3 Way Hollow Road in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, gave $4,800 each. Each of their donations is twice Mr. Harris’ self-imposed limit for individuals; their combined donations are twice Mr. Harris’ self-imposed limit for a household.
As of June 8th, Mr. Harris had already accepted a total of $14,600 over his self-imposed individual limits, and a total of $9,600 over his self-imposed household limits, for a total of $24,200 in campaign contributions that exceed his self-imposed limits.
# # #
[ Back to News ]
