Share This Page

Hope floats: If voters would only act on Mayor Ravenstahl as they did for giant duck

| Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013, 11:49 p.m.

A reader called to say she disagreed with my column last week suggesting that Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl should be impeached for neglecting his job.

She suggested there might be something wrong with me.

“Do you have postpartum depression or somethin'?” she asked in a message.

No, and I don't have “the vapors,” either. One would expect that sort of ignorance from a “Mad Men” Don Draper-type trying to pooh-pooh a woman's opinion — not another woman in 2013.

Most readers I heard from agreed with my impeachment position, though one suggested why no one has moved on the idea:

“I think that the reason no one is on the bandwagon to impeach the current mayor is because they would rather have a deadbeat mayor than Council President Darlene Harris in office!”

Ouch. (I couldn't reach Harris on Wednesday.)

“I was shocked when Luke was re-elected — twice. He reeked of inexperience but had the connections,” another reader wrote.

I didn't expect to hear anyone besides Ravenstahl and his family claim he is doing a good job. Yet the Young Democrats of Allegheny County contacted me via Twitter to say the city has thrived under Ravenstahl's administration. Because city services continue to operate, the group said, my negligence argument is rendered useless.

It would appear the Young Dems don't understand how impeachment works. Any voter can submit a petition with 20 signatures from other voters, but the petition goes to Court of Common Pleas, which determines its validity. Then it goes to a court-appointed citizens investigating panel, which recommends whether the petition should advance. If so, City Council becomes the jury, and the president judge of the court oversees the hearing.

It's a fair process that at least asks whether impeachment is an option in a given situation. There's nothing wrong with that.

Maybe it's poor form to wonder why voters are willing to put up with poor mayoral leadership. At the same time, there is an online petition on Change.org started by Twittsburgh that has more than 5,200 signatures to keep the giant Rubber Duck as a permanent fixture.

Thank heaven for the duck. It seems it's the only thing that can paddle through the nearly impenetrable wall of voter apathy in this city.

Nafari Vanaski is a Trib Total Media staff writer. She can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8669, nvanaski@tribweb.com or on Twitter @NafariTrib.

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.