Pittsburgh would pay consultant another $100K to calm rowdy revelers
Patrons of Jack's Bar on East Carson Street look out the window at Senior Building Inspector Patrick Brown on Friday, January 18, 2013. The Jan. 18-20, 2013, weekend marked the beginning of the South Side enforcement blitz with included building inspections by code enforcement officers and firefighters, police patrols through alleys targeting disorderly conduct, roving DUI patrols and an increase in towing enforcement.
Photo by Andrew Russell | Tribune-Review
Pittsburgh City Council on Tuesday introduced legislation to pay a California-based consultant an additional $100,000 for the second part of a plan to reduce rowdy nighttime behavior in three neighborhoods.
The city last year paid Responsible Hospitality Institute $100,000 to study the South Side, Downtown and Lawrenceville and recommend ways to improve public safety and the quality of nightlife there. Recommendations included developing specialized police teams trained to deal with drunken revelers and transportation improvements to safely move people in and out of the South Side.
The institute would coordinate implementation of the suggestions under the extended contract, according to Councilman Bruce Kraus.
Mayor Luke Ravenstahl in January announced increased weekend police patrols and building inspections on the South Side after five police officers fired shots at a driver involved in a chase along Carson Street while the street was crowded with bar patrons.
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.