Share This Page

Attorney accuses Pittsburgh councilwoman of having a conflict of interest in billboard debate

| Monday, Nov. 26, 2012, 5:47 p.m.

An attorney representing Pittsburgh's largest outdoor advertiser accused a city councilwoman on Monday of having a financial interest in supporting legislation that would tax billboards in the city.

Downtown attorney Jonathan Kamin said Natalia Rudiak, co-sponsor of an excise tax bill due for a final vote in council on Tuesday, should abstain from voting to avoid a potential conflict of interest review by the state Ethics Commission.

Kamin provided a transcript of a council meeting on Dec. 30, 2011, in which Rudiak, of Carrick, said studies indicate that her property would be worth about 30 percent more than its current value if not for a billboard located across the street. Rudiak could not be reached for comment.

Council is scheduled to vote Tuesday morning on a 10 percent levy on revenue generated by billboards in Pittsburgh.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.