ShareThis Page

Out of 'other people's money'

| Wednesday, July 23, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

I don't get it, again. First came the August Wilson Center with its $10 million deficit. Now the latest fiasco in the black community, the Hill House Association, is in the red to the tune of over $600,000 for 2013.

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto's chief of staff, Kevin Acklin, said no one is asking for any money, but Hill House needs “help in generating a steady stream of money by supporting its mission and urging supporters to give” ( “Struggling nonprofit Hill House Association asking Pittsburgh for support” ).

Who exactly are the supporters of these two organizations? And what group stands to benefit most from these fiscally strapped institutions? It stands to reason the answer is the black community at large. But nowhere is there any visible evidence in the Hill District or elsewhere in black neighborhoods of fundraisers to save these two cultural meccas. An audit “attributed the problems to reduced funding from contributors such as the United Way, the loss of certain government contracts and increases in general operating costs,” according to the Hill House news story.

It seems the Wilson Center and Hill House have run out of “other people's money,” as Margaret Thatcher eloquently said, explaining the consequences of a socialized government.

Then another headline reads: “Cost of legal battle over Wilson Center put on taxpayers' tab” — for over $750,000.

Martin Luther King opined, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

Nicholas Evanish

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.