Antony Davies & James Harrigan: Peduto’s equity office more business as usual |
Featured Commentary

Antony Davies & James Harrigan: Peduto’s equity office more business as usual

Antony Davies and James Harrigan
Majestic Lane, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto’s deputy chief of staff, will head the city’s Office of Equity.

Mayor Bill Peduto is rebranding the city’s Bureau of Neighborhood Empowerment. It will henceforth be known as the Office of Equity, and will be headed by a chief equity officer. This sounds all well and good, but raises a number of questions, not the least of which is what kinds of inequities exist in Pittsburgh that are not already addressed by federal and state law, and what the city hopes to accomplish with a simple rebranding of an extant office. Perhaps more meaningfully, the very word “equity” is not defined. What does the Peduto administration even mean by the word?

According to Peduto’s executive order, “(t)he Chief Equity Officer will advise other Boards, Authorities, and Commission on their equity practices and projects and policies.” But the mayor hasn’t offered any evidence regarding how this new office will make any critical difference that the Bureau of Neighborhood Empowerment could not. Indeed, the mayor appears simply to have swapped out one buzzword (empowerment) for another (equity).

While it might not be clear how any of this will work, what it will cost is obvious. Operating as the Bureau of Neighborhood Empowerment, the office has a budget of $1.5 million for 2019, which includes 13 full-time positions. Enhancing its mission to match its new name will drive that cost up. The real question is whether Pittsburgh will get $1.5 million or more in benefit. Given how ill-defined the endeavor is, there is likely no way to answer that question.

For his part, the new chief equity officer, Majestic Lane, has said that he wants to “make sure that the quality of the childcare places in neighborhoods is equitable, that a place in Squirrel Hill is the same as a place in Homewood.” Who will pay for these sorts of changes remains to be seen, but it is likely safe to assume that recommendations emanating from the Office of Equity are not going to be paid for by that office.

Regardless of the specifics, though, all of these costs will ultimately be paid by the taxpayers. The same question thus remains: Is it worth $1.5 million, every year, to have this office?

Given that this question can’t be answered without knowing what, specifically, the office is supposed to do, perhaps another is more in order. Who benefits most, in the immediate sense, by this office’s existence? Here, the answer is very clear: the mayor himself.

While the Office of Equity’s role in the city’s affairs is undefined, its existence is not. A bold announcement of the rebranding appears on the mayor’s re-election page, just above the “donate” and “volunteer” buttons. The election is almost exactly a year and a half away, so everything from this point forward should be viewed through the lens of reelection, not governance.

From this perspective, the Office of Equity makes perfect sense. The mayor gets to claim a victory in forming the office. He will not be held to account for its unclear mission, lest people be concerned to appear “against equity.” And most importantly, he will claim that he has started this office “at no cost to the taxpayers,” casually overlooking the $1,5 million the taxpayers were already picking up for the Bureau of Neighborhood Empowerment.

Whatever buzz words the mayor uses, this is just more business as usual.

Antony Davies is an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University. James Harrigan teaches in the department of Political Economy and Moral Science at the University of Arizona. They host the weekly podcast Words and Numbers.

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.