ShareThis Page

Pittsburgh's URA delays vote on Civic Arena site development deal with Penguins

Bob Bauder
| Thursday, Nov. 9, 2017, 12:57 p.m.
The former site of the Civic Arena in Pittsburgh's Lower Hill District is seen from the 20th floor of the Marriott City Center.
Andrew Russell | Tribune-Review
The former site of the Civic Arena in Pittsburgh's Lower Hill District is seen from the 20th floor of the Marriott City Center.

A development agreement with the Penguins passed one Pittsburgh authority Thursday morning, but hit a roadblock in the afternoon when another city authority voted to give board members more time to review the proposed deal.

The city-county Sports & Exhibition Authority approved the agreement for development of the former Civic Arena property in the Lower Hill District. Two hours later, Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority board members agreed to delay a vote until Wednesday.

“I'm not in the business of forcing votes when board members aren't comfortable,” said URA Chairman Kevin Acklin, who doubles as Mayor Bill Peduto's chief of staff. “This is a good deal. We understand the need for board members to spend some more time with this over the weekend.”

Hill District representatives — including City Councilman and URA director R. Daniel Lavelle, SEA director Sala Udin and the Hill Community Development Corp. — called for the delay so members and the public could better understand the agreement.

Udin voted against the agreement after requesting a 30-day delay to permit public review and comment, particularly by Hill District residents. Other SEA members opposed the request.

Acklin said deadline dates and penalties “were in flux” since last week when he announced the team would lose 30 percent of parking revenue by missing the 2020 deadline.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer.

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.