Pittsburgh City Council fights over redrawn boundaries
A spat among Pittsburgh City Council members erupted on Wednesday over a plan for redrawing council district boundaries.
Bill Peduto of Point Breeze and Natalia Rudiak of Carrick accused five colleagues, who approved an amendment to an existing plan, of making changes without public input.
“I don't have a problem with changes, but I don't like it when it's being done in the dark shadows of City Hall,” said Peduto, who announced on Tuesday that he would not seek re-election in May.
Councilwoman Theresa Kail-Smith, who sponsored the amendment, said she would discuss it publicly next week. The public also will have two opportunities to comment before a final vote on Dec. 11.
“I'm willing to work with anybody and have discussions about this,” she said.
The state Constitution requires Pittsburgh to redraw the boundaries every 10 years to reflect population changes and ensure equal representation among nine districts. Districts must be of about equal size, contiguous and as compact as possible.
A nine-member committee appointed by council to draw new boundaries submitted its final report this summer after a series of public meetings. Council must approve the final plan and can make changes.
The amendment affects six voting precincts out of about 400.
Smith said she sponsored the amendment at the request of residents, who opposed some of the committee's recommendations.
The amendment passed 5-4 with Peduto, Rudiak, Bruce Kraus and Corey O'Connor dissenting.
Bob Bauder is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.
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 â 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.