For Pittsburgh mayor: Make it Jack Wagner
These continue to be challenging times for Pittsburgh.
It remains in the equivalent of state receivership.
It can't seem to solve the nagging vicious cycle of structural budget deficits.
Public employee pensions remain seriously underfunded and unsustainable.
The city is in a pitched battle with UPMC, its largest employer, over its tax-exempt status.
The police department, rocked by a slush-fund scandal, remains under federal investigation. And who knows what else the feds will find.
A woefully small percentage of registered voters will go to the polls on May 21 to select a mayor to replace lame-duck Democrat Luke Ravenstahl. The marginal Republican candidate says he's not in the race to win. Thus, the winner of the Democrats' four-way primary will become mayor in January.
Pittsburghers would best be served by choosing Jack Wagner.
Mr. Wagner's record of public service is as long as it is well known and highly respected. It began in Vietnam, where he served his country with great distinction and was seriously wounded. It continued as a paramedic, then on Pittsburgh City Council, in the Pennsylvania Senate and as state auditor general.
We don't agree with every public policy prescription Wagner offers. But he's an honest broker. And he's one of the most decent men we know. Jack Wagner is the adult in this race. And an adult leader is what Pittsburgh so sorely needs right now.
Show commenting policy
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.