The news story “Redevelopment grant would speed work at site where Civic Arena stood” (Aug. 9 and TribLIVE.com) reported the Sports & Exhibition Authority (SEA) plan to redevelop the 28-acre former Civic Arena site with an $18 million TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The “A better idea?” item in “Pittsburgh Tuesday takes” (Aug. 13 and TribLIVE.com) questioned the prudence of developing the site “in one shebang” with this grant, rather than in phases. The real issue is not how the former arena site should be developed, but rather who should pay for the redevelopment.
In 2007, Gov. Ed Rendell penned an agreement signed by the SEA that included demolition of the arena three years before the SEA conducted a bogus historic review, making the process a farce. During the process, the SEA willfully omitted, in violation of the National Historic Preservation Act, any federal funding that might be used for redevelopment that could affect historic properties.
Last year, the SEA applied for a $15 million state Regional Capital Assistance Program grant for redevelopment. I submitted my written objections to a pass-through grant from the SEA to benefit the Pittsburgh Penguins; Charles Zogby, Gov. Corbett's Budget secretary, did not respond, subsequent phone calls were ignored and the grant application was approved.
My letter “Undeserved praise” (Aug. 19, 2011, and TribLIVE.com) cited 10 areas of SEA fiscal malfeasance that also required a $1.5 million state Department of Community & Economic Development grant to pay for SEA salaries. Government abuse by this unaccountable authority continues.
Gary J. English
The writer submitted the historic-preservation nomination of the Civic Arena that the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission approved.
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.
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Good ‘friends,’ good food
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Unworthy of high office
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Gross in 45th
- Expensively elusive
- Pushing witchcraft
- Write-in alternative
- ObamaCare solution