ShareThis Page

Wilson Center questions II

| Monday, April 28, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Regarding the news story “County, city leaders urge removal of Wilson Center court-appointed receiver” : Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto and Allegheny County Chief Executive Rich Fitzgerald want Judith Fitzgerald fired. Why? Because she has the temerity to favor selling the August Wilson Center to a (shudder) for-profit bidder?

They want the foundations to take over, although the foundations' bid was less than half the top bid of $9.5 million.

The center never generated revenue sufficient to pay operating expenses and debt service. But the mayor and county executive want to take over and “negotiate” with the creditors. That's a euphemism for “or else” threats directed at Dollar Bank and others to accept much less than the $10 million owed them. The center would then operate under the same losing business model that put it in receivership. And it'll be begging for taxpayer dollars again. Furthermore, as a nonprofit, it will pay no taxes.

The top bidder would allow the center to retain office, exhibit and storage space and theater use. The top bidder, intending to earn a profit, would construct additional facilities, generating taxable income for the city, state and feds. Plus, more taxpaying employees. It's a win-win solution.

Aaron Walton, former board chairman for the center, says the top bid is in the best interests of the black community. So, why don't these politicians want it to happen?

Stanley J. Penkala

South Park

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.